From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 02:56:18 2006
From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 02:56:18 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <ei7nur+bsg2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ei92ci+9ar5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160771

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> No other Horcrux is intended to be interactive. They exist only to
> house a soul bit and keep it earthbound. Soul bits do not in
> themselves contain memories, IMO.

Hi folks,

Sorry I haven't been around lately. Have been working on my own 
book, which doesn't come out until April of next year. (Somewhat 
unintentional shameless self-promo. Running on little sleep. Toddler 
being recalcitrent about sleeping.) 

This is a fascinating, wonderful line of inquiry. I'm following it 
in depth. So, our essential question is, does a piece of a soul (and 
thus a Horcrux) necessarily include memory? What is the relationship 
between the soul and memory? 

I'm reminded of a quote from St. Augustine, from *The City of 
God,* "The memory is, as it were, the belly of the soul." It's a 
rather agnostic comment, when you look at it. 

It seems to me that JKR might be playing off this idea of St. A. If 
this is so, then every horcrux has a memory. 

The diary had the Tom Riddle / Basilisk /Hagrid incident. 

The necklace from the Cave was a fake. 

The ring was the other horcrux that was destroyed. Is that how DD 
got the memory of Tom's childhood? Did he have to go into the ring 
to destroy it, much like Harry entered the diary? We know that there 
was a fight and that's how DD's hand got withered. Something 
happened while destroying it, assuming that the ring and the 
withered hand are connected. Somehow, DD got the memory of Voldy's 
childhood. These must be linked. Most likely, IMHO, the ring 
contained Voldy's childhood. 

"The memory is, as it were, the belly of the soul." The horcruxes, 
then, probably contain memory as well as soul bits. 

JMHO, 

TK Kenyon, TigerPatronus
www.tkkenyon.com
Author of RABID, coming in April, 2007 from Kunati Books 







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  1 03:14:48 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:14:48 -0000
Subject: Curses! Foiled again.
Message-ID: <ei93f8+uv4l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160773

I found this via the Leaky Cauldron and HPANA. JKR has updated her 
site. Get a load of the Wizard of the Month!

http://www.hpana.com/

Why is it that the more JKR tells us, the less we know?

I've copied a portion of her comments on spells from this site:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=24

>>>>>>Hexes:
Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but of a minor sort. I 
see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' for spells whose 
effects are irritating but amusing.

Curses:
Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic.<<<<<<<<<

"Connotation of dark magic? Connotation???"  Is there is such a thing 
as being a little dark? So, now we get to start the discussion, "What 
is Dark Magic?" all over again.

Potioncat






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 03:26:01 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:26:01 -0000
Subject: New Member and question
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610310540g3d757492r236db374fd64b160@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ei9449+cqj1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160774

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette <jnferr at ...> wrote:

> > zanooda:

> > Movies aside, I think that this "underage magic" law is really 
> > unfair to Muggleborns. 


> montims:

> I, on the other hand, find it eminently sensible - an enthusiastic 
> muggle student, armed with a wand and a spellbook, could cause  
> enormous problems with a poorly conceived or performed hex or spell.
 > We have seen the kind of thing that happens in classes - if, 
> unsupervised, they get something badly wrong, what should their 
> muggle families do?
> At least if it happens to a WW student, they (or their victim) can 
> be sideapparated to St Mungo's tout de suite, or they can be 
> prevented and soundly leathered, as Arthur did when the twins tried
> to perform and UV on Ron...  If it wasn't for this law, and 
> consequent methods of detecting underage magic, where would Aunt 
> Marge be now?  (Hmmm...)


zanooda again:

Hmm, don't you think that poorly performed hex would be much more
dangerous for kids from wizard families? Underage wizards know that
magic is forbidden at home, so they won't do it in front of the
parents. No, if they really want to try this questionable hex, they'll
wait until their father is at work and their mother is on a shopping
spree in Diagon Alley :-). Then, if something happens, no one will be
there to help: the parents are not around, and the Ministry won't do
anything, because they don't know if it was a child or an adult who
did magic. At least to Muggle families  help is sent immediately, or,
as you so beautifully call it, tout de suite :-).

I also never said that the Decree for the restriction of underage
wizardry is unnecessary, I just think that it treats muggleborn kids
unfairly. Come on, threatening to expel a kid for some innocent
Hovering charm, when in wizard families children do much worse things
and everybody knows about it, but it just can't be proved?

As for Aunt Marge incident, I don't think that it would be easier to
deal with if it happened in a wizard family. This is a clear case of
uncontrolled magic (without a wand and incantation), I'm not sure that
even adults in a family would know how to help. They probably can't
use something like Finite Incantatem here, because there is no
incantation to cancel. Even Accidental Magic Reversal people couldn't
help Aunt Marge magically and she "has been punctured" (yuk!).
 
In short, I still think that law should be the same for everybody. If
the ministry could distinguish between underage and adult magic, then
kids of every background could be held responsible for "out-of-school
magic", not only muggleborns, and this would be fair. 

Au revoir!
zanooda







From aaoconnor2002 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 03:32:46 2006
From: aaoconnor2002 at yahoo.com (aaoconnor2002)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:32:46 -0000
Subject: Something I've been pondering.
In-Reply-To: <ei8biv+2s6o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ei94gu+kdop@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160775

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "simm_family" <simm_family at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Given Dumbledore's feelings about the fear of a name increasing the
> fear of the thing itself, and his feelings about always calling
> Voldemort "Voldemort", I've always wondered why he would even go 
that
> far?  I mean, why doesn't Dumbledore always refer to Voldemort as 
Tom
> Riddle which, to me, signifies an even stronger weakening of his 
name.
> 
> Oh, and hi, I'm Catherine, a newbie to the group but a complete HP 
fan.
>

Hi Catherine and welcome!

Dumbledore does refer to Tom as Tom during the fight at the 
Ministry.  
I always loved that aspect of the scene.  I saw it as Dumbledore 
saying, "You may think you're Lord Big Stuff but as far as I'm 
concerned all you will ever be is Tom Riddle".    

My guess for why he doesn't do it all the time is that relatively few 
people may know Voldemort's real name.  By using the name Voldemort 
with them Dumbledore uses the name they fear to show that it really 
isn't something to be afraid of and also there is no doubt that they 
know who he is talking about.  

Audrey





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  1 03:40:28 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:40:28 -0000
Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione)
In-Reply-To: <ei8lt5+dk5a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ei94vc+s231@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160776

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm concerned Hermione did more to ruin the DA than anything.

Eddie:
I think it's fair to point out there wouldn't have been any DA at all
if it weren't for Hermione.  It was her idea to begin with.  It was
she who persuaded Harry to teach it.  And it was she who got all those
people to come to the first meeting.

Eddie, who doesn't want to stir up this dread thread any further...
who doesn't have any strong opinion either way about Hermione... who
just wanted to give Hermione her due... who probably spends far too
much of his Real Life discussing the details of fictional magical
teenagers... who just can't help himself!






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  1 03:51:08 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:51:08 -0000
Subject: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency" (Was: Names wordplay)
In-Reply-To: <ei8eri+temh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ei95jc+srja@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160777


> > >http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation/play.htm
 
> Eddie:
> This link was some fun.  Especially check out the pronunciation of
> "Voldemort."


Potioncat:
Oh, that was so funny! I was expecting something serious. 

Speaking of serious, Sirius is one of the names that is pronounced. 
(How many ways could you say it?) Severus is not on the list. (You say 
Sever us: I say Severe us)

Potioncat, who does say "Sever us"---and not, as it may be 
rumored, "Severus, darling."





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Nov  1 04:24:45 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:24:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Names wordplay and flowers
In-Reply-To: <ei7hh7+3jq9@eGroups.com>
References: <20061031053132.81388.qmail@web84007.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	 <ei7hh7+3jq9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0610312024y6e213af7re230b27c7291a438@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160778

LG:
This one might be old news, but I just realized it. For the spell
Expecto Patronum--James' animagus figure was a stag, so when Harry
thinks happy thoughts while needing a protector against dementors,
he "expects (expecto) his father (patronum)." I'm not sure he
realizes it's his father's help/force, but it seems so to me. Agree?

Lynda:

Not only do I agree, but through the years, I've been surprised that people
haven't seemed to pick up on this idea more. I haven't even seen any
discussion threads on it. Not saying there haven't been. I'm fairly new on
this list, but I haven't seen them.  Oh, I've got kids at the door again. It
seems the Dads and Moms forgot they have school tomorrow!

Lynda


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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov  1 07:34:08 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 07:34:08 -0000
Subject: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency" (Was: Names wordplay)
In-Reply-To: <ei95jc+srja@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ei9ilg+mj7n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160779

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > > >http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation/play.htm
>  
> > Eddie:
> > This link was some fun.  Especially check out the pronunciation of
> > "Voldemort."
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> Oh, that was so funny! I was expecting something serious. 
> 
> Speaking of serious, Sirius is one of the names that is pronounced. 
> (How many ways could you say it?) Severus is not on the list. (You say 
> Sever us: I say Severe us)
> 
> Potioncat, who does say "Sever us"---and not, as it may be 
> rumored, "Severus, darling."

Geoff:
The pronunciation of Sirius is interesting. As a UK English speaker, I would never rhyme 
Sirius with Serious. The former has a short 'i', the latter a long one. 

Again, with Voldemort's name; I always pronounce the 't'. I think I have heard it 
pronounced in several discussions/interviews I have heard as well as in "the medium that 
dare not speak its name". 






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  1 12:09:12 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:09:12 -0000
Subject: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency" (Was: Names wordplay)
In-Reply-To: <ei9ilg+mj7n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eia2p8+odq7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160780

 
> Geoff:
> The pronunciation of Sirius is interesting. As a UK English speaker, 
I would never rhyme 
> Sirius with Serious. The former has a short 'i', the latter a long 
one. 

Potioncat:
So, would you pronounce Sirius the same way as it's spoken here?
http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation/play.htm

Does anyone have quibbles with the way names or spells are pronounced 
in the Audio-Books?







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  1 12:06:28 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:06:28 -0000
Subject: Patronuses (was Re: Names wordplay and flowers
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610312024y6e213af7re230b27c7291a438@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eia2k4+j0n1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160781


> Lynda: 
> Not only do I agree, but through the years, I've been surprised 
that people
> haven't seemed to pick up on this idea more. I haven't even seen any
> discussion threads on it. 

Potioncat:

The nature of Patronuses has been discussed quite a bit here, and is 
generally a popular topic. I did a quick look and found a thread 
around about post #156487. I didn't have time to see what that one 
was about.

There are many different aspects that get looked at. Symbolism of the 
particular Patronus, what someone's might be, what it tells you about 
the wizard, how it differs from Animagus.

I think it reflects the person(s) that the wizard looks to for 
strength, father-figure or patron/protector. And it's clear the 
wizard may not understand the form it takes and does not choose the 
form. If Harry had never known the Stag was his father's Animagus 
form, he would never realise that it represented his father.

It's also clear that DD understood the Stag reflected James. Just as 
it seems clear Snape understood Tonks's Patronus represented Lupin. I 
suppose the form of her former Patronus will remain one of the 
unanswered questions in this series.







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  1 10:53:54 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 10:53:54 -0000
Subject: Curses! Foiled again.
In-Reply-To: <ei93f8+uv4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ei9uc2+84n5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160782

Potioncat:
> >>>>>>Hexes:
> Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but of a minor sort. I 
> see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' for spells whose 
> effects are irritating but amusing.
> 
> Curses:
> Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic.<<<<<<<<<
> 
> "Connotation of dark magic? Connotation???"  Is there is such a thing 
> as being a little dark? So, now we get to start the discussion, "What 
> is Dark Magic?" all over again.

Ceridwen:
This sounds fun.

I've always seen jinxes and hexes as being on the dark side of neutral, 
though not by much.  That comes from the everyday use of the words.  
Someone can be a jinx, and someone can suffer from a jinx, which is 
more like doing things to cause others to be clumsey most of the time 
or being clumsey.  Plain bad luck.  

Hexes are usually placed on people by dour-faced old crones, and 
slightly worse things happen, like the cow's milk sours or the shelf in 
the kitchen comes off the wall and brings a lot of the plaster with it.

But then, there are the "hex signs" the Amish place on the fronts of 
their barns, and they aren't all to ward off evil circumstances, but 
they are each meant to bring some specific thing, even a welcome.  I 
think the term "hex signs" may be a misnomer here, and not bestowed by 
the Amish themselves, though I think they use the term now, at least 
when talking to non-Amish.

Dark magic.  I think it covers a wide range of magics.  And I do think 
a piece of magic can be a little dark, unlike someone being a little 
pregnant. ;)  After all, someone can be in a little trouble, or a lot 
of trouble.

They seem bad, on one level or another, from plain bad luck, to the 
worst sort of luck, outside of the HP series.  Within the series, I do 
think some spells are named purely for the aesthetic effect, like 
the 'Stunning Spells', which JKR said are really charms, but were given 
that name for the alliteration.  But others give an idea of the type of 
magic being used.

Ceridwen.





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov  1 12:57:28 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:57:28 -0000
Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard
In-Reply-To: <ei88cu+pcvl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eia5jo+rrbi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160783

> Alla:
> 
> Oooooo, I see it now. You actually **believe** Snape when he says 
> that punishment is for disrespecting him and not for the duel, yes?
> 
> But see the reason why I do not believe him is because he 
> **provoked** Harry and Ron, so this is something that they did 
> because of Snape, accordingly I make the conclusion that Snape really 
> wanted to punish Harry and needed something to justify it, that's all.
> 
> I find it very strange to think that Snape punished Harry for 
> disrespecting a teacher, when this teacher was deliberately hurtful 
> and disrespectful first.
> 

Pippin:
In the words of McGonagall, "Do you really think this is about truth
or lies? It's about keeping your head down and your temper under
control!" 

Do you really think it's about who disrespected who? It's about
"[Harry] had reached for his wand before he'd thought what
he was doing." 

If Harry's going to duel or disprespect  a teacher, it should be 
because he's decided to do it, *not* because he's lost his temper
and can't control himself. If Hermione gets hexed it should be 
because she lost a fight, not because she forgot to duck and 
then stood there  snivelling. Strange, how Hermione's punishment
of Marietta in OOP  is excused because this is war, but
Snape is not supposed to be the trio's drill sergeant because it isn't.


Pippin





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 14:43:01 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:43:01 -0000
Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard
In-Reply-To: <eia5jo+rrbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiabpl+vp5k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160784

> Pippin:
> In the words of McGonagall, "Do you really think this is about truth
> or lies? It's about keeping your head down and your temper under
> control!" 
> 
> Do you really think it's about who disrespected who? It's about
> "[Harry] had reached for his wand before he'd thought what
> he was doing." 

Alla:

Actually I thought this was about whether Snape favors Draco or not.

Pippin:
> If Harry's going to duel or disprespect  a teacher, it should be 
> because he's decided to do it, *not* because he's lost his temper
> and can't control himself. If Hermione gets hexed it should be 
> because she lost a fight, not because she forgot to duck and 
> then stood there  snivelling.
<SNIP>

Alla:

So what I hear you saying is that we are back to justifying Snape's 
behaviour as in he is 
not really a jerk, he is just pretending to be one to train Trio?

Okay then :)


Pippin:
 Strange, how Hermione's punishment
> of Marietta in OOP  is excused because this is war, but
> Snape is not supposed to be the trio's drill sergeant because it 
isn't.

Alla:

And those two situations are comparable how? 

Defense of the resistance group and despicable behaviour of the 
teacher 
on the normal school day?

Besides, even if you want to compare those ( which as I said I do not 
see at all), in OOP Voldemort IS back, whether majority of WW 
believes it or not.

Really, when Snape wants to protect Gryffindors from being betrayed 
with the hex that is a little harsher than usual, I will give him 
some slack. Hmmm, I do not think that those times will ever come 
though.


JMO,
Alla, who really thought that **Snape is not really a jerk, but just 
pretending to be one to train trio** defense was gone after OOP as 
meritless. :)





From kureyon_virus at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 05:34:08 2006
From: kureyon_virus at yahoo.com (kureyon_virus)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 05:34:08 -0000
Subject: James' and Lily's gold
In-Reply-To: <ei6664+lkgt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ei9bkg+a766@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160785

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan MacLagan" <SMacLagan at ...>
wrote:
>
> Q:  Where did James and Lily get all that gold?  Do you think it was
> spoils from plunder?  Simple inheritance from James' family?


Hi, it's my first time to reply on any of the topics, but back to the
topic, I think their gold came from the quidditch prizes.  And weren't
they an Auror as their job?  Maybe James' prizes + their wage from
being an Auror. Just a guess.

kureyon_virus








From darksworld at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 14:39:01 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:39:01 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation WAS:Re: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency"
In-Reply-To: <eia2p8+odq7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiabi5+cg7g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160786

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  
> > Geoff:
> > The pronunciation of Sirius is interesting. As a UK English 
speaker, 
> I would never rhyme 
> > Sirius with Serious. The former has a short 'i', the latter a long 
> one. 
> 
> Potioncat:
> So, would you pronounce Sirius the same way as it's spoken here?
> http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation/play.htm
> 
> Does anyone have quibbles with the way names or spells are 
pronounced 
> in the Audio-Books?
>
Charles:
Not me! I have all 6 of the Stephen Fry read UK versions. To me, his 
pronunciations of words from the Potterverse are the closest thing to 
an official pronunciation guide that we have. That thing on 
Scholastic's website pronounces things differently than I have seen 
JKR do in interviews-so I'm thinking that that thing isn't quite JKR 
level canon. Fry however has met with JKR on at least a few occasions 
and done at least one interview with her, and the only change I've 
noticed from one to six was a slight (barely noticeable) alteration in 
how he said the word "Azkaban." 

Of course this has given over to a pet peeve with the movie: the 
pronunciation of the "accio" spell. They give it the sound "ACK-ee-
oh". That thing on the Scholastic website pronounces it "ASS-ee-oh". 
Fry pronounces it with the much more sensible "AKS-ee-oh" reminiscent 
of the word access (wherefrom I think it is possible the spell came).

Charles, who cringes every time that spell comes up in the GOF movie.






From jnferr at gmail.com  Wed Nov  1 15:01:45 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:01:45 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potter pronunciation WAS:Re: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency"
In-Reply-To: <eiabi5+cg7g@eGroups.com>
References: <eia2p8+odq7@eGroups.com> <eiabi5+cg7g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611010701m300c5818y36df24f182905f42@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160787

> Charles:
>
> Of course this has given over to a pet peeve with the movie: the
> pronunciation of the "accio" spell. They give it the sound "ACK-ee-
> oh". That thing on the Scholastic website pronounces it "ASS-ee-oh".
> Fry pronounces it with the much more sensible "AKS-ee-oh" reminiscent
> of the word access (wherefrom I think it is possible the spell came).
>
> Charles, who cringes every time that spell comes up in the GOF movie.


montims:
As do I, but for a different reason - having lived in Italy for 10 years, I
cannot read accio as other than ATCH-ee-oh.  I realise I am in the minority,
though, as I am with my pronunciation of knuts (canutes) and other words...
May I add that yes, for me, Sirius rhymes in its first syllable with
bilious, and serious shares the first same syllable with series...


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




From jnferr at gmail.com  Wed Nov  1 15:08:14 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 09:08:14 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James' and Lily's gold
In-Reply-To: <ei9bkg+a766@eGroups.com>
References: <ei6664+lkgt@eGroups.com> <ei9bkg+a766@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611010708k1a1f6e86s25a9e2207d918dc6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160788

*kureyon_virus*:
 Hi, it's my first time to reply on any of the topics, but back to the
topic, I think their gold came from the quidditch prizes.  And weren't
they an Auror as their job?  Maybe James' prizes + their wage from
being an Auror. Just a guess.

montims:
Do wizards have insurance?  Quite apart from that, all the money James
inherited had sat untouched in the Grigotts vault for 11 years, acquiring
interest...  Quite enough for a teenager with no real possessions.  However,
I wonder where the Potter family home is, and whether it was sold (more gold
for the vault) or is sitting there waiting for Harry (and the Trio?) to
take ownership of it...  Maybe he will be handed the deeds on reaching his
17th birthday?


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




From darksworld at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 15:06:32 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:06:32 -0000
Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard
In-Reply-To: <eia5jo+rrbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiad5o+sqdk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160789

> Pippin:
> In the words of McGonagall, "Do you really think this is about truth
> or lies? It's about keeping your head down and your temper under
> control!"
>
> Do you really think it's about who disrespected who? It's about
> "[Harry] had reached for his wand before he'd thought what
> he was doing."
>
> If Harry's going to duel or disprespect  a teacher, it should be
> because he's decided to do it, *not* because he's lost his temper
> and can't control himself. If Hermione gets hexed it should be
> because she lost a fight, not because she forgot to duck and
> then stood there  snivelling. Strange, how Hermione's punishment
> of Marietta in OOP  is excused because this is war, but
> Snape is not supposed to be the trio's drill sergeant because it
isn't.
>

Charles:
Ah, but you do have to determine when the war started for this
defence of Snape to work. Did it start when Junior broke free of his
father and rejoined He-Who-Must-Be-Bottle-Fed-At-This-Point? When
they captured Moody? Or later, like when Pasty-new-body!Voldie
recalled his (semi)faithful DE's? Yes, Snape knew that Babymort was
growing stronger, but IMO the war had not started yet. Besides that,
his behavior is no different than in previous books.

The fact is that Harry did *not* get off for the duel, IMO. The
punishmnent for the duel was 50 points from Gryffindor. Then he and
Ron got detention besides, for mouthing off to Snape. This doesn't
require anyone to believe in anything but Jerk!Snape, as even the
most devout DDM!Snape would have to admit that Snape's behavior is
quite often unpleasant.

Charles






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  1 15:21:46 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:21:46 -0000
Subject: Something I've been pondering.
In-Reply-To: <ei94gu+kdop@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiae2a+apr4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160790

Catherine:
> > Given Dumbledore's feelings about the fear of a name increasing 
> > the fear of the thing itself, and his feelings about always 
> > calling Voldemort "Voldemort", I've always wondered why he would 
> > even go that far?  I mean, why doesn't Dumbledore always refer to 
> > Voldemort as Tom Riddle which, to me, signifies an even stronger 
> > weakening of his name.

Audrey:
> Hi Catherine and welcome!
> 
> Dumbledore does refer to Tom as Tom during the fight at the 
> Ministry.  I always loved that aspect of the scene.  I saw it as 
> Dumbledore saying, "You may think you're Lord Big Stuff but as far 
> as I'm concerned all you will ever be is Tom Riddle".   


SSSusan:
Let me second the welcome, Catherine!

There is also the memory into which DD took Harry in HBP, when Tom 
came to Hogwarts to ask, again, for the DADA position.  IIRC, doesn't 
Voldy try to *get* DD to refer to him by his new title, "Voldemort," 
and DD quite deliberately and pointedly declines, instead continuing 
to call him "Tom"?

I think there is no doubt that that was designed to show Voldy that 
he, DD, was less than impressed and to keep him from thinking he 
could intimidate with his "title" (which is obviously just a NAME he 
selected, not even a real title!).


Audrey:
> My guess for why he doesn't do it all the time is that relatively 
> few people may know Voldemort's real name.  By using the name 
> Voldemort with them Dumbledore uses the name they fear to show that 
> it really isn't something to be afraid of and also there is no 
> doubt that they know who he is talking about.  

SSSusan:
I think you're right, Audrey, that DD wants to stress to people that 
they *can* say the name without something horrible happening, that it 
is safe to say the name, and that they can do so as part of their 
effort to confront & overcome their fear.

I admit I've also wondered, though, about DD's decision not to reveal 
to the WW that Voldemort *is* Tom Riddle.  Doesn't it seem like the 
kind of thing he'd want to do -- make sure the Daily Prophet 
published it far & wide?  You know, "This wizard so many fear, he's 
just Tom Riddle, who was a schoolboy at Hogwarts just like all of 
you!"

The fact that DD apparently never has done this, and the fact that 
many witches & wizards do not seem to have a clue about 
Voldemort's "previous life" as Tom Riddle, makes me wonder if DD 
hasn't kept that close to his chest in order to protect someone 
else?  That perhaps revealing far & wide that Voldy is Tom Riddle 
might be revealing information that would somehow hurt someone else 
or be damaging to some innocent person's reputation.  

[Heh. I used to wonder if McGonagall had been married to Tom, before 
Tom revealed himself to be such a nasty bit of goods, but I tossed 
that idea out the window as we learned more about Tom's teenaged & 
young adult life in HBP. <g>]

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 15:30:42 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:30:42 -0000
Subject: Curses! Foiled again.
In-Reply-To: <ei93f8+uv4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiaej2+ev5t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160791

Potioncat wrote:
>
> I found this via the Leaky Cauldron and HPANA. JKR has updated her 
> site. Get a load of the Wizard of the Month!
> 
> http://www.hpana.com/
> 
> Why is it that the more JKR tells us, the less we know?

Carol responds:
As in "part vampire"? So vampirism is inheritable--and witches or
wizards can marry vampires? (Will remus Lupin's children be "part
werewolf"?) Or did you mean something else?
> 
Potioncat:
> I've copied a portion of her comments on spells from this site:
> 
> http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=24
> 
> >>>>>>Hexes:
> Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but of a minor sort.
I see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' for spells whose 
> effects are irritating but amusing.
> 
> Curses:
> Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic.<<<<<<<<<
> 
> "Connotation of dark magic? Connotation???"  Is there is such a
thing as being a little dark? So, now we get to start the discussion,
"What is Dark Magic?" all over again.

Carol responds:
You snipped her definition of Charms (spells that alter the properties
but not the essence or nature of a thing), which is essentially what I
had already inferred in my attempts to distinguish Charms from
Transfiguration (for example,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/158267 ). As for
hexes, curses, and jinxes, I speculated in post 156664 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156664

and elsewhere that hexes and jinxes were minor curses and noted that
the dictionary definition of "hex" is barely distinguishable from that
of "curse" in the sense of a spell cast on someone or something,
whereas "jinx" implies bad luck. However, it seemed to me then that
JKR (except in OoP, where most of the minor curses are called "jinxes"
and "hex" is rarely used) generally uses "jinx" for a minor curse cast
on an object or amorphous thing, such as the DADA position, and "hex"
for a minor curse cast on a person (e.g.,. Bat-Bogey Hex."

I can *almost* accept her definition/distinction. For example, the
Jelly-Legs Jinx comes as close to being "irritating but amusing" as
any spell in the books, but I'm not sure that the Trip Jinx is
amusing, and the so-called jinx on the DADA position most definitely
is not. (Certainly, the person in that position has bad luck, but
sometimes it's *very* bad luck, indeed. Any spell that brings about
the fate of Quirrell or of Fake!Moody (or even the real Moody) or
causes Snape to kill Dumbledore goes beyond bad luck and is most
certainly not amusing. Moreover, it's the position, not the teacher
that is jinxed--or rather, cursed--though the teacher is its victim
and apparently falls victim to his own tendencies or flaws, whether
those are paranoia (Moody), prejudice against nonhuman (Umbridge), or
werewolfism (erm, guess who).

JKR's explanation implies that there are degrees or shades of Dark
magic (calling to mind bb_boy's distinction between "dark" and
"Dark"). All the hexes and jinxes that our boys (and occasionally,
girls) throw at each other on the Hogwarts Express and in the hallways
are slightly Dark. (I never liked them. Maybe that's why. ;-) )
Uncivilized and rather dangerous, like Quidditch and the Twins'
Wizarding Wheezes (or COMC class when Hagrid is teaching). Seriously,
is Petrificus Totalus a hex or a jinx? It's a rather effective
defensive spell and not very amusing, even (or especially) when
first-year Hermione uses it on first-year Neville. (Note that Ron
calls her "a bit scary" at that point, unless I'm confusing the movie
with the book.) If it's the same as the Body-Binding Curse, is
first-year Hermione practicing Dark Magic (and sixth-year Harry
defending himself from DEs using Dark Magic? Surely not, or what can a
good DADA teacher like Snape teach except to show kids how to defend
themselves with Dark Magic against still Darker spells?

The Lexicon lists the following hexes: Bat-Bogey Hex, canary
transfiguration hex, Hurling Hex, knee-reversing hex, Stinging Hex,  
  Twitchy Ears Hex, and toenail-growing hex, some of which I don't
recall encountering in canon and most of which sound no more dangerous
than the so-called jinxes (some of which I don't recall from canon,
either): Anti-Disapparation Jinx, Backfiring Jinx, finger-removing
jinx, Impediment Jinx, Jelly-Brain Jinx, Jelly-Legs Jinx, snitch jinx,
    Stretching jinx, and Trip Jinx. The finger-removing jinx sounds a
bit more than irritating, and amusing only if you're Bellatrix
Lestrange. The distinction between jinxes and hexes is unclear from
these examples. Is Hermione's Snitch Jinx really less Dark than
twitchy ears or long toenails, both of which appear to be temporary
(or easily reversed by Madam Pomfrey)? IMO, the only logical reason to
call it a jinx rather than a hex is that Hermione jinxed the parchment
rather than the person, but that doesn't appear to be JKR's line of
thinking.

As for spells labeled as curses, is the Conjunctivitis Curse (which
Viktor Krum used on his dragon and Sirius Black intended to advise
Harry to use on his) really that much Darker than the Bat-Bogey Hex or
the Confundus Charm (not to mention our much-hated Memory Charm)? What
about the Babbling Curse, the Impediment Curse (Impedimenta?), the
Leg-Locker Curse, and the Jelly-Fingers Curse (listed in the Lexicon)?
Those seem to fit JKR's definition of *jinxes* (irritating but
amusing--to the spectator, anyway), yet they're labeled curses. Now
granted, the Entrail-Expelling Curse really does sound Dark (and
gruesome), and Sectumsempra can be deadly and is likely to be
classified as a curse, along with the unquestionably Dark
Unforgiveables. But the Sponge-Knees Curse (again from the Lexicon)?
How is that Darker than Jelly Legs?

It seems to me that most if not all of these spells, even the
Confundus Charm, are really curses, ranging from minor (and amusing,
if you're JKR) to fatal. I suppose that they're also Charms since they
change the properties rather than the essence of the victim, usually
temporarily (except for the AK and the innocent-sounding Memory
Charm). So does Hogwarts teach (or allow its students to teach each
other) minor Dark Magic? Just what are the Dark Arts that Durmstrang
teaches, then? (How to kill your friends and turn them into Inferi?)

If JKR's explanation were valid, the only actual curses listed in this
post would be the Unforgiveables, the Entrail-Expelling Curse,
Sectumsempra, and possibly the euphemistically titled Memory Charm.
The Conjunctivitis Curse (so-called because it alliterates, IMO) would
be a hex and the Twitchy Ears Hex a jinx.

Nope. She simply hasn't thought it out. Maybe the current definition
was a work in progress when she was writing OoP, which would explain
why the students start jinxing rather than hexing each other (most of
the time), but as I see it, she chose the names chiefly for their
sound, particularly in the case of those few that alliterate
(Conjuntivitis Curse, Hurling Hex, Jelly-Legs Jinx).

If the curse that's on the DADA position is a jinx by JKR's
definition, I'll eat slugs.

Carol, glad that kids can't really hex or jinx each other in school
corridors and glad that at least some Hogwarts teachers can maintain
discipline in the classroom











From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  1 15:39:24 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:39:24 -0000
Subject: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency" (Was: Names wordplay)
In-Reply-To: <eia2p8+odq7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiaf3c+j5o5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160792

Geoff:
> > The pronunciation of Sirius is interesting. As a UK English 
> > speaker, I would never rhyme Sirius with Serious. The former has a 
> > short 'i', the latter a long one. 
 
Potioncat:
> So, would you pronounce Sirius the same way as it's spoken here?
> http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation/play.htm
> 
> Does anyone have quibbles with the way names or spells are pronounced 
> in the Audio-Books?


SSSusan:
I do, yes.  Jim Dale pronounces Alicia Spinnet as "Ah-LEE-see-ah" but 
pronounces Lucius Malfoy as "LU-shuhs."  Shouldn't it be LU-see-uhs" to 
be consistent with the Alicia pronunciation?  Or am I just nuts?

The spell I struggle with is "accio."  I've always prounounced it "AH-
see-oh" but I know some pronounce it "ACK-ee-oh."  If I'm not mistaken, 
in TMWSNBN (the GoF one), Harry says the "ACK-" version during the 1st 
task, but someone (Harry? someone else?) says the "AH-see" version 
later.  The "ACK-" version makes sense if one considers the 
word "accelerate," but somehow I've latched onto the "AH-see-oh."  I 
see that the Scholastic pronunciation guide agrees with me.

Thanks to the pronunciation link, I now know I was mispronouncing Felix 
Felicis [which I said as "FEH-lih-kuhs" instead of as "Feh-LEASE-us"] 
and Knuts [which I said as "k'nuts" instead of as "k'noots"]. :-
)  'Course, I'm not sold on this site being totally correct.  Listen 
to "Madam Maxime" if you would, and look at their phonetics.  Makes no 
sense for a woman who's French.  They also *say* Mer-OH-pee but the 
phonetics show MER-o-pe.

I do wonder whether JKR has ever stepped up to correct Jim Dale or 
Stephen Fry if she's felt their pronunciation was off.

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 16:09:47 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:09:47 -0000
Subject: Names wordplay and flowers
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610312024y6e213af7re230b27c7291a438@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eiagsb+au8i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160793

LG wrote:
> This one might be old news, but I just realized it. For the spell
> Expecto Patronum--James' animagus figure was a stag, so when Harry
> thinks happy thoughts while needing a protector against dementors,
> he "expects (expecto) his father (patronum)." I'm not sure he
> realizes it's his father's help/force, but it seems so to me. Agree?
> 
Lynda wrote:
> 
> Not only do I agree, but through the years, I've been surprised that
people haven't seemed to pick up on this idea more. I haven't even
seen any discussion threads on it. <snip>

Carol responds:
Actually, we've had discussions on the etymology of almost every term
or name in the Potterverse. (The search engine does work. Just try
"etymology" and "Patronus" [no quotes] as search terms and see what
you find.)

"Expecto Patronum" does *not* mean "I expect my father." That would be
"Exspecto meum patrem," if memory serves. (Father is "pater," not
"patronus," and the verb meaning "expect" has an unexspected, erm,
unexpected "s.") 

"Patronus" actually means "protector, defender, patron; esp. an
advocate in a court of law."

http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=patronus&ending=

On her website, JKR refers to a Patronus as a person's spirit
guardian, rather like a guardian angel or a patron saint, as I
understand it, or maybe a benevolent version of a familiar spirit.

That Harry's Patronus is his father's animagus form simply means that,
at that point in his life, his protector is his father or the
essence/spirit of his father, just as Dumbledore's protector is a
Phoenix (and Hermione's is an otter).

As I said elsewhere, etymology is helpful in understanding the HP
books, as is a rudimentary understanding of Latin (on the level of
JKR's and mine).

Carol, wondering as always what Snape's Patronus is and expecting it
to relate to Dumbledore





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 16:09:17 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:09:17 -0000
Subject: Names wordplay and flowers
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610312024y6e213af7re230b27c7291a438@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eiagrd+atv7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160794

LG wrote:
> This one might be old news, but I just realized it. For the spell
> Expecto Patronum--James' animagus figure was a stag, so when Harry
> thinks happy thoughts while needing a protector against dementors,
> he "expects (expecto) his father (patronum)." I'm not sure he
> realizes it's his father's help/force, but it seems so to me. Agree?
> 
Lynda wrote:
> 
> Not only do I agree, but through the years, I've been surprised that
people haven't seemed to pick up on this idea more. I haven't even
seen any discussion threads on it. <snip>

Carol responds:
Actually, we've had discussions on the etymology of almost every term
or name in the Potterverse. (The search engine does work. Just try
"etymology" and "Patronus" [no quotes] as search terms and see what
you find.)

"Expecto Patronum" does *not* mean "I expect my father." That would be
"Exspecto meum patrem," if memory serves. (Father is "pater," not
"patronus," and the verb meaning "expect" has an unexspected, erm,
unexpected "s.") 

"Patronus" actually means "protector, defender, patron; esp. an
advocate in a court of law."

http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=patronus&ending=

On her website, JKR refers to a Patronus as a person's spirit
guardian, rather like a guardian angel or a patron saint, as I
understand it, or maybe a benevolent version of a familiar spirit.

That Harry's Patronus is his father's animagus form simply means that,
at that point in his life, his protector is his father or the
essence/spirit of his father, just as Dumbledore's protector is a
Phoenix (and Hermione's is an otter).

As I said elsewhere, etymology is helpful in understanding the HP
books, as is a rudimentary understanding of Latin (on the level of
JKR's and mine).

Carol, wondering as always what Snape's Patronus is and expecting it
to relate to Dumbledore

Carol, who is grateful that JKR chose Latin rather than French or
German as the basis for her coined words and spells






From Aixoise at snet.net  Wed Nov  1 16:16:10 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 11:16:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potter pronunciation WAS:Re: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency"
In-Reply-To: <eiabi5+cg7g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <037401c6fdd1$0b6ef0d0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160795

Charles wrote:
<Not me! I have all 6 of the Stephen Fry read UK versions. To me, his 
pronunciations of words from the Potterverse are the closest thing to 
an official pronunciation guide that we have. That thing on 
Scholastic's website pronounces things differently than I have seen 
JKR do in interviews-so I'm thinking that that thing isn't quite JKR 
level canon. Fry however has met with JKR on at least a few occasions 
and done at least one interview with her, and the only change I've 
noticed from one to six was a slight (barely noticeable) alteration in 
how he said the word "Azkaban." >

Stacey: I've heard Years 1-5 as read by Jim Dale (an Englishman I believe)
and there were a few pronunciations that bugged me but only one comes to
mind at the moment.  In the earlier books (1-2 or 3 perhaps?) "Voldemort"
was pronounced with a decidedly stronger final "t" (plosive stop).  I much
prefer how it was pronounced in the later books although I can't for the
life of me remember the phonetic description of what I'm trying to say
(glottal replacement perhaps?)..it's like a softer "t", closer to a "d" but
not nearly as stressed.    I think I prefer the latter pronunciation because
it is closer to the French "mort" in which the "t" is silent and because the
pronunciation of the final plosive t, especially with our Yank
pronunciation, sounds really awkward and nerdy. 

Charles wrote:

< Charles, who cringes every time that spell [accio] comes up in the GOF
movie.>

Stacey:

I totally agree!!  My biggest cringe in the movie version of GOF is
Voldemort's "crucio" on Harry.  It's rather high-pitched and almost as if
he's trying to play with the pronunciation, like if he were pretending to be
foreign or something.  

Stacey 



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





From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  1 16:43:32 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:43:32 -0000
Subject: Names wordplay and flowers
In-Reply-To: <eiagsb+au8i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiairk+8a3m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160796

LG wrote:
> > > This one might be old news, but I just realized it. For the 
> > > spell Expecto Patronum--James' animagus figure was a stag, so 
> > > when Harry thinks happy thoughts while needing a protector 
> > > against dementors, he "expects (expecto) his father 
> > > (patronum)." I'm not sure he realizes it's his father's 
> > > help/force, but it seems so to me. 
 
Lynda wrote:
> > Not only do I agree, but through the years, I've been surprised 
> > that people haven't seemed to pick up on this idea more. I 
> > haven't even seen any discussion threads on it. <snip>
 
Carol responds:
> "Expecto Patronum" does *not* mean "I expect my father." That would 
> be "Exspecto meum patrem," if memory serves. (Father is "pater," not
> "patronus," and the verb meaning "expect" has an unexspected, erm,
> unexpected "s.") 
> 
> "Patronus" actually means "protector, defender, patron; esp. an
> advocate in a court of law."
<snip>
> That Harry's Patronus is his father's animagus form simply means 
> that, at that point in his life, his protector is his father or the
> essence/spirit of his father, just as Dumbledore's protector is a
> Phoenix (and Hermione's is an otter).


SSSusan:
Well, with all due respect, I really don't think any of us can *know* 
what JKR "simply meant" when she created one of her spell names or 
artifact names or character names.  I mean, I don't want to sound 
like a spoilsport about it, but I am not sure JKR takes the etymology 
*that* seriously all the time.  

Does anyone know what I mean?  

In my own personal opinion, I definitely think JKR *attends* to 
etymology, I think she is quite knowledgable about etymology, but I 
also think she likes to PLAY.  And I think if she likes the sound of 
something -- such as Diagon Alley -- then she uses it, whether it's 
got some etymological root it fits precisely or it just SOUNDS cool.

Simply because "Expecto Patronum" is not literally the way one would 
write out "I expect my father" does not mean that she wasn't having 
FUN with the words *sounding* like or being similar to "expect" 
and "pater" for father.  It could also have been the wonderful double-
fun of having "patronus" literally meaning "protector" *and* being 
similar to "pater" meaning father.  Who knows??  None of us, I don't 
think. 

"Pensieve" is another one of those which I don't particularly care if 
she intended to represent "pensive" or "sieve."  To me, it's a great 
*combination* of the two:  the pensieve is used when one ponders -- 
is pensive about something -- *and* it can be used to sort or sift 
through -- to sieve -- one's thoughts.  Does it have to be that one 
is right?  How 'bout Jo actually thought of both, chuckled at her 
creativity, and stuck 'em together into her new hybrid word?

I guess I don't think there's anything inappropriate or wrong in 
toying around with the words and terms JKR has used or created or 
slapped together in funky ways that don't quite translate but still 
*sound* like something or are close enough that she might have been 
having some fun with them. Even if those don't go perfectly with the 
apparent etymology.  :)

Just one person's two knuts.

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 16:45:07 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:45:07 -0000
Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard
In-Reply-To: <eiabpl+vp5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiaiuj+pef9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160797

Alla wrote:
> <snip>
> So what I hear you saying is that we are back to justifying Snape's 
> behaviour as in he is not really a jerk, he is just pretending to be
one to train Trio?
> 
> Okay then :) <snip>

Carol responds:
I'm not sure why you think that after OoP, this idea is "meritless"
<from your snipped sig line>. It actually *could* explain quite a bit
of Snape's conduct as the teacher of various subjects in all six
books. He wants his Potions students (especially Harry and Neville) to
follow directions carefully, as indicated by his specifying exactly
what they did wrong each time he criticizes their potions, and he
brings bezoars and the Draught of Living Death quite memorably into
the first lesson, combining them with a lesson in humility for "our
new celebrity." (I know you don't like his methods, but maybe he wants
to be sure that Harry remembers what he's teaching without any
affection developing between them, which would seem suspicious to the
Slytherin half of the class.)

In the Occlumency lessons, he acts in loco inimici (in the place of
the enemy, meaning Voldemort.) "You are handing me weapons!" he says
when Harry allows him to see the memory of Cedric's death. If Harry
can't deflect Snape's Legilimency spells, preferably using his mind
rather than his wand, how is he going to resist Voldemort's
Legilimency when he encounters him in person (or stop having those
visions Voldemort is, at this point unwittingly, placing in Harry's
head)? IMO, Snape must put himself in the place of the enemy to
prepare Harry to confront his real enemy. When Harry actually succeeds
in stopping the effects of the spell, he gets praise from Snape along
the lines of "That was not as bad as bad as it might have been," which
translates to "not bad!" or even "Exceeds Expectations," considering
Snape's expectations for the "mediocre" Harry.

We see the same tactic in Snape's DADA class when Ron is struggling to
cast a nonverbal hex or jinx and Harry is waiting, seemingly forever,
to cast a nonverbal Protego to deflect it. Snape steps in, appearing
to intend to cast a nonverbal hex himself, trying to provoke Harry to
cast a nonverbal Protego on him. Instead, Harry casts a verbal one and
is reprimanded, not for hexing a teacher, but for not doing it
nonverbally. And, of course, Snape is still shouting instructions,
worded as if they were insults, in his duel with Harry at the end of
HBP, a duel which could have ended with Harry bleeding on the ground
from Sectumsempra or dead from an AK, or stunned and kidnapped.
Instead, he's told "No Unforgiveable Curses from you!" and "Shut your
mouth and close your mind" ("Occlumency and nonverbals, you moron!")

Carol, pretty sure that Snape has taught Harry more than Harry knows,
the HBP's Potions book aside, including bezoars and Expelliarmus, and
that much of that teaching was done in the guise of Harry's enemy for
reasons best known to Snape himself





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 17:14:57 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:14:57 -0000
Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard
In-Reply-To: <eiaiuj+pef9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiakmh+oc6l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160798

Charles:

< HUGE SNIP>
> The fact is that Harry did *not* get off for the duel, IMO. The
> punishmnent for the duel was 50 points from Gryffindor. Then he and
> Ron got detention besides, for mouthing off to Snape. This doesn't
> require anyone to believe in anything but Jerk!Snape, as even the
> most devout DDM!Snape would have to admit that Snape's behavior is
> quite often unpleasant.


Alla:

Nooooo Charles, Snape cannot be even unpleasant.
Saint that one and has no significant character flaws.

There is no way for example that Snape can simply hate a child 
because he confuses this child with his father, even if at the end of 
HBP, when there is nobody to pretend in front of, Snape screams *you 
and your filfy father*. Because that is quite despicable to hate a 
child for the sins of the father and we cannot have it  in our noble 
hero:)


Alla wrote:
> > <snip>
> > So what I hear you saying is that we are back to justifying 
Snape's 
> > behaviour as in he is not really a jerk, he is just pretending to 
be
> one to train Trio?
> > 
> > Okay then :) <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> I'm not sure why you think that after OoP, this idea is "meritless"
> <from your snipped sig line>. 

Alla:

My apologies. I meant to say after HBP. Not that it ever worked for 
me, but after "you and your filfy father", the argument for me has no 
merits. I mean JKR may say otherwise in book 7 of course, but right 
now - yes, no merits.


Carol:
It actually *could* explain quite a bit
> of Snape's conduct as the teacher of various subjects in all six
> books. He wants his Potions students (especially Harry and Neville) 
to
> follow directions carefully, as indicated by his specifying exactly
> what they did wrong each time he criticizes their potions, and he
> brings bezoars and the Draught of Living Death quite memorably into
> the first lesson, combining them with a lesson in humility for "our
> new celebrity." (I know you don't like his methods, but maybe he 
wants
> to be sure that Harry remembers what he's teaching without any
> affection developing between them, which would seem suspicious to 
the
> Slytherin half of the class.)

Alla:

Or he can simply be a jerk of course. But I wonder what do you think 
he is training Harry for, when he takes his book away in PS/SS?

What do you think he is training Harry for when he is not letting him 
to go to Dumbledore right away in GoF?

What is he training Neville for when Neville's boggart becomes him?




Carol:
<BIG SNIP> 
And, of course, Snape is still shouting instructions,
> worded as if they were insults, in his duel with Harry at the end of
> HBP, a duel which could have ended with Harry bleeding on the ground
> from Sectumsempra or dead from an AK, or stunned and kidnapped.
> Instead, he's told "No Unforgiveable Curses from you!" and "Shut 
your
> mouth and close your mind" ("Occlumency and nonverbals, you moron!")

Alla:

And we also know that JKR hinted that Harry will not be able to do 
Occlumency, because he is too honest for that, so it is quite 
possible that Snape has no clue what Harry is about ( and NO we do 
not know that those were instructions, we want them to be such)

I am betting  that Occlumency will play no role whatsoever in Harry's 
defeating Voldemort, but him **showing** those emotions ( that 
dreaded power of love) will play a very significant role somehow)

We shall see of course.

JMO,

Alla








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 17:05:14 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:05:14 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation WAS:Re: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency"
In-Reply-To: <eiabi5+cg7g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiak4a+g1ui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160799

Charles wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Of course this has given over to a pet peeve with the movie: the 
> pronunciation of the "accio" spell. They give it the sound "ACK-ee-
> oh". That thing on the Scholastic website pronounces it "ASS-ee-oh". 
> Fry pronounces it with the much more sensible "AKS-ee-oh"
reminiscent of the word access (wherefrom I think it is possible the
spell came).
> 
> Charles, who cringes every time that spell comes up in the GOF movie.

Carol responds:
No need to cringe. My high school Latin teacher would have had us
pronounce "accio" (an actual Latin verb meaning "to summon") with two
hard C's, exactly as Dan Radcliffe does in the GoF film. 

The Latin alphabet had no "K," which was added to the Latin-based
English alphabet later to transliterate Kappa for certain words
borrowed from Greek. To my knowledge, the "S" sound in Latin was
always spelled "S," never "C." Hence, if there's a C in a Latin word
word, it's a hard C.(Church Latin is influenced by Italian and does
not represent the pronunciation of the ancient Romans as deduced from
the available evidence.) 

Also, I think JKR based the spell directly on the Latin verb "accio"
and not on its English derivatives, such as "Access." Although I
haven't conversed with any ancient Romans lately, I think it's safe to
say that the movie had it right and "that thing" has it doubly wrong.
Nor do I know of any evidence that the Romans ever followed a hard
with a soft one. Had it been pronounced "AK-see-oh," it would surely
have been spelled "acsio."

Carol, not sure how JKR pronounces "Accio" but perfectly happy with
"AK-kee-oh," which fits what she was taught once upon a time about Latin





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  1 17:46:39 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:46:39 -0000
Subject: Curses! Foiled again.
In-Reply-To: <ei93f8+uv4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiamhv+pmq7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160801

JKR:
> Curses:
> Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic.

Potioncat: 
> "Connotation of dark magic? Connotation???"  Is there is such a
> thing as being a little dark? So, now we get to start the 
> discussion, "What is Dark Magic?" all over again.

Jen: You say that like it's a *bad* thing, Potioncat. So now allow 
me to launch into an essay on dark magic....hah, I'm only joking. 
Steve/bboy et. al. have covered that topic quite extensively and he 
can probably provide a link to the threads if anyone is interested.

I couldn't help but notice the part where she called Stunning Spells 
more of a charm yet chose go for the alliterative effect. She may 
have been a Hermione as a younger person, but I think she grew up to 
be less McGonagall and more Dumbledore, valuing form over function. 
I'll bet Dumbledore's maths are his shakiest area, too--wonder if he 
knows the population of Hogwarts? :)

Sadly, no explanation of magical Vows there. I'd like to infer they 
are self-explanatory and everything we need to know about them we 
understand from Muggle culture, etc., but...you never know if 
something was left off because it wasn't the topic she's responding 
to or because the answer would give something away.


Carol:
> I can *almost* accept her definition/distinction....I'm not sure
> that the Trip Jinx is amusing, and the so-called jinx on the DADA
> position most definitely is not. (Certainly, the person in that
> position has bad luck, but sometimes it's *very* bad luck, indeed.
> Any spell that brings about the fate of Quirrell or of Fake!Moody 
>(or even the real Moody) or causes Snape to kill Dumbledore goes
> beyond bad luck and is most certainly not amusing. 

Jen: I seriously doubt Rowling will blame the most pivotal scene of 
the series on a curse/jinx/whatever that eliminated Snape's free 
will. Except for Quirrell being possessed and therefore not always 
acting on his own, there's no evidence the rest of the DADA's had to 
leave the position for reasons other than their own flaws bringing 
them down. This includes real Moody who wouldn't have made the ruse 
so easy if not for his paranoia. 

Jen R.





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  1 18:05:21 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:05:21 -0000
Subject: James' and Lily's gold
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611010708k1a1f6e86s25a9e2207d918dc6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eianl1+6ao4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160802

> montims:
> Do wizards have insurance?  Quite apart from that, all the money James
> inherited had sat untouched in the Grigotts vault for 11 years,
acquiring
> interest...

Eddie:
Do the Gringotts' goblins pay interest?  Since it is a bank, I assume
that they do, but this seems inconsistent with the goblin telling
Harry that they only check the vaults about once every 10 years. 
(Harry had asked how often they look to see if somebody got trapped in
one.)  How is the interest paid then?

Lots of possible speculation to follow here without any canon:

* Do the goblins pay interest at all? (Seems contrary to goblin
personality)

* Do the goblins pay interest on the contents of vaults, or are the
vaults like safety deposit boxes in Muggle banks -- privately secure
contents, but not opened by bank employees nor is interest paid

* If they do pay interest, is the interest inserted into the vault
magically?

* If they do pay interest, then the goblins would need to know the
exact value (or count of) the contents.  Right?

* What was the interest on the Philosopher's Stone?

OK, I guess I'm persuading myself that there was no interest paid on
the Potter's wealth.  But maybe I'm wrong.

Eddie, who has often wondered why Harry thinks he has no Muggle money,
only Wizarding money.  (I think this came up at the beginning of
Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry ran away from Privet Drive and was
pondering what to do next.)  Harry could probably have gone to
Gringott's and exchanged Wizarding money to Muggle.  Recall that
Hermione's parents went to Gringotts and were exchanging Muggle to
Wizarding money.






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov  1 18:07:50 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:07:50 -0000
Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard
In-Reply-To: <eiabpl+vp5k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eianpm+2aaf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160803

> Alla:
> 
> Actually I thought this was about whether Snape favors Draco or not.

Pippin:
It depends on what you mean by 'favors'. I think Snape wants a positive
relationship with Draco and his family, which he thinks he can get
by being soft on him. It works, at least as far as Narcissa goes, but
fails with Draco himself, whom we see in HBP actually has little
respect for the teacher he knows has indulged him.

> 
> Pippin:
> > If Harry's going to duel or disprespect  a teacher, it should be 
> > because he's decided to do it, *not* because he's lost his temper
> > and can't control himself. If Hermione gets hexed it should be 
> > because she lost a fight, not because she forgot to duck and 
> > then stood there  snivelling.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> So what I hear you saying is that we are back to justifying Snape's 
> behaviour as in he is  not really a jerk, he is just pretending to be 
one to train Trio?

Pippin:
Sorry, why do these have to be mutually exclusive? Snape is a jerk,
yes, and he wants a strong Harry, (and a strong Neville) 
who is not driven by anger and fear. This works, incidentally,
whether you think Snape's true loyalty is to Dumbledore or
to himself. 

That Snape himself is not very good at not letting his feelings
drown out reason  does not preclude his wanting Harry to be 
good at it, quite the reverse. There are no weaknesses we despise 
in others so much as the ones we see in ourselves.
 
> Pippin:
>  Strange, how Hermione's punishment
> > of Marietta in OOP  is excused because this is war, but
> > Snape is not supposed to be the trio's drill sergeant because it 
> isn't.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And those two situations are comparable how? 
> 
> Defense of the resistance group and despicable behaviour of the 
> teacher  on the normal school day?

Pippin:
Harry was standing right in front of a Death Eater whose Dark Mark
was coming back even as they spoke. How was that a normal school
day? Snape knows there is no effective resistance to Voldemort
without Harry. Nothing can be allowed to diminish Harry's effectiveness
including Harry himself. 

Alla:
> Really, when Snape wants to protect Gryffindors from being betrayed 
> with the hex that is a little harsher than usual, I will give him 
> some slack. Hmmm, I do not think that those times will ever come 
> though.
> 

Pippin:
Harry's headstrong feelings did betray him and his friends in OOP. 
They betrayed him again in HBP. And again and again, as Snape said, 
until Harry learns to master them.  Harry can't bury his feelings as
Snape can, but he can learn to think as well as feel.

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov  1 18:19:33 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:19:33 -0000
Subject: Curses! Foiled again.
In-Reply-To: <eiamhv+pmq7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiaofl+mpcj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160804


> JKR:
> > Curses:
> > Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic.
> 
> Potioncat: 
> > "Connotation of dark magic? Connotation???"  Is there is such a
> > thing as being a little dark? So, now we get to start the 
> > discussion, "What is Dark Magic?" all over again.

Pippin:
I think it's like the old debates about the inconsistent use of
Half-blood. JKR said you have to think about who's using the
term and why, and I think she hinted in her response to
the jinx/hex/curse question that different wizards use the terms 
differently.

In the confab in Dumbledore's office, Umbridge called the
spell on Marietta a hex and Harry thought of it as a jinx. Naturally
Umbridge tried to play down the effect, since she wanted
Marietta to think it wasn't  so bad, while Harry wanted to think
it was serious enough to shut Marietta up, but not so serious that
it was dark magic. 

I think Leglocker Curse is named for its internal alliteration,
not because it's particularly dark. 

Pippin
There are part vampires! There are, there are, there are! ::does
happy dance:: 





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  1 18:36:58 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:36:58 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation WAS:Re: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency"
In-Reply-To: <eiak4a+g1ui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiapga+ff0h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160805

> Carol responds:
> No need to cringe. My high school Latin teacher would have had us
> pronounce "accio" (an actual Latin verb meaning "to summon") with two
> hard C's, exactly as Dan Radcliffe does in the GoF film. 

Eddie:
I think there was a change in thinking around the turn of the century
(19th to 20th) of how 'C' should be pronounced in Latin.  My knowledge
comes from James Hilton's "Goodbye Mr. Chips", where Professor
Chipping says, "Well, I admit that I don't agree with the new
pronunciation. I never did. A lot of nonsense, in my opinion.  Making
boys say 'Kickero' at school when for the rest of their lives they'll
say 'Cicero'-- if they ever say it at all.  And instead of
'vicissim'-God bless my soul-you'd make them say, 'We kiss'im!"

See http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/chips.html

Question is, is JKRowling of the "new pronunciation" school or the
older-fashion "Mr. Chips" school?

Eddie, who was trained as a musician and therefore pronounces "accio"
in the Italian style, similar to "accellerando": ACH-ee-oh, and who
pronounces it as ASS-ee-oh when he is looking for something humorous
to fit at the end of "Pain in the ...."





From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  1 18:45:45 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:45:45 -0000
Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long)
In-Reply-To: <ei8bug+djtp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiaq0p+c6qo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160806

> SSSusan:
> I wonder why it is I can actually see it happening with Snape more 
> than I can with Lucius?  That I can imagine a real *friendship* 
> between Snape and someone much more easily than I can imagine a 
real *friendship* between Lucius and someone.

Dung:
Yes... I wonder that, too.

SSSusan:
I believe I have canon evidence for a Lucius who is 
> careful about watching his back and who is good at presenting 
> different masks to different people, but I also am not thinking of 
> any friend-screwing-over episodes.  

Dung:
Yes, and I'm not contesting your (as-yet uncited) canon (I might, 
if/when you decide to cite it...) But it is *fascinating* that you 
can't imagine Lucius ever having a "real" friendship, and doing a 
friend a favour to get them out of trouble, yet you have much less 
(almost *no*?) problem imagining the same for Snape. 

Fascinating, given that Snape *has* screwed over his friends big 
time (at least one lot, possibly both), and everything in your above 
paragraph (watching his back, presenting different masks to 
different people) is so much more *obviously* true of Snape than 
Lucius.

So my question is: What have you got against Lucius?


> SSSusan:
> All of what you've said here makes perfect sense to me; it fits 
with the kind of Lucius I have in my mind's eye:  the calculating, 
> scheming, I'm-the-one-holding-the-cards kind of slimeball.  Not 
that I'm opinionated about Lucius or anything you understand. ;-)

Dung:
No, obviously. Perish the thought. (See above.)

> SSSusan:
> Now, just out of curiosity, if you and I happen to be (gasp!) 
> incorrect in our belief in DDM!Snape, if, in fact, Snape turns out 
to be (moan) ESE!Snape, would you still feel that you want Snape to 
> live?  

Dung:
Ok. Firstly, don't be silly, we're not wrong.

Secondly, yes, absolutely I would. He's *interesting*, whether he's 
good or evil, and I *like* him (again, whether he's good or evil). 
As a literary construct, of course - I'm certain that if I were 
somehow ever able to meet him he'd detest me and it'd be 100% 
mutual. That's not the point. The point is ... I'm not sure what the 
point is...

No, here's the point (or at least, *a* point): he's up there with 
Lord Vetinari, Richard III (Shakespeare's version), Artemis Fowl, 
Francis Urquhart, Livia (Robert Graves's version), characters who 
cause all sorts of mayhem, but you can't help feeling that the 
fictional worlds they inhabit would be poorer places for their 
passing. I like being able to cheer on people I'd steer well clear 
of in real life. 

Perhaps I should start an IWSTLC. I could knock up some virtual 
bumper stickers quite quickly...  

Dungrollin
Not sure if that's any clearer.





From darksworld at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 18:19:56 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:19:56 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation/meaning of names WAS:Re: Etymology...
In-Reply-To: <eiak4a+g1ui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiaogc+sk36@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160807

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

> No need to cringe. My high school Latin teacher would have had us
> pronounce "accio" (an actual Latin verb meaning "to summon") with two
> hard C's, exactly as Dan Radcliffe does in the GoF film.
>
> The Latin alphabet had no "K," which was added to the Latin-based
> English alphabet later to transliterate Kappa for certain words
> borrowed from Greek. To my knowledge, the "S" sound in Latin was
> always spelled "S," never "C." Hence, if there's a C in a Latin word
> word, it's a hard C.(Church Latin is influenced by Italian and does
> not represent the pronunciation of the ancient Romans as deduced from
> the available evidence.)
> <snip of the rest of the "accio derivation theory"

Charles:
I can accept your argument intelectually, but I fear it is actually an
emotional response for me, having been canalized in my pronunciation
by Stephen Fry's readings of the books. I am jealous though, that you
got to go to a high school where Latin was taught. I went to a high
school that was more or less just a support system for a football
team, if you know what I mean. I do feel, however that JKR doesn't
necessarily put *that* much into her Latin.

On a semi-related note, with all the etymology talk and the meaning of
names I jumped into looking up some things in the OED and other places
online, and came up with some fun stuff. Hermione, for instance
derives from Hermes, the greek messenger god. The really fun thing I
found for her is the word "Grangerize," defined in the OED as:To
illustrate (a book) by the addition of prints, engravings, etc.,
especially such as have been cut out of other books. So very fitting:
Hermione, the messenger who illustrates with stuff from books!

Inspired, I next looked for Riddle and came up with these from the OED:
riddle, n. 2. transf. Something which puzzles or perplexes; a
difficult or insoluble problem; a mystery.

 3. concr. A person or being whose nature or conduct is enigmatical.
Not much of a surprise there.

What got me were these for potter:
potter, v. 2. trans. To trouble, plague, perplex, worry, bother

3. intr. To meddle, interfere, esp. where one has no business; to
tamper (with)
Now "3" could just about sum up certain characters' feelings about
Harry, couldn't it?

But the best were these:
Argus 1. A mythological person fabled to have had a hundred eyes.
Hence, a very vigilant person, a watcher or guardian

filch, n. 3. One who filches or steals: a filcher.
May be more to a certain squib than meets the eye, do you think?

Charles, who had a lot of fun with this.







From dmccomb1958 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 16:19:42 2006
From: dmccomb1958 at yahoo.com (Dorothy McComb)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:19:42 -0000
Subject: Names wordplay and flowers
In-Reply-To: <eiagrd+atv7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiaheu+rbqh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160808

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

> Carol, wondering as always what Snape's Patronus is and expecting it
> to relate to Dumbledore
> 

Hi, just joined the group and jumping into the discussion ... 

I suspect that Snape is not capable of casting a Patronus - can you
imagine that man having a happy memory?  Is there an example of him
successfully casting one?

Dorothy






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov  1 19:17:46 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 14:17:46 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] I See No Difference/Snape's Patronus/Potter Pronunciation
References: <eianpm+2aaf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008001c6fdea$6a940d20$f560400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 160809

> Pippin:
> It depends on what you mean by 'favors'. I think Snape wants a positive
> relationship with Draco and his family, which he thinks he can get
> by being soft on him. It works, at least as far as Narcissa goes, but
> fails with Draco himself, whom we see in HBP actually has little
> respect for the teacher he knows has indulged him.

Magpie:
I couldn't disagree more.  Draco shows consistent respect for Snape for 5 
years (which is why Harry himself is shocked to hear him speak to him 
disrespectfully).  His attitude in HBP has nothing to do with Snape being 
soft on him.  He's challenging one of his most respected father 
figures--just as Harry's anger at Dumbledore in OotP does not indicate that 
he's lost respect for him.  In both cases the relationship can handle an 
angry teenager spouting off when he's under pressure.  I don't think 
Dumbledore or Snape take that aspect to heart.  In Draco's case especially I 
think his anger at Snape was more to do with the non-softness that is 
Snape--he's a DE.  Imo Draco responds well to Snape because he's not 
soft--which doesn't mean he doesn't favor him.  But he favors him in a way 
that, imo, inspires respect in Draco, not contempt.  That, for me, adds to 
the emotional impact of their storyline in HBP for both of them.

Dorothy:
I suspect that Snape is not capable of casting a Patronus - can you imagine 
that man having a happy memory?  Is there an example of him successfully 
casting one?

Magpie:
I think every competent adult Wizard can cast a Patronus.  Since the Order 
uses Patronuses to communicate with each other, I think it's safe to assume 
Snape can do one.  Also JKR, iirc, said she couldn't reveal what Snape's 
Patronus was because it would give too much away, implying he has one.

Carol:
Carol, not sure how JKR pronounces "Accio" but perfectly happy with
"AK-kee-oh," which fits what she was taught once upon a time about Latin

Magpie:
I feel compelled to add a "hear hear" to this bit.  I don't know if my high 
school Latin is responsible for my own pronounciation as AK-kio all these 
years, but there they both are.

-m





From jelly92784 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 19:39:02 2006
From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:39:02 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <008001c6fdea$6a940d20$f560400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eiat4m+d6ip@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160810

Dorothy:
I suspect that Snape is not capable of casting a Patronus - can you 
imagine
that man having a happy memory? Is there an example of him successfully
casting one?

Magpie:
I think every competent adult Wizard can cast a Patronus. Since the 
Order
uses Patronuses to communicate with each other, I think it's safe to 
assume
Snape can do one. Also JKR, iirc, said she couldn't reveal what Snape's
Patronus was because it would give too much away, implying he has one.


Janelle: 
Just wanted to clarify something here: I don't have the books with me 
so sorry if I'm wrong, but I think that Lupin said something along the 
lines of "this is very advanced magic, there are grown wizards who 
cannot do this spell" to Harry when teaching him the patronus.

That said, considering JKR's comments about Snape's patronus I think 
it is likely that he can do it, unless of course she was just using 
the maddening 'if he could do it this is what it would be' thing!

Something interesting that caught my eye though is the idea of Snape 
being unable to think of happy memories.  I wonder if this has 
anything to do with his opinion differing from Harry's on the best way 
to attack dementors.  Maybe Snape is unable to think of a happy memory 
when influenced by the dementors because he does not have the strength 
of mind that Harry has, and so he sees another method as the best way 
to go....

Just some thoughts

Janelle





From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Wed Nov  1 19:49:50 2006
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:49:50 -0000
Subject: Hermione's Hex ...
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610310629u79949f97q7fe11a311313b1fa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eiatou+s9jc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160812

> As far as Marietta knows, no-one who hasn't seriously broken the law
> will ever find themselves on the wrong side of a Dementor.

I don't have PoA on hand at the moment, but didn't Dumbledore hand out 
warnings at the welcome feast against tangling with the dementors, 
because the dementors wouldn't care about friend or foe?

And why wouldn't Marietta have been at, or at least heard about, the 
Gryff v 'Puff Quidditch match that year? You remember, the one where a 
horde of dementors showed up? That can't have been pleasant for anyone, 
and the dementors were the direct cause of one of the players taking a 
fifty-foot fall that could easily have broken his neck, if not killed 
him.

MercuryBlue





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  1 20:48:44 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:48:44 -0000
Subject: Names wordplay and flowers
In-Reply-To: <eiaheu+rbqh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib17c+47nq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160813

> Dorothy:
> Hi, just joined the group and jumping into the discussion ... 
> 
> I suspect that Snape is not capable of casting a Patronus - can you
> imagine that man having a happy memory?  Is there an example of him
> successfully casting one?

Eddie:
Love the question!  How about that one brief moment when Snape thought
he finally had Sirius where he wanted him (at the end of PoA when he
believed Sirius was going to be soul-sucked by the Dementors)?

Maybe this is why Harry disagrees with Snape as to what's the best way
to counter a Dementor?  This is mentioned in passing in OotP, right
after Harry took his O.W.L. in Defense Against the Dark Arts.

Eddie





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov  1 21:14:22 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:14:22 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation WAS:Re: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency"
In-Reply-To: <eiabi5+cg7g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib2ne+i6o6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160814

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charles Walker Jr" <darksworld at ...> wrote:

Potioncat:
> > Does anyone have quibbles with the way names or spells are 
> pronounced 
> > in the Audio-Books?

> Charles:
> Not me! I have all 6 of the Stephen Fry read UK versions. To me, his 
> pronunciations of words from the Potterverse are the closest thing to 
> an official pronunciation guide that we have. That thing on 
> Scholastic's website pronounces things differently than I have seen 
> JKR do in interviews-so I'm thinking that that thing isn't quite JKR 
> level canon. Fry however has met with JKR on at least a few occasions 
> and done at least one interview with her, and the only change I've 
> noticed from one to six was a slight (barely noticeable) alteration in 
> how he said the word "Azkaban." 

> Of course this has given over to a pet peeve with the movie: the 
> pronunciation of the "accio" spell. They give it the sound "ACK-ee-
> oh". That thing on the Scholastic website pronounces it "ASS-ee-oh". 
> Fry pronounces it with the much more sensible "AKS-ee-oh" reminiscent 
> of the word access (wherefrom I think it is possible the spell came).
 
> Charles, who cringes every time that spell comes up in the GOF movie.

Geoff:
Curiously, although I haven't heard Stephen Fry reading - and I am a great 
Fry fan - I would cringe to hear his pronunciation of "accio".

"Accio" in Latin means 'to send for' or 'to summon'.

I was taught formal Latin pronunciation - which, for example differs from 
"church" Latin - and always uses a hard "c". Hence for me,  "Akk-ee-o has 
got to be the much more sensible version. 











From tenorone2000 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 17:14:06 2006
From: tenorone2000 at yahoo.com (Rashi)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:14:06 -0000
Subject: Greetings From Israel  Fellow Wizards & Witches
Message-ID: <eiakku+3h6u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160815


Good Evening My Fellow Hogwarts Graduates!

I'm Rashi and I'm a huge Potter fan with a question to ponder. I
subscribe to www.wizardnews.com <http://www.wizardnews.com>  , which to
me is a prime source to many Potter oriented rumors. One subject
discussed was "after Potter", meaning, what happens after book 7 (in
case Harry isn't killed off)? Will the saga continue or do you think
that no matter what happens, our favorite book will end?

What do you all think?



Rashi Rosenzweig

Ra'anana, Israel





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





From srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 17:13:03 2006
From: srgalactica1982 at yahoo.com (srgalactica1982)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 17:13:03 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation WAS:Re: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency"
In-Reply-To: <037401c6fdd1$0b6ef0d0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>
Message-ID: <eiakiv+amim@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160816

> >>Stacey:
>> I've heard Years 1-5 as read by Jim Dale (an Englishman I believe) and there were a few pronunciations that bugged me but only one comes to mind at the moment.
>> <snip>
>> I think I prefer the latter pronunciation because it is closer to the French "mort" in which the "t" is silent and because the pronunciation of the final plosive t, especially with our Yank pronunciation, sounds really awkward and nerdy. <<

srgalactica1982:
I've been with this group for a bit, but haven't posted anything
until now. I read a JKR interview where she specifically said
that 'Voldemort' was pronounced with a silent 't'. I often wonder how much the movie producers discussed with JKR on pronounciations.

> >>Stacey:
>> <snip> My biggest cringe in the movie version of GOF is Voldemort's "crucio" on Harry. << <snip>

srgalactica1982:
Yes. I too, cringe everytime I hear Voldy's 'crucio' on Harry. It
just sounds so weird.




From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 21:27:43 2006
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:27:43 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eiat4m+d6ip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib3gf+jfb0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160817

Janelle wrote:
Something interesting that caught my eye though is the idea of Snape
being unable to think of happy memories. I wonder if this has
anything to do with his opinion differing from Harry's on the best 
way
to attack dementors. Maybe Snape is unable to think of a happy memory
when influenced by the dementors because he does not have the 
strength
of mind that Harry has, and so he sees another method as the best way
to go....

ibchawz responds:
Casting the Patronus Charm when you are safe and secure appears to 
be much easier than when you are facing dementors.  Perhaps Snape 
could use a messenger patronus, but not produce a sufficiently 
powerful patronus when facing the dementors.

I have wondered why JKR did not explain Snape's approach to fighting 
dementors. Either this must somehow link to book 7 or is not 
important to the plot other than to, once again, show that Harry and 
Snape do not see eye to eye.  Since the dementors seem to feed off 
memories, perhaps a "superb" occlumens could prevent the dementors 
from feeding on his memories.  If Snape could completely close his 
mind, maybe the dementors could not even sense that he was present.

ibchawz





From golden_faile at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 21:31:21 2006
From: golden_faile at yahoo.com (golden_faile)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:31:21 -0000
Subject: James' and Lily's gold
In-Reply-To: <eianl1+6ao4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib3n9+5bsn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160818

I think I asked that question about a year ago.... lol. It would 
stand to reason that they do (at least some form of it), since they 
have a bank... it surely would explain where a newly-wed couple, 
just barely out of school and with a one year old, came by all of 
that money.


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> > montims:
> > Do wizards have insurance?  Quite apart from that, all the money 
James
> > inherited had sat untouched in the Grigotts vault for 11 years,
> acquiring
> > interest...
> 
> Eddie:
> Do the Gringotts' goblins pay interest?  Since it is a bank, I 
assume
> that they do, but this seems inconsistent with the goblin telling
> Harry that they only check the vaults about once every 10 years. 
> (Harry had asked how often they look to see if somebody got 
trapped in
> one.)  How is the interest paid then?
> 
> Lots of possible speculation to follow here without any canon:
> 
> * Do the goblins pay interest at all? (Seems contrary to goblin
> personality)
> 
> * Do the goblins pay interest on the contents of vaults, or are the
> vaults like safety deposit boxes in Muggle banks -- privately 
secure
> contents, but not opened by bank employees nor is interest paid
> 
> * If they do pay interest, is the interest inserted into the vault
> magically?
> 
> * If they do pay interest, then the goblins would need to know the
> exact value (or count of) the contents.  Right?
> 
> * What was the interest on the Philosopher's Stone?
> 
> OK, I guess I'm persuading myself that there was no interest paid 
on
> the Potter's wealth.  But maybe I'm wrong.
> 
> Eddie, who has often wondered why Harry thinks he has no Muggle 
money,
> only Wizarding money.  (I think this came up at the beginning of
> Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry ran away from Privet Drive and was
> pondering what to do next.)  Harry could probably have gone to
> Gringott's and exchanged Wizarding money to Muggle.  Recall that
> Hermione's parents went to Gringotts and were exchanging Muggle to
> Wizarding money.
>






From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 20:07:35 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 12:07:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Patronus
Message-ID: <20061101200735.68550.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160819

Dorothy:
I suspect that Snape is not capable of casting a Patronus - can you imagine that man having a happy memory? Is there an example of him successfully casting one?

Magpie:
I think every competent adult Wizard can cast a Patronus. Since the Order uses Patronuses to communicate with each other, I think it's safe to assume Snape can do one. Also JKR, iirc, said she couldn't reveal what Snape's Patronus was because it would give too much away, implying he has one.

Janelle: 
That said, considering JKR's comments about Snape's patronus I think it is likely that he can do it, unless of course she was just using 
the maddening 'if he could do it this is what it would be' thing!

============================
Jeremiah
Didn't someone mention in the books that all the members of the Order were capable of producing a Patronus? It is the way they communicate, isn't it? I would think that this would logically conclude that Snape can produce one. The question is: What kind of Happy Thought could Snape have? The day Voldemort was banished? (assuming he was glad to see V go). The day he was appointed to Hogwarts? Quite possibly it's something that we will learn about in the last book. :) That would be fun.

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





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov  1 21:38:00 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:38:00 -0000
Subject: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency" (Was: Names wordplay)
In-Reply-To: <eiaf3c+j5o5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib43o+7osv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160820

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:

SSSusan:
> I do, yes.  Jim Dale pronounces Alicia Spinnet as "Ah-LEE-see-ah" but 
> pronounces Lucius Malfoy as "LU-shuhs."  Shouldn't it be LU-see-uhs" to 
> be consistent with the Alicia pronunciation?  Or am I just nuts?
> 
> The spell I struggle with is "accio."  I've always prounounced it "AH-
> see-oh" but I know some pronounce it "ACK-ee-oh."  If I'm not mistaken, 
> in TMWSNBN (the GoF one), Harry says the "ACK-" version during the 1st 
> task, but someone (Harry? someone else?) says the "AH-see" version 
> later.  The "ACK-" version makes sense if one considers the 
> word "accelerate," but somehow I've latched onto the "AH-see-oh."  I 
> see that the Scholastic pronunciation guide agrees with me.

Geoff:
Aren't the current set of threads regarding etymology and pronunciation 
bringing a breath of fresh air to the group?

We're not for ever focussing on Snape or Horcruxes or Harry's possible 
death. We're not being treated to "table tennis matches" where different 
contributors keep hammering the same point in the hope beloved of 
politicians that if something is said often enough, it will be true.

We are exchanging views in a genteel and civilsed way and demonstrating 
how erudite and wide-ranging our various backgrounds are.

Just taking up your points above, Susan, I go for Lu-see-uss as you do, 
mainly because I've seen posts linking Lucius etymologically with Lucifer.

As regards Accio, I've alreay commented on that one.





From kennclark at btinternet.com  Wed Nov  1 21:33:27 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:33:27 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation WAS:Re: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency"
In-Reply-To: <eib2ne+i6o6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib3r7+8mgq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160821

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Geoff Bannister wrote:
>> I was taught formal Latin pronunciation - which, for example differs from "church" Latin - and always uses a hard "c". Hence for me,  "Akk-ee-o has got to be the much more sensible version.

Ken writes:  As a Scot I have always pronounced it as we do the "ch"
in "loch" - a-ch-ee-o with the ch sounding like you are clearing your
throat.  Given where JKR lives I suspect that might be a close
approximation to what she had in mind.  But has anyone asked her?

Kenneth Clark






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 22:30:27 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:30:27 -0000
Subject: Hermione and Ron (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione)
In-Reply-To: <ei94vc+s231@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib763+ljo6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160822

> >>Eddie:
> I think it's fair to point out there wouldn't have been any DA at all
> if it weren't for Hermione.  It was her idea to begin with.  It was
> she who persuaded Harry to teach it.  And it was she who got all    
> those people to come to the first meeting.

Betsy Hp:
Oh absolutely!  The DA was a masterful idea, and Hermione deserves 
full marks for thinking it up, IMO.  However, she's not very good when 
it comes to actual people.  I think it would have been a good idea to 
bounce her ideas off of Ron at least.  (Harry was at his most 
unapproachable, for quite legitimate reasons, and when Harry is upset 
he intimidates the heck out of Hermione.)  

I couldn't say for sure (obviously) that Ron would have nixed the 
hexed contract idea, but he might have.  At the very least I think 
he'd have made sure people had an idea of what they were signing. (Ron 
has a pretty good sense of fair play.)  And he might have come up with 
a slightly more sophisticated recruiting method.  And he'd have 
probably insisted that Harry have a better idea of what to expect at 
the Hogs Head meeting.  (Ron is not as easily intimidated by Harry.)

That's what I meant about Hermione being put on a leash.  Which, yeah, 
sounds a bit more negative than I honestly mean.  Basically Hermione 
needs to realize that she's not the best at *everything*.  There are 
some things Ron is better suited for, like working with people.  
(Something I think Ron needs to figure out as well.)

So I guess I feel that Ron needs to build himself up and Hermione 
needs to deflate a bit.  Achieve a golden mean I suppose.  

> >>Eddie, who doesn't want to stir up this dread thread any further...
> who doesn't have any strong opinion either way about Hermione... who
> just wanted to give Hermione her due... who probably spends far too
> much of his Real Life discussing the details of fictional magical
> teenagers... who just can't help himself!

Betsy Hp, who thinks you just described the siren song of HPfGUs. <g>





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  1 22:54:54 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:54:54 -0000
Subject: Greetings From Israel  Fellow Wizards & Witches
In-Reply-To: <eiakku+3h6u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib8ju+tf53@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160823

> Rashi:
> One subject
> discussed was "after Potter", meaning, what happens after book 7 (in
> case Harry isn't killed off)? Will the saga continue or do you think
> that no matter what happens, our favorite book will end?
> 
> What do you all think?

Eddie:
Welcome Rashi!  Have you read the series in English?  Insights that
can be gleened from non-English versions would be most interesting.

As to your question: JKRowling said that she wouldn't write anymore
beyond the series, except perhaps an encyclopedia of the Wizarding
World and perhaps some tangental books for charity like she did for
"Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find
Them".

But what does she know about it?

Like the Star Trek universe, there is a lot of money to be made from
spin-offs and creative activity (movies, television, books,
conventions, etc) even if JKRowling doesn't directly write anything
herself.  There will be a lot of pressure to create something --
anything -- that continues to be profitable.  Like Walt Disney's
creation of "Mickey Mouse", an empire can be built long after there
aren't any more cartoons made starring Micky Mouse.

You'll know if my prophecy is right if you see a Harry Potter hotel or
restaurant: sleep in the Gryffindor suite, eat in the Great Hall
dining room, and order for dinner the House Elves Special.

Eddie





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  1 22:57:45 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 22:57:45 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eib3gf+jfb0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eib8p9+pajk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160824

> ibchawz:
> Since the dementors seem to feed off 
> memories, perhaps a "superb" occlumens could prevent the dementors 
> from feeding on his memories.  If Snape could completely close his 
> mind, maybe the dementors could not even sense that he was present.

Eddie:
That would be roughly consistent with Sirius' ability to fool the
dementors at Azkaban by transforming into a dog: they sensed something
there but nothing that they were interested in.

Eddie






From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 23:25:31 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 23:25:31 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <20061101200735.68550.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eibadb+8pol@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160825

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, J <tidblgr72 at ...> wrote:
>
>Jeremiah
> Didn't someone mention in the books that all the members of the 
Order were capable of producing a Patronus? It is the way they 
communicate, isn't it? I would think that this would logically 
conclude that Snape can produce one. The question is: What kind of 
Happy Thought could Snape have? The day Voldemort was banished? 
(assuming he was glad to see V go). The day he was appointed to 
Hogwarts? Quite possibly it's something that we will learn about in 
the last book. :) That would be fun.
> 
Steven1965aaa:

I don't think there's any real doubt that Snape can cast a patronus.  
It's how the Order members communicate with one another and Snape is 
an extremely capable wizard. What we do know is that Harry disagrees 
with Snape about the best way to get rid of dementors, which tells us 
2 things: (1) there is more than one way (i.e. there is an alternative 
to the patronus charm) and (2) Snape thinks that the other way is 
better than the patronus charm.

But what I think is interesting is this --- why is Harry so good at 
casting a patronus?  Perhaps Snape's way is better for Snape, and 
Harry's/Lupin's way (patronus) is better for Harry. Maybe Harry is so 
adept at the patronus charm because its a "love" type spell -- in 
other words, you need some strong positive emotion to make it work 
really well.  Just like you have to really mean it to cast an 
unforgivable.  So that theory would mean that Snape could cast a 
patronus but he'd need a really good strong positive happy memory to 
cast a really strong patronus. Does he have a memory like that?  Who 
knows.  Maybe that type of thing is easier for Harry than for Snape.  
This all makes me wonder whether we will see dementors and that 
alternative method used in book 7.  Someone like Voldemort, for all 
his power, might not be able to cast a patronus nearly as powerful as 
Harry's. 





From elfundeb at gmail.com  Thu Nov  2 01:11:01 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 20:11:01 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0610301855u298bb6f3o9bc4a0b4ad14873d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <80f25c3a0610291813s5f185945w162468a5660a66c6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ei5fjt+9r2q@eGroups.com>
	 <80f25c3a0610301855u298bb6f3o9bc4a0b4ad14873d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0611011711l298d152bx2d9ab552b6664bc9@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160826

Snow
Could it be that the soul piece serves as a shield itself for Harry?
Some time back we had questioned if Harry could die, maybe he
couldn't; maybe this bit of Voldy acts as a shield.

Debbie:
I wouldn't count this out, but so far Harry's most valuable shield has been
his purity of heart, which protected him against Voldemort in PS/SS and GoF,
against Voldemort's attempted possession in OOP, and brought him Fawkes in
CoS.  As Dumbledore said, it's "[t]he only protection that can possibly work
against the lure of power like Voldemort's!  In spite of all the temptation
you have endured, all the suffering, you remain pure in heart . . . ."
There's no reason I can think of why that shield wouldn't protect Harry from
Voldemort's soul even if it were inside of him.

Snow:
The bits of Voldy soul that we have confronted so far have been
protected like a shield, which I always thought was due to a spell at
the time of encasement but maybe it is a born-in feature of the power
within the fragment. It may be a stretch but I don't think it's a far
stretch.

If this soul bit does act as a shield then anyone who attacks will
cause harm to themselves, such as the blackened hand with the ring.
So when Voldemort attacks Harry, he would essentially be attacking
himself but since it is a shield the AK would bounce back onto
himself like it did the first time around.

Debbie:
I tend to think that the protections are placed on the horcrux separately.
Thus, they are different for each one.  The diary may not have had any
protective curses on it, because Tom intended to allow certain people to
access the soul within.  If it did, Harry evaded them by using the basilisk
(which the diary was intended to showcase) to destroy it, with no damage
to himself at all.

Carol:
Since Deb was responding to my post, I hope it's okay for me to jump
in here and disagree with her.

Debbie:
Of course.  These aren't points that can be proven, after all, and I didn't
expect to persuade anyone who finds Harrycrux distasteful.  (I have my own
list of distateful theories, too.)

Carol:
IMO, the diary is the only Horcrux that contains a memory, in this
case specifically the memory of Tom Riddle's sixteen-year-old self,
which is much like a memory removed from Snape's or Dumbledore's head
and placed in a Pensieve. No part of their soul goes with it, it is
only an objective memory that others can enter (as opposed to a
subjective, written memory that a Muggle would enter into a diary).
The whole reason the memory is placed there is to interact with a
reader and perhaps show that reader Tom's "heroic" action in
apprehending the "culprit," Hagrid, and his monstrous friend.

No other Horcrux is intended to be interactive. They exist only to
house a soul bit and keep it earthbound. Soul bits do not in
themselves contain memories, IMO.

Debbie:
We don't have any real canon either way, so I can't prove that my opinion is
correct.  However, dictionary definitions of "soul" support the idea that a
soul includes memory.  From my desktop Websters:  "1.  an entity which is
regarded as being the immortal or spiritual part of the person and, though
having no physical or material reality, is credited with the functions of
thinking and willing, and hence determining all behavior  2. the moral or
emotional nature of man"  As our memories, i.e., our past influence our
thinking, our future actions and our moral perspective, memory seems
intertwined with the concept of soul.

There's also the fact that it is Riddle's memory that animates, or gives
life, to the diary, and I cannot help recalling that the latin root
contained in the word 'animate' means 'soul'.  Religious sources, such as
the one Tigerpatronus cited, also support this interpretation of the soul.

Carol:
As to why Harry thought he "knew" Tom Riddle from his childhood,
possibly that's part of the charm placed on the diary, something to
entice a reader into opening it and interacting with it. Ginny, an
eleven-year-old girl who wanted a confidante and loved the idea of a
diary, may not have needed such a spell, but how many schoolboys keep
a diary? There had to be some sort of charm on the diary to keep it
from being thrown away (rather like the hex or curse Ron mentions that
forces a person to keep reading a particular book).

Debbie:
That's a plausible explanation, too (though I like mine better) for why
Harry thought he "knew" Tom.  However, on the need to prevent the diary from
being thrown away, Ginny herself threw it away.

Carol:
As I say, soul bits and memories don't necessarily go
together, and Harry's sense of familiarity on encountering Tom
Riddle's name may have nothing to do with a real memory in himself. It
certainly is not an association between Tom Riddle and Voldemort.

Debbie:
I'm probably missing your meaning here, but why would Voldemort's soul bit
not be associated with Tom Riddle?  Despite all the magical transformations,
they are still one and the same, no?

Carol:
We need to remember the original reason that the diary was created, to
"carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." As Harry says, Tom didn't
want his efforts in finding and opening the Chamber of Secrets to go
for nothing. And as DD (IIRC) says, he wanted to be known as
Slytherin's Heir. Note the reactions of Tom's "friends" when Slughorn
says, "It couldn't be clearer that you come from good wizarding
stock." Their winking, nudging, and simpering indicate that they know
exactly which wizarding line Tom comes from.

Debbie:
IIRC, you've written a number of times that the diary was created first to
open the chamber and was made into a horcrux later.  I don't recall that the
timeline is that definitive; we know only that Riddle opened the chamber at
the end of his fifth year (when he was already 16, since we know he was born
in the winter).  He knew it wasn't safe to open the chamber and so created
the diary sometime after that, enclosing the memory he shows Harry in CoS,
to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work."  According to the Lexicon
timeline,

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline.php

he turned the diary into a horcrux the following September, having murdered
his father and grandparents in the summer.  There is no indication that he
had already encased the one memory into it.  Is there a particular bit of
canon you're relying on?  I tend to think that he created the ring as his
first horcrux, with very strong protective curses set around it, and then he
decided to experiment with his next horcrux in order to connect it very
clearly with Slytherin.  In a way, it is a statement that Riddle is as
powerful and creative a wizard as Salazar himself.

SSSusan:
What you're suggesting here -- that perhaps through possession of
Voldemort Harry could give back the soul bit -- would fit so very
nicely with that, I think! Harry, believing he needed to attempt to
possess Voldy and that in doing so he would give up his life, makes
up his mind to DO it. Doing it, however, results in the surprise
discovery that possessing Voldy "releases" the soul bit from Harry
and returns it to Voldy, allowing Voldy to be killed along w/ his
last soul bit *without* Harry's having to die.

Wow. Before now I have HATED the Harrycrux idea. With this
scenario, I actually like it very much.

Debbie:
Ooooh!  A convert!

What I like about this theory is that by returning a piece of Voldemort's
soul to his body, Harry doesn't have to die, and he would be restoring a
piece of Voldemort's humanity to him, perhaps lessening the pain Harry's
purity of heart causes him.

Debbie,
looking for a good acronym, but could only come up with --
Possessor Of Severed Soulbit Enters Salazar's Son, Horcrux Is Merged (
P.O.S.S.E.S.S. H.I.M.)


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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  1 23:42:53 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Patronus
Message-ID: <20061101234253.7292.qmail@web54508.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160827

Steven1965aaa:
Maybe Harry is so adept at the patronus charm because its a "love" type spell -- in other words, you need some strong positive emotion to make it work really well. Just like you have to really mean it to cast an unforgivable. So that theory would mean that Snape could cast a patronus but he'd need a really good strong positive happy memory to cast a really strong patronus. Does he have a memory like that? Who knows. Maybe that type of thing is easier for Harry than for Snape. This all makes me wonder whether we will see dementors and that alternative method used in book 7. Someone like Voldemort, for all his power, might not be able to cast a patronus nearly as powerful as Harry's. 

------------------------------

Jeremiah:
Well, if Voldemort can control the Dementors what do we really know about them? It has to be something more than what the Ministry believes. Not just rights or food... maybe, since they feed on human emotions, it is Snape's skill at blocking them? It would certainly deprive the Dementors of "food" and deter them. Hmm.. curious.





From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov  2 03:56:05 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 22:56:05 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione and Ron (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione)
References: <eib763+ljo6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00e901c6fe32$d2ea53f0$f560400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 160828

> Betsy Hp:
> I couldn't say for sure (obviously) that Ron would have nixed the
> hexed contract idea, but he might have.  At the very least I think
> he'd have made sure people had an idea of what they were signing. (Ron
> has a pretty good sense of fair play.)

Magpie:
I wonder if we're meant to see a parallel with the house elves.  Hermione 
hides hats all over and Ron uncovers them saying, "They ought to know what 
they're picking up."  Ron's respecting exactly the kind of personal freedom 
that Hermione prefers to work around because it's always difficult.

-m 





From k.coble at comcast.net  Thu Nov  2 03:51:12 2006
From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble)
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 21:51:12 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potter pronunciation
In-Reply-To: <eib2ne+i6o6@eGroups.com>
References: <eib2ne+i6o6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BE8F671C-3D9E-4542-AD52-707497824C0D@comcast.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 160829


While we're on the topic of pronunciation, would someone kindly  
enlighten me as to the correct pronunciation of Rufus Scrimgeour?

Not the "Rufus" part.  That I get.  It's the "Scrimgeour" part I'm  
stuck on.   I read it alternately as "Skrimjhur" or "Skrimgower".   
Which, if either, is correct?

Thanks,
Katherine



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 06:53:31 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 06:53:31 -0000
Subject: "I see no difference" and an analysis of Snape's Insults
Message-ID: <eic4lb+ne1f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160830

The recent discussion of Snape's "I see no difference" comment in GoF 
has caused me to notice something that I had never seen before. If he 
indeed was making a cruel remark about the usual appearance of 
Hermione's teeth, as the statement is usually interpreted, it 
constitutes a marked departure from Snape's usual practices. It is 
the only instance in canon that I can find in which Snape insults 
someone based on their physical appearance.
We have an excellent baseline of his usual practices, since he is 
always insulting someone. 

A list of Snape's preferred targets and the insults he uses:

Harry: enjoying his fame, attention seeking, arrogance,  inability to 
follow instructions on Potions/ Occlumency, being a thoughtless rule-
breaker, being a liar and a cheat
(No mention of his unruly hair, scar, or glasses).

Neville: being stupid, sloppy, and lazy in his work, incompetent
(No mention of his chubbiness).

Hermione: being an insufferable know-it-all, parroting textbooks
(No mention of the hair, no mention of having a cat's head, there is 
of course the `I see no difference' comment, which might be the sole 
exception to my proposed rule)

Ron: inability to Apparate
(No mention of his handmade or secondhand clothing)

Lupin: criticizes his teaching style and organization of his class
(No mention of his ragged clothing)

Sirius: implies he is a coward, and useless to the Order
(No mention of the complete change in his appearance)

Peter: calls him vermin. I take this is a reference to his Animagus 
form, which in the Potterverse says something about his character, 
not his external appearance.
(No mention of his looks).

Bellatrix: implies she is useless to Voldemort, and not the sharpest 
tool in the shed
(No mention of the complete change in his appearance)

Tonks: criticizes weakness of her Patronus

Draco: criticizes his actions in HBP as clumsy and foolish, implies 
he is being childish
(OK, Draco's appearance does not seem to be an available target, as 
he is well dressed, well-groomed, and at worst not handsome).

Why might this be? Well, one thing we see Snape do a lot is criticize 
the Marauders. I think an avoidance of appearance-based jokes is 
probably something that gives him a sense of superiority about 
himself. (They were certainly into that sort of humor, as he well 
knows). It is juvenile; and it is something over which people have no 
control. An awful lot of Snape's insulting is based on people's 
behaviors and actions.

This observation of mine makes me more open to an alternate reading 
of the `I see no difference' scene I first ran across, ages ago, on 
CoS forums. I couldn't say who originated it.

OK, here is the scene, with some comments by me:
> GoF:
> "And what is all this noise about?" said a soft, deadly voice.
> Snape had arrived. The Slytherins clamored to give their 
explanations; Snape pointed a > long yellow finger at Malfoy and 
said, "Explain."
> "Potter attacked me, sir -"
> "We attacked each other at the same time!" Harry shouted.

Snape arrives and wants an explanation for the commotion he observes. 
Draco and Harry provide it.

> "- and he hit Goyle - look -"
> Snape examined Goyle, whose face now resembled something that would 
have been at > home in a book on poisonous fungi.
> "Hospital wing, Goyle," Snape said calmly.

I wonder about the contrasting description of Snape's speech here and 
in the infamous final line. `calm' vs. `cold'. In whose opinion? That 
is not a difference I would expect to be able to tell from tone 
alone, I would need context to decide. So who is making this call? 
The narrator of the HP series has typically refrained from reading 
Snape's mind, so I tend to thin this is Harry's perception.

> "Malfoy got Hermione!" Ron said. "Look!"
> He forced Hermione to show Snape her teeth - she was doing her best 
to hide them with > her hands, though this was difficult as they had 
now grown down past her collar. Pansy > Parkinson and the other 
Slytherin girls were doubled up with silent giggles, pointing at > 
Hermione from behind Snape's back.
> Snape looked coldly at Hermione, then said, "I see no difference."

OK, the infamous line. What else could Snape mean by it, other than 
that Hermione has grotesquely large front teeth? Well, Ron is making 
a big deal out of the hex. He is pulling her to Snape, and forcing 
her to show her teeth. Perhaps Snape perceives that Ron is suggesting 
that she has suffered worse than Goyle (presently, Fungus-Face). He 
can, after all, see the problem for himself, since her teeth are now 
down to her collar.

If this is what he meant (he sees no difference in the two hexes 
used), I can't see him running down the hallway after Hermione to 
tell her he didn't mean it that way. If, in fact, Snape of the 
crooked, yellow teeth ever even noticed there was something notable 
about Hermione's. If not, he must wonder at her hysterical reaction 
to a fair assessment of the situation. Either way, he certainly would 
not tolerate being insulted in ways not suitable for a family 
audience by Harry and Ron.

--zgirnius, still not 100% convinced, but now finding that comment by 
Snape
odd.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov  2 07:27:23 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:27:23 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation
In-Reply-To: <BE8F671C-3D9E-4542-AD52-707497824C0D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <eic6kr+i3ch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160831

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble <k.coble at ...> wrote:
 
> While we're on the topic of pronunciation, would someone kindly  
> enlighten me as to the correct pronunciation of Rufus Scrimgeour?
> 
> Not the "Rufus" part.  That I get.  It's the "Scrimgeour" part I'm  
> stuck on.   I read it alternately as "Skrimjhur" or "Skrimgower".   
> Which, if either, is correct?
> 
> Thanks,

Geoff:
Personally, I would agree with your first version; Scrim-gee-er might 
be my transliteration. I see it as being of French origin.

The pronunciation guide almost agrees with that but I have indicated 
that I have reservations about a number of the versions it offers.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 09:19:44 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:19:44 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eiaf3c+j5o5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eicd7g+sfk9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160832

---  "cubfanbudwoman" <susiequsie23 at ...> wrote:
>
> Geoff:
> > > The pronunciation of Sirius is interesting. As a 
> > > UK English speaker, I would never rhyme Sirius with
> > > Serious. The former has a short 'i', the latter a 
> > > long one. 
>  

> 
> 
> SSSusan:
> I do, yes.  Jim Dale pronounces Alicia Spinnet as 
> "Ah-LEE-see-ah" but pronounces Lucius Malfoy as 
> "LU-shuhs."  Shouldn't it be LU-see-uhs" to be 
> consistent ...
> 

bboyminn:

Well, blow me down, I always said 'Alih-Ka', but now that 
you mention it, I suppose 'Ah-Lee-see-ah' probably is
correct, and perhaps 'Ah-lee-she-ah' might be a close
second.

> SSSusan:
> The spell I struggle with is "accio."  I've always 
> prounounced it "AH-see-oh" but I know some pronounce it
> "ACK-ee-oh."  ...  The "ACK-" version makes sense if one
> considers the word "accelerate," but somehow I've 
> latched onto the "AH-see-oh." ...
> 

bboyminn:

Upon looking in my dictionary, I find that nearly all 
words starting with 'ACC...' are neither 'Ah-See...' nor 
'ACK-ee..'. In the example you gave 'accelerate', it is a
combination of the two, as in 'ACK-see-oh'. So, I suspect
that true to common English pronunciation, indeed, 
'ACK-see-oh' is probably correct. However, I admit to
mentally saying 'Ah-see-oh' when I read it.

That does bring up the question that has already been 
discussed; for a spell, should we use common English, 
should we use /modern/ Latin, Church Latin, or Ancient
Latin? On one hand, if the vocalization is important 
then Ancient Latin would seem best, but the same spell
must work in other areas of the world where Latin is
not the base language. For example, perhaps Swahili is
the ancient language in Africa, and the very non-Latin 
ancient African root for 'summon' forms the intent of 
the spell. In south and southeast Asia, perhaps Sanskrit
is the ancient language upon which the root sound and 
effects are based. Given that, can spells evolve in the
way they are spoken? Does the ancient 'ATCH-ee-oh' or
'Akk-ee-o' remain, or has it evolved into the modern
'ACK-see-oh', and does it matter? Perhaps, slight 
variation do to modern French, Italian, and English
pronunciations don't matter if the core intent is 
there.

> Susan:
> ... I now know I was mispronouncing Felix Felicis [which
> I said as "FEH-lih-kuhs" instead of as "Feh-LEASE-us"] 
> and Knuts [which I said as "k'nuts" instead of as 
> "k'noots"]. :-> )  'Course, I'm not sold on this site 
> being totally correct.  Listen to "Madam Maxime" if you
> would, and look at their phonetics.  Makes no sense for
> a woman who's French.  They also *say* Mer-OH-pee but 
> the phonetics show MER-o-pe.
> 

bboyminn:

I disagree with a few of the pronunciation on the 
Scholatic website. I guess they should know what they are
talking about, but some of the pronunciation seem 
inconsistent with general common pronunciations, though I 
admit that may be because I am an American. Though I will
further note that some of their written pronunciation 
guides don't match their actual vocal pronunciations. 
Again, a lot of these hinge on the correct pronunciation
of the letter 'C'.

For example-

Felix Felicis - They say 'Fe-LICKS FE-lease-us', I say
'Fee-LICKs FE-Lih-see-us'. That is consistent with words
like 'felicitate'.

Knuts - as you point out, they write "k'nut" but they 
say 'ka-noot'. I say 'ka-nut'. In normal American
English the 'K' in 'KN...' is always silent, but that 
didn't seem appropriate for a work like 'Knut', so I 
left the 'k' sound on.

Sirius - the pronunciation guide in my dictionary doesn't
make a distinction between 'Sirius' and 'Serious', but I
think there is a very subtle difference. Sirius is
'SEAR-ee-us' or 'SEAR-ee-ihs', where as Serious is 
'sear-ee-OUS'. Just a slightly different accent and 
inflection at the end.

Madame Maxime - is completely mispronunced and misspelled.
They say and write 'MaxiNe'; note the 'N' instead of the
'M'. I say 'MAX-seaM'. The real problem is with her first
name which I believe is 'Olympe'. Having no experience 
with the French Language beyond French Toast and French 
Fries, I've never been sure about this one. I generally 
say 'OH-limp-ee' as if I were mispronuncing 'Olympia' but
without the 'A' at the end. I suppose if I tried to put 
some fancy sounding inflection on the end, it would be 
'OH-limp-ay'.

Rufus Scrimgeour - Again, it seems like a French
pronunciation would be correct, but we Americans have
never let that get in our way. I say, 
'ROO-fuss Scrim-gouwer' ('gouw' rhymes with 'cow' but with
a slightly elongated inflection, hence the 'ou', and with 
a 'g' not a 'j' sound).
 
> Susan:
> I do wonder whether JKR has ever stepped up to correct 
> Jim Dale or Stephen Fry if she's felt their 
> pronunciation was off.
> 
> Siriusly Snapey Susan
>

bboyminn:

To some extent, I'm not sure it is necessary. In daily 
life around the world we have slightly different ways
of saying the same thing. I have a friend named 'Schewe'
which could be reasonably pronounced 'Shew-EE' but since
it's German, the correct way is 'Shave-EE'; though never
'Chevy'. I have another friend 'Iten' who claims the
correct way of saying it is 'EE-chen', but will accept
'EYE-ten'. My point is  that if you carry your name (for
example) around the world, you are going to get regional
variations in the way it is pronounced.

Of course...just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Nov  2 12:05:14 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:05:14 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eibadb+8pol@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eicmtq+aihv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160833


> Steven1965aaa:
 What we do know is that Harry disagrees 
> with Snape about the best way to get rid of dementors, which tells 
us 
> 2 things: (1) there is more than one way (i.e. there is an 
alternative 
> to the patronus charm) and (2) Snape thinks that the other way is 
> better than the patronus charm.

Potioncat:
It really isn't too surprising that Lupin and Snape would have 
different opinions about how to tackle a Dementor. I wonder if Lupin 
knows both methods? I wonder if Snape discussed the pros and cons of 
the two methods with the class or if he simply taught the one method? 

I have no doubt that Snape can cast a Patronus. We don't really know 
why he teaches the other method. Maybe it's not the better of the two 
methods, but the easier for most students to learn well enough to 
really use? Or, it could be the other way around. It may be even 
harder to learn, but is better at repelling them. I would think that 
DDM!Snape would want his students to be able to resist Dementors in 
real life. 

Also, I would think Snape would have good reason to keep his 
Patronus's form a secret.


> Steven1965aaa:
> But what I think is interesting is this --- why is Harry so good at 
> casting a patronus?  Perhaps Snape's way is better for Snape, and 
> Harry's/Lupin's way (patronus) is better for Harry. 

Potioncat:
Harry seems to learn best when he is under stress. He had to learn to 
block Dementors, and he had a difficult time giving up "hearing his 
parents' voices" (just like he did with the dream in Occlumency) but 
he had to cast that charm to save Sirius. He had a difficult time 
with summoning charms--but he had to learn them for the 1st 
challenge. What he learns, he learns well.







From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Nov  2 12:17:18 2006
From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 12:17:18 -0000
Subject: Something I've been pondering.
In-Reply-To: <ei94gu+kdop@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eicnke+o11b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160834

Hi All,

Audrey replied to Catherine's post:
>>> Dumbledore does refer to Tom as Tom during the fight at the 
Ministry. I always loved that aspect of the scene.  I saw it as 
Dumbledore saying, "You may think you're Lord Big Stuff but as far 
as I'm concerned all you will ever be is Tom Riddle".<<<

The sense I got reading Dumbledore's use of Tom's name in this 
passage from the fight in the MoM was threefold. Firstly Dumbledore 
wants to remember that Voldemort isn't just an evil wizard, he wants 
to remember that there was a time when other futures were open to 
Tom. By using his childhood name Dumbledore is trying to remind 
himself and to remind Tom of that possibility. That's the bit about 
redemption. Secondly he may be reminding Harry that Lord Voldemort 
can be beaten by alluding, in Harry's mind, to Diary!Tom. And 
lastly, the one I felt most clearly was that Dumbledore wanted to 
undermine Tom. I am of an age where my wife Kate and I have to go 
into the (high) school our kids attend for parents' evenings and 
such. Even though I am now 41, have a doctorate in theoretical 
computer science, a successful job, and am over six foot tall I 
still feel slightly cowed by the experience of being in a school! 
I'm not quite myself and hence not quite as natural, not quite as 
effective. For Tom those feelings may well be more intense since for 
his school years Hogwarts was his 'home'. So by explicitly referring 
Tom back to those times, Dumbledore is hoping that Tom will be wrong-
footed, more nervous, more likely to make a mistake.

Dumbledore doesn't need to do that when talking about Tom to other 
wizards. Then Dumbledore's goal was to confront them with their 
fears and show them that even while acknowledging the danger posed 
by Lord Voldemort, one doesn't have to cow away from his name.

Cheers,

Dumbledad.






From mindy at 012.net.il  Thu Nov  2 05:53:43 2006
From: mindy at 012.net.il (mindyteddybear)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:53:43 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <20061101200735.68550.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eic157+2n7i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160835


> Dorothy:
> I suspect that Snape is not capable of casting a Patronus - can
you imagine that man having a happy memory? Is there an example of
him successfully casting one?
<SNIP>
> ============================
> Jeremiah
> Didn't someone mention in the books that all the members of the
>Order were capable of producing a Patronus? It is the way they
>communicate, isn't it? I would think that this would logically
>conclude that Snape can produce one. The question is: What kind of
>Happy Thought could Snape have? The day Voldemort was banished?
>(assuming he was glad to see V go). The day he was appointed to
>Hogwarts? Quite possibly it's something that we will learn about in
>the last book. :) That would be fun.


Hi, my name is Mindy. I have been following the posts but I have
never stuck in my ideas before. But I just wanted to say that what
makes a person happy depends on the person, I think. Snape might
think about the times he hurt Harry or was very unfair to someone
and for him that is a VERY happy memory. Just my idea. I really
enjoy reading all the different posts.
bye-bye
Mindy







From Aixoise at snet.net  Thu Nov  2 11:45:07 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 06:45:07 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
Message-ID: <05bf01c6fe74$589b6c00$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160836

Steve wrote:

<Madame Maxime - is completely mispronunced and misspelled.
They say and write 'MaxiNe'; note the 'N' instead of the
'M'. I say 'MAX-seaM'. The real problem is with her first
name which I believe is 'Olympe'. Having no experience 
with the French Language beyond French Toast and French 
Fries, I've never been sure about this one. I generally 
say 'OH-limp-ee' as if I were mispronuncing 'Olympia' but
without the 'A' at the end. I suppose if I tried to put 
some fancy sounding inflection on the end, it would be 
'OH-limp-ay'.>

Stacey:  Finally!  A post that I can respond to with the utmost certainty.
As a fluent speaker of French, (having lived there for some time, achieving
certification to teach the language and now married to Frenchman) I can tell
you that ?Olympe? would be pronounced ?oh-LEHMP?.  It is a frequent mistake
for Americans (and with lesser degrees of frequency- Kiwis, Aussies, Brits
and on the rarest of occasions, a purely-anglophone Canadian) to want to add
extra accents to French names and words, but for her name to be spelled the
way your pronunciations you suggest, it would either have to be written
?Olympie? or ?Olymp?,? respectively (note however that the ?y? is not
pronounced as you suggest in ?limp? but rather ?lemp?).  Maxime is
pronounced as you have surmised but with equal stresses on each syllable.  

Steve wrote:

<Rufus Scrimgeour - Again, it seems like a French
pronunciation would be correct, but we Americans have
never let that get in our way. I say, 
'ROO-fuss Scrim-gouwer' ('gouw' rhymes with 'cow' but with
a slightly elongated inflection, hence the 'ou', and with 
a 'g' not a 'j' sound).>

 

Stacey:  I?m not so sure that a French pronunciation is warranted but if a
francophone were to attempt it, I?m not sure if they would pronounce the
final s on Rufus and his last name would probably be along the lines of
?skrehm-jhoar?.  Again, I think this name is not French in derivation and
therefore I?m merely providing a guide to how the French would murder it
<grin>.

 

Stacey, who has to sigh at the mention of ?freedom fries? (don?t they know
they?re Belgian by invention, it?s just the ?cut? that makes them French?)
and wonders why the toast is not American since it is a much more popular
(and available) delicacy in the States. 





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





From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  2 07:57:38 2006
From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (Kayla Pittillo)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 01:57:38 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
Subject: Etymology of "Pensieve" (Was: JKR punning names )
Message-ID: <BAY104-DAV1C879E1BA1D07E8683C8CF1FF0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 160837

 > Carol, thinking that Pensieve is one of JKR's more clever puns and
> hoping that we'll see some "sieved" or "sifted" thoughts and memories
> in Book 7

Geoff:
This could link with what I wrote in 160719 earlier today about the fact
that an old word in English for "sieve" is "riddle" and wondered if Tom 
might get linked in here somewhere; with Harry dropping in on his 
thoughts from time to time, this could be interesting.

Kayla:
So is this the reason when people are referring to something filled with
holes they say riddled?
Maybe that's why Tom's name is Riddle; because it's prophetic of how he has empty spaces in his being, and isn't "whole"




From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Nov  2 13:43:54 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 07:43:54 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Etymology of 'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eicd7g+sfk9@eGroups.com>
References: <eiaf3c+j5o5@eGroups.com> <eicd7g+sfk9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611020543y1482d1deta056a28d83aec2ee@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160838

>
> bboyminn:
>
> Well, blow me down, I always said 'Alih-Ka', but now that
> you mention it, I suppose 'Ah-Lee-see-ah' probably is
> correct, and perhaps 'Ah-lee-she-ah' might be a close
> second.


montims:  just because I cannot resist joining in again on this topic - I
say aLI [like alip without the p] -see-ah and Loo-see-us

>
> bboyminn:
>
> Upon looking in my dictionary, I find that nearly all
> words starting with 'ACC...' are neither 'Ah-See...' nor
> 'ACK-ee..'. In the example you gave 'accelerate', it is a
> combination of the two, as in 'ACK-see-oh'. So, I suspect
> that true to common English pronunciation, indeed,
> 'ACK-see-oh' is probably correct. However, I admit to
> mentally saying 'Ah-see-oh' when I read it.


montims: still ATCH-ee-oh to me...

bboyminn:

>Felix Felicis - They say 'Fe-LICKS FE-lease-us', I say
>Fee-LICKs FE-Lih-see-us'. That is consistent with words
>like 'felicitate'.

montims: FAY-liks Fay-LEECH-is, though I realise I am probably the only
one...

bboyminn:
>Sirius - the pronunciation guide in my dictionary doesn't
>make a distinction between 'Sirius' and 'Serious', but I
>think there is a very subtle difference. Sirius is
>'SEAR-ee-us' or 'SEAR-ee-ihs', where as Serious is
>'sear-ee-OUS'. Just a slightly different accent and
>inflection at the end.

montis:
See now, that's a US/UK problem I think.  The difference is that of ill and
eel, pit and peat, sit and seat... To me, a big difference.  But then,
teaching English in Italy, I could never get them to hear the difference
between but and bat - the vowel sound to them was the same.  They really had
to concentrate when saying angry and hungry.

bboyminn:
>Madame Maxime - is completely mispronunced and misspelled.
>They say and write 'MaxiNe'; note the 'N' instead of the
>'M'. I say 'MAX-seaM'. The real problem is with her first
>name which I believe is 'Olympe'. Having no experience
>with the French Language beyond French Toast and French
>Fries, I've never been sure about this one. I generally
>say 'OH-limp-ee' as if I were mispronuncing 'Olympia' but
>without the 'A' at the end. I suppose if I tried to put
>some fancy sounding inflection on the end, it would be
>'OH-limp-ay'.
>
>Rufus Scrimgeour - Again, it seems like a French
>pronunciation would be correct, but we Americans have
>never let that get in our way. I say,
>'ROO-fuss Scrim-gouwer' ('gouw' rhymes with 'cow' but with
>a slightly elongated inflection, hence the 'ou', and with
>a 'g' not a 'j' sound).

montims:
Mac-seem Oh-lamp and Roo-fers SCRIM-jer


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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov  2 13:52:11 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:52:11 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <05bf01c6fe74$589b6c00$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>
Message-ID: <eict6b+unfg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160839

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stacey Nunes-Ranchy" <Aixoise at ...> wrote:

Steve:
> <Rufus Scrimgeour - Again, it seems like a French
> pronunciation would be correct, but we Americans have
> never let that get in our way. I say, 
> 'ROO-fuss Scrim-gouwer' ('gouw' rhymes with 'cow' but with
> a slightly elongated inflection, hence the 'ou', and with 
> a 'g' not a 'j' sound).> 

Stacey:  
> I'm not so sure that a French pronunciation is warranted but if a
> francophone were to attempt it, I'm not sure if they would pronounce the
> final s on Rufus and his last name would probably be along the lines of
> "skrehm-jhoar".  Again, I think this name is not French in derivation and
> therefore I'm merely providing a guide to how the French would murder it
> <grin>.

Geoff:
Adding a thought or two to my earlier comment, I think my pronunciation of 
Scrimgeour is also influenced by the similar vowel combination used in 
"gorgeous" - which incidentally is from Old French.

Looks from the above that Steve has a Dutch connection somewhere with 
the"ouw" suggestion.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov  2 14:09:17 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:09:17 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eicd7g+sfk9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eicu6d+qfpr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160840

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

bboyminn: 
> Upon looking in my dictionary, I find that nearly all 
> words starting with 'ACC...' are neither 'Ah-See...' nor 
> 'ACK-ee..'. In the example you gave 'accelerate', it is a
> combination of the two, as in 'ACK-see-oh'. So, I suspect
> that true to common English pronunciation, indeed, 
> 'ACK-see-oh' is probably correct. However, I admit to
> mentally saying 'Ah-see-oh' when I read it.

Geoff:
But, as you say, "nearly all" which covers a multitude of sins. 
What about the "Ack" words such as:
acclaim, acclimatise, accolade, accommodate, accompany, 
accomplice, accord, accost, account, accoutrement, accredit, 
accretion, accumulate, accurate, accuse, accustom plus all 
the variations on the above list?

Not to mention accio. :-)

> bboyminn:
 > Sirius - the pronunciation guide in my dictionary doesn't
> make a distinction between 'Sirius' and 'Serious', but I
> think there is a very subtle difference. Sirius is
> 'SEAR-ee-us' or 'SEAR-ee-ihs', where as Serious is 
> 'sear-ee-OUS'. Just a slightly different accent and 
> inflection at the end.

Geoff:
Most UK english speakers would say "SI-ri-us" for the name 
and "SEER-i-ous" for the adjective and they are easy to 
distinguish. There is no difference in the stress at the end, 
it is the length of the initial vowel which is the main factor.





From kennclark at btinternet.com  Thu Nov  2 13:34:44 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:34:44 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation
In-Reply-To: <eic6kr+i3ch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eics5k+7nb8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160841

> Katherine Coble wrote:
>
> > While we're on the topic of pronunciation, would someone kindly
> > enlighten me as to the correct pronunciation of Rufus Scrimgeour?
> >
> > Not the "Rufus" part.  That I get.  It's the "Scrimgeour" part
I'm
> > stuck on.   I read it alternately as "Skrimjhur"
or "Skrimgower".
> > Which, if either, is correct?
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> Geoff wrote:
> Personally, I would agree with your first version; Scrim-gee-er
might
> be my transliteration. I see it as being of French origin.
>
> The pronunciation guide almost agrees with that but I have
indicated
> that I have reservations about a number of the versions it offers.

Ken says;  Its scots again.  Its a scots surname from the Dundee area
pronounced  "skrimjur" in this neck of the woods.  There is even a
clan website for the name but, like so many other such names, it is
not a clan name originally.

Kenneth Clark







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 14:29:11 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:29:11 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eic157+2n7i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eicvbn+d4hp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160842

Mindy:
> Hi, my name is Mindy. I have been following the posts but I have
> never stuck in my ideas before. But I just wanted to say that what
> makes a person happy depends on the person, I think. Snape might
> think about the times he hurt Harry or was very unfair to someone
> and for him that is a VERY happy memory. Just my idea. I really
> enjoy reading all the different posts.
> bye-bye

zgirnius:
Hi Mindy! This is a good point. The memory (or thought, it can be a 
happy thought) does not have to be 'nice', it just has to make the 
user happy. For example, Harry cast the Patronus for extra credit on 
his DADA OWL by imagining that Umbridge was sacked.

On the other hand, we also have Rowling's assertion that Snape was 
loved. Memories of that person would presumably be happy ones in the 
more usual sense. Similarly, important milestones in his life-I would 
bet that Snape came to Hogwarts as a student with high hopes: he's 
getting away from what seems to have been a less-that-ideal family 
situation (a man yelling at a cowering woman while child!Snape cries 
nearby...), and he would be learning lots of magic, in which he seems 
to have already had an interest as a first year.

And, of course, if Dumbledore is right about Snape, the day he went 
to Dumbledore with his story about Voldemort and the prophecy, and 
was believed/trusted, would be another.

Just another thought about Snape and Patronuses: If he was completely 
unable to cast one, would he open himself up to a rather humiliating 
retort from a fellow Order member who must know, by criticizing 
the 'weakness' of Tonks'? She could have just replied, "At least *I* 
have one.







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov  2 14:35:05 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:35:05 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <008001c6fdea$6a940d20$f560400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eicvmp+of5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160843

> > Pippin:
> > It depends on what you mean by 'favors'. I think Snape wants a positive
> > relationship with Draco and his family, which he thinks he can get
> > by being soft on him. It works, at least as far as Narcissa goes, but
> > fails with Draco himself, whom we see in HBP actually has little
> > respect for the teacher he knows has indulged him.
> 
> Magpie:
> I couldn't disagree more.  Draco shows consistent respect for Snape for 5 
> years (which is why Harry himself is shocked to hear him speak to him 
> disrespectfully).  

Pippin:
I'm not so sure.
I agree that's Harry's PoV, but I think Draco had been sucking up to Snape 
the way Dudley was to Aunt Marge and for the same reason, to get favors. 
Draco being a better actor than Dudley,  Harry was taken in. I'm not so
sure that Snape was. I think Snape knew that Draco was trying to 
manipulate him, but felt, like Petunia, that being indulgent was the way 
to show love.  

Then, in HBP, Draco came under the spell of  the bigger bullies on the
playground  and didn't think he needed Snape any more, just when 
he actually needed him like never before.

Snape protests that he took the vow to help Draco, and I think that 
seemingly offhand explanation is the whole truth. Snape saw Draco 
about to be crushed between Dumbledore and Voldemort (neither 
being dragged into the arena nor choosing to enter, but sauntering 
in with the idiotic predatory instincts of a kitten who thinks
it's a jungle cat) and he had to do something. 

If there's an adolescent rebellion here, it might be Snape against 
Dumbledore. I can just imagine Dumbledore at his most infuriating
don't-worry-I-have-a-secret-planishness as Snape discovers that
Draco is being drawn into this plot, and Snape feeling that if he 
doesn't try to save Draco, nobody will.

Much as I'd prefer ACID POPS or a convoluted SpyGames! explanation
where Dumbledore's behind it all, this is a reason for the vow that
fits the parents and children theme. It also provides an explanation 
that Dumbledore could conceivably accept  without compromising
his trust in Snape. Dumbledore would accept that Snape risked
everything in a desperate attempt to save a child. 

In a way, the climax of Half-Blood Prince isn't the fall from the 
tower, it's what happens a moment later when the former Half-
Blood Prince grabs Draco by the scruff of the neck. I think that's 
the first honest interaction between them, and maybe the first 
step out of Snape's own very protracted adolescence. For that one 
moment, he's not playing any role, he's being who he truly is.

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 14:37:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:37:22 -0000
Subject: Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0611011711l298d152bx2d9ab552b6664bc9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eicvr2+hkk8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160844

Carol earlier:
> IMO, the diary is the only Horcrux that contains a memory, in this
> case specifically the memory of Tom Riddle's sixteen-year-old self,
> which is much like a memory removed from Snape's or Dumbledore's
head and placed in a Pensieve. No part of their soul goes with it, it
is only an objective memory that others can enter (as opposed to a
> subjective, written memory that a Muggle would enter into a diary).
> The whole reason the memory is placed there is to interact with a
> reader and perhaps show that reader Tom's "heroic" action in
> apprehending the "culprit," Hagrid, and his monstrous friend.
> 
> No other Horcrux is intended to be interactive. They exist only to
> house a soul bit and keep it earthbound. Soul bits do not in
> themselves contain memories, IMO.
> 
> Debbie:
> We don't have any real canon either way, so I can't prove that my
opinion is correct.  However, dictionary definitions of "soul" support
the idea that a soul includes memory.  From my desktop Websters:  "1.
 an entity which is regarded as being the immortal or spiritual part
of the person and, though having no physical or material reality, is
credited with the functions of thinking and willing, and hence
determining all behavior  2. the moral or emotional nature of man"  As
our memories, i.e., our past influence our thinking, our future
actions and our moral perspective, memory seems intertwined with the
concept of soul. <snip>

Carol again:
The problem is, there are many different conceptions of soul, and the
one you're quoting is somewhat medieval. Modern people, including
wizards, know that memories are in the mind. Otherwise, they couldn't
remove memories from their minds. And, as I said, Snape, Dumbledore,
and Slughorn remove memories from their minds with no damage to their
souls. The etymology of "Legilimency" and "Occlumency" both of which
relate to memories, ties them to mind, not soul. IMO, the memory (or
memories) that Tom placed in the diary are like those we see Snape and
Dumbledore taking from their heads and are separate from the soul bit
that was encased using a Horcrux-creating spell. If Dumbledore placed
a memory in a diary, even if he intended that memory to be read and
shared (like a Pensieve memory or the memory of Tom "catching"
Hagrid), would that memory be capable of possessing the reader? I
don't think so.

> 
Carol earlier:
> As to why Harry thought he "knew" Tom Riddle from his childhood,
> possibly that's part of the charm placed on the diary, something to
> entice a reader into opening it and interacting with it. Ginny, an
> eleven-year-old girl who wanted a confidante and loved the idea of a
> diary, may not have needed such a spell, but how many schoolboys
keep a diary? There had to be some sort of charm on the diary to keep
it from being thrown away (rather like the hex or curse Ron mentions
that forces a person to keep reading a particular book).
> 
> Debbie:
> That's a plausible explanation, too (though I like mine better) for
why Harry thought he "knew" Tom.  However, on the need to prevent the
diary from being thrown away, Ginny herself threw it away.

Carol again:

Sorry to be unclear. I meant a spell to keep the diary from being
thrown away unread, a spell to entice the reader to open the diary and
interact with it even after they discovered that the pages were blank.
How many people would keep a diary from fifty years ago with someone
else's name on it and (apparently) nothing written in it, especially
boys, who (these days) don't often keep diaries? We need to remember
the original purpose of the diary. Unless someone actually wrote in
it, the Basilisk would not be released.
> 
Carol earlier:
> As I say, soul bits and memories don't necessarily go
> together, and Harry's sense of familiarity on encountering Tom
> Riddle's name may have nothing to do with a real memory in himself.
It certainly is not an association between Tom Riddle and Voldemort.
> 
> Debbie:
> I'm probably missing your meaning here, but why would Voldemort's
soul bit not be associated with Tom Riddle?  Despite all the magical
transformations, they are still one and the same, no?

Carol again:
I meant there's no association in Harry's mind at this time between
Tom Riddle and Voldemort, so he wouldn't know just from the name whose
the diary was. Again, I think the sense that Tom Riddle is a friend
from his childhood has nothing to do with Harry's (or Tom's) memories.
I think it's the enchantment on the diary, the same enchantment that
Ginny succumbed to. She, too, thought of Tom as a friend--much more so
than Harry did.
> 
> Carol:
> We need to remember the original reason that the diary was created, to
> "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." As Harry says, Tom didn't
> want his efforts in finding and opening the Chamber of Secrets to go
> for nothing. And as DD (IIRC) says, he wanted to be known as
> Slytherin's Heir. Note the reactions of Tom's "friends" when Slughorn
> says, "It couldn't be clearer that you come from good wizarding
> stock." Their winking, nudging, and simpering indicate that they know
> exactly which wizarding line Tom comes from.
> 
> Debbie:
> IIRC, you've written a number of times that the diary was created
first to open the chamber and was made into a horcrux later.  I don't
recall that the timeline is that definitive; we know only that Riddle
opened the chamber at the end of his fifth year (when he was already
16, since we know he was born in the winter).  He knew it wasn't safe
to open the chamber and so created the diary sometime after that,
enclosing the memory he shows Harry in CoS, to "carry on Salazar
Slytherin's noble work."  According to the Lexicon
> timeline,
> 
> http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline.php
> 
> he turned the diary into a horcrux the following September, having
murdered his father and grandparents in the summer.  There is no
indication that he had already encased the one memory into it.  Is
there a particular bit of canon you're relying on? <snip>

Carol:
Tom says himself that he created the diary to carry on Salazar
Slytherin's noble work because he could no longer open the CoS
himself. (Surely I don't need to find the quote as it should be
thoroughly familiar to everyone on the list. Even the movie got that
one right.) I infer from those words that he made the diary right
away, before he murdered his parents. I agree with the Lexicon that he
murdered his parents the following summer, but he could not have made
a Horcrux until after the visit to Slughorn (in, IMO, his sixth year),
when he was wearing the ring, and even then he didn't have sufficient
information to create a Horcrux. He had the ring, which possibly had
powers, and the diary, a powerful magical object he had created
himself, and he had committed multiple murders. But "there is a spell.
Don't ask me!" hardly gives him the information he needed to perform
that spell. I think that he must have learned it either from
Grindelwald in 1945, before Dumbledore destroyed Grindelwald's Horcrux
(who else could the wizard be that both Tom and DD knew about who'd
made one Horcrux) or from Borgin and Burke's (or some book shop in
Knockturn Alley). All we know for sure is that he'd made at least one
and probably two Horcruxes before he murdered Hepzibah Smith for more
Horcrux objects and that he preferred powerful magical objects. As
Dumbledore said, the diary was proof that he was the Heir of Salazar
Slytherin and was as valuable to him as the ring or the cup. I infer
from that that it was already powerfully magical. Over and over again
in CoS we hear that its purpose was to release the Basilisk and kill
Muggleborns. That's what Tom told both Lucius Malfoy and Harry. I
think he made it into a Horcrux later, when he needed powerful magical
objects but at that time had only the diary and the ring.

At any rate, JKR is less than clear on the time frame and it's
possible that the Lexicon is correct, but its editors are speculating
and theorizing just like we are.

Carol, sure that memories and soul bits are distinct and that Harry
has not entered bits of Snape's or Dumbledore's soul







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 14:42:08 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:42:08 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eicu6d+qfpr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid041+ol26@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160845

> > bboyminn:
>  > Sirius - the pronunciation guide in my dictionary doesn't
> > make a distinction between 'Sirius' and 'Serious', but I
> > think there is a very subtle difference. Sirius is
> > 'SEAR-ee-us' or 'SEAR-ee-ihs', where as Serious is 
> > 'sear-ee-OUS'. Just a slightly different accent and 
> > inflection at the end.
> 
> Geoff:
> Most UK english speakers would say "SI-ri-us" for the name 
> and "SEER-i-ous" for the adjective and they are easy to 
> distinguish. There is no difference in the stress at the end, 
> it is the length of the initial vowel which is the main factor.
>

Alla:

Heee, I am soo enjoying reading this thread and finally found a place 
to stuck my two cents in.

In Russian I would also never rhyme Sirius and Serious, even though 
they do spell similarly, except "I" and "E", but this is not the 
difference between short I and long EEEE as in british English ( that 
is what it is, right Geoff? Same sounds but long?), but instead the 
difference between "I" and the sound "E" which for some funny reason 
almost no american speaker can pronounce correctly, because it is the 
same sounds as in my last name, hehe, which is "Peker", so it is a 
smooth sound.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Nov  2 14:44:42 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:44:42 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eicu6d+qfpr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid08q+v12k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160846

 
> Geoff:
> Most UK english speakers would say "SI-ri-us" for the name 
> and "SEER-i-ous" for the adjective and they are easy to 
> distinguish. There is no difference in the stress at the end, 
> it is the length of the initial vowel which is the main factor.


Potioncat:
Is it the same difference between pin and pen? We Southerners will 
insist upon asking for an ink pen because if we ask for a pen we 
might get a pin. (I grew up pronouncing get as git.)  Although my 
Yankee(as in Northerner) husband tells me that I pronounce pen and 
pin differently and properly, I cannot hear the difference. 

Now after all this, it's back to the buffalo. If Seamus and Ron and 
Hagrid and Draco all have different accents, how do they manage the 
spells? Or does it work just fine so long as they each pronounce 
accio consistently within their own speech patterns?

(Had to work canon in here somehow.) 






From jferer at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 14:53:13 2006
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:53:13 -0000
Subject: Potter pronunciation
In-Reply-To: <BE8F671C-3D9E-4542-AD52-707497824C0D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <eid0op+ll6v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160847

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble <k.coble at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> While we're on the topic of pronunciation, would someone kindly  
> enlighten me as to the correct pronunciation of Rufus Scrimgeour?
> 
> Not the "Rufus" part.  That I get.  It's the "Scrimgeour" part I'm  
> stuck on.   I read it alternately as "Skrimjhur" or "Skrimgower".   
> Which, if either, is correct?
> 
> Thanks,
> Katherine

FWIW, Jim Dale in the American audiobooks reads it "Skrimjhur," and so
would I. The presence of other vowels immediately after the "g" in an
unstressed syllable makes it so, I think, but I can't find a cite for
that just now.

Jim Ferer, who is annoyed every time he hears the "t" in Voldemort.





From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 14:05:06 2006
From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:05:06 -0000
Subject: Time travels and spin offs WAS: Re: Greetings From Israel  Fellow Wizards & Witches
In-Reply-To: <eib8ju+tf53@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eictui+o6p6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160848

> Eddie:
> Welcome Rashi!  Have you read the series in English?  Insights that
> can be gleened from non-English versions would be most interesting.
>
> As to your question: JKRowling said that she wouldn't write anymore
> beyond the series, except perhaps an encyclopedia of the Wizarding
> World and perhaps some tangental books for charity like she did for
> "Quidditch Through the Ages" and "Fantastic Beasts and Where To
Find
> Them".
>
> But what does she know about it?
>
> Like the Star Trek universe, there is a lot of money to be made
from
> spin-offs and creative activity (movies, television, books,
> conventions, etc) even if JKRowling doesn't directly write anything
> herself.  There will be a lot of pressure to create something --
> anything -- that continues to be profitable.  Like Walt Disney's
> creation of "Mickey Mouse", an empire can be built long after there
> aren't any more cartoons made starring Micky Mouse.
>
> You'll know if my prophecy is right if you see a Harry Potter
hotel or
> restaurant: sleep in the Gryffindor suite, eat in the Great Hall
> dining room, and order for dinner the House Elves Special.
>


I agree with you Eddie.

I think that JK's big mistake was incorporating the concept of time
travel in her novels. Even if she kills Harry off, in the future
someone could (theoretically)bring Harry back, make it look like his
death never happened, and have many more adventures. It wouldn't be
the same, since these 'spin offs' wouldn't have JK's touch of
genius, but it is possible.

Since time turners were created by wizards/witches once before,
thhey could be created again. Or there still could be some remaining
out in the wizarding community. All a future author would have to do
is have a character find (or create) one of these devices, undo
Harry's demise, and BAM they're free to take Harry and do with Harry
whatever they wish. Sad really.

I for one really don't think I'd ever pick up a 'spin off'. It would
be a huge insult to JK, the future author having stolen something
that is so much hers. The 'spin offs' wouldn't have her touch of
genius or her heart in them.

I love the idea of spending a night in Gryffindor Tower, eating in
the Great Hall and selecting room service from the House Elves'
menu! Hey you should have to tickle the pear in the portrait and
make it giggle to get into the restaurant! Hee Hee!

Jenni from Alabama









From sbejster at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 14:54:13 2006
From: sbejster at yahoo.com (sbejster)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:54:13 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Discussion
Message-ID: <eid0ql+p268@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160849

Hello.  My name is Sandra and I am new to this list.  I live in
Dearborn, Michigan and admit to any and all who will listen that I am
proud to be an adult Harry Potter fan.

I just joined the list this morning and noticed the discussion on
horcruxes, most especially the one regarding Harry.

Now, I have to say up front that I read the book immediately after
purchasing it that first day and haven't picked it up since so I could
be entirely mistaken about what I'm going to say (plus, when you've
only read a book once, you do tend to miss things).

My question is:  does anybody REALLY know that Harry contains that
last piece of Voldemort's soul?  I remember that he was supposed to be
the sacrifice for the last piece, but does anybody have any idea what
object the soul was supposed to go into with his sacrifice?  I mean,
wouldn't Voldemort have had to have the intended object with him when
he did the incantation and made the sacrifice?  Since it wasn't
actually completed properly (i.e.: he gets blown away and Harry
accidentally winds up with some part of him), maybe part of the soul
wound up in the inatimate object and part of it wound up in Harry, OR
most of it in the object and only an insignificant amount in Harry, OR
none in the object and an insignificant amount in Harry.

The last would mean that there were only six completed horcruxes and
not seven and Harry is completely safe and doesn't have to die for
Voldemort to die.

Again, I've just joined this list and these theories could have been
discussed in the past and discounted, but it's something I've been
wondering.


Sandra
Dearborn, MI






From darksworld at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 14:59:49 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:59:49 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eicvbn+d4hp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid155+4oj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160850

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
> If he was completely 
> unable to cast one, would he open himself up to a rather humiliating 
> retort from a fellow Order member who must know, by criticizing 
> the 'weakness' of Tonks'? She could have just replied, "At least *I* 
> have one.
>
Charles:
I'm convinced, he has one. The question is, what is it. Me being the 
Snape-hater that I am, I'd like to think it's a pygmypuff or a yorkie. 
Alas, as zgirnius points out, he does taunt Tonks. With JKR's 
reluctance to reveal his patronus, it makes me think that it would 
reveal his loyalties. Just to keep myself from having to run and hide 
from the Greasy Git Fan Club, I'll suggest first that it may be a 
phoenix, to represent DD. 

Now back to my regularly scheduled Snape bash: If Snape is a good guy 
(snort!) could his patronus possibly be a stag, representing a certain 
Marauder who saved his life? It would explain Snape's reluctance to 
deal with patronuses (patroni? Could one of you Latin experts help me 
out on this?)

If he's the evil git that I'm convinced he is, (I'm sure that his 
innocence in the previous books was a planned red herring for the end 
of book six.) his patronus might be a basilisk or other type of snake. 
I'm at a loss for what else it might be if he's ESE. Any ideas folks?

Charles, who woke up laughing this morning after a dream in which 
Snape's wand spit an attack yorkie at a flock of pissed off dementors. 






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 15:24:51 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:24:51 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eid155+4oj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid2k3+krgj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160851

> Charles:
> I'm convinced, he has one. The question is, what is it. Me being 
the 
> Snape-hater that I am, I'd like to think it's a pygmypuff or a 
yorkie. 
> Alas, as zgirnius points out, he does taunt Tonks. With JKR's 
> reluctance to reveal his patronus, it makes me think that it would 
> reveal his loyalties. Just to keep myself from having to run and 
hide 
> from the Greasy Git Fan Club, I'll suggest first that it may be a 
> phoenix, to represent DD. 

Alla:

Don't worry Charles, we will run together :) There are too few of us 
left standing, so any addition welcome, hehe.

Yes, he does have Patronus, but the possibility of Snape casting 
Patronus that is based on the memory, which is happy for him opens up 
sooo many possibilities - as in Snape being happy remembering James 
being dead, or now he can add dead Dumbledore to his collection of 
happy memories.

> Charles:
<SNIP>
> Now back to my regularly scheduled Snape bash: If Snape is a good 
guy 
> (snort!) could his patronus possibly be a stag, representing a 
certain 
> Marauder who saved his life? It would explain Snape's reluctance to 
> deal with patronuses (patroni? Could one of you Latin experts help 
me 
> out on this?)

Alla:

Heeee, same Patronus as Harry has? Would be funny.

Charles: 
<SNIP>
>> If he's the evil git that I'm convinced he is, (I'm sure that his 
> innocence in the previous books was a planned red herring for the 
end 
> of book six.) his patronus might be a basilisk or other type of 
snake. 
> I'm at a loss for what else it might be if he's ESE. Any ideas 
folks?

Alla:

That would be nice, woudn't it? For six books JKR kept beating in our 
heads that Harry is wrong, wrong, wrong, and then  here we go.

If he is evil, I can see Voldemort being his patronus for example :)

For something less erm
 monumental, how about a cockroach or a bat?


 
> Charles, who woke up laughing this morning after a dream in which 
> Snape's wand spit an attack yorkie at a flock of pissed off 
dementors.

Alla:

LOLOL







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 15:52:38 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:52:38 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eicd7g+sfk9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid486+l5di@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160852

> > SSSusan:
> > I do, yes.  Jim Dale pronounces Alicia Spinnet as 
> > "Ah-LEE-see-ah" but pronounces Lucius Malfoy as 
> > "LU-shuhs."  Shouldn't it be LU-see-uhs" to be 
> > consistent ...
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Well, blow me down, I always said 'Alih-Ka', but now that 
> you mention it, I suppose 'Ah-Lee-see-ah' probably is
> correct, and perhaps 'Ah-lee-she-ah' might be a close
> second.

Carol responds:
In English, "c" is usually soft before "i" or "e" and hard before "a",
"o", and "u." Geoff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that
the Brits would say "LU-sees-us" and "A-LEE-see-uh." Americans,
however, tend to run "cius" and "cia" together into a single syllable,
"LU-shus" and "A-LEE-shuh." I've never heard of "cia" or "cius" being
pronounced with a hard "c" in modern English though the Romans may
have done so.

> bboyminn:
> 
> Upon looking in my dictionary, I find that nearly all 
> words starting with 'ACC...' are neither 'Ah-See...' nor 
> 'ACK-ee..'. In the example you gave 'accelerate', it is a
> combination of the two, as in 'ACK-see-oh'. So, I suspect
> that true to common English pronunciation, indeed, 
> 'ACK-see-oh' is probably correct. However, I admit to
> mentally saying 'Ah-see-oh' when I read it. <snip>

Carol responds:
I've already given my view that "c" was hard in Latin (except possibly
before "i"). The hard "c" followed by a soft "c" is a possible
pronunciation if JKR is thinking of English rather than Latin and the
"ch" pronunciation is possible if she's thinking of Church Latin. But
I can't think of a single instance in which double "c" is pronounced
"ss." (BTW, even though my name starts with a "c", I tend to think of
"c" as a superfluous letter, rather the way the English used to think
of "zed" or "z," which actually has its own specific sound and is in
no way redundant even though the "z" sound is sometimes spelled with
an "s." IMO, "c" ought to represent "ch" instead of duplicating "s"
and "k" and confusing everybody. The Romans didn't have a "k", so for
them, "c" served a purpose. End OT rant!)
> 
> > SSSusan:
> > ... I now know I was mispronouncing Felix Felicis [which
> > I said as "FEH-lih-kuhs" instead of as "Feh-LEASE-us"] 
> > and Knuts [which I said as "k'nuts" instead of as 
> > "k'noots"]. :-> )  

Carol:
Funny. I think that "Felix Felicis" *ought* to be pronounced more or
less as you pronounced it (with a hard "c"), but in my head it's Felix
"Feh-LISS-us." The "i" ought to have an "ee" sound either way, I
think--rather like the way "i" is pronounced in Spanish today. I think
the accent would be on the second syllable regardless. (Maybe Geoff
can remind us of the rules for accented syllables. I've forgotten them.)
> 
> bboyminn:
<snip>
> Knuts - as you [SSS] point out, they write "k'nut" but they 
> say 'ka-noot'. I say 'ka-nut'. In normal American
> English the 'K' in 'KN...' is always silent, but that 
> didn't seem appropriate for a work like 'Knut', so I 
> left the 'k' sound on.

Carol responds:
I think the website is right on this one. It's supposed to remind the
(English) reader of King Canute, he who supposedly ordered the waves
to obey him and got his feet wet to show a courtier that he wasn't
all-powerful. 

"Merry sungen the monkes in Ely
When Cnut King rowed thereby.
Row, cnichts, near the land
And hear we these monkes sing."

"Cnicht" or "knicht" was pronounced with an audible "k" and a gutteral
"ch." I believe this pronunciation was retained in Scots dialect. as
indicated by "Up and spak an eldern knicht, Sat at the king's richt
kne:" and so forth in "Sir Patrick Spens."

So "knut"/"Canute" makes sense to me (though I confess to pronouncing
it "nuts," with a short "u" and a silent "k" until I heard the
pronunciation on the website some time ago and made the connection). A
little private joke of JKR's, I suppose.

bboy: 
> Sirius - the pronunciation guide in my dictionary doesn't
> make a distinction between 'Sirius' and 'Serious', but I
> think there is a very subtle difference. Sirius is
> 'SEAR-ee-us' or 'SEAR-ee-ihs', where as Serious is 
> 'sear-ee-OUS'. Just a slightly different accent and 
> inflection at the end.

Carol:
As an American, I have Sirius problem with this one <wink>--not with
the accented syllable, which I'm sure is the first, or with the final
vowel, which I'm sure is a schwa (unaccented neutral vowel sounding
like "uh"), but with the initial vowel, which Brits say is different
from the long "es" sound in "serious." Can anyone give me a word with
a short "i" sound *followed by r* rather than some other consonant
that represents the "i" in "serious"? I think maybe the problem is
with "serious" itself being pronounced rather differently by Brits and
Americans. My gut feeling (probably wrong) is that Americans pronounce
both "serious" and "Sirius" the way that Brits pronounce "Sirius," and
the Brits pronounce "serious" with a stronger, longer "ee" sound. I'm
thinking that the first syllable of "cirrus" (as in cirrus cloud)
illustrates the sound I hear in both "serious" and "Sirius." Is that
what anybody else hears?

At any rate, not hearing the difference makes it difficult for me to
appreciate the Prime Minister's mispronunciation, "Serious Black."
It's not funny to me because I see, erm, hear no difference.

bboy:
> Madame Maxime - is completely mispronunced and misspelled.
> They say and write 'MaxiNe'; note the 'N' instead of the
> 'M'. I say 'MAX-seaM'. The real problem is with her first
> name which I believe is 'Olympe'. Having no experience 
> with the French Language beyond French Toast and French 
> Fries, I've never been sure about this one. I generally 
> say 'OH-limp-ee' as if I were mispronuncing 'Olympia' but
> without the 'A' at the end. I suppose if I tried to put 
> some fancy sounding inflection on the end, it would be 
> 'OH-limp-ay'.

Carol:
I'll leave authoritative discussion of this one to the people who took
French rather than Latin as their foreign language. I think, though,
that it's "muh-DAHM Max-EEM" and something like "oh-LAMP." So, IMO,
movie!Hagrid isn't too far off (unlike book!Hagrid, whose "bong sewer"
even I found funny).
> 
bboy:
> Rufus Scrimgeour - Again, it seems like a French
> pronunciation would be correct, but we Americans have
> never let that get in our way. I say, 'ROO-fuss Scrim-gouwer'
('gouw' rhymes with 'cow' but with a slightly elongated inflection,
hence the 'ou', and with a 'g' not a 'j' sound).

Carol:
I don't know about French, but in English, "g" follows the same rules
as "c": If it's followed by "e" or "i," it's soft. If it's followed by
"a", "o", or "u", it's hard. Compare "giraffe" and "gorilla," for
example, or "gelatin" and "gum." So, IMO, "geour" would be pronounced
"jur" or "zhur." I very much doubt that it's pronounced "gower."

Carol, with apologies for having been an English teacher for so long
and stepping out of McGonagall mode





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 16:17:31 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:17:31 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eicvbn+d4hp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid5mr+9sp3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160853

zgirnius wrote:
> <snip> The memory (or thought, it can be a happy thought) does not
have to be 'nice', it just has to make the user happy. For example,
Harry cast the Patronus for extra credit on his DADA OWL by imagining
that Umbridge was sacked.
> 
> On the other hand, we also have Rowling's assertion that Snape was 
> loved. Memories of that person would presumably be happy ones in the 
> more usual sense. <snip>
> 
> And, of course, if Dumbledore is right about Snape, the day he went 
> to Dumbledore with his story about Voldemort and the prophecy, and 
> was believed/trusted, would be another.
> 
> Just another thought about Snape and Patronuses: If he was
completely unable to cast one, would he open himself up to a rather
humiliating retort from a fellow Order member who must know, by
criticizing the 'weakness' of Tonks'? She could have just replied, "At
least *I* have one."

Carol adds:
Just an additional note to keep this from being an "I agree" post.
Dumbledore tells Harry that the Order members have much more effective
methods of communication than Umbridge's fireplace, and the context
makes it clear that he's referring to Snape. Almost certainly, snape
used his Patronus to communicate first with Sirius Black and later
with all the Order members who happened to be at 12 GP at the time to
tell them that Harry was headed to the MoM to "rescue" Black. (I think
he must have communicated with Dumbledore as well or he wouldn't have
known that DD was coming to 12 GP and Black needed to wait for him.)
At any rate, though we don't see Snape casting a Patronus here, it's
likely that he did so.

As for Snape's alternate method of handling Dementors, I love
Potioncat's idea that he doesn't want to reveal his Patronus to the
students, but I also believe that casting a Patronus to communicate
(or to show off and have fun in the RoR) is a very different matter
from casting one when you're faced with a foul being determined to
suck out both your happiness and your soul. I'm hoping that Snape's
alternate method will prove valuable in Book 7 and will help, along
with other puzzle pieces, to show HRH that Snape's loyalties lie with
Dumbledore.

Carol, loving zgirnius's last paragraph





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 16:35:18 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:35:18 -0000
Subject: Horcrux Discussion
In-Reply-To: <eid0ql+p268@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid6o6+oqrf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160854

Sandra wrote:
> <snip>
> My question is:  does anybody REALLY know that Harry contains that
> last piece of Voldemort's soul?  I remember that he was supposed to
be the sacrifice for the last piece, but does anybody have any idea
what object the soul was supposed to go into with his sacrifice?  I
mean, wouldn't Voldemort have had to have the intended object with him
when he did the incantation and made the sacrifice?  Since it wasn't
> actually completed properly (i.e.: he gets blown away and Harry
> accidentally winds up with some part of him), maybe part of the soul
> wound up in the inatimate object and part of it wound up in Harry,
OR most of it in the object and only an insignificant amount in Harry,
OR none in the object and an insignificant amount in Harry.
> 
> The last would mean that there were only six completed horcruxes and
> not seven and Harry is completely safe and doesn't have to die for
> Voldemort to die. <snip>

Carol responds:
Hi, Sandra, and welcome. No, we don't know that Harry is a Horcrux or
we wouldn't be debating it. I, for one, don't think so, as you'll see
if you read my posts. I'm not even sure that the soul bit that
resulted from killing Lily (or the one from James, if his death counts
as a murder) was floating around loose in Godric's Hollow. and even if
it was, it could be as innocuous as the "destroyed" soul bits from the
diary and ring Horcruxes. (I say "destroyed" because I think the soul
is immortal and those bits have gone beyond the Veil since they're no
longer encased.)

I don't think it's necessary to have an object with you when you
commit a murder that you use later to create a Horcrux. It seems that
Tom Riddle had no idea how to create a Horcrux (he may not even have
heard of Horcruxes yet) when he committed his first murders (Myrtle,
whom I think counts as a murder, and the three Riddles). I don't think
he had the diary with him when he killed Myrtle since he didn't yet
need an alternate method of killing Muggleborns, and even though he
had the ring with him when he killed his father and grandparents, it
could only contain a soul bit from one of those murders (probably his
fahter's). Certainly, he didn't make it into a Horcrux on the spot. He
didn't know how, as his conversation with Slughorn a few months later
showed. (He was wearing the ring, so the conversation occurred after
the murders.)

I don't think there's a time limit on the murders that can be used to
create a Horcrux. I think he could have killed Harry and then gone to
Hogwarts to steal the Sword of Gryffindor, the ideal Gryffindor
Horcrux. He'd have had to kill Dumbledore to do it, but he'd somehow
have been able to use the soul bit from Harry's murders rather than
Dumbledore's (equally significant) death to make the Horcrux.

It's all very jumbled and confused, but Harry!Horcrux remains a
theory, not canon.

Carol, who thinks there's no such thing as an accidental Horcrux






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 16:56:35 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:56:35 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eid155+4oj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid803+2rp1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160855

Charles wrote:
> I'm convinced, he has one. The question is, what is it. Me being the 
> Snape-hater that I am, I'd like to think it's a pygmypuff or a yorkie. 
> Alas, as zgirnius points out, he does taunt Tonks. With JKR's 
> reluctance to reveal his patronus, it makes me think that it would 
> reveal his loyalties. Just to keep myself from having to run and hide 
> from the Greasy Git Fan Club, I'll suggest first that it may be a 
> phoenix, to represent DD. 
> 
> Now back to my regularly scheduled Snape bash: If Snape is a good guy 
> (snort!) could his patronus possibly be a stag, representing a certain 
> Marauder who saved his life? It would explain Snape's reluctance to 
> deal with patronuses (patroni? Could one of you Latin experts help me 
> out on this?)
> 
> If he's the evil git that I'm convinced he is, (I'm sure that his 
> innocence in the previous books was a planned red herring for the end 
> of book six.) his patronus might be a basilisk or other type of snake. 
> I'm at a loss for what else it might be if he's ESE. Any ideas folks?
> 
> Charles, who woke up laughing this morning after a dream in which 
> Snape's wand spit an attack yorkie at a flock of pissed off dementors.
>
Carol responds:

Well, at least we agree that Snape has a Patronus!

Even if he's ESE!, which I seriously doubt given his contempt for
and/or enmity with Voldie's most loyal servants (Barty Jr., Bellatrix,
Wormtail), I don't think his Patronus is a snake or a Basilisk. That
would be Tom Riddle's/Voldemort's, surely. He is, after all, the Heir
of Slytherin.

If he's OFH!, which I grant is possible though it's not my own view,
his Patronus might be a bat, given all the bat imagery associated with
him. I suppose he could even have a bat Patronus as DDM!Snape. After
all, JKR likes weasels and has tried to make them humorous through
association with the Weasley family, so why not bats? Ginny, whom
we're supposed to like, is famous for her bat-bogey hex, which she
uses on kids she dislikes (Draco and Zacharias Smith), so bats have
some association with the good side.

However, I don't think we'll see Snape with a bat Patronus in Book 7.
I think the change in Tonks' Patronus foreshadows a change in Snape's.
I suspect that it will be something related to Dumbledore, probably a
Phoenix but possibly a bumblebee ("dumbledore" = "bumblebee").

Carol, who will laugh if it's a bumblebee but hopes it's a Phoenix





From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov  2 16:54:25 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 11:54:25 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
References: <eicvmp+of5a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009001c6fe9f$92a945e0$d272400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 160856

--zgirnius, still not 100% convinced, but now finding that comment by
Snape.odd.

Magpie:
I wonder if it's the way the line is described without any sign of humor on 
Snape's part--I mean, you'd expect him to be hiding a smirk or something if 
the line was supposed to be a zinger.  The fact that he says it like such a 
pronouncement seems to make it more serious on his part, more calculated, 
like he thought about it.  And I'd almost expect it to be more of an impulse 
if it were a true insult.  Plus, as you say, he just doesn't usually insult 
peoples' looks.

Still, I can't see any other way to interpret the line, really.  Maybe it's 
just a sign that Snape can be a jerk in ways we hadn't seen before.:-)

> Pippin:
> I'm not so sure.
> I agree that's Harry's PoV, but I think Draco had been sucking up to Snape
> the way Dudley was to Aunt Marge and for the same reason, to get favors.

Magpie:
I know this is a popular fan interpretation and it is open, but I have 
always felt it just was not true.  Whether he does any minor sucking up to 
Snape I can't say (that wouldn't be at odds with true respect), but his 
feelings towards Snape have always seemed to me to come across as completely 
naturally respectful because he's a fan of Snape's.  In CoS, for instance, 
he's often described as sucking up when he says Snape would make a good 
headmaster and to me that scene comes across completely genuinely as a kid 
who really would like to be able to do something for Snape.  His offer is 
funny because of how naive it is, but I don't think he's sucking up to get 
anything, and that Snape's being unable to hide a smile is a sign that he 
sees that.  I think the scene in OotP is a good example too, where Draco 
interrupts the Occlumency lesson.  The narrator almost never misses a chance 
to show kids being fake that way, and the Draco/Snape scenes aren't written 
too much like that.  Sure Draco may make a point of backing Snape up more in 
class where Snape can see it, like by laughing at his jokes out loud, but I 
don't think that has to be a sign his respect is fake.

Piippin:
> Draco being a better actor than Dudley,  Harry was taken in. I'm not so
> sure that Snape was. I think Snape knew that Draco was trying to
> manipulate him, but felt, like Petunia, that being indulgent was the way
> to show love.

Magpie:
And Snape really strikes you as Petunia in the way he would show love and 
react to bratty kids?  Where is he even all that indulgent to Draco that we 
see?  In a way that's purely about indulging Draco?  Because I see Snape 
usually, when indulging Draco, getting his own licks in at the Gryffindors. 
I think JKR knows how to demonstrate the kind of relationship you're 
describing very well and does't write it with these two.

I'm just kind of surprised you'd read Harry's thinking that it's surprising 
to hear Draco speak to Snape without respect as a sign that Harry's been 
taken in all those years.  To me it seems like a classic case of the author 
using Harry to underline what's going on. I would think that if Draco were 
truly sucking up Harry would have no trouble seeing it after his years with 
Dudley.  He doesn't miss the deception when Draco's doing it to Slughorn or 
Umbridge.  HBP actually seemed to often have Harry having to let go of his 
habit of referring to anything Slytherin as being fake.  Plus Draco's not 
being all that disrespectful to Snape in that scene.  There are lines he's 
still not crossing, and when Snape refers to their past relationship being 
important it's not like Draco proudly announces how fake it was.

Pippin:>
> Then, in HBP, Draco came under the spell of  the bigger bullies on the
> playground  and didn't think he needed Snape any more, just when
> he actually needed him like never before.

Magpie:
Again, I couldn't disagree more.  Draco's feelings about Snape in HBP are 
far more complex, imo, than just thinking he doesn't need him any more and 
showing the lack of respect he's always felt for him.  I also think their 
storyline in HBP depends on the genuine affection and respect.  And I don't 
see Snape as that much of a sucker, so pathetic that the one positive 
relationship he seems to pursue is him being manipulated.

Pippin:
> Snape protests that he took the vow to help Draco, and I think that
> seemingly offhand explanation is the whole truth. Snape saw Draco
> about to be crushed between Dumbledore and Voldemort (neither
> being dragged into the arena nor choosing to enter, but sauntering
> in with the idiotic predatory instincts of a kitten who thinks
> it's a jungle cat) and he had to do something.

Magpie:
I think Snape knows all too well how Draco is in danger and how he's 
behaving stupidly, but I think he also knows his behavior has little to do 
with Snape being soft and spoiling him so that Draco doesn't really respect 
him.  As I said, I think Draco's challenging Snape because he is a past 
figure of respect, just as teenaged boys challenging their fathers do so not 
because they have never respected them but because they do.  (And in Snape's 
case I think he's getting stuff that might have been directed at Lucius as 
well.)

Pippin:>
> If there's an adolescent rebellion here, it might be Snape against
> Dumbledore. I can just imagine Dumbledore at his most infuriating
> don't-worry-I-have-a-secret-planishness as Snape discovers that
> Draco is being drawn into this plot, and Snape feeling that if he
> doesn't try to save Draco, nobody will.

Magpie:
Despite Snape's frequent adolescent moments in canon, I think his 
relationship with Dumbledore has become far more mature.  And yes, I do 
think the two of them are probably disagreeing on letting Draco find his own 
way, with Snape wanting to step in and save the kid from himself.  I just 
disagree that this in any way follows a Snape who's treated Draco like an 
indulgent parent and so lost control because Draco's been sucking up to him 
all these years and never really felt it.  Or that Draco's not the one in 
adolescent rebellion when he's an adolescent rebelling.

Pippin:
>
> Much as I'd prefer ACID POPS or a convoluted SpyGames! explanation
> where Dumbledore's behind it all, this is a reason for the vow that
> fits the parents and children theme. It also provides an explanation
> that Dumbledore could conceivably accept  without compromising
> his trust in Snape. Dumbledore would accept that Snape risked
> everything in a desperate attempt to save a child.

Magpie:
I agree he's trying to save a child--though perhaps I'd say a youth instead, 
perhaps one Snape relates to given his own past.  Where I disagree is in 
saying that the parent/child theme necessarily means Snape must have been a 
soft, overindulgent parent and a sucker to boot. I think Draco, unlike 
Dudley, has always been a kid capable of true respect.  He just doesn't 
always give it to the best people.  Snape's the best Death Eater ever and 
has his respect.  I think Draco in HBP brings out the adult side of Snape 
more than the adolescent side, but that doesn't make other aspects of their 
relationship in the past an act on both their parts.

Pippin:>
> In a way, the climax of Half-Blood Prince isn't the fall from the
> tower, it's what happens a moment later when the former Half-
> Blood Prince grabs Draco by the scruff of the neck. I think that's
> the first honest interaction between them, and maybe the first
> step out of Snape's own very protracted adolescence. For that one
> moment, he's not playing any role, he's being who he truly is.

Magpie:
I think it's a great moment too, but would never call that the first honest 
moment between them. It says something about their roles with regards to 
each other, but I think it's also showing that Draco's possible step in the 
right direction has been delayed and he's back in his child position.  I 
just don't think that child ever related to Snape the way Dudley relates to 
Aunt Marge.

-m





From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  2 17:07:33 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:07:33 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eid486+l5di@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid8kl+pane@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160857

> Carol responds:
> I've already given my view that "c" was hard in Latin (except 
possibly before "i"). The hard "c" followed by a soft "c" is a 
possible pronunciation if JKR is thinking of English rather than 
Latin and the "ch" pronunciation is possible if she's thinking of 
Church Latin. 

Dung:
I've always said ACH-ee-oh. But I don't know anyone else who does.

> > > SSSusan:
> > > ... I now know I was mispronouncing Felix Felicis [which
> > > I said as "FEH-lih-kuhs" instead of as "Feh-LEASE-us"] 
> > > and Knuts [which I said as "k'nuts" instead of as 
> > > "k'noots"]. :-> )  
> 
> Carol:
> Funny. I think that "Felix Felicis" *ought* to be pronounced more 
or less as you pronounced it (with a hard "c"), but in my head it's 
Felix "Feh-LISS-us." 

Dung:
I've always said FEE-licks Feh-LEE-kiss; though now I come to think 
about it I alternate between FAY-liks and FEE-liks (I think because 
of the way I was taught to pronounce Latin at school).

> > bboyminn:
> <snip>
> > Knuts - as you [SSS] point out, they write "k'nut" but they 
> > say 'ka-noot'. I say 'ka-nut'. 

Dung:
I say nut. But anyway...

> Carol:
<snip>... the initial vowel, which Brits say is different from the 
long "es" sound in "serious." Can anyone give me a word with a 
short "i" sound *followed by r* rather than some other consonant 
that represents the "i" in "serious"? I think maybe the problem is 
with "serious" itself being pronounced rather differently by Brits 
and Americans. 

Dung:
You're right, in English English the first syllable of serious 
rhymes with sear or beer, whereas Sirius is more like the short 'i' 
sound in sin or irridescent. What also confuses things a little (or 
confuses my explanation a bit) is that Americans make more of a meal 
out of their 'r' sound too. So getting an American to say SEAR-ee-us 
still won't make 'serious' come out like an English accent.

Carol:
My gut feeling (probably wrong) is that Americans pronounce
> both "serious" and "Sirius" the way that Brits pronounce "Sirius," 
and the Brits pronounce "serious" with a stronger, longer "ee" 
sound. I'm thinking that the first syllable of "cirrus" (as in 
cirrus cloud) illustrates the sound I hear in both "serious" 
and "Sirius." Is that what anybody else hears?
> 
Dung:
Not at all wrong, absolutely right.

> bboy:
> > Madame Maxime - is completely mispronunced and misspelled.
> > They say and write 'MaxiNe'; note the 'N' instead of the
> > 'M'. I say 'MAX-seaM'. The real problem is with her first
> > name which I believe is 'Olympe'. Having no experience 
> > with the French Language beyond French Toast and French 
> > Fries, I've never been sure about this one. I generally 
> > say 'OH-limp-ee' as if I were mispronuncing 'Olympia' but
> > without the 'A' at the end. I suppose if I tried to put 
> > some fancy sounding inflection on the end, it would be 
> > 'OH-limp-ay'.
 
Dung:
If you want it in a French accent, the 'O' is as in Ollivander, or 
orange (at least in an English accent - American's pronounce 'o' [to 
my ear] as across between 'uh' and 'ah' ... actually, I'm not sure 
that there's any comparable 'o' in the American pallette of vowels,) 
but it's 'o' as in orange, rather than as in 'ok'. The 'limp' in a 
French accent would be across between 'limp' and 'leemp', and 
although the 'e' on the end isn't pronounced as an extra syllable, a 
French speaker would make a meal of the 'p' on the end, so it 
became 'puh', but not if it were followed by a word beginning with a 
vowel. I think.

What fun, eh?

Dungrollin





From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Nov  2 17:13:30 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 11:13:30 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Etymology of 'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eid486+l5di@eGroups.com>
References: <eicd7g+sfk9@eGroups.com> <eid486+l5di@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611020913v62f476ecu14a0898130cd5272@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160858

>
> bboy:
> > Sirius - the pronunciation guide in my dictionary doesn't
> > make a distinction between 'Sirius' and 'Serious', but I
> > think there is a very subtle difference. Sirius is
> > 'SEAR-ee-us' or 'SEAR-ee-ihs', where as Serious is
> > 'sear-ee-OUS'. Just a slightly different accent and
> > inflection at the end.
>
> Carol:
> As an American, I have Sirius problem with this one <wink>--not with
> the accented syllable, which I'm sure is the first, or with the final
> vowel, which I'm sure is a schwa (unaccented neutral vowel sounding
> like "uh"), but with the initial vowel, which Brits say is different
> from the long "es" sound in "serious." Can anyone give me a word with
> a short "i" sound *followed by r* rather than some other consonant
> that represents the "i" in "serious"?


montims:
irritable?  irritate?  The short i sound for a Brit is the same in the first
and second syllables.  As opposed to eery, which is the long sound.  Your
cirrus example below (which, by the way, I spell *Cirrhus) *is good too.

"Serious" to me sounds like (hi)s eery (b)us (except that yes it is a schwa,
not a proper "u" sound).

I think maybe the problem is
> with "serious" itself being pronounced rather differently by Brits and
> Americans. My gut feeling (probably wrong) is that Americans pronounce
> both "serious" and "Sirius" the way that Brits pronounce "Sirius," and
> the Brits pronounce "serious" with a stronger, longer "ee" sound. I'm
> thinking that the first syllable of "cirrus" (as in cirrus cloud)
> illustrates the sound I hear in both "serious" and "Sirius." Is that
> what anybody else hears?


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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 17:37:36 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:37:36 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <009001c6fe9f$92a945e0$d272400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eidad0+7gtr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160859

> --zgirnius, still not 100% convinced, but now finding that comment 
by
> Snape.odd.
> 
> Magpie:
> I wonder if it's the way the line is described without any sign of 
humor on 
> Snape's part--I mean, you'd expect him to be hiding a smirk or 
something if 
> the line was supposed to be a zinger.  The fact that he says it 
like such a 
> pronouncement seems to make it more serious on his part, more 
calculated, 
> like he thought about it.  And I'd almost expect it to be more of 
an impulse 
> if it were a true insult.  Plus, as you say, he just doesn't 
usually insult 
> peoples' looks.

> 
Alla:


Honestly I am not sure I understand the alternative reading which was 
suggested by zgirnius.

Even if Snape means that he sees no difference that Hermione suffered 
no more than Grabb, isn't it in essense the same? Isn't he still 
referring to her teeth as to what she suffered from?

Isn't it still insult of her looks?

Magpie:
> Still, I can't see any other way to interpret the line, really.  
Maybe it's 
> just a sign that Snape can be a jerk in ways we hadn't seen 
before.:-)

Alla:

Thank you for  saying it.

I already said many times, but I will say it again ? it is much 
easier to swallow DD!M Snape, if one does not try to justify every 
single insult from his mouth as either a good deed, or being badly 
misunderstood by Harry.

Not that I want to see DD!M Snape, but if DD!M Snape of such variety 
comes to life ( I call him SSSusan's Snape in my mind:)), at least I 
do not have to 
tear my hair apart after book 7 in a sense that it could be inferred 
from the books, if that makes sense.

JMO,

Alla






From Aixoise at snet.net  Thu Nov  2 17:36:56 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:36:56 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eid8kl+pane@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <06b101c6fea5$7e321c30$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160860

 

Dung wrote:
<If you want it in a French accent, the 'O' is as in Ollivander, or 
orange (at least in an English accent - American's pronounce 'o' [to 
my ear] as across between 'uh' and 'ah' ... actually, I'm not sure 
that there's any comparable 'o' in the American pallette of vowels,) 
but it's 'o' as in orange, rather than as in 'ok'. The 'limp' in a 
French accent would be across between 'limp' and 'leemp', and 
although the 'e' on the end isn't pronounced as an extra syllable, a 
French speaker would make a meal of the 'p' on the end, so it 
became 'puh', but not if it were followed by a word beginning with a 
vowel. I think>.

 

Stacey writes:  I have to differ with a few of your points.  In French, the
"o" is not as it would be in Ollivander or orange, but closer to "okay".  If
one thinks of how they pronounce "Olympiques" (as in Les Jeux Olympiques
minus the Jeux because one is forced to make the liaison- lay zhu
zoh-lehm-peek), one can see that it's closer to "oh" than otherwise.  The
middle syllable is more toward "lehmp" than either "limp" or "leemp".  But
you're entirely right about the "p" being pronounced quite strongly,
becoming more towards "puh" the further south in France you go.

 

Stacey



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





From scorpio_41190 at yahoo.co.in  Thu Nov  2 14:46:52 2006
From: scorpio_41190 at yahoo.co.in (Kishan)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:46:52 -0000
Subject: James' and Lily's gold
In-Reply-To: <eib3n9+5bsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eid0cs+5pbc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160861

>Eddie, who has often wondered why Harry thinks he has no Muggle
> money, only Wizarding money.  (I think this came up at the beginning
> of Prisoner of Azkaban, when Harry ran away from Privet Drive and
> was pondering what to do next.)  Harry could probably have gone to
> Gringott's and exchanged Wizarding money to Muggle.  Recall that
> Hermione's parents went to Gringotts and were exchanging Muggle to
> Wizarding money.

Kishan:
Yes, even I thought about that too. Why couldn't Harry just go and exchange some wizarding money for muggle money. And about the money in Gringotts, maybe we just have to assume that Lily and James have inherited it from the Potter family. It's quite possible because Rowling never mentioned that they were poor, so...








From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 18:39:01 2006
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:39:01 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eid08q+v12k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eide05+qb4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160862

Potioncat:

Now after all this, it's back to the buffalo. If Seamus and Ron and
Hagrid and Draco all have different accents, how do they manage the
spells? Or does it work just fine so long as they each pronounce
accio consistently within their own speech patterns?

ibchawz responds:

I'm not sure this will clear anything up.  It may raise more 
questions than it answers...

In SS/PS, Hermione corrects Ron for not pronouncing the "Leviosa" 
part correctly and she is the first to successfully perform the 
Wingardium Leviosa charm.  In addition, the Wizard Baruffio / 
buffalo bit of wisdom from Professor Flitwick indicates that proper 
pronunciation is required.

On the other hand, the classes in HBP deal with nonverbal spells.  
Obviously, pronunciation would not matter if you are not saying 
anything.  With nonverbal spells, it seems that the intent is more 
important.  For the first 5 years at Hogwart's, students are taught 
to cast their spells verbally.  I think that by saying the words, 
one focuses more on the intent.  In sixth year, they start learning 
the nonverbal method.  They must re-train their brains to be able to 
focus on the intent without speaking the words.  Perhaps the way 
you "think" the words will affect whether the spell works or not.  

Food for thought.

ibchawz






From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Nov  2 19:13:52 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:13:52 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione
In-Reply-To: <ei5i8c+vek7@eGroups.com>
References: <8ee758b40610300949h4a64ff11j8c02f7373579ead7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ei5i8c+vek7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611021113r41e59fcfofccc742ebcd8ec4b@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160863

>
> Pippin:
> Suppose there had been no charm and Marietta had told Umbridge
> everything. Umbridge still would have  sent for Fudge and his aurors to
> witness her moment of triumph and Dumbledore's humiliation,
> she still would have needed to  stake out the RoR to catch the DA in the
> act, Dobby would still have been able to warn them,  Marietta would
> still have been asked to repeat her evidence in front of Fudge, and
> Shacklebolt would still have stopped her.
>
> Once she'd been obliviated, Marietta was no more use as a witness
> than Crouch Jr, regardless of what she'd said before. Umbridge
> might have known that Dumbledore was less involved than he
> claimed to be, but do you think she would have cared?


montims: that presupposes that Shackleton would have been there - Fudge
could have brought along Aurors who were not in the Order...



> Pippin:




> It was Dumbledore she wanted to oust. Harry was just a crazy
> mixed-up kid as far as Umbridge was concerned, only dangerous
> because he and Dumbledore were insisting that his story was true.


montims: and yet she set the Dementors on Harry, and they would have Kissed
him (and, incidentally, an innocent muggle) if he had not known how to
produce a Patronus.

Back to Hermione - I doubt she anticipated, even if her worst dreams, the
circumstances which led up to this particular Sneak - I think she was just
worried a student would talk to other students, one of whom might have
decided to go to Umbridge and report them, the spots thereby giving everyone
fair warning of the danger.  She believed Umbridge was wicked, but did not
expect that within minutes of Marietta's betrayal Harry would be dragged off
to DD's office to meet the full force of the ministry.


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




From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Nov  2 19:12:10 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:12:10 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eid155+4oj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidfua+pgrf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160864

> Charles:
> I'm convinced, he has one [a Patronus]. The question is, what is it. 

Eddie:
Although I'm not completely convinced Snape has a patronus, I think it
will be something displaying the characteristics of something related
to Lily Evans, just as Tonks' patronus took on the characteristics of
someone she loves.

Eddie, hopeless romantic






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 19:29:55 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:29:55 -0000
Subject: Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
In-Reply-To: <eicvr2+hkk8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidgvj+ra50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160865


> > Debbie:
> > We don't have any real canon either way, so I can't prove that my
> opinion is correct.  However, dictionary definitions of "soul" 
support
> the idea that a soul includes memory.  <snip>


> Carol again:
> The problem is, there are many different conceptions of soul, and 
the
> one you're quoting is somewhat medieval. Modern people, including
> wizards, know that memories are in the mind.<snip>


Neri:
Actually we do have some canon. According to Lupin in PoA, when a 
dementor sucks your soul, you become a vegetable. You loose your mind 
including, specifically, memories:

"You can exist without your soul...as long as your brain and heart 
are still working. But you'll have no sense of self anymore, no 
memory no...anything. There's no chance at all of recovery. You'll 
just -- exist. As an empty shell. And your soul is gone 
forever...lost." (p. 247)

This canon supports a wizard view of the soul as including the mind 
and, specifically, memories.

Neri






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Thu Nov  2 19:24:58 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:24:58 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <eidad0+7gtr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidgma+hqdt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160866

Magpie:
> > Still, I can't see any other way to interpret the line, really.  
> > Maybe it's just a sign that Snape can be a jerk in ways we hadn't 
> > seen before.:-)
 
Alla:
> I already said many times, but I will say it again ? it is much 
> easier to swallow DD!M Snape, if one does not try to justify every 
> single insult from his mouth as either a good deed, or being badly 
> misunderstood by Harry.
> 
> Not that I want to see DD!M Snape, but if DD!M Snape of such 
> variety comes to life ( I call him SSSusan's Snape in my mind:)), 
> at least I do not have to tear my hair apart after book 7 in a 
> sense that it could be inferred from the books, if that makes sense.


SSSusan:
Seeing as how I've not submitted any posts today, and since I'm still 
thinking about Dung's challenge (in a different thread) to come up 
with some CANON that Lucius is totally OFH and less capable of being 
a friend than Snape (anyone want to help me? <g>), I might as well 
write in on this.

As Alla mentioned, I do believe in a DDM!Snape who is *not* just a 
poor, misunderstood good guy; *not* a sweetheart who's only been 
pretending to be nasty just to play a part in some scheme; *not* a 
man who's going to be revealed to be not only DDM! but also an All 
Around Good Guy(!) in the end.

Rather, in my view, Snape is slimy, greasy [wash that hair! brush 
those yellow teeth!], cruel & petty & nasty & unfair & small at 
times, insecure at times, blinded by rage at times, knowledgable but 
a decidedly less-than-perfect teacher, who is also highly talented, 
intelligent, and dedicated to DD and to ridding the WW of Lord 
Voldemort.  In my view he has some serious character flaws indeed, 
but for whatever reason(s), he is working on the side of Right.  

In other words, he is NastyGitMajorPrickDDM!Snape

That's my story and I'm sticking to it... until & unless Book 7 
proves me wrong.

Siriusly Snapey Susan






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 19:47:57 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:47:57 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <eidad0+7gtr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidi1d+pfbk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160867


> Alla:
> 
> 
> Honestly I am not sure I understand the alternative reading which was 
> suggested by zgirnius.
> 
> Even if Snape means that he sees no difference that Hermione suffered 
> no more than Grabb, isn't it in essense the same? Isn't he still 
> referring to her teeth as to what she suffered from?
> 
> Isn't it still insult of her looks?

zgirnius:
The proposed alternative meaning of his words is that he sees no 
difference (in degree of severity) between having one's face turned 
into something that looks like a poisonous fungus (what Harry did to 
Goyle) and having one's teeth grow out down to one's collar (what Draco 
did to Hermione). 

Neither of which  move him to any particular emotionality (calm and 
cold appraisals of the damage are described), and are best dealt with 
by sending the victim to the infirmary. I surmised in an earlier post 
that this was always his intent regarding Hermione, because she did not 
get into trouble for cutting his class after she ran away.

Anything he said at thet moment would be a response to her in some way, 
Ron has dragged Hermione over to him and is yanking her hands down for 
him to see. He does not actually reference her teeth, or her physical 
appearance, in any way in his statement. Amd there is no clue in his 
demeanor (no smirk), tone (no sarcasm), or choice of words that he 
intends a nasty joke. He might still, of course. We don't know what he 
intends, as ever.












From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 19:53:37 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:53:37 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <eidgma+hqdt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidic1+m3pb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160868

> SSSusan:
> Rather, in my view, Snape is slimy, greasy [wash that hair! brush 
> those yellow teeth!], cruel & petty & nasty & unfair & small at 
> times, insecure at times, blinded by rage at times, knowledgable 
but 
> a decidedly less-than-perfect teacher, who is also highly talented, 
> intelligent, and dedicated to DD and to ridding the WW of Lord 
> Voldemort.  In my view he has some serious character flaws indeed, 
> but for whatever reason(s), he is working on the side of Right.  

zgirnius:
Since this was posted in response to a thread I started, I would like 
to point out that, in my original post, I listed a truly impressive 
array of characters to whom Snape has been mean in the books, 
Hermione among them. SO I'm not proposing or defending a St. Severus. 
<g>

I'm just no longer so sure he was trying to be insulting, in that 
scene, because the *way* he does seems inconsistent with his usual 
approach.

--zgirnius, who debated including this point in that original post, 
but it was already pretty darned long, mostly becaused there are *so 
many* exmaples of Snape insulting people in the books.








From sbejster at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 19:40:00 2006
From: sbejster at yahoo.com (sbejster)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 19:40:00 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eid2k3+krgj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidhig+pttn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160869

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > 
> Yes, he does have Patronus, but the possibility of Snape casting 
> Patronus that is based on the memory, which is happy for him opens up 
> sooo many possibilities - as in Snape being happy remembering James 
> being dead, or now he can add dead Dumbledore to his collection of 
> happy memories.

Well, we know he has at least ONE happy memory.  If he hasn't had one
all his life, I'm sure his occlumency lessons with Harry provided a
few for him.  Can you imagine how much he was laughing inside seeing
Aunt Marge's dog chase Harry up the tree?

As for his patronus, I don't think it would be anything obvious like a
snake or a bat.  JKR said it would give away some of the plot so it
has to be something that people who think he's totally evil wouldn't
expect ... like the suggestion that it's a phoenix or Lily Potter (who
I think he did secretly admire very much, if not love).


Sandra
Dearborn, MI






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov  2 20:25:19 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:25:19 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <009001c6fe9f$92a945e0$d272400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eidk7f+gglt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160870

 
> Pippin:>
> > In a way, the climax of Half-Blood Prince isn't the fall from the
> > tower, it's what happens a moment later when the former Half-
> > Blood Prince grabs Draco by the scruff of the neck. I think that's
> > the first honest interaction between them, and maybe the first
> > step out of Snape's own very protracted adolescence. For that one
> > moment, he's not playing any role, he's being who he truly is.
> 
> Magpie:
> I think it's a great moment too, but would never call that the first honest 
> moment between them. It says something about their roles with regards to 
> each other, but I think it's also showing that Draco's possible step in the 
> right direction has been delayed and he's back in his child position.  I 
> just don't think that child ever related to Snape the way Dudley relates to 
> Aunt Marge.
> 

Pippin:
I think Draco had to stay  a child in HBP because growing up
as a DE isn't growing up at all.  I think JKR emphasizes this by having 
Harry and Snape both see childishness in Draco, not to mention
all the times DE's are depicted as babies or babylike.

I just think Draco's always been too messed up to have
an honest relationship with Snape. Yes, he respects Snape's abilities,
but hey, even Harry does that. I can see that it would make Draco  a more 
attractive character (also a common fandom reading) if he was always
capable of having an honest non-expoitative relationship with an adult, but  
IMO, it barters ugliness now for ugliness in the future. If Draco's been 
straight with Snape all these years, what's going to happen when he
 finds out, assuming DDM!Snape, that Snape's been playing *him* ? 

It would mean the Snape whom Draco has honored and respected
as the best Death Eater ever never existed and Draco has given his
honor and respect to an illusion. How do you see that playing out?


Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov  2 20:37:09 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 20:37:09 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
Message-ID: <eidktl+7eqg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160871

My goodness where to start...

After VW1, He pleaded that he was under the Imperius curse, dissociating 
himself from his own sister-in-law who proudly went to Azkaban for Voldie.  
He later used Voldemort's precious Diary in a scheme of his own, in the 
course of which he secretly threatened to curse the families of his fellow 
members of the Board of Governors unless they backed the ouster of 
Dumbledore.  He backed Fudge with gold  while secretly returning to his 
DE activities, and of course Voldemort himself labels him 'my slippery friend' 
for using his Death Eater connections to organize a pleasant evening of
Muggle-baiting instead of seeking the return of his Master.

Snape, OTOH, may be slimy but he's not slippery. He changed sides,
but that seems to have taken a huge effort on his part. He's pretty
rigid, actually. 

Pippin





From dougsamu at golden.net  Thu Nov  2 20:56:46 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:56:46 -0500
Subject: Horcrux Discussion
Message-ID: <B125C69B-9436-4AF5-A7A3-73ABE682913F@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 160872

Carol:
It's all very jumbled and confused, but Harry!Horcrux remains a
theory, not canon.

doug:
  And conversely :-)

  Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong!
__________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>________




From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  2 21:01:35 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:01:35 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eidktl+7eqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidmbf+r5ac@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160873

pippin
> My goodness where to start...
> 
> After VW1, He pleaded that he was under the Imperius curse, 
dissociating 
> himself from his own sister-in-law who proudly went to Azkaban for 
Voldie.  
> He later used Voldemort's precious Diary in a scheme of his own, 
in the 
> course of which he secretly threatened to curse the families of 
his fellow 
> members of the Board of Governors unless they backed the ouster of 
> Dumbledore.  He backed Fudge with gold  while secretly returning 
to his 
> DE activities, and of course Voldemort himself labels him 'my 
slippery friend' 
> for using his Death Eater connections to organize a pleasant 
evening of
> Muggle-baiting instead of seeking the return of his Master.
> 

wynnleaf
It always seemed strange to me that Lucius would be in favor of 
Voldemort's return.  After all, Lucius has money and power and was 
doing just fine.  Now with Voldemort back (even before the end of 
OOTP), he suddenly had to act at the whim of Voldemort who obviously 
cares a lot more for his own agenda than being of benefit to Lucius.

Why would Lucius *want* to risk his life and liberty for the sake of 
a prophecy about Harry and Voldemort?  What really did he stand to 
gain?

I tend to think Lucius felt that once Voldemort returned he *had* to 
continue to support him or risk his life, in the same way that 
anyone (Karkarov and Regulas) that tries to leave Voldemort risks 
his life.  I think he probably considered it less of a risk to keep 
following Voldemort than to try to escape him.

So now he's in prison, he and Narcissa's lives have been threatened, 
as well as Draco's (sort of), and Draco was more-or-less forced to 
get into this mission of killing Dumbledore.  

I'm really hoping JKR brings Lucius back in Book 7.  I think he 
makes an excellent villian and I'd love to see what he'd do if he 
had his freedom again.  I do indeed think he's out for himself, and 
I hope we get to see what he does next.

wynnleaf





From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  2 21:20:20 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:20:20 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <eidi1d+pfbk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidnel+74k2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160874

---
> 
> zgirnius:
> The proposed alternative meaning of his words is that he sees no 
> difference (in degree of severity) between having one's face 
turned 
> into something that looks like a poisonous fungus (what Harry did 
to 
> Goyle) and having one's teeth grow out down to one's collar (what 
Draco 
> did to Hermione). 
> 
> Neither of which  move him to any particular emotionality (calm 
and 
> cold appraisals of the damage are described), and are best dealt 
with 
> by sending the victim to the infirmary. I surmised in an earlier 
post 
> that this was always his intent regarding Hermione, because she 
did not 
> get into trouble for cutting his class after she ran away.
> 
> Anything he said at thet moment would be a response to her in some 
way, 
> Ron has dragged Hermione over to him and is yanking her hands down 
for 
> him to see. He does not actually reference her teeth, or her 
physical 
> appearance, in any way in his statement. Amd there is no clue in 
his 
> demeanor (no smirk), tone (no sarcasm), or choice of words that he 
> intends a nasty joke. He might still, of course. We don't know 
what he 
> intends, as ever.
>
wynnleaf

I tend to think better of Snape than most, however I have a rule of 
thumb regarding unusual interpretations of events in canon.  I think 
that if the author means something to appear, on the surface, one 
way, but actually something rather different is going on, then we 
have to expect that at some point in the future the truth will come 
out.  Either JKR will specifically tell us that what we thought was 
oing on at one point was actually something quite different, OR JKR 
will present enough new information that we'll know that many past 
occurances in canon need to be re-evaluated.  This is what occurs, 
for instance, when we learn that FakeMoody is Barty,Jr. 

However, I can't see how we'd ever be turned back to take a second 
look at this scene and it be revealed that Snape had a quite 
different meaning in his words than we thought.  Even if we learn in 
Book 7 that Snape was really a great guy and was just trying to 
protect everyone, etc. etc. -- well, regardless, I can't see 
anything that would make us look at that scene and think, "oh, yeah, 
he was really just comparing the severity of her hex to Goyle's."  

Therefore, I think we have to take that particular scene and assume 
that Snape meant it just as it appears -- rather than a comparitive 
factual remark.

On the other hand, I've always thought it odd that Snape would have 
paid any attention to Hermione's sensitivity about her teeth.  
Snape's teeth are soooo bad, it seems almost bizarre that he'd ever 
notice a slight flaw in her teeth.  Without knowing that Hermione is 
sensitive about her teeth, it seems almost a throwaway overthetop, 
ridiculous insult.  I mean, who'd take it seriously in the general 
way?  If, for instance, her hands had grown huge and he'd said, "I 
see no difference," would she have been so upset or anyone think it 
was some dreadful insult?  Of course not.  They'd just think Snape 
wasn't being fair by not paying attention to her hex -- but not 
horribly insulting.  It's just because the kids know that Hermione's 
really sensitive about not having the most perfect teeth.  But I 
have a hard time believing that Snape knows or cares about Hermione 
having some concern about her teeth.

wynnleaf





From brycam75203 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 18:52:23 2006
From: brycam75203 at yahoo.com (brycam75203)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:52:23 -0000
Subject: James' and Lily's gold
In-Reply-To: <ei6664+lkgt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidep7+4nqq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160875



-- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan MacLagan" <SMacLagan at ...>
wrote:
>
> Q:  Where did James and Lily get all that gold?  Do you think it was
> spoils from plunder?  Simple inheritance from James' family?
>
> Wondering if its origin will play a part in Book 7,
>

Remember James is a pureblood and was very popular so if the character
fits him in school, do you really think if he didn't inherited it
would he let Lily live in poverty?  I don't think so he seems to be
a "do right" kind of man.

brycam7503






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 21:50:48 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:50:48 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <009001c6fe9f$92a945e0$d272400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eidp7o+h10u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160876

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> --zgirnius, still not 100% convinced, but now finding that comment 
by
> Snape.odd.
> 
> Magpie:
> I wonder if it's the way the line is described without any sign of 
humor on 
> Snape's part--I mean, you'd expect him to be hiding a smirk or 
something if 
> the line was supposed to be a zinger.  The fact that he says it 
like such a 
> pronouncement seems to make it more serious on his part, more 
calculated, 
> like he thought about it.  And I'd almost expect it to be more of 
an impulse 
> if it were a true insult.  Plus, as you say, he just doesn't 
usually insult 
> peoples' looks.
> 
> Still, I can't see any other way to interpret the line, really.  
Maybe it's 
> just a sign that Snape can be a jerk in ways we hadn't seen 
before.:-)


a_svirn:
The real question is why should we try so hard to interpret it any 
other way? Insulting people is what Snape does, what he's good at. 
Of course, he's good at a number of other things, but that's another 
matter. Frankly, I find the argument that he's usually does not 
comment on people's looks somewhat perplexing. Snape strikes where 
it hurts ? that's all there is to that. Neville is the easiest 
target ? diffident and unsure of himself ? so he gets bullied, pure 
and simple. Sirius feels excluded and powerless, so he gets taunted 
because of that. Neither of the above or any other individually 
tailored insults would have worked on Hermione ? she is no pushover, 
she is always in the thick of it etc. But she is also an ambitious 
overachiever, and ? for all her accomplishments ? she is still a 
teenage girl with all the insecurities that go with the territory. 
Which is why Snape opted for ridiculing her drive and her looks. If 
she had been a prom queen he'd have to think of something else to 
get to her. If he'd bothered at all. 





From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov  2 22:27:48 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:27:48 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
References: <eidp7o+h10u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <015b01c6fece$21c89770$d272400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 160878

a_svirn:
The real question is why should we try so hard to interpret it any other 
way?

Magpie:
Had it not come up a lot in fandom I don't think I'd ever have given it a 
second thought since no other interpretation seems to make sense in context. 
It's a little different for Snape in that usually I think what bugs him 
about Hermione is her being a know-it-all so he goes after that, but I don't 
think, as some others do, that Snape would never have noticed this issue of 
Hermione's.  I'm sure he's seen Draco do buck-tooth impressions plenty of 
times and noticed the resemblance.  He may usually not go for looks because 
he himself was sensitive about his own in high school, but given the obvious 
set up of the charm he'd make the connection.

Pippin:
I just think Draco's always been too messed up to have an honest 
relationship with Snape. Yes, he respects Snape's abilities, but hey, even 
Harry does that. I can see that it would make Draco  a more
attractive character (also a common fandom reading) if he was always capable 
of having an honest non-expoitative relationship with an adult, but  IMO, it 
barters ugliness now for ugliness in the future. If Draco's been straight 
with Snape all these years, what's going to happen when he  finds out, 
assuming DDM!Snape, that Snape's been playing *him* ?

Magpie:
That's a question I'd always asked in the past, and I thought HBP was a 
creative answer to that--that is, a set up to a creative answer.  I don't 
think a child/adult relationship in these books has to be completely 
non-exploitive to be honest in its connection, and with Snape and Draco one 
of my main issues is just that I don't see scenes where Draco is playing 
Snape and Snape is falling for it. He seems like up until HBP he was pretty 
consistently behaving in a way Snape liked and not getting so very much in 
return besides Snape's favor. I think Draco can pester his parents for 
presents and still genuinely love them as well.  It's not all or nothing, 
and Snape seems to me anyway to see Draco for who he really is.

The creative solution, I thought, was that instead of having Draco shocked 
and betrayed that Snape is really on the other side and so playing him 
(which often goes along with the interpretation that he never really liked 
him at all and it was all an act, though I'm not sure if you're giving that 
interpretation here), Draco himself began to have trouble with DE!Snape and 
had trouble with that side on his own. Now they're potentially both on the 
same page about Voldemort so Snape's being a spy for Dumbledore isn't as 
much of a betrayal.  Snape can be genuinely on Draco's side and also on 
Dumbledore's.  Since Draco himself faced a similar situation in the Tower, I 
think he could understand that now.

-m 





From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Nov  2 22:30:12 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:30:12 -0000
Subject: Non Verbal Spells, Sanskrit, and Yoga Sutras
Message-ID: <eidrhk+vqu0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160879

And now for a turn into Real World "magic".  As a preamble, let me say
I am not attempting to proselytize, so put your daggers aside.  Thanks.

Hindus believe that Sanskrit is a celestially pure language whose
meaning, sound, and written form are one and the same.  So, for
instance, chanting God's name can make God manifest in the mind and
environment of the practitioner.  Similarly for reading the Sanskrit
name of God.  Similarly for contemplating God.

This is the basis for what are known as "Yoga Sutras", which can be
thought of as "aphorisms" or "techniques" which, when spoken or
thought, produce a specific result, give the practitioner knowledge,
or even create physical effects.  See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali.

Note, it's believed that these Sutras will only work fully if (a) they
are pronounced correctly and/or (b) the practitioner is sufficiently
enlightened.  Less enlightened practitioners get less reliable results.

Seems to me this is exactly like the Verbal and non-Verbal spells used
in the Wizarding World.

Like I said, I'm not proselytizing.  I'm pointing out precedent.

Eddie





From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 22:39:11 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:39:11 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eidktl+7eqg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eids2f+a5t9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160880

> Pippin:
>
> My goodness where to start...
> 
> After VW1, He pleaded that he was under the Imperius curse, 
dissociating 
> himself from his own sister-in-law who proudly went to Azkaban for 
Voldie.  
> He later used Voldemort's precious Diary in a scheme of his own, in 
the 
> course of which he secretly threatened to curse the families of his 
fellow 
> members of the Board of Governors unless they backed the ouster of 
> Dumbledore.  He backed Fudge with gold  while secretly returning to 
his 
> DE activities, and of course Voldemort himself labels him 'my 
slippery friend' 
> for using his Death Eater connections to organize a pleasant 
evening of
> Muggle-baiting instead of seeking the return of his Master.
> 
> Snape, OTOH, may be slimy but he's not slippery. He changed sides,
> but that seems to have taken a huge effort on his part. He's pretty
> rigid, actually. 


Neri:
Hmmm, it seems to me that you don't compare Lucius and Snape on equal 
footing here. You compare Canon!Lucius against DDM!Snape. No wonder 
you find that Lucius is more OFH. That's basically managing to prove 
what you were assuming from the outset.

If you want to be fair to Lucius you need to compare Canon!Lucius 
against Canon!Snape. In this case killing Dumbledore would hardly 
appear "rigid" of Snape. Nor backing Fudge when he wanted to execute 
Sirius. Nor avoiding any responsibility (from both sides!) to the DoM 
fiasco. Quite slippery, in fact.

OTOH if you insist on keeping DDM!Snape then to be fair you need to 
compare him against DDM!Lucius, the courageous secret agent who 
obviously slipped the diary to Ginny and then sent Dobby to Harry in 
order to destroy Voldemort's Horcrux, and later made sure to fail 
capturing Harry and retrieving the Prophecy, all this on Dumbledore's 
orders and despite the terrible consequences to himself and his 
family... He's pretty rigid, actually <g>.


Neri






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Nov  2 22:40:12 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:40:12 -0000
Subject: Etymology of 'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611020913v62f476ecu14a0898130cd5272@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eids4c+4bk9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160881

 
> montims:
 My gut feeling (probably wrong) is that Americans pronounce
> > both "serious" and "Sirius" the way that Brits pronounce "Sirius," 
and
> > the Brits pronounce "serious" with a stronger, longer "ee" sound. 
I'm
> > thinking that the first syllable of "cirrus" (as in cirrus cloud)
> > illustrates the sound I hear in both "serious" and "Sirius." Is that
> > what anybody else hears?

Potioncat:
We need an audio-visual. Purely for teaching purposes, I suggest we all 
go the Restricted Area, take the MTMNBN of our choice, and listen for 
Sirius and serious. That's something most of us have. Report here with 
enough information for the rest of us to find the scene so we can 
compare what we hear. (Surely Hermione has said, "Oh seriously, Ron!")

Keep in mind, we should not discuss the movie itself, only the 
pronunciation---or we may incite the list-elves to take appropriate 
action.

MTMNBN = Medium That Must Not Be Named. (Harry Potter movie)







From jmrazo at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  2 22:48:52 2006
From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:48:52 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <eidic1+m3pb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidskk+4dbq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160882


> zgirnius:

> I'm just no longer so sure he was trying to be insulting, in that 
> scene, because the *way* he does seems inconsistent with his usual 
> approach.

Honestly, the logic in your original post is so torturous in its 
contortions to make the scene not an insult it doesn't surprise me that 
some people read it as you putting forth a Saint Snape scenario.  I 
think a plain textual reading of Snape going for the jugular on 
Hermione is the correct one.

phoenixgod2000






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 23:46:18 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:46:18 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and SEE-re-OUS
In-Reply-To: <eicu6d+qfpr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eie00a+4khj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160883

---  "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Steve" <bboyminn@> wrote:
> 
> bboyminn: 
> > Upon looking in my dictionary, I find that nearly all 
> > words starting with 'ACC...' are neither 'Ah-See...' 
> > nor 'ACK-ee..'. ..., it is a combination of the two, 
> > as in 'ACK-see-oh'. ...
> 
> Geoff:
> But, as you say, "nearly all" which covers a multitude
> of sins. What about the "Ack" words such as:
> acclaim, acclimatise, accolade, accommodate, ...
> 
> Not to mention accio. :-)
> 

bboyminn:

Cut me some slack, it was 3:30 AM and my brain was 
running out of gas. Plus, I was fixated on the previous 
suggestion of 'accelerate'. Still, I get your point. But
none the less, the more I think about it, the more
'ack-see-oh' feels right to me, and that's what counts...
isn't it? ;)

Also, as you will notice, many of your words do not follow
'acc...' with a vowel, and those that do use 'o' or 'u'.
Try looking up words that use 'i' or 'e' after the 
'acc...'; Accident, accessions, access, accepts, accessory.
Though there are some exceptions such as 'acciaccatura' 
which uses the 'ch' sound. 

Again this bring up my point of whether spell language can
evolve with modern language. Several have already weighed 
in with the formal Latin application, but to what extent
does ancient Latin force itself on modern language? I
still feel that based on modern language, 'ack-see-oh' is
most correct, but again, does modern language dictate the
correct usage?

> > bboyminn:
> > Sirius - the pronunciation guide in my dictionary 
> > doesn't make a distinction between 'Sirius' and 
> > 'Serious', but I think there is a very subtle 
> > difference. Sirius is 'SEAR-ee-us' or 'SEAR-ee-ihs',
> > where as Serious is 'sear-ee-OUS'. Just a slightly 
> > different accent and inflection at the end.
> 
> Geoff:
> Most UK english speakers would say "SI-ri-us" for the
> name and "SEER-i-ous" for the adjective and they are 
> easy to distinguish. There is no difference in the 
> stress at the end, it is the length of the initial 
> vowel which is the main factor.
>

bboyminn:

This is actually the part I want to respond to. I suspect 
your analysis is very close, and though it may not be
apparent, it actually reflects what I was trying to say. 

First, I confused the issue by not making a distinction 
between what I was emphasizing in my writing and what I 
thought should be emphasized in 'vocal' speech. Second, I 
made the assumption that my reference to 'length of the 
initial vowel' would be tied back to 'stress at the end'. 
It seems I managed to create some confusion there too. I 
suppose a more accurate way of putting that sentence would
have been -

'There is no difference in the stress at the end, it is
the initial vowel /of the last syllable/ which is the main
factor.'

By that I meant the key to the slight variation in the two
comes at the end. The presents of the 'o', though nearly 
silent extents the last syllable slightly with a hint of 
the 'o' sound. It would be closer to 'sear-ee-us' (or 
'sear-ee-ihs' or 'sear-ee-iss') and 'sear-ee-ous'. I do 
take note of the differences you point out at the 
beginning.  Again, it is  subtle, but none the less there;
Sirius, which not hard, is shorter in the beginning, 
whereas, Serious does have a slightly more drawn 'e' sound.
Again, my dictionary shows identical pronunciation for 
both words, so the difference is more inflection and 
slight emphasis than a clear distinction.

This also bring up a final point, in everyday common 
speech we frequently don't make these small distinction.
'Tier' and 'Tear' (drop of salt water coming from the eye)
are all functionally said the same, but I suspect 
technically there is an ever so slight inflection 
difference. In common speech, we typically butcher many 
words. 

Just for fun, if you have access to someone from the 
southern USA, have them say 'sax' and 'sex', as well as 
'all' and 'oil'. To a northerner, those words sound the
same when spoken by a southerner, but to a southerner 
they are very distinctly different.


I'm amazed that people find this aspect of language so 
interesting, and thank the many 'experts' for their input.

Steve/bboyminn





From bea.hall at gmail.com  Thu Nov  2 22:08:05 2006
From: bea.hall at gmail.com (Bea)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 22:08:05 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eid5mr+9sp3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eidq85+cbto@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160884

A stupid thought just popped into my mouth, how about SS having a cute
fuzzy bunny as his Patronus?  I mean, how hilarious would that be?

Actually, I think a rat would be an excellent one.

JMHO,

Bea in GA






From mark.a.ryan at gmail.com  Thu Nov  2 19:45:56 2006
From: mark.a.ryan at gmail.com (Mark Ryan)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:45:56 -0500
Subject: Potter pronunciation
Message-ID: <eb00dbd30611021145x58853bedw688633612b09519d@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160885

I was annoyed at the way they pronounced Delacour in the GoF film.  The
emphasis should be on the last syllable.

Mark




From jadeaaustin at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  2 23:26:40 2006
From: jadeaaustin at yahoo.com (Stephanie)
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:26:40 -0000
Subject: Message in the Locket
Message-ID: <eidurg+356s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160886

Did anyone understand the message in the locket, in HP&HBP?  I
understand that it will probably be explained in Book 7, but I'm
hoping for speculation.






From minerva_523 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 01:18:13 2006
From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 01:18:13 -0000
Subject: Death Eaters fom a political angle
Message-ID: <eie5cl+3vki@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160888

I am trying to figure out just exactly what the Death Eaters
symbolize. There are a lot of suggestions about nazism...though it has
also been suggested that they are more of a radical group- for their
actions (at least from what I deducted in the beginning of book 6)
have quite a bit of anarchy about them...yet the ideals (the
whole "pure blood", old money begotten through birthright and
inheritance, a look to traditions)are very right wing...they were
oppressed by the muggles, and decided to turn the tables around and be
the oppressors themselves...it almost sounds like right wing
anarchism...any thoughts on this...from a political perspective???

minerva_523






From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov  3 02:20:03 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:20:03 -0000
Subject: Message in the Locket
In-Reply-To: <eidurg+356s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eie90j+8blk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160889

> Stephanie:
> Did anyone understand the message in the locket, in HP&HBP?  I
> understand that it will probably be explained in Book 7, but I'm
> hoping for speculation.
>

Eddie:
First, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulus_Black --

I think the speculation around here is that "RAB" is Sirius' brother,
Regulas A. Black.  (Sirius and Regulus had an uncle named Alberforth,
thus the "A"?)  Based on some not-quite-but-pretty-close canonical
comments by the translators of HBP, this is confirmed.  Some said they
asked Rowling about this point because in some languages Regulus Black
has been cast into different names, and therefore the initials "RAB"
should be changed to match the translations.  So we have it
second-hand that Rowling confirmed their suspicions.  Next, Lupin
mentions that Regulus was a Death Eater, but he got into it a little
way and was freaked out / scared off by what he was being expected to
do and tried to quit.  Voldemort doesn't just accept people's
resignations, and Lupin said Regulus only lived a few more days.  He
doesn't come right out and say that the Death Eaters killed him, but
we are certainly left with that conclusion based on context of the
comments.  However I personally am holding out that Regulus may have
died when he tried to open / destroy the locket-Horcrux.  That's just
my opinion.

So, assuming all the above is right, the current thinking is that the
locket in OotP at 12 Grimmauld Place that nobody could open is, in
fact, that very same Horcrux.  Given Kreacher's propensity for
squirreling away precious artifacts, the locket may right now be in
his hovel off the kitchen at 12GP.

Eddie






From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Fri Nov  3 02:30:19 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:30:19 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Death Eaters fom a political angle
Message-ID: <4371051.1162521019348.JavaMail.root@web35>

No: HPFGUIDX 160890


---- minerva_523 <minerva_523 at yahoo.com> wrote: 

=============
I am trying to figure out just exactly what the Death Eaters
symbolize. There are a lot of suggestions about nazism...though it has
also been suggested that they are more of a radical group- for their
actions (at least from what I deducted in the beginning of book 6)
have quite a bit of anarchy about them...yet the ideals (the
whole "pure blood", old money begotten through birthright and
inheritance, a look to traditions)are very right wing...they were
oppressed by the muggles, and decided to turn the tables around and be
the oppressors themselves...it almost sounds like right wing
anarchism...any thoughts on this...from a political perspective???

Marion here -
I don't think "old money" has anything to do with it - to me it's always been more of an ethnic cleansing type thing.  Nazis, KKK, etc.  In fact, the hoods they wore at the Quidditch World Cup were very reminiscent of the KKK.  And weren't they carrying torches, too (or am I thinking of something else?).  The dark mark on their arms is reminiscent of the marks the Nazi's tattooed on Jews.  (And there are Biblical allusions here, too, I assume -- the mark of the beast, not to mention the whole snake/Satan thing).  

Marion, a newbie who doesn't understand how you all are able to remember such minute details!








From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov  3 02:45:02 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:45:02 -0000
Subject: Message in the Locket
In-Reply-To: <eie90j+8blk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eieafe+53hc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160891

> > Stephanie:
> > Did anyone understand the message in the locket, in HP&HBP?
> 
> Eddie:
> I think the speculation around here is that "RAB" is Sirius' brother,
> Regulas A. Black.  (Sirius and Regulus had an uncle named Alberforth,
> thus the "A"?)

Eddie:
Oh, heavens, I'm tired.  First of all, it's REGULUS.  Second, the
uncle is ALPHARD.

Please excuse my many typos and having to answer my own post.

Eddie






From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov  3 02:40:40 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 02:40:40 -0000
Subject: Death Eaters fom a political angle
In-Reply-To: <eie5cl+3vki@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiea78+qk12@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160892

> minerva_523:
> I am trying to figure out just exactly what the Death Eaters
> symbolize. [...] nazism [...] radical group [...] anarchy [...]
> right wing anarchism

Eddie:
All the groups you mentioned (and many more) share many of the same
characteristics, so maybe you can take your pick.

They also have a lot in common with street gangs: one leader, the
biggest baddest dude, and the various henchmen.  Take a look at
Dudley's gang.  It's pretty much the same organizational structure and
goals: to beat up anybody the big bad dude doesn't like and have
everybody live in a subservient position to them.

There are definite racist themes in this book.  The hoods the Death
Eaters wear sound exactly like the Ku Klux Klan wardrobe here in
America.  I don't believe JKRowling wrote that parallel naively.

I wouldn't say anarchy.  Voldemort has a very firm grip on the
organization.  So more like a dictator.  I think the muggle-taunting
at the Quidditch World Cup was anarchy, but Voldemort clearly looked
down at that activity.  He wanted them to be using their "talents" for
better purpose.

"Right Wing" has a lot of connotaions I'm not prepared to match up
with thugs like Voldemort.  But I understand your point.  The
stereotype of "right wing" is intolerant of diversity (racial,
political, religious, economic), but the "right wing" is more complex
than that.

Maybe "radical group" sort of fits, in the context that they want to
overthrow the existing power structure.  But I just can't get past the
image of the radicals marching in the streets with picket signs,
standing on soapboxes shouting slogans to incite the public.  These
Death Eater people don't really want to incite the public as much as
scare the public into submission.

Interesting thread!

Eddie





From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Fri Nov  3 02:40:39 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 18:40:39 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Patronus
Message-ID: <13402829.1162521639621.JavaMail.root@web35>

No: HPFGUIDX 160893

I couldn't find the original post to confirm, but I think someone threw out the possibility that Snape's patronus was either to do with Lily or actually IS Lily.  Is there any reason that a Patronus can't take on human form, and more specifically a particular human form?  I always just assumed it was an animal, but then humans are animals, too.  

Along the same lines, I know the OotP communicate via their patronuses (patroni?), but I wonder how.  Can they talk, or carry thoughts that can be read with occlumancy or something?  So many little details to cover in book 7 - how will she do it??

Marion








From random832 at gmail.com  Fri Nov  3 03:47:05 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:47:05 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eids2f+a5t9@eGroups.com>
References: <eidktl+7eqg@eGroups.com> <eids2f+a5t9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50611021947v362e785am5b476cdfb7e476f1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160894

> Neri:
> DDM!Lucius, the courageous secret agent who
> obviously slipped the diary to Ginny and then sent Dobby to Harry in
> order to destroy Voldemort's Horcrux, and later made sure to fail
> capturing Harry and retrieving the Prophecy, all this on Dumbledore's
> orders and despite the terrible consequences to himself and his
> family... He's pretty rigid, actually <g>.

You know... that's not a half-bad theory... heh, just kidding.
Regardless, we need to look at the characters on their own merits. I
think the evidence is simply not there to support ESE!Lucius. As for
DDM... well, now that's just silly.

-- 
Random832



From sharonheater at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 03:28:23 2006
From: sharonheater at yahoo.com (Sharon Heater)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 03:28:23 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eid155+4oj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eied0n+pjns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160895

Charles:
> If he's the evil git that I'm convinced he is, (I'm sure that his
> innocence in the previous books was a planned red herring for the
> end of book six.) his patronus might be a basilisk or other type of
> snake. I'm at a loss for what else it might be if he's ESE. Any
> ideas folks?

Sharon:
How about a spider?  Wish I could take credit for the idea but I
read a post somewhere that made a very good case for the spider and
postulated that Snape was another unregistered animagus (so as not
to be outdone by the Marauders). His home is presumably "Spinner's
End".  Also there was that spider on DD's hat in the shed when DD
and Harry were discussing horcruxes.  Could Snape have been
eavesdropping?  Also, where was brave Professor Snape in COS?  Why
would he let the obviously incompetent Lockhart accompany Harry and
Ron?  Spiders flee before the Basilisk.  I think there was more but
I can't remember but I'd put my money on Snape's Patronus being the
spider.






From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Nov  3 03:56:44 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:56:44 -0500
Subject: Umbridge as tyrant / Twins leaving Hogwarts(WAS:Re: Hermione's Hex
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAyPe5kfwYHEiqxALcm6KZPwEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 160896

The case which established that children do not 'shed their rights at the
schoolhouse door" was TINKER VS. THE DES MOINES SCHOOL BOARD (I haven't the cite
here); during the Viet Nam war several students wore black armbands in mourning
for those who lost their lives in Viet Nam.  They were ordered to remove them;
they refused and were suspended and/or expelled.  Their parents sued and the
case went to the US Supreme Court.

The Twins didn't exactly 'drop out' of Hogwarts.  They had already passed their
OWLS; they just decided not to continue for their NEWTS.  Their situation is
more like a couple of HS graduates who decided not to go to college, or junior
college graduates who decided not to go on to a senior college.

BAW 


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





From scarah at gmail.com  Fri Nov  3 04:41:39 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 20:41:39 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Etymology of 'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eids4c+4bk9@eGroups.com>
References: <8ee758b40611020913v62f476ecu14a0898130cd5272@mail.gmail.com>
	 <eids4c+4bk9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611022041j40bcae88s6a176eafd295deb2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160897

Accio is a word, in Latin.  Its pronunciation rules are clear from
what I can find out.  CC before A, O or U sounds like K, CC before E
or I sounds like CH.  Ah-chee-o.

It means to summon.  There is a phrase accio mortum meaning to commit suicide.

Sarah



From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov  3 05:03:58 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 00:03:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umbridge as tyrant / Twins leaving Hogwarts(WAS:Re: Hermione's Hex
References: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAyPe5kfwYHEiqxALcm6KZPwEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <01cb01c6ff05$78fcf180$d272400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 160898

Bruce:
> The case which established that children do not 'shed their rights at the
> schoolhouse door" was TINKER VS. THE DES MOINES SCHOOL BOARD (I haven't 
> the cite
> here); during the Viet Nam war several students wore black armbands in 
> mourning
> for those who lost their lives in Viet Nam.  They were ordered to remove 
> them;
> they refused and were suspended and/or expelled.  Their parents sued and 
> the
> case went to the US Supreme Court.

Magpie:
Interestingly, just this Tuesday a kid was sent home for wearing a Halloween 
costume that went against the school's policy of not wearing anything that 
was "disruptive" to class.  I think the kid was totally within his rights of 
free speech in making a parody, but I believe the costume was the thing to 
go.

Actually, this is an aside, but one of the things that bugs me about Harry's 
early troubles with Umbridge and McGonagall's advice to him is that she 
actually has the nerve to tell him that he should be more like Hermione when 
it's Hermione who causes the problems.  Iirc, both times Harry has it out 
with Umbridge it's Hermione who brings up the subject of Voldemort and 
challenges Umbridge, who then starts saying that Voldemort hasn't returned 
etc.  Harry then, understandably, feels the need to contradict her.  I 
remember it just drove me crazy that McGonagall and Hermione both scolded 
Harry over his temper with no advice to Hermione to stop setting him up!

Bruce:
>
> The Twins didn't exactly 'drop out' of Hogwarts.  They had already passed 
> their
> OWLS; they just decided not to continue for their NEWTS.  Their situation 
> is
> more like a couple of HS graduates who decided not to go to college, or 
> junior
> college graduates who decided not to go on to a senior college.

Magpie:
It seems like my use of the term "drop out" makes everybody think the twins 
need to be defended from charges of laziness when that was never the point. 
They leave school before completing the term for which they are enrolled, 
never to return.  They were presumably planning to take NEWTS and didn't. To 
me the term "drop out" was fine. The other part of my point was always that 
they had a life waiting for them, which is why they were so very free to 
leave Hogwarts.  It's not like they were going home to live in their 
parents' basement with no career prospects.

-m 





From followingmytruth at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 05:32:53 2006
From: followingmytruth at yahoo.com (Sean-Michael)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 21:32:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Snape on H&R and Lockhart  (was Re: Snape's Patronus)
In-Reply-To: <eied0n+pjns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061103053253.13298.qmail@web33714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160899



Sharon Heater <sharonheater at yahoo.com> wrote:
 Sharon:
Also, where was brave Professor Snape in COS?  Why 
 would he let the obviously incompetent Lockhart accompany Harry and 
 Ron?  Spiders flee before the Basilisk.  I think there was more but 
 I can't remember but I'd put my money on Snape's Patronus being the 
 spider.

Sean-Michael:

Just a quick response (and if I'm off here my apologies but I've been sick in bed the last few days) Snape didn't "let" Lockhart accompany Harry and Ron that I remember. Weren't they in fact eavesdropping on the professors discussing the Chamber of Secrets with DD and they followed Lockhart to his classroom or office or whatever it was so they could empart on him their knowledge about the monster and where the chamber entrance might be etc? I believe that Snape et al didn't believe Lockhart knew where the entrance was nor how to kill the monster and were going to let his incompetance finally show itself clearly, but then the boys came upon him as he prepared for his escape and took him at wandpoint to check out their idea of where the chamber entrance was.
I could be off on some of that, but that's how I remember it






Sean-Michael 
http://smbryceart.etsy.com
http://smbryceart.pbwiki.com
http://smbryceart.livejournal.com
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=6&b=4533
 
---------------------------------
Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap  PC-to-Phone call rates.

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





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Fri Nov  3 06:44:52 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 22:44:52 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: James' and Lily's gold
In-Reply-To: <eidep7+4nqq@eGroups.com>
References: <ei6664+lkgt@eGroups.com> <eidep7+4nqq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611022244r67fad33ai86442feb05d8ed90@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160900

Kishan:
Yes, even I thought about that too. Why couldn't Harry just go and exchange
some wizarding money for muggle money. And about the money in Gringotts,
maybe we just have to assume that Lily and James have inherited it from the
Potter family. It's quite possible because Rowling never mentioned that they
were poor, so...

Lynda:
Harry was still pretty young at the time. Also, he was more than a little
disturbed/excited with everything that had happened earlier that evening.

Lynda


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




From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 07:10:51 2006
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:10:51 -0000
Subject: Snape a vampire? (was Snape's Patronus)
In-Reply-To: <ce8f4t+j4ja@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eieq1r+n02t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160901

No, you are correc, Snape threads will never die....

Snape had the opportunity to guide Harry...he made the Malfoy 
decision...(bad idea) but he made the choice....and it never backfired 
upon him until HBP....Snapes big mistake....being a coward(after DD's 
protection) he never tried to save Harry only tried to find out 
harry's ultimate foe....

In COS...I think Snape with his friendship with Malfoy...and his 
animosity towards the weasleys....there may well have been some sort 
of conspiracy there....

And in POA...we get Harry in Hogsmeade...but did snape tell DD about 
this?

In GOF..just more animosity from snape...after he see's Harry 
surviving...I believe this is where he(snape) wavers for the first 
time..

OOP--where we learn snape is none to fond of Harry's dad, also, we 
learn snape is a occlumens...were we see snape physically harm Harry 
for the first time..

I would argue that snape is not a "TRUE" vamp...simply an EMOTIONAL 
VAMPIRE...(and don't most of us know this type)...

HBP-where Snape is actually able to teach Harry for the first time 
ever..

Also...if DD had been honest about Snape(which in his opinion he 
was/is)....or if DD had compelled Snape to be honest..( he would no 
longer be a DE and would have confessed what he knew...it would have 
been horrible)

I think DD knew snape through and through...and as for Harry and the 
TRIO...I think they know Snape trough and through and through..in 
GOF...we find the invalubilty of Hagrid, Dobby, and an outside house!

I think in HBP DD may have come to said realization....but didn't want 
to tell Harry..It's really important..Hence Mundungus was arrested...
(to show harrry that the MOM did make a realistic arrest.)
I think DD as he always does...left it to the individual in the 
end...he didn't...Snape wavered...Snape proved a great deal...DD would 
sacrifce for Harry...yet clearly...Snape...would not..Hence said 
arguement in the forrest between DD and Snape that Hagrid overheard...
I think, that after all these books...that snape has one chance and 
one chance alone...to make his patronus a stag...that is the only way 
he"ll be able to communicate with any of the marauders, harry or most 
of the order....and even then....shame on him for making a 
UV...although it was the only way he could have saved DD...it was also 
the only way he could not....really, all should have listened to 
harry...and harry should have had dobby follow malfory more closely..

DD





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Nov  3 07:51:23 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 07:51:23 -0000
Subject: Etymology of 'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <3202590611022041j40bcae88s6a176eafd295deb2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eiesdr+mptt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160902

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah <scarah at ...> wrote:
>
> Accio is a word, in Latin.  Its pronunciation rules are clear from
> what I can find out.  CC before A, O or U sounds like K, CC before E
> or I sounds like CH.  Ah-chee-o.
> 
> It means to summon.  There is a phrase accio mortum meaning to
> commit suicide.

Geoff:
Just in the passing, I pointed out that it was a real Latin word and gave 
its meaning in message 160814.

My Oxford Latin Dictionary, in its Guide to Pronunciation, says 
"c is always hard as in cat".

Moving to message 160883...

bboyminn:
> Cut me some slack, it was 3:30 AM and my brain was
> running out of gas. 

Geoff:
Well , if you must be a night owl...
:-(

bboyminn:
> Plus, I was fixated on the previous
> suggestion of 'accelerate'. Still, I get your point. But
> none the less, the more I think about it, the more
> 'ack-see-oh' feels right to me, and that's what counts...
> isn't it? ;)

> Also, as you will notice, many of your words do not follow
> 'acc...' with a vowel, and those that do use 'o' or 'u'.
> Try looking up words that use 'i' or 'e' after the
> 'acc...'; Accident, accessions, access, accepts, accessory.
> Though there are some exceptions such as 'acciaccatura'
> which uses the 'ch' sound.

Geoff:
It goes back to your comment that "nearly all" words starting 
with ACC...

Looking at your comment quoted above that "many of your 
words do not follow 'acc...; with a vowel, in my list of words, 
which you snipped, I gave 16 words which are pronounced 
as 'ack" and 12 of those had a vowel following 'ack'.

I think a 75% result statistically could be reported as "many 
of the words DO follow..."

Sorry, I felt a bit like stirring things this morning.
:-)





From elfundeb at gmail.com  Fri Nov  3 11:40:00 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 06:40:00 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
In-Reply-To: <eicvr2+hkk8@eGroups.com>
References: <80f25c3a0611011711l298d152bx2d9ab552b6664bc9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <eicvr2+hkk8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0611030340s449ec93kbadb93a87f153243@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160903

Carol:
The problem is, there are many different conceptions of soul, and the
one you're quoting is somewhat medieval. Modern people, including
wizards, know that memories are in the mind. Otherwise, they couldn't
remove memories from their minds. And, as I said, Snape, Dumbledore,
and Slughorn remove memories from their minds with no damage to their
souls. The etymology of "Legilimency" and "Occlumency" both of which
relate to memories, ties them to mind, not soul.

Debbie:
I'll readily admit that my conception of the soul is somewhat medieval.
However, I see the soul as a religious concept, and it just hasn't changed
much since the Middle Ages, even if the word has taken on new meanings.  I
even consulted my catechism, which states that man is a unity of body and
soul, and further states that death separates the soul from the body.  The
mind, which is not even mentioned must be part of the soul.

I was going to declare a draw, but Neri has reminded me of the canon that
supports my definition of soul as including memory (as a general
proposition, at least).

Carol:
IMO, the memory (or
memories) that Tom placed in the diary are like those we see Snape and
Dumbledore taking from their heads and are separate from the soul bit
that was encased using a Horcrux-creating spell. If Dumbledore placed
a memory in a diary, even if he intended that memory to be read and
shared (like a Pensieve memory or the memory of Tom "catching"
Hagrid), would that memory be capable of possessing the reader? I
don't think so.

Debbie:
The Pensieve memories (as well as Riddle's memories)  clearly can be
separated from a person and played like a videotape.  However, that doesn't
necessarily prevent other memories from remaining with the soul.

Carol:
Tom says himself that he created the diary to carry on Salazar
Slytherin's noble work because he could no longer open the CoS
himself. (Surely I don't need to find the quote as it should be
thoroughly familiar to everyone on the list. Even the movie got that
one right.)

Debbie:
I'm not sure that we can trust Tom's word on this one.  I don't think he was
lying; he just wasn't telling the whole truth.  Carrying on Slytherin's work
was one function of the diary, but it wasn't the only one, and Tom certainly
wasn't going to tell Harry about the diary's Horcrux function.

Carol:
I infer from those words that he made the diary right
away, before he murdered his parents. [snip] At any rate, JKR is less than
clear on the time frame and it's
possible that the Lexicon is correct, but its editors are speculating
and theorizing just like we are.


Debbie:
As for when the diary was created, there's no canon on that one, and while
Tom *could* have put the memory in the diary right away, there are equally
good reasons to conclude that he did not do it right away.  (For one thing,
I don't think he had a blank diary at Hogwarts, so he likely didn't buy the
diary until the summer.)

Debbie


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




From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  3 12:08:25 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 12:08:25 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eids2f+a5t9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifbfp+9sfe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160904

> > Pippin:
> >
> > My goodness where to start...

Dung:
Tell you what, I'll have a go too, then you can pick it all apart 
and tell me why I'm wrong... Though I have to say that, 
specifically, I'm contesting SSSusan's implication that Lucius is 
more slippery than Snape, I'm not actually denying that Lucius is at 
all slippery, which it appears to me is all you (Pippin) set out to 
provide canon for, so I might appear to be unfairly disagreeing with 
you. 

Pippin:
> > After VW1, He pleaded that he was under the Imperius curse, 
> dissociating himself from his own sister-in-law who proudly went 
to Azkaban for Voldie.  

Dung:
Yes, agreed, many other DEs did so too. It was bonkers!Bella and a 
few others who'd rather have died or gone to Azkaban than renounce 
Death Eating and the Dark Lord. In this sense, yes, Lucius is self-
serving rather than loyal to Voldemort. 

However, if it was Lucius who sent Crouch and the Lestranges after 
the Longbottoms where they got caught, and if he *intended* them to 
get caught, and if he counted them as personal friends rather than 
colleagues (highly speculative, but that doesn't stop me liking the 
idea), then yes, that would be strong evidence to suggest that my 
theory of him helping Snape out is less likely than I supposed.  

Pippin:
> > He later used Voldemort's precious Diary in a scheme of his own, 
in the course of which he secretly threatened to curse the families 
of his fellow members of the Board of Governors unless they backed 
the ouster of Dumbledore.  

Dung:
Again, agreed. Self-serving, rather than loyal to a Dark Lord he 
belived dead.

Pippin:
He backed Fudge with gold  while secretly returning to 
> his DE activities, 

Dung:
Are you talking about OotP, or before Voldy's return? On whose 
orders do you think Lucius was handing out all that gold in OotP? I 
very firmly think he was doing it on Voldy's orders. Do you think 
he's sneaking around the Ministry behind Voldy's back trying to 
cushion the blow if Voldy mark II falls again? Or do you think he's 
trying to screw over other DEs? I'm not sure I'd count following 
Voldy's orders as being OFH.

Pippin:
and of course Voldemort himself labels him 'my 
> slippery friend' for using his Death Eater connections to organize 
a pleasant evening of Muggle-baiting instead of seeking the return 
of his Master.

Dung:
Voldemort does call him 'my slippery friend', but IMO it's not clear 
why. I think it refers to his claiming Imperius, I don't see why one 
has to be particularly slippery to get a group of thugs together to 
torture some powerless Muggles. In fact, Voldy seems to see that 
(keeping up the old ways) as a show of loyalty to him and Death 
Eating. On the other hand, the fact that he wasn't seeking Voldy 
o'er hill and dale is simple loss of faith and dereliction of duty, 
not slipperiness per se, isn't it? 

Pippin:
> > Snape, OTOH, may be slimy but he's not slippery. He changed 
sides, but that seems to have taken a huge effort on his part. He's 
pretty rigid, actually. 
> 

Dung:
Really? He changed sides before Godric's Hollow. He kept Voldy from 
getting the Philosopher's Stone, he called the Order when Harry et 
al. didn't come back from the forest (whether you think he called 
them late or not, he still called them to the MoM and their arrival 
compromised a whole load of his supposed friends - Lucius included). 
And after all this, he *still* managed to worm his way back into 
Voldemort's good graces *and* kept Dumbledore on-side, and utterly 
unsuspicious. He then throws the whole lot up in the air by 
murdering Dumbledore and spiriting the setter of the trap (Draco) 
away to safety. 

If Lucius were as slippery as Snape, I very much doubt that he would 
be sitting in Azkaban now. We do mean the same thing by slippery, 
don't we? Difficult to pin down, able to "slither out of action" <g>.

> Neri:
> Hmmm, it seems to me that you don't compare Lucius and Snape on 
equal footing here. You compare Canon!Lucius against DDM!Snape. No 
wonder you find that Lucius is more OFH. That's basically managing 
to prove what you were assuming from the outset.
> 
> If you want to be fair to Lucius you need to compare Canon!Lucius 
> against Canon!Snape. In this case killing Dumbledore would hardly 
> appear "rigid" of Snape. Nor backing Fudge when he wanted to 
execute Sirius. Nor avoiding any responsibility (from both sides!) 
to the DoM fiasco. Quite slippery, in fact.
> 

Dung:
Agreed, absolutely; but I think that even DDM!Snape is more slippery 
than Lucius. And I still don't see that having avoided his duty to 
Voldemort on a couple of occasions makes Lucius unable to look out 
for those of his DE friends who also look out for him.

Dungrollin
Still insisting that there's canon to suggest Lucius's loyalty to 
Voldy has wavered, but none to suggest he's happy to betray his DE 
friends.





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 15:19:24 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:19:24 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <eidskk+4dbq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifmls+koit@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160905

phoenixgod: 
> Honestly, the logic in your original post is so torturous in its 
> contortions to make the scene not an insult it doesn't surprise me 
that 
> some people read it as you putting forth a Saint Snape scenario.  I 
> think a plain textual reading of Snape going for the jugular on 
> Hermione is the correct one.

zgirnius:
I read it the same way as you my first time through. Though, I 
definitely read faster than I think, which means I would never have 
considered Snape's statement independently of the reactions that 
follow it.

I have encountered a few people who claim only to have understood 
that Snape's comment was hurtful, and why, after reading Hermione, 
Harry, and Ron's reactions, and thinking about it. Such people, 
obviously, do not find the logic of the argument convoluted, since it 
coincides with their first impressions of the scene. (Though I may, 
of course, have presented it poorly).









From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 13:43:06 2006
From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:43:06 -0000
Subject: Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
In-Reply-To: <eicvr2+hkk8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifh1a+9d5v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160906

> Carol again:
>  IMO, the memory (or
> memories) that Tom placed in the diary are like those we see Snape 
and
> Dumbledore taking from their heads and are separate from the soul bit
> that was encased using a Horcrux-creating spell. If Dumbledore placed
> a memory in a diary, even if he intended that memory to be read and
> shared (like a Pensieve memory or the memory of Tom "catching"
> Hagrid), would that memory be capable of possessing the reader? I
> don't think so.

Actually, they are quite different! The memories that are placed in 
the pensieve that Harry witnesses are just that - memories of the 
events, accounts of them - containing no soul at all. However the 
diary was a Horcrux. It contained not only the memories/accounts of 
the events that Harry witnessed (the 'capture' of Hagrid) but the 
essence of Riddle himself, a fraction of his soul. However it was just 
a fraction of his soul, fragmented and not whole. 

Pg. 310 Am Ed CoS says: "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, if Riddle's 'memory' had no soul, Riddle wouldn't have been able 
to pour himself into Ginny and possess her.

Jenni from Alabama 









From zedric_01 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 13:28:07 2006
From: zedric_01 at yahoo.com (Lantis)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 13:28:07 -0000
Subject: Just want to ask a question about HORCRUXES.....
Message-ID: <eifg57+5jt2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160907

Well, I just want to ask a question about HORCRUXES??? My question is:
In book 2 (Chamber Of Secrets), just in case the soul encased in Riddle's Diary (which is we know a Horcrux) managed to "rise again" (when he sucks the life out of GINNY), what would happen??? I mean, what would happen to the REAL VOLDEMORT??? Would the VOLDEMORT who will "rise again" would be the same Voldemort or a different one? (A sixteen (or seventeen)-year old Voldemort?) Would that be possible? 

Is there a way we can ask this out to JK Rowling?

Lantis




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov  3 15:41:37 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:41:37 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eids2f+a5t9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifnvh+70q8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160908


> Neri:
> Hmmm, it seems to me that you don't compare Lucius and Snape on equal 
> footing here. You compare Canon!Lucius against DDM!Snape. No wonder 
> you find that Lucius is more OFH. That's basically managing to prove 
> what you were assuming from the outset.
> 
> If you want to be fair to Lucius you need to compare Canon!Lucius 
> against Canon!Snape. In this case killing Dumbledore would hardly 
> appear "rigid" of Snape.

Pippin:
Now, now. Canon doesn't prove Snape killed Dumbledore. Quite
the contrary. Dumbledore's blood cries out from the ground, and
what it cries is that Snape is innocent. You may speculate of
anti-coagulants, poetic license or Flints, but the straightforward
reading is that Dumbledore was alive when he hit the ground and
for some thirty minutes afterwards. Blood will tell. Specifically,
a trickle of blood that can be wiped away thirty minutes after
a man is supposed to have died.


But if you insist that Snape did kill Dumbledore despite this,
then the most obvious reading is ESE!Snape, who never left
Voldemort's service at all and is thus has more traction than
DDM!Snape could ever have.

But perhaps we mean different things by slippery.
If Snape remains loyal to one character or side  and is
deceiving everyone else, that is slimy but not slippery, IMO.
Slippery means to me that allegiance shifts as a 
matter of convenience. I think Canon!Lucius wins that one 
hands down. 

In contrast, the canon  case for OFH!Snape
is terribly weakened by Spinner's End. There's just no
reason for OFH!Snape to take that vow, which is why
Bella is simply astounded when it happens.

This isn't obvious at first because we think Bella suspected
Snape of being a Dumbledore loyalist.  But she couldn't have,
not given the duelling ability Snape reveals in the end.
A cornered DDM!Snape would have to kill or silence her,
yet there's no sense that Bella thinks she's taking her life 
in her hands by confronting him. She's merely contemptuous.

She could afford to be contemptuous of OFH!Snape. 
Voldemort does permit his servants to think they can use him
to further their own ends, as long as they're not too obvious
about it.  Indeed it's the only kind of loyalty he 
understands. But he will not tolerate desertion. She
knows that  DDM!Snape could never afford to let her bring 
his true loyalties to light.

No, her aim was not to smoke out a DDM!Snape but to 
prove that Snape was not as thoroughly committed to her
Master as she was, and did not deserve the favor he
currently enjoyed, in fact that he was Out For Himself.

The vow silences her, as well it should. Even if we go with 
ACID POPS, again we have a Snape whose true loyalty 
is to Narcissa, not one with no true loyalty at all. 

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 16:04:33 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:04:33 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <015b01c6fece$21c89770$d272400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eifpah+q6tb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160909

Magpie wrote:
<snip>
> It's a little different for Snape in that usually I think what bugs
him about Hermione is her being a know-it-all so he goes after that,
but I don't think, as some others do, that Snape would never have
noticed this issue of Hermione's.  I'm sure he's seen Draco do
buck-tooth impressions plenty of times and noticed the resemblance. 
He may usually not go for looks because he himself was sensitive about
his own in high school, but given the obvious set up of the charm he'd
make the connection. <snip>

Carol responds:
I'm a bit puzzled by your last sentence. the Densuageo hex was aimed
at Harry, just as the fungus-boil hex (at least as nasty, BTW) was
aimed at Draco. The hexes were deflected onto Goyle and Hermione when
the spells collided in midair. So the Densuageo hex landing on
Hermione is both fortuitous and felicitous--it, ironically, gives her
the opportunity to have her front teeth shortened (and straightened)?
But the "set up" or intention of the spell was to lengthen *Harry's*
teeth. As for Snape's reaction, I'm sure he did intend a gratuitous
insult to Hermione (but he also expected her to rush to the hospital
wing for help since he didn't reprimand or punish her for it), but I
think his primary intention was to antagonize Ron and Harry. Why, I
don't know. Maybe he suspected that the confrontation was Harry's
fault and he deserved detention for *something*? A lot of people were
at fault here, BTW, not just Snape, and good came out of "evil"
(Hermione got her teeth fixed). It was actually lucky for her that the
 hex was deflected onto her. The same can't be said for poor Goyle,
who merely got in the way.

> 
> Magpie:
<snip> with Snape and Draco one of my main issues is just that I don't
see scenes where Draco is playing Snape and Snape is falling for it.
He seems like up until HBP he was pretty consistently behaving in a
way Snape liked and not getting so very much in return besides Snape's
favor. I think Draco can pester his parents for presents and still
genuinely love them as well.  It's not all or nothing, and Snape seems
to me anyway to see Draco for who he really is.
> 
> The creative solution, I thought, was that instead of having Draco
shocked and betrayed that Snape is really on the other side and so
playing him (which often goes along with the interpretation that he
never really liked him at all and it was all an act, though I'm not
sure if you're giving that interpretation here), Draco himself began
to have trouble with DE!Snape and had trouble with that side on his
own. Now they're potentially both on the same page about Voldemort so
Snape's being a spy for Dumbledore isn't as much of a betrayal.  Snape
can be genuinely on Draco's side and also on Dumbledore's.  Since
Draco himself faced a similar situation in the Tower, I think he could
understand that now.

Carol responds:
I agree that Snape's affection and concern for Draco and Draco's
respect and liking for Snape are genuine and, IMO, they probably
predate the teacher/student relationship. IOW, I think they that Snape
has been a friend of the family ("Lucius's old friend") since before
Draco was born. (How else would he know that Draco could successfully
cast Serpensortia, for example?) I also agree that the friction
between them in HBP is adolescent rebellion against a father figure
compounded by Draco's fears and doubts as he discovers the reality of
being a DE. Bellatrix's distrust of Snape, which has led her to teach
Draco a rudimentary version of Occlumency, can't help. It's even
possible that he's not sure himself which side Snape is on, which
would explain his sneers at DADA, which "we" don't need. (Their
relationship was much better when Snape was Potions master, but that's
only one minor factor in what's going on in Draco's head in HBP.) Just
like a teenager who rebels against his parents in RL, Draco is trying
to become a "man," resisting Snape's efforts to "help" him, especially
since he knows that Snape has promised Narcissa to protect Draco.
(Draco ditches his mother in Diagon Alley, not wanting her to know
what he's up to. He doesn't want Snape to know, either, partly because
he wants to do it himself and partly because either Voldemort or
Bellatrix doesn't want Snape to know--probably both.)

As you say, Snape and Draco seem to have arrived at similar positions
regarding Voldemort and the reality of being a Death Eater, or at
least Draco is teetering on the verge of a position similar to the one
young snape arrived at when he discovered how Voldemort interpreted
the Prophecy (the necessity of murdering a child and perhaps its
parents). I think the fact that Snape saved Draco's life twice in HBP
could influence his decision to trust Snape. I think it's also likely
that he protected him from a Crucio, or at least from an AK, when they
returned to Voldemort by pointing out that Draco did fix the Vanishing
Cabinet and in so doing made it possible for Snape to kill Dumbledore.
And Snape's ability to use Legilimency, getting in a glimpse of
Draco's thoughts before he musters his clumsy defenses ("I know what
you're doing@ I can stop you!") could help as well in enabling snape
to determine that they were on the same page. (IMO, Snape could push
past Draco's all-too obvious Occlumency if he wanted to, but that
would violate Draco's trust and permanently damage their relationship.)

Carol, whose "I agree" post came out a bit longer than she anticipated





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov  3 15:53:48 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 15:53:48 -0000
Subject: Death Eaters fom a political angle
In-Reply-To: <eie5cl+3vki@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifomc+s8s5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160910

Minerva:
> I am trying to figure out just exactly what the Death Eaters
> symbolize. 

Pippin:
I think they symbolize extremism, regardless of platform. The
werewolves are seeking additional rights, the pureblood faction
wishes to restore rights it once had and restrict the rights of
others, Voldemort panders to both while his private agenda 
does not include sharing power with anyone.  But they are all 
united under the Dark Mark, in other words, by  their acceptance 
of violence as a means to  political ends.

Pippin





From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  3 16:09:20 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:09:20 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <eifmls+koit@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifpjg+vc69@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160911

: 
> zgirnius:

> I have encountered a few people who claim only to have understood 
> that Snape's comment was hurtful, and why, after reading Hermione, 
> Harry, and Ron's reactions, and thinking about it. Such people, 
> obviously, do not find the logic of the argument convoluted, since it 
> coincides with their first impressions of the scene. (Though I may, 
> of course, have presented it poorly).
>
wynnleaf
I'm curious as to *why* people think this was such an insulting
comment.  In other words, why was Hermione so hurt by it?  

Consider this.  If Hermione's hand had been grossly enlarged, and
Snape had looked at it and said, "I see no difference," where would be
the insult?  If he had meant by the comment, "that hand is no
different from the way it was," then his comment could only be
construed as ridiculously dense.  But not an insult, because it's too
obviously incorrect (*if* Snape meant that the hand was no different
from the way it had been before).

The reason "I see no difference" is insulting is because the
implication is that Hermione's teeth are so big anyway, that Snape
sees no difference.  But no one would use that as an insult unless 1.
the person thought Hermione's regular teeth ugly and therefore the
comment would point out that her regular teeth were ugly, too.  Or 2.
the person knew that Hermione was particularly sensitive about her
teeth.  Otherwise, saying "I see no difference" and meaning "your
teeth are no different from the way they were" has no impact -- it's
an insult "without teeth" (intentional pun).  

But I can't see Snape either already knowing that Hermione is
sensitive about her teeth, OR Snape considering her teeth so ugly that
telling her that her enlarged teeth are no different would hurt her
feelings and be an insult -- rather than simply ridiculous.

See what I mean?  Someone with very yellowed, ugly teeth -- far, far
uglier than Hermione's doubtlessly pearly white teeth -- would
probably never even know that Hermione considers her regular teeth too
big, and *Certainly* Snape wouldn't think they were ugly.  So where is
the supposed impact -- in *Snape's* mind -- of the insult?  If he was
saying this as an insult, he might as well (from his perspective) have
said that her teeth were purple or had gold stars or whatever --
because Snape couldn't have known that Hermione would consider a
comment about the size of her teeth an insult.

Okay -- so where does that leave us?  It takes the trio and the
narrator reminding the reader that Hermione is sensitive about her
beautiful white, but slightly larger teeth, in order for us to feel
her injury at Snape's remark.

So what did Snape say it for, if it wouldn't make sense for him to
attempt to insult Hermione this way?  Possibly he *did* mean, "I see
no difference.  This isn't any worse a hex than the one on Goyle."  

I don't know -- it's a bit strange all around.  This is the only
instance of Snape making that kind of personal insult about someone's
looks -- *if* that's what it was.  And if that's what it was, it's --
of all bodily parts he might insult -- one of the two most odd things
to insult (that and someone with slightly oily hair), since his own
teeth are soooo much worse than the slightly larger white teeth that
Hermione's so sensitive about.  

Remember -- Snape's supposed insult has zero impact if it's not
directed at something Hermione cares about, or if it's not got a
slight element of truth to it.  But I don't think Snape would never
think that Hermione's regular teeth have anything truly wrong with
them, nor can I believe he knew she was sensitive about her teeth.

Just compare it to how a similar remark would sound if one of her feet
had grown very large -- "I see no difference" would not have hurt her
feelings, it would simply have been ridiculous.  Because Hermione
isn't sensitive about having big feet.

wynnleaf







From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov  3 16:16:56 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:16:56 -0000
Subject: Just want to ask a question about HORCRUXES.....
In-Reply-To: <eifg57+5jt2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifq1o+53vr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160912

> Lantis:
> In book 2 (Chamber Of Secrets), just in case the soul encased in
> Riddle's Diary (which is we know a Horcrux) managed to "rise again"
> (when he sucks the life out of GINNY), what would happen??? I mean,
> what would happen to the REAL VOLDEMORT??? Would the VOLDEMORT who
> will "rise again" would be the same Voldemort or a different one? (A
> sixteen (or seventeen)-year old Voldemort?) Would that be possible? 
> 
> Is there a way we can ask this out to JK Rowling?

Eddie:
Really interesting question!  It opens up a lot of avenues of thought.

I suppose you can ask Rowling.  Her website (
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=2 ) says, "Where
can I write to you? My publishers will forward letters."  But don't
expect an answer.  There are 6 Billion people on the planet and
5.999999999 billion (that's everybody except Jo herself) want to get a
direct answer from Rowling.

My speculation: There would be two Voldemort entities.  But the
entities!Voldemorts would seek each other out and rejoin.  It seems
logical that if someone is able to put a piece of their soul into a
Horcrux, there must be some way to get that piece safely out again and
to reintegrate it.  I speculate that since the soul was "torn" prior
to the creation of the Horcrux, the rejoining would never be perfect
again.

Eddie, who is not JKRowling, but is absolutely certain that the real
JKRowling reads this website in the hopes she can learn something
clever from my posts.  :-)





From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov  3 16:37:10 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:37:10 -0000
Subject: Snape turned redux (Was: Snape and Draco again (was: I see no difference))
Message-ID: <eifr7m+kvul@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160913

> Carol:
> As you say, Snape and Draco seem to have arrived at similar positions
> regarding Voldemort and the reality of being a Death Eater, or at
> least Draco is teetering on the verge of a position similar to the one
> young snape arrived at when he discovered how Voldemort interpreted
> the Prophecy (the necessity of murdering a child and perhaps its
> parents).

Eddie:
I wonder... before Voldemort killed the Potters, was Snape aware that
Voldemort was willing to kill to achieve his ends?  _WE_ know that
earlier than this Voldemort killed (or ordered killed): his father and
grandparents, Hepzibah Smith, and maybe RAB.  But did the _SNAPE_ know?

Meaning, not only the "necessity of murdering a child", but
"willingness to murder".

Eddie





From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov  3 16:37:56 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 11:37:56 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
References: <eifpah+q6tb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c6ff66$6c2f63f0$7560400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 160914

> Carol responds:
> I'm a bit puzzled by your last sentence. the Densuageo hex was aimed
> at Harry, just as the fungus-boil hex (at least as nasty, BTW) was
> aimed at Draco. The hexes were deflected onto Goyle and Hermione when
> the spells collided in midair. So the Densuageo hex landing on
> Hermione is both fortuitous and felicitous--it, ironically, gives her
> the opportunity to have her front teeth shortened (and straightened)?
> But the "set up" or intention of the spell was to lengthen *Harry's*
> teeth.

Magpie:
Sorry, I wrote that in a way that was confusing.  When I said "the set up" I 
just meant that Snape happened to come out and see Hermione with her teeth 
that way, so with that "set up" (in terms of the scene happening to be set 
for him that way, not a set up that someone within canon set up to be that 
way) Snape could make the connection. Did that explain more what I meant? 
The author was the person doing the set up.


> Carol responds:
> I agree that Snape's affection and concern for Draco and Draco's
> respect and liking for Snape are genuine and, IMO, they probably
> predate the teacher/student relationship. IOW, I think they that Snape
> has been a friend of the family ("Lucius's old friend") since before
> Draco was born. (How else would he know that Draco could successfully
> cast Serpensortia, for example?)

Magpie:
I hope we find out more about the Snape/Lucius connection.  Harry notes that 
Snape "seems to like" Malfoy on the very first day which indicates he might 
have started earlier.  Though I suppose it might have been like Harry and 
James, where he didn't know the actual boy but knew the father.  What always 
surprises me is the scene where Malfoy seems sort of unaware of the close 
relationship between Snape and his father, but maybe I'm just getting that 
impression and it's not correct.

Carol:
I also agree that the friction
> between them in HBP is adolescent rebellion against a father figure
> compounded by Draco's fears and doubts as he discovers the reality of
> being a DE. <snipping just for space>

Magpie:
Yeah, I feel like Snape is sort of walking through a minefield and knows 
that because of his own past and maybe things he's seen with Regulus and 
others.  He may be holding himself back from taking more control (forcing 
himself through Draco's Occlumency, or just being more controlling in other 
ways).  But I feel like all the previous references to their relationship 
were in order to set up that situation, so that the characters would have 
earned a realistic close relationship in HBP.  While the argument Harry 
hears reveals a lot of the issues at stake I think it also hints at things 
they understand more than he does.  Like when Snape brings up Lucius and 
Draco storms out, that seemed like Snape knew Draco well enough to know 
things that were really bothering him that he wasn't saying, and Draco's 
storming out showed that Snape was right and Draco probably left because he 
knew that.

wynnleaf:
Remember -- Snape's supposed insult has zero impact if it's not directed at 
something Hermione cares about, or if it's not got a slight element of truth 
to it.  But I don't think Snape would never think that Hermione's regular 
teeth have anything truly wrong with them, nor can I believe he knew she was 
sensitive about her teeth.

Magpie:
I think Snape has every reason to know this about Hermione. Not just because 
the Slytherins refer to it all the time, but because he sees her in class. 
He doesn't have to be literally thinking that Hermione's teeth are so awful. 
It's just a case of the set up (as I explained above) being so obvious.  For 
instance, I doubt Snape's scandalized by Harry's messy hair, and we all know 
Snape's hair is always described in worse ways than Harry's.  But if Harry 
were hit with a spell that turned his hair into a rat's nest, I think Snape 
might say, "I see no difference," to reference that the spell, as it turns 
out, just makes an already prominent feature more prominent.  If Hermione 
already has prominent front teeth and you see her with really big front 
teeth, anyone might note the connection even if you hadn't previously 
thought the teeth were ugly or spent much time thinking about her 
sensitivity.

-m





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov  3 16:44:52 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:44:52 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <eifpjg+vc69@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifrm4+7mg1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160915


> wynnleaf
> I'm curious as to *why* people think this was such an insulting
> comment.  In other words, why was Hermione so hurt by it? 

Potioncat:
snipping the excellent summary

Had the reader ever been told Hermione didn't like her teeth before 
this part? I knew--vaguely---that her hair is frizzy and her teeth 
are prominent, but I'm not sure if that's large or protruding. It 
seems she fixes her teeth that very day, yet Ron doesn't notice until 
after the Yule Ball (I think) So---how bad were they? 



> wynnleaf:
snipping again 
> See what I mean?  Someone with very yellowed, ugly teeth -- far, far
> uglier than Hermione's doubtlessly pearly white teeth -- would
> probably never even know that Hermione considers her regular teeth 
too
> big, and *Certainly* Snape wouldn't think they were ugly.  So where 
is
> the supposed impact -- in *Snape's* mind -- of the insult?  

Potioncat:
I've thought that he said it, not an insult to Hermione, but to imply 
Draco had not cast a hex. Just as in the earlier  mentioned 
confrontation between members of the Gryffindor and Slythterin 
Quidditch teams.

Another possibility does present himself. (I'm a Snape fan, but he's 
no saint) How long ago was the ferret incident? How humiliating was 
that for Draco, and is Draco sensitive about his ferret-like looks? 
So was juvenile!Snape getting a lick in for Draco?

Potioncat, yes, yes, I know---I'm arguing both sides. Sort of hard 
not to with an ambiguous guy like Snape.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov  3 16:51:19 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:51:19 -0000
Subject: Snape turned redux (Was: Snape and Draco again (was: I see no difference))
In-Reply-To: <eifr7m+kvul@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifs27+39vf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160916

 
> Eddie:
> I wonder... before Voldemort killed the Potters, was Snape aware that
> Voldemort was willing to kill to achieve his ends?  _WE_ know that
> earlier than this Voldemort killed (or ordered killed): his father and
> grandparents, Hepzibah Smith, and maybe RAB.  But did the _SNAPE_ 
know?
> 
> Meaning, not only the "necessity of murdering a child", but
> "willingness to murder".


Potioncat:
I think this is a very good question. We're told that lots of Wizarding 
families supported him until they found out how far he would go. We're 
told something made Regulus want out. Snape, a Half-blood joined the 
DE...wasn't he missing something in the details of the organization?

Just what did people think Lord Voldemort stood for? Was it his plans 
against Muggle-borns or his depth of Dark Arts involvement that either 
attracted or distanced the WW?





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 16:53:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:53:13 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50611021947v362e785am5b476cdfb7e476f1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eifs5p+fsa8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160917

Neri wrote (tongue in cheek, I hope):
> > DDM!Lucius, the courageous secret agent who obviously slipped the
diary to Ginny and then sent Dobby to Harry in order to destroy
Voldemort's Horcrux, and later made sure to fail capturing Harry and
retrieving the Prophecy, all this on Dumbledore's orders and despite
the terrible consequences to himself and his family... He's pretty
rigid, actually <g>.
> 
Random832 responded:
> You know... that's not a half-bad theory... heh, just kidding.
> Regardless, we need to look at the characters on their own merits. I
> think the evidence is simply not there to support ESE!Lucius. As for
> DDM... well, now that's just silly.
>
Carol adds:
I think that Lucius Malfoy has been depicted rather unambiguously
since his introduction in CoS, from his advice to Draco to conceal his
dislike for Harry Potter to his selling Dark artifacts in Borgin and
Burke's and his placing of the diary in Ginny's cauldron. We also know
that he has attempted to remove Dumbledore (Draco's reference to DD as
a "Muggle lover" probably reflects the views he's heard expressed at
home) and Hagrid. We've heard Dobby's references to his "family" as
"bad, Dark wizards." We know that Lucius Malfoy Imperio'd Sturgis
podmore and on and on and on. Clearly, Lucius supports Voldemort's
(ostensible) pro-pureblood agenda. Clearly, he's a Dark wizard with no
moral reservations against casting Unforgiveable Curses. So either
he's ESE!, a genuine and loyal supporter of Voldemort like Bellatrix
and Barty Crouch Jr., or he's serving his own interests, which do not
include supporting the good guys (or did not, until Voldemort started
seeking revenge on him and his family). I think that Lucius's
self-interest may win out over his pro-Voldemort sentiments, but I
doubt that he'll stop being a Dark wizard or believing in pureblood
superiority whatever happens. DDM!Lucius? Might as well argue for
DDM!Voldemort.

Snape, of course, is another matter entirely. We not only have
Dumbledore's trust in him, but we have Bellatrix's testimony that he
repeatedly "slithered out of action" and his own statement that his
job is "finding out what Voldemort is telling his Death Eaters." We
have him showing his Dark Mark to Fudge as testimony that Voldemort is
back and gripping his chair tightly when he hears that a student has
been taken into the Chamber of Secrets. We have his repeated attempts
to save Harry or to keep him out of trouble. Even his delaying Harry
at the foot of the stairs in GoF prevents Harry from running off down
the wrong corridor in search of Dumbledore, whom Snape knows is on his
way down the stairs. And if it weren't for Snape, Harry and his
friends would have been killed by the Death Eaters in the MoM. Despite
Snape's mean, sarcastic streak and his open dislike of Harry, there is
abundant evidence that his loyalties *could* lie with Dumbledore
(though evidence admittedly is not proof and it could be interpreted
Draco-style as the efforts of a double agent to feign loyalty,
especially after the murder of Dumbledore on the tower). 

No such evidence or ambiguity exists for Lucius Malfoy, who is an
unrepentant Death Eater whether he's personally loyal to Voldie or
not, as evidenced by his leading the Muggle baiting in GoF. If Lucius
changes sides in Book 7, it will be self-interest, not principle or
loyalty to the dead Dumbledore, that prompts him to do so.

Carol, expecting Lucius to escape from Azkaban with Snape's help and
do something to thwart Voldemort before dying, possibly at Voldemort's
own hand (erm, wand)





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov  3 17:15:30 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:15:30 -0000
Subject: Etymology of 'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eids4c+4bk9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiftfi+ibb6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160918

Potioncat:
Earlier I attribulted the passage below incorrectly. It was written 
by Carol. 

Carol wrote:
>  My gut feeling (probably wrong) is that Americans pronounce
> > > both "serious" and "Sirius" the way that Brits 
pronounce "Sirius," 
> and
> > > the Brits pronounce "serious" with a stronger, longer "ee" 
sound. 
> I'm
> > > thinking that the first syllable of "cirrus" (as in cirrus 
cloud)
> > > illustrates the sound I hear in both "serious" and "Sirius." Is 
that
> > > what anybody else hears?

Potioncat:
I then suggested we find expamples from a sourse we have in common 
and report back. I actually wrote the post twice, deleting one 
version. 

I left out a portion when I rewrote the post so here it is now.

Someone commented that the British "r" is different from the 
American "r" 

When I first saw SS/PS, (not being the Potter cough*nerd*cough expert 
that I am now) I heard the r sound where it was not and did not hear 
it where it was. I thought McGonagall called Susan "Bournes" for 
sorting and I thought Snape asked for a besoal.

Clifford must have seen the first post in the few moments before I 
pulled it. He e-mailed me off list to tell me it was "bee's oil."

I'll never again read or hear bezoar without imagining someone trying 
to get bee's oil from a hive. (And all this time I thought honey was 
fat free!)
 






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 17:17:33 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:17:33 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eied0n+pjns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiftjd+kj8a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160919

Sharon wrote:
> How about a spider?  Wish I could take credit for the idea but I
> read a post somewhere that made a very good case for the spider and
> postulated that Snape was another unregistered animagus (so as not
> to be outdone by the Marauders). His home is presumably "Spinner's
> End".  Also there was that spider on DD's hat in the shed when DD
> and Harry were discussing horcruxes.  Could Snape have been
> eavesdropping?  Also, where was brave Professor Snape in COS?  Why
> would he let the obviously incompetent Lockhart accompany Harry and
> Ron?  Spiders flee before the Basilisk.  I think there was more but
> I can't remember but I'd put my money on Snape's Patronus being the
> spider.
>
Carol responds:
I can understand the arguments for Snape as an unregistered spider
Animagus, but the question is what shape his Patronus would take. As I
understand it, your Animagus reflects your own essence--Peter
Pettigrew as a rat (an insult to rats, which make intelligent, loving
pets as I know from experience); Sirius Black as a dog, loyal to its
master, erm, friend, James Potter; Rita Skeeter as an annoying insect
whose presence is always unwanted, etc. A Patronus, according to JKR
hersllf, is a protective spirit. As the etymology suggests, it's a
patron, a protector, a defender. Harry's Patronus symbolizes his
father. Dumbledore's is connected with Fawkes. (If DD is an Animagus,
not necessarily unregistered because Hermione only checked those
registered in the twentieth century, not the nineteenth, he's probably
a bumblebee, as his name suggests--though maybe not, given my comments
above about annoying insects!)

So the question is, what would Snape's Patronus be? What form would
his protective spirit take? Being a DDM!Snaper, I think it would have
some connection with Dumbledore, especially now, when he most needs to
show where his loyalties truly lie.

As for your interesting question about where Snape was when the boys
were with the incompetent Lockhart, I'm not sure Snape knew that
they'd gone there. Yes, his suggestion that Lockhart do his job as
DADA professor and go after the monster prompted Ron to suggest that
he and Harry go to Lockhart for help, but unless Snape's Legilimency
extends to knowing that the boys were hidden in a coat closet, I don't
think he knew they'd gone after the monster. 

OTOH, Snape did know that Harry was a Parseltongue (thanks to the
Serpensortia spell in the Duelling Club meeting) and he may have known
or suspected that only Harry could find and open the Chamber. Since DD
also knew that Harry could speak Parseltongue, Snape must have
reported the Duelling Club incident to him, which, IMO, prompted
Dumbledore to set up the protections of Fawkes and the Sword in the
Sorting Hat, whcih Harry could call to him through his loyalty to
Dumbledore and his need for help (See DD's words in Hagrid's Hut,
which he knows that Harry can hear). It's just possible that
DDM!Snape, who could not tell Harry what he knew or suspected about
Harry and the CoS or help him to find it any more than Dumbledore
could, knew about those protections. If so, his words about Lockhart
being "the very man" may have done more than expose Lockhart as a
fraud and force him to act on his boasts or leave the school. They may
have deliberately rather than accidentally stirred Harry (and Ron) to
action. That being the case, he would have trusted in Dumbledore's
protections to save Harry from the Basilisk and whatever else was in
the Chamber.

Carol, who thinks that Snape trusted Dumbledore as much as Dumbledore
trusted Snape, and rightly so in both cases





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 18:06:50 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:06:50 -0000
Subject: Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
In-Reply-To: <eifv1k+30s9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eig0fq+j5np@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160921

Carol earlier:
> > IMO, the memory (or memories) that Tom placed in the diary are
like those we see Snape and Dumbledore taking from their heads and are
separate from the soul bit that was encased using a Horcrux-creating
spell. If Dumbledore placed a memory in a diary, even if he intended
that memory to be read and shared (like a Pensieve memory or the
memory of Tom "catching" Hagrid), would that memory be capable of
possessing the reader? I don't think so.
>
Jenni from Alabama responded:

> Actually, they are quite different! The memories that are placed in
> the pensieve that Harry witnesses are just that - memories of the
> events, accounts of them - containing no soul at all. However the
> diary was a Horcrux. It contained not only the memories/accounts of
> the events that Harry witnessed (the 'capture' of Hagrid) but the
> essence of Riddle himself, a fraction of his soul. However it was
just a fraction of his soul, fragmented and not whole.
>
> Pg. 310 Am Ed CoS says: "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, if Riddle's 'memory' had no soul, Riddle wouldn't have been able
> to pour himself into Ginny and possess her.

Carol responds:
I'm not arguing that the diary isn't a Horcrux or doesn't contain a
soul bit, nor am I unaware that the soul bit possessed Ginny. I'm
arguing that the memory was placed there first as part of the plan to
use the Basilisk to kill Muggleborns, meaning that the diary was
already a powerful magical object before Tom added the soul bit to
make it a Horcrux. IOW, in my view the memory and the soul bit are two
different things.

The soul bit enabled the memory to possess the reader of the diary (as
with Ginny) rather than merely to interact with the reader (as with
Harry). Note that Harry's excursion into the diary to view the
Riddle/Hagrid incident is very similar to his excursions into the
Pensieve. He's a witness to events that he sees objectively, from the
outside, and the memories are not aware of his presence, nor do they
control his thoughts. The memory is just a memory. Neither it nor the
soul bit controls or influences Harry. He just misinterprets it, as
Diary!Tom intended.

Carol, whose entire argument can be read by going upthread








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov  3 18:16:33 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:16:33 -0000
Subject: Snape's Patronus
In-Reply-To: <eiftjd+kj8a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eig121+rdun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160922


> Carol responds:
snipping a portion rather than saying "me too."

 Harry's Patronus symbolizes his
> father. Dumbledore's is connected with Fawkes.
snip
 
> 
> So the question is, what would Snape's Patronus be? What form would
> his protective spirit take? Being a DDM!Snaper, I think it would 
have
> some connection with Dumbledore, especially now, when he most needs 
to
> show where his loyalties truly lie.

Potioncat:
Me too.

The die-hards among us think that Amimagus forms reflects the 
individual, the Patronus form reflects the "patron." This is canon. 
We could use a catchy T-Bay style name for that. Or a Baruffio style 
poem as a reminder.

This on-going confusion between Animagus form and Patronus form has 
made me think.....OK! Who said, "About time!?"

Because Carol's post was in response to a question about Snape's 
Patronus being a spider, "who" would the patron be, in that case? It 
came to mind, it could be Slughorn. I'm not proposing that, you 
understand. Only the more I thought about, the more possible it 
became. I still think it will be something that reflects Dumbledore.

JKR tends to describe her characters in animal-like ways. One of the 
more noticable is Ginny. JKR uses feline imagery for her, but has 
said Ginny is not a cat animagus. Off the top of my head I can get 
the following:
spider/insect: Trelawney, Snape, Dumbledore, Slughorn, Skeeter, 
Bagman.
ferret: Draco
ape: Crabbe or Goyle (or was it both?)
rabbit: Theo Nott
cat: Ginny, McGonagall(?)
mouse, rat: Tonks, Pettigrew, Mundungus(?)
phoenix: Dumbledore
dog: Pansy, Sirius Black

While the Patronus reflects the patron, there is a little more. I 
wonder if the wizard doesn't demonstrate some attributes of his 
Patronus? Which of course, would mean demonstrating some attributes 
of his patron/father-figure. 

DD is similar to a Phoenix; Harry is a lot like his father (stag); 
Hermione has become more playful(otter, same family as weasels and 
ferrets). Did Tonks become more like her wolf Patronus? Her hair 
becomes brown, she is more co-ordinated. 

Tonks is a stretch. I'm thinking out loud, in a way.

Any thoughts about Patronus attributes being demonstrated in the 
wizard?

Potioncat













From iulisorjewel at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 18:28:53 2006
From: iulisorjewel at yahoo.com (Iulia Cristiana)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:28:53 -0000
Subject: Snape knew
Message-ID: <eig1p5+5sac@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160924

I think Snape knew the whole prophecy. So he didn's tell Voldemort
because he wanted Voldemort to be killed, maybe for him to be the
strongest or something.

lulia Cristiana.






From hallie at thephoenixrises.org  Fri Nov  3 18:22:08 2006
From: hallie at thephoenixrises.org (Hallie Tibbetts - Phoenix Rising)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 10:22:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Phoenix Rising Programming Deadline - Saturday, November 4
Message-ID: <20061103182208.83236.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160925

Dear HPforGrownups members,

The submissions deadline for Phoenix Rising Programming is fast
approaching! Phoenix Rising, to be held May 17-21, 2007, in and around
the French Quarter of New Orleans, depends on scholars, professionals,
and fans for a wide variety of programming all about Harry Potter. In
fact, the vast majority of our programming schedule is drawn from the
theories, creativity, discussion, and studies that attendees propose! 
We invite your proposals on all things Potter by tomorrow at 11:59 p.m.
EST.

Our Call for Papers, at
http://www.thephoenixrises.org/programming/academic/cfp/, gives an
overview of the proposal process, and we welcome papers, panels of
papers or panel discussions, workshops, roundtable discussions, and
combinations of these. We're also pleased to be able to include fan
creativity, from fanfiction readings and fanart portfolios to creative
booths -- so if you sketch, write, beta read, or give artistic
feedback, please visit
http://www.thephoenixrises.org/programming/exploratory/aanight/cfp.html
to find out more. Finally, we'll feature a gallery of fan and fantasy
art throughout the weekend, including art from artists who may not be
able to attend, and the prospectus can be viewed at
http://www.thephoenixrises.org/programming/exploratory/gallery/prospectus.html.

For more information on Phoenix Rising's programming, please visit our
website at http://www.thephoenixrises.org, or view the programming
section directly at http://www.thephoenixrises.org/programming/ . We're
always happy to answer questions e-mailed to programming @
thephoenixrises. org.

All submissions must be made via the online submissions system at
http://www.thephoenixrises.org/submissions/ and are due no later than
11:59 p.m. EST on November 4. We look forward to receiving your
proposals!

Regards,
The Phoenix Rising Programming Team
http://www.thephoen ixrises.org
programming @ thephoenixrises. org





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 17:37:53 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 09:37:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Snape a vampire? (was Snape's Patronus)
Message-ID: <20061103173753.39783.qmail@web54509.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160926

doddiemoemoe:
I would argue that snape is not a "TRUE" vamp...simply an EMOTIONAL 
VAMPIRE...(and don't most of us know this type)...

Jeremiah:
I agree about him being an emotional vapire. As for being a physical vampire: I thought the same thing... there are numerous references to Snape swooping like a bat and what have you (what else to bats do physically? Oh, hide in dark places and sleep). So, my thoughts went there right away. But on JKR's site she dismisses this "rumor" and my feeling is she placed all those references for detail as well as to create a red herring. She has messed with my head... I love her for that.

As for a Patronus: (since this was the original thread) Why wouldn't Snape's patronus be a bat? It flies, it's stealthy... so, there you go.

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





From kennclark at btinternet.com  Fri Nov  3 18:02:19 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 18:02:19 -0000
Subject: Just want to ask a question about HORCRUXES.....
In-Reply-To: <eifq1o+53vr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eig07b+ojjv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160927

Ken says:  Not a reply to any one particular post but what exactly 
happened to Voldemort when he tried to kill baby Harry? Surely an 
ACDB would kill and if it bounced off Harry and hit Voldemort he was 
killed - so one of his horcruxes is gone there and then.  The 
Voldemort that was less than human and ended up in Albania (maybe 
that horcrux was there all the time - otherwise how did he get there 
without a body or a wand?) must have been one he had created before 
he went off to kill Harry.

So are there four of the potential seven that we think/know have 
been destroyed, the ring, the locket (allegedly), the diary and the 
rebounded ACDB?  With the piece he rebodied at the graveyard and 
possibly Nagini that leaves on one unaccounted for?

And if he wants Harry's death to create that maybe he hasn't got 
round to making it yet at all - after all he must still have hopes 
of nobbling Potter now that Dumbledore has "gone"  Isn't that why he 
wants everyone else to lay of Harry?  So maybe all (all?) Harry has 
to do in the last book is kill Voldemort and Nagini.  No matter how 
big a tome vol 7 is going to be its hard to imagine him running 
around finding and destroying 3,4 or more horcruxes in a year.  Two 
sounds much more reasonable.

Kenneth Clark






From jmrazo at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  3 19:23:15 2006
From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:23:15 -0000
Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione)
In-Reply-To: <ei8lt5+dk5a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eig4v3+rstt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160928


> Betsy Hp:
> Hee! I'd insert a Ginny joke but I see you've cleverly covered 
that 
> base. <eg>

Phoenixgod2000:

Don't I always :)

> Betsy Hp:
> Well, (a) you're assuming someone *can* easily flee from 
Voldemort's 
> wrath, which ignores all the canon speaking towards the severely 
> shortened life-expectency of anyone on the  "Must kill now" list 

Of course most of the people on that list stayed in country because 
they wanted to fight against him.  I don't think Voldie has that 
much pull outside of the Isles. No one from the Tri-Wizard Tourny 
was all that impressed with the boy who lived which says to me he 
isn't famous outside of his country. Which means that Voldemort 
didn't have a strong base of support on the mainland.  I think a 
powerful determined witch could easily go to ground and never pop up 
again.

> And (b) I think you're selling short the danger inherent in going 
to 
> a *Death Eater* for help in undermining a plan Voldemort has 
cooked 
> up.  I mean, we in HPfGUs land may have our theories, but in 
> Potterverse, as far as Narcissa is concerned, Snape is as gung-ho 
> about Voldemort as her husband is. 

I'm not sure she would think that.  Snape is not one of the most 
loyal fanatics who went to prison for Voldemort and he has been 
working in the enemies lair for years, while being her boy's head of 
house. He is clearly the safest bet for her to go to. And I would 
agree that there is probably some school history between them which 
would further soften his edge against her.

>So I do attribute a large amount of 
> bravery and gumption to Narcissa for just *approaching* Snape. 

I see it as more cunning than brave.  She tackles the situation in 
good slytherin fashion and with any level of Gryffindor bravery.

> Betsy Hp:
> Okay, yes Molly is on the correct political side of the fence.  
> She's not evil by any stretch.  Of course, it's not a hard place 
for 
> her to be.  As you point out, her family is there, so it's not 
like 
> she's had to go against the tide to get to this side.

Of course it is a hard place for her to be! She is working against a 
man so bad people stutter through his name.  The easy path would be 
to sit through it and let it be someone elses problem.

And for the record she is going against the tide of one of her most 
beloved son's and her goverment--the goverment that feeds and 
clothes her family.
 
> And yes, she's lost family members.  So has Narcissa.  In fact, 
her 
> husband is sitting in jail at the moment, and her son is in 
> immediate danger.  So it's not like Molly has the corner on 
> suffering for her cause.

You are essentially giving the same moral weight to Narcissa's 
murdering terrorist family and Molly's soldier family. thats like 
comparing the family of an american soldier and the family of a 
suicide bomber. they aren't the same.  Narcissa and her family is 
*evil*.  They have lain in a nest of vipers and are now experiencing 
the venom.

Yes, Narcissa is suffering.  My answer is so what? 

> Betsy Hp:
> I don't get that.  How do you see Narcissa as being in a safer 
place 
> than Molly?  I mean, both women are involved in the war, just on 
> different sides.  Either one could lose family members.  Either 
one 
> could die themselves. 

The difference is that they are on different sides of the war and 
Molly is on the right one.  Bad people have people in their lives 
who love them.  Bad people have mothers and fathers, and sons and 
daughters who care about them and who they in turn care about.  that 
doesn't make them any less bad people. Narcissa, Lucius, and Draco 
are bad people and therefor I have no sympathy for them.

  Remove the braces (or shrink the teeth) and voila: 
> classic British beauty for all the boys to gag over.  

And here I thought Classic British beauties had *bad* Teeth :) 

> Betsy Hp:

> I think if she's kept on a tight leash, Hermione can be an asset, 
> but she's got her boys so convinced of her superiority I'm not 
sure 
> they'd provide the guidance she so desperately needs.  

Oh, I totally agree with you on this.  Hermione is uber annoying.
 
> > Phoenixgod2000, who has finally found a situation where he will 
> > defend Hermioe and Molly.  Luckily no such situation could ever 
> > possibly come up for Ginny. 
> > <shivers slightly as a soul-draining wind swiftly begins to blow>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Too good to snip! <g>

I was talking to a student of mine the other day who was reading the 
HBP and she told me how much she hated Ginny and Harry getting 
paired with Ginny and I just laughed and told her she was getting an 
A+ in the class.

If she was Harry/Luna fan she wouldn't even need to show up 
anymore :)

phoenixgod2000 
> Betsy Hp (running off to deal with the deluge of tricker-treaters 
> <BG>)
>






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 19:46:40 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 19:46:40 -0000
Subject: I see no difference/Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione)
In-Reply-To: <eig4v3+rstt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eig6b0+p2bd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160929

> wynnleaf
> I'm curious as to *why* people think this was such an insulting
> comment.  In other words, why was Hermione so hurt by it?  
> 
> Consider this.  If Hermione's hand had been grossly enlarged, and
> Snape had looked at it and said, "I see no difference," where would 
be
> the insult?  If he had meant by the comment, "that hand is no
> different from the way it was," then his comment could only be
> construed as ridiculously dense.  But not an insult, because it's 
too
> obviously incorrect (*if* Snape meant that the hand was no different
> from the way it had been before).
> <SNIP>

Alla:

Erm.... YES. It would be an insult, Snape commenting on **any** part 
of Hermione or any student's body would be an insult, IMO. I am not 
sure why it would not be.

Of course the fact that Hermione is sensitive about her teeth adds 
fuel to it and I agree with Magpie that Snape must have know about 
it, but sure this one is an insult too, IMO.



Phoenixgod:
< HUGE SNIP>
> The difference is that they are on different sides of the war and 
> Molly is on the right one.  Bad people have people in their lives 
> who love them.  Bad people have mothers and fathers, and sons and 
> daughters who care about them and who they in turn care about.  
that 
> doesn't make them any less bad people. Narcissa, Lucius, and Draco 
> are bad people and therefor I have no sympathy for them.

Alla:

Golden words, Phoenixgod, golden words. I do not buy the moral 
relativism argument, which IMO Betsy makes. It does matter to me what 
are the views of the characters to consider them more sympathetic or 
not.

And Molly is on the side of the white hats as far as I am concerned, 
that absolutely makes her suferings much more sympathetic to me and 
Narcissa being concerned for her son and husband does not make any 
less the sympathiser of terrorists and murderers to me.

IMO of course.

Alla





From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov  3 20:27:14 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:27:14 -0000
Subject: Snape knew
In-Reply-To: <eig1p5+5sac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eig8n2+58vm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160930

> lulia Cristiana:
> I think Snape knew the whole prophecy. So he didn't tell Voldemort
> because he wanted Voldemort to be killed, maybe for him to be the
> strongest or something.

Eddie:
Interesting.  I've previously had a problem with the timeline where
Snape supposedly heard the _FIRST HALF_ of the prophecy but not the
second, in combination with Trelawny knowing that there was a
commotion involving Snape outside the door.  What was the sequence of
events that could make this work?  Was it like this:

Time 1: Dumbledore is talking to Trelawny while she is in "normal" mode

Time 2: Snape begins overhearing their conversation

Time 3: Trelawny goes into "prophecy" mode, begins prophesying

Time 4: Snape gets caught by bartender, misses 2nd half.  Dumbledore
continues to hear the rest of the prophecy, ignoring the commotion in
the hall?

Time 5: Trelawny finishes prophecy, returns to "normal"

Time 6: Dumbledore / bartender opens the door so he and Trelawny can
see that it was Snape outside.

It's Time 4 that I have the most trouble with.  I guess it could work,
but does it make sense that Dumbledore could be so focused on the
prophesying that he wasn't distracted by the commotion in the hall? 
He showed Harry the memory of Trelawny on the surface of the pensieve
instead of diving into the pensieve, so we only see and hear Trelawny
but not the rest of context.  Maybe Harry will learn a lot by doing
some pensieve diving into this particular memory.

And then, we may know what _EXACTLY_ Snape knew.  lulia Cristiana, you
may be exactly right!

Eddie, who can't think of a clever closing tag.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Nov  3 20:38:01 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:38:01 -0000
Subject: Etymology of  'Accio' and more
In-Reply-To: <eid486+l5di@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eig9b9+ibva@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160931

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

 Carol:
> As an American, I have Sirius problem with this one <wink>--not with
> the accented syllable, which I'm sure is the first, or with the final
> vowel, which I'm sure is a schwa (unaccented neutral vowel sounding
> like "uh"), but with the initial vowel, which Brits say is different
> from the long "es" sound in "serious." Can anyone give me a word with
> a short "i" sound *followed by r* rather than some other consonant
> that represents the "i" in "serious"? I think maybe the problem is
> with "serious" itself being pronounced rather differently by Brits and
> Americans. My gut feeling (probably wrong) is that Americans pronounce
> both "serious" and "Sirius" the way that Brits pronounce "Sirius," and
> the Brits pronounce "serious" with a stronger, longer "ee" sound. I'm
> thinking that the first syllable of "cirrus" (as in cirrus cloud)
> illustrates the sound I hear in both "serious" and "Sirius." Is that
> what anybody else hears?
> 
> At any rate, not hearing the difference makes it difficult for me to
> appreciate the Prime Minister's mispronunciation, "Serious Black."
> It's not funny to me because I see, erm, hear no difference.

Geoff:
I overlooked this bit of Carol's post at first reading.

It probably does make it obvious if you read it carefully that the Prime 
Minister's comment to Cornelius Fudge occurs because he CAN make 
that error perhaps because he misheard it initially but Fudge can then 
correct him. I can assure Carol that it is amusing in a subtle JKR-ish way.

Referring back to Accio (what - again?) it occurred to me that right from 
my initial encounter with the word, which I think is used for the first time  
in GOF, I mentally read it as having the 'akk" sound despite words, of 
which Steve reminded us, such as accelerate etc. I think I was probably 
seeing it in the context of its Latin source and therefore subconsciously 
'seeing' the hard value.

For what it's worth, in "the medium which dare not speak its name", 
Harry uses "Akkio" in the First Task scene with the dragon. 





From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov  3 20:45:40 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:45:40 -0000
Subject: Just want to ask a question about HORCRUXES.....
In-Reply-To: <eig07b+ojjv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eig9pk+1jpf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160932

> Kenneth Clark:
> Not a reply to any one particular post but what exactly 
> happened to Voldemort when he tried to kill baby Harry? Surely an 
> ACDB would kill and if it bounced off Harry and hit Voldemort he was 
> killed - so one of his horcruxes is gone there and then.  The 
> Voldemort that was less than human and ended up in Albania (maybe 
> that horcrux was there all the time - otherwise how did he get there 
> without a body or a wand?) must have been one he had created before 
> he went off to kill Harry.

Eddie:
Wow.  I see that we really don't know enough about the mechanics of
Horcruxes.  Did Wormtail know about the Albania Horcrux, and is that
how he had a clue about where to begin to find Voldemort?

Eddie





From caaf at hotmail.com  Fri Nov  3 21:00:48 2006
From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 21:00:48 -0000
Subject: Just want to ask a question about HORCRUXES.....
In-Reply-To: <eifg57+5jt2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eigam0+d80k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160933

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lantis" <zedric_01 at ...> wrote:

Cyril

>
> Well, I just want to ask a question about HORCRUXES??? My question is:
> In book 2 (Chamber Of Secrets), just in case the soul encased in
Riddle's Diary (which is we know a Horcrux) managed to "rise again"
(when he sucks the life out of GINNY), what would happen??? I mean,
what would happen to the REAL VOLDEMORT??? Would the VOLDEMORT who
will "rise again" would be the same Voldemort or a different one? (A
sixteen (or seventeen)-year old Voldemort?) Would that be possible? 
> 
> Is there a way we can ask this out to JK Rowling?
> 
> Lantis
>

Hi,

Sorry for the extremely short answer, but JKR has in fact answered
this question (somewhat) on her site.

You can view the question and answer here

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=17

I also also providing the answer as per her site below:

Section: F.A.Q.
Q: In 'Chamber of Secrets', what would have happened if Ginny had died
and Tom Riddle had escaped the diary?

A: I can't answer that fully until all seven books are finished, but
it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably.

Hope this helps,
Cyril





From darksworld at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 21:23:41 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 21:23:41 -0000
Subject: Snape knew
In-Reply-To: <eig8n2+58vm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eigc0t+hkil@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160934

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

> It's Time 4 that I have the most trouble with.  I guess it could 
work,
> but does it make sense that Dumbledore could be so focused on the
> prophesying that he wasn't distracted by the commotion in the hall? 
> He showed Harry the memory of Trelawny on the surface of the pensieve
> instead of diving into the pensieve, so we only see and hear Trelawny
> but not the rest of context.  Maybe Harry will learn a lot by doing
> some pensieve diving into this particular memory.

Charles:

You just gave me a flash. Remember that at the end of HBP, we are 
about an hour away from the boarding of the Hogwarts Express, with 
Harry poised to enjoy one last peaceful day with Ron and Hermione. It 
is no great stretch to see book 7 opening with someone hurrying across 
the lawn to tell them that the headmistress wants to see them in her 
office. As they come up the spiral staircase, MM welcomes them in and 
tells them DD's portrait has awakened and we see a scene with DD 
filling Harry in on a couple of things he didn't dare say when he was 
alive-the exact timeline of prophecy night at the Hog's Head, exactly 
why the death of a childhood enemy and his wife would be Snape's 
greatest regret, etc.

I can also see there possibly being a three-cornered argument with DD, 
MM, and the Trio about horcrux hunting and Harry's plans for the next 
year-possibly with Harry laying down the prophecy as a trump card over 
either DD's portrait or MM.

Charles, who really hopes he just saw the future, because that's a 
scene he's dying to read.






From tbird8211 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 17:04:22 2006
From: tbird8211 at yahoo.com (Thomas)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 17:04:22 -0000
Subject: Message in the Locket
In-Reply-To: <eidurg+356s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eifsqm+n7s8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160935

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephanie" <jadeaaustin at ...>
wrote:
> Did anyone understand the message in the locket, in HP&HBP?  I
> understand that it will probably be explained in Book 7, but I'm
> hoping for speculation.

Thomas:
I am only guessing because no one knows for sure, but what everyone seems to have forgotten is that Dumbledore has a brother.  There is a reference made about him in "Order of the Phoenix" when Moody showed Harry the picture of the original order. So I believe R.A.B. could be Dumbledore's brother.

Thomas







From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 22:15:20 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:15:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <20061103221520.26537.qmail@web54509.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160936

Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his parent's house? If the Potters were in hiding and Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was the secret keeper, then he still is the secret keeper. he always will be.

My question, then, is: Was Harry aware of his location when his parents were killed? Because if he was (which is not probable) then he's fine to go to Godric Hollow. However, if he is not, then everyone around him is sworn to secrecy and cannot tell him where that location is. Harry must seek out Pettigrew and have him reveal the location. Nobody else can reveal it. If this is the case let's hope Peter has kept his head about him and has stayed alive.

Jeremiah

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





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 22:29:28 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:29:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Message in the Locket
Message-ID: <20061103222928.60390.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160937

--- In HPforGrownups@ yahoogroups. com, "Stephanie" <jadeaaustin@ ...> 
wrote:
> Did anyone understand the message in the locket, in HP&HBP? I
> understand that it will probably be explained in Book 7, but I'm
> hoping for speculation.

Thomas:
I am only guessing because no one knows for sure, but what everyone seems to have forgotten is that Dumbledore has a brother. There is a reference made about him in "Order of the Phoenix" when Moody showed Harry the picture of the original order. So I believe R.A.B. could be Dumbledore's brother.

-----------------------------------------

Jeremiah:
I highly doubt it. I think the only wrong-doing Aberforth (that's DD's brother's name) has done is the earlier incident DD mentioned about goats. You'll have to read it for youself 'cause I'm not near my books.

I am very certain it's Regulus Black. That's Sirius' brother who was a Death Eater. Sirius mentioned how Regulus had gotten in pretty far with Voldemort and then backed out. He was killed. Also, there was a strange locket in Grimauld Place that was not fully explained but seemed to be of a Dark nature. Hmmmm... 

So, I vote for Regulus. :) 'Cause I'm just like that... (But Aberforth is a favorite character of mine).

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





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 23:38:03 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:38:03 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eig4v3+rstt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eigjsr+714q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160938

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Well, (a) you're assuming someone *can* easily flee from 
> > Voldemort's wrath, which ignores all the canon speaking towards 
> > the severely shortened life-expectency of anyone on the  "Must   
> > kill now" list... 
> > <snip>

> >>Phoenixgod2000
> Of course most of the people on that list stayed in country       
> because they wanted to fight against him.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I was thinking about Regulus and Karkaroff, neither of 
whom were worried about fighting Voldemort (as far as we know 
anyway) and neither of whom were bound to the UK for any reason.

IIRC Lupin says something about the impossibility of fleeing 
Voldemort once he's decided you're toast.  I suspect that the reason 
the murders we know of occur in the UK is author convenience more 
than anything else.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > And (b) I think you're selling short the danger inherent in     
> > going to a *Death Eater* for help in undermining a plan         
> > Voldemort has cooked up.
> > <snip>

> >>Phoenixgod2000: 
> <snip>
> He is clearly the safest bet for her to go to. And I would 
> agree that there is probably some school history between them      
> which would further soften his edge against her.
> I see it as more cunning than brave.  She tackles the situation in 
> good slytherin fashion and with any level of Gryffindor bravery.

Betsy Hp:
Well, I'm not admiring Narcissa's move here because it was 
*stupidly* brave. <eg>  Yes, Narcissa had reason to suspect Snape 
might actually help her.  Yes, Narcissa cunningly went for help from 
someone in actual position to help her son.  But there is still some 
level of bravery required.  She did take a risk.  Her very 
nervousness in asking the question shows that, IMO.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Okay, yes Molly is on the correct political side of the fence.  
> > She's not evil by any stretch.  Of course, it's not a hard place 
> > for her to be.  
> > <snip>

> >>Phoenixgod2000:
> Of course it is a hard place for her to be! She is working against 
> a man so bad people stutter through his name.  The easy path would 
> be to sit through it and let it be someone elses problem.

Betsy Hp:
And um, what exactly is Molly doing?  You know, for the cause and 
all?  It's Arthur and Bill and Charlie who've chosen to join the 
Order and fight the fight.  Molly is there because her family is 
there.  She has not had to proactively *do* anything.

Yes it's hard to realize that her family is out there and in 
danger.  But it's something that's happened to Molly.  It's not a 
choice she's made.

> >>Phoenixgod2000
> And for the record she is going against the tide of one of her     
> most beloved son's and her goverment--the goverment that feeds and 
> clothes her family.

Betsy Hp:
No she isn't.  The MoM and Percy are neither of them Voldemort 
supporters.  (I also suspect that Molly's most beloved sons are the 
twins.  Which, doesn't mean anything and is just IMO. <g>)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > And yes, she's lost family members.  So has Narcissa.  In fact, 
> > her husband is sitting in jail at the moment, and her son is in 
> > immediate danger.  So it's not like Molly has the corner on 
> > suffering for her cause.

> >>Phoenixgod2000: 
> You are essentially giving the same moral weight to Narcissa's 
> murdering terrorist family and Molly's soldier family. thats like 
> comparing the family of an american soldier and the family of a 
> suicide bomber.

Betsy Hp:
No it's not.  It's like comparing an American soldier and his family 
to a Nazi soldier and his family.  While I can agree that the Nazi 
soldier is fighting for the wrong cause, I can also recognize the 
humanity of the Nazi soldier and his family.

The suicide bomber family is represented in Potterverse by Auntie "I 
wish I had sons to sacrifice to the cause" Bella.  And I'm *not* 
comparing her "love" for Draco with Molly's actual love for her 
children.  But Narcissa, willing to defy her side to save her son, 
*does* show an equal amount of love here.

> >>Phoenixgod2000:
> they aren't the same.  Narcissa and her family is *evil*.  They   
> have lain in a nest of vipers and are now experiencing the venom. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
They are not evil.  Some of their beliefs are.  And IMO, there's a 
huge difference.  After winning WWII, the Allies did not decide to 
execute every German soldier and the families that loved them.  
Because they recognized that the soldiers and their families were 
not evil in and of themselves.  

> >>Phoenixgod2000
> Yes, Narcissa is suffering.  My answer is so what? 

Betsy Hp:
So she's not just passively suffering.  She's out there trying to do 
something about it.  And I admire her for it.

> >>Phoenixgod2000:
> The difference is that they are on different sides of the war and 
> Molly is on the right one.  Bad people have people in their lives 
> who love them.  Bad people have mothers and fathers, and sons and 
> daughters who care about them and who they in turn care about.     
> that doesn't make them any less bad people. Narcissa, Lucius, and 
> Draco are bad people and therefor I have no sympathy for them.

> >>Alla:
> Golden words, Phoenixgod, golden words. I do not buy the moral
> relativism argument, which IMO Betsy makes.

Betsy Hp:
See, I wouldn't call it moral relativism.  Narcissa loves her son 
and doesn't want to him to worthlessly sacrifice his life.  I 
imagine Molly would feel the same way about any of her children if 
someone sent them on a suicide mission as a punishment for Arthur's 
mistakes.  *That's* the morals I'm talking about.  There's nothing 
relative about it.  Because politics doesn't enter into it.  It's 
not bad to love your child.  It's not bad to try and save him from 
certain death.

> >>Alla:
> It does matter to me what are the views of the characters to       
> consider them more sympathetic or not.
> And Molly is on the side of the white hats as far as I am         
> concerned...

Betsy Hp:
I've never argued that Molly is on the wrong side.  Nor have I 
argued that Narcissa is on the right side.  I *do* admire Narcissa's 
love for her son and her willingness to take risks in order to save 
his life.  Once again, there is nothing political about that aspect 
of Narcissa.  

> >>Alla:
> ...that absolutely makes her suferings much more sympathetic to me 
> and Narcissa being concerned for her son and husband does not make 
> any less the sympathiser of terrorists and murderers to me.

Betsy Hp:
The reason I'm not as sympathetic towards Molly has nothing to do 
with her politics.  She whines too much, IMO.  So that loses her 
points.  I still see Molly as being on the right side.  Narcissa, on 
the other hand, is taking action to protect her son. And I admire 
that *without* agreeing with her politics.  I'm also able to 
recognize that Narcissa does love her husband and child.  It does 
nothing to win me to her cause at all.  But I am able to see that 
human side of her.

I honestly don't think seeing the humanity in some members of the 
opposing side as moral relativism.  Not the way I understand that 
term, anyway.  I'd say saying that anything the bad side does is bad 
(taking action to save their child's life) and anything the good 
side does is good (putting innocents in jail without trial) is more 
moral relativism.

Betsy Hp





From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 23:49:41 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 23:49:41 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eifnvh+70q8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eigkil+uh15@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160939

> > Neri:
> > Hmmm, it seems to me that you don't compare Lucius and Snape on 
equal 
> > footing here. You compare Canon!Lucius against DDM!Snape. No 
wonder 
> > you find that Lucius is more OFH. That's basically managing to 
prove 
> > what you were assuming from the outset.
> > 
> > If you want to be fair to Lucius you need to compare Canon!Lucius 
> > against Canon!Snape. In this case killing Dumbledore would hardly 
> > appear "rigid" of Snape.
> 
> Pippin:
> Now, now. Canon doesn't prove Snape killed Dumbledore.

Neri:
Canon also doesn't "prove" that Lucius slipped the diary to Ginny for 
his own ends rather than in order to destroy one of Voldemort's 
Horcruxes (which was the actual result). Canon doesn't "prove" that 
Lucius failed in retrieving the prophecy unintentionally.


> Pippin:
> Quite
> the contrary. Dumbledore's blood cries out from the ground, and
> what it cries is that Snape is innocent. You may speculate of
> anti-coagulants, poetic license or Flints, but the straightforward
> reading is that Dumbledore was alive when he hit the ground and
> for some thirty minutes afterwards. Blood will tell. Specifically,
> a trickle of blood that can be wiped away thirty minutes after
> a man is supposed to have died.
> 

Neri:
Well, I suspect that if a legion of Lucius fans were working for 
years to get Lucius off the hook, they would have found an 
equally "straightforward" reading that Lucius is DDM too. Probably 
several incompatible readings, which would have nonetheless made 
Lucius appear in a rather good light overall.


> Pippin:
> But if you insist that Snape did kill Dumbledore despite this,
> then the most obvious reading is ESE!Snape, who never left
> Voldemort's service at all and is thus has more traction than
> DDM!Snape could ever have.
> 

Neri:
He saved Dumbledore in the beginning of the year and blasted him off 
the tower in its end. That hardly appears "rigid", you know. Of 
course you can have a theory why DDM!Snape (or ESE!Snape) was 
actually having the same goals and loyalties behind both these acts, 
but then you'd be again comparing DDM!Snape (or ESE!Snape) against 
Canon!Lucius, so of course Lucius would appear more OFH. This match 
is fixed to begin with.

Well, Dungrollin claims that even DDM!Snape is more slippery than 
Lucius. I tend to agree with her but I'm not sure I can peruse this 
line of argument myself, since I hardly know what DDM!Snape actually 
did or didn't do. There are dozens of different versions of him 
running around. Which is why I'd rather resort to canon when trying 
to decide who's slippery.


> Pippin:
> But perhaps we mean different things by slippery.
> If Snape remains loyal to one character or side  and is
> deceiving everyone else, that is slimy but not slippery, IMO.
> Slippery means to me that allegiance shifts as a 
> matter of convenience. I think Canon!Lucius wins that one 
> hands down. 
> 

Neri:
If the *apparent* allegiance of a man shifts around, and still he 
manages to stay alive and even come better off all the time, then I'd 
say he's entitled to be called slippery. Maybe he's loyal to just one 
side in his heart, and he puts himself in terrible risks for The 
Cause, but still he repeatedly comes better off himself. So even if 
he never intended to be slippery, I'd say he has a great natural 
talent for it <g>. 

I mean, lets look at all of Snape's comrades on both sides, headed by 
the "slippery" Lucius, and what has become of them:

Lucius: in Azkaban, with his family at the mercy of Voldemort.
Bella: many years in Azkaban, recently lost Voldemort's good opinion.
Avery: lost Voldemort's good opinion.
Rookwood: 14 years in Azkaban and is now back there.
Karkaroff: some time in Azkaban, 1 year on the run, now dead.
Rosier: dead.
Wilkes: dead.
Crouch Jr: Azkaban, imperiused for years, now soul sucked.
Regulus Black: dead.
Peter Pettigrew: 12 years as a rat, donated his hand to Voldemort.
James: dead.
Lily: dead.
Sirius: 12 years in Azkaban, now dead.
Lupin: an outcast and unemployed.
Frank: tortured to insanity. 
Alice: tortured to insanity.
Moody: lost a leg and an eye, 1 year in a trunk.
Dumbledore: dead.
Voldemort: 12 years as less than a spirit, 1 year as an ugly baby. 

The only person who was in the thick of it all this time, changed his 
(apparent and/or real) allegiances twice, was actually a double agent 
for years, and yet was never in Azkaban or imeriused or unemployed or 
worse, is Snape. That's slippery, man.


> Pippin:
> In contrast, the canon  case for OFH!Snape
> is terribly weakened by Spinner's End. There's just no
> reason for OFH!Snape to take that vow, which is why
> Bella is simply astounded when it happens.
> 

Neri:
Bella obviously isn't very familiar with Snape and his personal 
motivations. OTOH Narcissa, who even knows where he lives, does not 
look astounded at all when he takes the vow. She knew that he'll help 
her despite the Dark Lord orders, she knew how to go about asking 
him, and she proved correct. Do you think Narcissa knows that Snape 
is DDM? If not, then it appears she knows of other motivations Snape 
has to take the vow.


> Pippin: 
> <snip> Even if we go with 
> ACID POPS, again we have a Snape whose true loyalty 
> is to Narcissa, not one with no true loyalty at all. 
> 

Neri:
If Snape's loyalty were to Narcissa, he would have gone to her 
himself, as soon as he was brought into the plan, and offer to help 
Draco. Snape was ready to help Draco, but he first required Narcissa 
to come to him and go down on her knees, and it seems she knew that. 
So it looks like Bella and Narcissa both agree that Snape is OFH. The 
only difference is that Narcissa is better acquainted with his 
personal motivations.


Neri









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 00:11:29 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:11:29 -0000
Subject: Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
In-Reply-To: <eig0fq+j5np@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiglrh+ish0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160940

---  "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> ...
> Jenni from Alabama responded:
> 
> > Actually, ... The memories that are placed in the 
> > pensieve that Harry witnesses are just that - memories
> > of the events, accounts of them - containing no soul 
> > at all. However the diary was a Horcrux. It contained
> > not only the memories/accounts of the events that 
> > Harry witnessed (the 'capture' of Hagrid) but the
> > essence of Riddle himself, a fraction of his soul.
> > ....
> 
> Carol responds:
> ... I'm arguing that the memory was placed there first
> as part of the plan to use the Basilisk to kill 
> Muggleborns, meaning that the diary was already a 
> powerful magical object before Tom added the soul bit 
> to make it a Horcrux. IOW, in my view the memory and 
> the soul bit are two different things.
> 
> The soul bit enabled the memory to possess the reader 
> of the diary (as with Ginny) rather than merely to 
> interact with the reader ...
> 
> Carol, whose entire argument can be read by going 
> upthread
>

bboyminn:

Once again Carol and I are on the same waverlength, though
I don't support her theory 100%, I do think she is on the
right track.

So, let me reach deeply into the subtext of the story and
tell you why I agree that the Soul and the Memory are
two separate items.

No one in the story seems at all surprised that Tom 
managed to encase his memories in an object, that he had
in a sense created a recorded duplicate of his 16 year old
self in that diary, or that the diary could be interacted
with. That seem to be take for granted. 

However, that fact the Tom was able to place a bit of his
soul in there too, does seem to be a very big deal. It
seems to be at the very center of the story, and is 
based on information that is not readily available to the
common wizard. 

Again, I admit I am reaching down below the surface of the
story into the subtext.

I suspect it may be possible for soul-bits to have a 
remote, sort of wireless network, connection to the main
core-soul and by extension be able to draw on that well 
of knowledge and information. Yet, being inanimate object,
that access to knowledge and information does them no 
good. It would have done the Diary no good, because the
diary already has a copy of Tom as he was at 16. Further
note that the core-soul is constantly updating its 
bank of knowledge and information, yet that one soul-bit
in the diary was not aware of Tom's history beyond age
16. That sort of shoots down the idea that the soul-bit
have some sort of network connection.

Finally, when Dumbledore is talking about this with Harry,
he warns Harry not to underestimate Voldemort. While losing
bits of his soul may have diminished Voldemorts sense of
humanity, Voldemort still retains all his cunning, intellect,
and personal and magical power, and by extension, all his 
memory.

I just don't see anyway to tie the soul-bit to Tom's 
memories. I realize this was just speculation about
possibilities, but I see nothing in the books or the
subtext of the books to imply that the Diary memories and
it bit of soul also contained therein are not separate
things.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn







From harryp at stararcher.com  Sat Nov  4 00:28:21 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 00:28:21 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <20061103221520.26537.qmail@web54509.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eigmr5+99jq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160941

> Jeremiah:
> Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his parent's house?
If the Potters were in hiding and Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was the
secret keeper, then he still is the secret keeper. he always will be.

Eddie:
I can't say for sure how it happened, but the secret has been broken.
 We can infer that because a number of people other than Peter
Pettigrew have told Harry that his parents were hiding at Godrick's
Hollow, something they would not have been able to do if the secret
was still intact.

There was some speculation and educated guessing in this forum a week
or two back about the how and why, but I can fairly summarize it as:

(a) the secret was broken because the people the secret was about
(Lily and James Potter) are dead

and/or

(b) the secret was broken because the secret keeper (Peter) was
unfaithful and gave away the secret to the main person the secret was
supposed to be kept from (Voldemort).

Eddie






From random832 at gmail.com  Sat Nov  4 02:00:00 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 21:00:00 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Potter pronunciation
In-Reply-To: <eid0op+ll6v@eGroups.com>
References: <BE8F671C-3D9E-4542-AD52-707497824C0D@comcast.net>
	 <eid0op+ll6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50611031800n70ef039ay39a4066d842c61b2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160942

On 11/2/06, Jim Ferer <jferer at yahoo.com> wrote:
> FWIW, Jim Dale in the American audiobooks reads it "Skrimjhur," and so
> would I. The presence of other vowels immediately after the "g" in an
> unstressed syllable makes it so, I think, but I can't find a cite for
> that just now.

actually - it's the fact that it's followed by "i" or "e" in particular

...though technically that also applies to 'c' as 's', and i've been
convinced of the 'akkio' pronunciation - but, then, scrimgeour isn't
latin.

i'll weigh in on other stuff so the post isn't wasted.

I think that trying to make "sound-it-out" versions and capitalizing
for stress is really not the best way - does anyone else here know
ASCII IPA? http://alt-usage-english.org/ascii_ipa_choice.html - I
think that's a good resource for a "common basis" for pronunciation
discussions.

Anyway, "sirius" isn't an unknown word, it is the name of a star. An
actual dictionary gives "serious" as /'siri:@s/ and "sirius" as
/'sIr'i:@s/ - that is, "sirius" has a slightly shorter "i"
(traditionally represented by i with breve, "serious" has one
traditionally represented by i with circumflex) sound for the first
syllable

-- 
Random832



From darksworld at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 01:50:06 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 01:50:06 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eigjsr+714q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eigrke+3pur@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160943

> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > Okay, yes Molly is on the correct political side of the fence.
> > > She's not evil by any stretch.  Of course, it's not a hard
place
> > > for her to be.
> > > <snip>
>
> > >>Phoenixgod2000:
> > Of course it is a hard place for her to be! She is working
against
> > a man so bad people stutter through his name.  The easy path
would
> > be to sit through it and let it be someone elses problem.
>
> Betsy Hp:
> And um, what exactly is Molly doing?  You know, for the cause and
> all?  It's Arthur and Bill and Charlie who've chosen to join the
> Order and fight the fight.  Molly is there because her family is
> there.  She has not had to proactively *do* anything.
>
> Yes it's hard to realize that her family is out there and in
> danger.  But it's something that's happened to Molly.  It's not a
> choice she's made.
>

Charles:
By your argument here, we are to assume that Aberforth Dumbledore,
Hestia Jones, Emmeline Vance (before she got killed), and many other
members of the order are doing nothing simply because we are not
explicitly told their missions in canon? Unlikely. Simply because we
are not told Molly's activities it is *not* safe to assume that they
do not exist. I find it unlikely that any member of the Order of the
Phoenix just sits at home and twiddles their thumbs all the time.

Indeed, when Molly and Sirius are arguing, I am certain that he would
have returned one of her insults with "At least I have a reason for
sitting at home all the time." No, I think it is a good deal more
likely that Molly does things that we do not know about.

In OotP she is not idle, she is one of two adults in charge of what
we might term "stationkeeping" for the order. She, along with the
kids is attempting to make headquarters fit to occupy. She takes care
of the cooking for the order. These are things that the order needs
done and she is doing them. To draw a parallell, your argument is
like calling the support sections of a military cowards because they
aren't the ones wielding the weapons-which is ridiculous. A lot of
times that support staff comes under the same fire to provide the
fighting troops with their supplies and information.

And as far as it not being a choice she's made-how many people in the
wizarding world are members of the order? Madame Bones was a member
(returning from the original incarnation), IIRC, but we don't hear
about Susan Bones' parents being members It doesn't prove that they
are or not, only that Harry-who's not privy to all of the order's
secrets-does not have that information.

> > >>Phoenixgod2000
> > And for the record she is going against the tide of one of
her
> > most beloved son's and her goverment--the goverment that feeds
and
> > clothes her family.
>
> Betsy Hp:
> No she isn't.  The MoM and Percy are neither of them Voldemort
> supporters.  (I also suspect that Molly's most beloved sons are the
> twins.  Which, doesn't mean anything and is just IMO. <g>)
>

Charles:
Yes, actually she is, at least in OotP. Percy and the ministry may
not be pro-Voldie, but they *are* anti-Dumbledore-again, at least in
OotP. I think the favoritism she shows the twins in GoF will be shown
to Percy if he should make amends in 7. It's the "prodigal son"
effect, and as JKR is an admitted Christian, I can see her using it.

> > >>Phoenixgod2000:
> > they aren't the same.  Narcissa and her family is *evil*.  They
> > have lain in a nest of vipers and are now experiencing the venom.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> They are not evil.  Some of their beliefs are.  And IMO, there's a
> huge difference.  After winning WWII, the Allies did not decide to
> execute every German soldier and the families that loved them.
> Because they recognized that the soldiers and their families were
> not evil in and of themselves.
>
Charles:
Here is where it falls down. What makes a person evil if it is not
their actions and ideas? Why is Dobby fearful of the Malfoy family? I
really can't accept any concept that Narcissa is not evil, because I
am dead certain that Lucius is not the only Malfoy to have abused
Dobby. No, I don't have explicit canon proof, just the fact that I
cannot see Lucius condescending to speak with Dobby to give him more
than one death threat a day.

If abusive racists are not evil in your opinion, then what the hell
is?

Betsy:
> I honestly don't think seeing the humanity in some members of the
> opposing side as moral relativism.  Not the way I understand that
> term, anyway.  I'd say saying that anything the bad side does is
bad
> (taking action to save their child's life) and anything the good
> side does is good (putting innocents in jail without trial) is more
> moral relativism.

I'd have to agree that your argument is not technically moral
relativism. I would have to qualify that by saying that I feel it is
a bit, well, confused.

Charles, who believes in evil because he believes in good.






From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Fri Nov  3 23:22:12 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:22:12 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <18073581.1162596132765.JavaMail.root@web17>

No: HPFGUIDX 160945


---- J <tidblgr72 at yahoo.com> wrote: 

=============
Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his parent's house? If the Potters were in hiding and Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was the secret keeper, then he still is the secret keeper. he always will be.

My question, then, is: Was Harry aware of his location when his parents were killed? Because if he was (which is not probable) then he's fine to go to Godric Hollow. However, if he is not, then everyone around him is sworn to secrecy and cannot tell him where that location is. Harry must seek out Pettigrew and have him reveal the location. Nobody else can reveal it. If this is the case let's hope Peter has kept his head about him and has stayed alive.

Marion here --

Perhaps Godrick's Hollow's location, was not the secret, just the fact that the Potters were actually there (don't have the books handy, so can't look it up).  Perhaps everyone thought they were supposed to be in Bulgaria or something.  At any rate, Harry was found there presumably, so by then the secret was out.  IIRC, we still don't have details of what happened after Voldemort's curse backfired, and how Hagrid ended up with Harry.  But Peter still owes Harry a favor, and I'm guessing that will be a big part of the climax in bk. 7.  I hope JKR doesn't waste that favor on Peter telling Harry how to find Godrick's Hollow.

Marion







From valerieham76 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 22:37:46 2006
From: valerieham76 at yahoo.com (Valerie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:37:46 -0000
Subject: Message in the Locket
In-Reply-To: <eifsqm+n7s8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiggbq+n86h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160946

> Thomas:
> I am only guessing because no one knows for sure, but what
everyone seems to have forgotten is that Dumbledore has a brother.
There is a reference made about him in "Order of the Phoenix" when
Moody showed Harry the picture of the original order. So I believe
R.A.B. could be Dumbledore's brother.


Valerie:
I think it is possible that the locket was done by Sirius Black's
brother Regulus Black.I don't know his middle name but it's
possible. It was in "Order of the Phoenix" and there was a locket at
the headquarters that know one could open. So he could be R.A.B.

Valerie






From valerieham76 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 22:56:29 2006
From: valerieham76 at yahoo.com (Valerie)
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2006 22:56:29 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <20061103221520.26537.qmail@web54509.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eighet+34p0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160947

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, J <tidblgr72 at ...> wrote:
>
> Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his parent's house?
>If the Potters were in hiding and Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was the
>secret keeper, then he still is the secret keeper. he always will be.


I can only guess but I believe that when the Potters died or when
Pettigrew told Voldemort,that spell was broken. So Harry would be able
to find out where they lived, but in the Half Blood Prince he said
he wanted to visit their graves.
Valerie






From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 00:42:29 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:42:29 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <20061104004229.64200.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160948

> Jeremiah:
> Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his parent's house?
If the Potters were in hiding and Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was the
secret keeper, then he still is the secret keeper. he always will be.

Eddie:
I can't say for sure how it happened, but the secret has been broken.
We can infer that because a number of people other than Peter
Pettigrew have told Harry that his parents were hiding at Godrick's
Hollow, something they would not have been able to do if the secret
was still intact.

Jeremiah:
Not true. I'm sure there are lots of people who knew Grimmauld place is in London but can't get the exact address (re: the way it was revealed to Harry in OoTP). Harry does not know the "exact" location in Godric Hollow, just that the house was located there. JKR wrote about the fact that even when a secret keeper dies the secret will die with them, meaning it is still in tact and the magic continues. (Sorry to be so adamant about this). But I really think Harry is going to have a tough time finding the place.

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





From snapes_witch at yahoo.com  Fri Nov  3 23:32:37 2006
From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Snape's Witch)
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2006 15:32:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Snape a vampire? (was Snape's Patronus)
Message-ID: <20061103233237.62415.qmail@web50115.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160949

  Jeremiah:
>As for a Patronus: (since this was the original thread) Why wouldn't Snape's >patronus be a bat? It flies, it's stealthy... so, there you go.
   
  Snape's Witch replies:
  I agree his original patronus could be a bat.  Since he can no longer communicate with the Order via this patronus, however, I think it has changed to a phoenix.  This is, of course, contingent upon him being DDM!Snape and needing to contact the Order.
   
  Snape's Witch
  

 

 




From jenkjon33 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 02:03:12 2006
From: jenkjon33 at yahoo.com (JENNI)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 02:03:12 -0000
Subject: Snape on H&R and Lockhart  (was Re: Snape's Patronus)
In-Reply-To: <20061103053253.13298.qmail@web33714.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eigsd0+8dan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160950

Sean-Michael:
> I believe that Snape et al didn't believe Lockhart knew where the
> entrance was nor how to kill the monster and were going to let his
> incompetance finally show itself clearly, but then the boys came
> upon him as he prepared for his escape and took him at wandpoint to
> check out their idea of where the chamber entrance was. I could be
> off on some of that, but that's how I remember it

JENNI:
I think you are right in that explanation. They were eavesdropping and then just happened to catch Lockhart in the nick of time, and made him come with them to Moaning Myrtle's bathroom to find the entrance to the COS.




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 03:58:41 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 03:58:41 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eigrke+3pur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eih35h+157j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160951

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Molly is there because her family is there.  She has not had to 
> > proactively *do* anything. Yes it's hard to realize that her    
> > family is out there and in danger.  But it's something that's    
> > happened to Molly.  It's not a choice she's made.

> >>Charles:
> By your argument here, we are to assume that Aberforth Dumbledore,
> Hestia Jones, Emmeline Vance (before she got killed), and many     
> other members of the order are doing nothing simply because we are 
> not explicitly told their missions in canon? Unlikely. Simply     
> because we are not told Molly's activities it is *not* safe to    
> assume that they do not exist.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But I don't see those activities.  Which is my point.  This 
discussion started when I said I saw (personally) more to admire in 
Narcissa than in Molly.  And I explained that the reason I saw more 
to admire is because I got to witness Narcissa doing something 
proactive to protect her child.  I even went so far as to state that 
the comparison was inherently flawed *because* we've not seen Molly 
take some sort of proactive action.  There's no fair way to figure 
out what Molly would do in Narcissa's place.

So I don't care if Molly is doing all sorts of things behind the 
scenes.  I'm going by what I've seen.  (Which is why Hestia Jones 
and Emmeline Vance didn't make my list of female characters in 
Potterverse I liked.) 

> >>Charles:
> In OotP she is not idle, she is one of two adults in charge of what
> we might term "stationkeeping" for the order. She, along with the
> kids is attempting to make headquarters fit to occupy.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
She was also chief complainer and most likely to hit shrill at any 
given moment. <g>  Anyway, cooking, cleaning, nagging and 
undermining aren't too likely to switch Molly off my "disliked 
character's" list.

> >>Charles:
> To draw a parallell, your argument is like calling the support    
> sections of a military cowards because they aren't the ones       
> wielding the weapons-which is ridiculous.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
When did I call Molly a coward?

> >>Charles:
> And as far as it not being a choice she's made-how many people in 
> the wizarding world are members of the order?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, but how many of Molly's family are members?

> >>Phoenixgod2000
> > And for the record she is going against the tide of one of
> > her most beloved son's and her goverment--the goverment that    
> > feeds and clothes her family.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > No she isn't.
> > <snip>

> >>Charles:
> Yes, actually she is, at least in OotP. Percy and the ministry may
> not be pro-Voldie, but they *are* anti-Dumbledore-again, at least 
> in OotP.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right, the way I see Molly (and erm, this won't be popular) she's 
basically weak and stupid.  So Arthur put his foot down and threw 
one of his son's out.  Molly's just going along.  She won't stand up 
to Arthur when he takes a firm stand, but I seriously doubt Molly is 
fully against the Ministry.  As Phoenixgod pointed out, Arthur is 
still working there.  She's probably against Fudge (as she's been 
for a while since she's been living under the pleasant lie that 
Arthur was shunted into Muggle relations against his will) but I 
doubt she's against the Ministry full stop.

It's the same reason I think Molly's favorite sons have always been 
the twins.  I think she sees them as proper boys -- all piss and 
vinegar.  Poor Percy tried for years to become Molly's beloved by 
doing everything she *said* she wanted a perfect son.  But the twins 
followed her actions, and they took top spot.  (I wouldn't be 
surprised if they're a lot like her brothers were.) 

> > >>Phoenixgod2000:
> > <snip>
> > Narcissa and her family is *evil*.  
> > <snip>

> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > They are not evil.  Some of their beliefs are.  
> > <snip>

> >>Charles:
> Here is where it falls down. What makes a person evil if it is not
> their actions and ideas?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  I don't like Narcissa's beliefs.  But I do admire her 
actions.  A mother's love for her child is not an example of evil.  
At least, not IMO.

> >>Alla:
> I see I have to clarify. I considered that you were making the
> argument about moral relativism not because it is bad to love your
> child. Of course it is not, but what stroke as "moral are relative"
> part ( and I can be wrong) is the idea that **because** Narcissa
> loves her child she somehow becomes more sympathetic character.

Betsy Hp:
For me Narcissa becomes more sympathetic because we get a glimpse of 
good in her.  Yes, Narcissa's political beliefs are bad.  But she 
puts them aside, undermines her leader, to protect her son.  And I 
admire that.  I'm not trying to say Narcissa is the moral center of 
the book.  But I can see past the political beliefs to see the 
glimmer of something good there.  

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> As Phoenixgod said, bad people ( racists, torturers, murderers)    
> have families who love them, so what?

Betsy Hp:
I'm not looking at who loves Narcissa.  I'm looking at who and how 
she loves.  I don't think Bellatrix expressed a good form of love 
(pleased that Draco would die for her cause), I do think Narcissa 
expressed a good form of love (risking herself to save him).

> >>Alla:
> I mean, really does torturer and murderer ( Lucius Malfoy for
> example) becomes less sympathetic character because he loves his
> child? Why?

Betsy Hp:
First, have we seen Lucius kill or torture anyone?  (I'm just 
curious about that, because I'm really not sure where JKR is going 
to take him.) But yeah, if we get a scene with Lucius that's similar 
to the scene we got with Narcissa, he'd garner a bit more sympathy 
on my part.  Because again, it'd be Lucius showing a glimmer of 
goodness, the ability to love someone else more then himself.

Like when Darth Vader sacrificed himself to save his son.  It showed 
the goodness still in him and so Luke felt he'd won his father back 
from the Dark Side.  Despite all the people Vader had tortured and 
killed.

> >>Alla:
> This is Wikipedia definition, which is pretty much what I am
> thinking of.
> <snip of quote>

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  I totally went to Wikipedia to check that moral relativism was 
what I thought it was. <g>  So we're on the same page.

> >>Alla:
> Basically what I heard you saying is that Narcissa's political    
> views do not matter, that she can be admired without looking at her
> politics, that we can forget about her political views and admire
> her as person and to me that means diminishing Narcissa morals,
> disregarding of who she is as a person ? first and foremost a
> Voldemort's supporter IMO.
> Does that make sense?

Betsy Hp:
It does, but that's not what I was saying.  I specifically said (a 
bit upthread) that I do recognize that Narcissa stuck in the third 
part of the vow.  She was fine with a dead Dumbledore and it'd be a 
mistake to overlook that.

However, I think we also saw that Narcissa is first and foremost 
Draco's mother, *not* Voldemort's supporter.  She willingly 
undermined Voldemort's plan to protect her son.  (An example of 
someone putting Voldemort first is Bellatrix who was quite willing 
to sacrifice her nephew in the name of Voldemort's cause.)  I do see 
a glimmer of goodness in Narcissa's decision to go to Snape.  And I 
admire her willingness to defy Voldemort to protect her son.  
Doesn't mean I don't recognize that she's a danger to Harry and has 
a bit further to go if she wants to become one of the white hats 
(which I'm not even sure she actually wants to do).

Betsy Hp





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 04:02:48 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:02:48 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldemort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eih0kv+f06a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eih3d8+cqmh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160952

EDITED for couple of typos that change the meaning a lot in some 
sentences.


> > >>Alla:
> > Golden words, Phoenixgod, golden words. I do not buy the moral
> > relativism argument, which IMO Betsy makes.
>
> Betsy Hp:
> See, I wouldn't call it moral relativism. Narcissa loves her son
> and doesn't want to him to worthlessly sacrifice his life. I
> imagine Molly would feel the same way about any of her children if
> someone sent them on a suicide mission as a punishment for
Arthur's
> mistakes. *That's* the morals I'm talking about. There's nothing
> relative about it. Because politics doesn't enter into it. It's
> not bad to love your child. It's not bad to try and save him from
> certain death.

Alla:

I see I have to clarify. I considered that you were making the
argument about moral relativism not because it is bad to love your
child. Of course it is not, but what stroke as "moral are relative"
part ( and I can be wrong) is the idea that **because** Narcissa
loves her child she somehow becomes more sympathetic character.

I just do not get how because Narcissa can be evaluated without
looking at her political views when they are so unequivocally
disgusting.

As Phoenixgod said, bad people ( racists, torturers, murderers) have
families who love them, so what?

I mean, really does torturer and murderer ( Lucius Malfoy for
example) becomes more sympathetic character because he loves his
child? Why?

I mean sure the fact that Malfoys love each other made them less
caricaturous, more human in HBP, but not as **human in a good way"
IMO.

It just showed to me that Malfoys are portrayed as someone who is
capable of expressing any other emotion besides hate, but they are
still hateful bunch of murderers, or wanna be murderers.

True, we do not see Narcissa killing herself, but this **brave**
lady as you said herself has no problem with Dumbledore being dead,
she also had no problem with her cousin being dead as well.

On the large scale of thing she still supports Voldemort mentality. 
I am scratching my head as to how her love for her child makes her 
admirable.

Oooooo, maybe to me love for one's children is such a basic part of 
human nature that I really do not have much of admiration for the 
person if the only thing to admire about that person is their love 
for their kids, if that makes sense?

Not because it is easy of course, but because to me that is what 
parents supposed to do - love their children.

Parents who do bad things to their children - I really, really do 
not consider that to be normal behaviour, if that makes sense.

So, if you are telling me that you admire Narcissa for loving her 
son, my response is **big deal**, that is what **any** mother 
supposed to do - love her children, show me something **else** to 
admire about Narcissa and here I see **nothing**, absolutely nothing 
to admire, because she and her family support murderer, torturer and 
racist.

Is it clearer?


> Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
> I honestly don't think seeing the humanity in some members of the
> opposing side as moral relativism. Not the way I understand that
> term, anyway. I'd say saying that anything the bad side does is
bad
> (taking action to save their child's life) and anything the good
> side does is good (putting innocents in jail without trial) is
more
> moral relativism.

Alla:

This is Wikipedia definition, which is pretty much what I am
thinking of.

"In philosophy, moral relativism takes the position that moral or
ethical propositions do not reflect absolute and universal moral
truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural,
historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no
universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical
proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values
as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the
context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position
might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of
another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists
propound a more limited version of the theory."

Basically what I heard you saying is that Narcissa's political views
do not matter, that she can be admired without looking at her
politics, that we can forget about her political views and admire
her as person and to me that means diminishing Narcissa morals,
disregarding of who she is as a person ? first and foremost a
Voldemort's supporter IMO.

Does that make sense?


> Charles:
<SNIP of the whole post>
> Here is where it falls down. What makes a person evil if it is not
> their actions and ideas? <SNIP>
> If abusive racists are not evil in your opinion, then what the hell
> is?
>

Alla:

Just wanted to admire your post again

JMO,

Alla











From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 04:21:40 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:21:40 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eih35h+157j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eih4gk+8a5u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160953

> > >>Alla:
> > <snip>
> > As Phoenixgod said, bad people ( racists, torturers, 
murderers)    
> > have families who love them, so what?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I'm not looking at who loves Narcissa.  I'm looking at who and how 
> she loves.  I don't think Bellatrix expressed a good form of love 
> (pleased that Draco would die for her cause), I do think Narcissa 
> expressed a good form of love (risking herself to save him).

Alla:

Yes, I should have said and whom they love of course. See, as I said 
in the post which is the edited version of the one you replied to, 
mother's love to her son is something which is soo very essential 
part of human nature in my view that by itself it really does not 
impress me much. That is what mothers do ( or at least supposed to 
do) in my view - love their kids.
And I should say again, I know that it is not easy - love all the 
time, but this is my deep conviction - mother can be justifiably 
irritated, annoyed with her child sometimes and deservingly so, but 
**not** loving the child on the regular basis, as far as I am 
concerned is not normal.

And there is nothing else I see in Narcissa to admire. She loves her 
flesh and blood, big deal. I am serious here. Show me who else 
Narcissa loves, who does not support *purebloods rule, everybody can 
drop dead** philosophy. At least somebody to whom Narcissa is not 
related by blood. Heee, and we do know that she had no problem 
selling to Voldemort somebody to whom she **is** related by blood, 
so her love to her family looks quite limited to me.


> > >>Alla:
> > I mean, really does torturer and murderer ( Lucius Malfoy for
> > example) becomes less sympathetic character because he loves his
> > child? Why?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> First, have we seen Lucius kill or torture anyone?  (I'm just 
> curious about that, because I'm really not sure where JKR is going 
> to take him.) But yeah, if we get a scene with Lucius that's 
similar 
> to the scene we got with Narcissa, he'd garner a bit more sympathy 
> on my part.  Because again, it'd be Lucius showing a glimmer of 
> goodness, the ability to love someone else more then himself.

Alla:

We had seen him watching Voldie torture Harry for example, I also 
thought he was out for the blood in MoM.

Betsy: 
> Like when Darth Vader sacrificed himself to save his son.  It 
showed 
> the goodness still in him and so Luke felt he'd won his father 
back 
> from the Dark Side.  Despite all the people Vader had tortured and 
> killed.

Alla:

I remember it a bit differently, because if it occurred that way, I 
would not really be impressed with Vader's redemption. Wasn't Luke 
sensing Vader struggle of good and bad in him way before Vader 
sacrificed himself?

That showed to me that good and bad fought in him on much bigger 
scale than just when he decided to save Luke.

Am I remember it wrong?


 






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 05:13:48 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:13:48 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <eigrke+3pur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eih7ic+7ab8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160954

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charles Walker Jr"
<darksworld at ...> wrote:

<SNIP>

> Simply because we are not told Molly's activities it is *not* safe 
> to  assume that they do not exist. 


zanooda:

Sorry to answer only to this one point, I'm not ready to join this
discussion. I want to add that there is one canon reference to Molly's
Order activities. In OotP, when Sirius talks to HRH in the fire
("Educational decree number twenty-four" ch.), he says about Molly
that "she's on duty tonight". Ron asks :"On duty doing what?", and
Sirius answers:"Never you mind, just stuff for the order" (p.371 US).

Another thing: at the end of GoF ("The parting of the ways" ch.) DD
asks Molly if he can count on her and Arthur in his work against LV
and she says "Of course you can" (p.711 US). It sounds like Molly was
the first of all the Weasleys to be invited to join the Order :-).





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov  4 05:17:31 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:17:31 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eigrke+3pur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eih7pb+ha25@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160955

Charles:
> Here is where it falls down. What makes a person evil if it is not
> their actions and ideas? Why is Dobby fearful of the Malfoy 
> family? I really can't accept any concept that Narcissa is not
> evil, because I am dead certain that Lucius is not the only Malfoy
> to have abused Dobby. No, I don't have explicit canon proof, just 
> the fact that I cannot see Lucius condescending to speak with 
> Dobby to give him more than one death threat a day.
> 
> If abusive racists are not evil in your opinion, then what the hell
> is?

Jen: I'm not certain if you are talking evil or irredeemably evil, 
Charles? Cause JKR is saying there is hope for the Malfoys, all of 
them, when Dumbledore offers to hide Draco and his family. And 
despite his second chances, even Dumbledore recognizes people who 
are irredeemably evil--Voldemort & Crouch Jr. to name two because I 
can't think of others at the moment <g>.

Writing the Malfoys off misses the point of the series in my 
opinion. Dumbledore is saying there is a right side, and that the 
Malfoys still have the capacity to choose that side, their actions 
have not risen to the level that they are incapable of seeing right 
from wrong. The person who no longer has the capacity to choose is a 
person whose soul has died. 

Lucius appears to be the least likely to have any redemptive 
qualities given his history of Muggle torture, the COS, etc., but 
there's so little information about Narcissa it's difficult for me 
to brand her as evil and write her off. So she's OK with Dumbledore 
dying instead of her son (if she even thinks of it in those terms), 
well if it were my son the thought of sacrificing him for a cause, 
any cause, is unbearable. Some things are universal and love for a 
child goes beyond political affiliation. 

Up to the point of the Vow, and even during the Vow, our information 
about Narcissa is that she's guilty by affiliation--does that rise 
to the level of evil? Compared to Voldemort, the DE's who tortured 
the Longbottoms, the DE's hurting and attempting to kill children in 
the MOM....no, not in my book. 

Jen, who does view Bella in the same vein as Voldemort and Crouch, 
Jr.








From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Sat Nov  4 05:30:48 2006
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:30:48 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eigrke+3pur@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eih8i8+pbki@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160956

> Madame Bones was a member
> (returning from the original incarnation), IIRC

Madam Bones was in the Order? Since when? She wasn't in the picture of 
the original Order that Mad-Eye showed Harry, certainly. This was 
after he'd seen her at the hearing, so I think Harry would have 
noticed it if she was there. Nor did we see her at Grimmauld Place at 
any point.

I suppose someone could make a case that not all the Order members 
came to Grimmauld or that Harry missed seeing a few of those that did, 
and that we didn't hear about Madam Bones being in that picture 
because Mad-Eye stopped naming people when he got to James and Lily, 
which would allow the possibility that Madam Bones was in the Order, 
but it wouldn't convince me.

MercuryBlue





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 05:37:12 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:37:12 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldemort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eih7pb+ha25@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eih8u8+pmfs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160957

> Jen: I'm not certain if you are talking evil or irredeemably evil, 
> Charles? Cause JKR is saying there is hope for the Malfoys, all of 
> them, when Dumbledore offers to hide Draco and his family. And 
> despite his second chances, even Dumbledore recognizes people who 
> are irredeemably evil--Voldemort & Crouch Jr. to name two because 
I 
> can't think of others at the moment <g>.

Alla:

Hmmm, we shall see of course if Dumbledore indeed recognises all 
irredemably evil people at the end of book 7. :)

Ssssssssss.

But yes, I was so happy at the reading in NY when JKR IMO clearly 
implied that even though most of her characters are redeemable, 
Voldemort is not one of them.

 
> Writing the Malfoys off misses the point of the series in my 
> opinion. Dumbledore is saying there is a right side, and that the 
> Malfoys still have the capacity to choose that side, their actions 
> have not risen to the level that they are incapable of seeing 
right 
> from wrong. The person who no longer has the capacity to choose is 
a 
> person whose soul has died. 

Alla:

Oh, absolutely. Hate them as I am, I totally understand the 
possibility of Malfoys choosing  the right side later on. The 
question is for me is where anything to admire about them **right 
now**


Jen:
> Lucius appears to be the least likely to have any redemptive 
> qualities given his history of Muggle torture, the COS, etc., but 
> there's so little information about Narcissa it's difficult for me 
> to brand her as evil and write her off. So she's OK with 
Dumbledore 
> dying instead of her son (if she even thinks of it in those 
terms), 
> well if it were my son the thought of sacrificing him for a cause, 
> any cause, is unbearable. Some things are universal and love for a 
> child goes beyond political affiliation. 

Alla:

But of course it is understandable to want your child to live, the 
problem for me is that as Phoenixgod said Narcissa could have asked 
Snape for **anything** in the third part of the Vow, she could have 
asked Snape to **save** Draco by any means, but she **still** asked 
for Snape to kill Dumbledore.

Sorry, Jen, I think Narcissa does show her evil nature here - not in 
trying to save her son ( as I said upthread, I find it something 
very basic, but completely understandable), but in wishing for 
Dumbledore's death which IMO she could have done without.


Jen: 
> Up to the point of the Vow, and even during the Vow, our 
information 
> about Narcissa is that she's guilty by affiliation--does that rise 
> to the level of evil? Compared to Voldemort, the DE's who tortured 
> the Longbottoms, the DE's hurting and attempting to kill children 
in 
> the MOM....no, not in my book. 

Alla:

Yeah, sorry, IMO it does :)

She wishes and she actively provides means for another person to die 
IMO ( by going to Snape)

 
> Jen, who does view Bella in the same vein as Voldemort and Crouch, 
> Jr.
>

Alla:

Me too :)





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 05:48:25 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 05:48:25 -0000
Subject: Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eih4gk+8a5u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eih9j9+iaan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160958

[SPOILER WARNING: I give away the ending to "Return of the Jedi" 
towards the end of this post.]

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I'm not looking at who loves Narcissa.  I'm looking at who and   
> > how she loves. 
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> Yes, I should have said and whom they love of course. See, as I    
> said in the post which is the edited version of the one you       
> replied to, mother's love to her son is something which is soo    
> very essential part of human nature in my view that by itself it   
> really does not impress me much.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
As you say in the bit I snipped, mothers are supposed to love their 
children.  But it's still a good thing.  I mean, don't you think 
well of someone who takes a risk to protect their child?

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> And there is nothing else I see in Narcissa to admire. She loves   
> her flesh and blood, big deal.

Betsy Hp:
I guess, yes for me, that is a big deal. Because Narcissa didn't 
just passively love Draco.  She actively took a risk, went against 
Voldemort (her team in a sense) to protect him.  That wasn't a 
neutral action.

> >>Alla:
> I am serious here. Show me who else Narcissa loves, who does not   
> support *purebloods rule, everybody can drop dead** philosophy.

Betsy Hp:
Why such a stringent hoop? 

> >>Alla:
> At least somebody to whom Narcissa is not related by blood.

Betsy Hp:
And an even smaller one?  Narcissa risked her life to protect her 
son.  That *is* deep for me.  Plus, she's a minor character.  JKR is 
not going to have Narcissa running around saving random 
Muggleborns.  At least not until book 7. <eg>

> >>Alla:
> Heee, and we do know that she had no problem selling to Voldemort 
> somebody to whom she **is** related by blood, so her love to her   
> family looks quite limited to me.

Betsy Hp:
But wait, I thought you were arguing that protecting your blood 
isn't a good thing.  Sort of selfish because it's your blood? <eg> 

Also, what do we know?  We don't *know* that the DoM plan was "no 
problem" for Narcissa.  We can assume, but it's weaker, IMO, next to 
the cold, hard, fact that Narcissa took a risk in defying Voldemort 
to protect her son. 

Frankly, protecting Draco *wasn't* just going with the flow for 
Narcissa.  She was forced to choose between her son and her 
politics.  She chose her son.  I just don't get how that doesn't 
count.  Especially as the politics end up in the negative column.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > First, have we seen Lucius kill or torture anyone?
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> We had seen him watching Voldie torture Harry for example, I also 
> thought he was out for the blood in MoM.

Betsy Hp:
But that's not torturing or killing someone.  Interesting... 

> >>Betsy: 
> > Like when Darth Vader sacrificed himself to save his son.  It 
> > showed the goodness still in him and so Luke felt he'd won his   
> > father back from the Dark Side.  Despite all the people Vader   
> > had tortured and killed.

> >>Alla:
> I remember it a bit differently, because if it occurred that way, 
> I would not really be impressed with Vader's redemption. Wasn't   
> Luke sensing Vader struggle of good and bad in him way before     
> Vader sacrificed himself?
> That showed to me that good and bad fought in him on much bigger 
> scale than just when he decided to save Luke.
> Am I remember it wrong?

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, you are. <g>  I mean, *Luke* kept saying "there's good in him, 
I feel it" and Ben was all "you are *crazy*!" and Vader was 
all "kill that puppy!  torture that kitten! [Endor]" and "maybe I 
can turn Luke evil too, master!" and then Luke and Vader fought and 
the Emperor was all "kill your daddy or suffer!" and Luke went with 
suffer, and Vader finally had enough.  And he killed the Emperor and 
told Luke "tell your sister *gasp* you were right! *gasp*" and then 
he died and went to glow with Ben and Yoda.

But Yoda was all "Meh, so you saved your flesh and blood.  Big 
whoop." (Actually, I made that last bit up. <g>)

No, it really was choosing love for his children (I'll throw Leia in 
here) over the Dark Side.  

Again, I'm not saying Narcissa has reached a point where she and 
Dumbledore can glow together.  But the fact that she's selfless 
enough to put her child's safety over her loyalty to Voldemort 
suggests that she's not a heartless supporter of Death Eaters over 
all.  

Betsy Hp





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 08:17:41 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 08:17:41 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <20061104004229.64200.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eihib5+uadi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160959

--- , J <tidblgr72 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Jeremiah:
> > Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his 
> > parent's house? If ... Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was
> > the secret keeper, then he still is the secret keeper;
> > he always will be.
> 
> Eddie:
> I can't say for sure how it happened, but the secret 
> has been broken. We can infer that because a number of
> people other than Peter Pettigrew have told Harry that
> his parents were hiding at Godrick's Hollow, something 
> they would not have been able to do if the secret
> was still intact.
> 
> Jeremiah:
> Not true. I'm sure there are lots of people who knew 
> Grimmauld place is in London but can't get the exact 
> address ... Harry does not know the "exact" location in
> Godric Hollow, .... But I really think Harry is going to
> have a tough time finding the place.
> 

bboyminn:

We have analysed this subject up and down, inside out, and
the most common conclusion we come to it that for some yet
unclear reason, the charm was broken. The other alternate
explanation, is that JKR screwed up and didn't think that
far ahead, or didn't think it would be analysed so deeply.

I favor the 'Breach of Fidelity', when Peter revealed the
Secret, he breach the 'fidelity' or Fidelius of the charm,
and in doing so, by having so egregiously broken faith
with his duty as Secret Keeper, has, in a sense, nullified 
the effects of the Charm.

Others believe the subject of the Secret was the Potters
(Mr & Mrs), when they died, there was nothing left to hide
and that broke the charm.

The other is that the House was the subject of the Secret
and that when the house was destroyed, again, there was
no longer any secret left to keep. 

Each possibility has, to greater or lesser extent, some
preceived inconsistencies, though I think my personal
favorite theory has the fewest.

None the less, and regardless of what the subject of the
secret was, for the secret to still be in effect causes
many many unresolvable plot problems. The only solution
that allows the story to move forward quickly and get to
the point, is for the Secret Charm to have been broken
for whatever reason. 

Remember, this is the last book, and there are many many
MANY mysteries still unresolved. I don't think JKR can 
add more elements of uncertainty to the mix. The existing
uncertainties need to start resolving themselves in order
to bring the story to a close. 

I believe, in terms of pages dedicated to the task, our 
visit to Godrics Hollow will be short and to the point. 
Harry will go do what he needs to do, gain what every he
needs to gain, and the story will quickly move on. I 
believe that partly because there is simply no time left
to dwell on little side plots.

Things need to start narrowing down and coming into focus.
I suspect that Harry will have a local guide when he 
reaches Godrics Hollow, and that this guide will reveal 
some information that will seem inconsequential in the 
moment but will be important later. So, quickly in, they
get the information, and quickly out. The whole 
resolution of Gordics Hollow simply can not take that
many pages because there are so few available pages to 
dedicate to it. 

Again, the simpliest solution, the one that  moves the 
plot forward in the most efficient manner, is for the
Secret Spell to have been broken. How or why it was 
broken will be interesting to know, but I don't think
the story can dwell on it.

Steve/bboyminn






From darksworld at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 07:07:49 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 07:07:49 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eih7pb+ha25@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eihe85+bm14@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160960

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> 
wrote:
> Jen: I'm not certain if you are talking evil or irredeemably evil, 
> Charles?<snip>

Charles: I snipped most of your post because It's not exactly 
pertinent to how I *must* answer this question. While I see good and 
evil as necessary complements of each other, I cannot say that I 
believe in irredemably evil. I certainly do not believe in 
incorruptible good.

Even Voldemort in my opinion is not necessarily irredemably evil. 
Highly unlikely to be redeemed, and I don't think it will happen, but 
I don't think it impossible. The Malfoys-well, Draco has been set up 
for redemption by the tower scene. Narcissa has shown herself 
unwilling by adding in the assasination clause to the UV.

Dumbledore himself has shown that the good are not incorruptible by 
saying that he fell into the trap he foresaw. Was it evil not to tell 
Harry what he should have known years before until it was 
unavoidable? Yep. Not on the same scale, and done with the best of 
intentions, but yes it fell into the nature of an evil act. By not 
doing what he knew to be right he caused pain that might have been 
avoided. Not as evil as intentional torture or murder, but still 
there. 

I see evil and good sharing a spectrum rather than being either 
distinct entities or even flip sides of the same coin.

I don't know if I've described it well enough, but apologetics has 
never been my forte.

Charles, who's up past his bedtime.






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 15:07:25 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:07:25 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <20061103221520.26537.qmail@web54509.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eiiabd+55qp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160961

 <tidblgr72 at ...> wrote:
> Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his parent's house? If 
the Potters were in hiding and Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was the secret 
keeper, then he still is the secret keeper. he always will be.

zgirnius:
I think the way around this is for Harry to travel to the village of 
Godric's Hollow, and ask about the house where the explosion happened 
16 years ago. Once he is at the site, he will be able to see anything 
he needs to see about his parents, because he lived in that house. 







From tara at taramayastales.com  Sat Nov  4 08:56:36 2006
From: tara at taramayastales.com (taramaya88)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 08:56:36 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Malfoys. WAS:Hiding from Voldemort / Moral Relativism 
In-Reply-To: <eih8u8+pmfs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eihkk4+bka5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160963

Jen Reese:

> > Writing the Malfoys off misses the point of the series in my
> > opinion. Dumbledore is saying there is a right side, and that the
> > Malfoys still have the capacity to choose that side, their actions
> > have not risen to the level that they are incapable of seeing
> right
> > from wrong. The person who no longer has the capacity to choose is
> a
> > person whose soul has died.
>
> Alla:
>
> Oh, absolutely. Hate them as I am, I totally understand the
> possibility of Malfoys choosing  the right side later on. The
> question is for me is where anything to admire about them **right
> now**

I can understand why Dumbledore offers the possibility of redemption, and that it must be
open to anybody. Presumably EVEN to Vol. But after one has engaged in repeated acts of
murder, torture, etc., surely the road back to the right path becomes increasingly difficult.

Presumably Snape travelled some of this road, although it may have proved too difficult?


Tara

http://www.taramayastales.com/









From darksworld at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 06:25:54 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 06:25:54 -0000
Subject: Molly  and Narcissa  WAS: Hiding from Voldemort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eih35h+157j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eihbpi+d5h3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160964

> > >>Charles:
<SNIP>
>Simply
> > because we are not told Molly's activities it is *not* safe to
> > assume that they do not exist.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> But I don't see those activities.  Which is my point.  <SNIP>

Charles:
You are ignoring the fact that Molly is doing something. She has
joined the forces aligned against Voldemort.

> > >>Charles:
> > To draw a parallell, your argument is like calling the support
> > sections of a military cowards because they aren't the ones
> > wielding the weapons-which is ridiculous.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> When did I call Molly a coward?
>
Charles:
Okay, you did not necessarily call her a coward, but my point was,
and is, that support activities are necessary to any military action.
Instead of going off and whinging to her husband's friend, she's
joined the only force out there fighting the danger to her children.
Belittling the duties she is seen to perform doesn't change the fact
that they happen.

And I would like to know just what she does to undermine the order. I
really don't see that.

> > >>Charles:
> > And as far as it not being a choice she's made-how many people in
> > the wizarding world are members of the order?
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Yeah, but how many of Molly's family are members?
>
Charles:
Every adult. Arthur is not the individual who is asked to join the
order, Molly is. In the hospital wing in GOF DD says "There is work
to be done. Molly, am I right in thinking I can count on you and
Arthur?" Doesn't sound like she's a third wheel to me. Doesn't sound
like she's jumping on a bandwagon, but rather more like she's driving
it.

> > >>Phoenixgod2000
> > > And for the record she is going against the tide of one of
> > > her most beloved son's and her goverment--the goverment that
> > > feeds and clothes her family.
>
> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > No she isn't.
> > > <snip>
>
> > >>Charles:
> > Yes, actually she is, at least in OotP. Percy and the ministry may
> > not be pro-Voldie, but they *are* anti-Dumbledore-again, at least
> > in OotP.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Right, the way I see Molly (and erm, this won't be popular) she's
> basically weak and stupid.  So Arthur put his foot down and threw
> one of his son's out.  Molly's just going along.  She won't stand
up
> to Arthur when he takes a firm stand, but I seriously doubt Molly
is
> fully against the Ministry.  As Phoenixgod pointed out, Arthur is
> still working there.  She's probably against Fudge (as she's been
> for a while since she's been living under the pleasant lie that
> Arthur was shunted into Muggle relations against his will) but I
> doubt she's against the Ministry full stop.
>
Charles:
Molly is never shown in the books as weak. The closest we come is the
boggart in the drawing room. She fears the death of all of her
children and she has every right to. This is every paren't worst
fear. Hell, due to circumstances beyond my control I barely know my
daughter, but if I were to come across a boggart there's every chance
that I'd see about the same thing-and have about the same reaction.
(Then again, I'm a major arachnophobe...)

Molly consistently dominates Arthur. Percy fights with Arthur and
storms out shouting that he would make sure that no one connected him
with the family anymore. As far as cannon states it's Molly's opinion
that Arthur's Muggle obsession is what's held him back at the
ministry. That she doesn't use her dominant position to get him to
move to a better job is a mark of her integrity. Canon just doesn't
support the idea of a weak Molly. Stupid-well, I wouldn't necessarily
call her stupid, but she is still using Lockhart books in OotP. :-)

Betsy:
> It's the same reason I think Molly's favorite sons have always been
> the twins.  I think she sees them as proper boys -- all piss and
> vinegar.  Poor Percy tried for years to become Molly's beloved by
> doing everything she *said* she wanted a perfect son.  But the
twins
> followed her actions, and they took top spot.  (I wouldn't be
> surprised if they're a lot like her brothers were.)
>

Charles:
Ah, but the scene when Ron gets his prefect badge blows that notion
out of the water. If the twins were really her favorites, she would
not have done the "everyone in the family" bit. (That scene must have
thrilled a couple of people around here as Ginny should have taken
offense as well.)

> > >>Charles:
> > Here is where it falls down. What makes a person evil if it is not
> > their actions and ideas?
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Exactly.  I don't like Narcissa's beliefs.  But I do admire her
> actions.  A mother's love for her child is not an example of evil.
> At least, not IMO.
>

Charles:
No, but convincing someone to be a backup assasin is. No ifs, ands,
or buts- causing someone to make an unbreakable vow to commit murder
is a murderous intention in and of itself. It was unnecessary for the
protection of Draco. She is trying to further her cause.

A prediction for book 7 (out of the blue and probably won't happen
but I can hope, because it's been a suspicion of mine.): we will see
something that even Bellatrix doesn't know at this point- Narcissa
asked for the UV on Voldemort's orders.

> Betsy Hp:
> However, I think we also saw that Narcissa is first and foremost
> Draco's mother, *not* Voldemort's supporter.  She willingly
> undermined Voldemort's plan to protect her son.  (An example of
> someone putting Voldemort first is Bellatrix who was quite willing
> to sacrifice her nephew in the name of Voldemort's cause.)  I do
see
> a glimmer of goodness in Narcissa's decision to go to Snape.  And I
> admire her willingness to defy Voldemort to protect her son.
> Doesn't mean I don't recognize that she's a danger to Harry and has
> a bit further to go if she wants to become one of the white hats
> (which I'm not even sure she actually wants to do).

A bit further to go is an understatement. As I stated above, I think
that her fear wasn't Draco, it was Draco's *failure*. I'm not
claiming she does not care about her son, but implicit in her worry
of "He'll be killed!" is a silent "Then I'm next!" I guess what I'm
saying here is that she's not going to Snape just to save her son.
The proof is in the third condition of the vow.

Charles, who doesn't think that asking someone to perform the
assasination your son was ordered to perform is quite an admirable
feet.







From cindiknits at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 14:15:39 2006
From: cindiknits at yahoo.com (cindiknits)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 14:15:39 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <eihib5+uadi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eii7ab+fp9f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160965

> > Eddie:
> > I can't say for sure how it happened, but the secret
> > has been broken. We can infer that because a number of
> > people other than Peter Pettigrew have told Harry that
> > his parents were hiding at Godrick's Hollow, something
> > they would not have been able to do if the secret
> > was still intact.

Cindi:
First post here, and I'm new, so this might have been gone
over many times before (sorry in advance).  It seems to me that it
should be reasonably easy for Harry to find his parents' house.
Didn't Hagrid and Sirius meet there when Lily and James were
killed?  Else how would Hagrid have gotten Harry?






From nomy610 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 08:37:22 2006
From: nomy610 at yahoo.com (nomy610)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 08:37:22 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore Horcrux?
In-Reply-To: <025901c6f708$92e35990$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle>
Message-ID: <eihjg2+27jt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160966

> Amy:
>
>   My question may have been answered, so please bear with me ...
>   Has anyone considered (Since JKR has superbly worked this plot
>   out) that maybe Dumbledore has also split his soul as Lord
>   Voldemort did??????
>

Hi I am Nada from Egypt,
I think that the worst thing about Horcrux is killing someone,
if so DD may have found someone very tired and in pain that death
will be better for him than life because of his pain ,I do not think
that killing in that case will be a very bad thing because it will
make the soul of the person better and not in pain.
I think that DD know well that the war without him with LD will be
losing and he knew that he could do something and also there is a big
number of things that he only know and also can explain ,
sure there is a way he arranged so that Harry can find easily even if
it is not Horcrux.

Nada.






From annemehr at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 15:49:54 2006
From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 15:49:54 -0000
Subject: Snape knew
In-Reply-To: <eig8n2+58vm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiicr2+d6hb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160967

 
> Eddie:
<snip> 
> Time 4: Snape gets caught by bartender, misses 2nd half.  
Dumbledore
> continues to hear the rest of the prophecy, ignoring the commotion 
in
> the hall?

Annemehr:
This in itself is no problem.  Assuming DD was distracted by the 
noise outside and failed to hear the entire prophecy at the time, he 
could easily hear it by putting his memory in the pensieve later. 
That's how pensieves work.

Remember that in "Snape's Worst Memory," Harry was able to see what 
James doodled on his exam paper, which Snape would not have been 
aware of at the time.

In fact, this was confirmed in the Leaky Cauldron/Mugglenet 
interview the weekend HBP was published:

Melissa Anelli: "So there are things in [the pensieve memories] 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."

There's a bit more detail, including the fact that pensieve memories 
are objective, in the transcript here:

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:tlcinterviews/jkrhbp3


Eddie:
> He showed Harry the memory of Trelawny on the surface of the 
pensieve
> instead of diving into the pensieve, so we only see and hear 
Trelawny
> but not the rest of context.  Maybe Harry will learn a lot by doing
> some pensieve diving into this particular memory.

Annemehr:
Yes, I've had that pointed out to me as being suspicious before.  
*Why* not just dive right in?  Eh?


> Eddie, who can't think of a clever closing tag.
>

Personally, I tend to rely on flashes of inspiration from an 
apparently distracted muse.

Annemehr,
who...






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 16:46:35 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:46:35 -0000
Subject: Moral Relativism/Parents love to their kids in the books
In-Reply-To: <eih9j9+iaan@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiig5b+pck1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160968

> Betsy Hp:
> As you say in the bit I snipped, mothers are supposed to love 
their 
> children.  But it's still a good thing.  I mean, don't you think 
> well of someone who takes a risk to protect their child?

Alla:

How to put it? Okay, I guess I need to do small personal 
interjection. You know that I have a niece, whom I love dearly ( 
Alla snaps herself out of admiring antie mode :)). I also love 
dearly her parents ( my brother and my sister in law). I mean, I am 
not just saying it. My brother is well, my brother and I truly love 
my sister in law. She is that kind, gentle, truly amasing person. 
And they love my niece obviously. How can you not love this baby? 
Alla smacks herself again.

So, God forbid if anything ever happens to her, I would expect 
nothing less from them but to protect her and everything else be 
d*mned. Again, you can believe me or not, but that is how I feel and 
I am pretty sure that that is how they feel.

Now, would I think worse of them, if they do not protect my niece's 
life if her life is threatened? Not that I think they would do such 
a thing, but yes, absolutely I will.

Does it make sense?

Okay, back to books now. I guess I have to mention Potters deaths. 
See, even though JKR distinguishes in her interview between Lily and 
James sacrifices, I really and truly do not.

They both fought the monster to defy him an to protect their child.

I do think that Lily's sacrifice also has certain animalistic 
quality, not just James'. Parents are supposed to protect their 
kids, that is what they do in my view.

So, while I certainly think of Potters as heroes, I think of them as 
heroes because they joined the order to defy Voldemort and did it 
three times before Harry was born, NOT just because they died to 
protect Harry if that makes sense.

Now, if they say run away and let Voldemort kill Harry, certainly I 
would think of them as monsters.

I certainly do not have much respect for Merope, who as Harry says 
could not stay alive for her son.

Yes, yes, I know I am supposed to have pity for her, and I do have 
some ( maybe because I am so deeply disgusted by her actions that 
lead to the birth of Tom Riddle, I don't have much pity for her), 
she was weak, she tried, etc.

So, yes, I would think less of someone who would not protect their 
kid, but not much more of someone who does, unless it is in 
appropriate context.

Like, as you mentioned Bella, who is ready to sacrifice her sons to 
the cause - so Bella dear is a monster as I knew before and now she 
is even more monster, but while Narcissa is trying to protect her 
son as every parent should IMO she is doing it and trying to get 
Dumbledore killed too, not worthy of my respect, no.
 
> > >>Alla:
> > I am serious here. Show me who else Narcissa loves, who does 
not   
> > support *purebloods rule, everybody can drop dead** philosophy.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Why such a stringent hoop? 

Alla:

What does *stringent hoop* means?


> > >>Alla:
> > Heee, and we do know that she had no problem selling to 
Voldemort 
> > somebody to whom she **is** related by blood, so her love to 
her   
> > family looks quite limited to me.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But wait, I thought you were arguing that protecting your blood 
> isn't a good thing.  Sort of selfish because it's your blood? <eg> 
><SNIP>

Alla:

Not selfish, essential and what I am saying is that Narcissa does 
not even protect **all** people who related to her by blood, only 
selected few.

 
>> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > First, have we seen Lucius kill or torture anyone?
> > > <snip>
> 
> > >>Alla:
> > We had seen him watching Voldie torture Harry for example, I 
also 
> > thought he was out for the blood in MoM.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But that's not torturing or killing someone.  Interesting... 

Alla:

We also know that he was accused of all these things and got out of 
it by claiming Imperius after V first reign, but no I do not think 
we had seen him doing it.

You think that means that he actually did  not?


 
> Betsy Hp:
> Yeah, you are. <g>  I mean, *Luke* kept saying "there's good in 
him, 
> I feel it" and Ben was all "you are *crazy*!" and Vader was 
> all "kill that puppy!  torture that kitten! [Endor]" and "maybe I 
> can turn Luke evil too, master!" and then Luke and Vader fought 
and 
> the Emperor was all "kill your daddy or suffer!" and Luke went 
with 
> suffer, and Vader finally had enough.  And he killed the Emperor 
and 
> told Luke "tell your sister *gasp* you were right! *gasp*" and 
then 
> he died and went to glow with Ben and Yoda.

Alla:

Well, yes, that is pretty much the picture I remember. Luke was 
feeling struggle of good and bad in Vader before Vader made that 
choice, no?

Yes, Vader was denying it, but it did turn out that Luke was right 
when Vader finally made that choice?

I need to rewatch it, hehe.

Betsy: 
> But Yoda was all "Meh, so you saved your flesh and blood.  Big 
> whoop." (Actually, I made that last bit up. <g>)
><SNIP>

Alla:

LOLOL





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Nov  4 16:47:55 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:47:55 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eigkil+uh15@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiig7r+26ce@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160969

> 
> Neri:
> Well, I suspect that if a legion of Lucius fans were working for 
> years to get Lucius off the hook, they would have found an 
> equally "straightforward" reading that Lucius is DDM too. Probably 
> several incompatible readings, which would have nonetheless made 
> Lucius appear in a rather good light overall.
> 

Pippin:
LOL! You're telling me the DDM!Snape evidence is there because
I went looking for it? Hah! If I had a talent like that I'd be out 
prospecting for gold or looking for the next Google <g>

No, I may be misinterpreting the evidence, but I'm not the one
who put it there. JKR did that. 

If we knew for sure that Snape was evil, there would be, 
according to the author, no point in Book
Seven. So, as there is weighty evidence that Snape is a 
murderer, there must also be weighty evidence that he is not.

DDM!Snape and ESE!Snape are both Canon!Snape. If
you want to say that Snape is more ambiguous than Lucius
I'll certainly agree. But ambiguous is not the same as slippery.


> 
> > Pippin:
> > But if you insist that Snape did kill Dumbledore despite this,
> > then the most obvious reading is ESE!Snape, who never left
> > Voldemort's service at all and is thus has more traction than
> > DDM!Snape could ever have.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> He saved Dumbledore in the beginning of the year and blasted him off 
> the tower in its end. 

Pippin:
The explanation for ESE!Snape is given in canon. Voldemort
wanted Draco to have a go first. The explanation for DDM!Snape 
is also in the book. Some poisons have no antidote. The explanation
that's not in the book is the OFH! Snape one. There is no canon
reason for Snape to have shifted his allegiance from Dumbledore
to Voldemort in the course of HBP, and no character even suggests
that he did so.  

Lucius, on the other hand, spent lavishly to ingratiate himself with
Fudge,  and though he purchased enough influence to get himself 
and his family a seat in the top box, he didn't use any of that 
influence to help Voldemort until he was ordered to. 

> 
> Neri:

> I mean, lets look at all of Snape's comrades on both sides, headed by 
> the "slippery" Lucius, and what has become of them:
<snip list>

Pippin:

Erm, haven't you forgotten that most of Snape's Order and Hogwarts
colleagues have survived, and flourished,  while the DE's who 
used to outnumber the Order twenty to one were reduced to a pitiful 
thirty or so at the Graveyard?

> 
> > Pippin:
> > In contrast, the canon  case for OFH!Snape
> > is terribly weakened by Spinner's End. There's just no
> > reason for OFH!Snape to take that vow, which is why
> > Bella is simply astounded when it happens.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Bella obviously isn't very familiar with Snape and his personal 
> motivations. OTOH Narcissa, who even knows where he lives, does not 
> look astounded at all when he takes the vow. She knew that he'll help 
> her despite the Dark Lord orders, she knew how to go about asking 
> him, and she proved correct. Do you think Narcissa knows that Snape 
> is DDM? If not, then it appears she knows of other motivations Snape 
> has to take the vow.

Pippin:
Right, Narcissa shows up cool, calm and collected, knowing exactly
what she wants. The 'drowned' imagery has nothing to do with her
grasping at straws, and all her wild-eyed pleadings are an act.

Hardly. She shows up not even sure that Snape is in on the plan,
then she asks him to talk Voldemort out of it, then she asks him 
to do the task instead, and when he refuses, she falls to the floor,
at Snape's feet, screaming and clutching at her hair. 

That would be the moment for Snape to  give in, if what he
wanted was to see her on her knees before him. But he 
doesn't. He picks her up and steers her to the couch. *Then*
he allows that he might possibly be able to help Draco.

The one clear idea she seems to have in her head is that if
Voldemort won't relent then  in order to save Draco someone 
else is going to have to do the task.

 But it's a good question --
what *does* Narcissa think she is going to get out of Snape
by asking him to take the vow? I think initially she wants to make
sure he means it when he says he'll help Draco. Once he's agreed
to do that, she decides she'd better make sure he'll go as far
as she needs him to. She doesn't care why he's going to do it at all. 
Does the drowning woman care why she's being rescued? 
No, she just wants to make sure it's a real rope, not a mirage.
 

Pippin





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov  4 17:31:02 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:31:02 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Malfoys. WAS:Hiding from Voldemort / Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <eihkk4+bka5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiiiom+jo33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160970

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "taramaya88" <tara at ...> wrote:

Jen Reese:
> > > Writing the Malfoys off misses the point of the series in my
> > > opinion. Dumbledore is saying there is a right side, and that the
> > > Malfoys still have the capacity to choose that side, their actions
> > > have not risen to the level that they are incapable of seeing
> > > right from wrong. The person who no longer has the capacity to
> > > choose is a person whose soul has died.

Alla:
> > Oh, absolutely. Hate them as I am, I totally understand the possibility
> > of Malfoys choosing  the right side later on. The question is for me is
> > where anything to admire about them **right now** 

Tara:
> I can understand why Dumbledore offers the possibility of redemption, 
> and that it must be open to anybody. Presumably EVEN to Vol. But after 
> one has engaged in repeated acts of murder, torture, etc., surely the 
> road back to the right path becomes increasingly difficult.

Geoff:
But hopefully not impossible.

Taking up Jen's observation, I have commented on a number of occasions 
in the past that Lewis provided a perfect example of peopel who have lost 
the capacity to choose are the Dwarves in "The Last Battle" who have spent 
so long convincing themselves that they alone know the truth CANNOT see 
the real events even when they are directly before them.

Regarding Tara's remarks, again, I have argued in more than one previous 
post that a redeemed Draco is not impossible. I have quoted the example 
of Saul of Tarsus who followed the path of persecuting, imprisoning and, 
on occasions, consenting to the killing of the first Christians. However, 
after meeting with the risen Christ, he performed a volte-face and went on 
to become one of the greatest ever champions of the Christian faith.

Geoff
Who has to confess to an inexplicable soft spot for the "dragon"






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Nov  4 18:16:29 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:16:29 -0000
Subject: Moral Relativism/Parents love to their kids in the books
In-Reply-To: <eiig5b+pck1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiildt+bf66@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160971

Alla:
> Like, as you mentioned Bella, who is ready to sacrifice her sons to 
> the cause - so Bella dear is a monster as I knew before and now she 
> is even more monster, but while Narcissa is trying to protect her 
> son as every parent should IMO she is doing it and trying to get 
> Dumbledore killed too, not worthy of my respect, no.
>  

Pippin:
But, but, Narcissa must think that Dumbledore himself will kill Draco 
or set him up to be killed if Draco should fail. Narcissa would hardly
expect Dumbledore to grant mercy -- even you think he was taking
the bleeding-heart business a bit too far. Not only that, but knowing 
this, that  she must have Dumbledore killed to protect her son, what 
choice would Dumbledore have but to kill her first?  Dumbledore 
understands this perfectly. That is why he expects that the DE's will 
believe that Narcissa is dead. 

And that, of course, is why Dumbledore couldn't allow himself
to  take that view, and had to try to save them both, even if neither
of them ever understand why. 

Pippin





From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sat Nov  4 18:35:19 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:35:19 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eih35h+157j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiimh7+lkoq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160972

 
> Betsy Hp:
> Right, the way I see Molly (and erm, this won't be popular) she's 
> basically weak and stupid.  So Arthur put his foot down and threw 
> one of his son's out.  Molly's just going along.  She won't stand 
up 
> to Arthur when he takes a firm stand, but I seriously doubt Molly 
is 
> fully against the Ministry.   

Hickengruendler:

Wow.

I mean, of course you warned me, that the theory will not be popular. 
But have you ever seen Molly being to afraid to say her opinion? Not 
that I know of. And certainly not towards Arthur (or any other member 
of her family). And what you are saying is wrong anyway. Molly was 
not just going along. She tried to mend bridges with Percy a few 
times, but had no success. Sorry Betsy, but I really have no idea, 
where *this* interpretation is coming from. This took me completely 
off-guard. 
 
  
> Betsy Hp:
> Exactly.  I don't like Narcissa's beliefs.  But I do admire her 
> actions.  

Hickengruendler:

Like telling reacher to send Harry to the DoM? That's part of her 
actions, too. And I would call it evil, since she knew pretty well, 
that the Death Eaters weren't going to have a tea-party with Harry in 
the DoM. Actually, I don't think she wanted Harry's death here, I do 
not think she really wants anyone's death, but at the very least she 
didn't mind that Harry is in danger, which is not much better.

 
> Betsy Hp:
> For me Narcissa becomes more sympathetic because we get a glimpse 
of 
> good in her.  Yes, Narcissa's political beliefs are bad.  But she 
> puts them aside, undermines her leader, to protect her son.  And I 
> admire that.  I'm not trying to say Narcissa is the moral center of 
> the book.  But I can see past the political beliefs to see the 
> glimmer of something good there. 

Hickengruendler:

With this part I agree. Narcissa has at least shown *some* good 
quality, even if, as Alla pointed out, it is a good quality shared by 
90% of all parents. 

Alla:

Heee, and we do know that she had no problem
selling to Voldemort somebody to whom she **is** related by blood,
so her love to her family looks quite limited to me.

Hickengruendler:

Just a minor point, but she didn't sell Sirius to anybody. Sirius 
came to the DoM, because he wanted to save Harry. Narcissa is only 
indirectly responsible for this, because she helped luring Harry 
there. Getting Sirius to the DoM was never part of the plan, in fact, 
in the end it destroyed the plan, since with the arrival of Sirius 
and the others (and later Dumbledore), the Death Eaters lost and the 
prophecy didn't fall into Voldemort's hands. Of course Narcissa 
probably doesn't mind at all what happened to Sirius, but neither her 
nor any of the Death Eaters (except possibly Snape, if he's on the 
good side) or Voldemort himself had any wish for Sirius or any other 
Order member to appear in the DoM.
 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 18:40:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:40:56 -0000
Subject: FAQ and other useful links for newbies
Message-ID: <eiimro+1v23@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160973

Many of the same topics are raised again and again on this forum. It's
possible, of course, to use the improved search engine to look for
particular topics, for example, Fidelius Charm, Horcruxes, and RAB.
But that's not the only resource available. If you're a newbie, I
strongly recommend that you read the FAQ, which has been updated to
include frequently asked questions about Half-Blood Prince (HBP),
which can be found at this link:

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/HPfGU_FAQ_.html#book6

You may also be interested in the Fantastic Posts, which unfortunately
were last revised in 2003 but still make fascinating reading:

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/faq/

For more recent posts recommended by fellow list members, see
Recommended Posts, Pre-OoP (order of the Phoenix):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=30

and Recommended Posts, post-OoP:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=29

And, of course, you can use the search engine for more recent posts,
but be sure to limit your search terms to something more than a single
character's name or you'll get too many results for the search engine
to list.

Carol, hoping that the List Elves will forgive her for offering advice
to the newbies





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 19:09:10 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 19:09:10 -0000
Subject: Snape on H&R and Lockhart  (was Re: Snape's Patronus)
In-Reply-To: <eigsd0+8dan@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiiogm+qngk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160974

Sean-Michael wrote:
> > I believe that Snape et al didn't believe Lockhart knew where the
> > entrance was nor how to kill the monster and were going to let his
> > incompetance finally show itself clearly, but then the boys came
> > upon him as he prepared for his escape and took him at wandpoint to
> > check out their idea of where the chamber entrance was. I could be
> > off on some of that, but that's how I remember it
> 
JENNI added:
> I think you are right in that explanation. They were eavesdropping
and then just happened to catch Lockhart in the nick of time, and made
him come with them to Moaning Myrtle's bathroom to find the entrance
to the COS.
>
Carol responds:
It was, however, Snape's remarks to Lockhart ("the very man," etc.,
reminding Lockhart that it was his job to locate the Chamber of
Secrets and that the time had come), backed by similar remarks from
the other Heads of House, that prompted Ron to suggest going to
Lockhart (which Harry agreed to do because he felt the need to do
something). Whether Snape knew the boys were there or not (I think
not, but with Snape we can't know for sure), the boys would have done
nothing and Ginny would have died.

Here's the canon:

"Snape stepped forward. 'Just the man,' he said. 'The very man. A girl
has been snatched by the monster, Lockhart. Taken into the Chamber of
Secrets itself. Your moment has come at last" (CoS Am. ed. 294. 

These words are backed up by Sprout and Flitwick, after which Snape
says, "I certainly remember you saying were sorry you hadn't had a
crack at the monster at the moment before Hagrid was arrested. Didn't
you say that the whole affair had been bungled, and that you should
have been given free rein from the first?"

McGonagall, the assistant headmistress, picks up Snape's cue and makes
it official: "We'll leave it to you, then, Gilderoy. Tonight will be
an excellent time to do it. We'll make sure everyone's out of your
way. You'll be able to tackle the monster yourself. A free rein at
last" (294).

Of course, Lockhart is being hoist with his own petard, forced to do
his job or leave the school, and the DADA curse begins to fall into
place. McGonagall sees it as merely getting Lockhart out from under
their feet, but she doesn't know that Harry and Ron are eavesdropping
in the wardrobe.

After sitting in the common room feeling miserable for awhile, Ron
starts talking about why he thinks Ginny was taken into the CoS
despite being a pureblood, and finally says, "I think we should go and
see Lockhart. Tell him what we know. He's going to try and get into
the Chamber. We can tell him where we think it is, and tell him it's a
basilisk in there."

Harry, who can't think of anything else to do but wants to do
something, agrees to this plan (295-96).

So if it hadn't been for Snape confronting Lockhart, McGonagall
wouldn't have given Lockhart "free rein" to enter the Chamber that
evening, the boys wouldn't have gone to see him, and Ginny would have
died.

Carol, not sure that Snape intended this outcome but still crediting
him with (unwittingly?) inspiring Ron's suggestion to go to Lockhart,
thereby setting the events leading to Ginny's rescue in motion





From nmangle at cox.net  Sat Nov  4 19:12:17 2006
From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 13:12:17 -0600
Subject: Moral Relativism/Parents love their kiddos
Message-ID: <05b301c70045$25574c10$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle>

No: HPFGUIDX 160975

> >>pippin
>> But, but, Narcissa must think that Dumbledore himself will kill Draco or set him up to be killed if Draco should fail. << <snip>
 
Nicole says..
Narcissa wasn't afraid of DD coming after/killing Draco, it was Voldy she was afraid of.  I don't think the thought of DD ever harming either of them ever came to her head. She knew that Voldy would hunt them all down and kill them all if he failed.   That is why she asked Snape for the Unbreakable.  So that no matter what, the deed would be taken care of. 

What she should worry about now for book 7,  she says in the beginning of HBP, that LV is doing this to punish Lucifer, oops, Mr. Malfoy, because of his mess up at the Ministry.  She knows that LV will come after all of them, and will kill them all.  If DD is dead, then LV can rule the world, so she thinks this is a good thing, to help LV.

Also to Alla, Bella didn't have any sons, she just said she would, if she did.  But I think we can tell Bella is just pchyco, and whether or not she would be a bad mom is irrelevant. Narcissa is messed up.  You know she is bad, but even the bad want to protect their sons...

Nicole





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





From tara at taramayastales.com  Sat Nov  4 18:31:43 2006
From: tara at taramayastales.com (taramaya88)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:31:43 -0000
Subject: Moral Relativism/Parents love to their kids in the books
In-Reply-To: <eiig5b+pck1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiimaf+bs3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160976

> Alla:
> Okay, back to books now. I guess I have to mention Potters deaths.
> See, even though JKR distinguishes in her interview between Lily and
> James sacrifices, I really and truly do not.
>
> They both fought the monster to defy him an to protect their child.
>
> I do think that Lily's sacrifice also has certain animalistic
> quality, not just James'. Parents are supposed to protect their
> kids, that is what they do in my view.
>
> So, while I certainly think of Potters as heroes, I think of them as
> heroes because they joined the order to defy Voldemort and did it
> three times before Harry was born, NOT just because they died to
> protect Harry if that makes sense.
>
> Now, if they say run away and let Voldemort kill Harry, certainly I
> would think of them as monsters.


I think of it as expanding circles of altruism. If one's circle of concern only reaches the borders of one's own skin (as Voldemort's would appear to, even when he has no skin to speak of) one is selfish and evil in the extreme. If one extends one's concern to one's kin, but still feels the rest of the world can go hang itself, one is less of a monster but still not exactly angel material. If one loves one's family but is also willing to take risks for a
community and/or principle beyond that, one is morally good.

Of course there are complications. What if one is willing to sacrifice one's own life for a greater good, but not see one's child sacrificed? I think that not only would this be understandable, there would even be something a little creepy about a parent who could calmly place an abstract principle over the life of her own child. In effect, that is what Bellatrix does, by valuing her concept of racial purity over her own kin. If Vol were blackmailing Narcissa with her son's life, we would be wholly sympathetic to her, but that is not the case. Therefore she is morally in between. She does love someone outside herself, but beyond that she is still willing to kill for power.


Tara

http://taramayastales.com/






From husenlatif at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 18:12:25 2006
From: husenlatif at yahoo.com (husenlatif)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 18:12:25 -0000
Subject: Live again, Dumbledore!
Message-ID: <eiil69+4vm4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160977

I'm really upset after reading the 6th book of HP, why should someone 
like Dumbledore can be trapped and killed by a villain conspiracy, 
comprising snape & malfoys. What's happen to the hogwarth next? and 
who's gonna give advice to HP? What's in your mind Rowling? I hope 
dumbledore just missing, masking or something, so he still alive and 
exist again in the 7th book. But anyway, I will wait the next book, and 
please no more killing the good guys, just the bad, specially Voldemort 
and the gank. 






From owen_san_jose at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 16:13:56 2006
From: owen_san_jose at yahoo.com (owen)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:13:56 -0000
Subject: Snape knew
In-Reply-To: <eiicr2+d6hb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiie84+rm56@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160978

Eddie:
> He showed Harry the memory of Trelawny on the surface of the
> pensieve instead of diving into the pensieve, so we only see and
> hear Trelawny but not the rest of context.  Maybe Harry will learn
> a lot by doing some pensieve diving into this particular memory.
>
> Annemehr:
> Yes, I've had that pointed out to me as being suspicious before.
> *Why* not just dive right in?  Eh?

owen:
May I answer this? We can see the answer in book 6, what happened when Harry found out that it was SNAPE who eavesdropped? He was very angry. THAT my friends is what Dumbledore doesn't want to happen, imagine the reaction of Harry if he ever saw SNAPE in the scene and then Dumbledore just "forgave" Snape... Harry will surely rage at Dumbledore again! He knew that Harry is very emotional...






From owen_san_jose at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 16:20:08 2006
From: owen_san_jose at yahoo.com (owen)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:20:08 -0000
Subject: Message in the Locket
In-Reply-To: <eidurg+356s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiiejo+k4vu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160979

Stephanie:
> Did anyone understand the message in the locket, in HP&HBP?  I
> understand that it will probably be explained in Book 7, but I'm
> hoping for speculation.

Owen:
Whoever R.A.B. is or was...I think we can set it aside for a
meantime...what is important is he FOUND the Horcrux and DESTROYED
it... we can only guess who it is though the probability it is Regulus
Black is I think 40% i guess... we can only speculate :)







From tara at taramayastales.com  Sat Nov  4 17:47:51 2006
From: tara at taramayastales.com (taramaya88)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:47:51 -0000
Subject: Redemption of Malfoys. WAS:Hiding from Voldemort / Moral Relativism
In-Reply-To: <eiiiom+jo33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiijo7+h2vc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160980

> >>Tara:
>> <snip> But after one has engaged in repeated acts of murder, torture, etc., surely the road back to the right path becomes increasingly difficult. <<

> >>Geoff:
>> But hopefully not impossible.
>> <snip>
>> Regarding Tara's remarks, again, I have argued in more than one previous post that a redeemed Draco is not impossible. I have quoted the example of Saul of Tarsus who followed the path of persecuting, imprisoning and, on occasions, consenting to the killing of the first Christians. However, after meeting with the risen Christ, he performed a volte-face and went on to become one of the greatest ever champions of the Christian faith. <<


Indeed, I would agree that a redeemed Draco is not impossible. My only point was that for a character to believably redeem himself, he must do something equal in either effort or sacrifice to prove his change of heart. A character who has achieved, for example, wealth,
honor, property and other perks from sucking up to evil all this time, must prove ready to give those things up. A character who has taken lives can only redeem himself with either working on it for the rest of his own life, or--the quick and dirty way beloved of stories for that reason--sacrifice his own life.

Consenting to the death of others is not the same as doing the honors oneself.

Tara

http://taramayastales.com/




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 20:20:37 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:20:37 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eih35h+157j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiisml+ju5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160981

Betsy Hp wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > Molly is there because her family is there.  She has not had to
proactively *do* anything. Yes it's hard to realize that her family is
out there and in danger.  But it's something that's happened to Molly.
 It's not a choice she's made.

Carol responds:
First, the problem with a thread like this one is that it's primarily
a matter of a reader's emotional response to a character. All the
arguments in the world can't persuade a reader to feel sympathy for a
character he considers unsympathetic. Unless I'm very much mistaken,
you're not going to make Charles feel sorry for Narcissa, and he's not
going to persuade you to like Molly. 

But let's look at Molly and the Order. Yes, most of her family are
members, but is that he reason for joining? Are you sure it's not a
choice on her part? Remember, even though her brothers were Order
members killed fighting Voldemort or his DEs, neither Arthur nor Molly
were members of the original Order. They become members moer or less
by default at the end of GoF when Dumbledore sends Bill to tell his
father about Voldemort's return. As Dumbledore says, "All those that
we can persuade of the truth must be notified immediately" (GoF Am.
ed. 711). So in addition to Sirius Black, the only person present who
was a member of the original Order (and whom he sends out to contact
Lupin, Figgy, Mundungus, and the rest of "the old crowd"), Dumbledore
now inducts Bill, Arthur, Snape (his ally and longtime spy but not a
member of the original Order), Hagrid and Madame Maxime, McGonagall,
and possibly Madam Pomfrey (who may simply be sent on an errand to
Winky). Though he doesn't assign her a specific errand and leaves her
to watch and comfort Harry, Dumbledore has allowed Molly to witness
every one of these assignments, including Snape's dangerous but
unspecified mission. Clearly, she's included in those who can be
persuaded of the truth. She's persuaded already. And next time we see
her, she's an official member of the Order. I'd say it was most likely
her own choice and not because her husband and oldest sons are in the
Order. She know more at this point than Arthur does, Charlie has not
been recruited, and Bill is sent off before McGonagall is sent to
fetch Hagrid and Madam Maxime and before Sirius Black and Severus
Snape are sent on their respective missions. Clearly, Molly is in a
position of trust for her own merits, not those of her family.

As for what Molly does for the Order, I'm pretty sure that she takes
her turn guarding the Prophecy, as everyone from Sturgis Podmore to
Tonks does. (If someone can spot a canon reference to confirm this
speculation, I'd appreciate it.) But as Charles points out, cooking
and cleaning for the Order is also important. Someone has to do it,
and Sirius Black won't, though it's his house, nor does he order
Kreacher to do it. The Order needs Molly to do what she does best,
keeping house. But that can't be all she does, or there would be no
point in her attending meetings or listening to Snape's presentation.
(I wish we'd been allowed to eavesdrop on that one!)

> Betsy Hp:
> But I don't see those activities.  Which is my point.  This 
> discussion started when I said I saw (personally) more to admire in 
> Narcissa than in Molly.  And I explained that the reason I saw more 
> to admire is because I got to witness Narcissa doing something 
> proactive to protect her child.  I even went so far as to state that 
> the comparison was inherently flawed *because* we've not seen Molly 
> take some sort of proactive action.  There's no fair way to figure 
> out what Molly would do in Narcissa's place.
> 
> So I don't care if Molly is doing all sorts of things behind the 
> scenes.  I'm going by what I've seen. <snip>

Carol responds:
I've already answered the point about Molly's activities, which as
Charles says, must exist. We don't see most of Lupin's activities,
either, or most of Snape's, but we believe in them. Nor do we see
bill's until the skirmish with the DEs at Hogwarts. Perhaps duelling
is not Molly's strong point, but that doesn't mean she's not a
valuable Order member for other reasons. FWIW, Arthur wasn't at the
MoM on the night Sirius Black died, but I don't see you denying his
activities. I don't want to sound sarcastic because that's not my
intention, but does being bitten by Nagini when he fell asleep on duty
show that he does more for the Order than Molly does?

As for proactively (I hate that word) protecting her child, when has
Molly had the opportunity to do so? She can't protect the kids from
dangers at school (the hazards of a Hogwarts education, and of being
on a Quidditch team, are a fact of WW life), nor can she protect Bill
and Charlie from their hazardous professions. Was she supposed to step
in front of Bill and protect him from Fenrir Greyback? I don't think
many adult sons want such protection from their mothers even if the
mother is physically stronger (not likely) or better at duelling than
they are. It's not as if Dumbledore has sent one of her children into
mortal danger, or as if she can keep Harry, whom she regards as a son,
from entering the TWT or fulfilling his destiny. There's nothing
comparable to Draco's assignment in Molly's story so far, only the
knowledge that her entire family is in "mortal peril" (stupid
clock--it would be better if it had shown Bill in mortal peril and the
others at school!). And if, say, Ron were given an assignment
comparable to Draco's, who would Molly go to? Dumbledore would be the
one who had given the assignment, and there's no one left to appeal to
with authority over him. 
> 

> Betsy Hp:
> She was also chief complainer and most likely to hit shrill at any 
> given moment. <g>  Anyway, cooking, cleaning, nagging and 
> undermining aren't too likely to switch Molly off my "disliked 
> character's" list. <snip>

Carol responds:
But this is just your personal reaction to Molly. You don't like her.
But that doesn't mean she isn't doing the best she can do in a
situation whose dangers are everpresent yet unspecified. And she has
seven children plus Harry and her husband to worry about. No wonder
she dreams about their deaths and is too devastated by her horrible
boggart (much worse than Lupin's full moon) to do anything about it.
(Maybe Lupin could give her some anti-Boggart lessons rather than
taking care of it for her. That might be useful.)

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Right, the way I see Molly (and erm, this won't be popular) she's 
> basically weak and stupid. <snip>

Carol responds:
Ah, but is this a fair assessment? Molly's eyes have been opened in
the last few books. Maybe you should reserve judgment until Book 4?
> 
Betsy Hp:
> It's the same reason I think Molly's favorite sons have always been 
> the twins.  I think she sees them as proper boys -- all piss and 
> vinegar.  Poor Percy tried for years to become Molly's beloved by 
> doing everything she *said* she wanted a perfect son.  But the twins 
> followed her actions, and they took top spot.  (I wouldn't be 
> surprised if they're a lot like her brothers were.) 

Carol responds:
I'm not sure I agree. Probably we should look at the canon here, for
example Molly being the only one to show joy because Percy showed up
at Christmas and Molly's remarks about "Percy wouldn't have done such
and such' (comparing him with the Twins in OoP), which cause the
others to glare at her. Molly is in mounring for Percy and shedding
tears over him. She forgives him for returning the jumper she knitted
him and still wants him back in the family. And "dead Percy" is as
much a part of her Boggart as "dead Twins" and dead Ron." (FWIW, I
think that Ginny and Charlie were left out only because the Boggart
hadn't got to them yet or because it had already shown them before
Harry arrived. I don't think it shows that she cares less about those
two or has fewer fears for them. Family is everything to Molly, and
Harry counts as family, surely a point in Molly's favor.)

> Betsy Hp:
> Exactly.  I don't like Narcissa's beliefs.  But I do admire her 
> actions.  A mother's love for her child is not an example of evil.  
> At least, not IMO. <big snip>

Carol responds:

I don't think that anyone is arguing that Narcissa's love for her only
child is evil, only that evil people can love their families,
especially their children, as much as good people can. And I believe
that's one of the points that JKR is making in "Spinner's End." Until
that chapter, I thought that Narcissa merely indulged Draco, sending
him sweets as Petunia would send them to Dudley if they weren't
Muggles, and wanting to keep him (relatively) close by rather than
sending him to Durmstrang. (It's not the Dark Arts taught at
Durmstrang that she objects to. It's having Draco so very far away.) I
really liked the way "Spinner's End" showed the human side of the
Death Eaters and their sympathizers. For all her nastiness with regard
to Muggleborns, all her apparent abuse of Dobby (the whole family, in
his view, is "bad, Dark wizards"), and all her support of Voldemort
(not in the least affected by the perilous mission he's assigned to
Draco, as far as I can see), Narcissa loves her son and is loyal to
her husband. I'm not sure that I consider going to Snape courageous,
except that she stand up to big sister Bellatrix and hits her with a
stinging hex, but I was glad to see JKR showing that the DEs have a
human side. Unlike Voldemort, they're not cartoon villains. Even the
fanatical Bella actually cares about "Cissy" and doesn't want her to
defy Voldemort. Of course, given a choice, Bella (who would willingly
sacrifice her fortunately nonexistent sons for the cause), would
support her master over her family, but even she cares about her
sister. I found that an amazing revelation, myself.

Carol, not trying to change anyone's feelings of sympathy (or lack of
it) for a particular character but just trying to analyze Molly and
Narcissa objectively in terms of what canon reveals






From Coqui1219 at hotmail.com  Sat Nov  4 20:21:32 2006
From: Coqui1219 at hotmail.com (Janette Gomez)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:21:32 -0000
Subject: Message in the Locket
In-Reply-To: <eiiejo+k4vu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiisoc+b07m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160982

> >>Owen:
> Whoever R.A.B. is or was...I think we can set it aside for a
> meantime...what is important is he FOUND the Horcrux and DESTROYED
> it... we can only guess who it is though the probability it is Regulus
> Black is I think 40% i guess... we can only speculate :)
>

Did I not pick up that R.A.B. had destroyed the Horcrux?  I got the impression that he hid it.

Janette Gomez





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Nov  4 20:44:32 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 15:44:32 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
References: <eiisml+ju5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b101c70052$0b4b48f0$7966400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 160984

> Carol responds:
> First, the problem with a thread like this one is that it's primarily
> a matter of a reader's emotional response to a character. All the
> arguments in the world can't persuade a reader to feel sympathy for a
> character he considers unsympathetic. Unless I'm very much mistaken,
> you're not going to make Charles feel sorry for Narcissa, and he's not
> going to persuade you to like Molly.

Magpie:
Yes, it seems like Betsy's point from the outside is less about objectively 
comparing the two women morally and more just saying she enjoys one 
character more than the other because Molly bugs her and she enjoyed 
Narcissa's scenes in HBP.

As total characters I don't think there's any doubt that Molly has far more 
in her good column, including good for others and fighting for good, than 
Narcissa does.  (Though if one actually enters into the morality of those 
who believe the bad side they're possibly more the same--I suspect that's 
closer to moral relativism, but if ridding the earth of Muggles is a noble 
cause on one side, Narcissa may be far more like Molly than she is if we 
stick with our own views.)  But as characters it's easy for me to understand 
preferring Narcissa, the mysterious mother who appears once with drowning 
imagery and demands a wildly dangerous and deadly boon from an equally 
dangerous and dark figure, to Molly the loud, plump housewife who's 
sometimes ignorant and is always cooking.

That's part of the fun of fiction, in a way.  You can indulge in feelings 
that aren't really correct because it's fiction, whether it's enjoying the 
good guys kick bad guy arse beyond what might be strictly legal or 
restrained, or enjoying watching the bad guys fight to be bad.

-m 





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 21:10:42 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:10:42 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eifnvh+70q8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiivki+ep4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160985

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote:
> 
> Pippin:
> <snip>
> 
> But perhaps we mean different things by slippery.
> If Snape remains loyal to one character or side  and is
> deceiving everyone else, that is slimy but not slippery, IMO.
> Slippery means to me that allegiance shifts as a 
> matter of convenience. I think Canon!Lucius wins that one 
> hands down. 

Mike:
OK, I'm getting a little confused. Is Lucius 30W oil and Snape axle 
grease? No, that can't be it, that would just make Snape less 
slippery than Lucius but still essentially slippery, right? 

Let's try this one; Snape is that thick mud on the bottom of the 
pond and Lucius is that oily film that resides on the top. That 
makes Snape mostly slimy but still a little slippery, right? That 
also means Snape is much *deeper* and impossible to get to the 
bottom of. You ever try to shovel out a hole in the bottom of a 
pond? No chance, the hole just keeps filling in, you can never find 
the base material under the mud.

Hey Pippin, doesn't this also make Lucius pond scum? And you can see 
right through him but what you see is distorted by his character. 
There could be something good under him but it sure doesn't look 
that way from where you're standing. On the other hand, and far more 
likely, he could be hiding a giant snapping turtle ready to take 
your hand off if you get too near.

Analagies courtesy of my summer struggles to make a pond habitible 
for indigineous fish and failing miserably, in more ways than one.

Mike, hoping the Snape/Lucius analogies work better than my shovel





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov  4 21:30:39 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:30:39 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldemort/Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...)
In-Reply-To: <eih8u8+pmfs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eij0pv+i9ne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160986

Alla:
> Hmmm, we shall see of course if Dumbledore indeed recognises all 
> irredemably evil people at the end of book 7. :)
> 
> Ssssssssss.

Jen: Yes, we shall see that Dumbledore was right about Snape. :) 
Hee, you know I'm teasing, some days I have my doubts. 

Alla: 
> Oh, absolutely. Hate them as I am, I totally understand the 
> possibility of Malfoys choosing  the right side later on. The 
> question is for me is where anything to admire about them **right 
> now**

Jen: Admire is a pretty strong word and as Hermione said, evil is as 
well.  Dumbledore's offer to Draco is more than simply saying: "I 
know one day you and your family can choose the right side and be 
good."  By making the offer at all he is saying: "I see good in you 
*now*. I see more good than you see yourself."

Alla: 
> But of course it is understandable to want your child to live, the
> problem for me is that as Phoenixgod said Narcissa could have
> asked Snape for **anything** in the third part of the Vow, she
> could have asked Snape to **save** Draco by any means, but she
> **still** asked for Snape to kill Dumbledore.

Jen: Although we don't know what Narcissa thinks, I believe this was 
an Either-Or situation in her mind, a zero sum game: Either Draco 
dies or Dumbledore dies. If Dumbledore doesn't die, Draco will. In 
her mind there are no shades of gray because Voldemort doesn't 
operate in shades of gray--one of these two people will die. 

We can think of all sorts of alternatives to the third clause in the 
Vow but Narcissa could not. 

Alla: 
> Sorry, Jen, I think Narcissa does show her evil nature here - not
> in trying to save her son ( as I said upthread, I find it 
> something very basic, but completely understandable), but in
> wishing for Dumbledore's death which IMO she could have done
> without.

Jen: If she was operating under the kind of thinking pattern above, 
she was indeed wishing Dumbledore would die so Draco could live. 
That's close to an impossible choice. 

Charles: (#160960)
> Dumbledore himself has shown that the good are not incorruptible by
> saying that he fell into the trap he foresaw. Was it evil not to
> tell Harry what he should have known years before until it was
> unavoidable? Yep. Not on the same scale, and done with the best of
> intentions, but yes it fell into the nature of an evil act. By not
> doing what he knew to be right he caused pain that might have been
> avoided. Not as evil as intentional torture or murder, but still
> there.

> I see evil and good sharing a spectrum rather than being either 
> distinct entities or even flip sides of the same coin.

Jen: Potterverse morality seems to be on this same spectrum, though 
there may be a difference in semantics.  JKR includes information 
such as: "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters" 
(OOTP chap. 14) and "Evil is a strong word" (HBP chap. 30).  If 
every mistake, missed opportunity, and poor choice rises to the 
level of evil then every character in Potterverse is guilty. There 
has to be a barometer at work here other than 'causing pain'. 

Jen, just trying to figure out Potterverse morality.







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 21:37:39 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:37:39 -0000
Subject: Emotional readings (was:Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism...
In-Reply-To: <00b101c70052$0b4b48f0$7966400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eij173+m337@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160987

> >>Carol:
> > First, the problem with a thread like this one is that it's     
> > primarily a matter of a reader's emotional response to a        
> > character.
> > <snip>
 
> >>Magpie:
> Yes, it seems like Betsy's point from the outside is less about   
> objectively comparing the two women morally and more just saying   
> she enjoys one character more than the other because Molly bugs   
> her and she enjoyed Narcissa's scenes in HBP.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  I've even tried to be entirely fair and point out that 
Molly hasn't had a chance to star in a dramatic and active scene 
like Narcissa has.  And it is only to Narcissa's benefit that she's 
(as Magpie termed it) the "mysterious mother" without any annoying 
idiosyncrasies out there on display.  It's the same thing Lily 
benefits from in many ways.  We don't know much about these women, 
but we do know they're both willing to go the distance to protect 
their children.  And they both get great dramatic scenes to prove 
that in.

Molly has the disadvantage that comes from being too available and 
too real.  And all of her idiosyncrasies are of the type to most get 
under my skin.  

I really do see her as playing her children against each other. The 
twins being her number one weapon of choice.  I see Ron as her 
whipping boy -- stand in for a husband who's severely disappointed 
her.  I think she's madly in love with Arthur but frightened that 
he's not so much in love with her anymore.  So she flits back and 
forth between worshipping him and trying to force him into noticing 
her and taking his proper role in the family.  I think Molly hates 
being so poor and that's why she advertises the fact and makes sure 
her children know that they're poor.  (Though part of that might 
just be about Arthur's job -- which we know she hates.)

I'm honestly not sure how much of this JKR meant to put in.  I do 
think the character of Molly is influenced by Mrs. Bennet from Pride 
and Prejudice.  But I'm not sure JKR pictured her grating quite as 
much as she does for some readers (like me <g>).

But again, this is an emotional response.  As Carol said, I'm not 
thinking that I'm going to change any minds here.  And, as my 
reaction to Molly is pretty visceral I doubt anyone is going to 
convince me that she's a wonderful example of motherhood and 
goodness.

However, I do recognize that Molly isn't evil.  That's about as good 
as I can get with her. <g>

Betsy Hp





From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com  Sat Nov  4 20:22:12 2006
From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (Kayla Pittillo)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 14:22:12 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
Subject: Motherly Love a good thing? (was:Re: Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
Message-ID: <BAY104-DAV10BA4A12A88333360247EF1FD0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 160988

I am going to venture to say that Cissy's motherly love for Draco makes her worse than Lucius and Voldemort. Here's my position:

In real life there is a mother with 3 sons, whom she loves dearly and wouldn't dream of letting any harm visit upon them. Last year there was a series of nasty hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, in which hundreds of thousands of lives were shattered. 

What did this mother do in  reaction to this? Why she found a secure place for two of her sons, her husband and herself. Decent motherly instinct you say?  I say no; she also tried to make sure "lesser" people were sent off away from her family to "keep them safe". Want to know her publicly made reason for that? She didn't want to ruin her "beautiful mind" with images of the disenfranchised and homeless.
    
As I see it Narcissa is not much different than that mother. Motherly love to me is not an excuse to consider a woman better or more worthy than a man. All too often it's a cause of suffering when only those children who were born of their mother are the only ones their  mother gives consideration to or are allowed to live. 
Why should motherly love be considered a good thing when the mother is willing to kill other mother's sons simply to achieve power for her own son?

I don't see that as a good thing in that context, and I feel reasonably sure that Narcissa Malfoy would do anything to make sure Draco is both safe AND in a position of power, or at least able to lord it over "lesser" people.

list elves; I've decided on the user name

Hestia Lurkwell




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov  4 21:39:58 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:39:58 -0000
Subject: Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <454CF41E.000005.03136@JUSTME>
Message-ID: <eij1be+puj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160989

Debi:
> Also, I believe that once again Voldemort has misjudged the power of 
> a mother's love, in protecting Draco, Narcissa has handed some
> control and power over to the other side, as I belive Snape and 
> Dumbledore had a plan and I don't believe Snape has turned back to a
> death eater. This simple underestimating of love could very well be
> a big cog in the gears to end Voldemort's reign once and for all.

Jen: Coming full circle to Godric's Hollow--I like the symmetry of 
this idea, Debi. A mother's love saving the day and not the mother 
anyone expects, the most *unlikely* mother in fact, given Narcissa's 
affiliation. I'm not certain Dumbledore's plan extended past the 
information he gave Harry and the tower but we shall see, and maybe 
Draco and Narcissa will have a plan now? We found out they are both 
extremely capable of getting a job done; if only they would turn those 
skills to helping the 'right' side.

Jen R.





From dnm786 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 20:23:39 2006
From: dnm786 at yahoo.com (dhaval)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0000
Subject: Explaining Dumbledore's Death
Message-ID: <eiissb+c2ps@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160990

With the cursed hand that could not be cured, probably Dumbledore would have not lived long anyways.  It could be a slow acting poison or something that he and Snape recognized so they conspired that Snape could kill him finally and thus become Voldemort's favourite. Then Snape could help Harry find the horcruxs.

dhaval






From jmrazo at hotmail.com  Sat Nov  4 21:57:19 2006
From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 21:57:19 -0000
Subject: Hiding from Voldmort / Moral Relativism (was:Re: witches of the world...
In-Reply-To: <eigjsr+714q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eij2bv+57qi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160991

> Betsy Hp:
> Actually, I was thinking about Regulus and Karkaroff, neither of 
> whom were worried about fighting Voldemort (as far as we know 
> anyway) and neither of whom were bound to the UK for any reason.

Phoenixgod2000:

Karkaroff wasn't exactly laying low and Regulas was fighting against 
Voldemort (at least he was if he is RAB).  Even the Potters stuck 
around, warded though they were.  I'm not convinced that someone 
truly dedicated to hiding and willing to leave the country and 
possibly continent wouldn't be safe for a long while. 

> IIRC Lupin says something about the impossibility of fleeing 
> Voldemort once he's decided you're toast.  

Yeah, but Lupin's a fatalist :)   
 
> Betsy Hp:
> And um, what exactly is Molly doing?  You know, for the cause and 
> all?  It's Arthur and Bill and Charlie who've chosen to join the 
> Order and fight the fight.  Molly is there because her family is 
> there.  She has not had to proactively *do* anything.

An army marches on its stomach so the hearth and home that molly 
provides is without a doubt important to the order.  And we have 
heard of her on guard during OOTP and while we haven't seen any 
feats of daring do from her so far, we haven't exactly seen that 
much from Snape either but something tells me that you wouldn't 
argue that Snape's job for the order consists of mocking small 
children despite that what we seem him doing most of the time.

> Betsy Hp:
> No it's not.  It's like comparing an American soldier and his 
family 
> to a Nazi soldier and his family.  While I can agree that the Nazi 
> soldier is fighting for the wrong cause, I can also recognize the 
> humanity of the Nazi soldier and his family.

I grew up next door to a man who was a soldier in WWII on the side 
of the Nazis.  I would be more sympathetic if they were soldiers for 
an autocratic regime because I realize their choices might not be 
all that great but that isn't true in this case.   Lucius and Death 
Eaters are far more akin to SS Officers, the fanatical branch of 
almost cultish nazi soldiers.  The SS were fanatics and were 
definitely all volunteers.  The Death Eaters are volunteers and 
Narcissa is definitely a believer in the philosophy and a 
collaborator with the acts of her husband.  That removes any 
sympathy I might have for her plight.
 
> Betsy Hp:
> They are not evil.  Some of their beliefs are.  And IMO, there's a 
> huge difference.  After winning WWII, the Allies did not decide to 
> execute every German soldier and the families that loved them.  
> Because they recognized that the soldiers and their families were 
> not evil in and of themselves.  

Not every soldier was but to death, but just about every SS officer?
especially the ones involved with the Holocaust, were punished in 
some way.  And there is an enormous amount of difference?at least in 
my mind?between the soldier of a rival but legitimate country and a 
terrorist. This is what the death eaters are.  They aren't 
representatives of their government in any way.
 
> Betsy Hp:
> So she's not just passively suffering.  She's out there trying to 
do 
> something about it.  And I admire her for it.

But even what she is doing is evil.  Yay for her being proactive and 
manipulative.  She's still authorizing the murder of Dumbledore and 
a believer in repugnant philosophy.  That balanced against loving 
her son doesn't equal out the scales.  There isn't even a real sign 
of possible redemption because she never acknowledges that her side 
might be wrong, she just wants to make sure that her son stays 
alive.  That's an instinct, not a true moral decision.  That 
decision is barely more complex than what my sister's pregnant dog 
might do.  She would struggle to save a puppy of hers too.

> Betsy Hp:
> See, I wouldn't call it moral relativism.  Narcissa loves her son 
> and doesn't want to him to worthlessly sacrifice his life.  I 
> imagine Molly would feel the same way about any of her children if 
> someone sent them on a suicide mission as a punishment for 
Arthur's 
> mistakes.  *That's* the morals I'm talking about.  There's nothing 
> relative about it.  Because politics doesn't enter into it.  It's 
> not bad to love your child.  It's not bad to try and save him from 
> certain death.

No it's not bad to want to save your son's life.  But all the other 
bad surrounding her and her son makes me unsympathetic.  That's it.  
You find that scene sympathetic and humanizing.  I do not.  Narcissa 
is a bad person.  Draco is a bad person.  If they are experiencing 
any worry, pain, or discomfort then I am totally okay with that.
 
>>Alla:
> <snip>
> And there is nothing else I see in Narcissa to admire. She loves
> her flesh and blood, big deal.

>Betsy Hp:
>I guess, yes for me, that is a big deal. Because Narcissa didn't
>just passively love Draco. She actively took a risk, went against
>Voldemort (her team in a sense) to protect him. That wasn't a
>neutral action.

She didn't go against her team. She is still firmly on the side of 
her team.  In fact with that third provision of hers you can make 
the argument that she is trying to have her cake and eat it too.  
Get her son out of trouble and get Dumbledore killed because that 
would benefit her team.

Her nobility is blinding.

Phoenixgod2000






From dnm786 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 20:19:33 2006
From: dnm786 at yahoo.com (dhaval)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:19:33 -0000
Subject: 7 horcrux
Message-ID: <eiiskl+ulvt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160992

I think Bellatrix Lestrange has the 7th horcrux.  In the Spinners End chapter in HPB, she says that the Dark Lord trusted her with his most precious...

If Voldemort always took personal milestones to be the places for his horcruxs, then I think it is at Godrics Hollow.

dhaval







From dnm786 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 20:28:07 2006
From: dnm786 at yahoo.com (dhaval)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:28:07 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <20061103221520.26537.qmail@web54509.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eiit4n+a0fj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160993

> >>Jeremiah:
>> Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his parent's house?
If the Potters were in hiding and Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was the
secret keeper, then he still is the secret keeper.
>> <snip>
>> Harry must seek out Pettigrew and have him reveal the location.
Nobody else can reveal it. << <snip>

dhaval:
Harry was already in the house when Voldemort comes to murder his parents. So I don't think he'll need Peter to tell him the password or something. Though probably Ron and Hermione may have trouble entering the place.

dhaval





From dnm786 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 20:38:20 2006
From: dnm786 at yahoo.com (dhaval)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 20:38:20 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux (was:Re: Horcrux Discussion)
In-Reply-To: <eid0ql+p268@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiitns+jj5d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160994

> >>Sandra:
>> <snip>
>> My question is: does anybody REALLY know that Harry contains that last piece of Voldemort's soul? << <snip>

dhaval:
Harry feels. He feels love. The reason he feels is because he is human and pure, unlike Voldemort. Therefore when Voldemort enters Harry's body in the 5th book (GoF) he suffers greater agony than Harry.  Therefore, IMO, he could never have dissociated his soul into Harry because though Harry would be able to bear it, Voldemort would feel a lot of pain (not a feasible option).

dhaval




From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Nov  4 22:12:51 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:12:51 -0000
Subject: OT from HPfGU: Re: Reichenbach Falls -- was Resolving Harry/Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ei3gtc+vrif@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eij393+g29d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160995

I am reading the week's post, came to this one, and it made me smile.


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape"
<snapes_witch at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Carol:
> > <snip>
> >> If Harry's destroyed, he can't kill Voldemort. This is not a mere
JKR-style complication. It's an unresolvable dilemma. >>
> 
> > >>Catlady:
> >> It's resolvable: they die simultaneously. I like the idea of them
falling together over the Reichenbach Falls... <<
> 
> Snape's Witch replies:
> I'll buy the Reichenbach Falls solution!  It means Harry will return
> after studying with the Dali Lama for three years!!
>






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov  4 22:11:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 22:11:22 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eiig7r+26ce@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eij36b+hiuj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160996

Pippin wrote:
> LOL! You're telling me the DDM!Snape evidence is there because
> I went looking for it? Hah! If I had a talent like that I'd be out 
> prospecting for gold or looking for the next Google <g>
> 
> No, I may be misinterpreting the evidence, but I'm not the one
> who put it there. JKR did that. 
> 
> If we knew for sure that Snape was evil, there would be, 
> according to the author, no point in Book
> Seven. So, as there is weighty evidence that Snape is a 
> murderer, there must also be weighty evidence that he is not.
> 
> DDM!Snape and ESE!Snape are both Canon!Snape. If
> you want to say that Snape is more ambiguous than Lucius
> I'll certainly agree. But ambiguous is not the same as slippery.
<snip>

Carol responds:
Since I've already argued that the evidence for either OFH! or
ESE!Lucius is completely unambiguous, with none at all for DDM! (or
otherwise good) Lucius, while the evidence for Snape's loyalties can
be read either way, I'm sure you know (as if you didn't already) that
I agree with you there. At this point, almost any reading of Snape's
loyalties can be supported by canon (though I think OFH!Snape is more
probable than ESE!Snape if that means he was always secretly loyal to
Voldemort, and of course I see DDM!Snape as having the strongest case
of all, but I'm not going to repeat my arguments here).

What I'm wondering is whether you're defining "slippery" in the same
way as other readers. For myself, I'd say that it's a Slytherin
quality, common to Lucius Malfoy ("my slippery friend") and Snape
("slithering out of action) and to Tom Riddle, keeping his evil nature
secret through charms and wiles, and probably to Phineas Nigellus and
Salazar Slytherin himself. Even the Slytherin symbol (note the
resemblance of Slytherin to "Slither"), a snakes, suggests
slipperiness. ("Slimy," no. snakes aren't slimy. Snails and eels are.
and I'm surprised that a DDM!Snaper would call him slimy, with all the
disgusting qualities attached to that adjective.)

Back to Merriam-Webster online, which for all its deficiencies is the
handiest source of definitions available to me:

Main Entry: slip?pery
Pronunciation: 'sli-p(&-)rE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): slip?per?i?er; -est
Etymology: alteration of Middle English slipper
1 a : causing or tending to cause something to slide or fall <slippery
roads> b : tending to slip from the grasp <a slippery fish>
2 a : not firmly fixed : UNSTABLE b : not precise or fixed in meaning
: AMBIGUOUS, ELUSIVE
3 : not to be trusted : TRICKY
- slip?per?i?ness noun

So, if you're looking at definition 1(b) used figuratively, I'd say
that Lucius and Severus are equally slippery, with Lucius getting out
of a sentence to Azkaban by pleading the Imperius Curse and Severus
slipping away from ("slithering" out of) his duties as a Death Eater.
(Actually, I'd say that Severus is slipperier in that he's tricked one
side or the other for a long time; if the side he's tricked is
Voldemort's, I'd hardly call that slimy.) But, then, Lucius has been
posing as a respectable citizen until he's arrested at the DoM, and
had even been on the Hogwarts board of governors until he rather gave
himself away by threatening to curse people's families if they didn't
go along with the sacking of Dumbledore. So, IMO, both are slippery,
but Snape is more intelligent and more subtle. If you go with
definition 2(b), with its synonyms of "ambiguous" and "elusive," Snape
is the clear winner. Even definition 3 fits Snape best if the people
who can't trust Snape are Voldemort and his few genuinely loyal
supporters (reduced to one at the moment, AFAWK), or if Snape is ESE!
and Dumbledore was wrong about him (which I doubt, but which I admit
is possible because of the ambiguity, the slipperiness, if you will,
of the evidence both for and against him). Lucius, for all his ability
to fool Fudge and the Daily Prophet, doesn't fool the reader. If we're
not sure whether his loyalties lie with Voldemort or with himself or
some combination, at least we're sure that they don't lie with
Dumbledore or the Order, any more than he supports equality and
justice for all the inhabitants of the WW (to say nothing of us poor
Muggles).

As for "slimy," which you use to characterize Snape, Merriam-Webster
online gives us:

Main Entry: slimy
Pronunciation: 'slI-mE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): slim?i?er; -est
1 : of, relating to, or resembling slime : VISCOUS; also : covered
with or yielding slime
2 : VILE, OFFENSIVE

and "slime" itself (since what we have here is an incomplete definition):

Main Entry: 1slime
Pronunciation: 'slIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English slIm; akin to Middle High
German slIm slime, Latin limus mud -- more at LIME
1 : soft moist earth or clay; especially : viscous mud
2 : a viscous, glutinous, or gelatinous substance: as a : a mucous or
mucoid secretion of various animals (as slugs and catfishes) b : a
product of wet crushing consisting of ore ground so fine as to pass a
200-mesh screen
3 : a repulsive or odious person

Vile? Offensive? Repulsive? Odious? Resembling mucous?

Eeurgh! as Lavender Brown would say.

Call Lucius slimy if you like, but DDM!Snape? Yes, he can be
unpleasant--sarcastic to everyone from Harry to Bellatrix, not to
mention Umbridge, Lockhart, and Wormtail, and sometimes unfair to his
students--but I think "odious" and "repulsive" and the rest are a bit
extreme (unless Snape turns out to be ESE! in which case I think
"stupid" or "insane" would be equally appropriate adjectives). I
really don't understand your logic.

Carol, who thinks that Bellatrix is odious and Umbridge repulsive, and
if anyone has traits resembling mucous, it's Wormtail 









From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sat Nov  4 22:13:00 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 16:13:00 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Explaining Dumbledore's Death
References: <eiissb+c2ps@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02b701c7005e$64065190$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 160997

dhaval wrote:


  With the cursed hand that could not be cured, probably Dumbledore would have not lived long anyways. It could be a slow acting poison or something that he and Snape recognized so they conspired that Snape could kill him finally and thus become Voldemort's favourite. Then Snape could help Harry find the horcruxs.



  Lana writes:

  I have to say that I do like this..  I am fond of Snape and I am not sure why.  I just think there is more behind the blinds so to speak..  I believe that Snape is good.  In the end of book 6, while sneering and such, he did give Harry plenty of "help" with the use of words.  He encourages him to a point with "tips" and such..  I hope that I am right.. LOL

    Lana


  ._,_

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




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Nov  5 00:59:47 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 19:59:47 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
Message-ID: <be8.7963a5e.327e9183@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 160999

>Magpie
<snip>
>If Hermione 
>already has prominent front teeth and you see her  with really big front 
teeth, anyone might note the connection even if you  hadn't previously 
thought the teeth were ugly or spent much time thinking  about her 
>sensitivity.

Nikkalmati
Can anyone remember any previous reference in the books to Hermione"s  teeth? 
 I recall lots of comments about her hair, but nothing about her  teeth being 
big. 
 
Nikkalmati


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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov  5 01:26:10 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 20:26:10 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
References: <be8.7963a5e.327e9183@aol.com>
Message-ID: <010e01c70079$608c78d0$7966400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161000

> Nikkalmati
> Can anyone remember any previous reference in the books to Hermione"s 
> teeth?
> I recall lots of comments about her hair, but nothing about her  teeth 
> being
> big.

Magpie:
I can't give page numbers or anything, but I know there are places where 
Draco does a bucktooth impression (perhaps even after she's gotten them 
fixed) and I think Pansy compares her to a chipmunk right before this scene. 
Probably the first time she's described the teeth are included.

-m 





From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Nov  5 02:02:09 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 21:02:09 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
Message-ID: <40c.8b68b15.327ea021@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161001

>Carol
 
<snip>
>The soul bit enebled the memory to possess the reader fo the diary  (as
with ginny) rather than merely interact with the reader (as  with
Harry). Note that Harry's excursion into the diary to view  the
Riddle/Hagrid incident is very similar to his excursions into  the
Pensieve. He's a witness to events that he sees objectively, from  the
outside, and the memories are not aware of his presence, nor do  they
control his thoughts. The memory is just a memory. Neither it nor  the
soul bit controls or insluences Harry. He just misinterprets it,  as
Diary!Tom intended.

Nikkalmati:
 
It does seem the memory and the soul bit are separate.  Riddle's  desire to 
loose the Basilisk on the school even after he had graduated predated  the 
knowledge and ability to create a Horcrux.  But how did the memory  propose to 
entice someone to open the Chamber just by showing the memory of  Hagrid?  Riddle 
believed a Parselmouth heir would come to the school  someday, but how did he 
propose to get the diary in that person's  hands?  I am wondering how he 
originally intend to use it, before  it became a Horcrux.
 
Nikkalmati    


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




From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 02:05:28 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:05:28 -0000
Subject: Filk:  Necks to You
Message-ID: <eijgt8+9jss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161002

Elsewhere, CMC challenged a filk to be written called "Necks to 
You".  

Necks to You, a filk on Close to You by the Carpenters.
To CMC, of course.

Midi here:
d21c.com/1webdog/Midifiles/closetoyou.midi 

TBAY radio announcer:
Good evening, folks.  Welcome to TBAY radio, the evening edition.  We 
have a wonderful evening of news, weather and Quidditch, along with 
your favourite hits from today and yesterday.  Kaynes is out on 
assignment, but keep those fan letters coming.  He loves them.  

We'll have an update on the Wizard-hunt for Severus Snape, accused 
killer of Albus Dumbledore, and an interview with Polish Seeker, 
Josef Wronski; but first, here's Lorcan D'eath with "Necks to You".


D'eath:
Why does blood suddenly appear
Just below your left ear?
How I'd live!
What I would give!
Necks to you.

Why do I feel the urge to dine
Without food or good wine?
You're the most!
I make this toast:
Necks to you.

On the day I found you, love,
I circled in the skies above.
And waited 'til your window opened wide.
Then by light of moon 
That night in June
I stole within to be right by your side.

Garlic and crosses all around,
To my oath, I am bound:
What it takes,
Whate'er the stakes.
Necks to you.

Ginger, who has a fear of vampires, but not so bad that I can't write 
filks about them.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 02:46:21 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 02:46:21 -0000
Subject: Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
In-Reply-To: <40c.8b68b15.327ea021@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eijj9t+gfcr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161003

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote:
>
> >Carol earlier:
>  
> <snip>
> >The soul bit enebled the memory to possess the reader fo the diary
 (as with Ginny) rather than merely interact with the reader (as  with
> Harry). Note that Harry's excursion into the diary to view  the
> Riddle/Hagrid incident is very similar to his excursions into  the
> Pensieve. He's a witness to events that he sees objectively, from 
the outside, and the memories are not aware of his presence, nor do 
they control his thoughts. The memory is just a memory. Neither it nor
 the soul bit controls or insluences Harry. He just misinterprets it,
 as Diary!Tom intended.
> 
Nikkalmati responded:
>  
> It does seem the memory and the soul bit are separate.  Riddle's 
desire to loose the Basilisk on the school even after he had graduated
predated  the  knowledge and ability to create a Horcrux.

Carol again:
Exactly.

Nikkalmati:
  But how did the memory  propose to entice someone to open the
Chamber just by showing the memory of  Hagrid?  Riddle believed a
Parselmouth heir would come to the school  someday, but how did he 
> propose to get the diary in that person's  hands?  I am wondering
how he originally intend to use it, before  it became a Horcrux.

Carol again:

I'm not sure about the Parselmouth heir. *He* was the Heir of
Slytherin, which is one reason the diary was important to him. I think
he must have put something like an Imperius Curse on it. If a book can
be cursed so that the reader can never put it down, it can be cursed
so that the reader has to follow its instructions. That plus the charm
that draws the person in in the first place might be enough to
accomplish his objective. After all, Fake!Moody Imperio'd Viktor Krum
to Crucio Cedric, and I'm quite sure Viktor had never performed a
Crucio before--maybe didn't even know how to do it effectively. The
same could be true for speaking Parseltongue and opening the chamber.

Carol, who has to meet someone and can't take time to proofread!






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Nov  5 04:12:12 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:12:12 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Death Eaters fom a political angle
Message-ID: <cf3.1011ef6.327ebe9c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161004

Minerva:
> I am trying to figure out just exactly what the Death  Eaters
> symbolize. 

>Pippin:
>I think they symbolize  extremism, regardless of platform. The
werewolves are seeking additional  rights, the pureblood faction
wishes to restore rights it once had and  restrict the rights of
others, Voldemort panders to both while his private  agenda 
does not include sharing power with anyone. But they are all  
united under the Dark Mark, in other words, by their acceptance 
of  violence as a means to political ends.

Nikkalmati:
 
The Death Eaters are reminiscent of Nazis in their earlier form before  
Hitler was elected Chancellor, when they were plotting to take over Germany,  
particularly in their supremacist ideology.  However, they also resemble  the 
followers of any tyrannical dictator, such as exist today in at least a  dozen 
countries throughout the world. (An example from a former time would be  Idi Amin 
in Uganda).  As JKR has been active in Amnesty International I am  sure she is 
aware of the techniques used by dictators to establish and control  these 
groups of loyal followers or collaborators and infiltrate the society. One  group 
is represented by Bella, fanatical believers.  There are also those  who are 
just trying to get ahead, to attach themselves to the powers that be (  or 
that will be) to promote themselves, think PP.  As the dictator gains  power he 
sucks in support from those who fear harm, if they do not go along  (Draco?)  
and, of course, there are those who refuse to see the handwriting  on the wall 
and deny there is anything wrong (Fudge).  JKR shows us all  these types in 
the very few glimpses we get of the circle around LV.   Clever she is.
 
Nikkalmati


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




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Nov  5 04:27:35 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 04:27:35 -0000
Subject: Names, Puns, Etymologies / Racism / Marietta
Message-ID: <eijp7n+6cs7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161005

NAMES OF SPELLS, PEOPLE, ETC:
London Granddaughter wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160734>:

<< For the spell Expecto Patronum--James' animagus figure was a stag,
so when Harry thinks happy thoughts while needing a protector against
dementors, he "expects (expecto) his father (patronum)." >>

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42256> on St
Godric and Stag Patronus

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/18672> Beginning
of long thread on 'Expecto Patronus' = 'I yearn for a father' <-
unfathered society

I also seem to recall an argument that 'Expecto' is more related to
the Latin word for 'spit' (which gave us 'expectorate') than to the
Latin word for 'expect', and therefore means 'I send forth from my
mouth a Patronus'.

Stacey wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160608>:

<< although not a werewolf until bitten as a child, Remus Lupin's name
(which I would imagine was his birth name) foretold of his unfortunate
condition? Frankly, there was no AHA! for me as it was a dead giveaway
as soon as his full name was first spoken. Prophetic parents? Name
change upon attack? Thanks! >>

Potioncat replied in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160631>:

<< As for the prophetic parents--and this has been touched on by
others in this thread-- I think it's more the author is having fun
with language and teasing the readers. I don't think the wizarding
folk give these oh-so-fitting names a second thought. >>

Maybe there is Potterverse real magic connecting names to destinies.
Someone once suggested a Naming Spell (related to Divination!) that
would generate an oh-so-fitting name that the parents, having embarked
on the spell, would be compelled to use. One of my problems believing
that is that the parents don't seem free to choose what surname to
give their child; how can it be that the surname is oh-so-fitting when
it came from patrilineal inheritance rather than Divination?

The other problem I have with it is that Remus Lupin is only one
example of a character who successfully kept a secret that was shouted
to the world by his name. To me, if the wizarding folk knew that there
was a Naming Spell or any other pattern of oh-so-fitting names, they
would give second and third thoughts to suspicious names.

So the only solution I can believe is 'the author is having fun' with
these names. I hate that solution, because speaking of the author's
free will choices suggests that these books aren't an accurate account
of real events that really happened in an unknown to Muggles part of
the real world.

Stacey wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160624>:

<< Maybe Harry will turn toward ceramics?  >>

Or gardening.

Altho' I also love to play with names, and think James's father's
given name should have been Claibourne.

DA Jones wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160692>:

<< Peter Pettigrew 1) Pet R 2) Pet I Grew. >>

I've never seen that suggestion before, and it's good. What I have
seen before is that both names mean to become smaller: peter as in 'to
peter out' and pettigrew as 'grew petty'.

Kenneth Clark wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160722>:

<< what about the Lovegood? With a name like that I suspect she will
soon have a startling effect on the hormones of the male characters.
Luna as temptress? >>

Her name is Lovegood, not Lovelady. Surely it means she will never
ever feel the slightest temptation to go over to the Dark Side or use
Unforgiveable Curses.

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160780>:

<< Does anyone have quibbles with the way names or spells are
pronounced in the Audio-Books? >>

Many, but the only ones that spring immediately to mind are Jim Dale's
pronunciations of Hermione as 'Hermarny'instead of Her-mi-on-ie and
Gryffindor as 'grif-fin-der' instead of 'griffin-door'.

RACISM:
Random Jordan wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160615>:

<< Well. I think we need _some_ definition. After all, can someone say
"I hate black people, but I don't recognize the idea that they're a
separate race, since there's only one race (the human race) so I'm not
a racist, only a 'caucasian elitist'."? >>

This is about the real world, therefore OT, but that example you give
is exactly the excuse some people in India use for their abominable
treatment of people from the Untouchable caste despite them having
signed on to a UN vow not to be racist.

MARIETTA:
Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160620>:

<< I think it is every citizens duty to stand up at all cost against
corruption and gross neglegence commited by government. >> 

There are those who very sincerely believe that their duty is to keep
their heads down and survive, so they can care for their children and
secretly teach their knowledge and beliefs to discreet disciples
(ideally including their children). That is actually what the DA was
doing, keeping their heads down and secretly studying rather than
having a protest demonstration in Diagon Alley or mailing 10,000
copies of a pamphlet explaining why Umbridge was wrong.

<< I have to believe that as much as Marietta saw the letter of the
law, and as reluctant as she was to take part in defying it, that she
saw with equal clarity that those laws were in themselves corrupt. >>

Even within the culture that we share, we cannot be certain that
Marietta saw what we see. I think it possible that Marietta still
believed that Dumbledore was trying to make a coup d'etat, that Harry
was either lying or delusional, either deliberately helping DD's
conspiracy or being used by DD, and that Cho had become delusional in
her overwhelming grief over Cedric, and possibly because of coming
down with a crush on Harry as well. Marietta had no idea that Umbridge
had sent Dementors after Harry and no idea how dramatically unfair his
trial was, nor how nasty was the letter Percy sent to Ron.

Marietta hadn't had any private meetings with DD or any Order member
or any of the Trio to set her straight about DD's and Harry's
intentions. Did Harry said anything at the DA kick-off meeting that
would convince her that he was sane and *wasn't* forming a private
army for coup purposes?

She probably started out believing that Umbridge was a good person
with good intentions. Could she have believed that reading the
Slinkhard book in class was adequate preparation for taking her DADA
OWL? I suppose at some point (maybe when Umbidge abolished the
Gryffindor Quidditch team but not the Slytherin Quidditch team?),
Marietta realised that Umbridge was evil.

Then she would have been in the position of choosing between two
evils. Trying to decide whether to break her word, betray her Best
Friend to severe punishment, and serve a clearly evil High Inquisitor.
Or to allow an evil coup-meister's private army (and IIRC they made
plenty of pro-DD and anti-Ministry jokes during their meetings) to
continue its preparation to overthrow the government and seize
dictatorial power. 

Suppose your best friend joined a Nut Cult. At first you went along
with him/her; you don't want to break your relationship with himer
just because of some silly beliefs like maybe being the re-incarnation
of superior space aliens who died in a crash-landing on Earth and
someday being re-incarnated back into the proper space alien bodies
and society when a bigger group comes to Earth and kills all the
apparent humans (including the cult members). Then after a while, it
seems to you that your harmless delusional well-intended associates
are trying to make nerve gas to release in a crowded subway station as
their part of the space alien plan to kill all humans. And it's pretty
clear that if law enforcement authorities stop them in time, they'll
be sentenced to about 30 years in federal prison like some real-life
terrorism wannabees.
	Which reminds me of the man who reported that the Unabomber's
treatise read a great deal like his brother's treatises, but only on
condition that the Feds promise not to seek the death sentence for his
brother. IIRC the Feds sought the death sentence despite their promise.

Magpie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160626>:

<< They aren't zits, they're close-set oozing purple pustules that are
horribly disfiguring. >> 

I think that the worst thing about them, from Marietta's view, is that
they spell SNEAK. Adding enough arranged oozing purple pustules that
no pattern can be seen would be an improvement, altho' still horrible.
I think she would think that tUrning her head into a cat head like
Hermione did in CoS would be an improvement.





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov  5 04:50:00 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 23:50:00 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Names, Puns, Etymologies / Racism / Marietta
References: <eijp7n+6cs7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <014d01c70095$da0eab30$7966400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161006

 Catlady:
> She probably started out believing that Umbridge was a good person
> with good intentions. Could she have believed that reading the
> Slinkhard book in class was adequate preparation for taking her DADA
> OWL? I suppose at some point (maybe when Umbidge abolished the
> Gryffindor Quidditch team but not the Slytherin Quidditch team?),
> Marietta realised that Umbridge was evil.

Magpie:
Actually, I don't recall Umbridge doing that.  I thought she abolished 
everything and said anyone who wanted to come to her about starting whatever 
club had been abolished could do so. The Slytherins were, iirc, merely the 
first to go and see her to get their Quidditch team started up again. 
Gryffindor still had a team throughout the year. (Note: not meant as a 
defense of Umbridge, but as a factual point.)

-m 





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Nov  5 17:51:18 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 17:51:18 -0000
Subject: Names, Puns, Etymologies / Racism / Marietta
In-Reply-To: <eijp7n+6cs7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eil8am+pfsg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161007

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> 
wrote:

> She probably started out believing that Umbridge was a good person
> with good intentions. Could she have believed that reading the
> Slinkhard book in class was adequate preparation for taking her DADA
> OWL?

Pippin:
If she's in the same year as Cho, she's already taken her OWL and
may not even have Umbridge if she's not taking DADA. If she
is, then she's supposed to be learning non-verbal spells, which
Harry can't teach her either.

Marietta also may be among that half of the wizarding population
who felt the dementors were needed to control evil wizards.
The dementors were still ministry employees at this point, and
I can't help but think it's significant that Marietta tried to get
the DA shut down when Harry started teaching an anti-dementor
spell. It's as if you signed up for a safe driving course, and
midway through it they started teaching you how to avoid
radar dectectors. 

There's no canon that Marietta wanted to get her friends in 
trouble with Umbridge. The information she volunteered wouldn't 
have been enough to get anyone expelled. It would only have shut 
down the meetings unless they could find a safer place for them. 
Whether Marietta was under duress when she gave the information that 
triggered the jinx we don't know, but we certainly know that Umbridge
is capable of it.

Pippin





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov  5 18:04:33 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 5 Nov 2006 18:04:33 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/5/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1162749873.25.67762.m40@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161008


Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 5, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


Set up birthday reminders
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
 www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20061105/0e6db0da/attachment.html>

From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Nov  5 18:17:51 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:17:51 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eij36b+hiuj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eil9sf+937d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161009

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

> What I'm wondering is whether you're defining "slippery" in the same
> way as other readers. For myself, I'd say that it's a Slytherin
> quality, common to Lucius Malfoy ("my slippery friend") and Snape
> ("slithering out of action) and to Tom Riddle, keeping his evil nature
> secret through charms and wiles, and probably to Phineas Nigellus and
> Salazar Slytherin himself. Even the Slytherin symbol (note the
> resemblance of Slytherin to "Slither"), a snakes, suggests
> slipperiness.

Pippin:
Hmmm. But snakes aren't really slippery, though they appear so.
They have to have traction or they don't go anywhere. I'm not sure
the true nature of Slytherin is to be slippery, though they have that
reputation.

Carol:
 ("Slimy," no. snakes aren't slimy. Snails and eels are.
> and I'm surprised that a DDM!Snaper would call him slimy, with all the
> disgusting qualities attached to that adjective.)

<snip'>

> Vile? Offensive? Repulsive? Odious? Resembling mucous?
> 

Pippin:

An unattractive substance with protective, even healing properties?

Works for me <g>

There's plenty of canon for it, of course.
"slimeball", "slimy, oily, greasy-haired", and of course "Snivellus".

If Snape has deep down integrity and that is why Dumbledore knows
he can be trusted, then he also has an insulating layer of phoniness
concealing it. I think that's what registers on Harry and Sirius as
slime, but not being analytical types, they never give much thought
as to why it would be there. They just don't trust it because it's
the antithesis of the way they relate to the world.

Of course DDM!Snape isn't really slithering out of action either -- he's
acting in concealed ways. There's so much concealment and deception
around Snape in any case that I don't see how he could function without 
some sort of protective barrier between the 'real' Snape, whoever that is, 
and all the roles he has to play. 

Slime also discourages closeness, and we can see that with
very few exceptions, even his colleagues don't feel that they really
knew Snape. They certainly couldn't if Snape was keeping secret from 
them a thing that was so soul-shaking it changed his entire life.

OTOH, I don't think Lucius has any integrity left. Maybe he cares about
his family on that animal level JKR likes to talk about, but given
the opportunity to choose, I think he'd sell them out as readily
as Bella would. He's slippery in that he's always going to be
found on the path of least resistance.

Does that make sense?

Pippin





From tenorone2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 18:19:51 2006
From: tenorone2000 at yahoo.com (Rashi)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:19:51 -0000
Subject: On Umbridge
Message-ID: <eila07+3403@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161010

Hi All!

Well, seems like Delores has become more and more popular. Since the 
next film is coming out next summer, people are becoming more and more 
intrigued with this witch. 

Anyway, what I find odd is..its not written which type of witch she is 
(unless I'm otherwise mistaken). I think that everyone assumes that 
she is indeed Slytherin, but, is she? 

What do you all think?

Rashi Rosenzweig

Ra'anana, Israel






From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 19:21:22 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 19:21:22 -0000
Subject: Filk: Time in a Bottle
Message-ID: <eildji+dtpn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161011

I'll bet that if you are familiar with Jim Croce you can guess the 
name of the tune I am filking.  (HINT: it's in the subject line)

To Potioncat, darling

Midi found here:
http://www.bajeca.com/volume/timeinabottle.shtml

The scene: Dumbledore's office.
Dumbledore has just shown Harry the doctored memory which Sluggy had 
given Dumbledore.  Albus, knowing that he has seen a fake, gives 
Harry the task of getting the real one.

He sings:

If I had that time in a bottle
I'd learn if the story was true;
If young Tom found a way
To prevent him from passing away.
Is his soul split in two?

Has he made his days last forever?
Has he made a Horcrux or two?
Did he find a way? Did he sever and when?
My friend, I leave this task to you:

(Chorus)
'Cause it doesn't seem to be real this time.
I'll know the things I'm looking for
Once I find them.
I've been around enough to know 
That you're the one Old Slug will share
His mind with.

Yes, I have a bowl full of visions,
But this one just doesn't ring true.
So we've come up empty
'Til you get that memory,
My boy, I entrust this to you.

(Chorus)

Ginger, surprised at how well this one fit the original, and 
surprised that I hadn't thought of it before.  Thanks to Potioncat 
for her inspiration.





From arquenmarille at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 16:14:10 2006
From: arquenmarille at yahoo.com (arquenmarille)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:14:10 -0000
Subject: Live again, Dumbledore!
In-Reply-To: <eiil69+4vm4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eil2ki+r6u7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161012

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "husenlatif" <husenlatif at ...> wrote:
>
> I'm really upset after reading the 6th book of HP, why should someone
> like Dumbledore can be trapped and killed by a villain conspiracy,
> comprising snape & malfoys. What's happen to the hogwarth next? and
> who's gonna give advice to HP? What's in your mind Rowling? I hope
> dumbledore just missing, masking or something, so he still alive and
> exist again in the 7th book. But anyway, I will wait the next book, and
> please no more killing the good guys, just the bad, specially Voldemort
> and the gank.
>



I was really upset too, but then I remembered (just last night) that
Dumbledore will live again! Well, in a way. If you remember, all the
previous headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts have portraits in
the headmaster/headmistress office! So no doubt Dumbledore will have
one too! So maybe Harry will be able to talk to the portrait and get
help that way! (My fingers are crossed!)
:)
Alicia




From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 18:41:06 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:41:06 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux, but Harry's scar IS (was:Re: Horcrux Discussion),
In-Reply-To: <eiitns+jj5d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eilb82+48ou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161013

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dhaval" <dnm786 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Sandra:
> >> <snip>
> >> My question is: does anybody REALLY know that Harry contains 
that last piece of Voldemort's soul? << <snip>
> 
> dhaval:
> Harry feels. He feels love. The reason he feels is because he is 
human and pure, unlike Voldemort. Therefore when Voldemort enters 
Harry's body in the 5th book (GoF) he suffers greater agony than 
Harry.  Therefore, IMO, he could never have dissociated his soul into 
Harry because though Harry would be able to bear it, Voldemort would 
feel a lot of pain (not a feasible option).
> 
> dhaval


Beatrice:

While I certainly agree that this may simply be a theory that doesn't 
pan out one of JKR's red herrings, I think that there is something to 
this argument.  

On another fan site, someone recently pointed out that while Harry 
may not be a horcrux in and of himself, his scar might be a horcrux.  
In order to accept this theory, you have to consider the possiblity 
that the horcrux could exist relatively undetected and not 
intergrated within Harry's body.  As dhaval mentions above, Harry is 
able to feel and return love which is the anthesis to Voldemort's 
existance.  What if the love bestowed on Harry by his mother is able 
to encase the horcrux?  Like the locket, the scar horcrux would 
contain a small fraction of LV, but would not pollute Harry's purity, 
because it cannot penetrate the barrier of purity that is his 
mother's love?

But what kind of textual evidence could we find to support this 
idea?  Well, let us begin with the prophecy: "THE ONE WITH THE POWER 
TO VANQUISH THE DARK LORD APPROACHES. . . AND THE DARK LORD WILL MARK 
HIM AS HIS EQUAL, BUT HE WILL HAVE A POWER THE DARK LORD KNOWS 
NOT. . . AND EITHER MUST DIE AT THE HAND OF THE OTHER FOR NEITHER CAN 
LIVE WHILE THE OTHER SURVIVES..." (OotP 841, US).  Dumbledore and 
many fans have read this as either Harry or LV must murder the other 
in order to live.  But what I find significant is the second thing in 
that sentence "neither can live while the other survives." We are 
told several times throughout the text, both from DD directly and 
from other sources (namely Fudge in the first chapter of HBP) that LV 
isn't really alive and thus cannot be killed.  Let me repeat that, 
Voldemort cannot be killed because he is not really alive.  This is 
further explained and confirmed when DD tells Harry about the 
horcruxes (HBP). We know that Harry's mission is to track down and 
eliminate all horcruxes.  When this is accomplished LV will 
be "alive" again.  With his mortality restored, he will be able to be 
killed.  Let's leave this for the moment and look at the prophecy 
again.

The prophecy continues that "the dark lord will mark him as his 
equal, but he will have a power the dark lord knows not."  Must 
readers conclude and I agree that the power Harry possesses is love.  
But what about the act of marking him as an equal?  How does a simple 
scar mark Harry as LV's equal?  If we have learned anything from the 
text it is that Harry's scar is not an ordinary scar.  It has given 
him the ability to speak parseltongue, protects him against people 
who wish him ill, and is an emotional link between Harry and LV.  DD 
theorizes that LV transfered some of his powers during his failed 
attempt to kill Harry. But does that make Harry an equal?  Would 
Harry be more equal if he possessed or more precisely his scar 
possessed an equal portion of the Dark Lord's soul?  This would 
account for the strange emotional connection and Harry's odd 
abilities.  I suspect that LV became equally suspicious of this when 
he realized that Harry was able to read his emotions.  

This is the reason why LV possessed Harry in the MoM.  LV was 
attempting to confirm what he already suspected that Harry was the 
recipient of much more that night in Godric's hollow.  True, LV 
couldn't possess him for very long because of his mother's love, but 
it was probably long enough for him to confirm that Harry's scar 
contained a portion of his twisted evil soul.  In the MoM when LV is 
in possession of Harry's body, he taunts DD "'Kill me now, 
Dumbledore. . . If death is nothing, Dumbledore, kill the boy...'"  
DD assumes that LV was simply trying to provoke him into killing 
Harry in the hopes that it would also eliminate the Dark Lord.  But 
Voldemort realized earlier in their battle that DD was not attempting 
to kill him at all, so why would he assume that DD would take out 
Harry at this moment?  LV knows that DD loves Harry and he expects 
him to act like any "fool" would to try to keep Harry alive at any 
cost.  Thus, LV uses the opportunity of his close proximity to Harry 
to test his own theory about Harry's scar.  He would taunt DD in this 
way, because he knows that he is in no danger of dying, but he 
doesn't want DD to realize his true reasons for possessing Harry.

This is why LV is determined to kill Harry himself (see Snape's 
flight from Hogwarts HBP).  LV hopes to remove the horcrux from 
Harry's scar first, probably in some scene reminiscent of GOF's 
graveyard scene and then dispose of Harry.  This could potentially 
allow Harry to survive a final confrontation with Voldemort.

But let's go back to the prophecy for one brief moment, before I 
close.  Why doesn't DD at least consider the possibility that Harry 
is a horcrux?  He is after all the greatest wizard of our / Harry's 
time.  This is true, but he is not infallible.  He admits that not 
telling Harry about the prophecy is a mistake (OotP).  He even 
indicates that while his guesses are usually better than other's his 
errors are much larger when he makes them.  I think that DD has made 
an error by not considering it the possibility that Harry's scar is a 
horcrux. We can excuse him, because this kind of result has never 
been seen before and thus he is navigating uncharted waters and can 
only base his conclusions on his somewhat limited vantage point.  

Of course if maybe that we all have a limited vantage point when it 
comes to Harry Potter 7 and only JKR knows for sure the outcome.

cheers,
Beatrice







From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 18:45:55 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 18:45:55 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <eiit4n+a0fj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eilbh3+rc7o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161014

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dhaval" <dnm786 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Jeremiah:
> >> Has anyone asked how Harry is supposed to find his parent's house?
> If the Potters were in hiding and Peter Pettigrew/Wormtail was the
> secret keeper, then he still is the secret keeper.
> >> <snip>
> >> Harry must seek out Pettigrew and have him reveal the location.
> Nobody else can reveal it. << <snip>
> 
> dhaval:
> Harry was already in the house when Voldemort comes to murder his 
parents. So I don't think he'll need Peter to tell him the password or 
something. Though probably Ron and Hermione may have trouble entering 
the place.
> 
> dhaval

Beatrice: I agree, but I have one minor thought to add... Pettigrew 
violated the sacred trust of the secret keeper by revealing the 
Potter's location to Voldemort.  Could it be that the magic was broken 
because of this act and thus the house would be accessible to anyone 
looking after such an act?>







From ladypensieve at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 19:44:51 2006
From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 19:44:51 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux, but Harry's scar IS (was:Re: Horcrux Discussion),
In-Reply-To: <eilb82+48ou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eilevj+uleg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161015

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> 
wrote: While I certainly agree that this may simply be a theory that 
doesn't pan out one of JKR's red herrings, I think that there is 
something to this argument.  (snip) But what kind of textual 
evidence could we find to support this idea?  

This is going to be rather long, sorry...

First - Questions/Observations: (Things that will help you figure 
out where I'm going)

1. In Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone foundations are set.

Dumbledore says: "
Scars can come in handy."

McGonagall can't believe that Dumbledore would leave Harry with the 
Dursleys ? and she's right. Unless there's a perfectly good 
explanation as to why Harry could never be raised in the Wizarding 
World. Namely that they needed protection from Harry.

The Sorting Hat feels Slytherin would be a good house for Harry.

Why is it that Quirrell suffered so greatly when he tried to touch 
Harry?

Dumbledore gave Harry an explanation an 11 year old could 
understand. "
Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so 
deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us 
some protection forever
"

2. In Chamber of Secrets we get two more pieces of information that 
are crucial.

Harry learns that he can speak Parseltongue, and Dumbledore explains 
that it's because Voldemort can speak it. Voldemort transferred some 
of his own powers to Harry the night he killed Harry's parents.

Harry destroys Riddle's Diary. Later we learn the book is a Horcrux. 
Keeping that point in mind, didn't Harry destroy the book rather 
easily? Think about the difficulties in the cave with the necklace?

3. In Prisoner of Azkaban Harry fends off not one, but a swarm of 
dementors.

Hermione says: "Harry, I can't believe it.... You conjured up a 
Patronus that drove away all those dementors! That's very, very 
advanced magic." In the movie this was put even stronger
"Only a
powerful wizard
"

Harry has gifts, we know that
but he's just not that powerful a 
wizard, as Dumbledore says when they enter the boat in the cave in 
HBP.

4. In Goblet of Fire Harry fights off Voldemort.

Going back to PS/SS, the wand that chose Harry was brother to 
Voldemort's. This ends up being Harry's saving grace. Again, though, 
we must ask the question how it is that wand chose Harry. Why this 
particular wand?

5. Order of the Phoenix shows us a very strong connection to 
Voldemort.

Through his connection to Voldemort, Harry saves Arthur Weasley's 
life.

Through this connection, Voldemort controls Harry by the fountain, 
yet loses that control when Harry begins thinking of those he loves 
that he'll soon see again.

6. Half-Blood Prince introduces Unbreakable Vows and Horcrux.

In Spinner's End Snape takes the Unbreakable Vow. Is this the first 
time he's taken such a vow?

Why does Dumbledore take Harry with him to the cave to get a 
Horcrux? 

Why does he say that Harry's blood is more valuable than his own?

Dumbledore says that Harry's magic will not register with the 
boat: "I do not think you will count, Harry: You are underage and 
unqualified. Voldemort would never have expected a sixteen-year-old 
to reach this place: I think it unlikely that your powers will 
register compared to mine."

Why does Dumbledore want Harry to wear the invisibility cloak?

Where does all this lead us?

Harry's scar is the Horcrux.

If Harry's scar is the Horcrux, then it is protected ? as are all 
the Horcruxes.  Each has it's own form of protection, keeping it 
from being destroyed.

Therefore, if Harry's scar is the Horcrux, anyone who tries to kill 
Harry will end up being killed.

Dumbledore knew right from the beginning.  He had to.  Why leave 
Harry with the Dursleys ? not for the boy's protection from the 
wizarding world, but to protect the wizarding world from Harry ? and 
to keep Voldemort from learning of `the power he knows not'.  

If a witch or wizard tried to kill Harry for the Dark Lord, they 
would be killed.  Voldemort would learn of this and be able to take 
measures to remove the Horcrux from Harry and then kill the boy.  

This explains why Harry lives at the Dursleys, even though they were 
terrible to him.  It explains why Harry is able to speak 
Parseltongue, to scatter not just one dementor ? which was done 
under his own power ? but to scatter all those at the lake.  `Only a 
great wizard
"  Yes, we would like to believe that Harry is great 
enough to do this on his own, but
the Horcrux was actually giving 
him the extra power so that it would not be absorbed into the 
dementors.  Again, it was protecting itself.

Why did that particular wand chose Harry, because its brother had 
chosen Tom Riddle before.  This piece of Voldemort caused the wand 
to come to Harry, yet the red and gold sparks tell us that it was 
also Harry's wand.  The phoenix feathers were destined to work 
together again.

Harry saves Arthur Weasley's life because of this `connection' to 
Voldemort.  Voldemort begins to understand the connection
but won't 
completely understand it until he tries to kill Harry.  He then uses 
it to lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries, where Sirius makes 
some very bad choices and end up passing through the veil.

When Dumbledore takes Harry to the cave, is it just to help, or does 
he have other motives?  He won't let Harry use his blood to gain 
entrance ? possibly because the cave might recognize a part of 
Voldemort?

Why does Harry have to wear the invisibility cloak at the Astronomy 
tower and why does Dumbledore freeze him?  Well, if Harry were not 
invisible, then someone would try to kill him ? again, the Horcrux 
would protect itself and Voldemort then know the `power he knows 
not'.  Dumbledore was protecting others from Harry, and others from 
knowing the secret.

What this boils down to is that Voldemort will hit Harry with the 
Avada, only it will once again revert back to him.  Hopefully this 
means that Harry will be in the hospital wing again and not dead.  

Some supposition here:  

Lily's wand was good for Charms and James for Transfiguration.  
Voldemort probably brought a magical item with him to Godric's 
Hollow.  My belief is that Lily's Charm was coupled with a 
transfiguration spell that transformed that object into the scar on 
Harry's head.  The best place to hide something is right out in the 
open.  

I also believe that Lily knew her son would not be treated properly 
by the Dursley's and so she crafted one more spell, that upon her 
death all the love in her heart would continue to be with Harry, and 
this is why he has his mother's eyes.  Her love sparkles from them 
and kept him feeling that love all through the abuse he suffered, 
whether it be at the Dursleys or elsewhere.  A part of Lily is 
always with him.

There's my theory. It also shows us how incredibly brilliant JKR 
really is that all the clues have been left for us to connect. I'm 
sure there's more, or that it will be laid out a bit differently
but 
I think this is the gist of her secret. 

And remember, the last word in the last book will be SCAR. KathyO






From the46_rabbit at yahoo.co.id  Sun Nov  5 16:43:08 2006
From: the46_rabbit at yahoo.co.id (Dwita Adyarini)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:43:08 +0700 (ICT)
Subject: Saving Harry Re: Whom does Snape hate?
Message-ID: <20061105164308.24250.qmail@web33815.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161016

Well..... 
I hope that it's Petiggrew who will save Harry, not Snape.
I thought that as an old friend who made a big sin...
He must do something good before he will be killed by others.

Dwita Adyarini




From smokyoraven at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 20:05:21 2006
From: smokyoraven at yahoo.com (smokyoraven)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 20:05:21 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <eilbh3+rc7o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eilg61+3i17@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161017

> Beatrice: I agree, but I have one minor thought to add...
Pettigrew
> violated the sacred trust of the secret keeper by revealing the
> Potter's location to Voldemort.  Could it be that the magic was
broken
> because of this act and thus the house would be accessible to
anyone
> looking after such an act?>
>

Smokyoraven:
 I agree about Pettigrew being the secret keeper but ... Hagrid went
and got Harry from the house after LD had tried to kill him. How did
Hagrid do that if you still needed a password or something to get
into the house. And seeing he went there to get Harry he can tell
Harry where it is. So can DD seeing he had to of told H where to go
to get Harry.






From nmangle at cox.net  Sun Nov  5 20:27:43 2006
From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:27:43 -0600
Subject: On Umbridge
Message-ID: <045801c70118$d94cf250$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle>

No: HPFGUIDX 161018

Rashi says:
Anyway, what I find odd is..its not written which type of witch she is 
(unless I'm otherwise mistaken). I think that everyone assumes that 
she is indeed Slytherin, but, is she? 

Nicole thinks:
Rashi, great topic, haven't seen it yet.  
I think its easy to quickly go to Slytherin because she seems so evil.  But until the "Inquisitor Squad" came about, she never really favored towards anyone.  I would aim towards Ravenclaw.  She is quick, but not brave, or wanting power, or loyal.  So I lean away from the other houses.  
There are a lot of Ministry people I wonder about.  Fudge, Crouch Jr & Sr, Shacklebolt (love him, voting for him to be new DADA teacher), and of course Moody & Tonks.  
Any thoughts?









From mros at xs4all.nl  Sun Nov  5 20:53:30 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:53:30 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Umbridge
References: <045801c70118$d94cf250$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle>
Message-ID: <000701c7011c$73097460$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 161019

Rashi says:
Anyway, what I find odd is..its not written which type of witch she is 
(unless I'm otherwise mistaken). I think that everyone assumes that 
she is indeed Slytherin, but, is she? 

Nicole thinks:
Rashi, great topic, haven't seen it yet. 
I think its easy to quickly go to Slytherin because she seems so evil. But until the "Inquisitor Squad" came about, she never really favored towards anyone. I would aim towards Ravenclaw. She is quick, but not brave, or wanting power, or loyal. So I lean away from the other houses. 
There are a lot of Ministry people I wonder about. Fudge, Crouch Jr & Sr, Shacklebolt (love him, voting for him to be new DADA teacher), and of course Moody & Tonks. 
Any thoughts?


Marion :
I'd say she's Hufflepuff. She's extremely loyal towards Fudge. 
It would be extremely foolish to underestimate Hufflepuffs. I don't know why everybody thinks they are harmless duffers. They are not. They do seem to think that the group is more important than the individual, "no man left behind" and all that. This can be quite good ("we might not come first but we *all* finished") but it also might take on more sinister undertones when one individual dares to say aloud what the group does not want to hear.

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




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sun Nov  5 21:14:40 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 15:14:40 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry not a Horcrux
References: <eilb82+48ou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <019c01c7011f$68381bb0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161020

All this talk of Harry being a Horcrux is strange to me..  I thought a Horcrux was created with intent??  Am I wrong in this thought.  Can a Horcrux be created without the person knowing his soul is being transferred?  I was under the impression that LV had to create it on purpose.  I do not believe that LV intentionally would have made the scar or Harry himself a horcrux.  He was never in possession of Harry after the fact, so..  for all purposes in my eyes, it is not even possible that Harry or any part of him is a Horcrux.  LV would not have had the power to do it after the attack as he was powerless at that time.
  Does this make sense?
  Lana

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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Nov  5 21:33:21 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:33:21 -0000
Subject: Names, Puns, Etymologies / Racism / Marietta
In-Reply-To: <eijp7n+6cs7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eillb1+arce@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161021

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" <catlady at ...> 
wrote:
>
> NAMES OF SPELLS, PEOPLE, ETC:
> London Granddaughter wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160734>:
> 
> << For the spell Expecto Patronum--James' animagus figure was a stag,
> so when Harry thinks happy thoughts while needing a protector against
> dementors, he "expects (expecto) his father (patronum)." >>
> 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/42256> on St
> Godric and Stag Patronus
> 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/18672> Beginning
> of long thread on 'Expecto Patronus' = 'I yearn for a father' <-
> unfathered society
> 
> I also seem to recall an argument that 'Expecto' is more related to
> the Latin word for 'spit' (which gave us 'expectorate') than to the
> Latin word for 'expect', and therefore means 'I send forth from my
> mouth a Patronus'.

Geoff:
According to my trusty, hard-working Oxford Latin dictionary, it's 
nothing to do with spitting or a father.

Expecto/exspecto (alternative spellings) = await, expect, anticipate, 
hope for.
patronus (patronum is the accusative case) = protector, patron, 
pleader, advocate.

Father is, of course, 'pater'.
To spit is 'spuo', related to modern English 'spew' and 'sputum'.





From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Sun Nov  5 21:21:15 2006
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:21:15 -0000
Subject: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
In-Reply-To: <be8.7963a5e.327e9183@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eilkkb+g0uj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161022

> Can anyone remember any previous reference in the books to 
Hermione"s  teeth? 
>  I recall lots of comments about her hair, but nothing about her  
teeth being 
> big.

"She had a bossy sort of voice, lots of bushy brown hair, and rather 
large front teeth." That's Hermione's first appearance in SS/PS ch 6.

MercuryBlue





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 21:42:44 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:42:44 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eil9sf+937d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eillsk+h7rj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161023

Carol earlier:
> > What I'm wondering is whether you're defining "slippery" in the
same way as other readers. For myself, I'd say that it's a Slytherin
quality, common to Lucius Malfoy ("my slippery friend") and Snape
("slithering out of action) and to Tom Riddle, keeping his evil nature
secret through charms and wiles, and probably to Phineas Nigellus and
Salazar Slytherin himself. Even the Slytherin symbol (note the
resemblance of Slytherin to "Slither"), a snakes, suggests slipperiness.
> 
> Pippin:
> Hmmm. But snakes aren't really slippery, though they appear so.
> They have to have traction or they don't go anywhere. I'm not sure
> the true nature of Slytherin is to be slippery, though they have
that reputation.

Carol responds:
Snakes are neither slippery nor slimy, right? But as you say, they're
perceived as slippery, perhaps because they really *are* "slithery."
IOW, it's hard to hold onto a snake. But even those who dislike snakes
know that they're not slimy.
> 
> Carol earlier:
>  ("Slimy," no. Snakes aren't slimy. Snails and eels are.
> > and I'm surprised that a DDM!Snaper would call him slimy, with all
the disgusting qualities attached to that adjective.)
> 
> <snip'>
> 
> > Vile? Offensive? Repulsive? Odious? Resembling mucous?
 
> Pippin:
> 
> An unattractive substance with protective, even healing properties?

Carol again.:
What healing properties can you find in slime, whether it's the slimy
trail that snails and slugs (nasty creatures that destroy plants)
create for themselves or pond scum? Can you think of a single positive
connotation for slime or slimy? I quoted you the dictionary
definitions and the synonyms, ever one of them revolting and derogatory.
> 
Pippin:
> 
> There's plenty of canon for it, of course.
> "slimeball", "slimy, oily, greasy-haired", and of course "Snivellus".

Carol responds:
And who is calling Snape by these names? His enemies, in particular
Sirius Black, the man who states in PoA that he wishes Snape had died
as a result of the so-called Prank. That his enemies call him slimy
doesn't mean he really is. Dumbledore's enemies call him a doddering
old fool. Hardly an accurate perception despite DD's capacity for
human error.

Having somewhat oily hair and a capacity for concealing your thoughts
and loyalties does not make a person slimy. According to the
dictionary, only a vile, repulsive person deserves that epithet. So
snape needs to brush his teeth (Harry's perception) and wash his hair?
so did Sirius Black in PoA. But I don't see anyone referring to him as
 slimy or a slimeball despite his many faults. Black uses those terms
for Snape because he associates him with the Dark Arts. James Potter
called him Snivellus, turning his name into a sound-alike insult
(compare Peves's "loony, loopy Lupin") for the same reason that he
tormented him: "Because he exists."

The use of those terms by his enemies, people who clearly have no
understanding of the HBP or (in Black's case) the adult Snape hardly
qualify as evidence that he really is slimy. And, since you believe in
DDM!Snape, I don't understand why you would argue for their validity.
Do you also think that Harry is an attention-seeking, unstable
teenager? That's what his enemies say. 
> 
Pippin:
> If Snape has deep down integrity and that is why Dumbledore knows
> he can be trusted, then he also has an insulating layer of phoniness
> concealing it. I think that's what registers on Harry and Sirius as
> slime, but not being analytical types, they never give much thought
> as to why it would be there. They just don't trust it because it's
> the antithesis of the way they relate to the world.

Carol:
But "slimy" suggests that he has no integrity, that he's scum. I'm
trying to think of an appropriately loathsome character, possibly
Wormtongue in LOTR or the hand-wringing Uriah Heep in "David
Copperfield." Those people were not concealing trustworthiness beneath
sarcasm and a sinister air. They really as slimy and cringing as they
seemed, fooling only the gullible or the bewitched. DDM!Snape, OTOH,
fools Voldemort, making him slippery (ambiguous, elusive), not slimy
(repulsive and odious).
> 
Pippin:
> Of course DDM!Snape isn't really slithering out of action either --
he's acting in concealed ways. There's so much concealment and
deception around Snape in any case that I don't see how he could
function without some sort of protective barrier between the 'real'
Snape, whoever that is, and all the roles he has to play. 

Carol:
Agreed. But that protective barrier is Occlumency and his ability to
act, not a coating of slime (hypocrisy, unctuousness). I just thought
of a character in HP who might fit the concept of a slimy character
that I'm trying to get across--Borgin, who is presented as oily and
obsequious when he deals with Lucius Malfoy but muttering under his
breath against him after he leaves--kowtowing because he's afraid to
turn Lucius away even though he knows him to be a Dark wizard and
probably suspects that he was a DE as well. Karkaroff, with his
fruity, unctuous voice shows some of the same traits, fawning to
Dumbledore and Barty Crouch Sr. without meaning a word of his feigned
friendliness or remorse.

I don't see anything of the sort in Snape, even if, as you and I both
doubt, he's ESE.
> 
Pippin:
> Slime also discourages closeness, and we can see that with
> very few exceptions, even his colleagues don't feel that they really
> knew Snape. They certainly couldn't if Snape was keeping secret from 
> them a thing that was so soul-shaking it changed his entire life.

Carol:
Slime would discourage Narcissa from shedding tears on Snape's chest
and kissing his hands. I think what discourages Snape's colleagues
from getting close to him is those dark, seemingly empty eyes, that
soft, dangerous voice, that penchant for sarcasm. He looks sinister
and dangerous, not someone you want to get on the wrong side of. And
yet, the others, even McGonagall, follow his lead in their treatment
of Lockhart in CoS. It seems to me that he's a respected colleague, if
not a friend. And up until at least the end of OoP, relations between
Snape and McGonagall are quite civil, almost cordial. We don't see
them interacting in HBP, but McGonagall sends Filch with the cursed
necklace directly to Snape, clearly trusting to his expertise in
dealing with such a sinister object. Yes, by that time she knows he's
an ex-Death Eater, but she trusts him. At the end of HBP, she claims
that she trusted him only because DD trusted him, but I'm not sure
that's really true. She had worked with Snape, even having a friendly
Quidditch rivalry with him, and had seen him unquestioningly do
Dumbledore's bidding. She knew, I'm sure, that he had made the
Wolfsbane Potion for Lupin. I see no evidence that any of Snape's
colleagues, even Lupin, view Snape as slimy. Only Harry, Ron, and
Sirius Black regard the adult Snape in that way. Certainly, neither
Hagrid nor Dumbledore has any such perception.
> 
Pippin:
> OTOH, I don't think Lucius has any integrity left. Maybe he cares
about his family on that animal level JKR likes to talk about, but
given the opportunity to choose, I think he'd sell them out as readily
> as Bella would. He's slippery in that he's always going to be
> found on the path of least resistance.
> 
> Does that make sense?

Carol:
I certainly agree that Lucius has no integrity left, if he ever had
any. But in my book, that makes him the slimy one.

Maybe it's all semantics, but, IMO, you can't ignore the connotations
of ambiguity for slipperiness and odiousness for sliminess. In my
book, it's Snape who's ambiguous and Lucius who's odious.

Carol, hoping that Pippin will look again at the dictionary
definitions that she snipped






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 21:41:10 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 21:41:10 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eiig7r+26ce@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eillpm+ulu0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161024

> 
> Pippin:
> Right, Narcissa shows up cool, calm and collected, knowing exactly
> what she wants. The 'drowned' imagery has nothing to do with her
> grasping at straws, and all her wild-eyed pleadings are an act.
> 

Neri:
Of course Narcissa isn't showing up cool, calm and collected. She
wouldn't have got what she wanted if she showed up cool, calm and
collected. Don't you know that when you're damsel-in-distress in
search for a knight, you need to *look* the part? Sure, you can be
desperate for real, but you still need to *look* desperate. And a wise
choice of the knight does help <g>.

The repeated references in Spinner's End to how Narcissa looks like,
especially the "drowned" one, are extremely suggestive:

************************************************************
HBP, Ch. 2, p, 22:
Narcissa threw back her hood. She was so pale that she seemed to shine
in the darkness; the long blond hair streaming down her back gave her
a look of a drowned person.

"Narcissa!" said the man, opening the door a little wider, so that the
light fell upon her

************************************************************

The perfect entrance. Precise use of gesture, look and lighting, right
in front of Snape <g>. BTW, just several lines later she "throw off"
that cloak and "cast it aside" before she sits herself on Snape's
sofa. You have to appreciate how she really got the most out of that
cloak. 

And Narcissa being desperate still doesn't change my observation that
she doesn't look even slightly surprised, not to mention "astounded",
when Snape takes the UV. We're doing fine literal distinctions here,
aren't we? Then I offer you this distinction: "desperate" and
"surprised" are not the same thing. If Narcissa only went to Snape
because she was clutching at a last straw, then she'd be surprised for
at least a second or two when it produced such marvelous results. 


> Pippin:
> Hardly. She shows up not even sure that Snape is in on the plan,
> then she asks him to talk Voldemort out of it, then she asks him 
> to do the task instead, and when he refuses, she falls to the floor,
> at Snape's feet, screaming and clutching at her hair. 
> 

Neri:
If Narcissa didn't know that Snape is in on the plan, then it only
goes to show you how much she expected of him. She expected him to
break the Dark Lord's orders. So, unless she believes him to be DDM,
she believes him to be OFH. 


> Pippin: 
> That would be the moment for Snape to  give in, if what he
> wanted was to see her on her knees before him. But he 
> doesn't. He picks her up and steers her to the couch. *Then*
> he allows that he might possibly be able to help Draco.
> 

Neri:
No, no, no. You mixed up the mechanics of it. She's not kneeling,
she's "crumpled, falling at his feet" when he picks her up. *Then* he
allows that he might possibly be able to help Draco, and *then* she
"slid off the sofa into a kneeling position at Snape's feet" and also
"seized his hands by both of her, and pressed her lips to it". I know
all this action can be confusing, but Snape is as good at this dance
as Narcissa, so he gets her first to just crumple at his feet, *then*
to properly kneel, and kissing his hand as a bonus <eg>.


Neri






From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 22:03:04 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:03:04 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <019c01c7011f$68381bb0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <eiln2o+ov47@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161025

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> wrote:
>
> All this talk of Harry being a Horcrux is strange to me..  I thought 
a Horcrux was created with intent??  Am I wrong in this thought.  Can 
a Horcrux be created without the person knowing his soul is being 
transferred?  <SNIP>

Beatrice:

Well, my thought is that LV has so badly damaged his soul by creating 
more horcruxes than anyone ever even imagined.  As he has created this 
damage perhaps it is possible that his soul is reacting in unusual 
ways.  Take for instance his snake like appearance which DD indicates 
is a mark of the damage that he has done intentionally to his soul and 
signifies the fact that he is less human than those with their souls 
intact.  

We know very little about the magic used to create a horcrux.  I 
suspect that it is an immensely complicated process.  I have two 
theories about how this *may* have occurred.

1.  Perhaps, there are spells that need to be performed prior to the 
murderous act in order to prepare the soul for the eventual split and 
encasement.  In this scenerio, Voldemort performed the preparation 
spells prior to arriving in Godric's Hollow, he may even have brought 
the object that he intended his final horcrux to inhabit with him. or 
imagine this sequence of events:  LV arrives murders James and murders 
Lily.  Now there is no reason to rush Harry is only a helpless infant 
after all.  He performs the preparation spell. (perhaps signified by 
the high cold laugh Harry remembers in PoA).  He attempts to murder 
Harry, but the spell goes horribly wrong.  As the AK spell rebounds 
from Harry, it rips Voldemort from his body and completes the rip in 
voldemorts soul, creating two pieces.  One piece is LV's consciousness 
which eventually flees to Albania and the other the horcrux piece is 
wrenched into Harry's scar by the the force of the rebounding AK.

2.  The second scenerio is pretty much the same except that LV does 
not perform a prepatory spell, as the horcrux spell only requires a 
spell after the murder is completed.  In this scenerio, LV soul is 
rent in two due to a combination of the previous self-inflicted soul 
damage and the failed AK.  The soul is already fragmentary and simply 
seeks a receptacle, perhaps driven by the imprint or memory of the 
previous 5 horcruxes and their production.  It is either pulled into 
Harry by the recoil from the failed AK or seeks out a "host" or object 
and Harry is the closest object.

Anyway, it is my theory (although, I am hardly the only one to have 
it).  I am not trying to convert you, just trying to explain my ideas.
>







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 22:20:31 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:20:31 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <019c01c7011f$68381bb0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <eilo3f+svvg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161026

Lana wrote:
> All this talk of Harry being a Horcrux is strange to me..  I thought
a Horcrux was created with intent??  Am I wrong in this thought.  Can
a Horcrux be created without the person knowing his soul is being
transferred?  I was under the impression that LV had to create it on
purpose.  I do not believe that LV intentionally would have made the
scar or Harry himself a horcrux.  He was never in possession of Harry
after the fact, so..  for all purposes in my eyes, it is not even
possible that Harry or any part of him is a Horcrux.  LV would not
have had the power to do it after the attack as he was powerless at
that time.
>   Does this make sense?

Carol responds:
I agree completely. I don't believe that it's possible to create an
accidental Horcrux because a spell is needed to encase the soul bit,
nor do I think that Voldemort brought an objct with him that he
intended to make into a Horcrux. Such evidence as we have indicates
that at least the first two Horcruxes were made months or even years
after the murders used to create them. Looking only at the ring, Tom
may have worn it when he killed his father, but we know from the later
interview with Slughorn that he didn't know how to create a Horcrux at
that time. And if his grandparents' murders were used for Horcruxes,
he certainly didn't have those objects with him when he killed them.

I suggest doing a site search using "Harry!Horcrux" as your search
term. It that yields too many posts, add the word "accidental" or the
phrase "Godric's Hollow" (no quotes needed; I'm just setting them off
as words and phrases in my own sentence).

You'll find that, popular as the Harry!Horcrux theory is at the
moment, not everyone on this list subscribes to it. You can also find
posts on whether or not Nagini is a Horcrux if you're interested.

Here's a link to one of my many posts on the topic:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156960

Just follow the thread in either direction to find other people's view
on this popular topic.

Carol, hoping that JKR will debunk the Harry!Horcrux theories in the
Rumours section of her site in the very near future





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 22:16:43 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:16:43 -0000
Subject: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1
Message-ID: <eilnsb+8dk0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161027

In an interview with Mugglenet.com, JKR revealed the following:

MA: Here at the end you sort of get the feeling that we know what
Harry's setting out to do, but can this really be the entire
throughline of the rest of the story?
JKR: It's not all of it. Obviously it's not all of it, but still,
that is the way to kill Voldemort. That's not to say it won't be
extremely an torturous and winding journey, but that's what he's got
to do. Harry now knows ? well he believe he knows ? what he's
facing. Dumbledore's guesses are never very far wide of the mark. I
don't want to give too much away here, but Dumbledore says, `There
are four out there, you've got to get rid of four, and then you go
for Voldemort.' So that's where he is, and that's what he's got to
do.
ES: It's a tall order.
JKR: It's a huge order. But Dumbledore has given him some pretty
valuable clues and Harry, also, in the course of previous six books
has amassed more knowledge than he realizes. That's all I am going
to say.

After reading this article, I decided to go back through the
different novels to search for information both explicitly stated
and implied information about Lord Voldemort. What does Harry "know" 
about Lord Voldemort and how might it come in handy in the future? I 
thought that I would list the information on this site to see what 
people think. Over the next few weeks, I will list this information 
and some questions and conjectures of my own in six different threads 
(titled to correspond to the relevant texts). If you are interested in
this info, let me know by replying to the thread and I will continue
as long as there is some interest. If you have anything to add to
the information I have compiled, please feel free to reply to the
thread.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (all information is from the
U.S. edition ? page numbers are listed in the parenthesis)

1. Dumbledore is the only wizard LV was / is afraid of (11)
2. Voldemort murdered Lily & James Potter in Godric's Hollow on
Halloween, but could not kill their son, Harry. (12)
3. Some of L.V.'s followers were afraid of him, some wanted a
bit of his power. (54)
4. The curse that failed to kill Harry destroyed his house and
left the scar on his forehead. (55)
5. No one ever lived after LV decided to kill them (55)
6. LV killed the McKinnons, Prewetts, and the Bones (56)
7. Question: Does LV have a Gringott's vault?
8. Voldemort's wand is 13 1/2 ", Yew and phoenix feather (83)
9. Harry's wand is an "unusual" combination of holly and
phoenix feather (the phoenix feather is from the same phoenix that
supplied the feather for LV's wand (84)
10. Dumbledore defeated the dark wizard, Grindelwald in 1945
(102-3) is he dead? Is there a connection between LV?
11. LV drinks unicorn blood and because of this will have
a "half life, a cursed live from the moment it touches his lips (258)
12. LV doesn't believe in good and evil "just power and those
too weak to seek it" (291)
13. LV is a liar (claims Lily and James died begging for mercy)
(294)
14. LV is not truly alive and therefore cannot be killed (298)
(repeated in HBP)
15. LV cannot understand love (299)
16. To be loved deeply will mark Harry forever (299)
17. Refusing to use LV's name increased the fear of him in the 
wizarding community (298)

That's all for now. I will tackle CoS soon. Let me know what you
think.

Beatrice.
 







From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sun Nov  5 22:27:30 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 16:27:30 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry not a Horcrux
References: <eiln2o+ov47@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01fb01c70129$94b58740$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161028




   "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> wrote:
  >
  > All this talk of Harry being a Horcrux is strange to me.. I thought 
  a Horcrux was created with intent?? Am I wrong in this thought. Can 
  a Horcrux be created without the person knowing his soul is being 
  transferred? <SNIP>

  Beatrice wrote:

  We know very little about the magic used to create a horcrux. I 
  suspect that it is an immensely complicated process. I have two 
  theories about how this *may* have occurred.

  1. Perhaps, there are spells that need to be performed prior to the 
  murderous act in order to prepare the soul for the eventual split and 
  encasement. In this scenerio, Voldemort performed the preparation 
  spells prior to arriving in Godric's Hollow, he may even have brought 
  the object that he intended his final horcrux to inhabit with him. or 
  imagine this sequence of events: LV arrives murders James and murders 
  Lily. Now there is no reason to rush Harry is only a helpless infant 
  after all. He performs the preparation spell. (perhaps signified by 
  the high cold laugh Harry remembers in PoA). He attempts to murder 
  Harry, but the spell goes horribly wrong. As the AK spell rebounds 
  from Harry, it rips Voldemort from his body and completes the rip in 
  voldemorts soul, creating two pieces. One piece is LV's consciousness 
  which eventually flees to Albania and the other the horcrux piece is 
  wrenched into Harry's scar by the the force of the rebounding AK.

  2. The second scenerio is pretty much the same except that LV does 
  not perform a prepatory spell, as the horcrux spell only requires a 
  spell after the murder is completed. In this scenerio, LV soul is 
  rent in two due to a combination of the previous self-inflicted soul 
  damage and the failed AK. The soul is already fragmentary and simply 
  seeks a receptacle, perhaps driven by the imprint or memory of the 
  previous 5 horcruxes and their production. It is either pulled into 
  Harry by the recoil from the failed AK or seeks out a "host" or object 
  and Harry is the closest object.

  Anyway, it is my theory (although, I am hardly the only one to have 
  it). I am not trying to convert you, just trying to explain my ideas.
  >

  Lana:

  That makes alot of sense to me.  It may well have "infested" Harry in the way The other "infested" Quirrel.   Very well said and I am now very glad I asked.. LOL

    thanks  Lana

   

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




From bawilson at citynet.net  Sun Nov  5 22:30:04 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:30:04 -0500
Subject: Harry won't turn to adults (Was: Umbridge as tyrant, etc)
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAnsBl91R8FkqVdnyvcVKR4wEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161029

Alas, one of the lessons Harry learned from living with the Dursleys was that
adults, in general, cannot be trusted.

BAW


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





From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Sun Nov  5 23:36:14 2006
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 23:36:14 -0000
Subject: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1
In-Reply-To: <eilnsb+8dk0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eilshe+3qkl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161030

> Beatrice wrote:
> 4. The curse that failed to kill Harry destroyed his house and
> left the scar on his forehead. (55)

Goddlefrood:

So says Hagrid, but it has not really been explained how the house 
was destroyed. There is a great deal of speculation regarding this in 
innumerable posts on this list.

Whatever did destroy the house seems also to have broken the secret 
kept by Peter Pettigrew and a reasonable conclusion, although one 
that is unsupported in canon, is that PP was responsible for the 
lifting of the protection. My own view is that PP somehow lifted the 
protection on Godric's Hollow prior to LV's arrival there thus 
opening the way for LV and the many others who subsequently vistied 
the site (swarms of Muggles, Hagrid etc.)

> Beatrice again:
> 5. No one ever lived after LV decided to kill them (55)

Goddlefrood:

This is another one of Hagrid's and not yet contradicted in canon. I 
have a strong suspicion that Snape may turn out to be one exception 
and there are possibly others.

> Beatrice:
> 14. LV is not truly alive and therefore cannot be killed (298)
> (repeated in HBP)

Goddlefrood:

This is certainly said but by the end of HBP has been somewhat 
contradicted in that if LV's Horcruxes are destroyed he himself would 
be mortal and capable of being killed. If he truly can not be killed 
then it would open up a huge question over what would actually happen 
to him. Could he be neutralised in any other way than by being 
killed? - something to contemplate and discuss further.

That's all the comments that spring to mind for the moment, will keep 
an eye for the CoS breakdown.

Goddlefrood





From bamf505 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 01:35:28 2006
From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 17:35:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Umbridge
In-Reply-To: <000701c7011c$73097460$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <20061106013528.21151.qmail@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161031

> Rashi says:
> Anyway, what I find odd is..its not written which
> type of witch she is 
> (unless I'm otherwise mistaken). I think that
> everyone assumes that 
> she is indeed Slytherin, but, is she? 
> 
> Nicole thinks:
> Rashi, great topic, haven't seen it yet. 
> I think its easy to quickly go to Slytherin because
> she seems so evil. But until the "Inquisitor Squad"
> came about, she never really favored towards anyone.
> I would aim towards Ravenclaw. She is quick, but not
> brave, or wanting power, or loyal. So I lean away
> from the other houses. 
> There are a lot of Ministry people I wonder about.
> Fudge, Crouch Jr & Sr, Shacklebolt (love him, voting
> for him to be new DADA teacher), and of course Moody
> & Tonks. 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> Marion :
> I'd say she's Hufflepuff. She's extremely loyal
> towards Fudge. 
<snip>


bamf here:

While the other two make good arguments, I guess the
one thing that always stood out to me about Umbridge
was her desire for power.  IMHO, she did things in
part as loyalty to Fudge, but also because she knew
Fudge would notice and reward her.  After all, she
went from teacher to headmistress once DD was removed.
I would probably have sorted her into Slytherian
because she does seem ambitious, with a
do-anything-to-get-it sort of attitude.  Add to the
fact that while she's not predjudice against Muggle
born, she had a thing against "non-humans".  

bamf

There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast.

*****

Me t wyrd gewf


 
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. 
(http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) 




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  6 01:49:55 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 01:49:55 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eillsk+h7rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eim4c3+23pv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161032

Carol, earlier:
> > > As for "slimy," which you use to characterize Snape, Merriam-
Webster
online gives us:

Main Entry: slimy
Pronunciation: 'slI-mE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): slim?i?er; -est
1 : of, relating to, or resembling slime : VISCOUS; also : covered
with or yielding slime
2 : VILE, OFFENSIVE

and "slime" itself (since what we have here is an incomplete 
definition):

Main Entry: 1slime
Pronunciation: 'slIm
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English slIm; akin to Middle High
German slIm slime, Latin limus mud -- more at LIME
1 : soft moist earth or clay; especially : viscous mud
2 : a viscous, glutinous, or gelatinous substance: as a : a mucous or
mucoid secretion of various animals (as slugs and catfishes) b : a
product of wet crushing consisting of ore ground so fine as to pass a
200-mesh screen
3 : a repulsive or odious person

Pippin:
> > 
> > An unattractive substance with protective, even healing 
properties?

Carol again.:
> What healing properties can you find in slime, whether it's the 
slimy
> trail that snails and slugs (nasty creatures that destroy plants)
> create for themselves or pond scum? Can you think of a single 
positive
> connotation for slime or slimy? I quoted you the dictionary
> definitions and the synonyms, ever one of them revolting and 
derogatory.

Ceridwen:
I just had to jump in here.  The vilest substance of a healing nature 
that I know of is aloe vera straight from the leaf.  The stuff has 
the look of egg-white, and is so sticky, gooey and slimey that it is 
nearly as much torture to use it as it is to have a horrible 
sunburn.  I know this for a fact, due to a horrible sunburn, in case 
you couldn't guess.  *g*  So, I would say that aloe vera straight 
from the leaf is "an unattractive substance with protective, even 
healing properties".

Saying someone is slimey is more likely not a direct reference to 
slime, but to something unpleasant.  Sirius could well see Snape as 
someone unattractive, but possibly (at least according to Dumbledore) 
with some good qualities.  Lupin certainly benefits from Snape's 
talents during PoA.

Ceridwen.





From annbosco at rogers.com  Mon Nov  6 00:12:09 2006
From: annbosco at rogers.com (poetryfreedom)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 00:12:09 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
Message-ID: <eilukp+ndng@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161033

What do you think...did Snape love Lily Potter? hence sharing potions secrets, hence Lily
being so good at potions (in Half-Blood Prince). And maybe that has made him hate Harry's
dad even more...

Did Dumbledore drink the Draught of Living Death? mentioned in book one and in book 6

Is RAB Regulus Black? (Sirius' brother)

Hmm...

poetryfreedom






From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Nov  6 02:36:03 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 02:36:03 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <eii7ab+fp9f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eim72j+uke1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161034

> > > Eddie:
> > > I can't say for sure how it happened, but the secret
> > > has been broken. We can infer that because a number of
> > > people other than Peter Pettigrew have told Harry that
> > > his parents were hiding at Godrick's Hollow, something
> > > they would not have been able to do if the secret
> > > was still intact.
> 
> Cindi:
> First post here, and I'm new, so this might have been gone
> over many times before (sorry in advance).  It seems to me that it
> should be reasonably easy for Harry to find his parents' house.
> Didn't Hagrid and Sirius meet there when Lily and James were
> killed?  Else how would Hagrid have gotten Harry?

Eddie:
Hagrid and Sirius may have already been told the secret by Peter.

The problem here, I think, is that we don't really know the details of
the secret.  Is it, "James and Lily are hiding in Godric's Hollow?" or
is it, "James and Lily _AND HARRY_ are hiding in Godric's Hollow?" or
is it, "J & L & H are hiding at number 1234 Main Street in Godric's
Hollow?" or is it, "The child of the prophecy is in the upper bedroom
at 1234 Main Street in Godric's Hollow?" or any number of other
combinations.

Depending on which version of the secret one chooses, the inferences
following can all change.

Also, we don't know who was told the secret: Dumbledore?  Hagrid?
Sirius?  Sirius went to the house when he realized something was wrong
with Peter.  But does that mean he was ABLE to know the secret
location BECAUSE the secret had ALREADY been broken, or because he was
already privy beforehand?  Similarly for Hagrid who went to the house.
How did Hagrid know to go?  Was it Dumbledore who told him?  How did
Dumbledore know?  What the secret already broken or did he already
know beforehand?

There's just too many variables for anybody to be certain of who knew
what when.

HOWEVER, there are far too many people who know NOW that James and
Lily were hiding from Voldemort at Godric's Hollow for me to believe
that the secret is intact.  Even more, people are telling each other
about it.  Madame Rosmerta is told by Fudge and MacGonagall.  Hagrid
and Dumbledore and Sirius and Lupin discuss it openly with Harry and
Ron and Hermione.  It just doesn't make sense to me that the secret is
still intact.

Like I said, Cindi, I agree with you.  I'm just taking this
opportunity to answer all the other posts on the subject.

Eddie






From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Nov  6 03:01:47 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:01:47 -0000
Subject: Message in the Locket
In-Reply-To: <eiisoc+b07m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eim8ir+sums@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161035

> > >>Owen:
> > Whoever R.A.B. is or was...I think we can set it aside for a
> > meantime...what is important is he FOUND the Horcrux and DESTROYED
> > it... we can only guess who it is though the probability it is Regulus
> > Black is I think 40% i guess... we can only speculate :)
> >
> 
> Did I not pick up that R.A.B. had destroyed the Horcrux?  I got the
impression that he hid it.
> 
> Janette Gomez

Eddie:
I think it is clear from the note that R.A.B. _INTENDED TO DESTROY_
the horcrux, but we don't know for sure that he succeeded.  R.A.B says
in the note "I intend to destroy it".  See
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/rg-hbp28.html for the full
text of the note.

Eddie






From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Mon Nov  6 03:01:33 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:01:33 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
References: <eim72j+uke1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <037101c7014f$ddf9d390$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161036




  > Cindi:
  > First post here, and I'm new, so this might have been gone
  > over many times before (sorry in advance). It seems to me that it
  > should be reasonably easy for Harry to find his parents' house.
  > Didn't Hagrid and Sirius meet there when Lily and James were
  > killed? Else how would Hagrid have gotten Harry?

  Lana writes:

  Just speculation here...  Taking the fact that only the secret keeper could "physically" tell someone where it was, does not mean that nobody else knew.  It just means they could not tell.  Probably a spell making it so that it wouldn't come out of their mouth.

  Example.. the note was given to Harry telling him what he needed to know in order for him to "find" the Black house..  All the members of the OOP knew where it was because they had been told by the secret keeper.  They could not "physically" tell Harry because they were not the keeper. Hence needing hte note from the secret keeper.

  Now, Harry would/should be able to find his parents house because he was already there.  It was his home too.  Even though he was a baby, he still was a part of it.  He was being protected just as much as Lily and James.  So, once he gets there he wouldn't/shouldn't have a problem finding it.

  This is of course just my thoughts...

  Lana



   

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




From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Nov  6 03:31:15 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:31:15 -0000
Subject: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1
In-Reply-To: <eilnsb+8dk0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eimaa3+lk8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161037

> Beatrice
> JKR: Harry, also, in the course of previous six books
> has amassed more knowledge than he realizes.
> 
> After reading this article, I decided to go back through the
> different novels to search for information both explicitly stated
> and implied information about Lord Voldemort. What does Harry "know" 
> about Lord Voldemort

Eddie:
Beatrice, you've done an amazing amount of valuable work.  Not to rain
on your parade, but I don't think JKRowling was limiting herself to
knowledge that Harry had amassed _ABOUT VOLDEMORT_.  He has other
knowledge too that may come in handy.  For example, knowledge about
Phoenix' tears (which we saw that Voldemort at 16 (in CoS) had
forgotten).  For example, knowledge that the the Department of
Mysteries in the Ministry of Magic has a room re: Love.  In fact, all
knowledge in the first 6 books is potentially helpful.  Even the
knowledge that Nifflers are good at finding shiny objects may be
useful (like when searching for lockets, cups, rings, etc?)

Eddie






From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Nov  6 03:38:00 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:38:00 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <eilukp+ndng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eimamo+299f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161038

> poetryfreedom:
> What do you think...did Snape love Lily Potter? hence sharing
potions secrets, hence Lily
> being so good at potions (in Half-Blood Prince). And maybe that has
made him hate Harry's
> dad even more...
> 
> Did Dumbledore drink the Draught of Living Death? mentioned in book
one and in book 6
> 
> Is RAB Regulus Black? (Sirius' brother)

Eddie:

Yes -- search the archives for LOLLIPOPS

Maybe -- that's as good of a guess as any.

Absolutely -- check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulus_Black#The_Argument_that_Regulus_Black_is_R.A.B.

Eddie






From hnjce at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 03:45:35 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:45:35 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <eilukp+ndng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eimb4v+9l22@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161039

poetryfreedom:
> What do you think...did Snape love Lily Potter? hence sharing
> potions secrets, hence Lily being so good at potions (in Half-Blood
> Prince). And maybe that has made him hate Harry's dad even more...

> Is RAB Regulus Black? (Sirius' brother)


I have thought of that but Snape does have a hatred for muggle
borns. So, following the theory that he loved Lily - did he hate
James because Lily loved him or did he hate James because he could
allow himself to love Lily without the restraints of prejudice?
Regulus Black - I didn't think of him while I drove myself crazy
wondering about those initials.

NJ








From tthinc at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 04:30:02 2006
From: tthinc at yahoo.com (tthinc)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 04:30:02 -0000
Subject: My guess about book 7
Message-ID: <eimdoa+dd04@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161040

**Forgive me JKR if I am right**

The locket Harry and DD went after was retrieved previously by
Sirius's brother Regulus Black.  This locket was later found by
Harry and Ron whilst cleaning out #12 Grimwald place.  My guess is
that this locket was later stolen by Mundungus and sold on the black
market.

Dumbledore once stated "To a well organized mind, Death is the next
step".  I am not sure whether or not that DD will return in book 7 but
that is left open.

I am sure that Harry will be talked into going back to Hogwarts for
Year 7 as I would like to think that DumbleDore left a vast amount of
thoughts in a pensive for Harry.

I also believe that Luna will get together with Neville, Ron and
Hermione will hitch up after the wedding and at the end of the book,
Harry and Ginny will announce.

I think the Dursleys are in more danger now that Harry is about to
turn 17.  They may even evacuate to the burrow or #12.

Neville's parents may come back to help rid the country of the death eaters.

And for my final speculation, I think the final battle will have
something to do with Harry on a Broom.  Perhaps Quiditch with the locket.

>From what I hear...she has 700 pages written.

I have read a single word of any of the books.  Rather, I choose the
unabridged audio books as I have little time to sit down a read.

So that is my thoughts about book 7.

**Message to JKR**  Books that we would like to see:
  Hogwarts - A History
  A History of Magic Vol 1 - 7
  The Life & Times of Albus Dumbledore
  The Founders Four - The Story of the four houses.

Cheers

tthinc








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 04:59:17 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 04:59:17 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <eimb4v+9l22@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eimff5+e3r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161041

> poetryfreedom:
> > What do you think...did Snape love Lily Potter? hence sharing
> > potions secrets, hence Lily being so good at potions (in Half-Blood
> > Prince). And maybe that has made him hate Harry's dad even more...


NJ:
> I have thought of that but Snape does have a hatred for muggle
> borns. So, following the theory that he loved Lily - did he hate
> James because Lily loved him or did he hate James because he could
> allow himself to love Lily without the restraints of prejudice?
> Regulus Black - I didn't think of him while I drove myself crazy
> wondering about those initials.

Alla:

Oooooo, I *love** it, in fact I love it a lot. I mean, of course it is 
not very flattering for dear Severus, but hey, I am always happy to go 
for these theories.

We know he calls Lily "mudblood", so we have pretty good indication of 
at least his views when he was younger.

So, if Snape yearns to be a part of purebloodism and here he sees that 
rich pureblood kid, who dares to love and seek attention of muggleborn 
and all constraints be damned, then I can totally see Snape, who does 
not like James as it (the war between them, etc), hating James who 
could care less as to whether Lily is a muggle born or not, while 
Snape may refrain from openly pursuing her because of his prejudices.

Very nice speculation and I think that "you and your filfy father" at 
the end of HBP may sorta kinda provide the support in this direction.

The word filfy is at least on two occasions accompanies the 
word "mudblood".

Sooooo, does Snape associate James with Muggleborns? Does he think 
that James betrayed purebloods or something by falling for Muggleborn 
girl and being brave enough to pursue her?

Splendid speculation and if Snape indeed had feelings for Lily but 
sacrificed them towards deciding that he cannot fight for Muggleborn - 
thus being a coward, that can explain also why he is so angry when 
Harry calls him a coward.

Maybe that was a cowardice action in his youth that Snape  still 
regrets about?

Hmmmm. Isn't speculation fun?

Alla






From ivaldoo at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 05:09:22 2006
From: ivaldoo at yahoo.com (Abdul Halim Ariffin)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:09:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Live again, Dumbledore!
In-Reply-To: <eil2ki+r6u7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061106050923.55166.qmail@web30911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161042

husenatif:
> I'm really upset after reading the 6th book of HP, why should 
> someone like Dumbledore can be trapped and killed by a villain
> conspiracy, comprising snape & malfoys. What's happen to the 
> hogwarth next? and who's gonna give advice to HP? What's in your
> mind Rowling? I hope dumbledore just missing, masking or
> something, so he still alive and exist again in the 7th book. But
> anyway, I will wait the next book, and please no more killing the
> good guys, just the bad, specially Voldemort and the gank.

ivaldoo:
I don't believe that Dumbledore is dead. It must be a ploy between Snape and Dumbledore to get closer to Voldemort places. Since the earlier chapter where Snape promise to Malfoy's mother & aunt, it is hard to believe that Snape could be easily swayed like that. Then, the moment where Snape "killed" Dumbledore, it is weird on how killing is done. It is actually Snape who sacrifced himself to become the "bad-betrayed person" in order to get closer to Voldemort, and ironically it is heroic.

ivaldoo



         





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 05:42:38 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 05:42:38 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
Message-ID: <eimi0e+912c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161043

"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 
p.310, US)

It occured to me while reading the Chapter Discussion about 
Horcruxes that we may have enough information to make a diffinitive 
conclusion regarding the Diary Horcrux. Much of the evidence comes 
in CoS, the conversation between Revenant Tom and Harry. But let's 
start in PoA.

Our dear Remus informs us that if a Dementor *kisses* you to remove 
your soul, "you'll have no sense of self anymore, no memory, no... 
anything", leaving you an empty shell. This certainly speaks to the 
conclusion that in the Potterverse your memories must reside in your 
soul. The soul that is Vapormort retains all his knowledge of magic, 
all his memories. With no contradicting evidence and only affirming 
evidence, this must be the case.

Take this information back to CoS. Harry's encounter with Diary Soul 
Piece (DSP) is first through disappearing-written conversation that 
transitions to a *Pensieve* memory viewing. Note how Harry falls 
into the scene the same way one falls into a Pensieve scene and how 
Harry's first encounter with DD's Pensieve in GoF reminds him of 
this encounter with DSP. True to the way a Pensieve performs, Harry 
is unseen and unheard but observes everything that happens as if he 
is really there. These two pieces of magic, the Pensieve ability and 
the disappearing written conversation feature, are two things that 
Tom magically loads into the diary.

Let's move on to what the Diary!Tom knew. Off stage, Ginny tells the 
DSP all she knows about the great Harry Potter from her pov. Fast 
forward to the conversation between Harry and DSP as Revenant!Tom. 
Careful reading of that conversation reveals that Revenant!Tom knows 
only what his 16-year-old self knows combined with the knowledge he 
has received from Ginny. As an example: Why Harry survived 
Voldemort's attack is knowledge that Tom wants but couldn't get from 
Ginny. Please note also that this Tom already knows that Salazar 
Slytherin's blood runs in his veins and that his father was 
a "filthy Muggle".

But also note that Revenant!Tom has knowledge and memories of his 
own; Tom Marvolo Riddle anagrams into Lord Voldemort, Dumbledore's 
response to Tom's opening the Chamber re Hagrid, not trusting Tom, 
keeping an annoyingly close watch on him, Lily's *Love-Charm-
Protection* as a powerful counter-charm, etc. The memory that Harry 
visited Pensieve-style is only one of these memories. 

Put this all together. Diary Soul Piece is the repository of the 
memories and the memories stop at what 16-year-old Tom knew 
(augmented by what he learned from Ginny and subsequently Harry).  
Plus the DSP has cognitive abilities so he can converse 
intelligently, first through diary writing then as an almost fully 
formed revenant human. The diary has the Pensieve ability and 
writing ability to allow the primary contact to proceed towards the 
ultimate goal of possesion and regeneration into revenant form.

Tom "decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old 
self in its pages," and his method of preserving his *self* was via 
a soul piece, a Horcrux. 

I am assuming that Tom spent his Holidays at Hogwarts, just like 
Harry did. In fact, since the memory Harry visited showed Tom 
attempting to remain over the summer at Hogwarts, this seems the 
most logical conclusion. The diary was Muggle made for the year 
1943. Tom must have bought (or stole) it during the summer of '43, 
just after his fifth year but most likely before he visited his 
ancestoral hovel. He would never have found a '43 diary later and he 
couldn't preserve his 16-year-old self after 1943. 

So, Tom acquired the Diary with the express intent of making it a 
Horcrux and made that Horcrux while he was still 16. He also 
murdered his father and grandparents when he was 16 and framed his 
uncle for those murders. Logic tells me that he brought the diary 
with him and performed the Horcrux encasing spell when he does the 
killing, at his father's house.

It is my opinion that removing a torn soul piece to it's encasement 
must be done in close proximity to the murder that is performed for 
that purpose. Envision a Lord Voldemort having murdered enough times 
to create an "army" of Inferi, not to mention murders that didn't 
become Inferi. If he could remove those torn soul pieces at any 
time, he would be taking a big risk of removing too much soul by the 
time he gets to his Godric Hollow attempt. Furthermore, it would 
render Dumbledore's opinion that Voldemort reserves his Horcrux 
making for "significant" murders as nonsensical. If you can remove a 
torn soul piece at any time because it stays seperate from the main 
soul, how does one "reserve" making a Horcrux? No, IMO a torn soul 
piece remains attached to the main soul and eventually reforms to it 
unless it is completely seperated and removed upon it's tearing.

Therefore, before he starts his sixth year at Hogwarts, Tom has 
created his first Horcrux. This sheds new light on the Slughorn 
memory. It now appears that Tom really did know how to create a 
Horcrux before that conversation, and all he really wanted is what 
Dumbledore said he was really after. Tom wanted Slughorn's opinion 
on *multiple* Horcruxes.

OK, Carol, Steve, Snow, et al, what did I miss?

Mike





From ivaldoo at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 05:14:14 2006
From: ivaldoo at yahoo.com (Abdul Halim Ariffin)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 21:14:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Umbridge
In-Reply-To: <eila07+3403@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061106051415.57123.qmail@web30911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161044

Rashi:
> Well, seems like Delores has become more and more popular. Since the
> next film is coming out next summer, people are becoming more and 
> more intrigued with this witch. 

> Anyway, what I find odd is..its not written which type of witch she
> is(unless I'm otherwise mistaken). I think that everyone assumes
> that she is indeed Slytherin, but, is she? 

ivaldoo:
I am not satisfied on how Delores was settled at the end of OOP book after all the wicked torment that she did to the students. Perhaps she will be tortured and taunted physically & mentally in the movie.

(ADMIN reminder--any further movie discussion needs to move to HPFGU-Movie at this link: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/ )
         




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov  6 07:39:22 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 07:39:22 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <019c01c7011f$68381bb0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <eimora+m27v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161045

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

> All this talk of Harry being a Horcrux is strange to me..  I thought a Horcrux was created 
with intent??  Am I wrong in this thought.  Can a Horcrux be created without the person 
knowing his soul is being transferred?  I was under the impression that LV had to create it 
on purpose.  I do not believe that LV intentionally would have made the scar or Harry 
himself a horcrux.  He was never in possession of Harry after the fact, so..  for all 
purposes in my eyes, it is not even possible that Harry or any part of him is a Horcrux.  LV 
would not have had the power to do it after the attack as he was powerless at that time.

Does this make sense?

Geoff:
I have always maintained that I do not believe that Harry is a Horcrux 
and here reiterate some of my thinking on the subject.

We are told by Slughorn that a Horcrux is created, "by an act of evil ? the
supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul
apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage
to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion" (HBP "Horcruxes"
p.465 UK edition)

Now, considering Harry as a possible Horcrux, it has been suggested
that it could have happened at Godric's Hollow. Passing beyond this
for a moment. I think on the other occasions when Voldemort and Harry
were close together, the conditions for creating a Horcrux did not
obtain. At the end of Philosopher's Stone, the question has been
raised as to whether Quirrell died because of Harry's attack or
Voldemort's withdrawal from his possession. Whatever the cause,
Voldemort was in disembodied form and was not able to wield a wand.
One the next occasion when they met directly at the end of Goblet of
Fire, it was Peter Pettigrew who actually murdered Cedric; at that
point in time, Voldemort was again in no state to use a wand. Later
in the face off, he was more intent on killing Harry than doing
anything else to him. And in the last encounter at the Ministry of
Magic, Voldemort did not murder anyone, although he tried to hit
Harry with an Avada Kedavra.

Dumbledore comments on Voldemort's progress in HBP:
"However, if my calculations are correct, Voldemort was still at
least one Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your
parents' house with the intention of killing you. He seems to have
reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant
deaths. You would certainly have been that. He believed that in
killing you, he was destroying the danger the prophecy had outlined.
He believed he was making himself invincible. I am sure he was
intending to make his final Horcrux with your death." (HBP "Horcruxes"
p.473 UK edition)

So, if there had been a chance to make Harry into a Horcrux, it would
have had to be at Godric's Hollow. But it would seem that Voldemort
was obsessed in destroying the person he saw as his most dangerous
opponent. I agree that on this occasion he did commit murder twice
but I believe that his intentions were then directed to killing Harry
and that he did not give any thought to making him a Horcux. As this
point, those he had created were all encased in "objects" and the
thought that he could create a living fragment case may not have
occurred to him.

I cannot subscribe to the idea that a Horcrux could be created
accidentally. This is not mixing the wrong ingredients for a potion
and creating something new and unexpected. The spells for a Horcrux
must be very specific and powerful. I do not think that in the sudden
turmoil of the backfire and personal disembodiment which would have
been disorientating, to say the least, that Voldemort would have been
able to do anything further in the way of casting spells and I see
Lily's protection ? whatever form it did take ? saving his life and
nothing else.








From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  6 09:44:31 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:44:31 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eilo3f+svvg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ein05v+lc40@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161046

> Carol responds:
> I agree completely. I don't believe that it's possible to create an
> accidental Horcrux because a spell is needed to encase the soul 
bit...

Dungrollin:

I've just had an idea about this perennial question of how to 
accidentally make a Horcrux (and sorry to all you who are sick of it). 
And I'm posting it immediately, which means either it's been done a 
million times over, or there's something seriously wrong with it - I'm 
sure that either or both will be brought to my attention, <g>.

How about, the reason that Voldy gave Lily a chance to get out of the 
way ("Stand aside, you silly girl!"), was that he didn't know she was 
going to be there (perhaps he *had* promised her to Wormtail, or 
something gross like that), and, thinking the house was empty, he 
completed the Horcrux-preparation spell just after killing James. He 
goes to the room where baby!Harry is, and is surprised to find Lily 
there. He doesn't want to kill her, because then the next Horcrux 
would be made with *her* death rather than Harry's, which was supposed 
to be the grand finale to his 7-Horsecrutch plan.

After much declaiming, and giving her chance after chance to move, he 
finally realises that Lily's *not* going to get out of the way, so he 
banishes Nagini (or the object he was going to make into a Hogtruck, 
and kills the unarmed Lily anyway, hoping that without the intended 
object around, attracting the soul-piece, the Horse-box won't get 
made. 

Unfortunately, one of the bits of preparation magic is something along 
the lines of making the encasing object 'sticky' like a living body, 
so that the soul-piece will be glued there. Some property of a living 
human body which keeps its soul stuck to it has to be given to the 
potential horcrux object if it is to retain the piece of soul 
securely. If the object were Nagini, the spell would still be 
necessary, because I doubt that JKR believes that animals have souls. 
This makes more sense of the blood-like spurting ink imagery when 
Harry stabs the basilisk fang through the diary in CoS.

Making Horlicks is such an unusual event in the WW that Voldemort can 
be forgiven for not correctly judging the consequences (this is 
seriously dark magic, and can't be stopped with a simple 'finite 
incantatem'), which are that the piece of soul ripped off during the 
killing of Lily is attracted to the nearest 'sticky' object, which is 
Harry, because he has a soul which is attached to his physical form by 
this 'stickiness'. 

Voldemort may not have been aware at this time that he'd created a 
Horcrux (DD reckons he's not aware when they're destroyed) - perhaps 
he summoned Nagini back, checked she was not carrying a piece of his 
soul, thought 'phew!', and proceeded with the plan to kill Harry, 
intending his death to provide the soul-piece to turn Nagini into a 
Horcrux. 

Dung
Not for a second thinking that (even if my reasoning is watertight) 
that it will change any minds, because if you don't like Horcrux!
Harry, you don't like it.





From snapes_witch at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 06:02:41 2006
From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 06:02:41 -0000
Subject: Live again, Dumbledore!
In-Reply-To: <eil2ki+r6u7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eimj61+vak8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161047

Alicia:
> I was really upset too, but then I remembered (just last night)
> that Dumbledore will live again! Well, in a way. If you remember,
> all the previous headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts have
> portraits in the headmaster/headmistress office! So no doubt
> Dumbledore will have one too! So maybe Harry will be able to talk
> to the portrait and get help that way! (My fingers are crossed!)
> :)

Snape's Witch:

Dumbledore's portrait has already appeared in the headmaster's
(headmistress's?) office but he appears to be sound asleep.  The poor dear does need his sleep, you know!


ivaldoo:
> I don't believe that Dumbledore is dead. It must be a ploy between
> Snape and Dumbledore to get closer to Voldemort places. Since the
> earlier chapter where Snape promise to Malfoy's mother & aunt, it
> is hard to believe that Snape could be easily swayed like that.
> Then, the moment where Snape "killed" Dumbledore, it is weird on
> how killing is done. It is actually Snape who sacrifced himself to
> become the "bad-betrayed person" in order to get closer to
> Voldemort, and ironically it is heroic.

Snape's Witch:

Like you, I believe Dumbledore and Snape had a plan to get Snape in
deeper with Voldie, they just were blindsided by the occurrence on
the Tower.

Unfortunately, DD is really, really dead.  If the portrait isn't
solid proof for you; JKR told us at the NYC reading in August that he was definitely dead and it was time for us to start working our way through the stages of grief -- especially denial.

Snape's Witch







From Coqui1219 at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  6 06:10:59 2006
From: Coqui1219 at hotmail.com (Janette Gomez)
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 22:10:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <eilukp+ndng@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY117-DAV98EC727F39212E5DDE9A4A5F30@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 161048

On 11/5/06 4:12 PM, "poetryfreedom" <annbosco at rogers.com> wrote:
> Is RAB Regulus Black? (Sirius' brother)

Regarding RAB. I remember reading on that RAB was translated and the
translation "B" was "Z" which is the first letter in the translation of Black.  I don't recall what language.  Also from the HP Lexicon "Many fans suspect that he might be the mysterious 'R.A.B.' who stole the locket Horcrux. His initials do match, as far as we can tell, and Jo acknowledged (TLC) that Regulus would be a 'fine guess' for RAB's identity."

Janette

Janette Teresa G?mez
jgomez8 at san.rr.com
Coqui1219 at hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/coqui1219_68/
http://www.myspace.com/coqui1219
http://coqui1219.blogspot.com/


Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.
~~~~Theodore Roosevelt





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Nov  6 09:02:36 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 02:02:36 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Live again, Dumbledore!
References: <eil2ki+r6u7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <016201c70182$4e38ccb0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161049

husenatif:

> I was really upset too, but then I remembered (just last night) that
> Dumbledore will live again! Well, in a way. If you remember, all the
> previous headmasters and headmistresses of Hogwarts have portraits in
> the headmaster/headmistress office! So no doubt Dumbledore will have
> one too! So maybe Harry will be able to talk to the portrait and get
> help that way! (My fingers are crossed!)  > :) 


Oh, not just in the Headmaster's office, but the other Headmasters had 
multiple portraits in several places, and were still able to move from 
portrait to portrait. So, I fully expect a "really famous" Wizard such as DD 
to show up in many an important place, including the Ministry of Magic.

Speaking of that, I often wondered if the reason he knew so much about all 
the student's lives were that he could visit himself on all those Chocolate 
Frog cards of himself.

Shelley






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Nov  6 08:47:14 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 01:47:14 -0700
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
References: <eiiabd+55qp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00f001c70180$282fa040$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161050

> zgirnius:
> I think the way around this is for Harry to travel to the village of
> Godric's Hollow, and ask about the house where the explosion happened
> 16 years ago. Once he is at the site, he will be able to see anything
> he needs to see about his parents, because he lived in that house. 


Harry lived at that house, so yes, he "magically" already knows where it is. 
At least, that is my understanding of how that spell works. All three of the 
Potters had to have been told by the Secret Keeper to have even entered the 
house the first time. I don't think he will need to ask "where" it is- he 
will already know.

Shelley





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Nov  6 08:56:51 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 01:56:51 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Live again, Dumbledore!
References: <eiil69+4vm4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <011701c70181$801de400$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161051

husenatif:

> I'm really upset after reading the 6th book of HP, why should someone
> like Dumbledore can be trapped and killed by a villain conspiracy,
> comprising snape & malfoys. What's happen to the hogwarth next? and
> who's gonna give advice to HP? What's in your mind Rowling? I hope
> dumbledore just missing, masking or something, so he still alive and
> exist again in the 7th book. But anyway, I will wait the next book, and
> please no more killing the good guys, just the bad, specially Voldemort
> and the gank. 


We have to remember that J.K. Rowling herself lost her mother before book 1 
was published. She said she was going to change the details about Harry's 
parent's death, but then decided not to after her mom died. She pulls 
emotion of losing a close love one into the stories because it happens in 
real live, and sooner or later, we all deal with it. Sooner or later, we all 
have to learn to heal, and then move on with the business of living.

I hear you about the emotion- most of me was in denial about DD's death, and 
I would be much happier spinning tales about how he cheated death and still 
lives, but Rowling killed that fantasy with this summer's appearance and 
interviews at Harry, Carry and Gawp. My only hope still comes from rereading 
the early books, with the insightful one liners that DD gives. In one, he 
says that he will never truly be gone from Hogwarts until none there are 
loyal to him. He may be gone, but his powers are still lingering and strong. 
He will still give help to Harry in the end, I have no doubt of that.

Shelley





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 13:16:15 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:16:15 -0000
Subject: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1
In-Reply-To: <eimaa3+lk8m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einciv+3i1s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161052

>
> Eddie:
> Beatrice, you've done an amazing amount of valuable work.  Not to
rain
> on your parade, but I don't think JKRowling was limiting herself to
> knowledge that Harry had amassed _ABOUT VOLDEMORT_.  He has other
> knowledge too that may come in handy.  For example, knowledge about
> Phoenix' tears (which we saw that Voldemort at 16 (in CoS) had
> forgotten).  <SNIP>

Eddie,
A fair point!  Much of this knowlege will come in handy in the tasks
to come.  But I think that Harry's knowlege of LV will be key in his
quest, after all one of the most important parts of this quest will be
figuring out where to look (see HBP).  The angle I am trying to
explore is what has Harry learned about LV that might take him and us
to the various locations of the horcruxes.  I think the importance of
your observations will be how Harry overcomes the obstacles LV has put
in place to protect them.

For example, Dumbledore deduces that LV uses the cave where as a child
Tom Riddle tortured two muggle children.  An event that Dumbledore
sees as pivital, because it made Voldemort feel special and powerful.
What else has given Volde that warm, fuzzy feeling of power and
exceptionality?  Is there any association with geographic location?
Or can we tie these events in to possible geographic location? E.G.
One of the things I have been thinking about in terms of S.S./P.S. is
how Harry felt when he first went to Diagon Alley.  We know that
Voldemort/Riddlemort went there also before entering Hogwarts, we also
know that he went there alone.  What made Harry feel special on that
trip?  Might an 11 year-old Voldemort have felt similarly?  For me, I
think about Harry's trip into the Gringott's vaults.  What is not to
like?  It is like a thrilling rollercoaster ride and Harry and Riddle
as neglected orphans are hardly likely to have experienced such a
thrill before.  And then for Riddle there is the added bonus of being
surrounded by or at least tantalized by the suggestion of opulence and
wealth.  Would Riddle associate Gringott's with his goals of power and
domination?  Aren't wealth and power usually closely linked in most
cultures?  Might Riddlemort covet his own vault protected with the
most stringent of security measures? And here is where your angle
comes in: Might Harry use Bill Weasley to help him gain access to such
a vault to check it out?  Might it be protected by a dragon? (see
S.S./P.S. "Diagon Alley" Chapter)  Harry has already defeated a
dragon, will he have to face another in his quest?

Anyway, I am sorry for the long winded explanation, but I am just
trying to clarify the impetus behind my thread.

Cheers,
Beatrice










From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 13:22:30 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 13:22:30 -0000
Subject: Live again, Dumbledore!
In-Reply-To: <20061106050923.55166.qmail@web30911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eincum+5v79@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161053


> ivaldoo:
> I don't believe that Dumbledore is dead. It must be a ploy between 
Snape and Dumbledore to get closer to Voldemort places. SNIP>

Beatrice:

I hoped this as well, but JKR stated quite emphatically in her recent 
NYC appearace with John Irving and Stephen King that Dumbledore is 
indeed dead.  Alas, another lovely idea dashed by the author.  

>







From tenorone2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 08:05:10 2006
From: tenorone2000 at yahoo.com (Rashi)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 08:05:10 -0000
Subject: On Umbridge
In-Reply-To: <045801c70118$d94cf250$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle>
Message-ID: <eimqbm+q68v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161054

> Rashi says:
> Anyway, what I find odd is..its not written which type of witch
she is
> (unless I'm otherwise mistaken). I think that everyone assumes
that
> she is indeed Slytherin, but, is she?

> Nicole thinks:
> Rashi, great topic, haven't seen it yet.
> I think its easy to quickly go to Slytherin because she seems so
evil.  But until the "Inquisitor Squad" came about, she never really
favored towards anyone.  I would aim towards Ravenclaw.  She is
quick, but not brave, or wanting power, or loyal.  So I lean away
from the other houses.
> There are a lot of Ministry people I wonder about.  Fudge, Crouch
Jr & Sr, Shacklebolt (love him, voting for him to be new DADA
teacher), and of course Moody & Tonks.
> Any thoughts?
>



Hi Nicole and Everyone else who joined in this thread:

I'm begining to agree with those who feel that Delores Umbridge is
indeed a Huffelpuff due to her unwaivering devotion to the Ministry.
I don't think she is Ravenclaw because that house was reserved not
only for the geniuses of the Wizard world, but also those who were
more independent. Delores depends upon and respects her superior's
wishes and chain of command, yet also steps on those who she feels
is beneath her.

All the best!

Rashi






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 15:26:02 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 15:26:02 -0000
Subject: On Umbridge
In-Reply-To: <20061106013528.21151.qmail@web31507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eink6a+lgld@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161055

bamf wrote:
> 
> While the other two make good arguments, I guess the
> one thing that always stood out to me about Umbridge
> was her desire for power.  IMHO, she did things in
> part as loyalty to Fudge, but also because she knew
> Fudge would notice and reward her.  After all, she
> went from teacher to headmistress once DD was removed.
> I would probably have sorted her into Slytherian
> because she does seem ambitious, with a
> do-anything-to-get-it sort of attitude.  Add to the
> fact that while she's not predjudice against Muggle
> born, she had a thing against "non-humans".  

Carol responds:
Umbridge's Muggleish outfits (pink cardigan and matching Alice band),
and for that matter, the horrible kitten plates on her office wall,
makd me think that she's either Muggleborn or a half-blood, probably
the first. I doubt that she would have shown off such Muggleish tastes
in Slytherin, and if she's Muggleborn the House wouldn't have accepted
her, no matter how ambitious and power-hungry she was. Much as some of
us might relish the thought of young Dolores being teased for her
clothes and tastes by fellow Slytherins, I don't thnk it's likely that
she was placed there. I'll go with Hufflepuff as she doesn't seem
intelligent or talented enough for Ravenclaw, and certainly not
courageous enough for Gryffindor (even though Peter Pettigrew somehow
ended up there). No offense to Hufflepuff: one of my favorite
characters is Cedric Diggory, and I even have some sympathy for
Zacharizs Smith.

I rather like the idea that not all of the unpleasant characters are
placed in Slytherin. I was pleased to find Cormac McLaggen and Romilda
Vane in Gryffindor in HBP. Every house has its bad apples, apparently.
I hope that every house also has its heroes.

Carol, looking for the Houses to unite against Voldemort in Book 7,
even if Hogwarts doesn't reopen until the end of the book





From tenorone2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 07:48:58 2006
From: tenorone2000 at yahoo.com (Rashi Rosenzweig)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:48:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <eimamo+299f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061106074858.61150.qmail@web54207.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161056

poetryfreedom:
> What do you think...did Snape love Lily Potter? hence sharing
> potions secrets, hence Lily being so good at potions (in Half-
> Blood Prince). And maybe that has made him hate Harry's dad even
> more... <snip>

         
Rashi:
Good Morning!! I remember reading in either OOP or 1/2 Blood Prince that Snape indeed had a crush on Lily Potter. Not only was he attracted to her physically, but she used to step up for Snape when James Potter and his friends would torment him. How could he not love her?

Add some more salt to this wizard's many wounds, not only does James Potter torment him throughout his stay at Hogwart's, James ends up marrying Lily. 
   
Life did not treat Snape too well, I'm afraid.




From tenorone2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 07:55:07 2006
From: tenorone2000 at yahoo.com (Rashi Rosenzweig)
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 23:55:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] On Umbridge
In-Reply-To: <20061106051415.57123.qmail@web30911.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20061106075508.75026.qmail@web54201.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161058

Abdul:
> I am not satisfied on how Delores was settled at the end of OOP book
> after all the wicked torment that she did to the students. Perhaps
> she will be tortured and taunted physically & mentally in the movie.

(ADMIN reminder--any further movie discussion needs to move to HPFGU-Movie at this link: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/ )

Hi Abdul:
   
I totally agree with you. Dolores certainly did not get what she deserved at the end of Order of the Phoenix. Prof. McGonagall nearly died because of her and ended up on crutches. Well, it seems that we'll have to see what happens in the next and last book about the fate (if any) of Dolores Umbridge.
   
Cheers,
   
Rashi




From forbidden_corridor at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 09:57:05 2006
From: forbidden_corridor at yahoo.com (forbidden_corridor)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 09:57:05 -0000
Subject: My Heart Yearns For More of JKR !
Message-ID: <ein0th+dq4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161059

I started late with Harry Potter, almost when everyone else had
finished reading the 6th book. I took three months to finish reading
all the six books managing my work and other things at the same time.
When I started I thought Harry Potter was just a fantasy, but to my
thrill I discovered he was much more than a mere fantasy. Harry
Potter became a part of my everyday's life and my mood started
flickering according to his own as he lived through different phases
of his wizard's life. It felt as though every character in the story
infuenced my emotional balance and that was how deep JKR's writing
affected me. Hence I consider myself not just one of her admiring
readers but a highly sensitive and vulnerable part of the mega story.

Well, when I put down the 6th book having finished reading it, a
sudden hollow feeling crept in; not because my most favourite
charachter in the story, Dumbledore, was dead but because the 7th
book was not out in the market. I could not get around to convince
myself that the 7th book will be made available by JKR soon. And
then, even if it was available by the next day I was sure I would
finish reading it off in a week's time. So what would happen next? I
felt I just could not move on without Harry Potter. I fell asleep
praying and wishing JKR lives long enough to write many books on
Harry Potter that I would never have a day to move on without Harry
Potter..

forbidden_corridor




From scorpio_41190 at yahoo.co.in  Mon Nov  6 12:31:58 2006
From: scorpio_41190 at yahoo.co.in (Kishan)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 12:31:58 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <019c01c7011f$68381bb0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ein9vu+10dno@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161060

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" <unicornspride at ...>
wrote:
> All this talk of Harry being a Horcrux is strange to me..  I
> thought a Horcrux was created with intent??  Am I wrong in this
> thought.  Can a Horcrux be created without the person knowing his
> soul is being transferred?  I was under the impression that LV had
> to create it on purpose.  I do not believe that LV intentionally
> would have made the scar or Harry himself a horcrux.  He was never
> in possession of Harry after the fact, so..  for all purposes in my
> eyes, it is not even possible that Harry or any part of him is a
> Horcrux.  LV would not have had the power to do it after the attacks
> as he was powerless at that time.

Kishan:
Harry can't be a Horcrux.  I mean, think about it, "....neither can live while the other survives" the prophecy clearly states that someone has to kill the other.  So, Voldemort has got to kill Harry.  But if he does, he would be losing a part of his soul.  So I don't think Harry being a horcrux himself is possible.






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  6 16:33:52 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:33:52 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <einl9q+1172@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eino5g+qhkn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161061

Carol
> As for Severus's hatred of James relating to Lily, weren't they
> enemies from their first year onward? The enmity seems to predate any
> attraction Teen!James might have had to Lily. I think what *really*
> made Severus hate James, even more than the Pensieve incident, was
> that James saved his life. How humiliating to be so deeply indebted 
to
> your enemy!

wynnleaf
It's possible that it's a combination of reasons for hatred and that 
it is somewhat mirrored by Harry's reasons for hating Snape.

Snape and James hated each other from 1st year at Hogwarts.  Then 
James saved Snape's life, but Snape wanted to blame it on the idea 
that James *had* to do it to keep himself and his friends out of so 
much trouble.  Let us suppose that Snape cared for Lily (friendship or 
more?). Later, however, Snape's own actions in taking the prophecy to 
Voldemort caused the Potters to be targeted.  In deep regret and in an 
effort to protect Lily, Snape turns to the Order, becomes a spy, etc.  
At one point a spy (perhaps Snape) brings word that the Potters are 
likely being betrayed by a friend.  But James disregards this and 
trusts a friend who ultimately does betray him.  Snape's original 
hatred of James grows even more.  Rather than focus on his own guilt 
in taking the prophecy to Voldemort, Snape transfers the guilt to 
James and his mistakenly trusting his friend, thereby giving him even 
more reasons to hate James.  He further expands that hatred to include 
James' son.

Similarly, Harry hates Snape from 1st year on.  Snape saves Harry's 
life, but Harry refuses to feel the slightest gratitude for it -- 
blaming Snape's action on the fact that Snape perhaps had to in order 
to fulfill a life-debt, or maybe just to keep Dumbledore happy with 
him.  Harry continues to hate Snape.  In OOTP Harry's own actions and 
mistakes take him to the MOM and ultimately result in Sirius' coming 
to the rescue and getting killed.  Harry transfers whatever guilt he 
feels for his involvment in the death of someone he loves, to Snape 
and blames him for Sirius' death, thereby intensifying his hatred of 
Snape.

Now, as JKR has said, Snape's AKing of Dumbledore as made Harry's 
hatred of Snape even more personal.  She obviously *wants* this 
personal hatred to occur between the characters.

Snape hated James and refused to feel gratitude for James saving his 
life.  Harry hates Snape and refused to feel gratitude for Snape 
saving his life.  Snape (possibly) blames James for Lily's death, 
rather than focus on his own actions in the situation.  Harry blames 
Snape for Sirius' death rather than focus on his own actions.  
(Possibly both are more focused on the guilt of each other, and 
escaping their own guilt, rather than Voldemort's part in it.)  

Snape's hatred of James intensified as he blamed James for Lily's 
death (theorizing obviously). Harry's hatred for Snape intensified as 
he blamed him for Sirius' death, and now for Dumbledore's death.  

Snape has gone a step further by extending his hatred to James' son 
Harry.  But I wouldn't be surprised that if Snape had a son Harry's 
age, Harry would hate him, too -- just because I think their hatreds 
are so alike.

I think JKR will want to have Harry deal with this hatred *prior* to 
allowing Harry to destroy Voldemort. And I don't think it's going to 
be something easy like just acknowledging Snape's loyalty after Snape 
gives his life to save Harry -- no "gosh, he was really loyal after 
all.  I guess I should forgive him."  Nope, too easy.  I expect Harry 
to have to deal with his hatred of a living, breathing Snape -- not 
the sacrificial dead body.  I have no guesses on whether or not JKR 
will have Snape deal with his own hatred, but I'm certain she'll have 
Harry deal with it.

wynnleaf  





From eraf1830 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 16:21:37 2006
From: eraf1830 at yahoo.com (Ellen)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:21:37 -0000
Subject: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1
In-Reply-To: <eilnsb+8dk0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einneh+p5ep@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161062

Beatrice:
> 14. LV is not truly alive and therefore cannot be killed (298)
> (repeated in HBP)

Ellen:
I believe that when Voldemort used Harry's blood to come back, he
became mortal again--hence Dumbledore's satisfaction that Harry's
mother's blood, through Harry, now was part of Voldemort.






From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Mon Nov  6 16:32:49 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 8:32:49 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] My guess about book 7
Message-ID: <6096756.1162830769489.JavaMail.root@web27>

No: HPFGUIDX 161063

---- tthinc <tthinc at yahoo.com> wrote: 

I am sure that Harry will be talked into going back to Hogwarts for
Year 7 as I would like to think that DumbleDore left a vast amount of
thoughts in a pensive for Harry.
 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marion here:

I wonder what role McGonegall will play now that Dumbledore is dead?  While she always seemed to be Dumbledore's right hand, she also never seemed to have all the facts.  I don't think she is aware of the prophecy.  If she had been given some of this information, I think she would have given Harry et al more of an ear when they came to her urgently looking for Dumbledore.  Instead, she would give them the speech about "I don't know what you think you know, but the adults have everything under control".  If she is headmistress, which is a safe assumption, will she work with Harry and allow him access to the pensieve, Dumbledore's portrait, etc.?  Hogwarts has been so integral in the story to this point, I feel sure a lot of the action must take place there, even if Harry isn't a student.  

My other concerns?  If Harry's not at Hogwarts, what roles will Ron and Hermione 
play?  Fred and George were on the back burner in book 6, and I missed them.  I don't think they can play a very big role in their joke shop, but I think the stories really need the humor they provide.  This has been an ensemble cast from the start, and I hope it will continue to be, but the story seems to have Harry striking out on his own.  I do look forward to seeing how the Dursleys, specifically Petunia, are handled.  Throughout the books I've searched for just a smidgeon of sentimentality and love for her sister and nephew in her, but it just hasn't been there -- what she's done for Harry has been solely out of fear, I'm afraid.  What could have made her so very cold? 

Marion









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 16:50:48 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:50:48 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <einl9q+1172@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einp58+8dte@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161064

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
> Hi, Alla. I didn't want to correct you onlist, but the word is
> "filthy," as in covered with filth, not "filfy." I'm guessing that the
> soft "th" sound doesn't exist in Russian?

Alla:

No, this sound does not exist in Russian.


Carol:
> As for Severus's hatred of James relating to Lily, weren't they
> enemies from their first year onward? The enmity seems to predate any
> attraction Teen!James might have had to Lily. I think what *really*
> made Severus hate James, even more than the Pensieve incident, was
> that James saved his life. How humiliating to be so deeply indebted to
> your enemy!

Alla:

The fact that they indeed were enemies from the first year really does 
not preclude anything that I speculated about from being correct.

I did not say that Snape hated James **just** because he was attracted 
to Lily, or maybe I was not clear about it.

I said that Snape who was attracted to purebloodism and wanted to be a 
part of it ( speculation obviously, but IMO supported by the fact that 
Snape joined DE and called Lily mudblood), hated pureblood James ( whom 
as I said he hated anyways for the other reasons), because pureblood 
James dared to love muggleborn and all restraints be damned.

That does not even require Snape having feelings for Lily, although if 
he did, that would be nice additional reason.

That just requires Snape thinking how dare pureblood James pursues 
muggleborn witch.

And of course it is possible that Snape was cowardly enough to not do 
so.

Alla 






From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 16:50:22 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 16:50:22 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ein9vu+10dno@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einp4e+6b3a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161065


> 
> Kishan:
> Harry can't be a Horcrux.  I mean, think about it, "....neither can 
live while the other survives" the prophecy clearly states that 
someone has to kill the other.  So, Voldemort has got to kill Harry.  
But if he does, he would be losing a part of his soul.  So I don't 
think Harry being a horcrux himself is possible.
>

Beatrice:

One of the problems in "reading" and understanding prophecies is that 
the way in which they are worded is almost never as simple as we 
initially think.  Take for example the problems within the Oedipus 
myth.  Oedipus attempts to circumvent his prophecy and ends up 
fulfilling it in the ultimate irony.  He manages this because while 
the words of the prophecy are clear their actual meaning is obscured 
by the mystery of Oedipus's true parentage.  

Perhaps this prophecy merely means that Harry and Voldemort must 
battle each other to the end.  eg. one will live and the other 
won't.  But we have been told time and time again in the cannon 
(S.S./ CoS/ GOF/HBP) that Voldemort isn't really alive.  This is a 
difficult concept for us to grasp.  But as Dumbledore explains it to 
Harry in HBP, by creating the horcruxes Voldemort has constructed a 
type of immortality for himself.  Essentially, that he has traded in 
his humanity, the essence of his status as a living individual in 
order to cheat death.  Therefore Voldemort exists in a state that 
imitates life, ie he is able to breath, eat, exist upon the earth, 
etc., but as he cannot be killed (until his horcruxes are destroyed) 
he is not truly alive.  JKR seems to be defining the act of being 
alive in conjunction with one's mortality.  Paradoxically, that one 
is alive if and only if they capable of succumbing to death.  If you 
consider the prophecy under these conditions, the implication is that 
while Harry survives, Voldemort cannot live and thus cannot be killed.








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 17:01:52 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:01:52 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <eino5g+qhkn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einpq0+hip9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161066

> wynnleaf
> It's possible that it's a combination of reasons for hatred and 
that 
> it is somewhat mirrored by Harry's reasons for hating Snape.
> 
> Snape and James hated each other from 1st year at Hogwarts.  <big 
snip>> 
> Similarly, Harry hates Snape from 1st year on.  Snape saves Harry's 
> life, but Harry refuses to feel the slightest gratitude for it -- 
> blaming Snape's action on the fact that Snape perhaps had to in 
order 
> to fulfill a life-debt, or maybe just to keep Dumbledore happy with 
> him.  Harry continues to hate Snape.

Alla:

Harry does not blame Snape's action on the life-debt, Dumbledore 
tells Harry that this is why Snape saved his life. Of course Harry is 
going to listen to him, IMO.


 
wynnleaf:

<SNIP>
> Snape has gone a step further by extending his hatred to James' son 
> Harry.  But I wouldn't be surprised that if Snape had a son Harry's 
> age, Harry would hate him, too -- just because I think their 
hatreds 
> are so alike.

Alla:

I would be surprised if Harry will be capable of such despicable 
thing as hating innocent child. Harry already does not hate Draco 
Malfoy, while not having any tender feelings for Lucius IMO.

I think that Harry would have made an effort to not blame Snape Jr. 
for the sins of his father. IMO of course.


wynnleaf:
<SNIP> 
I expect Harry 
> to have to deal with his hatred of a living, breathing Snape -- not 
> the sacrificial dead body.  I have no guesses on whether or not JKR 
> will have Snape deal with his own hatred, but I'm certain she'll 
have 
> Harry deal with it.

Alla:

In other words what I hear you saying is that you expect Harry to 
realise that he was wrong, wrong, wrong towards Snape, but Snape 
should be spared any such thing and should be alowed to merily go 
forward *alive* without realising that he was wrong about Harry?

Keeping my fingers crossed that this is not going to happen. Sorry.





From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 17:08:43 2006
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:08:43 -0000
Subject: Soul bits (Was: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes)
In-Reply-To: <eijj9t+gfcr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einq6r+oa4i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161067

Carol wrote:
Fake!Moody Imperio'd Viktor Krum to Crucio Cedric, and I'm quite sure 
Viktor had never performed a Crucio before--maybe didn't even know how 
to do it effectively. 

ibchawz responds:
I'm not sure taht his is 100% accurate.  Per Draco Malfoy, Durmstrang 
students actually learn the dark arts.  My guess is that Krum and all 
the Durmstrang students are exposed to the unforgiveable curses.  
Perhaps Krum, like Dumbledore, is "too noble" to use them.


Carol wrote:
The same could be true for speaking Parseltongue and opening the 
chamber.

ibchawz responds:
AFAWK, Ginny is not a Parselmouth.  The diary memory / soul bit 
combination used Ginny to open the chamber and control the Basilisk 
through possession.  With this type of possession, Ginny did not 
remember any of the events while she was being possessed.  I don't 
know if this is typical of this type of possession or if the diary had 
the power to use a memory charm upon the victim of the possession.  
The way I see it is that the diary was originally intended as an 
instruction book to open the chamber. Essentially, the diary was a 
pensieve.  Adding the soul bit to make it a horcrux was an 
afterthought.  This gave the diary the additional power of possession 
and potential rebirth of the soul bit.

ibchawz






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Nov  6 17:05:20 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:05:20 -0000
Subject: Canon for OFH!Lucius
In-Reply-To: <eillsk+h7rj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einq0g+m4e5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161068

 
> > Carol earlier:
> >  ("Slimy," no. Snakes aren't slimy. Snails and eels are.
> > > and I'm surprised that a DDM!Snaper would call him slimy, with all
> the disgusting qualities attached to that adjective.)
> > 
> > <snip'>
> > 
> > > Vile? Offensive? Repulsive? Odious? Resembling mucous?
>  
> > Pippin:
> > 
> > An unattractive substance with protective, even healing properties?
> 
> Carol again.:
> What healing properties can you find in slime, whether it's the slimy
> trail that snails and slugs (nasty creatures that destroy plants)
> create for themselves or pond scum? Can you think of a single positive
> connotation for slime or slimy? 

Pippin:
Yes, 'slime' and 'slimy' have unpleasant connotations, as do 'snake'
and 'Slytherin'. But are they deserved?

Mucus is full of antiseptic enzymes. It traps and destroys bacteria,
and also keeps your stomach from digesting itself. You'd be in a bad
way without it. Respiratory mucus, also called 'phlegm', was one
of the 'four humours' of ancient medicine, corresponding to the
four elements (and thus to the four Hogwarts Houses). A proper
balance of the four humours was considered necessary to life and
health. The chapter title 'An Excess of Phlegm' refers to this 
belief. 

An excess of phlegm was supposed to produce a 'phlegmatic'
temperament, characterized by apathy and sluggishness. We
can see that in Slughorn.  But in proper balance, phlegm
enabled one to be calm and rational. 

> Pippin:
> > 
> > There's plenty of canon for it, of course.
> > "slimeball", "slimy, oily, greasy-haired", and of course "Snivellus".
> 
> Carol responds:
> And who is calling Snape by these names? His enemies, in particular
> Sirius Black, the man who states in PoA that he wishes Snape had died
> as a result of the so-called Prank. That his enemies call him slimy
> doesn't mean he really is. Dumbledore's enemies call him a doddering
> old fool. Hardly an accurate perception despite DD's capacity for
> human error.

Pippin:
But Dumbledore  sometimes gives the impression that
he *is* doddering. Harry's first impression is that he's mad, and Percy
cheerfully confirms it. And Snape sometimes  gives the
impression that he's slimy: smirking at the possibility of being 
recommended as the next headmaster, insinuating to Fudge that
Dumbledore might make trouble, giving Umbridge the impression
that he and Dumbledore aren't on the best of terms. Of course
if you believe in DDM!Snape then it's not Dumbledore who's
being slimed, but Draco, Fudge, Umbridge et al. The et al
unfortunately includes Harry, who persists in not getting it even 
after he's told straight out that Snape has to pretend.

I don't think 'Snivellus' is just a sound-alike tease, (nor
for that matter is 'loony Lupin', surely Peeves knows what
Lupin is), I think Sirius is picking up on something. Of
course he is putting the worst possible interpretation on it,
but there is, there has to be, an aura of deceptive loyalty
around Snape.  People like Sirius, Harry or Ron, who
can't really conceive of feigned disloyalty, find it disgusting,
but it's actually quite useful.

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 17:38:31 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:38:31 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eimi0e+912c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einrun+aaoo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161069

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> "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 
> p.310, US)
> 
> It occured to me while reading the Chapter Discussion about 
> Horcruxes that we may have enough information to make a diffinitive 
> conclusion regarding the Diary Horcrux. Much of the evidence comes 
> in CoS, the conversation between Revenant Tom and Harry. But let's 
> start in PoA.
> 
> Our dear Remus informs us that if a Dementor *kisses* you to remove 
> your soul, "you'll have no sense of self anymore, no memory, no... 
> anything", leaving you an empty shell. This certainly speaks to the 
> conclusion that in the Potterverse your memories must reside in your 
> soul. The soul that is Vapormort retains all his knowledge of magic, 
> all his memories. With no contradicting evidence and only affirming 
> evidence, this must be the case.

> Take this information back to CoS. Harry's encounter with Diary Soul 
> Piece (DSP) is first through disappearing-written conversation that 
> transitions to a *Pensieve* memory viewing. Note how Harry falls 
> into the scene the same way one falls into a Pensieve scene and how 
> Harry's first encounter with DD's Pensieve in GoF reminds him of 
> this encounter with DSP. True to the way a Pensieve performs, Harry 
> is unseen and unheard but observes everything that happens as if he 
> is really there. These two pieces of magic, the Pensieve ability and 
> the disappearing written conversation feature, are two things that 
> Tom magically loads into the diary.
> 
Carol responds:
None of this proves that the memory is not separate from the soul bit.
Yes, it's the soul bit that possessed Ginny and enabled Diary!Tom to
put a bit of his soul back into her, but that may not be the original
purpose of the diary, which DiaryTom specifically says is to open the
Chamber of secrets and release the monster. Bear in mind that that's
exactly how the diary is used until Diary!Tom learns about Harry from
Ginny, at which point "killing Muggleborns [didn't] matter to him
anymore and he became obsessed with talking to Harry.

The memory Harry enters acts exactly like a memory taken from Snape's
or Dumbledore's head (or poured from a vial)--memories that are not
soul bits and have no soul bits attached unless Dumbledore has
committed multiple murders, one for each memory, which I'm sure you'll
agree is exceedingly unlikely. So, IMO, it's just a mmory. Diary!Tom
remembers what he knew when he created the diary--to "carry on Salazar
Slytherin's noble work." He is not wearing the ring in the memory, not
because he's already made it into a Horcrux, but because it's still
his fifth year. He hasn't yet killed anyone except Myrtle. Note that
he's wearing his Hogwarts robes with his Prefect badge. The diary was
created at Hogwarts, and the Hagrid memory is dated 13th June of his
fifth year--before the murder of his parents. IMO, he must have
written it down (or removed it from his head) that very day. He would
also have placed additional spells on it to make it interactive and to
control the reader (an Imperius curse would do the job) and he may
well have added a few more memories from that year so he knew about
the "annoyingly close watch" DD kept on him after that. But even
though Diary!Tom is empowereed by the soul bit, I don't think he knows
that. He just knows that in life he had the power to possess people
and as a memory he retains that power.

I confess that I'm not sure how to answer the Dementor argument, but
I'm quite sure that when DD or Snape or Slughorn takes a memory from
his own head, he's not taking a bit of soul, nor would DD have taken a
bit of Winky's or Morfin's or Bob Ogden's soul. Soul bits only detach
from the main self when a murder has split the soul *and* the soul bit
(not memory) is encased in a Horcrux using a spell (very different
from placing a "mere memory" (note that Dumbledore uses that phrase as
distinct from a soul bit) in a vial or a Pensieve--or a diary.

Mike: 
> Let's move on to what the Diary!Tom knew. Off stage, Ginny tells the 
> DSP all she knows about the great Harry Potter from her pov. Fast 
> forward to the conversation between Harry and DSP as Revenant!Tom. 
> Careful reading of that conversation reveals that Revenant!Tom knows 
> only what his 16-year-old self knows combined with the knowledge he 
> has received from Ginny. As an example: Why Harry survived 
> Voldemort's attack is knowledge that Tom wants but couldn't get from 
> Ginny. Please note also that this Tom already knows that Salazar 
> Slytherin's blood runs in his veins and that his father was 
> a "filthy Muggle".

> 
> But also note that Revenant!Tom has knowledge and memories of his 
> own; Tom Marvolo Riddle anagrams into Lord Voldemort, Dumbledore's 
> response to Tom's opening the Chamber re Hagrid, not trusting Tom, 
> keeping an annoyingly close watch on him, Lily's *Love-Charm-
> Protection* as a powerful counter-charm, etc. The memory that Harry 
> visited Pensieve-style is only one of these memories. 
> 

Carol responds:
"Revenant Tom"? Can you explain how you're using that term and whether
it's somehow different from Diary!Tom, who refers to himself as a
memory? (Maybe he was Memory!Tom when the diary was first created but
is now, though he doesn't realize it, Horcrux!Tom? I'll go with
Diary!Tom for simplicity's sake.)

The part about knowing that his father is a "filthy Muggle" is old
news. He knew from the beginning that at least one of his parents was
a Muggle and he suspected that it was his mother because she died in
childbirth. He searched the records at Hogwarts for information on his
father, then began trying to find information on his mother's family
instead. When he was researching Slytherin, suspecting that he was
Slytherin's Heir because he could speak Parseltongue, he must have
come across the information on his Gaunt relatives that led him to
seek them out a month or so after Myrtle's murder (which occurred on
13th June, 1943, the same day as the Hagrid memory). So he already
knew about his "filthy Muggle father" deserting his mother, leaving
her to die giving birth to him in a Muggle orphanage. He found his
uncle living in a hovel in Little Hangleton, discovered that his
mother had run off with a locket belonging to Slytherin, that his
grandfather was dead, and that the Muggle his mother had married lived
in the big house on the hill--information that Diary!Tom apparently
didn't have. There's no evidence that he had yet killed his father,
only that he hated him and didn't want to use his name, which is why
he had already, at sixteen if not before, created a new name for
himself that he used secretly among his friends, the same boys we see
in Slughorn's memory, which occurs some time after he's killed his
Muggle relatives but before he knows how to make a Horcrux, or he
wouldn't be wearing the ring. Nor would he ask those questions: "But
how do you split your soul?"  "How do you encase the soul bit"? etc.
Surely not knowing whether you can split your soul more than once is
not sufficiently important to risk discovery for. If he knew that he'd
*already* split his soul and knew how to make a Horcrux, he would just
do it! The first Horcrux would keep him from dying when he made the
second. And third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. So the number seven,
though important to him, is only one of his concerns.

Mike:
> Put this all together. Diary Soul Piece is the repository of the 
> memories and the memories stop at what 16-year-old Tom knew 
> (augmented by what he learned from Ginny and subsequently Harry).
<snipped a paragraph I don't understand.>

Carol responds:
Actually, the *memory* of Tom remembers everything up to the point
when he created the diary, plus what Ginny told him. The soul piece
enables Memory!Tom to possess the reader in addition to whatever
powers he had before. You haven't proven that Memory!Tom, who *calls
himself a memory* and talks about placing the *memory* of his
sixteen-year-old self in the diary *so that the Chamber can be opened
again* is himself a soul bit. I think he's *empowered* by the soul bit
beyond the original function of the diary. The Pensieve proves that
memories are not soul bits. They can't possess anyone, nor is Harry
possessed when he enters the memory. His experience is entirely
distinct with Ginny. The diary, or Diary!Tom, is interacting with them
differently. Both are initially charmed and persuaded to interact, but
only Harry is pulled into a memory and only Ginny is possessed.

Mike:
> Tom "decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old 
> self in its pages," and his method of preserving his *self* was via 
> a soul piece, a Horcrux. 

Carol responds:
Sorry, Mike. The first clause of your sentence is a fact (in terms of
the story), but the second is an assumption. A memory is distinct from
a soul bit, and that's not merely my opinion. *Dumbledore* could have
placed some of his memories in a diary. The *memories* would not make
the diary a Horcrux. The spell encasing a *soul bit* in an object,
preferably a magic that already has magical powers of its own, as DD
tells Harry, is what makes it a Horcrux. And the purpose of a Horcrux
is *not* to interact with other wizards, not even to cause them to
release a Basilisk or do some other reprehensible deed, but to anchor
the main soul to earth. The diary has two purposes, its original
function of "carrying on Salazar Slytherin's noble work, which it does
when the students are being Petrified, and its Horcrux purpose, which
enables Memory!Tom not only to control Ginny but to seek to suck out
her soul and take it into himself. Possibly the memory was sufficient
to possess the reader and control her, or there was an Imperiuslike
spell on the book, but only the soul bit, surely added later after Tom
knew how to create a Horcrux, could take Ginny's soul and transfer it
to Memory!Tom. These are two completely different processes. One is
ordinary possession; the other is more like what a Dementor does to
its victims, not possess them but suck their souls. Note that DD says
that the diary was as important to Tom as the ring. It could only be
important because it *already* contained the memories and the powers
that proved he was the Heir of Slytherin.
> 
Mike:
> I am assuming that Tom spent his Holidays at Hogwarts, just like 
> Harry did. In fact, since the memory Harry visited showed Tom 
> attempting to remain over the summer at Hogwarts, this seems the 
> most logical conclusion. The diary was Muggle made for the year 
> 1943. Tom must have bought (or stole) it during the summer of '43, 
> just after his fifth year but most likely before he visited his 
> ancestoral hovel. He would never have found a '43 diary later and he 
> couldn't preserve his 16-year-old self after 1943. 

Carol responds:
Wasn't his name written on the binding, or is that movie
contamination? At any rate, I agree that the diary had to be
*written*--ile., the memories placed in it, in 1943, one of them
specifically on 13th June--"the memory of my sixteen-year-old self" as
Tom referred to it. That does *not* mean that the soul bit was placed
in it at that time. Note that the memory Harry sees relates indirectly
to the murder of Moaning Myrtle (it's the reason that Tom wants to
frame Hagrid and prevent the closing of the school) but has no
connection whatever to the murder of the Riddles. I think that Tom
later used Myrtle's murder to create the Horcrux. I certainly don't
think he had it with him when he murdered the Riddles. He didn't go to
Little Hangleton with that intention. He went there to find his Gaunt
relatives, and after he found out where the Riddles lived, he murdered
them for revenge, as he says himself in GoF. (Or, rather, he says that
he murdered his father for revenge. Perhaps he didn't consider his
grandparents important enough to mention?) I think he *later* made the
ring into a Horcrux, but it certainly wasn't a Horcrux when he talked
to Slytherin, as Dumbledore indicates. (Why not? Because he didn't
know how to make one. Dumbledore was adamant that Horcruxes not be
taught at Hogwarts, probably because he knew or suspected that
Grindelwald had one, and would have made sure that such information
was not available to students in the restricted section of the library.)
> 
> So, Tom acquired the Diary with the express intent of making it a 
> Horcrux and made that Horcrux while he was still 16. 

Carol:

In your view. Not in mine. He probably *acquired* the diary just as he
turned sixteen at the beginning of the year, but we don't know what
his intent was. He may have wanted to use it to prove that he was the
Heir of Slytherin, and certainly he was trying to open the Chamber of
Secrets at that time or had already done so, but there's no indication
that he was interested in Horcruxes at that time. All we know is that
he placed the *memory* of himself in the diary when he was still
sixteen and that he didn't want his hard work in finding the Chamber
to go to waste, as even Harry realizes. That's different from placing
a soul bit in a Horcrux, which is done for a very different reason.
(Why place your soul fragment in an object as mundane as a diary
*unless* the diary is important in itself for other reasons?
Otherwise, it's not much better than a tin can or a manky old boot, a
distinction that Dumbledore makes clear to Harry when Harry asks what
was so special about the diary.)


Mike:
 He also 
> murdered his father and grandparents when he was 16 and framed his 
> uncle for those murders. Logic tells me that he brought the diary 
> with him and performed the Horcrux encasing spell when he does the 
> killing, at his father's house.

Carol responds:
Whereas logic tells me that he used Myrtle's murder for the diary and
his father's murder for the ring, both of them some time after the
diary was "written" and the ring stolen. I've already shown, and can
quote canon to prove, that he didn't go to Little Hangleton to murder
his father, much less to create a Horcrux. He went there to find out
about the Gaunts, got the idea of killing his father after Morfin
stupidly revealed that Tom looked very like "that Muggle" whom his
sister had run off with and that the Muggle lived on the hill. At that
point, Tom decided to frame Morfin and take his ring as a trophy. No
indication that he planned at that time to use his murders to create
Horcruxes, much less that he created the Horcruxes on the spot. (He
would have hidden the ring at the hovel on the spot if it were a
Horcrux rather than wearing it to the interview with Slughorn, right?)
> 
Mike:
> It is my opinion that removing a torn soul piece to it's encasement 
> must be done in close proximity to the murder that is performed for 
> that purpose. 

Carol:
But this is just your opinion, with nothing to back it up in the book.
If your argument is true, he could not have used the murders of his
grandparents for later Horcruxes. Note that the cup and the locket are
both in close proximity to Hepzibah Smith only because he murdered her
to obtain them. No other murder takes place at that time. He would
almost certainly have used Hepzibah's murder for the cup and could
have turned it into a Horcrux at that time (once he'd stunned Hokey
and performed the memory transplant), but he'd either have to use the
murder of one of his grandparents, killed some four years earlier, for
the locket, or go out and specifically kill someone to create that
Horcrux, and where was he going to find a more suitable murder for
that Horcrux than the ones he'd already committed? He had no more
relatives to kill. He'd already wiped out the Riddle line and he had
no reason to kill Morfin, a fellow descendant of Slytherin whom he'd
already framed for the murders, even if Morfin were still alive. I
think the soul bits from killing his grandparents were still split off
and available and he used one of them for the locket, his father's
having already been used. (If you split your soul through murder and
don't repent the murder, why would the soul heal itself?)

Mike:
Envision a Lord Voldemort having murdered enough times 
> to create an "army" of Inferi, not to mention murders that didn't 
> become Inferi. If he could remove those torn soul pieces at any 
> time, he would be taking a big risk of removing too much soul by the 
> time he gets to his Godric Hollow attempt. Furthermore, it would 
> render Dumbledore's opinion that Voldemort reserves his Horcrux 
> making for "significant" murders as nonsensical. If you can remove a 
> torn soul piece at any time because it stays seperate from the main 
> soul, how does one "reserve" making a Horcrux? No, IMO a torn soul 
> piece remains attached to the main soul and eventually reforms to it 
> unless it is completely seperated and removed upon it's tearing.

Carol:
I agree that the "significant murders" idea is a problem and that
Voldemort has split his soul many more times than we know of, but I
don't think JKR has considered the difficulsties inherent here any
more than she's figured out how you can remove exactly one seventh of
your soul with each significant murder, especially if you've committed
fewer than six murders. Logic would tell us that the fragments were
unequal or that, if souls split like amoebas, that you could commit
three murders to divide your soul into eighths (halved, halved again,
and halved a third time) and have all the soul bits you need for six
Horcruxes, one for yourself, and one to spare. But, oops. It doesn't
work according to logic. Somehow, Riddle!Voldemort can commit more
murders than he needs, choose the soul bit he wants (similar to the
way that Snape and Dumbledore can choose the memory they want to put
in the Pensieve but not the same process because a soul bit is not a
memory and must be split off through murder?), and have each one an
equal seventh. Maybe he had to figure out that part of the spell
before he began creating his Horcruxes? Anyway, I think we can blame
JKR for any flaws in the theory, as well as for the idea of splitting
and dividing something as intangible as a soul. (Her mythical sources
have the wicked sorceror hiding his entire soul--or heart--separate
from his body, not retaining part of it himself.)
> 
Mike:
> Therefore, before he starts his sixth year at Hogwarts, Tom has 
> created his first Horcrux. This sheds new light on the Slughorn 
> memory. It now appears that Tom really did know how to create a 
> Horcrux before that conversation, and all he really wanted is what 
> Dumbledore said he was really after. Tom wanted Slughorn's opinion 
> on *multiple* Horcruxes.

Carol:
I don't think so. I think he'd killed Myrtle, placed his memories in
the diary to enable a successor, perhaps a Slytherin with pureblood
prejudices, to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work," visited
Little Hangleton to find his Gaunt relatives and ended up killing the
Riddles for revenge, and acquired the ring. But according to the
questions he asked Slughorn and the fact that he was still wearing the
ring, it seems most unlikely to me that he had made any Horcruxes by
that point. Nor do we see any change in his appearance, as we do when
he shows up at Hepzibah Smith's. There's no evidence that he had yet
created a Horcrux, only committed the prequisite murders and acquired
or created two of the six powerful magical objects that would become
Horcruxes once he knew the encasing spell and knew the seemingly
trivial fact, which he discovers not from slughorn but from
experience, that it's possible to create multiple Horcruxes.

I just thought of another point: Voldemort's soul is greatly
diminished, as is his capacity to feel human emotion and even to
appear human, but neither his powers nor his memory are in any way
diminished. I think that neither the powers nor the memories are in
the soul. The magical powers are in the blood and the memories in the
mind. Ask Snape. He'll tell you that he's taking memories, not soul
bits, from his mind when he uses the Pensieve!


Mike: 
> OK, Carol, Steve, Snow, et al, what did I miss?

Carol:
Lots! See above.

Carol, realizing that we'll probably never get a clear and consistent
explanation of Horcruxes because JKR's strong point is imagination,
not logic or consistency






From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 17:38:59 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <20061106173900.28420.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161070

> zgirnius:
> I think the way around this is for Harry to travel to the village of
> Godric's Hollow, and ask about the house where the explosion happened
> 16 years ago. Once he is at the site, he will be able to see anything
> he needs to see about his parents, because he lived in that house. 

Shelly:
Harry lived at that house, so yes, he "magically" already knows where it is. 
At least, that is my understanding of how that spell works. All three of the 
Potters had to have been told by the Secret Keeper to have even entered the 
house the first time. I don't think he will need to ask "where" it is- he 
will already know.
--------------------------------------

Jeremiah:
Shelly, I think one has to be told (either verbally or written) and this would exclude Harry. Magic works differently with children in Harry's world. However, you may be right. I just don't think it works that way.

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





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Mon Nov  6 17:48:18 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:48:18 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] My guess about book 7
References: <6096756.1162830769489.JavaMail.root@web27>
Message-ID: <015c01c701cc$0a618d70$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161071





  Marion wrote:

  <snip> Hogwarts has been so integral in the story to this point, I feel sure a lot of the action must take place there, even if Harry isn't a student. <snip>



  Lana writes:

  I have to agree.  I think the final will be at Hogwarts. Young Tom and Adult LV had a total obsession with Hogwarts. For whatever reason, the attachment is there for both parties.  Harry is finally "home" at Hogwarts as with Tom.  Both were taken from bad elements and brought to a place of security.

  Marion wrote:

  <snip> My other concerns? If Harry's not at Hogwarts, what roles will Ron and Hermione 
  play? Fred and George were on the back burner in book 6, and I missed them. I don't think they can play a very big role in their joke shop, but I think the stories really need the humor they provide. This has been an ensemble cast from the start, and I hope it will continue to be, but the story seems to have Harry striking out on his own. I do look forward to seeing how the Dursleys, specifically Petunia, are handled. Throughout the books I've searched for just a smidgeon of sentimentality and love for her sister and nephew in her, but it just hasn't been there -- what she's done for Harry has been solely out of fear, I'm afraid. What could have made her so very cold? 
  Lana writes:

  I think that all the main characters including Fred and George will come into play.  Never underestimate the inteligence of F and G.  They are brilliant and their "jokes" may be of tremendous help.  Just look at the (can't remember the name of the stuff) blackness making stuff that Malfoy used.  I am sure they will ahve something useful for HP to use.  

  I cannot wait to hear a bit of background on Petunia.  There has got to be more to the story than just Lily being a witch.  Maybe she flaunted it in front of Petunia.  

  Lana
  . 
   

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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 17:45:14 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:45:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <20061106174515.82866.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161072

Eddie:
HOWEVER, there are far too many people who know NOW that James and
Lily were hiding from Voldemort at Godric's Hollow for me to believe
that the secret is intact. 

Jeremiah:
Yes, Eddie. (I've snipped a ton of stuff out of his post. He had a lot ti say... and it was all good stuff) This is the reason I believe the Sectret is along the lines of "L, J & H are at 12345 Pumpernickle Lane" or what have you. Since Godric Hollow seems to be along the lines of Hogsmed and London then I would have to say that making a secret that entails an entire village to city would be rediculous. Nobody would ever see the place, meaning the village or city. This would be different, as we've seen with Grimauld Place, where a single smaller location has been hidden.

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





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 17:52:17 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:52:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <20061106175218.8702.qmail@web54515.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161073

Beatrice: I agree, but I have one minor thought to add... Pettigrew 
violated the sacred trust of the secret keeper by revealing the 
Potter's location to Voldemort. Could it be that the magic was broken 
because of this act and thus the house would be accessible to anyone 
looking after such an act?

---------------------

Jeremiah:
It's not about trust. the Secret Keeper can tell anyone they want. It's a position based on trust but not dependent on it. So, if you tole me "I'm hiding from the owners of Macy's. I'm at XYZ Court" and I become the secret keeper. I can walk up and tell anyone I like about it. But if I'm trusted, and I'm worthy of that trust, then I will not tell Macy's. I will only tell those close to you.

Wormtail betrayed the Potter's trust. This, however, is not a condition of the magic. It has never been specified that it is a condition of the magic.

As far as posts saying "but Hagrid and Dumbledore and everyone else knowing..." wouldn't it make sense that members of the Order would have been told the Secret by Pettigrew? They were in on the Secret and could do their business. Same with Sirius and possibly McGonagal. But, Peter holds the Secret and if Harry was not told by Peter where he lived then he may never know where to go.

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





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 17:56:42 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:56:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <20061106175642.72387.qmail@web54508.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161074

dhaval:
Harry was already in the house when Voldemort comes to murder his parents. So I don't think he'll need Peter to tell him the password or something. Though probably Ron and Hermione may have trouble entering the place.

Jeremiah:
Oh, and it's not a password. Nobody needed a password to get into Grimauld Place. They just had to be told the Secret. :)

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





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 18:39:09 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:39:09 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ein05v+lc40@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einvgd+qptk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161075

Dungrollin:
<snip>
> How about, the reason that Voldy gave Lily a chance to get out of
the way ("Stand aside, you silly girl!"), was that he didn't know she
was going to be there (perhaps he *had* promised her to Wormtail, or 
> something gross like that), and, thinking the house was empty, he 
> completed the Horcrux-preparation spell just after killing James. He 
> goes to the room where baby!Harry is, and is surprised to find Lily 
> there. He doesn't want to kill her, because then the next Horcrux 
> would be made with *her* death rather than Harry's, which was
supposed to be the grand finale to his 7-Horsecrutch plan.

Carol responds:
What Horcrux preparation spell? I know of no indication in canon that
the spell is performed before the murder. Since it *encases* an
existing soul bit in an object, surely the murder has to come first?
Also, note that Dumbledore says that Voldemort (normally) used
significant murders to create Horcruxes, but he doesn't say that the
murders were committed *in order* to create the Horcruxes. The murders
are committed for, and significant for, other reasons (revenge against
his "filthy Muggle father," for one); preventing the Prophecy, for
another). I see absolutely no indication that the Horcrux has to be
created on the spot, or the object prepared ahead of time. IMO,
Voldemort could have taken his time to obtain an appropriate object,
say the Sword of Gryffindor, and used Harry's murder at any time to
create that Horcrux. Or he could use an object already in his
possession like the ring and the diary and an old but significant
murder to make the objects into Horcruxes. Where do you find the
implication that the spell must be performed first? 

I do agree that Voldemort didn't want to kill Lily because it was
Harry's murder that he wanted to use for the Horcrux, but that was
secondary to killing Harry in the first place to thwart the Prophecy.
But I don't think Voldemort didn't think she would be there, much less
that he intended to prepare some object before killing Harry. I
certainly don't believe that Wormtail (or Snape) wanted Lily as his
reward--wasn't that Wormtongue and Eowyn? wrong story! I think he
simply expected Lily to resist him as James did and therefore die in
battle rather than be murdered. Instead, the "silly girl" approached
him unarmed and begged him not to kill Harry and then offered her life
for his. So, "Stand aside, girl!" simply means "Get out of my way!"
and when she fails to see the sense of this proposition (his vies, not
mine), he has no choice but to kill her (though he could have simply
Stunned her and defeated the ancient magic. Too bad for him and lucky
for the WW that he didn't think of that.) <snip>

Dung: 
> Making Horlicks is such an unusual event in the WW that Voldemort
can be forgiven for not correctly judging the consequences (this is 
> seriously dark magic, and can't be stopped with a simple 'finite 
> incantatem'), which are that the piece of soul ripped off during the 
> killing of Lily is attracted to the nearest 'sticky' object, which
is Harry, because he has a soul which is attached to his physical form
by this 'stickiness'. <snip>

Carol:
I probably snipped too much here, but I don't buy the "stickiness"
theory or the idea that the encasing spell precedes the murder. I
think you remove the torn soul bit and encase it in the object after
the soul bit has been detached, meaning that the murder must come
first. You don't wrap a Christmas present before you buy the present.
You "encase" it (put it in a box and wrap it) after it's in your
possession. That aside, it isn't a failed Horcrux spell (which LV
never had a chance to perform) that thwarted Voldie. It was Lily's
sacrifice. That's canon.

Carol, who admittedly doesn't like Harry!Horcrux, but is arguing here
against your specific arguments, not against the theory itself






From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 18:19:30 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:19:30 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <20061106175218.8702.qmail@web54515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <einubi+1v1m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161076

> Jeremiah:
> It's not about trust. the Secret Keeper can tell anyone they want.
It's a position based on trust but not dependent on it. So, if you
tole me "I'm hiding from the owners of Macy's. I'm at XYZ Court" and
I become the secret keeper. I can walk up and tell anyone I like
about it. But if I'm trusted, and I'm worthy of that trust, then I
will not tell Macy's. I will only tell those close to you.
>
> Wormtail betrayed the Potter's trust. This, however, is not a
condition of the magic. It has never been specified that it is a
condition of the magic.
>
> As far as posts saying "but Hagrid and Dumbledore and everyone else
knowing..." wouldn't it make sense that members of the Order would
have been told the Secret by Pettigrew? They were in on the Secret
and could do their business. Same with Sirius and possibly McGonagal.
But, Peter holds the Secret and if Harry was not told by Peter where
he lived then he may never know where to go.
>

Beatrice:

hmmm... but if Peter revealed the location of James and Lily to the
members of the Order, wouldn't they know that Peter was the Potter's
secret keeper, not Sirius?  Or would the Order members simply allow
Sirius to rot in Azkaban for 12 years while they celebrated
Voldemort's vanquishment?

And how do we know it isn't about trust?  It seems to me that being a
secret keeper is a sacred trust and a betrayal of that might (I am
saying might here) unravel the magic.  Take for instance the implied
bond that now may or may not (depending on your reading) exist
between Pettigrew and Harry.  Harry created that debt by sparing
Pettigrew's life...Lily created a debt by sacrificing her life for
Harry's...Why couldn't Peter's betrayal have a reverse effect?
Instead of creating a bond, it destroys one?
>







From followingmytruth at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 17:41:55 2006
From: followingmytruth at yahoo.com (Sean-Michael)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:41:55 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] My guess about book 7
In-Reply-To: <6096756.1162830769489.JavaMail.root@web27>
Message-ID: <20061106174155.11526.qmail@web33702.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161077

 Marion said:
 
 I wonder what role McGonagall will play now that Dumbledore is dead?  <clip>
 My other concerns?  If Harry's not at Hogwarts, what roles will Ron and Hermione 
 play?  Fred and George were on the back burner in book 6, and I missed them.  I don't think they can play a very big role in their joke shop, but I think the stories really need the humor they provide.  This has been an ensemble cast from the start, and I hope it will continue to be, but the story seems to have Harry striking out on his own.  I do look forward to seeing how the Dursleys, specifically Petunia, are handled.  Throughout the books I've searched for just a smidgeon of sentimentality and love for her sister and nephew in her, but it just hasn't been there -- what she's done for Harry has been solely out of fear, I'm afraid.  What could have made her so very cold? 
 

Sean-Michael here:
I thought it was clear at the end of book 6 that McGonnagle was the new head mistress... but then again, I guess the MoM might try to send in their own head master... or make some sort of change now that DD isn't there.

I agree that Fred and George are integral parts of the story, and believe they will be secretly involved in the Order of the Phoenix even they appear to be involved in the Joke shop as proprietors and nothing else.

Just my thoughts :)





Sean-Michael 
http://smbryceart.etsy.com
http://smbryceart.pbwiki.com
http://smbryceart.livejournal.com
http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=6&b=4533
 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 19:02:34 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:02:34 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <00f001c70180$282fa040$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <eio0sa+6t76@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161078

zgirnius wrote:
> > I think the way around this is for Harry to travel to the village
of Godric's Hollow, and ask about the house where the explosion
happened 16 years ago. Once he is at the site, he will be able to see
anything he needs to see about his parents, because he lived in that
house. 
> 
Shelley added: 
> Harry lived at that house, so yes, he "magically" already knows
where it is. 
> At least, that is my understanding of how that spell works. All
three of the Potters had to have been told by the Secret Keeper to
have even entered the house the first time. I don't think he will need
to ask "where" it is- he will already know.

Carol responds:
Not necessarily. I always imagined the Fidelius Charm being cast on
Pettigrew by Lily when all of them were *in* the house, possibly with
Sirius Black present. Whether they would automatically know the
secret, being part of it, or whether Peter had to tell them (I can
just see James: "What are we all doing here? Where are we?" and PP
having to tell him, "Oh, 'The Potters are hiding in Godric's Hollow.'
That's you, you know. Fidelius charm, mate. That's why Lily pointing
her wand at me." and James say, "Oh, right. Now I remember." And
telling Harry wouldn't do much good at that age. "Daddy and Mummy
here!") Actually, I'm sure that being part of the secret enabled James
and Lily to know it and Harry didn't need to know it. He just needed
to be present when the spell was cast and actually hiding in the house
at the time. And Sirius Black must have been there. He's the only
person we know of other than the SK and the Potters who definitely
knew the Secret, and it was his idea to make Peter the SK in the first
place. Other than that, the Potters probably didn't want anyone, even
Dumbledore, whom they'd turned down as SK, to know the Secret.

So Harry's knowledge of the Secret, which is no longer a secret since
there's no house to hide in and no Potter parents to conceal, is not a
problem. I'm sure he'll be able to find the ruins and that Ron and
Hermione will also be able to see them. So would the MoM or any Muggle
walking by. And the whole WW knows that Voldemort's defeat took place
in the village of Godric's Hollow. If the ruins themselves couldn't be
found, wouldn't the Daily Prophet have made a fuss about it and the
MoM raised an inquiry?

The problem is not Harry finding and visiting his parents' graves and
the scene of their deaths, it's how Dumbledore knew where to send
Hagrid and how Hagrid could find Harry. If Peter Pettigrew told them
the Secret, they'd know that he was the Secret Keeper. So either
Pettigrew sent Dumbledore a note, which he thought was from Sirius
Black, and DD showed it to Hagrid (and Snape?) or the Fidelius Charm
was broken (either through a breach of Fidelity or by the destruction
of the house and the death of two Potters) and Dumbledore suddenly
knew where they were and that they were dead or in serious trouble.

I think he must have known where the Potters were hiding before it
became a Secret (possibly he even provided the house) and I think that
Snape's revealing his faded Dark Mark provided the clue that Harry was
alive and Voldemort either dead or defeated. If DD knew or suspected
that LV had a Horcrux, he'd know it was the latter.

Carol, with apologies to those who've read her opinions on this topic
twelve million times before





From tfaucette6387 at charter.net  Mon Nov  6 17:37:09 2006
From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 17:37:09 -0000
Subject: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1
In-Reply-To: <einciv+3i1s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <einrs5+dmb2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161079

 Eddie wrote:

Beatrice, you've done an amazing amount of valuable work.  Not to
rain
on your parade, but I don't think JKRowling was limiting herself to
knowledge that Harry had amassed _ABOUT VOLDEMORT_.  He has other
knowledge too that may come in handy.  

<snip>

Beatrice wrote:
Eddie,
A fair point!  Much of this knowlege will come in handy in the tasks
to come.  But I think that Harry's knowlege of LV will be key in his
quest, after all one of the most important parts of this quest will be
figuring out where to look (see HBP).  The angle I am trying to
explore is what has Harry learned about LV that might take him and us
to the various locations of the horcruxes.  

<snip>

Beatrice continued:

For example, Dumbledore deduces that LV uses the cave where as a child
Tom Riddle tortured two muggle children.  An event that Dumbledore
sees as pivital, because it made Voldemort feel special and powerful.
What else has given Volde that warm, fuzzy feeling of power and
exceptionality?  Is there any association with geographic location?
Or can we tie these events in to possible geographic location? 
 

<huge snip>

Anne Squires responds:

I find it fasinating to speculate about where Harry (and the reader)
will go in search of the remaining horcruxes.  

I am not certain where Voldemort has had special feelings of power,
nor do I know where he has experienced "that warm, fuzzy feeling of
power and exceptionality."  However, I think that Hogwarts itself is
probably one of those places.  We know that Tom Riddle wanted a
position on staff and when it was denied to him he went so far as to
curse the DADA job.  He, like Harry, spent many of his Christmas and
Easter vacations at Hogwarts.  He, like Harry, would have preferred
staying at Hogwarts rather than returning to the mundane each summer.
Hogwarts, I think, represents both magical and political power to LV.
Thus, I think a horcrux will be found at Hogwarts itself.  I have
always thought that when Tom Riddle came looking for a job from
Dumbledore he may have used the interview as an excuse to enter the
castle and hide one of his horcruxes (in the RoR perhaps? or the
CoS?).  I think he really did want the job, but realistically he must
have known there wasn't much of a chance of him getting hired on.  He
would have had a legitimate reason for being at the castle though. 
Who's to say he didn't stray to other parts of the castle?  If he had
been caught wandering around he could have easily justified himself by
saying he was looking around out of nostalgia. (That answer would have
even been partly true.)

I also think that a  horcrux will likely be found at
Grimmauld Place and another at St. Mungos.  I think the locket either
was or is at GP.  I think something (Hufflepuff cup?) will be found at
St. Mungos.  I base this idea on JKR's interview with Emerson Spartz
of MuggleNet and Melissa Anelli of The Leaky Cauldron on July 16, 2005.

When Emerson Spartz asked if she ever wished she could go back and
rewrite certain parts of the series JKR replied:

JKR: "There are bits of all six books that I would go back and tighten
up. My feeling is that Phoenix is overlong, but I challenge anyone to
find the obvious place to cut. There are places that I would prune now
looking back, but they wouldn't add up to a hugely reduced book,
because my feeling is you need what's in there. You need what's in
there if I'm going to play fair for the reader in the resolution in
Book 7. One of the reasons Phoenix is so long is that I had to move
Harry around a lot, physically. There were places he had to go he had
never been before, and that took time - to get him there, to get him
away. That was the longest non-Hogwarts stretch in any of the books,
and that's really what bumps up the length. I'm trying to think of
specifics, it's hard."

Anne Squires again:
Well, this got me thinking about where exactly does Harry go in OotP
(besides places he had been before)?  JKR says it is important that
Harry physically go to these places, that it ties into the resolution
of book seven.  So, these places must be of tantamount importance. 
This is the list I came up with(and it's rather short imho):

1. Ministry of Magic, including the Department of Mysteries.

2. 12 Grimmauld Place

3. St. Mungos


Thus, I have concluded that the horcruxes are either in 12 GP & St.
Mungos, or Harry will end up searching for them there at the very
least.  Whether they are actually there or not, I couldn't say. I just
very strongly suspect.  I think JKR did not want Harry to arrive at
these places in book 7 out of the blue, so to speak.  I also think
that whatever Harry has to do at these places, JKR did not want him
having to form first impressions. He is already somewhat familiar with
these places and whatever adventures await him in these locations he
will not be distracted by having to learn the lay of the land.  As far
as the MoM and the DoM are concerned, it is my belief that the climax
of the story will take place there.  I feel that  Harry's final
confrontation with LV will take place in the MoM, possibly in the DoM
itself.

Of course I could be completely wrong.  It wouldn't be the first time.
 I also like the idea of the final confrontation taking place at
Godric's Hollow.  That seems very symmetrical to me.  The saga would
come full circle, beginning and ending in the same place.  But, I am
positive that both the MoM and the DoM will play a huge part of book 7
no matter where the final confrontation ends up being physically located.






From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 18:19:56 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:19:56 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] My guess about book 7
In-Reply-To: <eimdoa+dd04@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061106181957.92443.qmail@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161081

Dantzel said: I am only going to pursue a few of the ideas here. 

tthinc: 
<snip>
> I also believe that Luna will get together with Neville, Ron and 
> Hermione will hitch up after the wedding and at the end of the 
> book, Harry and Ginny will announce.</snip>

Dantzel said: JKR has actually debunked the Luna/Neville romance on her website.  I do agree that Ron and Hermione will most likely hook up in book 7, but Harry and Ginny will probably go back to boyfriend/girlfriend. They COULD marry, technically (I think that 17/16 year olds are allowed to marry in England- I have no idea?) but marriage is a big jump.
  
tthinc:
> I think the Dursleys are in more danger now that Harry is about to
> turn 17. They may even evacuate to the burrow or #12.

Possibly... although reason tells me that they probably won't, I would love to read about them in either location! <g>
  
tthinc:
> Neville's parents may come back to help rid the country of the
> death eaters. </snip>

I don't think so. Insanity isn't easily cured.

Dantzel, enjoying the discussions here, even if I don't agree with all the ideas! :)




From sbejster at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 18:57:02 2006
From: sbejster at yahoo.com (Sandra Bejster)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
Message-ID: <20061106185702.6953.qmail@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161082

Okay, here's my take on the whole Snape thing.

1) I don't think he hates muggleborns as much as he
appears to.  I think when he was young he was more
trying to fit in with both the purebloods/Slytherins
he was with.  Maybe he was even TRYING to hate them
with an outward appearance of it but not deep inside. 
I feel he had a respect for Lily even though he called
her names in public.  Remember that the one "memory"
we saw of James and the others taunting him, even Lily
hated James then and wouldn't have anything to do with
him.  As of yet we don't know what changed her mind,
of course, but something must have. ;-)

Just because Snape has a similar parental situation as
Tom Riddle doesn't mean he hated his Muggle Mother (of
course, I could have forgotten that part in the book)
like Tom hated his Father.  Tom hated his Father
because of the way he treated he and his Mother,
despite the fact that the whole thing was brought on
because of his Mother's desire and a spell and his
Father was actually a victim.

Now, he could DEFINITELY hate Harry because of him
being a living reminder of what James could have and
he could not because of how he was trying to gain the
respect of his peers.

I'm also positive his treatment of Hermione (at least
in public) is an act.  I have a deep feeling that they
are somehow working in private as well (if only having
just to do with school work and not Order work).  Any
of his comments don't seem to phase her at all anymore
and I think that's because she realizes he HAS to act
like that in public.  You never see any instances of
them being in private and him acting like that.  One
reason I think they may do things privately together
is in OotP when Harry's hand is hurting because of the
spelled punishment quill.  Now, Hermione suddenly
comes up with this great potion for him to soak his
hand in.  Even if she came up with the potion from a
book, she HAD to have gotten the ingredients from
Snape's cupboard.  I don't feel she would have stolen
them because it wasn't really life or death like the
other couple of times.  He had to have at the least
allowed her to take them, if not coming up with the
potion in the first place.  There have been quite a
few things like this that have happened through the
last few books that have made me wonder about this,
but that's the only one I remember off the stop of my
head.

Now, for Draco ... I also haven't believed Draco was
all bad ever since the end of CoS.  I'd have to read
the entire book again to see if this is in the book
and not just in the movie, but do you remember in the
movie where they were at the bookstore and Draco comes
down the stairs to taunt Harry before his Father puts
the book in Ginny's cauldron?  Well, Draco pulled a
piece of paper out of a book, folded it and put it in
his pocket.  Later in the book, Hermione is found with
a folded page of a book in her hand (and written on). 
Now, I dont' believe for one second that Hermione
would deface a book like that.  She would have
transcribed the info on a separate piece of paper for
herself.  I think that Draco knew what his Father was
up to and was trying to help without anyone knowing. 
When time was going by and Hermione wasn't coming up
with an answer on her own, he snuck the paper to her
somehow.  I think Draco has been struggling with his
feelings just as much as Snape had when he was young. 
Unfortunately, Draco has two parents that beat the
subject of hating muggleborns into his head and he has
that to contend with as well.  Now don't get me wrong;
I don't think he's all peaches and cream inside, but I
don't think he's all bad and is trying to find his
true self.

As for Dumbledore, I too held onto the hope that he
wasn't really dead and it was maybe a boggart or
something that Hagrid carried in the funeral. 
Unfortunately, when the painting appeared in the
headmaster's office, those hopes were shattered.

I do, however, think that he is still around
protecting Hogwarts, much like the man who gave his
life during the World Quidditch Cup to help those in
the stadium.

I also think he and Dumbledore had an understanding
and he HAD to kill him in order to save both his own
life because of his Wizard's Oath to Narcissa and to
save Draco's life because he didn't do it.  Remember
that all Albus said to him was "Please, Severus" (or
something to that effect).  He never said "Don't",
almost like he was trying to give Snape the strength
that it had to be done and he knew it was time.

About a Secret Keeper, I would think the spell would
have been broken the second James and Lily were dead. 
Although it is a good observation that if Harry was
included in the original spell, he didn't actually die
so should still have been invisible to all who weren't
told the Secret.  Maybe they forgot to actually
include him and he just wound up invisible because he
was with his parents?  I wonder if that will be one of
those little "oops!" that gets missed when writing?

Okay, that's my story and I'm sticking to it! <lol>


Sandra

http://www.picturetrail.com/sbejster
http://www.picturetrail.com/delana196242

    
Gdzie jest pokoj, tam i, szczescie.
"Where there is Peace, there is Happiness."




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $420k for $1,399/mo. 
Calculate new payment!
http://www.LowerMyBills.com/lre




From jnferr at gmail.com  Mon Nov  6 19:15:35 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:15:35 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eimi0e+912c@eGroups.com>
References: <eimi0e+912c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611061115o2a873682n57e5f6a3d3bbf31a@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161083

Mike wrote:
>
>
> I am assuming that Tom spent his Holidays at Hogwarts, just like
> Harry did. In fact, since the memory Harry visited showed Tom
> attempting to remain over the summer at Hogwarts, this seems the
> most logical conclusion. The diary was Muggle made for the year
> 1943. Tom must have bought (or stole) it during the summer of '43,
> just after his fifth year but most likely before he visited his
> ancestoral hovel. He would never have found a '43 diary later and he
> couldn't preserve his 16-year-old self after 1943.
>
> So, Tom acquired the Diary with the express intent of making it a
> Horcrux and made that Horcrux while he was still 16. He also
> murdered his father and grandparents when he was 16 and framed his
> uncle for those murders. Logic tells me that he brought the diary
> with him and performed the Horcrux encasing spell when he does the
> killing, at his father's house.


montims:
I'm sorry, I have this devil in me that makes me challenge any logical
conclusion.  Hence, I hypothesize that the Orphanage, at which he spends his
summer holidays, sent him the diary as an annual Christmas gift.  Or - the
shop which sold the diaries was bombed, and its stock was subsequently sold
on or dumped after the war...  I could probably think of a few more
scenarios, given time...


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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 19:04:45 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <20061106190445.40740.qmail@web54504.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161084

> Jeremiah:
<sinp> Wormtail betrayed the Potter's trust. This, however, is not a 
condition of the magic. It has never been specified that it is a 
condition of the magic.
> 

Beatrice:

hmmm... but if Peter revealed the location of James and Lily to the 
members of the Order, wouldn't they know that Peter was the Potter's 
secret keeper, not Sirius? Or would the Order members simply allow 
Sirius to rot in Azkaban for 12 years while they celebrated 
Voldemort's vanquishment?(snip)

Jeremiah:
Woah... really forgot that everyone thought it was Sirius. Yikes. How crazy is that? Hmm... looks like there was a funny trik involved and JKR may never explain it. 

Oh, sadness. :(

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





From rnbwtgr at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 18:22:38 2006
From: rnbwtgr at yahoo.com (cindy kauffman)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] My guess about book 7
In-Reply-To: <015c01c701cc$0a618d70$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <20061106182239.15684.qmail@web57914.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161085

Here is my guess about book 7: Harry saves the day ( as usual). Harry beats Voldemort finally.  The D.A. will return (from book 5).  Sirius will be back as a ghost.  Dumbledore will be back also (either as ghost or alive).  Ron will be head boy.  Hermione will be head girl.  Mcgonnagall will be new head mistress.  Weasleys will be key factor in this book.  There will be Quidditch.  Harry will be team captain.  I see Harry going off to be in a professional Quidditch team.  Now that Harry has his own house, I don't think he needs those nasty step-parents of his.  I hope he does magic on them and gets even with them.

Cindy





From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 19:22:59 2006
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:22:59 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <einubi+1v1m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eio22k+5plq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161086

Jeremiah wrote:
As far as posts saying "but Hagrid and Dumbledore and everyone else
knowing..." wouldn't it make sense that members of the Order would
have been told the Secret by Pettigrew? They were in on the Secret
and could do their business. Same with Sirius and possibly McGonagal.
But, Peter holds the Secret and if Harry was not told by Peter where
he lived then he may never know where to go.


Beatrice added:

hmmm... but if Peter revealed the location of James and Lily to the
members of the Order, wouldn't they know that Peter was the Potter's
secret keeper, not Sirius? Or would the Order members simply allow
Sirius to rot in Azkaban for 12 years while they celebrated
Voldemort's vanquishment?

ibchawz responds:

I think the list of people that were informed of the secret by Peter 
Pettigrew was very limited.  Obviously, Peter told Voldemort.  

It is possible that Sirius Black knew the secret.  I think it is 
safe to assume that he was informed of the secret by Peter.  The 
other explanation for Sirius appearing at Godric' Hollow after the 
fact was that the secret was broken and he suddenly remembered where 
the Potters wer hiding.  Beyond that, I can't think of anyone else 
that has indicated that they knew that Peter was the secret keeper.

I think the list of people that were not told the secret was a lot 
longer.  During this time, Order members suspected each of of being 
Voldemort's spy.  Sirius and Remus suspected each other.  The number 
of people told the secret would have been kept to a minimum to 
reduce the risk of the spy learning the secret and taking action on 
the information even if they could not tell Voldemort.

Dumbledore was not in on the secret.  He gave testimony to the 
Ministry of Magic that Sirius Black had been the secret keeper.  If 
he had been told the secret he would have known who the secret 
keeper was.  His dislike of the dementors alone should have been 
enough reason not to send an innocent man to Azkaban for life.

Hagrid, McGonnagal, and Flitwick did not know as they all told Fudge 
in The Three Broomsticks that Sirius had been the secret keeper.  
The same line of thinking holds true for Arthur and Molly Weasley.  
They, along with many others, thought Sirius Black had escaped 
Azkaban to attempt to murder Harry.  Even Remus Lupin thought that 
Sirius was the secret keeper until he saw Peter on the Marauder's 
Map and the Shrieking Shack encounter in POA.

IMO, the logical conclusion is that the secret was broken either by 
Peter's infidelity or by the destruction of the object of the secret 
(James and Lily or the house).  

ibchawz





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 19:38:24 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:38:24 -0000
Subject: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1
In-Reply-To: <einneh+p5ep@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eio2vg+spoi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161087

Ellen wrote:
> I believe that when Voldemort used Harry's blood to come back, he
> became mortal again--hence Dumbledore's satisfaction that Harry's
> mother's blood, through Harry, now was part of Voldemort.
>
Carol responds:
We've all wondered about the gleam in Dumbledore's eye, and I wondered
what Voldemort meant in GoF about having his old body back (it must be
essentially a clone, magically restored by the potion, since the old
body was destroyed), but he seemed to imply that his body was mortal.
That should be no surprise: so was the first one. It was only his soul
that was "immortal," in the sense of being bound to earth, unable to
leave it because of the Horcruxes. As long as even one remains, he
can't die in the usual sense. But the soul, if I understand JKR's
conception of it correctly, is immortal and death is just "the next
great adventure," not the end of everything that Voldemort imagines it
as being.

Your post brings up an interesting question, one that has been
considered before on this list but not in as much depth as I would like:

Is the body Voldemort's fragmentary soul now inhabits mortal in the
sense that other bodies are, not in terms of being blown up by
deflected AKs and so forth, but in terms of aging and diseases? Was
his old body immune to, say, dragon pox? What about poisons? The mere
fact that he can be nourished by Nagini's venom, a component of his
rudimentary body and consequently of this one (Fetal!mort went into
the potion, along with the flesh, blood, and bone) may indicate that
he's immune to poison, or he may need to experiment with poisons and
antidotes to develop an immunity. (Maybe a bezoar was a component of
the base potion before Wormtail added the key components in the
graveyard, but I like to think that one of Snape's jobs as a young DE
had to do with developing potions that helped to give Voldemort
physical immunity to death, including possibly longevity potions.)

At any rate, I agree that his body is now mortal. Perhaps it always
was. Old age in particular would present tremendous problems for
Voldemort if his soul was bound to earth but his body kept dying like
the animals he possessed and he kept having to create a new one with
the aid of a loyal or fearful servant. (How many of them would be
willing to, erm, lend a hand if this process repeated itself too
often?) I think that once Voldemort rid himself of Harry and made
certain that his Horcruxes were safe, his next order of business, more
important to him than taking over the WW, which could wait a hundred
years or so, would be to make sure that his body was as protected as
his soul. Not being an ageless immortal like Sauron before the
drowning of Numenor, I'm not sure how he would do it.

Carol, again thinking of the myth of Tithonus, who was granted eternal
life but not eternal youth and ended up so shriveled and helpless that
he begged for death







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  6 19:51:45 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:51:45 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <einpq0+hip9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eio3oh+915j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161089


> > wynnleaf
> > It's possible that it's a combination of reasons for hatred and 
> that 
> > it is somewhat mirrored by Harry's reasons for hating Snape.
> > 
> > Snape and James hated each other from 1st year at Hogwarts.  
<big 
> snip>> 
> > Similarly, Harry hates Snape from 1st year on.  Snape saves 
Harry's 
> > life, but Harry refuses to feel the slightest gratitude for it --
 
> > blaming Snape's action on the fact that Snape perhaps had to in 
> order 
> > to fulfill a life-debt, or maybe just to keep Dumbledore happy 
with 
> > him.  Harry continues to hate Snape.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Harry does not blame Snape's action on the life-debt, Dumbledore 
> tells Harry that this is why Snape saved his life. Of course Harry 
is 
> going to listen to him, IMO.

wynnleaf,
It is true that we aren't directly told what Harry thinks of Snape 
saving his life.  However, since he certainly isn't "grateful" I 
assume he must think *something* about it.  So I was mostly 
speculating that Harry feels that Snape *had* to save him and 
therefore his action requires no gratitude.
 
>  
> wynnleaf:
> 
> <SNIP>
> > Snape has gone a step further by extending his hatred to James' 
son 
> > Harry.  But I wouldn't be surprised that if Snape had a son 
Harry's 
> > age, Harry would hate him, too -- just because I think their 
> hatreds 
> > are so alike.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I would be surprised if Harry will be capable of such despicable 
> thing as hating innocent child. Harry already does not hate Draco 
> Malfoy, while not having any tender feelings for Lucius IMO.
> 
> I think that Harry would have made an effort to not blame Snape 
Jr. 
> for the sins of his father. IMO of course.

wynnleaf,
I agree that an adult Harry might not transfer his hatred of Snape 
onto a child.  But I *do* think teenage Harry could transfer his 
hatred of an adult onto that adult's child.  After all, even with 
adults who he does not personally hate (Death Eaters), he is 
completely able to believe other children are likely murderous 
solely because they are the children of "racists" and use "racist" 
remarks.  He didn't even know the parents were Death Eaters.  So, 
yes, I could see Harry hating a teenage kid of Snape's if one had 
existed, mainly because he hated Snape, especially if said son 
looked similar to Snape.  

 
> wynnleaf:
> <SNIP> 
> I expect Harry 
> > to have to deal with his hatred of a living, breathing Snape -- 
not 
> > the sacrificial dead body.  I have no guesses on whether or not 
JKR 
> > will have Snape deal with his own hatred, but I'm certain she'll 
> have 
> > Harry deal with it.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> In other words what I hear you saying is that you expect Harry to 
> realise that he was wrong, wrong, wrong towards Snape, but Snape 
> should be spared any such thing and should be alowed to merily go 
> forward *alive* without realising that he was wrong about Harry?
> 
> Keeping my fingers crossed that this is not going to happen. Sorry.
>
wynnleaf,
Why be sorry?  I don't want it to happen that way either.  Why did 
you "hear me saying" that "Snape should be spared any such thing?"  
I certainly never said that, did I?  What I said was that I don't 
know if JKR will have Snape deal with his own hatred.  In fact, I 
hope she does have him change his views of Harry and deal with that 
hatred.  I don't blame Snape for hating James (at least based on 
what JKR has shown us thus far), but I would like to see Snape get 
over his hatred of Harry.  

But since Harry is the main character, and he's the one who's 
supposed to have love as his power that Voldemort "knows not of," 
then I am fairly certain JKR will want Harry to get over his hatreds 
before she lets him destroy Voldemort.  I don't know whether she'll 
do that with Snape or not.  But my not having any strong feeling 
about what JKR will do about Snape's hatred isn't the same as a 
belief that Snape *shouldn't* deal with his hatred.  

wynnleaf





From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Nov  6 19:58:59 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:58:59 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <einubi+1v1m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eio463+7jpd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161091

> Beatrice:
> hmmm... but if Peter revealed the location of James and Lily to the
> members of the Order, wouldn't they know that Peter was the Potter's
> secret keeper, not Sirius?

Eddie:
This hits the nail squarely on the head.

Sorry for the "me too" post, but I think this proves canonically that
only Sirius, Voldemort, and Peter knew where the Potters were hiding
UNTIL the secret was broken.  Hagrid couldn't have found Harry at
Godric's Hollow before the secret was broken.

So, any suggestion that the secret is still intact is, IMO, going to
have to deal with these canonical facts.

Eddie







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 20:04:50 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:04:50 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper... Fidelity - a Condition
In-Reply-To: <20061106175218.8702.qmail@web54515.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eio4h2+lhqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161092

---  J <tidblgr72 at ...> wrote:
>
> Beatrice: I agree, but I have one minor thought to add
> ... Pettigrew violated the sacred trust of the secret 
> keeper by revealing the Potter's location to Voldemort.
> Could it be that the magic was broken because of this 
> act and thus the house would be accessible to anyone 
> looking after such an act?
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> Jeremiah:
> It's not about trust. The Secret Keeper can tell anyone
> they want. It's a position based on trust but not 
> dependent on it. So, if ... I become the secret keeper. 
> I can walk up and tell anyone I like about it. But if 
> I'm trusted, and I'm worthy of that trust, then I will
> not tell Macy's. I will only tell those close to you.
> 
> Wormtail betrayed the Potter's trust. This, however, is
> not a condition of the magic. It has never been 
> specified that it is a condition of the magic.
> 
> 

bboyminn:

If is primarily about the secret rather than the Trust, 
then why isn't it called the 'Specialis Charm'?

specialis : secret, confidential / initimate or special 
friend.

It is actually called the 'Fidelius Charm', and that very 
strongly implies that 'Fidelity' is at the core of it.

fidelis : faithful, loyal, true

fidelitas : fidelity, loyalty, homage.

fidens : confident, without fear, courageous.

fides : promise, assurance, word of honor, engagement.

fides : trust, confidence, reliance, belief, faith.

fiducia : confidence, trust, assurance.

Notre Dame Latin Dictionary [ http://archives.nd.edu/latgramm.htm ]

I point out again that when Peter tolded Voldemort, he 
breached Fidelity, he breached faith, trust, duty, honor,
and loyalty, in the most egregious way possible.

When Dumbledore told Harry about 12 Gimmauld Place via the
note, he did in no way breach his fidelity. He honored his
trust by only telling a trustworthy person; Harry.

My point is that based on the name alone, I think that 
Fidelity is very much a condition of the magic. Further,
I have to believe it since it is at the heart of my theory
for how and why the Spell was broken on the night of the
incident at Godrics Hollow.

While you make some good points in general, I have trouble
accepting the idea that 'Fidelity' in the Fidelius Charm
is not a condition of the magic.

Steve/bboyminn





From dougsamu at golden.net  Mon Nov  6 19:48:35 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 14:48:35 -0500
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
Message-ID: <DF8025D8-0B66-4D6A-AC27-117FC2FA6549@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161093

Carol, realizing that we'll probably never get a clear and consistent
explanation of Horcruxes because JKR's strong point is imagination,
not logic or consistency

Doug: and so isn't it useless to continue with ruthless logic when  
Imagination is the answer?

  There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.
__________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>__________




From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov  6 20:19:10 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:19:10 -0000
Subject: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
In-Reply-To: <20061106185702.6953.qmail@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eio5bu+j0ot@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161096

Sandra:
> 1) I don't think he hates muggleborns as much as he
> appears to.  I think when he was young he was more
> trying to fit in with both the purebloods/Slytherins
> he was with.  Maybe he was even TRYING to hate them
> with an outward appearance of it but not deep inside. 

Magpie:
This is an interesting topic in general, but as an adult I don't 
think we ever see Snape hating Muggleborns at all.  He's nasty to 
most students in some ways, but Hermione is usually criticized for 
being a know-it-all, not being a Muggleborn. She doesn't seem to be 
discriminated against in class by Snape.

Regarding the other theory in the thread about Snape and Lily, I 
think there's some merit to it whether it happened the way Alla 
described or the other way around.  That is, I think that scene in 
the Pensieve where Snape calls Lily a Mudblood is significant, maybe 
the ending of a friendship that had happened before.  If that's true 
I think Snape definitely would have chosen Pureblood ideology over a 
real friend--which is always going to be at the heart of that 
ideology.  If you are going to judge people on their bloodline 
you're cutting *yourself* off from good friends.

As to whether he truly believed it deep down, that's always a hard 
thing to say because how deep can something be before ceasing to 
exist for all intents and purposes?  I mean, Draco Malfoy seems to 
hate people like Hermione really for reasons other than her being a 
Muggleborn--he just expresses it through those beliefs.  But I don't 
think that makes him less of a bigot/racist/Pureblood elitist.  It 
might be a bit different with Snape since Draco was presumably 
raised to believe in this superiority while Snape had a Muggle 
father, but in both cases I think the racism provides/provided 
something for each boy. 

I guess this just always makes me think because I've heard more than 
one character described as not being really racist but just trying 
to fit in etc., and I just don't get the feeling JKR makes that 
distinction.  Blaise Zabini gets the same defense--he's got like six 
lines in canon and one's about blood traitors, and it's chalked up 
to peer pressure and trying to fit in for him too.  So as to whether 
Snape truly believed in Pureblood superiority, well, Snape is 
intelligent and logical for a Wizard so it's not beyond him to see 
that it's really a lie.  I think Draco's noticed some problems with 
the theory as well due to, for instance, Hermione's skills.  But 
racism is always irrational and illogical at heart.  As long as 
there's an emotional need for it, it exists in the world and in the 
character, imo.

Sandra:
> I feel he had a respect for Lily even though he called
> her names in public.  Remember that the one "memory"
> we saw of James and the others taunting him, even Lily
> hated James then and wouldn't have anything to do with
> him.  As of yet we don't know what changed her mind,
> of course, but something must have. ;-)

Magpie:
Right--but respect for Lily wouldn't necessarily make him less of a 
bigot.  Grudging respect can make a bigot all the more likely to 
lash out.  And I think Lily clearly already liked James in that 
Pensieve scene.:-)

Sandra: 
> Just because Snape has a similar parental situation as
> Tom Riddle doesn't mean he hated his Muggle Mother (of
> course, I could have forgotten that part in the book)
> like Tom hated his Father.  

Magpie:
Actually--you probably already know this, but Snape had a Muggle 
father and a Witch mother, like Voldemort.

Sandra:
Tom hated his Father
> because of the way he treated he and his Mother,
> despite the fact that the whole thing was brought on
> because of his Mother's desire and a spell and his
> Father was actually a victim.

Magpie:
Not exactly.  That's the way it seemed pre-HBP, imo, but that book 
seemed to make it clear that Tom hated his father for being a 
Muggle. He originally assumed his mother must be the inferior Muggle 
for dying.  He didn't really seem driven by anger at his father's 
treatment of him or his mother that I remember.
 
Sandra:
> I'm also positive his treatment of Hermione (at least
> in public) is an act.  I have a deep feeling that they
> are somehow working in private as well (if only having
> just to do with school work and not Order work). 

Magpie:
You mean you think that in private Snape and Hermione work alone and 
Snape's much nicer to her than he is in private?  I admit I see no 
evidence of this, or that Snape's normal demeanor is an act. He 
doesn't seem that great at faking feelings like that, and I don't 
see why he'd bother.

Sandra:
 Any
> of his comments don't seem to phase her at all anymore
> and I think that's because she realizes he HAS to act
> like that in public.  You never see any instances of
> them being in private and him acting like that.


Magpie:
There's no suggestion they are ever in private, period.  Why would 
Snape need to be insulting to Hermione in public?  

Sandra:
  One
> reason I think they may do things privately together
> is in OotP when Harry's hand is hurting because of the
> spelled punishment quill.  Now, Hermione suddenly
> comes up with this great potion for him to soak his
> hand in.  Even if she came up with the potion from a
> book, she HAD to have gotten the ingredients from
> Snape's cupboard.  I don't feel she would have stolen
> them because it wasn't really life or death like the
> other couple of times.  He had to have at the least
> allowed her to take them, if not coming up with the
> potion in the first place. 

Magpie:
I think the ingredients could easily have come from Hermione's own 
Potions kit or just not be that difficult to get--she could probably 
get it from Madam Pomfrey.  I think it's just essence of murtlap and 
not a Potion.  If JKR is writing in a secret relationship that we 
don't see, she always gives the reader of a sign of it that we can 
pick up on later reason, looks Harry is confused by or a character 
making a mistake and covering it up.  I can't recall any signs where 
Snape and Hermione are reacting to each other in a scene that's 
explained by a secret relationship.  

 Sandra:
> Now, for Draco ... I also haven't believed Draco was
> all bad ever since the end of CoS.  I'd have to read
> the entire book again to see if this is in the book
> and not just in the movie, but do you remember in the
> movie where they were at the bookstore and Draco comes
> down the stairs to taunt Harry before his Father puts
> the book in Ginny's cauldron?  Well, Draco pulled a
> piece of paper out of a book, folded it and put it in
> his pocket.  Later in the book, Hermione is found with
> a folded page of a book in her hand (and written on). 
> Now, I dont' believe for one second that Hermione
> would deface a book like that.  She would have
> transcribed the info on a separate piece of paper for
> herself.  I think that Draco knew what his Father was
> up to and was trying to help without anyone knowing. 

Magpie:
This is pure movie contamination, actually.  Draco steals no pages 
out of books and is shown to be both ignorant and outwardly 
enthusiastic (to his friends) about the Heir.  I think he's 
definitely shown to be less comfortable with the monster than he 
claims to be, but I don't think he's secretly trying to help the 
Trio--or that he knows anything about exactly what's going on 
besides the basic historical facts about the Heir.

Sandra:
Now don't get me wrong;
> I don't think he's all peaches and cream inside, but I
> don't think he's all bad and is trying to find his
> true self.

Magpie:
There I agree, though I think I may see Draco's struggle to find his 
own self a bit differently than you do, and coming much later in the 
series for different reasons.:-)

-m






From Aixoise at snet.net  Mon Nov  6 20:15:21 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 15:15:21 -0500
Subject: Ron as Head Boy was [HPforGrownups] My guess about book 7
In-Reply-To: <20061106182239.15684.qmail@web57914.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <0f5b01c701e0$4911bdb0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161097

Cindy wrote:

 

<snip> Ron will be head boy. Hermione will be head girl. Mcgonnagall will be
new head mistress. <snip>

 
Stacey:
I've always wondered about the Head Boy position.  I can't recall if the
qualifications for this position are mentioned in the books but, as much as
I like Ron (and his family in general), academically at least I don't think
Ron outshines Harry or any of the other boys.   If academics are a major
qualification, I don't know that we can count on Ron for Head Boy.
Personally, I was surprised when he became a prefect.  

 

Hermione seems a very logical choice for Head Girl.  As for McGonnagall,
although I would very much like to see her as headmistress, I have some
suspicions that the MOM *WILL* send in someone else and that her position
was merely for the interim.  I just can't imagine them giving in to the fact
that they have lost control and stepping down in the decision making/
governing power.  

 

JMO, of course,

Stacey  



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





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 20:37:12 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:37:12 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <eio3oh+915j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eio6do+7hp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161098

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Harry does not blame Snape's action on the life-debt, Dumbledore 
> > tells Harry that this is why Snape saved his life. Of course 
Harry 
> is 
> > going to listen to him, IMO.
> 
> wynnleaf,
> It is true that we aren't directly told what Harry thinks of Snape 
> saving his life.  However, since he certainly isn't "grateful" I 
> assume he must think *something* about it.  So I was mostly 
> speculating that Harry feels that Snape *had* to save him and 
> therefore his action requires no gratitude.

Alla:

Right of course this is as valid speculation as any others. I am just 
saying that the **reason** why Harry thinks so if he does, is because 
Dumbledore told him so because Harry simply did not know about life 
debt before.

And of course Harry isn't grateful. I understand why he is not and 
totally understand it - as I said, if I were twelve and the teacher 
jumped at me as mad dog at the first lesson, I would have to be 
pushed really hard to feel gratefullness toward his teacher, 
especially if he was doing his job, you know?

So, basically I think that the reasons why Harry is ungrateful are 
understandable, but certainly do not dispute that he feels no 
gratitude here.

What I also think, that if Dumbledore behaved a little bit 
differently here and pushed Harry towards feeling grateful, he could 
have been.

> > Alla:
> > 
> > I would be surprised if Harry will be capable of such despicable 
> > thing as hating innocent child. Harry already does not hate Draco 
> > Malfoy, while not having any tender feelings for Lucius IMO.
> > 
> > I think that Harry would have made an effort to not blame Snape 
> Jr. 
> > for the sins of his father. IMO of course.
> 
> wynnleaf,
> I agree that an adult Harry might not transfer his hatred of Snape 
> onto a child.  But I *do* think teenage Harry could transfer his 
> hatred of an adult onto that adult's child.  After all, even with 
> adults who he does not personally hate (Death Eaters), he is 
> completely able to believe other children are likely murderous 
> solely because they are the children of "racists" and use "racist" 
> remarks.  He didn't even know the parents were Death Eaters.  So, 
> yes, I could see Harry hating a teenage kid of Snape's if one had 
> existed, mainly because he hated Snape, especially if said son 
> looked similar to Snape.  

Alla:

Since you were arguing ( or I understood you to argue) that Snape and 
Harry hatreds are alike, I was trying to compare Harry and Snape on 
more or less equal footing, so yes, I was thinking of adult Harry of 
course.

I cannot think of the hatred that child feels for the teacher who 
attacked him, who started all that as anything **close** to what 
Snape does to Harry.

I believe that Harry has **much** more reasons to feel hatred towards 
Snape than Snape would ever be, that is why again I was thinking of 
adult Harry.

And sure, teen Harry may hate Snape's child, although again based on 
the fact that he does not seem to hate Malfoy Junior anymore, I am 
not sure if this is definitely true.

 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > In other words what I hear you saying is that you expect Harry to 
> > realise that he was wrong, wrong, wrong towards Snape, but Snape 
> > should be spared any such thing and should be alowed to merily go 
> > forward *alive* without realising that he was wrong about Harry?
> > 
> > Keeping my fingers crossed that this is not going to happen. 
Sorry.
> >
> wynnleaf,
> Why be sorry?  I don't want it to happen that way either.  Why did 
> you "hear me saying" that "Snape should be spared any such thing?"  
> I certainly never said that, did I?  What I said was that I don't 
> know if JKR will have Snape deal with his own hatred.  In fact, I 
> hope she does have him change his views of Harry and deal with that 
> hatred.  I don't blame Snape for hating James (at least based on 
> what JKR has shown us thus far), but I would like to see Snape get 
> over his hatred of Harry.  

Alla:

That is why I phrased my sentence that way, because I was not sure. 
Sorry that I misunderstood you. 

 






From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Nov  6 20:52:30 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 20:52:30 -0000
Subject: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
In-Reply-To: <20061106185702.6953.qmail@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eio7ae+5aus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161099

> Sandra:
> I feel [Snape] had a respect for Lily even though he called
> her names in public.  Remember that the one "memory"
> we saw of James and the others taunting him, even Lily
> hated James then and wouldn't have anything to do with
> him.

Eddie:
This all ties into a long-standing question... why was THIS memory
Snapes' WORST memory.  (See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/61591 for a
discussion from over 3 years ago).  Some theories from then, and my
personal opinion, is that this memory shows the moment when Snape
realizes Lily is prepared to torment him too, and that she is just
like all his other tormentors.

> Sandra:
> [...] in OotP when Harry's hand is hurting because of the
> spelled punishment quill.  Now, Hermione suddenly
> comes up with this great potion for him to soak his
> hand in.  Even if she came up with the potion from a
> book, she HAD to have gotten the ingredients from
> Snape's cupboard.

Eddie:
Oh, not necessarily HAD to have gotten them from Snape's cupboard.  We
don't know what the ingredients are.  (But here's partial info:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/magic/potions/potions-m.html#murtlap_essence
), mainly "strained and pickled Murtlap tentacles", but would Madame
Pomfrey or Professor Sprout have them?  Are they free available at the
student's supply cupboard.  THe rest of the ingredients could be, "1/2
cup of baking soda; 1/4 cup of Maalox; etc"  :-)    Also, Fred and
George say they used the same cure later on.  If we assume that
Hermione could only have got the ingredients from Snape, then we'd
have to assume that Fred and George somehow "acquired" the ingredients
from Snape too.  Not that this kind of larceny is beyond them, but now
it's a slippery slope.

> Sandra:
> [is] this is in the book
> and not just in the movie, but do you remember in the
> movie where they were at the bookstore and Draco comes
> down the stairs to taunt Harry before his Father puts
> the book in Ginny's cauldron?  Well, Draco pulled a
> piece of paper out of a book, folded it and put it in
> his pocket.

Eddie:
Movie only.  It looked to me that loose-morals-Draco wasn't beyond
defacing a bookstore book that he didn't own because, well, he wanted
it... and that's all that matters to him.

> Sandra:
> Now, I dont' believe for one second that Hermione
> would deface a book like that.  She would have
> transcribed the info on a separate piece of paper for
> herself.

Eddie:
That's bothered me too, and I believe it was in the book too, but
Hermione consistently despises Draco throughout all the books.  If he
was helping her, I'd think she'd stick up for him.

Eddie





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 20:25:19 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
Message-ID: <20061106202519.81505.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161100

Jeremiah wrote:
As far as posts saying "but Hagrid and Dumbledore and everyone else
knowing..." wouldn't it make sense that members of the Order would
have been told the Secret by Pettigrew? They were in on the Secret
and could do their business. <snip>

Beatrice added:

hmmm... but if Peter revealed the location of James and Lily to the members of the Order, wouldn't they know that Peter was the Potter's secret keeper, not Sirius? Or would the Order members simply allow Sirius to rot in Azkaban for 12 years while they celebrated Voldemort's vanquishment?

ibchawz responds:

I think the list of people that were informed of the secret by Peter Pettigrew was very limited. Obviously, Peter told Voldemort. <snip>It is possible that Sirius Black knew the secret. I think it is safe to assume that he was informed of the secret by Peter. <snip> I think the list of people that were not told the secret was a lot longer. During this time, Order members suspected each of of being Voldemort's spy. <snip> Dumbledore was not in on the secret. He gave testimony to the Ministry of Magic that Sirius Black had been the secret keeper.<snip> IMO, the logical conclusion is that the secret was broken either by  Peter's infidelity or by the destruction of the object of the secret 
(James and Lily or the house). 

---------------------
Jeremiah:

You're right. There seems to have been a lot of confusion and with the threat of death I'm sure there would have been a very short list of people who knew. Hence the mistake on Dumbledore's part testifying that Sirius was the Secret Keeper. Thanks ibchawz. 

So, (for those of you who are not "over" this discussion or are unwilling to simply delete these posts... like I do to all the discussions I'm not interrested in but not so wholy sure of myself to write that they are pointless and absolutely resolved) it is believed that some sort of Fidelius charm was used on Peter? I'm not sure about that. I don't know if there would have been one placed on him. But the destruction of the site placed under the magic to keep it secret seems to be the viable option. However, I'm still not toatally convinced of it. But it would explain it.

Regardless of the fact that JKR has a lot to wrap up, I remember reading on her sit e that she discovered there was a lot more to explain than she had origionally thought. Maybe this is one of them and as I'd posted previously: This may never be fully explained.

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





From mros at xs4all.nl  Mon Nov  6 21:10:37 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:10:37 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
References: <eio5bu+j0ot@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000901c701e8$02154fa0$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 161101

Magpie:

>>>Regarding the other theory in the thread about Snape and Lily, I 
think there's some merit to it whether it happened the way Alla 
described or the other way around. That is, I think that scene in 
the Pensieve where Snape calls Lily a Mudblood is significant, maybe 
the ending of a friendship that had happened before. If that's true 
I think Snape definitely would have chosen Pureblood ideology over a 
real friend--which is always going to be at the heart of that 
ideology. If you are going to judge people on their bloodline 
you're cutting *yourself* off from good friends.<<<


Marion:

Where do people get this strange idea that Snape and Evans were friends? Or that Snape was secretly in love with her?
Does it look to you or anybody on this list that Lily Evans even *knew* who Snape was in that Pensieve scene? 
Reread the scene.
First we see James showing off his skills with the snitch, all the while casting looks at some girls further on. Is Lily one of them? Probably, because not a minute later she storms into the scene. James has not been the only one casting looks it seems. Lily *knows* his performance is for her and she is casting looks *his* way, all the time complaining, no doubt, to her girl friends about that awful Potter Boy showing off again.
Then James and Sirius do their tag-team attack from the rear bullying thing with Snape and Lily Evans storms into the scene. And what does she do? Does she ask, "Oh dear, are you allright Snape"? Does she even *look* at Severus Snape? Is this about James and Sirius tormenting a friend or even a class mate?
No.
Lily rages on and on about *James*. About how AWFUL he is. About how much of a showoff he is. About the way he wears his hair and the way he wears his clothes and the way he acts. 
"Oh James Potter, you are just too AWFUL and I haven't been watching you like a hawk at all because how else would I know about your Quidditch prowess/hairstyle/etc.etc".

They are *flirting*! Lily and James are *flirting*!

Lily is so taken up in their little flirting game that she doesn't even realise that this is a real, live, human being lying there on the ground, choking on a mouth-soaping spell.

Now, to be the butt of a couple of bullies is one thing. To be the prop in a bully's little flirt is quite another. Aparantly Snape isn't even important enough to be the real object of this little exercise in How To Humiliate A Fellow Student. He simply is reduced to a prop in quite another game. A thing. He is *used* by both James and Lily. And he knows it.

So what does he do? He flings the foulest insult he can think of in her face. And it works. She snaps out of the flirting game, realises that this is a real human being that is being tormented just so James and she could have their little flirt and she is mortified! So what does *she* do? After she quickly slaps down Snape of course. She blows up at *James*. Because James is the culprit who lured her into the game and made her an accomplice.

Snape a racist who hates Muggleborns? I doubt it. I don't get that message from this scene. Snape in love with Lily? Why?! She hardly knows who he is. He doesn't even register on her radar unless Snape insults her with the worst insult he knows he could fling at her. She isn't there to rescue him. This isn't about him at all, this is about James and Lily. 
So why, why, why are people so convinced that this scene is about Lily 'rescueing her best buddy Snape'? There is *nothing* in the scene that suggests that she even knows him.
Why, why, why are people so convinced that Snape Loved Lily? *I* wouldn't love a self-centered little bint who used me in a flirting game with my worst enemy. And even if Snape *did* fancy Lily once, this little scene must've killed that off quickly.

Harry thinks Snape was 'evil from the start' because 'he called my mum a Mudblood'. Harry missed the whole flirting thing. Of course Harry missed the whole flirting thing. Harry, at fifteen, doesn't even know how to ask a girl to a frigging dance, doesn't know a thing about flirting, is as dim as a five watt lightbulb and gets totally the wrong things from the scene. As per usual.
But if it is one thing we readers must've learned by now, it is that what we are being *told* is totally different from what we are shown.

Marion 
who wanted to write some more about the so called 'Pureblood ideology' and that there is no such but who decided that this can keep for another post



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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 20:41:30 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper... Fidelity - a Condition
Message-ID: <20061106204130.22940.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161102

bboyminn:

If is primarily about the secret rather than the Trust, 
then why isn't it called the 'Specialis Charm'?
<snip>
It is actually called the 'Fidelius Charm', and that very 
strongly implies that 'Fidelity' is at the core of it.
<snip>

Jeremiah:

Very true. I hadn't concidered that as an actual condition. I had assumed that the reason of the fidelity rested in the simple trust of whom they would choose. Also, I wouldn't have thought that a condition of the charm would be naming a specific group or individual as being forbidden but, rather, that the inherent trust of whoever was chosen as keeper would be enough to secure the secret from anyone wanting to cause harm.

I guess that's why I woudl think that the charm would still be in effect and not broken just by telling. That's also why I think there is still a charm on the exact location.

If Harry doesn't know where the location is I would think he has to either get the info from Pettigrew or figure out how to sense the magic Voldemort used to destroy his parents.

Maybe I'm alone in all of this, but I'm not afraid to be totally wrong. You all have great points and I'm interrested to see how the story unfolds. Thanks for the insights and taking time to respond. Maybe this will move on to a new topic (since I started this thread... maybe it will keep going? Whoo knows).

:) Sorry if I bored some of you.

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





From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Nov  6 21:11:31 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:11:31 -0000
Subject: My guess about book 7
In-Reply-To: <454F8E34.00001B.02392@JUSTME>
Message-ID: <eio8e3+brgd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161103

> Debi:
> Off the post, what does lil magil stand for? My sister's sister has
that email and its driven me nuts.

Eddie:
Maybe it's from the Beatle's song, "Rocky Raccoon":

  His rival, it seems, had broken his dreams
  By stealing the girl of his fancy.
  Her name was Magill and she called herself Lil,
  But everyone knew her as Nancy.

Am I right guessing that your sister's sister's real name is "Nancy?"

Eddie, who is happy to provide full service support, but thinks
followups to this post should go to HPFGU-OTChatter --
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/

P.S. Coincidentally, my sister's name is Nancy.  Or IS IT a
coincidence?  Maybe it's a CONSPIRACY involving Voldemort and memory
modification!





From sbejster at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 19:11:50 2006
From: sbejster at yahoo.com (Sandra Bejster)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 11:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: A couple more of my halfbrained ideas ...
Message-ID: <20061106191150.12581.qmail@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161104

... and some not so halfbrained.

There has recently been discussion as to why Harry
didn't figure out when he was running away from the
Dursleys that he could easily transfer his wizard
money into muggle money.  Well, for one thing he might
have been afraid that he couldn't go back into the
wizarding world because of what he did to Aunt Marge. 
More likely to me is that he is simply an idiot
teenage boy that doesn't think before he acts.  There
are many examples of this.  One is that he never
thinks that Snape HAS to keep acting contemptuous to
him no matter what because he not only has to keep
Harry's mind clear of anything incriminating, but his
own mind as well.  Voldemort can see both into Harry's
minds and Snapes (Snape HAS to let him or he will look
suspicious).

Also, the idiot boys (both Harry and Ron) have YET to
notice that Hermione spends as much time at the
Weasleys as Harry does.  Has it not occurred to them
that that is because she and her family are in as much
danger as Harry and the Weasleys are?  She has two
parents who love her and yet she spends all Summer
with the Weasleys and/or hiding out in Grimmauld
Place.  They only think of themselves and what they
are going through (or THINK they are going through). 
Granted, it's probably a blessing considering Harry
would feel guilty if he figured it out, but STILL!
Boys!

My theory on house elves.  I think there is going to
be a big uprising in book seven and many house elves
are going to end up helping win the war.  Look at how
powerful they are?  They cannot only apparate in and
out of Hogwarts (which supposedly can't be done), but
they are VERY powerful and don't need a wand to do
magic.  I believe that they have been suppressed by
humans out of fear of them and their power.  I don't
know how it began, of course, but somehow it started
and through the centuries they have begun to believe
that this is the way it's supposed to be and they are
bad if they think independently.  Just like in all
societies, though, there have got to be more like
Dobby around who recognize it for what it is and want
to be free.

And Hermione's constant kindness to those like
Kreacher have got to make a difference at some point.


Sandra


http://www.picturetrail.com/sbejster
http://www.picturetrail.com/delana196242

    
Gdzie jest pokoj, tam i, szczescie.
"Where there is Peace, there is Happiness."






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 21:36:19 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:36:19 -0000
Subject: Snape and Harry/ Snape and Lily WAS:Re: My Take on the Whole Snapes
In-Reply-To: <000901c701e8$02154fa0$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <eio9sj+sncc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161105

> 
> Marion:
> <SNIP>
>> Lily rages on and on about *James*. About how AWFUL he is. About 
how much of a showoff he is. About the way he wears his hair and the 
way he wears his clothes and the way he acts. 
> "Oh James Potter, you are just too AWFUL and I haven't been 
watching you like a hawk at all because how else would I know about 
your Quidditch prowess/hairstyle/etc.etc".
> 
> They are *flirting*! Lily and James are *flirting*!
> <SNIP>
>

Alla:

LOLOL. This is quite well known after JKR's post HBP interview that 
Lily indeed was already interested in James at the time of Pensieve 
scene, so really not a big suprise.

Her being interested in James and genuinely despising what he did are 
not IMO mutually exclusive things.

I read her as genuinely wanting to help Snape and James to stop.

Till Snape insults her of course.

No matter how interested Lily may have been, she did not go with 
James till year seven, it tells me that she while may have been 
attracted, also wanted him to change his behaviour.

IMO of course.


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sandra Bejster <sbejster at ...> 
wrote:
>
> ... and some not so halfbrained.
> 
> There has recently been discussion as to why Harry
> didn't figure out when he was running away from the
> Dursleys that he could easily transfer his wizard
> money into muggle money.  Well, for one thing he might
> have been afraid that he couldn't go back into the
> wizarding world because of what he did to Aunt Marge. 
> More likely to me is that he is simply an idiot
> teenage boy that doesn't think before he acts.  There
> are many examples of this.  One is that he never
> thinks that Snape HAS to keep acting contemptuous to
> him no matter what because he not only has to keep
> Harry's mind clear of anything incriminating, but his
> own mind as well.  Voldemort can see both into Harry's
> minds and Snapes (Snape HAS to let him or he will look
> suspicious).
<SNIP>


Alla:

Welcome to the list :)

I don't know. There are certainly many examples of Harry thinking 
before he acts, this I would not call one of them.

This argument of Snape **have to** act as a jerk towards Harry, 
because Voldemort will learn and punish Snape dear if he does noy 
always makes me confused.

If Snape is true DE, wouldn't Voldemort **prefer** that Snape has to 
fool Dumbledore as being faithful to their side?

So, what is the best way to do so? Be **nice** to the boy, who is 
supposed to the Dumbledore's **golden boy**, etc?

Yeah, so I do not think that Snape has to act as he acts to fool 
Voldemort at all. Because I do not understand why Snape would need to 
fool Voldemort in that way. Seems quite the opposite to me.







From tfaucette6387 at charter.net  Mon Nov  6 21:16:49 2006
From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:16:49 -0000
Subject: My guess about book 7
In-Reply-To: <20061106182239.15684.qmail@web57914.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eio8o1+u7aq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161106

 Cindy Kauffman  wrote:

> Here is my guess about book 7: Harry saves the day ( as usual).
Harry beats Voldemort finally.  

<snip>
  Sirius will be back as a ghost.  

Anne Squires responds:

On page 861 of OotP (US hardback edition)  JKR makes it clear that
Sirius will not come back as a ghost.  She has Nearly Headless Nick
explain the situation to Harry.  Nick offers absolutely no hope that
Sirius would ever choose the path of becoming a ghost.  He tells
Harry, "But very few wizards choose that path."  When Harry continues
to question him, Nick says, "He will not come back," repeated Nick. 
"He will have... gone on."  Harry continues to insist and Nick tells
him, "I was afraid of death.  I chose to remain behind...." So, we
learn that "very few wizards" choose that path.  We also learn that
Nick chose his path because he was "afraid."  Sirius is anything but
afraid. I don't believe that DD would ever choose this path either. 
After all, he claimed way back in the first book that death was the
next big adventure.

Cindy Kauffman also wrote:
  There will be Quidditch.  Harry will be team captain.  I see Harry
going off to be in a professional Quidditch team. 

<snip>

Anne Squires responds:
In the MuggleNet/The Leaky Cauldron interview with Emerson Spartz and
Melissa Anelli on 7-16-05 JKR stated that the match where Luna does
the commentary was the last Quidditch match she will ever write.

JKR:  "I know what I've enjoyed writing - you know Luna's commentary
during the Quidditch match? [Laughter] It was that. I really enjoyed
doing that. Actually I really enjoyed doing that.  You know, that was
the last Quidditch match. I knew as I wrote it that it was the last
time I was going to be doing a Quidditch match. To be honest with you,
Quidditch matches have been the bane of my life in the Harry Potter
books. They are necessary in that people expect Harry to play
Quidditch, but there is a limit to how many ways you can have them
play Quidditch together and for something new to happen. And then I
had this moment of blinding inspiration. I thought, Luna's going to
commentate, and that was just a gift. It's the kind of commentary I'd
do on a sports match because I'm -[laughs]. Anyway yeah, it was that.

Cindy again:

 Now that Harry has his own house, I don't think he needs those nasty
step-parents of his.  I hope he does magic on them and gets even with
them.

Anne Squires responds:

Harry needs his aunt and uncle's for at least a little while longer. 
On pages 55 and 56 of HBP(US hardback edition)Dumbledore asks the
Dursleys to allow Harry to return once more to renew the magic which
was evoked fifteen year earlier.

"The magic I evoked fifteen years ago means that Harry has powerful
protection while he can call this house "home.".....This magic will
cease to operate the moment that Harry turns seventeen; in other
words, at the moment he becomes a man.  I ask only this:  that you
allow Harry to return once more, to this house, before his seventeenth
birthday, which will ensure that the protection continues until that
time."


On page 650 Harry tells Ron and Hermione, "I'm going back to the
Dursleys' once more, because Dumbeldore wanted me to.  But it'll be a
short visit, and then I'll be gone for good."

Therefore, as soon as Harry turns seventeen I'm sure he will leave no.
4 Privet Dr. forever.  I'm not sure if he will do any magic on his
relatives though.  I think he might think they aren't worth the
trouble.  

One thing I have wondered about though are the reactions Ron and
Hermione and the Dursleys will have to each other. On page 651 Ron
tells Harry that he and Hermione will be with him at his aunt and
uncle's.  I certainly can imagine either Ron or Hermione casting
spells against the Dursleys, especially since both of them are already
seventeen and thus not restrained by the decree against the use of
underage magic.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 21:43:37 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:43:37 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
Message-ID: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161107

CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
24, Sectumsempra.

After casting the Muffliato spell to prevent anyone in their Charms
class from hearing him, Harry tells Ron and Hermione about wheedling
the true memory from Slughorn and about Dumbledore's lesson on
Horcruxes. Both friends are "satisfyingly impressed."

A red-eyed Lavender Brown glares when Hermione grabs Ron's wrist
because he's accidentally creating fake snow and bursts into tears
when Hermione brushes the snow from Ron's shoulders. Ron confides that
Lavender broke up with him after she saw him leaving the boys' dorm
with Hermione, unaware that Harry was with them under the Invisibility
Cloak. Hermione, who seems amused by the story, informs them that
Ginny has split up with Dean for an equally silly reason--she didn't
like having him help her through the portrait hole. Harry feigns
indifference but his insides are "dancing the conga." Not
surprisingly, both he and Ron conspicuously fail to turn their vinegar
into wine. (Hermione, of course, has easily mastered the charm.)

Hermione and Ron are both in good spirits after the class, but Harry
is torn by conflicting emotions: attraction to Ginny and loyalty to
Ron. His internal debate is interrupted by the sight of Katie Bell,
who has returned to school after being in St. Mungo's since December.
After welcoming her back to the team and stating his hopes that
Gryffindor can beat Ravenclaw and win the Cup, Harry asks her if she
remembers who gave her the cursed necklace. Unfortunately, Katie can't
recall anything between walking into the ladies' room at The Three
Broomsticks and waking up in St. Mungo's five months later.

After Katie leaves, Hermione states that the person who Imperiused
Katie must have been female, but Harry, thinking of Crabbe and Goyle,
suggests that the person might have been Polyjuiced to look like a
girl. He considers taking a swig of Felix Felicis and waiting beside
the Room of Requirement again, but Hermione discourages this idea as
"a waste of potion." Checking his copy of "Advanced Potion-Making" to
see how long a new batch of Felix would require (six months), Harry
notices the folded-down page corner that he had used to mark
Sectumsempra, a spell that the Half-Blood Prince had scribbled into
the margins of his book and labeled "For Enemies." Still unsure what
the spell does because he doesn't want to practice it around Hermione,
Harry considers testing it on McLaggen to find out.

With Katie back, Quidditch practice goes extremely well. Not at all
upset about breaking up with Dean (who is off the team because of
Katie's return), Ginny entertains her teammates with her imitations of
Ron and Harry. Harry returns to his internal debate over whether
asking Ginny out would be "base treachery" to Ron, at the same time
hoping that a spectacular win for Gryffindor will be as good as a swig
of Felix Felicis in insuring his success with Ginny.

Harry has not, however, lost interest in figuring out what Draco
Malfoy is up to and continues to check the Marauder's Map
periodically. Although Draco's dot is frequently absent, meaning that
he's spending a lot of time in the Room of Requirement, Harry's
continued attempts to get inside the room are futile. No matter how he
words his request, the door does not appear.

A few days before the scheduled match with Ravenclaw, he spots Draco
on the map in a sixth-floor boys' restroom, accompanied not by Crabbe
or Goyle but by Moaning Myrtle. Harry runs downstairs and presses his
ear against the restroom door but hears nothing. Quietly opening the
door, he sees Draco bent over a sink, clutching it with both hands and
shaking. Draco declines Moaning Myrtle's offers to help him and adds,
"I can't do it. . . . I can't. . . . It won't work. . . and unless I
do it soon . . . he says he'll kill me. . . ." 

Just as Harry realizes with a shock that Draco is crying, Draco sees
Harry's reflection in the mirror and whirls around with his wand
drawn. Harry draws his own wand. Draco's hex misses him, shattering a
lamp. Harry attempts Levicorpus, but Draco blocks it. Ignoring
Myrtle's screams and cries, the boys continue to battle, doing more
damage to the restroom than to each other. Finally, Draco attempts a
Cruciatus Curse, but Harry cuts him off, yelling "Sectumsempra!" and
waving his wand around wildly.

Blood spurts from Draco's head and chest, and he collapses on the wet
floor, dropping his wand. Harry falls to his knees, gasping "No--No--I
didn't--"

Myrtle screams, "MURDER! MURDER IN THE BATHROOM! MURDER!" and
Professor Snape bursts into the restroom, looking livid. Pushing Harry
aside, he kneels beside Draco and mutters a songlike incantation,
tracing the wounds with his wand as Harry watches in helpless horror
and Myrtle sobs and wails overhead. The bleeding slows and then stops.
Snape repeats the incantation, and the wounds seem to knit. After
performing the incantation a third time, Snape helps Draco to his
feet, telling him that he needs to take dittany to avoid scarring and
ordering Harry to wait till he returns from taking Draco to the
hospital wing. 

Too shaken even to think of disobeying, Harry waits silently. Snape
returns ten minutes later and orders Myrtle to leave. Ignoring Harry's
protest that he didn't know what the spell did, Snape says that he
underestimated Harry and asks where he learned such Dark Magic. When
Harry claims that he read it in a library book, Snape calls him a liar
and, despite Harry's efforts to block his thoughts, forces a mental
image of his Potions book to rise to the forefront of his mind. Snape
orders Harry to fetch his schoolbag with all his textbooks and return
immediately.

Knowing that it's pointless to argue, Harry runs to Gryffindor Tower,
terrified that Snape will not only confiscate the book he regards as a
guide and friend but also tell Slughorn how he's been achieving his
high marks in Potions all year. He ignores Ron's questions about why
he's soaked with water and blood, demanding that Ron give him his
Potions book. Grabbing his schoolbag, he runs to the Room of
Requirement and asks it for a place to hide his book. The room opens
to reveal "walls" composed of broken and banned objects hidden and
forgotten by many generations of Hogwarts students--"thousands" of
books and a multitude of objects, from Fanged Frisbees and broken
eggshells to a blood-stained axe. Passing the broken Vanishing Cabinet
into which the Twins had stuffed Montague the previous year, Harry
finds an acid-splashed cupboard in which someone has already hidden a
cage containing a five-legged creature, now reduced to a skeleton. He
hides the Prince's book behind the cage and marks the spot with the
bust of an ugly old warlock, on which he places a dusty wig and a
tarnished tiara to help him find it again. 

Harry rushes back to the restroom where Snape is waiting and hands
over the schoolbag. Snape examines his books one at a time, looking
especially carefully at the Potions book. He asks Harry three times
whether the Potions book is his, and when Harry persists in answering
"yes," he asks why the name Roonil Wazlib is written inside the front
cover. When Harry says that's his nickname and Snape again looks into
his eyes, Harry again fails to close his mind and block Snape from
seeing his thoughts.

Calling Harry a liar and a cheat, Snape gives him detention every
Saturday until the end of term. Harry protests that Saturday is the
last match of the season, and Snape smiles, remarking that he fears
"poor Gryffindor" will be in fourth place this year. Harry leaves the
restroom feeling sick.

Word of the incident spreads quickly, thanks to Moaning Myrtle. After
Snape tells the staff "precisely what happened," Professor McGonagall
lectures Harry for fifteen minutes, telling him that he's lucky not to
have been expelled and that she wholeheartedly approves Snape's weekly
detentions. 

Hermione tells Harry that she knew something was wrong with "that
Prince person," but Harry defends the boy he feels is his friend,
arguing that the Prince only copied out the spell and saying that
without him, he'd never have won the Felix Felicis or known how to
save Ron from the poisoned mead. Hermione interrupts, pointing out
that he'd also never have acquired a reputation for brilliance in
Potions that he didn't deserve.

Ginny tells her to give it a rest and reminds her that Draco was
trying to use an Unforgiveable Curse. When the girls turn away from
each other after a few more angry words, Harry feels oddly cheerful.
However, he still has to endure the Slytherin taunts and his own
teammates' anger at him for getting detention during their final
match, which forces Ginny to play Seeker and puts Dean back on the
team in Ginny's place.

On Saturday morning, while the rest of the school heads for the
Quidditch pitch, Harry goes to Snape's office, the same dark room full
of slimy dead creatures floating in colored potions that he had used
as Potions master. Snape tells Harry that he'll be recopying the
records of  "crimes and punishments" of former students for Filch
without using magic. He is to begin with boxes 1012 to 1056, which
apparently correspond with the years during which Harry's father (and
Severus Snape) attended Hogwarts. After Snape reads aloud a card
recording a double detention for James Potter and Sirius Black for an
illegal hex that doubled the size of another student's head and
remarks that the record of their great achievements must be a comfort
to Harry, Harry holds back an angry retort and begins his boring task,
occasionally feeling a jolt in his stomach as he encounters another
record of his father's detentions. Five hours later, Snape tells him
to mark his place and return at 10 a.m. the next Saturday. Harry
stuffs a card into the box at random and runs up to the common room
where he discovers the Gryffindors celebrating their victory.

Ginny rushes toward him wearing a "hard, blazing look," and Harry
kisses her in front of fifty people. Both Dean and Romilda Vane seem
angry, but Hermione looks happy and Ron looks stunned. Then Ron gives
a tiny jerk of his head that Harry interprets to mean, "Well, if you
must," and Harry and Ginny leave for a long walk on the grounds.

Discussion Questions:

1.  How in the world could Ron "make it snow"? What might be the
significance, if any, of this particular piece of accidental magic?

2. Lavender and Dean are both jilted in this chapter. What is your
reaction, if any, to their jealousy and/or suffering? Which one do you
feel is more deserving of sympathy, and why?

3.  Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be disloyal to
Ron and that he must choose between the two? What do you think Ron's
reaction would have been if Harry had leveled with him?

4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among them
to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis either to
strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get into the Room of
Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up to. What do these
temptations reveal about Harry and about his ability to deal with
temptation in general? Might they foreshadow a more serious temptation
in Book 7?

5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom"
(restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction
change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was trying
to do? Why or why not? 

6.  Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under these
circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or why
not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to Draco's
attempted Crucio?

7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone know
the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the
countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape? 

8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the scene
rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the hospital wing to
be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us about Snape and/or
Draco? 

9. Why does Harry wait for Snape to return, as if he thinks that he
deserves to be punished, and yet lie when Snape asks him where he
learned such a Dark spell? What do you think would have happened if
Harry had told the truth? 

10. Harry uses, or tries to use, three of the HBP's spells in this
chapter (Muffliato, Levicorpus, and Sectumsempra), and he hides his
book rather than risk having it confiscated. Afterwards, he defends
the Prince against Hermione's accusations. What does this behavior
tell us about Harry and about his relationship with the boy he knows
only as the Half-Blood Prince?

11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been expelled.
Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" yet punish
Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he so much as
threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are the Saturday
detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by tormenting him with
his father's indiscretions or does this tactic disguise Snape's real
purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every Saturday until the end
of term?

12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he undergoes
his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned it.
What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten his
own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make this
detention (and its sequels) more effective?

13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the
dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions,
now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another floor?

14. The chapter begins with Lavender breaking up with Ron, closely
followed by Ginny breaking up with Dean, and ends with Harry
celebrating Gryffindor's victory (achieved without him) by finally
kissing Ginny. What do you think JKR is trying to convey by framing
the chapter in this way? Does the ending feel appropriate or
inappropriate in a chapter about Sectumsempra? (And what's up with
that "hard, blazing look"?)

Many thanks to Siriusly Snapey Susan for her astute questions,
attentive proofreading, and kind authorization for this sixth post of
the day.

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 Nov  6 21:47:20 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:47:20 -0000
Subject: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
In-Reply-To: <000901c701e8$02154fa0$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <eioah8+cuj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161108

> Marion:
> 
> Where do people get this strange idea that Snape and Evans were 
friends? Or that Snape was secretly in love with her?

Magpie:
It's hard to say exactly where, but it was definitely the feeling I 
got after HBP.

Marion:
> Does it look to you or anybody on this list that Lily Evans even 
*knew* who Snape was in that Pensieve scene? 

Magpie:
Sure.

Marion:
> Reread the scene.> First we see James showing off his skills with 
the snitch, all the while casting looks at some girls further on. Is 
Lily one of them? Probably, because not a minute later she storms 
into the scene. James has not been the only one casting looks it 
seems. Lily *knows* his performance is for her and she is casting 
looks *his* way, all the time complaining, no doubt, to her girl 
friends about that awful Potter Boy showing off again.
> Then James and Sirius do their tag-team attack from the rear 
bullying thing with Snape and Lily Evans storms into the scene. And 
what does she do? Does she ask, "Oh dear, are you allright Snape"? 
Does she even *look* at Severus Snape? Is this about James and 
Sirius tormenting a friend or even a class mate?
> No.
> Lily rages on and on about *James*. About how AWFUL he is. 

Magpie:
Yes, she's all about James in the scene--but that doesn't mean she 
doesn't know who Snape is.  In fact, she says they're as bad as each 
other, iirc.  The first time I read the scene I thought it was just 
Lily putting on a show of being feisty for James' attention and 
Snape could be anyone.  Since HBP the scene seems like Snape and 
Lily could very well have their own relationship, albeit one that 
has been disintegrating and this is the final straw. I still think 
Lily's flirting with James in the scene, but it wouldn't surprise me 
to learn there's something going on between Snape and Lily as well.

None of this means Snape can't also be seeing himself as a prop in 
James and Lily's mating game and be all the more angry because of 
it. And possibly call Lily a Mudblood because of it. She may not 
know why she angered him so much in the scene.

Marion:
> So what does he do? He flings the foulest insult he can think of 
in her face. And it works. She snaps out of the flirting game, 
realises that this is a real human being that is being tormented 
just so James and she could have their little flirt and she is 
mortified! So what does *she* do? After she quickly slaps down Snape 
of course. She blows up at *James*. Because James is the culprit who 
lured her into the game and made her an accomplice.

Magpie:
Smacks down Snape, or does more than that without us realizing it 
because we don't know the background?  

James offers to not touch "Snivelly" any more if Lily will go out 
with him. When Snape says he doesn't need the help of a Mudblood 
like her Lily does not just smack him down. She blinks. And then she 
says, cooly, "Fine. I won't bother in future. And I'd wash your 
pants if I were you, Snivellus."

Lily's blink could be a beat of real surprise that Snape would cross 
that line. She needs that moment to react to it. Then she responds 
cooly (their relationship has just changed on her end) and by 
throwing back the name that will hurt him. A change can occur in 
that moment--it's possibly the moment with the most weight in the 
scene.  Everything else is as usual with flirting and yelling, but 
that moment between Lily and Snape feels far more personal and 
weighty.

Marion:> 
> Snape a racist who hates Muggleborns? I doubt it. I don't get that 
message from this scene. 

Magpie:
Snape uses the word Mudblood in the scene. He reaches for a racist 
(or bigoted if one doesn't think of Muggleborns as a race) epithet 
to insult her. Whether he actually feels much hate for Muggleborns 
as a group and not just Lily is a different subject, but he's done 
something racist in the scene. Since he later joins the DEs I think 
his reaching for that is part of a larger development for him.

Marion:
Snape in love with Lily? Why?! She hardly knows who he is. He 
doesn't even register on her radar unless Snape insults her with the 
worst insult he knows he could fling at her. She isn't there to 
rescue him. This isn't about him at all, this is about James and 
Lily. 

Magpie:
As I said, that's how I first read it too.  But after HBP I think 
there's a Snape/Lily (interaction, not ship necessarily) going on 
before our eyes as well. The Lily/James interaction is the dominant 
one, and that's the one that was always more important in Lily's 
life, but there could be the end of something Snape/Lily (again, 
maybe not a romantic thing) there too.

Marion:
> So why, why, why are people so convinced that this scene is about 
Lily 'rescueing her best buddy Snape'? There is *nothing* in the 
scene that suggests that she even knows him.


Magpie:
I think it's too much to say the scene is about her rescuing her 
best buddy.  If they had a relationship I think it's already going 
sour in this scene, and it's already being dominated by James/Lily. 
But there's nothing to suggest Lily can't know who Snape is. It's 
written so that she could just be helping some anonymous peon, but I 
think it works just as well with her knowing Snape. I think it may 
have been intentionally hidden in the scene.

Marion:
> Why, why, why are people so convinced that Snape Loved Lily? *I* 
wouldn't love a self-centered little bint who used me in a flirting 
game with my worst enemy. And even if Snape *did* fancy Lily once, 
this little scene must've killed that off quickly.

Magpie:
And it well might have!

Marion:> 
> Harry thinks Snape was 'evil from the start' because 'he called my 
mum a Mudblood'. Harry missed the whole flirting thing. Of course 
Harry missed the whole flirting thing. Harry, at fifteen, doesn't 
even know how to ask a girl to a frigging dance, doesn't know a 
thing about flirting, is as dim as a five watt lightbulb and gets 
totally the wrong things from the scene. As per usual.> But if it is 
one thing we readers must've learned by now, it is that what we are 
being *told* is totally different from what we are shown.

Magpie:
Absolutely. Harry seems unable to read most of the major dynamics in 
the scene! But post-HBP I think there's more in the scene that I 
didn't see the first time.

-m





From froesch at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  6 21:24:34 2006
From: froesch at hotmail.com (froesch14)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:24:34 -0000
Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610152003r3ef744cdn34af890cd6e395a0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eio96i+6oil@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161109

I know I'm jumping on this thread a little late but there is an 
interesting set of essays up at Scribbulus (http://www.the-leaky-
cauldron.org/#scribbulus:issues) which discusses physics & magic (issue 
10).

Froesch






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Nov  6 22:12:25 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:12:25 -0000
Subject: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
In-Reply-To: <000901c701e8$02154fa0$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <eioc0a+apvf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161110


> Marion:
> 
> Where do people get this strange idea that Snape and Evans were 
friends? Or that Snape was secretly in love with her?
> Does it look to you or anybody on this list that Lily Evans even 
*knew* who Snape was in that Pensieve scene? 
> Reread the scene.

> Lily Evans storms into the scene. And what does she do? Does she 
ask, "Oh dear, are you allright Snape"? Does she even *look* at 
Severus Snape? Is this about James and Sirius tormenting a friend or 
even a class mate?
> No.
> Lily rages on and on about *James*. About how AWFUL he is. About 
how much of a showoff he is. About the way he wears his hair and the 
way he wears his clothes and the way he acts. 
> "Oh James Potter, you are just too AWFUL and I haven't been 
watching you like a hawk at all because how else would I know about 
your Quidditch prowess/hairstyle/etc.etc".
> 
> They are *flirting*! Lily and James are *flirting*!

wynnleaf,
While I know there are certainly those who think that this scene 
*ended* a friendship between Snape and Lily, I have always felt that 
if that's so, it is a huge discredit to Lily.  As you say, there is 
no real acknowledgement of Snape personally in her comments.  But 
worse, she *leaves* him at the mercy of James and Sirius just 
because he calls her a bad name.  Granted, the word he used was 
terrible, but if she was really his friend she should not have left 
him at the mercy of his enemies.  

(By the way, I don't know about other cultures and countries, but in 
the USA one of the worst racial slurs is commonly used *between* 
people from the same race as an insult, and even as a joke, but is 
not taken as nearly so insulting as if the same slur comes from 
people *not* of that racial group.)

Marion 
> Lily is so taken up in their little flirting game that she doesn't 
even realise that this is a real, live, human being lying there on 
the ground, choking on a mouth-soaping spell.
> 
> Now, to be the butt of a couple of bullies is one thing. To be the 
prop in a bully's little flirt is quite another. 

wynnleaf,
Interesting observation.  I certainly agree that Snape was the prop 
in James' flirtation.  And there are definitely girls who would use 
a person in Snape's position as a prop in a flirtation.  And of 
course, Lupin *does* say that even though Harry assumed Lily hated 
James in that scene, she actually liked James.  Not that I always 
believe Lupin, but he's not necessarily wrong either.

Marion
> 
> So what does he do? He flings the foulest insult he can think of 
in her face. And it works. She snaps out of the flirting game, 
realises that this is a real human being that is being tormented 
just so James and she could have their little flirt and she is 
mortified! So what does *she* do? After she quickly slaps down Snape 
of course. She blows up at *James*. Because James is the culprit who 
lured her into the game and made her an accomplice.

wynnleaf,
Could be.  I've certainly known girls who would have those kinds of 
motivations and use similar behaviors.  You know, I don't know that 
this is actually what JKR had in mind here, but the perspective 
*could* work in my opinion.  Only thing is, at some point I think 
JKR will make sure we know why exactly this is Snape's Worst 
Memory.  How would she tell us Lily was really using Snape as a 
flirtation prop?

Marion
> Snape a racist who hates Muggleborns? I doubt it. I don't get that 
message from this scene. 

wynnleaf,
A agree that using a strong "racial" slur on someone in a very, very 
high stress situation is *not* particularly convincing evidence that 
the person is a racist.  Further, as regards joining Voldemort, we 
actually have comments from several other characters that people had 
varying reasons for joining Voldemort.  No where are we told that 
only pureblood elitists joined Voldemort, or that everyone joined 
because they supported a pureblood agenda.  And that's all of 
the "evidence" that Snape had bought into the pureblood elitist 
ideas.

Marion
Snape in love with Lily? Why?! She hardly knows who he is. He 
doesn't even register on her radar unless Snape insults her with the 
worst insult he knows he could fling at her. She isn't there to 
rescue him. This isn't about him at all, this is about James and 
Lily.

> Why, why, why are people so convinced that Snape Loved Lily? *I* 
wouldn't love a self-centered little bint who used me in a flirting 
game with my worst enemy. And even if Snape *did* fancy Lily once, 
this little scene must've killed that off quickly.

wynnleaf,
Personally, I think Snape did care for Lily, but that it happened 
*after* this scene.  Evidence?  Some in what Snape *doesn't* do.  If 
Lily had the motivations as you say in this incident and Snape knew 
it, then unless something drastic changed his opinions of her, I can 
hardly believe that he wouldn't have been making insults to Harry 
about Lily right along with James.  

But in fact Snape never ever mentions Lily to Harry at all.  So I 
don't think he had any dislike of her -- else why miss the chance to 
say so to Harry?  It is Snape's complete lack of derogatory comments 
about Lily that makes many suspect he liked her (at least as a 
friend).  

Add to that Dumbledore's conviction that it was Snape's regret over 
Voldemort targeting the Potters that made him turn away from 
Voldemort.  And it wasn't just a simple regret, but his *greatest* 
regret.  Many readers think that there's no way Snape could have 
regreted to that degree putting James in danger -- which leaves 
Lily.  

And then there's Slughorn's comparison of Harry to Lily, when in 
fact Harry is using Snape's 6th year work.  It may be purely 
coincidental (like JKR just coincidentally wrote that -- right), but 
it seems possible that Lily and Snape (both obviously in the smaller 
6th year potions class), worked together.  

Last, why is Snape so angry that James' "arrogance" caused him to 
trust in his friend as secret keeper and ultimately lead to his 
death?  Why would Snape care?  Some suppose it's because then Snape 
wouldn't be able to fulfill his life-debt, but while that might 
frustrate Snape, it doesn't seem a powerful enough motivator to make 
him so, so, so furious about it.  Peter just isn't that torn up over 
*his* life-debt -- so there's not some magical compulsion that Snape 
was living under.  However, if Snape's hatred over it was 
intensified because he thought James' "arrogance" led to Lily's 
death, then that fury makes more sense.

Marion
> But if it is one thing we readers must've learned by now, it is 
that what we are being *told* is totally different from what we are 
shown.

wynnleaf,
I agree.  But I also think that when we are shown something that 
ends up being different from whatever Harry's point of view assumes, 
JKR will find a way to tell us the truth.  I could see her finding a 
way to explain that Snape has a big regret for calling Lily a 
mudblood, but I can't see her explaining that Lily was flirting and 
using Snape as a prop.  How would that come to light?  Harry's 
already gotten Sirius and Lupin's "take" on the event.  He wouldn't 
believe whatever Snape told him about it.  The only other option was 
if some additional person, like maybe Hermione, saw the memory and 
said, "Harry, she was *using* him."  

In general, while you might be correct on this one, I tend to think 
that if I can't envision a way that JKR could correct our thinking 
on an event, we should take the more straightforward explanation.

wynnleaf, who thought Marion's interpretation of Lily very in 
character for certain girls.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 22:14:53 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:14:53 -0000
Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_
In-Reply-To: <eio96i+6oil@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eioc4t+4p45@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161111

---  "froesch14" <froesch at ...> wrote:
>
> I know I'm jumping on this thread a little late but 
> there is an interesting set of essays up at Scribbulus 
>
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:issues
>
> which discusses physics & magic (issue 10).
> 
> Froesch
>

bboyminn:

It would have been nicer if you had given us a direct link,
or a least the title of the essay. 

Am I to assume that the essay in question is -

"The Uses and Limits of Science in the Magical World" by Velse
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/scribbulus/textonly.php?m=essay:264

If not, could you post the actual essay title?

Steve/bboyminn





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 22:50:01 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:50:01 -0000
Subject: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <0f5b01c701e0$4911bdb0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>
Message-ID: <eioe6p+ppes@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161112

---  "Stacey Nunes-Ranchy" <Aixoise at ...> wrote:
>
> Cindy wrote:
> 
>  
> 
> <snip> Ron will be head boy. Hermione will be head girl.
> Mcgonnagall will be new head mistress. <snip>
> 
>  
> Stacey:
> I've always wondered about the Head Boy position.  I 
> can't recall if the qualifications for this position are 
> mentioned in the books but, as much as I like Ron ..., 
> academically at least I don't think Ron outshines Harry 
> or any of the other boys.   If academics are a major
> qualification, I don't know that we can count on Ron for
> Head Boy. Personally, I was surprised when he became a 
> prefect.  
> 

bboyminn:

Personally, I have always taken 'Head Boy' to mean 'BEST'
boy. In other words, the best all around boy in the school.
That certainly included academics, so in that sense, it is
like Valedictorian or Summa Cum Laude. But I think it goes
beyond that to, as I said, best all around student. 

Ron, and Harry for that matter, are certainly no great 
shakes when it comes to studies, certain far from the 
catagory of James, Sirius, Severus, and Tom, who we are 
lead to believe were all brilliant.

But Harry and Ron have clearly and repeatedly proven 
themselves to be above and beyond all the other students
in other ways. While all the other boys slept soundly in
their beds, Harry and Ron were out there time and time
again fearlessly fighting the forces of evil, and more
importantly surviving and winning. That MUST count for
something. They have both shown themselves superior in
that way; determination, courage, bravery, loyalty, etc...

Further, keep in mind, it's not the /best/ boy who ever
lived; it's the best boy in the school /at this time/. 
Harry may fall far short of James, but he is leagues ahead
of Dean and Seamus. Academically, Ernie might be a good 
candidate, but beyond get good grades, what has Ernie
ever done? Where was he when the Death Eaters attacked the
castle? Where was he when Tom captured Ginny? 

So, considering all that, it is possible that either Ron
or Harry will be Best/Head Boy.

Now Harry said he wasn't going to go back to school and
Ron implied that he and Hermione would follow Harry. So,
they said they weren't going back to school, but that
strikes me as more of a thought than a plan. Meaning the
situation could change. It is conceivable that if the
school is willing to grant 'special circumstances' to
the Trio, that they might be enticed to come back to 
school. Those special circumstances would be that they
don't waste time on boring classes. That they are directly
tutored by the teachers in the specific things they need
to know to attack and solve the Voldemort problem, and
that they be able to come and go as they please. Perhaps
a few other special circumstances, but you get the general
idea. In a sense, they would simply be making their
'headquarters' at school because that is where all the
resources they are going to need are going to be located.

So, while Harry said he wasn't going to return to the 
school as a student, I don't think we can really rule out
the possibility until we actually see it happen.

Final point; keep in mind that 'not returning to the school
/as a student/' does not mean 'not returning to the school'.
Certainly Harry will return to Hogwarts several times, just
not as a student.

> Stacey :  
> 
> ...  As for McGonnagall, although I would very much like
> to see her as headmistress, I have some suspicions that 
> the MOM *WILL* send in someone else and that her position
> was merely for the interim.  I just can't imagine them 
> giving in to the fact that they have lost control and 
> stepping down in the decision making/governing power.  
> 
> JMO, of course,
> 
> Stacey  

bboyminn:

One last small minor point on McGonnagal being Headmistress.
Hogwarts is a private school; private in the USA sense, that
it is privately run rather than government controlled. It is
actually run, in the absents of a headmaster, but the Board
of Governors, and it is they, not the Ministry, who will 
appoint the next Master of the school. 

Though I admit, it is possible that the government may try
to force a particular preference for School Master onto the
Board of Governors, it is, in the end, the Governors choice.

Personally, I suspect and hope that McGonnagall will be the
knew Headmistress.

Steve/bboyminn





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 23:30:09 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:30:09 -0000
Subject: The Torn Book Page (was: My Take on the Whole ...)
In-Reply-To: <eio7ae+5aus@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiogi1+45pp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161113

---  "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
> 
> > Sandra:
> > Now, I dont' believe for one second that Hermione
> > would deface a book like that.  She would have
> > transcribed the info on a separate piece of paper for
> > herself.
> 
> Eddie:
> That's bothered me too, and I believe it was in the book
> too, but Hermione consistently despises Draco throughout 
> all the books. If he was helping her, I'd think she'd 
> stick up for him.
> 
> Eddie
>

bboyminn:

I agree that it was out of character for Hermione to tear a
page out of a book like she apparently did. However, do we
actually know that it was a Library books she tore the page
from. It could have been her own copy of "Fantastic 
Beasts...".

Also, keep in mind that for a muggle to tear a page from
a library books or from a newspaper archive would be a 
terrible thing, because it could not be easily repaired.
However, things like this can easily be repaired by magic.
One could speculate that in her haste, Hermione tore the
page so she could immediately show it to Harry, but with
the intention of returning to the library and restoring 
the book with a 'Repairo' spell. 

So, again, tearing a book is very much out of character
for Hermione, but it is also something she could put right, 
she could easily restore the book to 'good as new' at a
later time.

Steve/bboyminn





From BrwNeil at aol.com  Mon Nov  6 23:20:25 2006
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:20:25 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
Message-ID: <cef.1298ea2.32811d39@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161114

 
 
In a message dated 11/6/2006 5:59:19 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
bboyminn at yahoo.com writes:

Now  Harry said he wasn't going to go back to school and
Ron implied that he and  Hermione would follow Harry. So,
they said they weren't going back to  school, but that
strikes me as more of a thought than a plan. Meaning  the
situation could change. 

If the Head Boy and Head Girl are selected the same as the Prefects were  
then Harry, Ron and Hermione will be up for the positions; they just might not  
accept them.  Example:  Hermione could get her letter saying she is  going to 
be Head Girl.  If she returns to school the position is hers, but  if she 
decides to go with Harry then someone else will get the position.   At this point 
in time none of the school administration is aware of the trio's  plans so 
there is no reason for them to not be considered.
 
Hermione should be a definite for Head Girl.  I think Harry's biggest  
competition for Head Boy was Draco and he certainly won't be back.
 
 

Neil



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




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 00:00:42 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:42 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ein05v+lc40@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eioiba+kasp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161115

> > Carol responds:
> > <snip> I don't believe that it's possible to create an
> > accidental Horcrux because a spell is needed to encase the soul 
> bit...
> 
> Dungrollin:
> 
> I've just had an idea about this perennial question of how to 
> accidentally make a Horcrux (and sorry to all you who are sick of 
it). 
> And I'm posting it immediately, which means either it's been done a 
> million times over, or there's something seriously wrong with it - 
I'm 
> sure that either or both will be brought to my attention, <g>.
> <snip>

Neri:
I don't remember anyone suggesting something quite like this, and I 
think it could work. But I also think that if JKR wants to make Harry 
carry a Voldy soul bit, she has simpler options.

Currently I tend to Snow's version, according to which no Horcrux 
encasing spell, intended or unintended, took place in GH at all. I 
think this is probably the simplest solution. According to this 
version, when Voldemort lost his body, his soul piece that was ripped 
because of Lily's murder simply drifted and entered the body of baby 
Harry via the open gash on his forehead. There's no need for an 
encasing spell at all. We know from the Ginny/Diary story that these 
soul bits can think and act for themselves, and that they have the 
ability to possess people, to give their powers to these people, and 
to make them forget things. This version would also give JKR a 
complete freedom in plotting Book 7, because she can decide if such a 
soul bit would act as a Horcrux or not, and whether it's removable 
and how, according to what she plans for Harry.

Generally, JKR has never let small technical details of magic stand 
in her way to a good story. For example, if anyone here understands 
how Dumbledore's trick of hiding the Stone in the Mirror of Erised 
really worked, please explain it to me. Slowly. With diagrams. I 
doubt very much that in the last book JKR is suddenly going to start 
working out all the small details. Nobody can tell her that the 
creation of an unintentional Horcrux (or the unintended transfer of a 
soul bit without an encasing spell) could or couldn't happen at GH. 
If she wants it to happen then it happened. So the minor technical 
difficulties here are not very important, although it can be fun (or 
annoying, depends) to try working them out ourselves. The really 
important questions about the Horcrux!Harry theory is: Is it 
thematic? Does it explain the current mysteries? Does it make for a 
good story and a good resolution of the series? To all these my 
personal answer is a resounding YES, so I'm not worried about the 
mechanics of it more than I'm worried about the mechanics of the 
Stone in the Mirror of Erised.

What I do like about Snow's version is that it suggests that the 
Voldy soul bit isn't really stuck inside Harry. There was no encasing 
spell. So the soul bit stays inside Harry because it *wants* to be 
there. It doesn't want to return to Voldy. After all, it was under 
the effect of Lily's love protection for many years. This would 
explain why Harry remembered T.M. Riddle as an old childhood friend 
that he'd half forgotten. It would explain why the soul bit doesn't 
appear to cause Harry any harm. On the contrary, it appears to help 
Harry. It seems to have told Harry how to destroy the Diary Horcrux. 
But the main reason I like it is the thematic reason: it means that 
for Harry the key is to find Tom inside himself.

Also, remember JKR promised us that we'll find out what was the 
terrible thing that Dudley remembered when he was attacked by the 
dementors? My guess is that little Dudley once pushed little Harry 
too far and was horribly punished by the soul bit. Which is probably 
how Harry is going to find out in Book 7. Or maybe Petunia will let 
out that when Harry was little he had an imaginary friend named 
Tom... 


Neri






From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Nov  7 00:15:49 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:15:49 -0000
Subject: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
In-Reply-To: <eioc0a+apvf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eioj7l+tb97@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161116


> > Marion:
> > [...lots of interesting comments about Snape & Lily ...]
> 
> wynnleaf,
> [...lots of interesting comments about Snape & Lily ...]

Eddie:
An angle on this topic that I haven't heard mentioned is that James
used Levicorpus on Snape -- a spell Snape invented.  How did James
learn this spell?  From Lily, I speculate.  I'm thinking that Snape
only ever told her about it, and then she went and blabbed it to
Snape's worst enemy.  If I'm right, then Snape felt betrayed by Lily
the moment James used Levicorpus.

Eddie

Sorry for so much snippage, but my comment wasn't in direct response
to anything that had come before.






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 00:18:14 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:18:14 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper... Fidelity - a Condition
In-Reply-To: <20061106204130.22940.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eiojc7+aea7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161117

---  J <tidblgr72 at ...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> 
> If is primarily about the secret rather than the Trust, 
> then why isn't it called the 'Specialis Charm'?
> <snip>
> It is actually called the 'Fidelius Charm', and that very 
> strongly implies that 'Fidelity' is at the core of it.
> <snip>
> 
> Jeremiah:
> 
> Very true. ... I had assumed that the reason of the 
> fidelity rested in the simple trust of whom they would 
> choose. Also, I wouldn't have thought that a condition 
> of the charm would be naming a specific group or 
> individual as being forbidden but, rather, that the 
> inherent trust of whoever was chosen as keeper would be
> enough to secure the secret from anyone wanting to cause
> harm.
> 
> I guess that's why I would think that the charm would 
> still be in effect and not broken just by telling. That's
> also why I think there is still a charm on the exact 
>location.
>

bboyminn:

That's the big problem with many key spells in the series,
we don't know how they work, at least not in detail, so
we are left to speculate until and if JKR choses to tell
us the whole story.

It would seem that the Fidelius Charm is made up of two
parts 'the Secret' and 'the Secret Keeper'. I agree that
trust in the Secret Keeper is important. You don't make
this Charm unless you have a very serious Secret that
needs keeping, so finding someone you can trust to keep
the Secret is critical. 

Yet, it is the Secret itself that is being hidden, and it
is hidden by the magical oath of Fidelity by the Secret 
Keeper (speculation of course). "I solemnly swear that I
will take this Secret and hold it in myself with the 
greatest, truest, and most honorable Fidelity."

First, I have to believe the Secret Keeper Charm was 
broken, any other option simply compicates the plot too
much. JKR can't waste pages and pages trying to work
around a still in effect Secret Keeper Charm. But that
bring up the question of how and why it was broken.

I say 'Breach of Fidelity'. Other say it was something in
the phrasing of the Secret itself that caused it to break.
'Twelve Lake Street; Godrics Hollow, Wales is the location
at which the Potter are hiding' is very different from
'James and Lily Potter are hiding at twelve Lake 
Street; Godrics Hollow, Wales'. The difference is what is
the subject of the Secret. In the first example, the 
subject is '12 Lake St, Godrics Hollow'. In the absents 
of '12 Lake St', there is no secret left to keep. When 
the house was destroyed, the secret was destroyed. In the
second example, 'James and Lily' is the Secret and '12 Lake
St' is incidental.  When the Potters were destroyed, the 
secret no longer existed, and so the Charm was nullified.

Yes, I know that leaves Harry out, and I know that is a
problem, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point, not
solve the mystery completely.

The Secret could has been futher made more specific by 
adding conditions to it. "James and Lily are hiding from
Voldemort, his Death Eaters, and their agents at 12 Lake
St, Godrics Hollow'. That mean the good guys can find them
but the bad guys can't. Though, I don't think this would
be a very wise choice for a secret. Adding qualifiers and
conditions would seem to weaken the Charm and open the 
door to accidentally revealing the Secret. 

It could be that this line of thinking is completely wrong.
It is possible that the Secret is formed merely by general
intent rather than precise and specific phrases, and that
is, of course, my point; we don't know. But at the same 
time, regardless of what we do know, we can safely say that
if the Secret is still intact, and needs to be overcome, 
then the plot become extremely complicated. If the Secret
is not intact, then the plot is simplified and we can move
on.

Still, I thought there would be a huge fight over Sirius's
Estate. I couldn't possibly see how JKR was going to 
resolve that without making it at the center of the whole
book. Yet, she solved it in a couple of paragraphs and 
the story moved on. Maybe she has some plan for by-passing
or overcoming the Secret of Godrics Hollow. Maybe only 
Harry will be able to see the house. Maybe they won't be
concerned with the house at all, and just go directly to
the graves, thereby by-passing the problem all together.

So, the only logical conclusions, unless JKR wants to 
dedicate the whole book to it, is that the Charm is
already broken, or she has some plot-line shortcut to
by-pass it. 

> J: 
> If Harry doesn't know where the location is I would 
> think he has to either get the info from Pettigrew or 
> figure out how to sense the magic Voldemort used to 
> destroy his parents.
> 

bboyminn:

Maybe JKR's shortcut will be for Harry to recieve an
annonymous Owl with a note that says 'Twelve Lake Street;
Godrics Hollow, Wales is the location at which the Potter
are hiding'. Snape has access to Peter, Peter knows the
Secret. Snape has Peter write a note then sends the note
off to Harry. Harry and friends read the note, bada-bing
bada-boom, everyone get to go to the house at Godrics
Hollow. Problem solved. 

This may be the first sign that Snape, nasty as he is, is
still a good guy.

> J:
> Maybe I'm alone in all of this, but I'm not afraid to
> be totally wrong. You all have great points and I'm 
> interrested to see how the story unfolds. Thanks for 
> the insights and taking time to respond. ...
> 
> :) Sorry if I bored some of you.


bboyminn:

Bored? I don't think so. This is one of the most hotly
debated and yet still totally unresolved aspect of the
next book. Your post, simple and direct as it was, has
generated 27 responses, that hardly indicates that 
anyone is bored with the topic...frustrated-yes, but
bored-no.

Steve/bboyminn







From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Nov  7 00:09:06 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:09:06 -0000
Subject: Slughorn's potions in first day of class
Message-ID: <eioir2+qls4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161118

Slughorn had several cauldrons of potions on the first day of class,
including Felix Felicis, which we learn later takes six months to
brew, and Polyjuice Potion, which we learned in CoS takes weeks to
brew (lacewing flies brewed 21 days & fluxweed picked at full moon).

So how did Slughorn acquire these potions with only 2 months notice?
(See LONG timeline at http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline.php )

Hardly important, but maybe it will be fun to speculate.

Eddie






From kking0731 at gmail.com  Tue Nov  7 00:24:57 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:24:57 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eimi0e+912c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiojop+tp5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161119



Mike snipped greatly:

It is my opinion that removing a torn soul piece to it's encasement 
must be done in close proximity to the murder that is performed for 
that purpose. Envision a Lord Voldemort having murdered enough times 
to create an "army" of Inferi, not to mention murders that didn't 
become Inferi. If he could remove those torn soul pieces at any 
time, he would be taking a big risk of removing too much soul by the 
time he gets to his Godric Hollow attempt. Furthermore, it would 
render Dumbledore's opinion that Voldemort reserves his Horcrux 
making for "significant" murders as nonsensical. If you can remove a 
torn soul piece at any time because it stays seperate from the main 
soul, how does one "reserve" making a Horcrux? No, IMO a torn soul 
piece remains attached to the main soul and eventually reforms to it 
unless it is completely seperated and removed upon it's tearing.

Therefore, before he starts his sixth year at Hogwarts, Tom has 
created his first Horcrux. This sheds new light on the Slughorn 
memory. It now appears that Tom really did know how to create a 
Horcrux before that conversation, and all he really wanted is what 
Dumbledore said he was really after. Tom wanted Slughorn's opinion 
on *multiple* Horcruxes.

OK, Carol, Steve, Snow, et al, what did I miss?

Snow:

Tying all this together is quite difficult with so many things to 
take into account, most of which we have very little information 
about like; is the memory part of the soul or does a memory need a 
soul fragment to act; which murder is considered evil enough to split 
the soul; can you have more than one split in the soul before making 
a Horcrux? Most of these questions can only be answered by 
conjecture. 

Riddle murdered his father and grandparents in the summer of his 
sixteenth year HBP pg. 363 The one thing we know from these murders, 
and the blame on Uncle Morphin for them, is that Riddle is very good 
at altering memories. Riddle's forte' at this point in time is 
memories, so it is not a far stretch to admit that Riddle had placed 
a memory of himself in the Diary at sixteen. 

At some point before the meeting with Slughorn, Tom said he read 
about Horcruxes; was this reading before he murdered the parent and 
grandparents? I would think Tom would have murdered for a purpose 
other than just revenge since Voldemort chose certain persons to 
murder, so I do believe his objective was to make a Horcrux with 
those murders. I do believe, like you, that Tom accomplished this 
when he was sixteen at the same time he placed the memory of himself 
in the Diary but not at the site of the murders. 

I think the only way to try to prove this would be if the sixteen-
year-old Tom portrayed any qualities that older Voldemort has that 
can be attributed to loss of his soul i.e. red eyes etc. 

There are several canon reasons to suspect this; Diary Tom laughed 
the same high cold-pitched laugh that Voldemort does COS pg. 310

The other reason I suspect the memory accompanied the soul fragment 
was that Diary Tom admitted that he preserved himself in the pages of 
the Diary so one day he could lead another in his footsteps to finish 
Salazar's noble work. COS pg. 312

A mere memory would be unable to accomplish such a feat; the memory 
would have to accompany a bit of soul for interaction. Only a 
parcelmouth can open the Chamber, so no matter who picked up a diary 
with a memory, they would not be able to converse with the Chamber 
entrance the way Ginny did. A memory could not make Ginny write her 
own farewell on the wall. 

What good would a memory be without a soul? There would be little 
need to secure a memory that did not have the power to interact, 
would there? Diary Tom admits that he made the Diary for the soul 
purpose of leading another, no memory alone can do that. 

I think even Dumbledore may agree that Tom intended the Diary to lead 
someone to finish Slytherin's noble work and that a memory would not 
be able to accomplish this alone:

"Well, it worked as a Horcrux is supposed to work ? in other words, 
the fragment of soul concealed inside it was kept safe and had 
undoubtedly played its part in preventing the death of its owner. But 
there could be no doubt that Riddle really wanted that diary read, 
wanted the piece of his soul to inhabit or possess somebody else, so 
the Slytherin's monster would be unleashed again."  HBP pg. 501

Dumbledore stated two paragraphs previous to this one that a mere 
memory could not have done what it did with Ginny, so Voldemort had 
to have made the memory to interact with the soul bit in order to 
possess another to unleash the monster in the Chamber, which he 
stated was the main purpose of the Diary. 

Why would Voldemort have done this procedure separately by first 
administering the memory and later the soul bit when he had to be 
aware that he needed a soul bit as a catalyst to the memory? If he 
knew about Horcruxes when he made the memory at sixteen why did he 
need to ask Slughorn about them a year later? 

This memory that Riddle placed inside the Diary would have been of 
himself, the way he was during his sixteenth year of life and of all 
the memories that transpired during that year. Note that Tom didn't 
leave `a' memory but `the' memory of his sixteen-year-old self. COS 
pg. 312

Diary Tom portrays the same cold laugh as Voldemort that raises the 
hair on the back of Harry's neck. A memory could not represent that 
laugh, that Harry said didn't suit Tom; the same laugh that the newly 
embodied Voldemort voiced in the graveyard, unless it was part of the 
sixteen-year-old Riddle's soul at the time he made the memory. This 
would make me think that Riddle had already split his soul and 
created the Horcrux Diary with a memory as the cherry on top. 

When Tom asked Slughorn about multiple Horcruxes, he had the ring on 
his finger so it was not a Horcrux at this point. I think that this 
Horcrux was made `after' Tom visited Hepzibah because Tom 
still "looked more handsome than ever" when he spoke with Hepzibah. 
HBP pg. 434

We do know that he looked pale according to Hepzibah (pg. 435) and we 
are fairly certain at this point that the Diary had already become a 
Horcrux so some slight change in appearance had been noticed.

We know from Ginny's experience, that losing your soul makes you look 
pale:

"So Ginny poured out her soul to me, and her soul happened to be 
exactly what I wanted."

[
]

"Dear Tom, Percy keeps telling me I'm pale and I'm not myself." COS 
pg. 310

Ginny's soul was already being sucked out of her which isn't much 
different than departing a piece of soul into an object; both 
circumstances seem to cause the paling effect. 

However, Tom did not portrait any semblance to a disfigured human at 
the point that he spoke with Hepzibah looking more handsome than ever 
but also a bit pale. It must take more than one Horcrux attempt to 
start to transfigure the once handsome boy that Hepzibah met. Killing 
may mutilate the soul but the departure of the soul from inside the 
body must disfigure the body and become more prominent with each 
Horcrux that is made. 

At this point Tom has four deaths and four Horcrux objects credited 
to him. One death and object were used to make his first Horcrux, 
which was the Diary. Voldemort disappeared for ten years following 
Hepzibah's death and returned for a teaching position at Hogwarts 
looking more like the present day Voldemort but not yet so vividly 
but much more pale than he looked at Hepzibah's. HBP pg. 441

>From this we can assume that he had made at least one more Horcrux if 
not all three that he had in his possession when he left to parts 
unknown. We know that Dumbledore found the ring at Morphin's house 
and the locket in the cave of his childhood days. Voldemort, within 
the ten years that no one knew his whereabouts, was probably securing 
these Horcrux objects in the most unlikely of places to be sought 
out. 

The Diary ended up in Lucius' possession, although I think it was 
initially given to Bella. The ring that was once on the hand of 
Morphin was hidden in the rubble of Morphin's home. Why did he choose 
the necklace to be hidden in the cave? And where did he place the 
Hufflepuff cup? Could there be any rhyme and reason as to where each 
Horcrux was placed?  

Why would Voldemort want to reenter Hogwarts under a teaching 
pretense unless he was seeking his next Horcrux object? There are 
perks to being there like the stronghold of magic inside its walls 
but wouldn't it be the best place to find an heirloom of the 
remaining founders he sought? 

We can assume that Dorcas Meadowes was Voldemort's fifth victim that 
ripped his soul and further more assume that this death was used for 
an heirloom from the Ravenclaw line. We know nothing of Dorcas 
Meadowes or why she would have been significant enough for Voldemort 
to have killed her himself.

I might take a stab at it and say that she was from the Ravenclaw 
lineage since her name of Meadowes may also represent `Fair Ravenclaw 
from Glen'. Voldemort may not have acquired an item from Ravenclaw 
but using a death that was representative of the line may have 
sufficed. Although, as many have pondered on this list, the Ravenclaw 
wand may have been the very object and killing Dorcas to get it was 
just a two-for-one if she was a descendant. 

I guess the only thing that I would disagree with, in what you said 
Mike, was that the death has to be immediately encased or else the 
soul simply heals itself given time. 

I take the soul-splitting factor very literally; the soul is severed 
which does mutilate it. If Voldemort severed his soul three times by 
killing Pap, Grandma and Dad, all three pieces still reside with him 
but split from each other and from the core soul until what time they 
are intentionally departed from the body [given that there is still a 
body :) ].

I envision that only great good (which is the opposite of a great 
evil to rip the soul) would be able to mend the pieces together 
again. In Voldemort's case that isn't even an option since he 
purposely wants to use these soul bits to make himself immortal. The 
spell in which to draw out the severed piece of soul from the body 
and encase it in an object has never been told to us so we have no 
idea the wording. 

It could be something to the effect of `with this murder of so-and-so 
that caused my soul to split, depart from me and dwell inside this 
object'. Voldemort may be able to direct what killing is to be 
encased in which object. Harry's case would be slightly different 
since Voldemort had no body just after his vile killing of Lily, 
where the heck did that piece of soul go
 Of course that soul 
fragment wouldn't be encased since there wasn't any spell 
accompanying it so it wouldn't be a Horcrux, would it?

Snow realizing that JKR can safely say that Harry is not a Horcrux 
but that doesn't mean he doesn't have Voldy soul. 














From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 00:50:30 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:50:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper... Fidelity - a Condition
Message-ID: <20061107005030.57813.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161120

--- J <tidblgr72 at . ..> wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> 
> If is primarily about the secret rather than the Trust, 
> then why isn't it called the 'Specialis Charm'?
> <snip>
> It is actually called the 'Fidelius Charm', and that very 
> strongly implies that 'Fidelity' is at the core of it.
> <snip>
> 
> Jeremiah:
> 
> I guess that's why I would think that the charm would 
> still be in effect and not broken just by telling. That's
> also why I think there is still a charm on the exact 
>location.

bboyminn:

So, the only logical conclusions, unless JKR wants to 
dedicate the whole book to it, is that the Charm is
already broken, or she has some plot-line shortcut to
by-pass it. 


bboyminn:

Maybe JKR's shortcut will be for Harry to recieve an
annonymous Owl with a note that says 'Twelve Lake Street;
Godrics Hollow, Wales is the location at which the Potter
are hiding'. Snape has access to Peter, Peter knows the
Secret. Snape has Peter write a note then sends the note
off to Harry. Harry and friends read the note, bada-bing
bada-boom, everyone get to go to the house at Godrics
Hollow. Problem solved. 

This may be the first sign that Snape, nasty as he is, is
still a good guy.

jeremiah:
Thanks.
Now, you're absolutely right. there is no way to really understand the case if we aren't sure how the charm works. And you have brought up a point that I had been thinking of. Snape. See, if Pettigrew still holds the secret and he's living with Snape then here is a chance (asuuming Snape is not the bad guy some readers thing... I think he's not all bad) then this would be the one time he could reach out to Harry and show he's not a slime-ball. Handing over Peter and making his talk would be hilarious and possibly good for the plot.

But as you mentioned, there is limited space with the remaining book and this may be a major issue or it might be nothing at all and will slide right by without a mention. Heck, it might not even be a point at all if she decides to have Harry sidetracked and never end up going to Godric Hollow. (thought I hope she does let him go there... I'm very curious).

Hey, has anyone written about the correlation of voldemort being the Heir of Slytherin and Harry possibly being the Heir of Gryffindor? (JKR had mentioned the godric Hollow wasn't a coincidence... and DD said that "only a true Gryffindor" woulf pull the sword from the hat- meaning more than just being in the House).

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




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 00:56:08 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:56:08 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux - Soul without Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eioiba+kasp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiolj8+hmfn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161121

---  "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Carol responds:
> > > <snip> I don't believe that it's possible to create
> > > an accidental Horcrux because a spell is needed to
> > > encase the soul bit...
> > 
> > Dungrollin:
> > 
> > I've just had an idea about this perennial question 
> > of how to accidentally make a Horcrux .... And I'm 
> > posting it immediately, which means either it's been
> > done a million times over, or there's something 
> > seriously wrong with it - I'm  sure that either or 
> > both will be brought to my attention, <g>.
> > <snip>
> 
> Neri:
> ...
> 
> Currently I tend to Snow's version, according to which 
> no Horcrux encasing spell, intended or unintended, took
> place in GH at all. I think this is probably the simplest
> solution. According to this version, when Voldemort lost
> his body, his soul piece that was ripped because of Lily's
> murder simply drifted and entered the body of baby Harry 
> via the open gash on his forehead. ...edited...

bboyminn:

I am hardcore in the camp that 'Harry is not a Horcrux'.
Yet, Neri (and Snow's) theory appeals to me. While I
refuse Horcrux!Harry, I'm not against a stray bit of 
Voldemort's soul being in Harry. Perhaps in that one
terrible instant when the soul feared death, the newest
and freshest tear in Voldemort's soul sought out the 
nearest lifeforce it could find and held on. That nearby
lifeforce, and the last remaining lifeforce on the scene,
was Harry's. For now, that soul-bit is just along for the 
ride clinging to a now familiar life. 

It could be that in the end, through a yet to happen set 
of circumstances, Voldemort will try to kill Harry and in
doing so will send a soul-bit to hell. In a sense, in 
trying to kill Harry under the new 'yet to happen' 
circumstances, it will be Voldemort who kills himself.
Perhaps Harry will try to kill Voldemort and fail, and
think that perhaps all is lost, and his best efforts have
failed. Then Voldemort will turn on Harry, but instead of
killing Harry he will truly kill himself. He will destroy 
(or release) the last remaining soul-bit, the spell will 
rebound on a fully mortal Voldemort, and that will be the
end. 

My version may be a little ragged, but I can see some
potential for story resolution around a bit of Voldie's
soul residing in Harry, but residing there by chance or
by choice, yet in no way a Horcrux.

I now ponder what happens to the other soul-bits when
they are 'destroyed', since I don't think the soul IS
destroyed, only the object holding it. Could these 
released soul-bits, which we assume are eternal, be
joining the best of Voldemort in Harry, thereby making
Harry more strongly protected against Voldemort? Or,
perhaps they are just wandering around waiting for 
the rest of Voldie's soul to be released so they can all
cross over?

Still, I'm stuck with the ideadthat Dumbledore never said
anything. He has given us all our information about Harry's
scar, about the connection, about Voldemort, about Horcruxes.
It seems very unlikely that Dumbledore hadn't thought of
this. 

Still, of all the theories I've read so far, this is
about the only one I could get behind.

Steve/bboyminn





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Tue Nov  7 01:15:36 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:15:36 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slughorn's potions in first day of class
References: <eioir2+qls4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <041601c7020a$3b4da020$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161122

Eddie wrote:
So how did Slughorn acquire these potions with only 2 months notice?
(See LONG timeline at http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline.php )

Hardly important, but maybe it will be fun to speculate.

Lana writes:
 
 I wondered that too..  My thoughts are that Snape probably made them thinking he would still be Potions master and I am sure in the N.E.W.T class it woudl ahve been relevant.


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




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 01:12:16 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:12:16 -0000
Subject: Slughorn's potions in first day of class
In-Reply-To: <eioir2+qls4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiomhg+jl10@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161123

---  "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> Slughorn had several cauldrons of potions on the first 
> day of class, including Felix Felicis, which we learn 
> later takes six months to brew, and Polyjuice Potion, 
> which we learned in CoS takes weeks to brew (lacewing 
> flies brewed 21 days & fluxweed picked at full moon).
> 
> So how did Slughorn acquire these potions with only 2 
> months notice?
> (See LONG timeline at 
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline.php )
> 
> Hardly important, but maybe it will be fun to speculate.
> 
> Eddie
>


bboyminn:

Well, I know this is a hopelessly simplistic approach to
a problem that I'm sure we all see and agree on, but...

...maybe he just walked into the local Potions Shop, and
said 'give me two gallons of this, two gallons of that,
and two gallons of the other, and send the bill to 
Hogwarts'.

Also, I suspect Slughorn must have his own home. It could
be once he decided to take the job, he went home and 
started brewing immediately. Time would have been short
but he may have just been able to make it. 

Truthfully, I think it is one of those questions we aren't
meant to ask, though that has never stopped us before. I 
suspect in the story we are just meant to accept that he
had the potions and move on from their.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn





From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Nov  7 01:19:45 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:19:45 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper... Fidelity - a Condition
In-Reply-To: <20061107005030.57813.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eiomvh+sirn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161124

> jeremiah:
> Hey, has anyone written about the correlation of voldemort being the
> Heir of Slytherin and Harry possibly being the Heir of Gryffindor?
> (JKR had mentioned the godric Hollow wasn't a coincidence... and DD
> said that "only a true Gryffindor" woulf pull the sword from the
> hat- meaning more than just being in the House).

Eddie:
Further, is it possible that Harry is the _LAST_ heir of Gryffindor,
as Voldemort is the last heir of Slytherin?

Eddie






From dla123 at hughes.net  Mon Nov  6 21:32:29 2006
From: dla123 at hughes.net (Diane Alderman)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:32:29 -0500
Subject: Ron as Head Boy was [HPforGrownups] My guess about book 7
References: <0f5b01c701e0$4911bdb0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>
Message-ID: <002601c701eb$17a3c6a0$2415730a@yourxb2x7j77gn>

No: HPFGUIDX 161125

Stacey:
> As for McGonnagall, although I would very much like to see her as
> headmistress, I have some suspicions that the MOM *WILL* send in
> someone else and that her position was merely for the interim. I 
> just can't imagine them giving in to the fact that they have lost
> control and stepping down in the decision making/governing power. 

Diane:
I'm a newbie, just enjoying reading what you all say. But...if McGonagall is head mistress, who do you think will be the head teacher of Gryffindor?

Also, I have a question...Are these books supposed to coincide with Harry Potter's school years, and that's one reason this will be the last one? And, if THAT's the case, is he going to school, or did he drop out to hunt down Riddle (easier to spell than his other name, LOL)? And Malfoy's not going to school either? Is the school even have a chance to shut down till things get back on track? Seems alot of talk is parallels to Nazi Germany, and didn't that mess up schools, etc. way back then, in LOTS of countries.  I hope this makes sense. Diane in WV




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Nov  7 00:28:05 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:28:05 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Draco again was I see no difference
References: <eilkkb+g0uj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006a01c70203$9b941880$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161126


MercuryBlue:
>> Can anyone remember any previous reference in the books to
> Hermione"s  teeth?
>>  I recall lots of comments about her hair, but nothing about her
> teeth being
>> big.
>
> "She had a bossy sort of voice, lots of bushy brown hair, and rather
> large front teeth." That's Hermione's first appearance in SS/PS ch 6.
>


And, in one of the later books, she gets hit with an engorgement charm in 
the face, and then sees Madame Pomfrey in the hospital wing. She shrinks 
Hermione's teeth so that they were "just slightly smaller than their normal 
size". Hermione said her parents were dentists, and planning on putting her 
in braces. Harry and Ron noticed her teeth and commented on their new look.

Shelley 






From hnjce at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 21:50:52 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:50:52 -0000
Subject: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
In-Reply-To: <20061106185702.6953.qmail@web37205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eioans+5be0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161127

Sandra, I had thoughts on much of what you said but this is what
stands out for me at the moment (I really need to cook dinner).

"> Now, for Draco ... I also haven't believed Draco was
> all bad ever since the end of CoS.  I'd have to read
> the entire book again to see if this is in the book
> and not just in the movie, but do you remember in the
> movie where they were at the bookstore and Draco comes
> down the stairs to taunt Harry before his Father puts
> the book in Ginny's cauldron?  Well, Draco pulled a
> piece of paper out of a book, folded it and put it in
> his pocket.  Later in the book, Hermione is found with
> a folded page of a book in her hand (and written on).
> Now, I dont' believe for one second that Hermione
> would deface a book like that.  She would have
> transcribed the info on a separate piece of paper for
> herself.  I think that Draco knew what his Father was
> up to and was trying to help without anyone knowing.
> When time was going by and Hermione wasn't coming up
> with an answer on her own, he snuck the paper to her
> somehow.  I think Draco has been struggling with his
> feelings just as much as Snape had when he was young.
> Unfortunately, Draco has two parents that beat the
> subject of hating muggleborns into his head and he has
> that to contend with as well.  Now don't get me wrong;
> I don't think he's all peaches and cream inside, but I
> don't think he's all bad and is trying to find his
> true self."

I have wondered about Draco myself, especially in Book 6. His hatred
of Harry seems to come from being the spoiled, little rich kid who
always had his own way but now is over shadowed by Harry who is
getting all this fame and glory. He is small and petty and not
necessarily evil. He also has a respect for Hermione. Notice that he
says he borrowed the coin idea from her. As much as he says he
doesn't like mudbloods, he can't help but admire her intelligence.
>
> "As for Dumbledore, I too held onto the hope that he
> wasn't really dead and it was maybe a boggart or
> something that Hagrid carried in the funeral.
> Unfortunately, when the painting appeared in the
> headmaster's office, those hopes were shattered."

I should look this up myself because I can't remember. The portraits
on the headmaster's wall - they are of past headmasters but is it
clear that they are of headmasters who have died or only that have
left the position for one reason or another?
>
> "I also think he and Dumbledore had an understanding
> and he HAD to kill him in order to save both his own
> life because of his Wizard's Oath to Narcissa and to
> save Draco's life because he didn't do it.  Remember
> that all Albus said to him was "Please, Severus" (or
> something to that effect).  He never said "Don't",
> almost like he was trying to give Snape the strength
> that it had to be done and he knew it was time."
>
I got that feeling when he begged Snape at the end, too. I mean,
when has Dumbledore shown that type of weakness before? He faced
Voldemort and won but then later begs for his life from this man he
supposedly trusts? So it does make sense that he is begging him to
do it and not the other way around. I believe this is one reason why
Harry was immobilized so this could not be prevented.

NJ





From magshirrox at sbcglobal.net  Tue Nov  7 01:26:16 2006
From: magshirrox at sbcglobal.net (furbratz)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 01:26:16 -0000
Subject: My guess about book 7
In-Reply-To: <eimdoa+dd04@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eionbo+40g9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161128

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tthinc" <tthinc at ...> wrote:
>
> I am sure that Harry will be talked into going back to Hogwarts for
> Year 7 as I would like to think that DumbleDore left a vast amount of
> thoughts in a pensive for Harry.

I think there has to be "the last stand" of the battle between good
and evil.  Naturally it SHOULD be held at Hogwarts.  There is
definitely a Horcrux there and yes, Dumbledore's portrait. 

I imagine Harry will start out back at Privet Dr. then to #12. Without
the ability to apparate in and out of Hogwarts getting in and out will
be a chore. With Death Eaters out in force most parents would keep
their children home anyway.  If anything getting the DA together again
could be a problem with parents standing in the way. 

This leads to Dumbledore's portrait communicating with Harry. Can a
portrait create a patronus? If not there will have to be some other
form of communication. 

I think Sirius' mirror will only work in front of the veil so they'll
have to go to the Ministry, maybe a Horcrux there? 

So much to cover in this book!!! It BETTER be about 700 pages!  

Furbrats

  






From pdshelgren at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 01:09:31 2006
From: pdshelgren at yahoo.com (Paula Shelgren)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 17:09:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Live again, Dumbledore! Remember the Phoenix
In-Reply-To: <011701c70181$801de400$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <20061107010931.53831.qmail@web51703.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161129

Remember that Dumbledore had a Phoenix. In the second book, it used it's tears to heal Harry's arm that the Baselisk(sp) tooth was embedded in. Could it be that the Phoenix could heal Dumbledore and it just looks to the bad guys that he is gone and really he is not, just waiting to come back at the pivotal time to destroy Voldemort and all the rest of the bad guys. 

Paula





From dla123 at hughes.net  Mon Nov  6 21:57:36 2006
From: dla123 at hughes.net (Diane Alderman)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:57:36 -0500
Subject: Snape and Lily
References: <454F8496.000009.02392@JUSTME>
Message-ID: <017401c701ee$97547f90$2415730a@yourxb2x7j77gn>

No: HPFGUIDX 161130

Debi wrote:

>>  Also I've wondered since the begging why Lily's parents were so happy and
  accepting of her being magic, the line, 'we have a witch in the family' made
  me wonder if they knew more about the magic world than most muggle's do. If
  Lily was related to Snape somehow then her parents would have known early on
  about magic. Possibly the Evans were related to the Snapes or maybe even one
  of the Evans was a squib who chose a muggle life, like Harry's neighbor Mrs.
  Figg <<




But Hermoine  was from a muggle family, her parents were thrilled too, weren't they? What do dentists know about the magical world? 

Diane in WV
 




From snapes_witch at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 00:15:54 2006
From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:15:54 -0000
Subject: Snape's true love
In-Reply-To: <20061106074858.61150.qmail@web54207.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eioj7q+i5tq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161131

 
          
Rashi:
> Good Morning!! I remember reading in either OOP or 1/2 Blood Prince 
that Snape indeed had a crush on Lily Potter. Not only was he 
attracted to her physically, but she used to step up for Snape when 
James Potter and his friends would torment him. How could he not love 
her?
>
 
Snape's Witch replies:
No, there is nothing, absolutely nothing in either book that comes 
right out and says that Severus had a crush on Lily.  In fact in the 
only canonical interaction we have between them (Snape's Worst 
Memory) he calls her a 'filthy mudblood'.

For awhile I was a Severus/Lily friendshipper, but I have come to my 
senses!

Rashi again:    
> Life did not treat Snape too well, I'm afraid.

Snape's Witch:
Well, here I absolutely agree with you!







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov  7 02:16:08 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 02:16:08 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eiomvh+sirn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eioq98+4rrb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161132

Jeremiah:
> Hey, has anyone written about the correlation of Voldemort being the
> Heir of Slytherin and Harry possibly being the Heir of Gryffindor?
> (JKR had mentioned the godric Hollow wasn't a coincidence... and DD
> said that "only a true Gryffindor" woulf pull the sword from the hat-
> meaning more than just being in the House).
 
> Eddie:
> Further, is it possible that Harry is the _LAST_ heir of Gryffindor,
> as Voldemort is the last heir of Slytherin?


Jen: JKR nixed Harry as Heir of Gryffindor this Summer in the TLC/MN 
interview. JKR was asked about Harry's extended family and talked 
about his grandparents and such.  Then here's what transpired:

MA:  That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well.

JKR: [Pause] Yeah. Well-yeah.

So the door may be shut on Harry but I definitely think she leaves the 
door open for Dumbledore.  I don't have time to find a post I wrote 
the summer of HBP with canon about this, but the biggest thing is that 
James and Lily were staying at Godric's Hollow and from the 
conversation in POA, it doesn't sound like they were necessarily 
living there before they 'went into hiding'.  Since Dumbledore was 
involved in their protection, it's possible this was his ancestral 
home. And Aberforth's.  I believe they are the last Heirs of 
Gryffindor and this will be significant for the story when both are 
gone (as well as the last Heir of Slytherin).

Other small bits of canon for this--the gryffin door knocker on the 
Headmaster's door which is likely DD's and not belonging to the office 
since how many other headmasters who aren't Gryffindor would like 
that? :) Other posters, Talisman is the one I remember, have proposed 
that Dumbledore put the sword in the Sorting Hat for Harry to find 
when he was forced to leave Hogwarts in COS.  The sword and Fawkes 
were his way of trying to protect Harry in his absence.  

Plus we have JKR's comment that Dumbledore's family would be 
a 'profitable line of inquiry'. Oh, and one more bit, perhaps Riddle 
feared Dumbledore because of the ancestral argument from long ago when 
the other three Founders sided with Gryffindor?  Seems like history is 
repeating itself.

Jen, who obviously loves this line of speculation.





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Nov  7 01:23:08 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 18:23:08 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slughorn's potions in first day of class
References: <eioir2+qls4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <018901c7020b$48645820$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161133

Eddie:
> Slughorn had several cauldrons of potions on the first day of class,
> including Felix Felicis, which we learn later takes six months to
> brew, and Polyjuice Potion, which we learned in CoS takes weeks to
> brew (lacewing flies brewed 21 days & fluxweed picked at full moon).
>
> So how did Slughorn acquire these potions with only 2 months notice?
> (See LONG timeline at http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline.php )
>
> Hardly important, but maybe it will be fun to speculate.
>



Just speculating on the Felix Felicis: maybe Slughorn was tired of trying to 
jump from Muggle house to Muggle house to hide in, and was planning to use a 
steady stream of Felix Felicis to stay alive and in hiding? Then when he 
accepted his Hogwart's position, it so happened that he was already brewing 
it? That wouldn't have explained the Polyjuice Potion, of course, unless he 
wanted to be someone other than a couch for once. <evil grin>

Shelley 






From hnjce at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 22:21:10 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 22:21:10 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiocgm+jnh3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161134

Carol:
> 2. Lavender and Dean are both jilted in this chapter. What is your
> reaction, if any, to their jealousy and/or suffering? Which one do
you
> feel is more deserving of sympathy, and why?

NJ:I feel worse for Lavender. Lavender was being used to get back at
Hermione - which is stupid of Ron since he created the problem in
the first place by treating Hermione as 'one of the guys' and not
the interested, and interesting, girl that she is.
Dean was being used too but for different reasons. I think Ginny was
trying to get over the idea that she may never have Harry. He was
being used to forget.
>
> 3.  Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be
disloyal to
> Ron and that he must choose between the two? What do you think
Ron's
> reaction would have been if Harry had leveled with him?

NJ: Many guys think it would be disloyal to date his friend's
sister. Especially if the relationship goes bad - what happens to
the friendship? What Harry doesn't realize is that Ron has been
hoping for this for a long time. Remember when he learned that Ginny
was seeing Michael Corner he commented that he thought she kliked
Harry. He was clearly distressed. If Harry had leveled with him he
would have been in for a pleasant surprise.
>
I want to answer more but I ran out of time...

NJ






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov  7 02:39:24 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:39:24 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore/Secret Keeper Thing
References: <eioj7l+tb97@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00c001c70215$f0816890$df6c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161135


> Eddie:
> An angle on this topic that I haven't heard mentioned is that James
> used Levicorpus on Snape -- a spell Snape invented.  How did James
> learn this spell?  From Lily, I speculate.  I'm thinking that Snape
> only ever told her about it, and then she went and blabbed it to
> Snape's worst enemy.  If I'm right, then Snape felt betrayed by Lily
> the moment James used Levicorpus.
>
> Eddie
>
> Sorry for so much snippage, but my comment wasn't in direct response
> to anything that had come before.

Magpie:
I have heard something related, that Lily's smile in the scene that she's 
trying to hide is because she recognizes that Snape's spell is being used 
against him, which is kind of related.

wynnleaf,
While I know there are certainly those who think that this scene *ended* a 
friendship between Snape and Lily, I have always felt that if that's so, it 
is a huge discredit to Lily.  As you say, there is no real acknowledgement 
of Snape personally in her comments.  But worse, she *leaves* him at the 
mercy of James and Sirius just because he calls her a bad name.  Granted, 
the word he used was terrible, but if she was really his friend she should 
not have left
him at the mercy of his enemies.

(By the way, I don't know about other cultures and countries, but in the USA 
one of the worst racial slurs is commonly used *between* people from the 
same race as an insult, and even as a joke, but is
not taken as nearly so insulting as if the same slur comes from people *not* 
of that racial group.)

Magpie:
Well, it could be the end of their friendship, or the beginning of the end, 
I don't think they would be all friendly and then this is what ended 
it--this surely would be building.  As has been pointed out, Lily doesn't 
acknowledge Snape as a friend, so whatever their relationship I don't think 
everything was great between them before then.  But this isn't an isolated 
thing for Snape, which is why I see no reason to think we need more than the 
epithet to think he might have been racist.  Now, I get drawing the 
distinction between whether he really believed this stuff and whether that 
was the biggest appeal to him, since Snape, unlike someone like Regulus, was 
not raised with these beliefs and was not a Pureblood.

But that's why I asked exactly how much does it have to matter before he's a 
racist?  We've never heard Muggleborns using that term for each other.  They 
barely seem to identify with each other at all (something I find a little 
unrealistic, but leave that aside). Snape is a Half-blood, not a Muggleborn. 
Perhaps it was only later that he went from being slightly insecure about 
being only Half-Wizard and decided to cling to what Wizardness he had, I 
don't know.  But I can't imagine if this were a real situation that someone 
could think Snape was using that word there as one minority to another, in 
front of two Purebloods. It's similar to the way I feel about the 
Muggle/Wizard stuff in the book. I've said that no, I wouldn't trust being 
friends with a Wizard if they showed that they pulled the Magic card on 
uppity Muggles. I can think of many friendships that wouldn't survive this 
kind of use of an epithet--after all, we can't assume that Snape apologized 
for it later.

And then there's the fact that we know Snape became a DE.  When Sirius talks 
about Voldemort he says a lot of people believed in his ideas until they saw 
what he was really about, suggesting to me that this stuff was part of the 
appeal.  He's not saying the opposite, that most people liked Voldemort 
himself but were put off by the Pureblood stuff.

Now, with Snape as an adult I don't see any signs of at all that he himself 
is particularly racist in Wizarding terms.  I can't think of a single scene 
where he seems motivated by anyone's bloodline (comparing him to Hagrid's 
probably very eye-opening that way).  We haven't seen anything that says he 
was raised with the kinds of beliefs the Malfoys and Blacks were.  But I can 
still believe that as a teenager this had some kind of appeal to him. We've 
got to get him into the Death Eaters for some reason--he's got his anger, 
certainly, and his anger against James specifically, but after 6 books I 
haven't seen many signs that Snape was a very special DE in that sense. 
Especially when we get this scene in OotP where he joins the very few 
characters in canon to call somebody a Mudblood.  It just seems logical to 
point to this moment as a sign of the direction Snape is going. We don't get 
a lot of clues like that about Snape, so why not take this as a sign that 
he's becoming more of a DE?  Why does he call her a Mudblood here, after 
all?  Why is that the worst thing he can call her?  If he's angry about her 
flirting with James he might have called her a slut or something like that. 
Or maybe this word was powerful for him because it connected him to the 
people he was tied to by then.

-m






From kat7555 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov  6 21:56:03 2006
From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kathy kulesza)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:56:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Book Lengths (Was Re: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1)
In-Reply-To: <einrs5+dmb2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061106215603.80693.qmail@web53302.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161136

Anne Squires quoted JKR:

JKR: "There are bits of all six books that I would go back and tighten
up. My feeling is that Phoenix is overlong, but I challenge anyone to
find the obvious place to cut. There are places that I would prune now
looking back, but they wouldn't add up to a hugely reduced book,
because my feeling is you need what's in there. You need what's in
there if I'm going to play fair for the reader in the resolution in
Book 7. One of the reasons Phoenix is so long is that I had to move
Harry around a lot, physically. There were places he had to go he had
never been before, and that took time - to get him there, to get him
away. That was the longest non-Hogwarts stretch in any of the books,
and that's really what bumps up the length. I'm trying to think of
specifics, it's hard."



kathy kulesza:

I'm surprised JK Rowling thought Order of the Phoenix was too long. It's my favorite of all the books and I wouldn't change anything. I thought Goblet of Fire was too long and the House Elf subplot could have been eliminated without changing the story.




From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov  7 02:39:21 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:39:21 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
References: <eioe6p+ppes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00bf01c70215$eed90fc0$df6c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161137

> bboyminn:
<snip>
> Further, keep in mind, it's not the /best/ boy who ever
> lived; it's the best boy in the school /at this time/.
> Harry may fall far short of James, but he is leagues ahead
> of Dean and Seamus. Academically, Ernie might be a good
> candidate, but beyond get good grades, what has Ernie
> ever done? Where was he when the Death Eaters attacked the
> castle? Where was he when Tom captured Ginny?
>
> So, considering all that, it is possible that either Ron
> or Harry will be Best/Head Boy.

Magpie:
I hope this isn't the way best boy is chosen.  It seems wrong to hold up one 
person as fundamentally better than other kids, be it Percy or Harry.  It 
seems more like something that's chosen for specific qualities that are part 
of that job.  I'm sure a lot of people who are no longer in school would 
laugh at the idea that the kids involved in school stuff in a certain way 
were the best.  I can't imagine that Harry's so much better suited for 
duties of Head Boy than Ernie MacMillan--since I doubt worshipping his 
person is one of the things that's expected.:-)

Personally, I'd imagine the last year really might not be at school.  We've 
seen Harry has to leave school to hunt the Horcruxes, he never leaves when 
he's a student, Malfoy and Snape are both away from the school.  Who's going 
to drive the plot at school without those two? Does Harry have time to fight 
with a new DADA teacher?  I think he'll go where the story is, not hang 
around just for this stuff.  If she were at school I imagine she'd have to 
stick with the Quidditch, which we know is over. I can't imagine they won't 
ever got to Hogwarts at all, but it seems odd to suggest that Harry's going 
to take a year off (knowing Snape and Malfoy are on the run) and then just 
take it back the next year.

-m 





From pdshelgren at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 00:25:33 2006
From: pdshelgren at yahoo.com (Paula Shelgren)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 16:25:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Lily my opinion
In-Reply-To: <454F8496.000009.02392@JUSTME>
Message-ID: <20061107002533.63330.qmail@web51712.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161138

I think Lily was a kind hearted person who while they were all going to school, James Potter, Lily, Snape, Lupin that Lily was a good friend when Snape and Lupin needed a friend. Lupin had told Harry that Lily was there when no one else  would. I think maybe Snape had a secret crush on Lily, which I think Lily was being a good friend where Snape might have thought it could be something else. With his love for Lily, maybe he might look after Harry in gratitude to Lily for being so kind to him,

  I have started reading the 5th book last nite and I read the part that Harry has used magic to save Dudley, he has been suspended and alot of owls keeps coming with messages to Harry. The Dursley's have been questioning him what the messages are and he tells them he used magic only to save Dudley from the Dementors and he tells them the Dementors guard the prison and Bernard says prison and Petunia says Azkaban (sp) and Harry is surprised she knows this. So I think Petunia knows more then she wants to admit to anyone and in the book it portrays her getting real scared knowing Lord Voldemort is back, so if she doesn't know anything about the wizarding world why would she so scared to know that he is back?
   
  Paula





From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 00:35:16 2006
From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:35:16 -0000
Subject: Major concern
Message-ID: <eiokc4+8qma@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161139

Ummm...I'm new here and I've been reading on A LOT of the post about book
7 and one particular topic...Dumbledore's death. And ive heard a lot of
speculations about him probably coming back and hows it's possible. Then
you have J.K herself saying that he's DEAD. offical. Well I refuse to
belive that DD will have  no voice in book 7. He's too big in the series.
My issue is this...Why has no one (well from what I haven't read at least)
stated something VERY obvious. DD being at Hogwarts in the Pictures at
in the headmasters office. All of the old headmasters and mistresess
go there. And at the end of book 7 it even said  that DD was asleep in
the portrait. HELLO!! that's Harry's key to still be able to talk to DD.
He doesn't need to be alive. Harry can just talk to him through the
picture. AGAIN, if the topics been raised before then I've never seen it and
well I'll be off of it. But I think it's something very obvious that
people have looked over.

"Mitchell"






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 03:37:03 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:37:03 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiov0v+t5qp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161140

Oh, I was so looking forward to this chapter discussion! Thank you, 
Carol, for the wonderful (snipped) summary and interesting discussion 
questions!

> justcarol's Discussion Questions:
> 3.  Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be disloyal 
to
> Ron and that he must choose between the two? What do you think Ron's
> reaction would have been if Harry had leveled with him?

Zgirnius:
Answering the second question first, I think Ron would have been 
delighted and supportive. It is my opinion that he has disliked all 
of Ginny's previous boyfriends as somehow unworthy of his baby 
sister. I do not think he views Harry, his best friend, in this 
light. Harry, however, has only observed the hostility to Ginny's 
boyfriends, and assumes it is more a general opposition to Ginny 
dating.

> 5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom"
> (restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction
> change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was 
trying
> to do? Why or why not? 

Zgirnius: 
I was clueless as to Draco's mission, but my reaction did not change. 
I figured whatever the mission was, it was something Snape, Narcissa, 
and Bellatrix could all agree was difficult, so I felt sorry for 
Draco.

> 6.  Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under 
these
> circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or why
> not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to Draco's
> attempted Crucio?

Zgirnius:
I don't blame Harry for trying the spell, he was in a bad position 
(he had slipped, and he has good reason to fear the Cruciatus Curse). 
He must have figured it would be `something good', because of his 
respect and trust for the Prince. In fact, it was, but not in a way 
Harry appreciated.

He did have better options. I think either Expelliarmus or Protego 
would have worked for him here. He's making a mistake of going for 
something fancy where something tried and true (Expelliarmus had been 
helping him out of trouble for four years now!) would work at least 
as well.

> 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
> murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone know
> the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the
> countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape? 

Zgirnius;
I assume Snape was there because he is keeping an eye on Draco. Once 
he showed up, Myrtle stopped with the noise.

I'm not sure of the countercurse. I think it could be an invention of 
Snape's (we have at least one other set of spells he invented in a 
pair, `Levicorpus' and `Libercorpus'.) The songlike chant for a 
healing spell makes some sense because of the association of 
phoenixes with healing. Also, the `muttering' reminds me of what 
Dumbledore does in the Cave in the next chapter, where he seems to be 
muttering in a language Harry does not know. Some sort of advanced 
magic, perhaps?

> 8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the 
scene
> rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the hospital wing 
to
> be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us about Snape 
and/or
> Draco? 

Zgirnius:
Snape is being reassuring, letting Draco know that if he follows an 
appropriate course of treatment, he will recover fully from his 
injury. I suppose it shows Snape has a decent bedside manner, and 
also is another illustration of the good relationship he and Draco 
have probably enjoyed out of our sight in the first five books. Like 
the conversation they had in "The Unbreakable Vow" we again see Snape 
showing concern for Draco and understanding of his worries/fears.

> 9. Why does Harry wait for Snape to return, as if he thinks that he
> deserves to be punished, and yet lie when Snape asks him where he
> learned such a Dark spell? What do you think would have happened if
> Harry had told the truth? 

Zgirnius:
I think Harry is shocked by what happened and does feel he deserves 
to be punished, but when Snape returns, his dislike of Snape wins 
out. I think if Dumbledore had shown up, he would have reacted 
differently.

I'm not sure exactly what Snape would have done. I think he would 
probably have punished Harry in some way regardless. (We see a 
similar dynamic at the end of OotP, when Snape catches Harry about to 
hex Draco, asks Harry what he is doing, and Harry states he is trying 
to decide what hex to use on Draco. Snape takes House points.)

As far as the question of whether he would confiscate the book, or 
bring it to Slughorn's attention in any way, I really could not say.

 > 10. Harry uses, or tries to use, three of the HBP's spells in this
> chapter (Muffliato, Levicorpus, and Sectumsempra), and he hides his
> book rather than risk having it confiscated. Afterwards, he defends
> the Prince against Hermione's accusations. What does this behavior
> tell us about Harry and about his relationship with the boy he knows
> only as the Half-Blood Prince?

Zgirnius:
Harry likes the spells and finds them both amusing and useful. He 
describes the Prince, at various points as helping him, and being a 
friend, and being funny.
 
> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been 
expelled.
> Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" yet punish
> Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he so much as
> threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are the Saturday
> detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by tormenting him with
> his father's indiscretions or does this tactic disguise Snape's real
> purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every Saturday until the 
end
> of term?

Zgirnius:
Snape clearly wants Harry to see the records of his father's 
detentions. He could find some other task for the Saturdays, if just 
having Harry around was the point (like preparing nasty Potions 
ingredients, for example). I don't think his purpose with the old 
detention cards is to torment Harry, though. We know what that looks 
like (read any scene of Dreadful Dolores with Harry in detention) and 
Snape's detentions look nothing like that. He is not described as 
even watching Harry's reactions, let alone smiling obscenely, etc.

I don't think Snape ever wanted to expel Harry, so the fact that he 
does not push for it when he may finally have cause does not surprise 
me. 

As far as the different reasons the staff and Harry are given for 
Harry's punishment-I will wait and see what others say. My stabs at 
this are WAY too long


> 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he undergoes
> his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned it.
> What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten 
his
> own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make 
this
> detention (and its sequels) more effective?

Zgirnius:
I think the only thing that could have made the detentions more 
effective is if they were not assigned by or supervised by Snape. 
Harry has simply reached a point where he has not respect for Snape's 
authority as a teacher, at all, even when he knows himself to be in 
the wrong.
 
> 13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the
> dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions,
> now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another 
floor?

Zgirnius:
Habit? Sentiment? Proximity to the Slytherin Common Room?







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Nov  7 03:55:44 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 19:55:44 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eiov0v+t5qp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1GhI3z-0006xx-Ft@elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161141

Carol asked?
> 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he undergoes 
> his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned it.
> What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten
his
> own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make
this
> detention (and its sequels) more effective?

Zgirnius:
I think the only thing that could have made the detentions more effective is
if they were not assigned by or supervised by Snape. 
Harry has simply reached a point where he has not respect for Snape's
authority as a teacher, at all, even when he knows himself to be in the
wrong.
 



Sherry now:

I actually think it is much simpler even than that, though yes, I agree,
Harry has no respect for Snape by now.  However, I think shoving his
father's detentions in his face, and having it be Snape doing that in
particular is why Harry shows no remorse and resents the detentions instead.
I don't think the way to get to him, to make him think about his actions is
to force him to read all that stuff about his dad and Sirius.  I think it
would have the exact reverse effect and would make him feel more defensive
of his dad.  I know that's how I would react.  I could criticize my dad, but
by god, no outsider--in particular one who hated him--had better do it!  I
think Harry was truly upset by what happened to Draco, but I think nearly
any other type of detention would have had more impact on him than this.
Again, it's another indication that Snape has no clue how to handle Harry or
what will get to him in a positive way.  Everything he does only adds to the
resentment and widens the gulf between them.

Sherry




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 04:00:37 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 04:00:37 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eip0d5+4f34@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161142

Carol:
> 5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom"
> (restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction
> change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was 
trying
> to do? Why or why not? 

Alla:

I was  I think surprised. It changed sort of in  a sense that I was 
not laughing anymore. as I said I just cumilatively got enough of 
Draco sufferings - I am not sympathetic, but my bloodthirstiness 
towards little shmack is fulfilled ;)

 
> 6.  Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under 
these
> circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or why
> not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to Draco's
> attempted Crucio?

Alla:

No, I was not. That was his last effort to defend himself, he was on 
the floor, he tried two harmless things to defend himself. He fell. 
Only Harry's enemies use Crucio on him, Spell was marked for enemies.

I mean, I would be terribly annoyed with Harry, had he used 
Sectusemptra under any other circumstances, I still think that he 
should not have thinking of trying unknown spell, but if that is 
what came to his mind - that was self defense.

So, I am not shocked, but sure if there are other spells, he should 
have used them, I just cannot think of any.


> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been 
expelled.
> Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" yet punish
> Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he so much as
> threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are the 
Saturday
> detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by tormenting him 
with
> his father's indiscretions or does this tactic disguise Snape's 
real
> purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every Saturday until the 
end
> of term?

Alla:

I do not believe Snape when he says that he only punished Harry for 
being liar and a cheat, I do not know what it is with him, but I 
suppose he needs to say some proper reasons for his punishments or 
something like that.

And yes, Harry of course deserved punishment, but do I think Snape 
designed the punishment to torment him with Marauder's detentions 
cards?

YES, I absolutely do. I think Snape is always pleased to torment 
Harry, this is no exception.

And again this was a legitimate punishment of course, but that was 
all the more reasons for Snape to come with punishment to cause 
Harry's pain, if nothing else - James and Sirius are dead and Harry 
is forced to read the reminders of their carefree youth.


> 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he 
undergoes
> his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned 
it.
> What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten 
his
> own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make 
this
> detention (and its sequels) more effective?

Alla:

I know :)

Make him do something **else** besides dealing with Marauders 
detention cards.


Thank you for the questions.

Alla
 






From k.coble at comcast.net  Tue Nov  7 03:47:55 2006
From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 21:47:55 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Major concern and other topics
In-Reply-To: <eiokc4+8qma@eGroups.com>
References: <eiokc4+8qma@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <08F13269-E329-4568-BC0D-4B5D7BF3EB67@comcast.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161143

Mitchell,

People haven't overlooked the portraits at all.  It's been discussed  
here at length.  As have many other topics like:

Is Harry a Horcrux?
What really happened that night at Godric's Hollow?
Is Snape Evil?
Was Lily Potter Snape's True Love?
Will Draco become Good?
Who will be the new headmaster at Hogwarts?
Will Harry return to Hogwarts?
Will Fawkes show up again?
What is the significance of Lily having Harry's eyes?
What was the look of triumph in Dumbledore's eyes?
How could Quirrell shake Harry's hand at the beginning of SS/PS and  
then die while touching Harry at the end?
Will Harry/Ron/Hermione/Neville/Luna/Ginny/The Twins/Remus/Any Other  
Weasley die?

etc. etc.

I don't mean to direct this solely at you, Mitchell.  I'm sorry but  
your post raised a bit of a red flag.
There are many new folks here, and you are all welcome, but as a long- 
time poster to this list who
is not a list-elf in any way shape or form I would BEG all of you to  
please read the FAQ and do searches of the group when you have a  
question or concern like this.   Because the odds are that these very  
questions have been discussed.  Repeatedly.

New opinions are always good, but it kind of rubs me the wrong way to  
have people come in and say "you are overlooking this" or "I have  
this new idea" when the ideas are far from overlooked and far from new.

Katherine



From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 04:01:24 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 04:01:24 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <einrun+aaoo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eip0ek+qtbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161144

Carol, I don't think I explained my theory very well the first time, 
my evidence being that you used many of my conclusions as if they 
argued against my position. So forgive me, I'd like to try to 
clarify.

> > Mike previously:
> > Our dear Remus informs us that if a Dementor *kisses* you to  
> > remove your soul, "you'll have no sense of self anymore, no  
> > memory, no... anything", leaving you an empty shell. This 
> > certainly speaks to the conclusion that in the Potterverse your 
> > memories must reside in your soul.

Mike now:
Two things come out of this Lupin quote. First, memories reside in 
the soul and, second, your sense of *self* comes from your soul. 
Both of theses are important to the Diary Horcrux. 

With Tom putting a piece of soul into the diary he is putting in all 
of his memories up to the point of Horcrux creation. Think of every 
year of Tom's life as a movie. Instead of having to pick scenes out 
of each movie to download into the diary, he has downloaded every 
movie instead. He doesn't have to guess which scenes will be needed 
later on when the diary is deployed, he has every scene possible, 
they all reside within the soul piece.

Now, Tom being the genius that he is, he figures out how to 
incorporate a Pensieve-like device into the diary. With the addition 
of the Pensieve device, the interactive soul piece can chose which 
memory to display Pensieve-like to it's audience. There is no need 
for Tom to chose which memories to put in the diary, he has put 
*all* of them in and the interactive soul will chose which ones to 
*play*.

Then he goes one step further, and this is the real key to the 
potency of the diary, he figures out how to allow the soul piece to 
be interactive. He animates the soul piece if you will. The soul 
piece containing Tom's knowledge and memories to date of creation 
has now been endowed with the ability to use the knowledge and 
memories to fully interact within the limits of the tools at hand. 
That is, it can respond intelligently through written word, it, like 
LV in his spectoral state, can possess another, and as it comes 
close to regenerating a body it becomes a functional entity that can 
wield a wand.

When Lupin tells us that without a soul you'll have no memories, it 
follows that the soul, or in this case each bit of soul, *has* all 
the memories. The soul that survived Godric's Hollow retained all of 
LV's memories and knowledge. And although we have all used the term 
*main soul piece* (myself included) there is no canon to support this
reading. Dumbledore refers to that "seventh piece of soul" not the 
main soul piece. The piece of soul in the diary has shown that it 
not only retains Tom's memories but, through it's interactive 
abilities, has continued to learn. Just as Vapormort had not only 
retained all his memories but also acquired new memories and 
knowledge right up through his regeneration. 

There is every reason to believe that, if given an ability to 
interact, every soul piece could interact as well as the soul piece 
that was Vapormort and that now resides in Voldemort's regenerated 
body. Certainly the diary soul piece showed all the abilities that 
Vapormort displayed with the caveat that being *encased* in the 
diary, it was not free roaming, if you will. It could only interact 
with the person in possession of the diary.

>  
> Carol responds:
> <snip>
> Yes, it's the soul bit that possessed Ginny and enabled Diary!Tom 
> to put a bit of his soul back into her, but that may not be the 
> original purpose of the diary, which DiaryTom specifically says is 
> to open the Chamber of secrets and release the monster. Bear in 
> mind that that's exactly how the diary is used until Diary!Tom 
> learns about Harry from Ginny, at which point "killing Muggleborns 
> [didn't] matter to him anymore and he became obsessed with talking 
> to Harry.

Mike:
See, this is what I was talking about, Carol. You've made two 
critical points here that bolster my theory and you make them as if 
they run counter. Marbles in the mouth slurs the speech, how did I 
get that to transition to my writing? Oh well, try, try again.

How was the diary designed to get the Chamber of Secrets open? By 
possession! Very early on in CoS, the Basilisk has already been 
released (Harry hears it during his detention with Lockhart that he 
got from the flying car arrival). Ginny is already strangling 
roosters and has no memory of where she was, but after a lapse in 
memory finds herself covered with blood. Possession was the method 
that the diary was intended to use to get the Chamber open, or else 
the diary was going to have to find a Parselmouth, wouldn't it?

And what says that the intention wasn't to completely possess and 
attempt to regenerate a body while stealing the soul/life force out 
of the victim? The diary soul piece did almost succeed in doing just 
that. Why couldn't that have been the plan all along? JKR has 
revealed that if Diary!Tom had succeeded in regenerating it would 
have greatly increased Voldemort's power. Doesn't this sound like 
she envisioned this as Voldemort's intention with regards to the 
diary Horcrux?

I'll step into the world of speculation here. If Voldemort is not 
yet immortal and settling for just getting his "old body" 
back, "embracing mortal life" again before "chasing immortality", 
what does he still need to do to become immortal? I submit that he 
has not yet conquered aging. In fact, just the opposite, he has 
ravaged his "mortal" body, his "old body". How could he get a *new* 
body? If the diary horcrux succeeds in stealing the life force from 
a witch or wizard, there would be a fully functional, young Tom 
Riddle body in the WW. This body is anchored to the sixteen-year-old 
soul piece in the diary. The theory might be that while anchored to 
the sixteen-year-old soul the body remains forever sixteen. Then the 
Voldemort soul in the "old body" is removed to a new Horcrux, after 
transferring all of it's knowledge/skills/memories into the sixteen-
year-old body. Tom/Voldemort would still have his seven part soul 
and all of his magical abilities are residing in a never-aging body. 
Pure speculation, and it can't happen now. But it sure sheds light 
on "his anger was terrible to behold" when he found out what Lucius 
did with his diary.

Back to Carol's points:

> The memory Harry enters acts exactly like a memory taken from 
> Snape's or Dumbledore's head (or poured from a vial)--memories 
> that are not soul bits <snip>

Mike:
Right. The memories come *from* the soul piece and are *played* 
through the Pensieve feature that Tom incorporated into the diary.
Tom made the soul interactive so it could chose what to say to the 
whomever wrote in the diary and it could reveal whichever memory 
that it wished to reveal. Think of it this way. How would the memory 
of Tom framing Hagrid for openning the Chamber advance the process 
towards the goal of openning the *real* Chamber? Wouldn't that 
memory confuse the issue, lead one in the wrong direction? On the 
other hand, if the soul piece has, as you said above, refocused on 
gaining Harry's confidence, then this memory is revealed for a 
completely different intent. It demonstrates that the diary soul has 
not only the ability to think, it can also reveal whichever memory 
it thinks will achieve it's new goal.

> Carol again:
> So, IMO, it's just a memory. Diary!Tom remembers what he knew 
> when he created the diary--to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble 
> work." 

Mike:
Right again! Diary!Tom, the soul piece, remembers not only this 
memory, but all Tom's memories. Like I said above, how would showing 
a potential victim that Hagrid opened the Chamber lead that victim 
down the path towards openning the real Chamber? Obviously it 
doesn't. But conditions have changed. The Chamber has already been 
opened by Ginny. Tom is now giving an alternate explanation (a false 
one) for how the Chamber got opened 50 years ago. If the diary is 
only meant to get the chamber re-opened and the memories have been 
preselected, why would Tom be preselecting a memory that explains 
falsely how the Chamber was opened 50 years ago *to* the person that 
is openning it now? Do you think the diary showed Ginny that memory?


> Carol again:
> <snip>
> He would also have placed additional spells on it to make it
> interactive and to control the reader (an Imperius curse would
> do the job) 

Mike:
Here I'll have to disagree. The Imperious curse is placed on one 
wizard by another wizard. A soul performing possession is canon, a 
wizard casting Imperious through a book onto another wizard is too 
far of a stretch for me and it isn't needed.

> Carol continues:
> and he may well have added a few more memories from that
> year so he knew about the "annoyingly close watch" DD kept 
> on him after that. <snip>

Mike:
Once again, a soul bit with all of Tom's memories. No need to guess 
and preselect which ones might be needed.

Carol continues:
> But even though Diary!Tom is empowereed by the soul bit, I don't 
> think he knows that. He just knows that in life he had the power 
> to possess people and as a memory he retains that power. <snip>

Mike:
OK Carol, now your getting silly ;-) A memory that retains the power 
to possess? Down post you quote Dumbledore when he said, "A mere 
memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere memory, sapping 
the life out of the girl...?" We both know that it was the soul 
piece doing the possessing.


> Carol responds:
> "Revenant Tom"? Can you explain how you're using that term and 
> whether it's somehow different from Diary!Tom, who refers to 
> himself as a memory? <snip>

Mike:
Sorry for mixing around the names. I refer to Diary!Tom while he is 
still in the diary and Revenant!Tom when he has assumed human form 
down in the Chamber. They are both the animated soul piece, Revenant!
Tom is just further along the path towards regeneration as a human.

> Carol:
> <snip>  --information that Diary!Tom apparently didn't have.
> There's no evidence that he had yet killed his father, only that 
> he hated him and didn't want to use his name, <snip>

Mike:
Ahh, but if Tom had killed his father and used that murder to make 
his first Horcrux he wouldn't want to reveal any piece of that 
information to Harry. He wouldn't and doesn't broach any part of the 
story that has anything to do with Horcruxes. And there is no 
evidence that he *hadn't* yet killed his father, either. This is as 
good as time as any to talk about when he made this Diary!Horcrux.

Revenant!Tom said, "I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my 
sixteen-year-old self in its pages, ..." (CoS p.312,US). Four pages 
earlier Revenant!Tom refers to himself as a "memory". Well, what 
would you expect him to say? A Horcrux? A Piece of Soul? After the 
fact, we know that he *was* a Horcrux, Dumbledore explained it in 
HBP. 

In this above quote, Tom says he preserved his 16-year-old **self**. 
Why doesn't (JKR have) Tom say he preserved his 16-year-old 
*memories* in the diary? Because he didn't just preserve memories, 
he preserved his "self" and your sense of "self" is intrinsic to 
your soul, Lupin said so. I take you back to Lupin's explanation 
that without a soul you have no "sense of self". I'm not of the 
opinion that JKR accidently used the same terms.

So what do we have:
1. Tom Riddle made a Horcrux by encasing a soul piece into a diary.
2. This diary is interactive with the person possessing it.
3. Souls and soul pieces retain the power of possession.
4. The diary soul piece possessed Ginny.
5. Sense of self is retained in the soul.
6. The diary revenant claims to have preserved his 16-year-old self.
7. Souls and soul pieces retain knowledge and memory.
8. The memories of Diary!Tom stop at what 16-year-old Tom Riddle 
knows, not including what he learned from present day interactions.

Thats my canon that shows that the Diary!Horcrux was made by a 
sixteen-year-old Tom Riddle. Is there any canon that refutes any of 
these? 

> Carol again:
> in Slughorn's memory, which occurs some time after he's killed his
> Muggle relatives but before he knows how to make a Horcrux, or he
> wouldn't be wearing the ring. Nor would he ask those questions:
> "But how do you split your soul?"  "How do you encase the soul 
> bit"? etc. Surely not knowing whether you can split your soul more 
> than once is not sufficiently important to risk discovery for. If 
> he knew that he'd *already* split his soul and knew how to make a 
> Horcrux, he would just do it! <snip>

Mike:
Yep, I think he did just do it, when he killed his father. And 
Dumbledore said that what Tom wanted to particularly learn from 
Slughorn was the question about splitting your soul more than once. 
He said that Tom knew he wouldn't get that information from a book. 
Speaking of books, isn't that where Tom learned how to create a 
Horcrux? Whether you believe it was before or after this 
conversation with Slughorn, Slughorn obviously didn't tell him how 
to do it. But Slughorn did give an opinion about multiple Horcruxes, 
however grudgingly. So what makes you so sure that Tom didn't learn 
how to make Horcruxes from a book before this conversation and only 
wanted Slughorn's opinion, the one that he couldn't get from a book? 
Tom certainly deftly maneuvers Slughorn all the way to the question 
of multiple Horcruxes, then stops there. If he didn't even know what 
a Horcrux was before this conversation, what would take him all the 
way to the point of asking about multiple Horcruxes?

> Carol responds:
> <snip>
> You haven't proven that Memory!Tom, who *calls himself a memory*
> and talks about placing the *memory* of his sixteen-year-old 
> self in the diary *so that the Chamber can be opened again* is 
> himself a soul bit. I think he's *empowered* by the soul bit
> beyond the original function of the diary. The Pensieve proves that
> memories are not soul bits. They can't possess anyone, nor is Harry
> possessed when he enters the memory. <snip>

Mike:
I hope I have now.





From jnferr at gmail.com  Tue Nov  7 05:10:52 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 23:10:52 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <00bf01c70215$eed90fc0$df6c400c@Spot>
References: <eioe6p+ppes@eGroups.com> <00bf01c70215$eed90fc0$df6c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611062110w21890783j86839a26ceec83d3@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161145

>
> Magpie:
> I hope this isn't the way best boy is chosen.  It seems wrong to hold up
> one
> person as fundamentally better than other kids, be it Percy or Harry.  It
> seems more like something that's chosen for specific qualities that are
> part
> of that job.  I'm sure a lot of people who are no longer in school would
> laugh at the idea that the kids involved in school stuff in a certain way
> were the best.  I can't imagine that Harry's so much better suited for
> duties of Head Boy than Ernie MacMillan--since I doubt worshipping his
> person is one of the things that's expected.:-)


montims:
According to wikipedia: *"Head Boy* and *Head Girl* are terms commonly used
in the British <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom> education
system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_Kingdom>, and
in private schools <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_school> throughout
the Commonwealth <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations>.

In British schools the student body appoints a member of the highest grade
or form to perform a series of duties to help the organisation of the
school. Normally one boy (who becomes the "Head Boy") and/or one girl (who
becomes the "Head Girl") are chosen to do this. Head Boys/Girls are usually
responsible for representing the school at events, and therefore must be
good public speakers. They are often favoured by schools if they are
academic and punctual.

It is not uncommon for a series of Deputy Head Boys and/or Deputy Head Girls
to be appointed in order to help the Head Boy and Head Girl with their
duties."
It's a long time since I went to school in England, but I imagine it is
still the case that being a head boy or head girl helps you enormously to
get a good university place, or a good job.  The person has to be
responsible and well-liked, by both teachers and fellow students, otherwise
s/he wouldn't be able to keep discipline.  I didn't realise that this
position was not filled in American schools.


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




From jnferr at gmail.com  Tue Nov  7 05:37:09 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 23:37:09 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Insults
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611062137t2b9ae085s442b363a39d6ece5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161146

>
> Magpie:
> Why is that the worst thing he can call her?  If he's angry about her
> flirting with James he might have called her a slut or something like
> that.
> Or maybe this word was powerful for him because it connected him to the
> people he was tied to by then.


montims: oh, the discussions I've tried to get into on Leaky about the word
"slut", and can't, because American readers read it as the worst thing a
girl can be called, with distinctly sexual connotations, and to a Brit like
me, who used to cheerfully call herself a slut before coming to America and
horrifying the few people I said this to, "slut" means someone who is no
good at housework and wears raggedy clothes, etc.  Not a very nice word if
spat spitefully by someone like Gaunt, but not the massive insult it implies
when it crosses the ocean.  "Bitch" to me would have been much more
insulting if Snape had used it - "treacherous bitch" if indeed she had
taught the Marauders Snape's own spell, to be used against him...


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




From kjones at telus.net  Tue Nov  7 05:44:54 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2006 21:44:54 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
References: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <45501D56.6010609@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161147

justcarol67 wrote:
> CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
> 24, Sectumsempra.
> 
> After casting the Muffliato spell to prevent anyone in their Charms
> class from hearing him, Harry tells Ron and Hermione about wheedling
> the true memory from Slughorn and about Dumbledore's lesson on
> Horcruxes. Both friends are "satisfyingly impressed."
> 
> A red-eyed Lavender Brown glares when Hermione grabs Ron's wrist
> because he's accidentally creating fake snow and bursts into tears
> when Hermione brushes the snow from Ron's shoulders. Ron confides that
> Lavender broke up with him after she saw him leaving the boys' dorm
> with Hermione, unaware that Harry was with them under the Invisibility
> Cloak. Hermione, who seems amused by the story, informs them that
> Ginny has split up with Dean for an equally silly reason--she didn't
> like having him help her through the portrait hole. Harry feigns
> indifference but his insides are "dancing the conga." Not
> surprisingly, both he and Ron conspicuously fail to turn their vinegar
> into wine. (Hermione, of course, has easily mastered the charm.)
> 
> Hermione and Ron are both in good spirits after the class, but Harry
> is torn by conflicting emotions: attraction to Ginny and loyalty to
> Ron. His internal debate is interrupted by the sight of Katie Bell,
> who has returned to school after being in St. Mungo's since December.
> After welcoming her back to the team and stating his hopes that
> Gryffindor can beat Ravenclaw and win the Cup, Harry asks her if she
> remembers who gave her the cursed necklace. Unfortunately, Katie can't
> recall anything between walking into the ladies' room at The Three
> Broomsticks and waking up in St. Mungo's five months later.
> 
> After Katie leaves, Hermione states that the person who Imperiused
> Katie must have been female, but Harry, thinking of Crabbe and Goyle,
> suggests that the person might have been Polyjuiced to look like a
> girl. He considers taking a swig of Felix Felicis and waiting beside
> the Room of Requirement again, but Hermione discourages this idea as
> "a waste of potion." Checking his copy of "Advanced Potion-Making" to
> see how long a new batch of Felix would require (six months), Harry
> notices the folded-down page corner that he had used to mark
> Sectumsempra, a spell that the Half-Blood Prince had scribbled into
> the margins of his book and labeled "For Enemies." Still unsure what
> the spell does because he doesn't want to practice it around Hermione,
> Harry considers testing it on McLaggen to find out.
> 
> With Katie back, Quidditch practice goes extremely well. Not at all
> upset about breaking up with Dean (who is off the team because of
> Katie's return), Ginny entertains her teammates with her imitations of
> Ron and Harry. Harry returns to his internal debate over whether
> asking Ginny out would be "base treachery" to Ron, at the same time
> hoping that a spectacular win for Gryffindor will be as good as a swig
> of Felix Felicis in insuring his success with Ginny.
> 
> Harry has not, however, lost interest in figuring out what Draco
> Malfoy is up to and continues to check the Marauder's Map
> periodically. Although Draco's dot is frequently absent, meaning that
> he's spending a lot of time in the Room of Requirement, Harry's
> continued attempts to get inside the room are futile. No matter how he
> words his request, the door does not appear.
> 
> A few days before the scheduled match with Ravenclaw, he spots Draco
> on the map in a sixth-floor boys' restroom, accompanied not by Crabbe
> or Goyle but by Moaning Myrtle. Harry runs downstairs and presses his
> ear against the restroom door but hears nothing. Quietly opening the
> door, he sees Draco bent over a sink, clutching it with both hands and
> shaking. Draco declines Moaning Myrtle's offers to help him and adds,
> "I can't do it. . . . I can't. . . . It won't work. . . and unless I
> do it soon . . . he says he'll kill me. . . ." 
> 
> Just as Harry realizes with a shock that Draco is crying, Draco sees
> Harry's reflection in the mirror and whirls around with his wand
> drawn. Harry draws his own wand. Draco's hex misses him, shattering a
> lamp. Harry attempts Levicorpus, but Draco blocks it. Ignoring
> Myrtle's screams and cries, the boys continue to battle, doing more
> damage to the restroom than to each other. Finally, Draco attempts a
> Cruciatus Curse, but Harry cuts him off, yelling "Sectumsempra!" and
> waving his wand around wildly.
> 
> Blood spurts from Draco's head and chest, and he collapses on the wet
> floor, dropping his wand. Harry falls to his knees, gasping "No--No--I
> didn't--"
> 
> Myrtle screams, "MURDER! MURDER IN THE BATHROOM! MURDER!" and
> Professor Snape bursts into the restroom, looking livid. Pushing Harry
> aside, he kneels beside Draco and mutters a songlike incantation,
> tracing the wounds with his wand as Harry watches in helpless horror
> and Myrtle sobs and wails overhead. The bleeding slows and then stops.
> Snape repeats the incantation, and the wounds seem to knit. After
> performing the incantation a third time, Snape helps Draco to his
> feet, telling him that he needs to take dittany to avoid scarring and
> ordering Harry to wait till he returns from taking Draco to the
> hospital wing. 
> 
> Too shaken even to think of disobeying, Harry waits silently. Snape
> returns ten minutes later and orders Myrtle to leave. Ignoring Harry's
> protest that he didn't know what the spell did, Snape says that he
> underestimated Harry and asks where he learned such Dark Magic. When
> Harry claims that he read it in a library book, Snape calls him a liar
> and, despite Harry's efforts to block his thoughts, forces a mental
> image of his Potions book to rise to the forefront of his mind. Snape
> orders Harry to fetch his schoolbag with all his textbooks and return
> immediately.
> 
> Knowing that it's pointless to argue, Harry runs to Gryffindor Tower,
> terrified that Snape will not only confiscate the book he regards as a
> guide and friend but also tell Slughorn how he's been achieving his
> high marks in Potions all year. He ignores Ron's questions about why
> he's soaked with water and blood, demanding that Ron give him his
> Potions book. Grabbing his schoolbag, he runs to the Room of
> Requirement and asks it for a place to hide his book. The room opens
> to reveal "walls" composed of broken and banned objects hidden and
> forgotten by many generations of Hogwarts students--"thousands" of
> books and a multitude of objects, from Fanged Frisbees and broken
> eggshells to a blood-stained axe. Passing the broken Vanishing Cabinet
> into which the Twins had stuffed Montague the previous year, Harry
> finds an acid-splashed cupboard in which someone has already hidden a
> cage containing a five-legged creature, now reduced to a skeleton. He
> hides the Prince's book behind the cage and marks the spot with the
> bust of an ugly old warlock, on which he places a dusty wig and a
> tarnished tiara to help him find it again. 
> 
> Harry rushes back to the restroom where Snape is waiting and hands
> over the schoolbag. Snape examines his books one at a time, looking
> especially carefully at the Potions book. He asks Harry three times
> whether the Potions book is his, and when Harry persists in answering
> "yes," he asks why the name Roonil Wazlib is written inside the front
> cover. When Harry says that's his nickname and Snape again looks into
> his eyes, Harry again fails to close his mind and block Snape from
> seeing his thoughts.
> 
> Calling Harry a liar and a cheat, Snape gives him detention every
> Saturday until the end of term. Harry protests that Saturday is the
> last match of the season, and Snape smiles, remarking that he fears
> "poor Gryffindor" will be in fourth place this year. Harry leaves the
> restroom feeling sick.
> 
> Word of the incident spreads quickly, thanks to Moaning Myrtle. After
> Snape tells the staff "precisely what happened," Professor McGonagall
> lectures Harry for fifteen minutes, telling him that he's lucky not to
> have been expelled and that she wholeheartedly approves Snape's weekly
> detentions. 
> 
> Hermione tells Harry that she knew something was wrong with "that
> Prince person," but Harry defends the boy he feels is his friend,
> arguing that the Prince only copied out the spell and saying that
> without him, he'd never have won the Felix Felicis or known how to
> save Ron from the poisoned mead. Hermione interrupts, pointing out
> that he'd also never have acquired a reputation for brilliance in
> Potions that he didn't deserve.
> 
> Ginny tells her to give it a rest and reminds her that Draco was
> trying to use an Unforgiveable Curse. When the girls turn away from
> each other after a few more angry words, Harry feels oddly cheerful.
> However, he still has to endure the Slytherin taunts and his own
> teammates' anger at him for getting detention during their final
> match, which forces Ginny to play Seeker and puts Dean back on the
> team in Ginny's place.
> 
> On Saturday morning, while the rest of the school heads for the
> Quidditch pitch, Harry goes to Snape's office, the same dark room full
> of slimy dead creatures floating in colored potions that he had used
> as Potions master. Snape tells Harry that he'll be recopying the
> records of  "crimes and punishments" of former students for Filch
> without using magic. He is to begin with boxes 1012 to 1056, which
> apparently correspond with the years during which Harry's father (and
> Severus Snape) attended Hogwarts. After Snape reads aloud a card
> recording a double detention for James Potter and Sirius Black for an
> illegal hex that doubled the size of another student's head and
> remarks that the record of their great achievements must be a comfort
> to Harry, Harry holds back an angry retort and begins his boring task,
> occasionally feeling a jolt in his stomach as he encounters another
> record of his father's detentions. Five hours later, Snape tells him
> to mark his place and return at 10 a.m. the next Saturday. Harry
> stuffs a card into the box at random and runs up to the common room
> where he discovers the Gryffindors celebrating their victory.
> 
> Ginny rushes toward him wearing a "hard, blazing look," and Harry
> kisses her in front of fifty people. Both Dean and Romilda Vane seem
> angry, but Hermione looks happy and Ron looks stunned. Then Ron gives
> a tiny jerk of his head that Harry interprets to mean, "Well, if you
> must," and Harry and Ginny leave for a long walk on the grounds.
> 
> Discussion Questions:

> 4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among them
> to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis either to
> strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get into the Room of
> Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up to. What do these
> temptations reveal about Harry and about his ability to deal with
> temptation in general? Might they foreshadow a more serious temptation
> in Book 7?

   KJ writes:

    Great questions Carol! Congratulations.
  I think that Harry has a tendency to take the easy way, which will be 
a temptation for him in itself. He will have to choose "between what is 
right and what is easy."  So far it is easy for him to get Hermione to 
help him with his schoolwork, using the Prince's book makes potions 
easy, using the F.F. makes things easy for him.  He has to start 
choosing what is right.

> 6.  Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under these
> circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or why
> not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to Draco's
> attempted Crucio?

   KJ
    It doesn't make sense for him to try a new spell under such 
stressful circumstances.  A person, when surprised like that, will use 
the most familiar spell, rather than a new one that hasn't been 
practiced. I would think he would fall back on expelliarmus, which has 
worked so well in the past. I think this was only done for the purpose 
of the plot.
> 
> 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
> murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone know
> the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the
> countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape? 

  KJ:
   I am quite certain that wherever Draco goes, Snape is not far behind. 
  He has promised to look out for him and he obviously takes his promise 
seriously.  Of, course, the risk of death does make a person get their 
nose to the old grindstone.  I expect that others may know the 
countercurse, but as the inventor of the spell, Snape is probably the 
most proficient. Snape must have come very close to failing the vow at 
that point. I had the sense that he was somewhat shaken by the 
experience, as well.

> 9. Why does Harry wait for Snape to return, as if he thinks that he
> deserves to be punished, and yet lie when Snape asks him where he
> learned such a Dark spell? What do you think would have happened if
> Harry had told the truth? 

   KJ:

     I think that Harry only waited because he knew there was no 
avoiding Snape. He may as well get it over. He was still in shock, as well.

> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been expelled.
> Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" yet punish
> Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he so much as
> threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are the Saturday
> detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by tormenting him with
> his father's indiscretions or does this tactic disguise Snape's real
> purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every Saturday until the end
> of term?

   KJ:
     I think that it is quite important that the one time that Snape 
would have had a great case for expelling Harry, he ignores it. I also 
think that Snape is keeping Harry out of Hogsmead for the duration. 
There is no reason why Snape can't enjoy himself while baby-sitting.

> 13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the
> dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions,
> now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another floor?

   KJ:

    He is still head of Slytherin and needs to be close to his house and 
Draco.




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 10:57:18 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:57:18 -0000
Subject: Slughorn's potions in first day of class
In-Reply-To: <018901c7020b$48645820$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <eipoqe+t8s2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161148


Shelley:

> Just speculating on the Felix Felicis: maybe Slughorn was tired of
trying to 
> jump from Muggle house to Muggle house to hide in, and was planning
to use a 
> steady stream of Felix Felicis to stay alive and in hiding? Then
when he 
> accepted his Hogwart's position, it so happened that he was already
brewing 
> it? That wouldn't have explained the Polyjuice Potion, of course,
unless he 
> wanted to be someone other than a couch for once. <evil grin>

Finwitch: 

Oh yes, for someone who had to hide, I'd expect he had plenty of Felix
Felicis ready. Anyway, Slughorn *did* say he had used the FF twice -
how much did he make the time he brew those?

As for the Polyjuice, ingredient preparation/gathering took most of
the time (one of them required full moon), the brewing itself was a
matter of hours. Unlike the Trio, Slughorn could have quite easily
bought all that, unless he had some ready.

Love Potion -- doesn't seem all that hard to make, what with all those
girls trying to feed it to Harry... not likely they're patient enough
for a potion to brew a long time. That, I suppose, Slughorn brew on
short notice.

Veritaserum, though... Maybe he was planning to sell some to Aurors
pre-knowing of the Hogwarts job?

Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 11:28:24 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:28:24 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eioq98+4rrb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eipqko+j5ov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161149

Jen:
--the gryffin door knocker on the 
> Headmaster's door which is likely DD's and not belonging to the office 
> since how many other headmasters who aren't Gryffindor would like 
> that? :) --
> 
> Plus we have JKR's comment that Dumbledore's family would be 
> a 'profitable line of inquiry'. Oh, and one more bit, perhaps Riddle 
> feared Dumbledore because of the ancestral argument from long ago when 
> the other three Founders sided with Gryffindor?  Seems like history is 
> repeating itself.

Finwitch:

What of the others...

With her aunt dead, Susan Bones would be the Hufflepuff heir -- she
told Harry so. If Dumbledore (Aberforth, with Albus dead) is
Gryffindor, who's the Ravenclaw heir? Cho Chang maybe?

Anyway, we have Weasleys who are all redheads, including Molly (who
was Prevett) and Albus used to have auburn hair. Red's Gryffindor
Colour. ALL Weasleys have been in Gryffindor House. Is there a
connection? Me, I think Godric was redhead...

And I do wish we'll learn more of Aberforth. I've been curious about
him ever since Albus happened to mention him, and not least due to the
comment 'I'm not entirely certain he can read.' The business about
goats, too. Bezoars, I suppose, play a part here, too.

In particular, I'm waiting for Hermione to meet this dear brother of
Albus'.

Finwitch





From tenorone2000 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 07:41:18 2006
From: tenorone2000 at yahoo.com (Rashi)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 07:41:18 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
Message-ID: <eipdau+ratb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161150

Good Morning To My Fellow Wizards & Witches!!

I think that it is more than obvious that Aunt Petunia's contempt for
Harry and especially his mother Lily, is stemmed from her jealousy. 
Petunia grew up hating Lily because Lily was a witch who was a top
Hogwarts student and Petunia was a pathetic muggle.  However, what
puzzles me is Petunia behaves very much like a Scrubb, the offspring of
a Witch and Wizard who has no powers. We know that Lily was muggle-born
as it has been stated several times throughout the novels. Yet, in the
first book and in the first movie, when young Harry and the Dursleys met
Hagrid for the first time and Petunia admitted in her monologue the
family's well-kept secret, she stated that her parents, "were so proud
that her sister got her letter". Why would they have been proud? Were
they wizards as well? Petunia was versed in wizardry as we saw in Order
of the Phoenix.  Could it be that Petunia was indeed a scrubb??

What do you all think?

Rashi Rosenzweig





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





From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Nov  7 11:19:19 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 11:19:19 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
Message-ID: <eipq3n+7qfc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161151

Personally I think all of the Fidelius problems can be rectified by 
looking at who created the charm.

Presumably the person who did the charm would know they had 
performed it just not the contents. As PP was the new SK and only SB 
+ PP knew about the switch I would assume that Sb performed the 
spell.

When he went to check on PP and found him gone I would guess that SB 
performed the counter charm to lift the fidelius so that he could 
find the Potters and rescue them.

He was just to late, and he knew he had to leave Harry exposed or 
noone could take him to safety.

The major flaw in this theory is that surely Dumbledore would have 
know that the charm had been lifted?!


Anyone able to help me mend the gap?

Tinktonks






From kai_barba at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 10:44:03 2006
From: kai_barba at yahoo.com (kai_barba)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 10:44:03 -0000
Subject: Live again, Dumbledore! Remember the Phoenix
In-Reply-To: <20061107010931.53831.qmail@web51703.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eipo1j+t9uv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161152

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Paula Shelgren
<pdshelgren at ...> wrote:
>
> Remember that Dumbledore had a Phoenix. In the second book, it
used it's tears to heal Harry's arm that the Baselisk(sp) tooth was
embedded in. Could it be that the Phoenix could heal Dumbledore and
it just looks to the bad guys that he is gone and really he is not,
just waiting to come back at the pivotal time to destroy Voldemort
and all the rest of the bad guys.
>

... It surely is good to think of Dumbledore being reborn and being
there till the end. But I don't think JKR's mind functions that way.
Knowing how our fave characters  died mysteriously... I bet she'll
do the same with Dumbledore. Wouldn't it be more exciting if we'll
live Harry and Voldemort fighting without interventions. After all,
it's all about the 'two' of them. Whoever 'excess' is bound to be
eliminated.
More so, what made the deaths of Sirius and Dumbledore all the more
lingering and painstaking is the mystery of it. I guess, it'd be
better to live it at that....

kai






From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 12:33:32 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:33:32 -0000
Subject: DD&Harry
In-Reply-To: <egbff6+himc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eipues+bgka@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161153

-
> 
> Alla:
 it is quite possible that at 150 years of age Dumbledore 
> was experiencing the biggest change in his character, he finally 
> found someone, even though Harry sure is a kid in comparison to him 
> to **really** talk to and share at least some secrets, out of 
> necessity of course too, but I got an impression Dumbledore was 
> truly enjoying spending time with Harry in HBP.

Finwitch:

And not *only* in HBP. Think about it: Mirror of Erised - I think our
dear old man was most positively surprised when Harry asked what *he*
saw in the mirror. (JKR never showed us that Harry sent any gifts, but
said he did. Maybe Harry sent DD some socks next Christmas?)

Later, Harry impressed Dumbledore by getting the stone out of the
mirror, and *nearly dying* when attempting to prevent Voldemort from
gaining power in the process. And um - you know, we don't often
realise how much we value someone/something until we've (nearly) lost
it. Of *course* Dumbledore had to reward that with huge amount of
points in public, right?

What next -- the car incident. the way students keep ending up
petrified -- then Dumbledore must leave -- but Harry fixes up
everything: saving a student, clearing Hagrid Dumbledore raised,
destroying Voldemort's horcrux AND showing true loyalty to him. And
afterwards, Harry grants a poor little house-elf, Dobby, the freedom
he desired.

Next year: Harry's not even in Hogwarts, when Dumbledore begins to
worry about him... and saving Buckbeak and Sirius must have impressed
him as well.

fourth year - the matter in the graveyard, not to mention the three
tasks... and then, the fifth year: Dumbledore tried to keep a distance
from Harry, which proved to be a huge error, so next year Dumbledore
corrects that and is closer to Harry than ever before.

No wonder Dumbledore tells things to Harry, I'd say. Particularly
after the fifth-year-fiasco. Harry's 5 years in Hogwarts have taught
Dumbledore that keeping Harry in the dark about his plans is a bad
idea. Harry NEEDS to know. He's the one who must go around destroying
Horcruxes...

As for telling Harry the little he did about why he trusts Snape--
well, who *else* has told Dumbledore the crucial: 'Yes, you keep
saying that. [you trust Snape]. I do not.' I kept waiting for someone
to tell Dumbledore that - I don't trust Snape even if you do. - I'm
glad Harry finally did. And, I suppose Harry saying so shows HIM more
independent and even *mature* in some way than anyone else (the blind
trusters, that is).

Finwitch





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov  7 12:49:34 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:49:34 -0000
Subject: Major concern and other topics
In-Reply-To: <08F13269-E329-4568-BC0D-4B5D7BF3EB67@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <eipvcu+aqiu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161154


> Katherine wrote:
> New opinions are always good, but it kind of rubs me the wrong way 
to  
> have people come in and say "you are overlooking this" or "I have  
> this new idea" when the ideas are far from overlooked and far from 
new.



Potioncat enters, sets out a variety of cups, mugs and glasses. She 
takes out an ornately decorated tea pot--it's a magic tea pot. She 
looks around at the collected list members, "Cuppa tea?" (well, that's 
how they say it in books.) "Coffee? Hot chocolate? Iced tea? Apple 
cider? This pot will pour what ever comfort drink is wanted. (Bit early 
for alcohol, don't you think?)"

Yes, well, everything Katherine says is true. But, I'd bet if you did a 
really good search, you'd find many of us old-timers jumped in with a 
new idea that had already been discussed in our early days here. I know 
I did, and the one original idea I did have was met with thundering 
silence. Then I discoverd much later that my original idea had been 
presented a long time before, meeting the same silence.

Oh well.

But I might suggest...have a ginger snap....that instead of asking a 
question, each of us should offer up a good strong post around the 
question so that a lively discussion will be generated. There's bound 
to be someone else who hasn't considered that slant, or there's bound 
to be someone who has, but who enjoys discussing it.

Potioncat--more like Molly everyday. 






From Aixoise at snet.net  Tue Nov  7 12:48:15 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:48:15 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <eipdau+ratb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <10ed01c7026a$fe8cfcb0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161155

Rashi wrote:

< However, what puzzles me is Petunia behaves very much like a Scrubb, the
offspring of
a Witch and Wizard who has no powers. >

 

Stacey writes:

 

I believe the term is Squib.  And I think the reason that her parents were
proud was that it was a distinction or something special, much like
Hermione's parents are proud of her.  Secondly, as is being talked about in
another thread, Lily would not be considered a "mudblood" were her parents
not muggles.

 

Stacey (who's ever so thankful to her husband for returning from his
European business trip with 4 of the six books in French!  If only I didn't
have so much Grad School homework, I'd dive into them right away!!)

 

 



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





From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 13:41:45 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:41:45 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
In-Reply-To: <eipq3n+7qfc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiq2ep+cj8l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161156

Tinktonks wrote:
> Personally I think all of the Fidelius problems can be rectified by 
> looking at who created the charm.
> 
> Presumably the person who did the charm would know they had 
> performed it just not the contents. As PP was the new SK and only 
SB 
> + PP knew about the switch I would assume that Sb performed the 
> spell.
> 
> When he went to check on PP and found him gone I would guess that 
SB 
> performed the counter charm to lift the fidelius so that he could 
> find the Potters and rescue them.
> 
> He was just to late, and he knew he had to leave Harry exposed or 
> noone could take him to safety.
> 
> The major flaw in this theory is that surely Dumbledore would have 
> know that the charm had been lifted?!
> 
> 
> Anyone able to help me mend the gap?
> 

Ginger here,
Not sure I can answer the whole thing, but I had a thought after 
reading the other posts in this thread.

What if........
Peter lifted the charm on purpose.  Now, I don't know if he can 
actually do that.  That's part of the speculation.  We have all been 
wondering how so darn many people knew that something had happened 
and rushed to GH.  

I thought about it from LV's PoV, and realized that he intended for 
the evening to end with Dead!James, Dead!Harry, and SteppedAside!
Lily.  Maybe he told PP to lift the charm so he would be able to lure 
DD there with Live!Lily as a hostage.  He may have figured that if 
ProphecyBoy!Harry was dead that no one could defeat him, so he would 
be free to take on DD, but had Lily as a hostage as backup.

Just a thought that entered my head and got lonely, so decided to 
seek the company of the keen minds on this site.

Anyone want to take this and run with it?  

Ginger, off to vote despite there not being a single Libertarian 
running in this state.  Tuh.






From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Tue Nov  7 12:53:55 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 4:53:55 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book Lengths (Was Re: Harry's Knowlege of Lord
 Voldemort - SS- post 1)
Message-ID: <30445682.1162904035833.JavaMail.root@web40>

No: HPFGUIDX 161157


---- kathy kulesza <kat7555 at yahoo.com> wrote: 

I'm surprised JK Rowling thought Order of the Phoenix was too long. It's my favorite of all the books and I wouldn't change anything. I thought Goblet of Fire was too long and the House Elf subplot could have been eliminated without changing the story.

Marion here (surprisingly there seem to be 2 Marions posting to the group -- as the newer, should I change my moniker?  List elves or other Marion, please let me know):

I, too, thought GoF was the one book that could have been trimmed, but for different reasons.  I can't help but think the house elves are going to play a part in the ultimate downfall of Voldemort and the Death Eaters.  The friendships with Dobby and Winky, and Hermione and Dumbledore's respect for them (and perhaps even the twins "appreciation" of them in a twisted way) will have them playing a role in book 7.  

What I thought dragged was the World Cup.  The quidditch games have always been tedious to me (admittedly, I'm not a sports fan), and the World Cup seemed to go on forever.  I was thrilled to hear JKR say that she's written her last quidditch match.  

Marion, who probably would announce a game just like Luna








From hnjce at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 13:02:15 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:02:15 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <eipdau+ratb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiq04n+mllo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161158

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rashi" <tenorone2000 at ...>
wrote:
> However, what puzzles me is Petunia behaves very much like a
> Squib, the offspring of a Witch and Wizard who has no powers. We
> know that Lily was muggle-born as it has been stated several times
> throughout the novels. Yet, in the first book and in the first
> movie, when young Harry and the Dursleys met
> Hagrid for the first time and Petunia admitted in her monologue the
> family's well-kept secret, she stated that her parents, "were so
proud
> that her sister got her letter". Why would they have been proud?
Were
> they wizards as well? Petunia was versed in wizardry as we saw in
Order
> of the Phoenix.  Could it be that Petunia was indeed a squib??



 That's something I don't quite understand. I'm sure Lily's parents
are actually muggles with some awarness of the Wizarding world - but
how. I wonder the same about Hermione's family. She has also said
how proud they are of her nature and accomplishments but how did
they even understand what she is when she first heard from Hogwarts?
The only thing that I can think of is that the letter come with a
spell that allows understanding for the muggle who reads it (or at
least the parents of the witch or wizard that it is regarding). I
mean, if I got a letter like that about my son I would think it was
a prank. There would have to something there to help me believe that
this is real.
So, I really do think Petunia is a muggle, not a squib. But I think
her and Lily may have been very close at one time and she could have
picked some knowledge up through sisterly conversation.

NJ




From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Tue Nov  7 13:19:08 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 5:19:08 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Lily my opinion
Message-ID: <32245154.1162905548994.JavaMail.root@web40>

No: HPFGUIDX 161159


---- Paula Shelgren <pdshelgren at yahoo.com> wrote: 

=============
... Petunia says Azkaban (sp) and Harry is surprised she knows this. So I think Petunia knows more then she wants to admit to anyone and in the book it portrays her getting real scared knowing Lord Voldemort is back, so if she doesn't know anything about the wizarding world why would she so scared to know that he is back?

Marion here:
It could be as simple as the murder of her sister being a major trauma in her life, especially since she then had to take Harry in for his protection.  She must have been living with some significant fear all these years.  In fact, they are afraid of good wizards, so the thought of a bad one murdering members of your family would really shake a person up.  Dumbledore would have told her about Voldemort, of course.  As for Azkaban and the dementors, it's possible to think she would have heard that Sirius was charged with the murders and went there.    
Might be more to it, but not necessarily.  I don't think I'm right about this next bit, but Petunia is quite a snoop -- I can imagine her subscribing to the Daily Prophet to keep up with Rita Skeeter's column! :-)

Marion






From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Tue Nov  7 13:08:59 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 5:08:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book Lengths (Was Re: Harry's Knowlege of Lord
 Voldemort - SS- post 1)
Message-ID: <9697906.1162904939540.JavaMail.root@web40>

No: HPFGUIDX 161160

---- kathy kulesza <kat7555 at yahoo.com> wrote: 
I'm surprised JK Rowling thought Order of the Phoenix was too long. It's my favorite of all the books and I wouldn't change anything. I thought Goblet of Fire was too long and the House Elf subplot could have been eliminated without changing the story.


Marion here (surprisingly there seem to be 2 Marions posting):

I, too, thought GoF was the one book that could have been trimmed a bit, but for different reasons.  I think the house elves will play a part in the downfall of the Death Eaters and Voldemort.  The kids' relationships with Dobby and Winky, as well as Dumbledore's and Hermione's respect for the elves (and, in a twisted way, the twins appreciation of their services) will all come to play in getting the elves to help against the dark wizards in some way.

What I thought dragged on too long was the World Cup match.  Admittedly, I'm not a sports fan, and I don't enjoy the quidditch play-by-plays much.  But the world cup seemed to go on forever, and about the only thing it established for future use was the Wronsky feint (sp?), which Harry later used against the dragons.  I think we could have been introduced to the veelas and Viktor at the triwizard tornament without hearing about the long match.  Their trip to the match was necessary because of the events surrounding it, but the details on the game itself dragged for me.  Sports fans will disagree, I'm sure, but I was very pleased to hear that JKR was done writing quidditch!

Marion, who would probably announce a game like Luna did





From darksworld at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 14:36:12 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:36:12 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
In-Reply-To: <eiq2ep+cj8l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiq5ks+m9tb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161161

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "quigonginger" 
<quigonginger at ...> wrote: 
> Ginger here,
> Not sure I can answer the whole thing, but I had a thought after 
> reading the other posts in this thread.
> 
> What if........
> Peter lifted the charm on purpose.  Now, I don't know if he can 
> actually do that.  That's part of the speculation.  We have all 
been 
> wondering how so darn many people knew that something had happened 
> and rushed to GH.  
> 

Charles:
That's an angle that *I* certainly had never considered before. If we 
combine that with the fact that Harry et al are able to speak about 
GH in front of people who were certainly neither part of the secret 
nor told by PP.

Ginger:
> I thought about it from LV's PoV, and realized that he intended for 
> the evening to end with Dead!James, Dead!Harry, and SteppedAside!
> Lily.  Maybe he told PP to lift the charm so he would be able to 
lure 
> DD there with Live!Lily as a hostage.  He may have figured that if 
> ProphecyBoy!Harry was dead that no one could defeat him, so he 
would 
> be free to take on DD, but had Lily as a hostage as backup.
> 

Charles:
An interesting notion, and certainly plausible. I offer this 
alternate explanation of why Voldie wanted to spare her: he wanted 
her to work for him. Now, hear me out here. He kills her husband and 
son as an intimidation tactic (to her, I mean, not wanting her to 
know about the prophecy), then intends to hold a threat of death over 
her head unless she does the tasks he sets her. Not as a real DE, but 
as a slave of sorts. 

> Ginger, off to vote despite there not being a single Libertarian 
> running in this state.  Tuh.
>

Charles, off to vote himself-and glad he's got several Libertarians 
to vote for, including a gubernatorial candidate!






From tfaucette6387 at charter.net  Tue Nov  7 14:20:29 2006
From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:20:29 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <eipdau+ratb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiq4nd+9o6u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161162

 "Rashi"  wrote:

 I think that it is more than obvious that Aunt Petunia's contempt for
> Harry and especially his mother Lily, is stemmed from her jealousy.

<snip>

Anne Squires responds:
I have to agree that there is a of of jealousy there.  I also think
there is also a lot of fear. Fear of what?  I'm not exactly sure.  I
think partly she is afraid that she and her family won't be seen as
"normal" by neighbors and other associates.  I also think that in OotP
Petunia shows prior knowledge of and real fear of Voldemort. I think
she understands who and what LV is. Lily may have explained the
situation in the Wizarding World to her sister.  Regardless of whether
Petunia learned anything from Lily or not, I am certain that DD
explained a great deal in his letter/letters to Harry's aunt.  He is
handing "the child of prophecy" over to her for ten years.  I am sure
he would make certain that Petunia understand the threats to Harry
(and by association, the threats to her and her family).  At any rate,
she definitely knows the real threat that LV represents.

I understand Petunia's fear.  Let's look at what Petunia likely knows
about the dangers of magic.  First of all, her sister and
brother-in-law, who everyone acknowledges were powerful wizards, were
murdered by this madman.  A madman, I might add, who was trying to
kill an infant.  Think about that.  Any "normal" person would regard
that as extreme, unbalanced, crazy behavior.  Petunia can also
conclude (if DD hasn't told her straight out)that Lily and James'
friends were not able to help them. I wonder if DD has informed her
that Lily and James were betrayed by a so-called friend.  He probably
informed her of the threat of the Death Eaters as well.  So, what is a
"normal" woman to deduce from all of this:

1.  Magic is dangerous.
2.  Wizards are dangerous.
3.  Wizards cannot protect themselves, their families, nor their   
friends.
4.  Wizards are crazy.
5.  Wizards can't be trusted.
6.  Wizards are homicidal.
7.  Wizards harbor extreme prejudices and act on them.

I believe I would want to stay as far away as possible from anything
even remotely connected to the Wizarding World if I were Petunia.  But
no, she is forced to take in her nephew who is a target of all of this
madness.  I totally understand why she would resent the situation.  (I
don't condone her actions toward Harry, who is a completely innocent
child. However, I understand that she would resent the circumstances.)
 I really don't blame her for not wanting Harry to go away to that
world.  I think she sees the magical world as threatening in the
extreme.  Harry becoming a part of it could very likely invite nothing
but disaster for her and hers.

All of this is just mho, of course.

Rashi also wrote:
 Yet, in the
> first book and in the first movie, when young Harry and the Dursleys met
> Hagrid for the first time and Petunia admitted in her monologue the
> family's well-kept secret, she stated that her parents, "were so proud
> that her sister got her letter". Why would they have been proud? Were
> they wizards as well? Petunia was versed in wizardry as we saw in Order
> of the Phoenix.  Could it be that Petunia was indeed a scrubb??
> 
> What do you all think?
 

Anne Squires responds:

I do not think that Petunia is a squib.  I believe it is
well-established that Lily's family are muggles.  I think Lily's
parents are proud because their daughter has been selected for
something which is highly prestigious.  Hermione's parents also appear
to be proud of their daughter.  There is no indication that Dr. & Dr.
Granger are magical. However, I have often wondered if Petunia is a
muggleborn witch, like her sister.  In OotP Petunia is "versed in
wizardary" because of her exposure to Lily, "that awful boy" (Harry
assumes she means James, but I'm not so sure), and  Dumbeldore.  See
my comments above.


Rashi, in your language is a squib called a scrubb?  I find that very
interesting because Petunia is seen to "scrub" and clean all the time.
 So, maybe that is a clue and you are right about Petunia after all. 
BTW, what is your native language?






From Aixoise at snet.net  Tue Nov  7 12:59:33 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 07:59:33 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611062110w21890783j86839a26ceec83d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <10f501c7026c$929d14c0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161163

Montims writes:
The person has to be responsible and well-liked, by both teachers and fellow
students, otherwise
s/he wouldn't be able to keep discipline. I didn't realise that this
position was not filled in American schools.

Stacey writes:

 

I guess this would be akin to the American "Student Class President" often
elected by classmates along with a Vice president, Secretary and Treasurer.
This was a joke, quite literally, in my public high school as someone (known
for drug abuse and a general apathetic view of school) was nominated and
won.  It says a lot about the other people in my class who voted for him.
The result is haunting us some 15 years later as we've yet to have a real
reunion, raise money for the class or any of the other things that Student
President Alums are supposed to do.  The difference with Head Boy/ Girl and
Class Presidents is that in the British situation, you have one of each
gender and Class President is for which ever candidate gets the most votes
regardless of gender.  Had we followed the British model, we would have most
likely had a 50% better chance of having elected someone with
qualifications! :o)

 

Stacey (still trying to resist the temptations of her newly received French
Harry Potter books)



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





From hpmyth at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 06:30:46 2006
From: hpmyth at yahoo.com (Harry Potter)
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 22:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Harry is Not A Horcrux, But the Sword Is
Message-ID: <20061107063046.74839.qmail@web90315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161164

The Writer of "Harry Potter" Myth Is TELLING a Story.
  By Dumbledore's Death Harry Shall Count On Himself In fighting The Dark Lord.

  By The Way:
  Harry Is Not A Horcrux Because The Dark Lord Wants To Kill Harry, Why Does He Put Apiece Of His Soul In Harry's Body ?... And When ?

 
I think that the sword appeared in the hat in the second book will be a Horcrux.

hpmyth
 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 15:03:07 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:03:07 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper... Fidelity - a Condition
In-Reply-To: <eiojc7+aea7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiq77b+3j0d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161165


bboyminn wrote:
<snip>
> It would seem that the Fidelius Charm is made up of two
> parts 'the Secret' and 'the Secret Keeper'. I agree that
> trust in the Secret Keeper is important. You don't make
> this Charm unless you have a very serious Secret that
> needs keeping, so finding someone you can trust to keep
> the Secret is critical. 
> 
> Yet, it is the Secret itself that is being hidden, and it
> is hidden by the magical oath of Fidelity by the Secret 
> Keeper (speculation of course). "I solemnly swear that I
> will take this Secret and hold it in myself with the 
> greatest, truest, and most honorable Fidelity."
> 
> First, I have to believe the Secret Keeper Charm was 
> broken, any other option simply compicates the plot too
> much. JKR can't waste pages and pages trying to work
> around a still in effect Secret Keeper Charm. But that
> bring up the question of how and why it was broken.
> 
> I say 'Breach of Fidelity'. Other say it was something in
> the phrasing of the Secret itself that caused it to break.
> 'Twelve Lake Street; Godrics Hollow, Wales is the location
> at which the Potter are hiding' is very different from
> 'James and Lily Potter are hiding at twelve Lake 
> Street; Godrics Hollow, Wales'. The difference is what is
> the subject of the Secret. In the first example, the 
> subject is '12 Lake St, Godrics Hollow'. In the absents 
> of '12 Lake St', there is no secret left to keep. When 
> the house was destroyed, the secret was destroyed. In the
> second example, 'James and Lily' is the Secret and '12 Lake
> St' is incidental.  When the Potters were destroyed, the 
> secret no longer existed, and so the Charm was nullified.
> 
> Yes, I know that leaves Harry out, and I know that is a
> problem, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point, not
> solve the mystery completely.
><snip>
> 
> So, the only logical conclusions, unless JKR wants to 
> dedicate the whole book to it, is that the Charm is
> already broken, or she has some plot-line shortcut to
> by-pass it. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree that the Fidelius charm is broken, at least in part by a
breach in fidelity which made possible the destruction of the secret.
However, I don't believe that if the Secret is worded "The Potters are
hiding at 12 Lake St., Godric's Hollow" (reworded to include Harry in
the Secret) the location is incidental. In the case of 12 GP, the
wording is "The Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found
at 12 Grimmauld Place," the subject is Headquarters but the Secret is
the location of those Headquarters, which is invisible to anyone who
doesn't know the Secret. So it's important that neither Voldemort nor
anyone else not in on the Secret not know *where* the Potters are
hiding, if only because if they left their hiding place for any
reason, they would be visible.

In this instance, unlike 12 GP, it's apparently the people, not the
hiding place, that's hidden. DD(?) says that Voldemort could have
pressed his nose against the window and not have seen the Potters, so
the Potters must have been invisible but the location was not. that
explains how Muggles could have come to investigate and Hagrid, even
without knowing the Secret, could have known which house to go to--the
one that exploded.

I think that once even one Potter was dead, the Secret was breached
and the Charm broken, not only because Wormtail had broken his faith
and betrayed his friend but because the Secret was no longer true. The
Potters were no longer hiding. And with Lily also dead and Harry
vulnerable to attack from the person he *had been* hiding from (past
tense--he's no longer hiding), there's no Secret to keep. With the
house also destroyed, there's no hiding place, and Harry can't hide
from anybody until Dumbledore takes him and provides a new form of
magical protection. (Obviously he couldn't stay in the rubble of the
Potters' former hiding place.)

So the hiding place isn't incidental. It's part of the Secret and must
not be known. Once the location is revealed, the Potters can be seen.
But I don't think the house itself is hidden, only the Potters
themselves, from everyone who hasn't been told the Secret by the
Secret Keeper. I think it was known only to James, Lily, PP, and
Sirius Black--until PP violated their trust by revealing it to Voldemort.

The only question is, at what point was the Charm broken? That it is
broken and that Harry will have no trouble finding it, I have no doubt.

Carol, wondering who buried James and Lily and whether that's part of
the missing twenty-four hours





From hnjce at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 12:51:49 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:51:49 -0000
Subject: Live again, Dumbledore!
In-Reply-To: <016201c70182$4e38ccb0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <eipvh5+pcc9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161166

Shelley

> Speaking of that, I often wondered if the reason he knew so much
> about all the student's lives were that he could visit himself on
> all those Chocolate Frog cards of himself.


The chocolate frogs - combined with someone else reminding me about
Dumbledore never being really dead until all loyalty is gone. How many
kids at that school have these cards? He can reach so many this way,
not just Harry. Remember, a big theme throughout this series is the
strength of friendship and the importance of teamwork - Dumbledore
could get the whole school behind Harry using those cards (well, at
least we know he can count on Ron, Hermione, Neveille, Ginny, & Luna -
not to mention fmr students, Fred, George, & maybe Lee).


NJ




From ladypensieve at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 15:57:37 2006
From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:57:37 -0000
Subject: Live again, Dumbledore!
In-Reply-To: <eipvh5+pcc9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiqadh+jesj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161167

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Norma Jean" <hnjce at ...> wrote:
> The chocolate frogs - combined with someone else reminding me about
> Dumbledore never being really dead until all loyalty is gone. How 
many kids at that school have these cards? He can reach so many this 
way, not just Harry. Remember, a big theme throughout this series is 
the strength of friendship and the importance of teamwork - 
Dumbledore
> could get the whole school behind Harry using those cards (well, at
> least we know he can count on Ron, Hermione, Neveille, Ginny, & 
Luna - not to mention fmr students, Fred, George, & maybe Lee). NJ
>


Someone else brought up a great point about Dumbledore being dead.  
JKR has made it clear that 'DUMBLEDORE' is dead.  Someone else in 
one of the groups said - Yeah, but...which Dumbledore?

There's a thought.  I know there were several times when I felt that 
Dumbledore wasn't himself in HBP.  I kept trying to figure out what 
was going on, but couldn't put my finger on it. If Dumbledore's 
brother was helping him out, and taking polyjuice potion to 'become' 
his brother when needed...then 'out' Dumbledore may still be alive.
KathyO







From tfaucette6387 at charter.net  Tue Nov  7 15:39:43 2006
From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 15:39:43 -0000
Subject: Quidditch is important  Was: Book Lengths
In-Reply-To: <9697906.1162904939540.JavaMail.root@web40>
Message-ID: <eiq9bv+rj1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161168

 
> One of the two Marions wrote: 

<snip>

> What I thought dragged on too long was the World Cup match. 
Admittedly, I'm not a sports fan, and I don't enjoy the quidditch
play-by-plays much.  But the world cup seemed to go on forever, and
about the only thing it established for future use was the Wronsky
feint (sp?), which Harry later used against the dragons.  I think we
could have been introduced to the veelas and Viktor at the triwizard
tornament without hearing about the long match.  Their trip to the
match was necessary because of the events surrounding it, but the
details on the game itself dragged for me.  Sports fans will disagree,
I'm sure, but I was very pleased to hear that JKR was done writing
quidditch!
> 
> Marion, who would probably announce a game like Luna did
>
Anne Squires responds:

I am not a sports fan, so I totally understand where you are coming
from.  I used to just skim  the Quidditch matches in the books, before
I realized that every single word that JKR writes is a possible clue
of some sort.  So, I have  changed my mind about Quidditch in JKR's
books.  I think one of the important things about the Quidditch World
Cup is the twins' bet.  I have seen it argued that the twins used a
time-turner to predict the outcome so accurately.  Sorry, I don't
remember exactly where I read that, but, I believe it's more than
possible.

There is a wonderful article which was recently posted on MuggleNet by
Lady Lupin about the importance of Quidditch in the HP series.

http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/spinnersend/se06.shtml

In "Seeking the Golden Snitch" Lady Lupin argues that the Quidditch
matches mirror the themes and actions of each book. She analyses all
the Quidditch matches in the entire series and concludes that each
match parallels the stages of Harry's life.  Here is what Lady Lupin
has to say about The World Cup:

"The Cup also offers a sneak peak at what is to come for Harry,
including an introduction to Krum, Veela, a major competition to be
won, and the Dark Mark and Death Eaters. The score is interesting -
Ireland wins because of their superior teamwork, but Krum catches the
Snitch. At the end of Goblet of Fire, Harry wins the duel with
Voldemort (with some very timely help from several sources), but
Voldemort gets his body back and returns to power."

It really is a very fasinating article.  Sports fan or not, I suggest
everyone read it.

Anne ~ who would not do nearly as as well as Luna did if she were
forced to provide any sort of sports related commentary






From ladypensieve at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 16:07:02 2006
From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:07:02 -0000
Subject: Harry is Not A Horcrux, But the Sword Is
In-Reply-To: <20061107063046.74839.qmail@web90315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eiqav6+6kkv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161169

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Harry Potter <hpmyth at ...> wrote:
By The Way: Harry Is Not A Horcrux Because The Dark Lord Wants To Kill 
Harry, Why Does He Put Apiece Of His Soul In Harry's Body ?... And 
When ? I think that the sword appeared in the hat in the second book 
will be a Horcrux.hpmyth

I agree Harry isn't a Horcrux, however I believe that his scar either 
is or contains a Horcrux.  I don't think it happened by accident 
either. If Dumbledore knew about the Horcruxes - perhaps because Snape 
told him in order to be trusted by him - then he would have worked 
with the Potters to protect their son.  Knowing that Voldemort would 
be bringing a magical object with him to perform the spell, Dumbledore 
could have set things up so that - unfortunatley with Lily's 
willingness to sacrifice herself - the magical object would be 
transformed into Harry's scar.  

Dumbledore said that Voldemort had transferred some of his powers to 
Harry, such as being a parselmouth.  Look at POA - Harry stands at the 
lake trying to protect Sirius from the dementors.  He succeeds for a 
bit, and then is overtaken.  Yet from across the lake he not only 
succeeds in taking care of a few dementors, but actually gets rid of 
all of them.

Dumbledore said that the Horcruxes are weapons, they protect 
themselves (HBP).  That part of Harry saw that the soul piece would be 
taken by the dementors, and along with Harry's own ability, pushed to 
protect itself from being taken.

THAT makes sense.  It is the one thing that does make sense throughout 
the books, starting with Dumbledore saying scars can come in handy, 
and remembering that the last word in the last book is 'scar'.
KathyO






From snowman.birthday at gmail.com  Tue Nov  7 16:16:34 2006
From: snowman.birthday at gmail.com (Jodi in VA)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:16:34 -0500
Subject: House Elves / apparating / Sirius
In-Reply-To: <1162864016.5867.27261.m30@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1162864016.5867.27261.m30@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <BBD83EA2-2511-4C92-92F9-2981F464063D@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161170

Sandra wrote:
> My theory on house elves.  I think there is going to
> be a big uprising in book seven and many house elves
> are going to end up helping win the war.  Look at how
> powerful they are?  They cannot only apparate in and
> out of Hogwarts (which supposedly can't be done), but
> they are VERY powerful and don't need a wand to do
> magic.

Jodi in VA replies:

Hi!

I was reading this post (and now that I've copied it out of the e- 
mail, I can no longer find it in the digest & figure out who wrote it  
- so my sincere apologies to whoever wrote this - I can't attribute  
it to you.)

And something occurred to me that I hadn't thought of before.

I have always wondered how Sirius got into Hogwarts after he escaped  
Azkaban.  He can't apparate there.  Well, this post made me somehow  
think that perhaps he could apparate into the Shrieking Shack (it has  
no doors right?) and then take the pathway down under the Whompin  
Willow to get inside Hogwarts.

What do you all think?

My two sickles.

Jodi in VA

Read the latest about my boys at:
http://ian-jareth.blogspot.com

My newest blog:
http://talented-jodi.blogspot.com









From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Nov  7 16:37:07 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:37:07 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eioq98+4rrb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiqcnj+rssi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161171

> > Eddie:
> > is it possible that Harry is the _LAST_ heir of Gryffindor,
> > as Voldemort is the last heir of Slytherin?
> 
> 
> Jen: JKR nixed Harry as Heir of Gryffindor this Summer in the TLC/MN 
> interview. JKR was asked about Harry's extended family and talked 
> about his grandparents and such.  Then here's what transpired:
> 
> MA:  That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well.
> 
> JKR: [Pause] Yeah. Well-yeah.
> 
> So the door may be shut on Harry but I definitely think she leaves the 
> door open for Dumbledore.

Eddie:
Yep, I'm familiar with this quote.  But if you read the whole of
"MA's" question, the context was whether Harry's grandparents had been
targeted by Voldemort because of _THEIR_ lineage from Gryffindor.  The
answer was that they had not been killed by Voldemort.  So, I'm not
persuaded that this quote answers my question.

HOWEVER, I realize I'm probably wrong for other reasons:

1) As you point out, it looks like Dumbledore was an Gryffindor heir
and thus his brother Aberforth, who is still living, would also be an
heir (assuming they are full brothers... if they are half-brothers
then we still can't be sure... but there's no canon either way I think)

2) If Harry was a Gryffindor heir, then possibly his mother Lily was,
which means Aunt Petunia would be, which means Dudley (!) would be a
Gryffindor heir.

So, this is a long post to say, "Yep."

Eddie






From bawilson at citynet.net  Tue Nov  7 15:51:00 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:51:00 -0500
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAA65nMHBkZgU2W0PXbBTe1kAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161172

Rashi wrote:

"< However, what puzzles me is Petunia behaves very much like a Scrubb, the
offspring of a Witch and Wizard who has no powers. >

Stacey writes:

"I believe the term is Squib. And I think the reason that her parents were proud
was that it was a distinction or something special, much like Hermione's parents
are proud of her. Secondly, as is being talked about in another thread, Lily
would not be considered a "mudblood" were her parents not muggles."



If there were a squib ancestor not too far back, the Evanses might still have
contact with the WW, or at least know about it.

BAW







From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 16:33:32 2006
From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:33:32 -0000
Subject: So what if...
Message-ID: <eiqcgs+qcef@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161173

What if Petunia (Evans) Dursley was also a witch? What House do you 
think she would have been accepted in to?

To me she has this social snobbery about her and an indiffernces to 
those beneath her. She would have been great in Slyhterin but she's 
not pure blood.

dragonkeeper






From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 17:13:42 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:13:42 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
Message-ID: <20061107171342.12416.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161174

Jen: 
Plus we have JKR's comment that Dumbledore's family would be 
a 'profitable line of inquiry'. Oh, and one more bit, perhaps Riddle 
feared Dumbledore because of the ancestral argument from long ago when 
the other three Founders sided with Gryffindor? Seems like history is 
repeating itself.
=================================
Jeremiah:
Woah. Thanks for all the insight into the Gryffindor issue.
I've always speculated it was Harry ('cause then it would be Gryffindor vs. Slytherin and in eachother's face) but if it's Dumbledore... well, doorknorker or not... that's a veritable trove of excitement! Gonna have to reread them (not that I haven't read them all atleast a dozen times each).

Also, Aberforth... she's been awefully silent about him for some time.

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




From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  7 17:13:24 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:13:24 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eioiba+kasp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiqerk+oah1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161175


> Neri:
<snip>
> I don't remember anyone suggesting something quite like this, and 
I think it could work. But I also think that if JKR wants to make 
Harry carry a Voldy soul bit, she has simpler options.
 
Dungrollin:
Yes, that's true, but if she went with the simplest explanations for 
everything, the end result would be rather disjointed, there ought 
to be a few explanations which give us answers to several questions 
at once. Since I've never found a satisfying (to me) explanation of 
why he didn't just AK lily on the spot, nor for the transferred 
powers (except Harry!crux, of which this is a variant) I like 
combining them both at the same time.


Neri:
> Currently I tend to Snow's version, according to which no Horcrux 
> encasing spell, intended or unintended, took place in GH at all. I 
> think this is probably the simplest solution. According to this 
> version, when Voldemort lost his body, his soul piece that was 
ripped because of Lily's murder simply drifted and entered the body 
of baby Harry via the open gash on his forehead. 

Dungrollin:
Hmmm... (she says unconvincedly)

Neri:
<snip>
This version would also give JKR a 
> complete freedom in plotting Book 7, because she can decide if 
such a soul bit would act as a Horcrux or not, and whether it's 
removable and how, according to what she plans for Harry.

Dungrollin:
She's pretty much got that anyway, given how little (and how late) 
she's told us about Horcruxes. 


Neri:
<snip>
Nobody can tell her that the creation of an unintentional Horcrux 
(or the unintended transfer of a soul bit without an encasing spell) 
could or couldn't happen at GH. If she wants it to happen then it 
happened. So the minor technical difficulties here are not very 
important, although it can be fun (or annoying, depends) to try 
working them out ourselves. 

Dungrollin:
Hear hear!

Neri:
The really important questions about the Horcrux!Harry theory is: Is 
it thematic? Does it explain the current mysteries? Does it make for 
a good story and a good resolution of the series? To all these my 
personal answer is a resounding YES, so I'm not worried about the 
mechanics of it more than I'm worried about the mechanics of the 
Stone in the Mirror of Erised.
> 
Dungrollin:
Is there any other elegant explanation for the transferred powers 
other than horcrux-harry? It's a resounding YES for me too, and 
though I'm prepared to be wrong, I think it would be a shame and a 
waste of a good idea. However, since opponents of the idea seem to 
be hooked on the mechanics of it, insisting that you can't create a 
Horcrux accidentally, when it occurred to me that there might be a 
good reason for not killing Lily hidden in there somewhere (if he 
knew his next victim would create a Horcrux) I thought it was worth 
entering into the minutae.

Neri:
> What I do like about Snow's version is that it suggests that the 
> Voldy soul bit isn't really stuck inside Harry. There was no 
encasing spell. So the soul bit stays inside Harry because it 
*wants* to be there. 

Dungrollin:
Actually, I think that works similarly with my version too, I only 
suppose that you need a spell to make an inanimate object (something 
that's not used to carrying a soul) into a horcrux, a living human 
being like baby!Harry would naturally be 'sticky', and not need any 
glue.

Neri:
<snip>
It would explain why the soul bit doesn't appear to cause Harry any 
harm. On the contrary, it appears to help Harry. It seems to have 
told Harry how to destroy the Diary Horcrux. 
> But the main reason I like it is the thematic reason: it means 
that for Harry the key is to find Tom inside himself.
> 
> Also, remember JKR promised us that we'll find out what was the 
> terrible thing that Dudley remembered when he was attacked by the 
> dementors? My guess is that little Dudley once pushed little Harry 
> too far and was horribly punished by the soul bit. Which is 
probably how Harry is going to find out in Book 7. Or maybe Petunia 
will let out that when Harry was little he had an imaginary friend 
named Tom... 
> 
Dungrollin:
Oooh, I like that! No argument from me there. I'll certainly 
dissapointed if book 7 is lighter in tone than GoF, OotP and HBP, 
(except perhaps the ending - that could be forgiven for being quite 
cheerful) and Harry!crux, in almost any of its flavours would do the 
trick nicely for me.

Dung






From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Nov  7 17:16:19 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:16:19 -0000
Subject: Major concern and other topics
In-Reply-To: <eipvcu+aqiu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiqf13+u093@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161176

> > Katherine wrote:
> > New opinions are always good, but it kind of rubs me the wrong way 
> to  
> > have people come in and say "you are overlooking this" or "I have  
> > this new idea" when the ideas are far from overlooked and far from 
> new.
> 
> 
> Potioncat enters, sets out a variety of cups, mugs and glasses.
> [...]
> But I might suggest...have a ginger snap....that instead of asking a 
> question, each of us should offer up a good strong post around the 
> question so that a lively discussion will be generated.

Eddie:
(Is this the place to discuss forum issues?)

I, too, get somewhat miffed when somebody asks a dumb question that
could be easily answered via the list's Search function, or Google, or
Wikipedia, or searching at The Harry Potter Lexicon (
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ ) or the Leaky Cauldron (
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/ )

And I promise not to do that so much any more.  :-)

But, no offense to the good elves who manage this list, this Yahoo
message-posting forum arranges its knowledge in a way that it is
difficult to find _INFORMATION_.  If I want to find out who are the
canonical Gryiffindor heirs, searching on "Gryiffindor heirs" produces
115 search results, many of which are twisted in with posts that are
unrelated.  (This last part is complicated by the HPfGU policy of
limiting the number of posts by one person per day, which encourages
people to post very long posts on multiple topics).

Anyway, I think we owe it to the newbies to make them (me) feel
welcome.  If we know a topic has been covered before, it would be nice
to provide a link to those discussions.  I'd suggest that such
"pointer" posts not count towards the posters daily 5.

Eddie





From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Nov  7 17:37:12 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:37:12 -0000
Subject: Live again, Dumbledore!
In-Reply-To: <eiqadh+jesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiqg88+2ur2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161177

> KathyO:
> Someone else brought up a great point about Dumbledore being dead.  
> JKR has made it clear that 'DUMBLEDORE' is dead.  Someone else in 
> one of the groups said - Yeah, but...which Dumbledore?
> 
> There's a thought.  I know there were several times when I felt that 
> Dumbledore wasn't himself in HBP.  I kept trying to figure out what 
> was going on, but couldn't put my finger on it. If Dumbledore's 
> brother was helping him out, and taking polyjuice potion to 'become' 
> his brother when needed...then 'out' Dumbledore may still be alive.

Eddie:
Cute twist, but I'm not persuaded.  We see Dumbledore continuously
from the time he and Harry leave Hogwarts, to the locket-cave, back to
Hogsmeade, back to the tower, to the Avada Kedavra.  Would Aberforth
Dumbledore (the brother) have been able to accomplish all the things
we saw him do?  (Heck, maybe... we don't know much about Aberforth's
powers).

Eddie





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 17:42:20 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:42:20 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Major concern and other topics
Message-ID: <20061107174220.93325.qmail@web54503.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161178

Eddie
Anyway, I think we owe it to the newbies to make them (me) feel
welcome. If we know a topic has been covered before, it would be nice
to provide a link to those discussions. I'd suggest that such
"pointer" posts not count towards the posters daily 5.
====================

Jeremiah:
I agree. Another issue is this: I am at work. I take some time away to read posts and to post but I don't have the time (every time) to go to a few websites and get quotes and research everything.

If I know something is incorrect then I would  point that out and send a lead to the correct info. (using tact...). But... I'm sorry, are there any more ginger snaps? Ok, back to the subject... 

But I like it when I have some far-fetched idea that doesn't have a striaght forward answer and all these people can unearth all this evidence! Wow-zah!

So, as a newbie, I'm sorry if there are things brought up that have been discussed to death but sometimes somebody will say something new about it and it's all open for interpretation again.

Just my 2 cents. (I know I left my pumpkin juice here somewhere... Oh, there is is.)

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




From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Nov  7 17:51:23 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:51:23 -0000
Subject: House Elves / apparating / Sirius
In-Reply-To: <BBD83EA2-2511-4C92-92F9-2981F464063D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eiqh2r+i0qb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161179

> Jodi in VA replies:
> I have always wondered how Sirius got into Hogwarts after he escaped  
> Azkaban.  He can't apparate there.  Well, this post made me somehow  
> think that perhaps he could apparate into the Shrieking Shack (it has  
> no doors right?) and then take the pathway down under the Whompin  
> Willow to get inside Hogwarts.
> 
> What do you all think?

Eddie:
Seems reasonable.  This would explain, too, how Crookshanks learned to
stop the Whomping Willow's whomping.  He (Crookshanks) may have
watched Fluffy!Sirius do it as he left the Hogwarts grounds.

Or, Sirius could have apparated into the basement of Honeydukes and
taken the secret passage there, but what with the Dementors all over
Hogsmeade that may have been more treacherous.  I guess Sirius could
have apparated into any of the secret passages that lead into Hogwarts.

It's interesting that JKR never provided a canonical answer to how
Sirius got in.  It would have taken no more than one sentence to
confirm this.

Eddie






From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 18:07:10 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:07:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Live again, Dumbledore!
Message-ID: <20061107180710.46720.qmail@web54508.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161180

KathyO:

If Dumbledore's 
> brother was helping him out, and taking polyjuice potion to 'become' 
> his brother when needed...then 'out' Dumbledore may still be alive.

Eddie:
Cute twist, but I'm not persuaded. We see Dumbledore continuously
from the time he and Harry leave Hogwarts, to the locket-cave, back to
Hogsmeade, back to the tower, to the Avada Kedavra. Would Aberforth
Dumbledore (the brother) have been able to accomplish all the things
we saw him do? (Heck, maybe... we don't know much about Aberforth's
powers).
=========================
Jeremiah:

(*sigh*) Oh, sadness. This thread saddens me, yet intrigues me, too. (DD dead... it's not easy to deal with).

I, too doubt the ability of Aberforth to have accomplished such tasks. Not that a man who was tried for inappropriate useage of goats would be incapable of such things but I think Albus mentioned Aberforth was not able to read... or something like that (poor soul..l but he sure pours a mean firewhiskey).

I would love to have Dumbly-dore back, too, but I think he's gone. If he could come back it would be as a ghost and I think Nearly-Headless Nick has addressed that issue in OotP. We do have his portrait and if his portrait is going to help then we have to have a Headmaster/mistress that is working for the Order. Then the portrait can speak more freely (assuming it can do that). Then again, we need to find out where DD's other portraits are!

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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 18:29:48 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:29:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House Elves / apparating / Sirius
Message-ID: <20061107182948.96273.qmail@web54513.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161181

Jodi in VA replies:
> I have always wondered how Sirius got into Hogwarts after he escaped 
> Azkaban. He can't apparate there. Well, this post made me somehow 
> think that perhaps he could apparate into the Shrieking Shack (it has 
> no doors right?) and then take the pathway down under the Whompin 
> Willow to get inside Hogwarts.
> 
> What do you all think?

Eddie:
Seems reasonable. This would explain, too, how Crookshanks learned to
stop the Whomping Willow's whomping. He (Crookshanks) may have
watched Fluffy!Sirius do it as he left the Hogwarts grounds.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jeremiah:

That is exactly what I was thinking. Though (to be kinda picky) I don't think that havin doors on the Shrieking Shack would make it easier or more difficult to apparate into or out of.

Also, there's the Floo Network. Who's to say Sirius didn't break into a wizard's home (or any dwelling that was connected to the network) and get into Hogwarts. it would have been riskier but possible. Shrieking Shack to Womping Willow to the castle is most likely, in my opinion. 

Also, if he knew about the tunnel from Honeydukes to the hump-backed witch. Lots of possibilities.

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




From SMacLagan at msn.com  Tue Nov  7 13:28:08 2006
From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 13:28:08 -0000
Subject: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611062110w21890783j86839a26ceec83d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eiq1l8+i3ll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161182

 Janette wrote:
> According to wikipedia: <periodic snips>*"Head Boy* and *Head Girl*
are terms commonly used in the British education system and in private
schools throughout the Commonwealth. In British schools the student
body appoints a member of the highest grade or form to perform a
series of duties to help the organisation of the school. Normally one
boy (who becomes the "Head Boy") and/or one girl (who becomes
the "Head Girl") are chosen to do this. Head Boys/Girls are usually
responsible for representing the school at events, and therefore must
be good public speakers. They are often favoured by schools if they
are academic and punctual. <snip>
I didn't realise that this
position was not filled in American schools.

LG responds:
Thanks for the explanation. No, American schools don't have this
student postion, but I suppose the closest thing to it is Student Body
President, a position held by only one person.  Students vote for this
representative, who, for the most part, actually does nothing.  I'm
sure that in some schools this is an active position, but otherwise it
is just a tradition, a formality, the academic equivalent to
Homecoming Queen.  (apologies to all former Homecoming Queens and
Student Body Presidents.)

London Granddaughter







From brownhorsedc at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 17:43:21 2006
From: brownhorsedc at yahoo.com (brownhorsedc)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:43:21 -0000
Subject: The Prophecy
Message-ID: <eiqgjp+8pfk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161183

I was reading the prophecy about Harry again.  It is incomplete.  It
begins and ends with the same line.  The first part says Voldemort with
mark his equal "Harry"  The second part has the same line then it
begins.  I think the second part is about Neville.  DD said that Snape
only heard the first part and only he, DD, had heard the entire
prophecy.  He did not tell Harry the second part only the first part.
Neville was not ready to fight.  Now, he is with Harry's help.

I also think that R.A.B.  is a phrase not a person.  DD  wrote the
phrase R.A.B. for Harry.


brownhorsedc




From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 17:07:06 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eiqcnj+rssi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061107170707.1634.qmail@web56510.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161184


Eddie  wrote:          
2) If Harry was a Gryffindor heir, then possibly his mother Lily was,
which means Aunt Petunia would be, which means Dudley (!) would be a
Gryffindor heir.

Dantzel replies:
  I don't  agree with the possibility of Lily being a Griffindor heir. Muggleborn is Muggleborn. JKR has repeatedly debunked the idea of Petunia or Dudley having magic...
  Nice idea though. :)


         

 




From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 17:21:02 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:21:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Book Lengths (Was Re: Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort - SS- post 1)
In-Reply-To: <20061106215603.80693.qmail@web53302.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20061107172102.93515.qmail@web56514.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161185


kathy kulesza:

I'm surprised JK Rowling thought Order of the Phoenix was too long. It's my favorite of all the books and I wouldn't change anything. I thought Goblet of Fire was too long and the House Elf subplot could have been eliminated without changing the story.
   
  Dantzel replies: 
I disagree. I'm sure JKR is going to use the House Elves in the war. Look at how much magic they have. In order for us to fully understand the WW, we need to understand all aspects of it, high and low, including the stuff that may not seem interesting NOW but may in book 7..... :) 
         
Dantzel, who's heart beats a little faster everytime she thinks about reading book 7.

 




From bawilson at citynet.net  Tue Nov  7 18:31:37 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:31:37 -0500
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAPUVJSK/9nUS6NQC5GFwjtAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161186

NormaJean:
"That's something I don't quite understand. I'm sure Lily's parents 
are actually muggles with some awarness of the Wizarding world - but 
how. I wonder the same about Hermione's family. She has also said 
how proud they are of her nature and accomplishments but how did 
they even understand what she is when she first heard from Hogwarts?
The only thing that I can think of is that the letter come with a 
spell that allows understanding for the muggle who reads it (or at 
least the parents of the witch or wizard that it is regarding). I 
mean, if I got a letter like that about my son I would think it was 
a prank. There would have to something there to help me believe that 
this is real.
So, I really do think Petunia is a muggle, not a squib. But I think 
her and Lily may have been very close at one time and she could have 
picked some knowledge up through sisterly conversation.

NJ"

JKR has said that in the case of Muggleborns, a Hogwarts teacher or a Department
of Magical Education official hand-delivers the letter and answers any
questions.  We know that mageling children have 'breakouts'--uncontrolled and
unpredictable magical happenings--and the parents of a muggleborn witch or
wizard would certianly suspect that there was something odd going on.  How many
python, Aunt Marge, child-on-a-school-roof, or incredible shrinking sweater
incidents would it take?  And wouldn't the explanation that little Jeremy or
Jessica was a wizard or witch be actually a bit of a relief?
BAW





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





From hnjce at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 14:42:26 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:42:26 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <eiq04n+mllo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiq60i+vbaq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161187

> ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:
In my previous post I said that Petunia's knowledge is due to her
connection to her sister but maybe it is more than that since her
fear of Voldemort is so great. Could she be a repressed witch? If
one witch was born ot muggle parents, why not two? Could it be that
she didn't want to believe it? Or, even more embarrassing for her -
was she expelled from Hogwarts for violating the underage magic
rule; therefore subjected to living life as a muggle with the
knowledge that she is magical. She must deny it's existance in order
to keep from feeling the bitterness of what she could have been.

NJ
>







From poconomommy1 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 16:59:51 2006
From: poconomommy1 at yahoo.com (Michelle)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:59:51 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <eipdau+ratb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiqe27+dtou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161188

Rashi:
" Could it be that Petunia was indeed a scrubb??"

Michelle:
That was my thought as well, but I am pretty sure I read somewhere
that JKR has said point blank that it will not be Aunt Petunia.






From hnjce at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 17:18:06 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:18:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] So what if...
In-Reply-To: <eiqcgs+qcef@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061107171806.10754.qmail@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161189

Dragonkeeper:
          What if Petunia (Evans) Dursley was also a witch? What House do you 
think she would have been accepted in to?

To me she has this social snobbery about her and an indiffernces to 
those beneath her. She would have been great in Slyhterin but she's 
not pure blood.
 
NJ:  
  Definitely NOT Gryffindor. She would be a Hufflepuff. No a brave Gryffindor, or a brilliant Ravenclaw. And I don't think her snobbery is malice based but due to meekness so I don't see her as a Slytherin. First if I follow my theory that she is an expelled witch she would know that she has a squib for a next door neighbor. She's be living in fear that her shame would be learned (even a small transgression can be a big deal to a timid person like Petunia). She is also married to Vernon who is psychologically abusive. We see what he does to Harry who has a strong character but what is he doing to his wife? She won't say boo to anything Vernon says. I have a niece and nephew and if I had to raise them there would be no way I'd let my husband treat them, my sister's kids,  like Vernon does to Harry. So since she suffers Vernon's bigotry and domineering attitude do you think she would want to add fuel to the fire by admitting she is a witch? No, she will go along with
 everything he says and go along with his snobbery and disgust. 
  NJ





         

 
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.

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





From hnjce at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 17:06:01 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:06:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eiqcnj+rssi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061107170601.41687.qmail@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161190

Eddie:
> > is it possible that Harry is the _LAST_ heir of Gryffindor,
> > as Voldemort is the last heir of Slytherin?

  .

   I often wonder if Voldemort got it wrong way back when he killed the Potters. The prophecy could just as well have been Neville. Did he go after the wrong kid? Could Neville be the last heir of Gryffindor? 
  I also can't keep Draco out of my mind. It keeps bugging me that he was not of age yet when it was time to take the apparition test. His birthday doesn't happen to be July 31st by any chance, does it?
   
  NJ
  I I also can't get Draco out of my_,_._,___         


 




From brownhorsedc at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 18:27:48 2006
From: brownhorsedc at yahoo.com (brownhorsedc)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 18:27:48 -0000
Subject: The Awful Boy  and the Blond Warlock
Message-ID: <eiqj74+b0md@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161191

In the HBP  Aunt Petunia said that an awful boy told he about Azkaban
Prison.  Harry thought that she was talking about his father.  I don't
think so.  she was talking about Snape.  Lilly brought him to her
home.  Snape loved Lilly. He even loaned her his mother's spell book.
Thank is how James learned the spell to hang Snape upside down. He was
angry because of James and Sirious. He thought that she had betryed him
by giving James the spell.  Snape's love got Lilly killed. I believe
that he went to Godrick's Hollow the night she and James were killed to
warn her, but was too late.  I think that he notified DD about their
deaths and DD sent Hagrid to get Harry and take him to his Aunt.  I
also think that the scar is  the Horcrux not Harry.  Lilly's love
(Harry's green eyes) deflected Voldemorts soul when it tried to enter
Harry.  His body was wrapped in Lilly's love. His eyes are a
manifestion of the love.

Does anyone knwo who the tall blond warlock was Hogwarts the night DD
was killed.  This warlock was powerful.  Yet his spells didn't kill or
hurt a student.  DD was supposed to be DEAD.  Could the Warlock  be DD
or another spy.

"brownhorsedc"




From Aixoise at snet.net  Tue Nov  7 18:52:44 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:52:44 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry is Not A Horcrux, But the Sword Is
In-Reply-To: <eiqav6+6kkv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a901c7029d$e90be3a0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161192

Kathy wrote:

<snip>. If Dumbledore knew about the Horcruxes - perhaps because Snape 
told him in order to be trusted by him - then he would have worked 
with the Potters to protect their son. <snip>

 

Stacey now:  Do we know that Snape knew of the Horcruxes?  Is there
reference to this in the books?

 

Kathy then wrote:

<snip>Dumbledore said that Voldemort had transferred some of his powers to 
Harry, such as being a parselmouth. Look at POA - Harry stands at the 
lake trying to protect Sirius from the dementors. He succeeds for a 
bit, and then is overtaken. Yet from across the lake he not only 
succeeds in taking care of a few dementors, but actually gets rid of 
all of them.<snip>

 

Stacey:  I always figured that the reason Future!Harry was able to do it was
two-fold: one- he had already done it before (as he says in the movie, can't
remember if this quote is from the book too) and two: Future!Harry has his
full strength on the other side of the lake, whereas Present!Harry is
considerably weakened by the dementors.

 

As for the transfer of power, yes, Dumbledore does say that LV transferred
some of his power to Harry but conversely, one must wonder what will become
of the fact that LV has risen as a result of the inclusion of Harry's blood.
Does the transfer work both ways?  I can't remember if this is the reason
that LV is able to see into Harry's mind and vice versa.

 

Still Kathy:
<snip>Dumbledore said that the Horcruxes are weapons, they protect 
themselves (HBP). <snip>

 

Stacey now: I didn't recall that he said "they protect themselves" although
should this be the case, wouldn't that make it much more plausible that the
locket found at #12 (and that I believe no one could open) was indeed the
Locket!Horcrux in the possession of RAB (and thereby making it VERY
plausible that RAB is Regulus Black!).  I've always like this theory and
that they "protect themselves" makes it more concrete!  Thanks!

 

Stacey



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





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 19:13:57 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:13:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
Message-ID: <20061107191357.7611.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161193

Eddie wrote: 
2) If Harry was a Gryffindor heir, then possibly his mother Lily was,
which means Aunt Petunia would be, which means Dudley (!) would be a
Gryffindor heir.

Dantzel replies:
I don't agree with the possibility of Lily being a Griffindor heir. Muggleborn is Muggleborn. JKR has repeatedly debunked the idea of Petunia or Dudley having magic...
Nice idea though. :)
======================

Jeremiah:

NOOOOOO!!!! Dudly can never be that cool!!!! I forbid it! LOL

Ummm, I was thinking if it was on Jame's side.. with all the money and what-not. But I think someone mentioned that it JKR made a point about Dumbledore being the hier and not Harry. However, if the Potter family tree and the Dumbledore family tree were to cross somewhere... that would make it possible. We don't know how far back either family goes because they aren't of the "Most Noble House of Black" mentality. Much more relaxed that that kind of arrogance.

And Petunia would most definitely be less of a pucker-mouthed priss about the wizarding world of she were an hier of someone so famous. Infact, she' probably be cruel to Dudly for not being magical! What a twist that would be.

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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 19:08:45 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:08:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Prophecy
Message-ID: <20061107190845.9432.qmail@web54514.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161194

brownhorsedc
I was reading the prophecy about Harry again. It is incomplete. It 
begins and ends with the same line.<snip>
I also think that R.A.B. is a phrase not a person. DD wrote the 
phrase R.A.B. for Harry.

-----------------------------------
Jeremiah:

The first and last Line is the same because the prophecy is repeating. (I just assume... that's what makes the most sense to me) Kinda like a CD on repeat. It's just cycling around and around.

R.A.B. is a phrase? I don't think so, but if it were, what would it be? Rightiously Ambiguous Backstabber... lol. Sorry. I'm not mocking you. I just ahven't a clue as to where I'd begin trying to make a phrase out of it. One that would encompass the meaning of a person who would have been close to Voldemort, discovered the Horcrux secret, founf the Horcux and destroyed it. It makes more sens to have ot be Regulus Black.  Simpler, I guess.

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




From jnferr at gmail.com  Tue Nov  7 19:17:12 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:17:12 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] So what if...
In-Reply-To: <20061107171806.10754.qmail@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <eiqcgs+qcef@eGroups.com>
	 <20061107171806.10754.qmail@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611071117k1040838doee68451a33779f61@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161195

>
> NJ:
> She is also married to Vernon who is psychologically abusive. We see what
> he does to Harry who has a strong character but what is he doing to his
> wife? She won't say boo to anything Vernon says.


montims:
But IMO that is because she agrees with everything Vernon says, not because
she is too intimidated to disagree.  When she does put her foot down, he
meekly abides by her decision.  I believe (although I know most people on
here don't like him) that Vernon is just an overdrawn caricature of a
blustering guy, and he reminds me of many men I have known in England.  I
find it endearing the way he tries to shelter Petunia and Dudley behind him
when they are in danger of wizards...

I have a niece and nephew and if I had to raise them there would be no way
> I'd let my husband treat them, my sister's kids,  like Vernon does to Harry.
>


montims:
But she had been estranged from her sister for years and dislikes Harry -
she treats him badly for her own sake.  And remember, she has more daytoday
contact with him than Vernon does.

So since she suffers Vernon's bigotry and domineering attitude do you think
> she would want to add fuel to the fire by admitting she is a witch?


montims:
JKR has confirmed that Petunia isn't/wasn't a witch.


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




From darksworld at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 19:19:31 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:19:31 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAPUVJSK/9nUS6NQC5GFwjtAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <eiqm83+7duf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161196

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" 
<bawilson at ...> wrote:
> JKR has said that in the case of Muggleborns, a Hogwarts teacher or 
a Department
> of Magical Education official hand-delivers the letter and answers 
any
> questions.  We know that mageling children have 'breakouts'--
uncontrolled and
> unpredictable magical happenings--and the parents of a muggleborn 
witch or
> wizard would certianly suspect that there was something odd going 
on.  How many
> python, Aunt Marge, child-on-a-school-roof, or incredible shrinking 
sweater
> incidents would it take?  And wouldn't the explanation that little 
Jeremy or
> Jessica was a wizard or witch be actually a bit of a relief?
> BAW
> 
Charles:
Now this is an angle I hadn't thought of before-it could really shed 
some light on Petunia. We know that Petunia was really upset that 
Lily was a witch. Is it possible that Petunia was fairly nasty to her 
sister *before* they knew she was a witch? This might indeed mean 
that Lily's instances of accidental magic involved Petunia. I can 
just see a scene along about the time Lily is about to recieve her 
Hogwarts letter: Petunia is taunting her "freak of a sister" with a 
few of her closest girlfriends in back of the house. Lily isn't 
saying anything, but she's getting angrier and angrier. She can't 
tell her folks, because they've gone out for a few hours and left the 
older Petunia in charge. All of a sudden, Petunia sprouts ears and a 
tail to match her "bony horse face." As Petunia's friends are about 
to run screaming from the house, the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad 
apparates in with a series of loud cracks- obliviating everybody but 
the future Hogwarts student and her sister, as the letter will be 
arriving within the hour- leaving Petunia with a lifelong fear of 
wizards and magic.

Pure speculation, unlikely scenario-but fun to imagine and it would 
explain a lot about Petunia.

Charles, who's hoping that the Dursleys suffer in book 7.





From froesch at hotmail.com  Tue Nov  7 19:19:35 2006
From: froesch at hotmail.com (froesch14)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:19:35 -0000
Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_
In-Reply-To: <eioc4t+4p45@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiqm87+cvuo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161197

> bboyminn:
> 
> It would have been nicer if you had given us a direct link,
> or a least the title of the essay. 
> 
> Am I to assume that the essay in question is -
> 
> "The Uses and Limits of Science in the Magical World" by Velse
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/scribbulus/textonly.php?
m=essay:264
> 

Froesch:

Sorry about that.  I'm relativly new to posting.

The link you provided was to one of the essay's I was refering to, 
but there are also:

"It's Magic" by SeverineSnape
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/scribbulus/textonly.php?m=essay:306

and

"Harry Potter and the M-Theory Conjecture" by Froesch (shameless 
promo)
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/scribbulus/textonly.php?m=essay:302

Froesch






From bawilson at citynet.net  Tue Nov  7 18:37:20 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:37:20 -0500
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAf8qjiDaoxkKMjhC5eLFX4QEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161198

Annie, when was Petunia forced to take Harry in?  DD said that she agreed to do
so--which implies that she could have refused.  We don't yet know all the terms
and conditions he set, but presumably she agreed to them, too.  From HBP we do
know that she agreed to raise him as her own child, which she has NOT done; and
we have seen how seriously the Wizardling World takes vows, contracts, and
agreements--hence DD's anger at their treatment of Harry.  (I'm guessing that
the reason that he hasn't done anything earlier is because he promised that the
Dursleys would have a free hand; which is also why he didn't do anything more
than make them sit on the couch, offer them something to drink, and give them a
stern lecture.)

BAW






From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Nov  7 20:42:00 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:42:00 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <20061107170707.1634.qmail@web56510.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eiqr2o+o0ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161199

> Eddie  wrote:          
> 2) If Harry was a Gryffindor heir, then possibly his mother Lily was,
> which means Aunt Petunia would be, which means Dudley (!) would be a
> Gryffindor heir.
> 
> Dantzel replies:
>   I don't  agree with the possibility of Lily being a Griffindor
heir. Muggleborn is Muggleborn. JKR has repeatedly debunked the idea
of Petunia or Dudley having magic...
>   Nice idea though. :)

Eddie:
Does "Muggle" mean that there is _ABSOLUTELY NO_ wizard blood in them?
 Couldn't Godric Gryffindor's blood run through muggle families, even
those who have no magic?  Meaning, Muggleborn people could still be
Gryffindor's heirs.  I'm not saying, nor did I mean to say, that
Petunia or Dudley were "magical", only that they could be Gryffindor's
heirs.

Eddie






From hnjce at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 19:41:34 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:41:34 -0000
Subject: So what if...
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611071117k1040838doee68451a33779f61@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eiqnhe+leug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161200

> montims:
> But IMO that is because she agrees with everything Vernon says,
not because
> she is too intimidated to disagree.  When she does put her foot
down, he
> meekly abides by her decision.  I believe (although I know most
people on
> here don't like him) that Vernon is just an overdrawn caricature
of a
> blustering guy, and he reminds me of many men I have known in
England.  I
> find it endearing the way he tries to shelter Petunia and Dudley
behind him
> when they are in danger of wizards...

NJ: I understand what you are saying but he can be seen both ways. I
have seen many abusive husbands/parents who will still shelter their
family from others. Those who are psychologically abusive are not
aware of it and many are disgusted by physical violence. Also, he
would see his wife and son as too weak to defend themselves so he
must do it. There can be more to that blustering guy behind closed
doors.

> montims:
> JKR has confirmed that Petunia isn't/wasn't a witch.
>
NJ: I wasn't aware of that until after I posted my original theory.







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Nov  7 17:22:06 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 17:22:06 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily my opinion
In-Reply-To: <32245154.1162905548994.JavaMail.root@web40>
Message-ID: <eiqfbu+oaak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161201

Marion wrote:

 ... Petunia says Azkaban (sp) and Harry is surprised she knows
this. So I think Petunia knows more then she wants to admit to
anyone... <snip>

Marion here:
<snip>
I don't think I'm right about this next bit, but Petunia is quite a snoop -- I can imagine her subscribing to the Daily Prophet to keep up with Rita Skeeter's column! :-)

Tinktonks:

Did anyone else think Petunia recognised Sirius on the tv in that
news report?

Didn't Harry say that she was squinting into the street as if
expecting an escaped Rhino.

Did she know who he was and fear he would be coming there? He did
after all!

Tinktonks






From kat7555 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 20:36:07 2006
From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:36:07 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <eiqm83+7duf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiqqnn+il5t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161202

> >>Charles:
> <snip>
> Charles, who's hoping that the Dursleys suffer in book 7.


I want to see the Dursleys punished as well. I don't think Petunia
is a witch because she wouldn't hate Lily so much if she had the
same talent. Lily's parents were proud of her because she was a
prodigy and they weren't. Imagine if Lily were a star athlete they
would celebrate her achievement in a similar manner.

If Petunia had magical powers I'm sure she would have seen them in Harry. I think Petunia was jealous of her sister and she took out her feelings out on her nephew.

I'd love for Harry to say as he leaves the Dursley's, BTW my parents left me a large inheritance and you aren't getting a penny of it. I'm sure Harry would have shared with them if they had treated him like a son.

I'd like Harry to reward Lupin in recognition of the friendship he shared with his dad and Sirius.

KathyK






From hnjce at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 21:11:53 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 13:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eiqr2o+o0ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061107211153.44399.qmail@web35302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161203


:          Eddie:
Does "Muggle" mean that there is _ABSOLUTELY NO_ wizard blood in them?
Couldn't Godric Gryffindor's blood run through muggle families, even
those who have no magic? Meaning, Muggleborn people could still be
Gryffindor's heirs. I'm not saying, nor did I mean to say, that
Petunia or Dudley were "magical", only that they could be Gryffindor's
heirs.

NJ: 
  Never thought of that. Muggle families can produce magical children and magical families can produce squibs - so why can't we assume that some families go back and forth, especially if there have been intermarriages in the family tree? Could we assume that magical powers are a genetic feature such as the color of one's skin? So it could be that Lily's parents were muggles but her grandparents were some combination of magicals, squibs, or muggles. Quite possible. 

  NJ 
  
 

         

 
---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

Get a free Motorola Razr! Today Only! Choose Cingular, Sprint, Verizon, Alltel, or T-Mobile.

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





From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 19:57:13 2006
From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 11:57:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Abused!Petunia (was:Re: So what if...)
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611071117k1040838doee68451a33779f61@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20061107195714.69633.qmail@web53310.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161204

> >>NJ:
>> She is also married to Vernon who is psychologically abusive. We see what he does to Harry who has a strong character but what is he doing to his wife? She won't say boo to anything Vernon says.<<

> >>montims:
>> But IMO that is because she agrees with everything Vernon says, not because she is too intimidated to disagree. When she does put her foot down, he meekly abides by her decision.<< <snip>

dragonkeeper:
You also have to look at Vernon's sister Marge who is also overbearing. As she berated Harry's family, Petunia said nothing on her sister's defense and neither did Vernon.

dragonkeeper




From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 22:09:08 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 14:09:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eiqr2o+o0ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061107220908.17347.qmail@web56506.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161205

> >>Eddie: 
>> 2) If Harry was a Gryffindor heir, then possibly his mother Lily was... << <snip>
 
> >>Dantzel:
>> I don't agree with the possibility of Lily being a Griffindor
heir. Muggleborn is Muggleborn. << <snip>

> >>Eddie:
>> Does "Muggle" mean that there is _ABSOLUTELY NO_ wizard blood in them? Couldn't Godric Gryffindor's blood run through muggle families, even those who have no magic? Meaning, Muggleborn people could still be Gryffindor's heirs. I'm not saying, nor did I mean to say, that Petunia or Dudley were "magical", only that they could be Gryffindor's heirs. <<

Dantzel:
I considered this in my reply, however, what would be the point of including this in what is already an extremely long list of questions to answer in book 7? I can't see it helping to resolve the plot if they were to be Gryffindor's heir, with no magic of their own. JKR has told us often that Dudley has no magic and neither does Aunt Petunia.

Just FYI Eddie, though I haven't posted often to show it, I almost always agree with your comments and arguments. It's just this one. :)

Dantzel, who feels quite sick of working today.




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Nov  7 22:15:38 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 15:15:38 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] So what if...
References: <20061107171806.10754.qmail@web35303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00e701c702ba$416a3300$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161206

> Dragonkeeper:
>          What if Petunia (Evans) Dursley was also a witch? What House do 
> you
> think she would have been accepted in to?
>
> To me she has this social snobbery about her and an indiffernces to
> those beneath her. She would have been great in Slyhterin but she's
> not pure blood.

Her jealousy speaks to me of Slytherin- ambition to get what others have. A 
trait Voldermort himself had, only he stole and manipulated people to get 
what they had, and Petunia just got bitter when she couldn't get it. Her 
attitude towards "others" not like her also speaks of Slytherin, and 
something tells me that if she were a witch, that snobbery would have been 
directed at Muggles instead, but the attitude would have been the same.

Shelley 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 23:21:02 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:21:02 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eir4cu+f3g1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161207

> 4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among 
them
> to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis 
either to
> strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get into the Room 
of
> Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up to. What do these
> temptations reveal about Harry and about his ability to deal with
> temptation in general? Might they foreshadow a more serious 
temptation
> in Book 7?

a_svirn:
I think it reveals that he is capable of resisting a temptation. 

 
> 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
> murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone 
know
> the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the
> countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape? 

a_svirn:
I don't think that anyone else could have saved Draco, since it's 
Snape's invention and it is probably unknown in the WW. I don't know 
what to make of the songlike incantations apart from the fact that 
it's obviously a very complicated and sophisticated piece of magic. 
What I find interesting about the curse, is that it looks much more 
gruesome (and therefore more scary) than Crucatius. Crusatius is 
supposed to be the main instrument of torture, but unlike its muggle 
counterparts it has virtually no effect on a person's body. Muggle 
torture is a messy business and the actual pain is only part of the 
problem. The worst of it is that survivals suffer from damage, both 
physical and mental, long after the event if not forever. By 
contrast it's really preposterous how in the WW people just shrug 
and go about their business as soon as the curse is lifted. Even 
when it causes lasting damage it's mental damage rather than 
physical. Sectumsempra is different in that way too. Snape had to 
repeat the counter-curse trice, and even after that he had to half-
lift Draco into a standing position. Afterwards Snape sent Draco to 
the Hospital wing so that he could take dittany which might (or 
might not) prevent scarring. All in all it looks like a more serious 
affair than Crusatius. 
> 
> 8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the 
scene
> rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the hospital wing 
to
> be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us about Snape 
and/or
> Draco? 

a_svirn:
I guess it's because dittany is supposed to have a power to drive 
arrows (and other weapons) out of the wound. 

> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been 
expelled.
> Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" yet punish
> Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he so much as
> threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are the 
Saturday
> detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by tormenting him 
with
> his father's indiscretions or does this tactic disguise Snape's 
real
> purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every Saturday until the 
end
> of term?

a_svirn:
Can it be because of the counter charges Harry could have made 
against Draco? An Unforgivable cast against a person merits a life 
sentence in Azkaban. 

 
> 13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the
> dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions,
> now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another 
floor?

a_svirn:
Because he likes the place. It's certainly atmospheric. 

 
> 14. The chapter begins with Lavender breaking up with Ron, closely
> followed by Ginny breaking up with Dean, and ends with Harry
> celebrating Gryffindor's victory (achieved without him) by finally
> kissing Ginny. What do you think JKR is trying to convey by framing
> the chapter in this way? 

a_svirn:
You are right, it's curious. Horror and affairs of the heart, with 
horror being described in considerably less detail. Why, then, name 
the chapter in that way? I was pondering a similar problem 
concerning "After the Burial" ? with most of the chapter taking 
place *before* the Burial rather than *after*. I think there is some 
reason for that with the "Burial", but with Sectumsempra I am not so 
sure. Probably, she just liked the word.  Or maybe, it was to 
emphasise the significance of HBP's inventions (to show that they 
are more important for the entire story than romance).  

>Does the ending feel appropriate or
> inappropriate in a chapter about Sectumsempra? (And what's up with
> that "hard, blazing look"?)

a_svirn:
I guess it would have been "passionate" in a 19th century novel, but 
since it would have sounded slightly ridiculous now she used "hard" 
and "blazing" as a euphemism. 

a_svirn, thanking Carol for excellent synopsis and interesting 
questions. 








From tfaucette6387 at charter.net  Tue Nov  7 23:09:24 2006
From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:09:24 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAf8qjiDaoxkKMjhC5eLFX4QEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <eir3n4+60gh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161208

Bruce Alan Wilson wrote:
>
> Annie, when was Petunia forced to take Harry in?  DD said that she
agreed to do
> so--which implies that she could have refused.  We don't yet know
all the terms
> and conditions he set, but presumably she agreed to them, too.

<snip>


Anne Squires responds:

Bruce, on page 836 of OotP (US hardback edition) Dumbledore tells
Harry, "I delivered you to her sister, her only living relative."
(Refering to Lily's sister, Petunia, of course.)  When Harry protests
that she doesn't love him, Dumbledore responds, "But she took you."
Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have have taken you grudgingly,
furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you, and in doing
so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you."  To me, if someone is
doing something "grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly" that is
tantamount to saying they are being forced against their will to do it.


Bruce also wrote:
>From HBP we do know that she agreed to raise him as her own child,
which she has NOT done

 <snip>


Anne Squires responds:
I would say that we know for a fact that Dumbledore "asked" Petunia to
raise Harry as a son.  I would not say that we know for certain that
Petunia agreed.  Dumbledore could have **assumed** that by taking in
the child she had agreed to everything he had asked of her.  The exact
quote from HBP is, "You did not do as I asked.  You never treated
Harry as a son." (p 55, US hardback) Nowhere does it say that Petunia
"agreed" to raise Harry as a son, only that it was "asked" of her. At
any rate, clearly Petunia does not raise Harry as a son.  She's being
forced to take him in.  Perhaps it was just going too far for her to
actually treat him as a son in addition.  I think she is too bitter
and resentful about having to take her nephew in to turn around and
then love him.



In my original post I stated that Petunia was forced to take in Harry.
 I still believe that is the case.  I think DD may be holding
something over Petunia's head, almost blackmailing her, if you will.
Do I have any proof of this "blackmail".  No.  But, I think she is
getting something out of the whole deal.  Maybe a promise of
protection for her family. Maybe a promise that no Hogwarts letter
would ever come for Dudders.  I don't know, but I still strongly
believe that her hand has been forced in this matter.  Right before
Petunia receives the Howeler from DD Vernon was on the verge of
throwing Harry out.  He had told Harry to leave and was getting ready
to enforce that order.  And Petunia was not protesting.  By keeping
silent she was tacitly agreeing with her husband.  Then suddenly,
after the Howeler, Petunia does a complete 180, "The boy ---- the boy
will have to stay, Vernon," she said weakly."  (OotP, p. 40, US
hardback edition) This scene implies to me that DD has some means of
forcing Petunia to keep Harry in the house.

Furthermore, I believe that  just because someone "agrees" to do
something or that they are "asked" to do something that does not imply
necessarily that they have any real choice in the matter.  It depends
greatly on the circumstances. Recently I "agreed" to pay a traffic
ticket.   The police officer gave me a ticket, so I sent in a money
order.  I did not wake up one day and decide to go to the court house
and volunteer to pay $142. I "agreed" to pay when I was "asked" to do
so. I did have other options.  I could have gone to court, appeared
before a judge, and fought the ticket.  But, frankly that would have
been way too much trouble.  I could have ignored the ticket
altogether.  But, that would have been against the law and my license
would have been revoked.  So, I paid the stupid thing.  And, I might
add, I felt forced to do so even though I "agreed" to do it.


Anne ~ who does not like to be called Annie






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov  7 23:40:59 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:40:59 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eiqr2o+o0ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eir5ib+l42n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161209

> Eddie:
> Does "Muggle" mean that there is _ABSOLUTELY NO_ wizard blood in 
them?
>  Couldn't Godric Gryffindor's blood run through muggle families, even
> those who have no magic?  Meaning, Muggleborn people could still be
> Gryffindor's heirs.  I'm not saying, nor did I mean to say, that
> Petunia or Dudley were "magical", only that they could be 
Gryffindor's
> heirs.

a_svirn:
I guess they can be *descendants*, but how can they possibly be 
*heirs* if they aren't magical? They can't succeed in the enjoyment of 
Grygffindor's powers or his role and rank in the WW if they are muggle.





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 00:01:02 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:01:02 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eiov0v+t5qp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eir6nu+mipa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161210

> Zgirnius;
>The songlike chant for a 
> healing spell makes some sense because of the association of 
> phoenixes with healing. 

a_svirn:
I don't think so. The songlike quality was due to the fact that Snape 
*chanted* (that is intoned the incantation in certain rhythm) rather 
than pronounced it normally. Fawkes, on the other hand, sings without 
words. 





From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Wed Nov  8 00:24:41 2006
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:24:41 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <20061107170601.41687.qmail@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eir849+6fur@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161211

> His birthday doesn't happen to be July 31st by any chance, does it?

June fifth, I believe. When was that test, April? *checks* Yeah, April 
21.

MercuryBlue





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 01:05:22 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:05:22 -0000
Subject: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <eiq1l8+i3ll@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiragi+5l9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161212

---  "Susan MacLagan" <SMacLagan at ...> wrote:
>
>  Janette wrote:
> > According to wikipedia: <periodic snips>*"Head Boy*
> > and *Head Girl* are terms commonly used in the 
> > British education system and in private schools 
> > throughout the Commonwealth. In British schools the
> > student body appoints a member of the highest grade 
> > or form to perform a series of duties to help the 
> > organisation of the school. Normally one boy ...
> 
> LG responds:
> ...No, American schools don't have this student postion, 
> but I suppose the closest thing to it is Student Body
> President, a position held by only one person.  Students
> vote for this representative, who, for the most part, 
> actually does nothing. ...
> 
> London Granddaughter
>


bboyminn:

One BIG BIG difference between British Schools, especially
Hogwarts, and normal American schools, is that the British
schools in question are Boarding Schools. Students don't
go home at the end of the day and become both the parents
and societies problem. At a boarding school the school is
responsible for the students health, safety, wellbeing, 
and recreational diversions 24 hours a day. (Did you
know that Eaton runs it's own Pub for the students?)

So, either the school hires an army of paid staff to keep
the students in line, or the enlist the help of some of
the more responsible and free students to aid them. That
explain Prefects, while they may have many duties, some 
serious and some strictly tokens, they are an additional 
set of authoritive eyes on the student, and they have the
authority to hand out punishments if needed. Though, if
you believe some of the 'British school boy' stories, 
some of the Perfects were like little Nazi's - drunk 
with power.

The additional point is in British schools, the school 
administration has a hand in creating new Prefects and 
Head-persons, and those selected student have real 
responsibilities and real authority.

The Head-persons, to some extent are in charge of the
Prefects, and helps organize and control them, but also
I still say, they have incorporated and extended the
position to include the equivalent of valedictorian
and/or Summa Cum Laude. It acknowledges the best
all-round student in the school, and is measure by a
wide range of parameters; academics, character,
responsibility, achievement, etc....

Certainly, Prefects are good students who are responsible
and can be trusted, and because of this they are also
very likely to have good grades, and by further extension
that makes them candidates for Head-person. 

Harry and Ron lack the outstanding academics, but have
proven themselves outstanding in other ways, and I think
when you look a them across a broad cross section of
criteria, they come out looking pretty good.

Steve/bboyminn

PS: never went to a British school, was never Prefect or
Head-person, but was class president. 





From jamie.sommers at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 00:39:25 2006
From: jamie.sommers at yahoo.com (jamie.sommers)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:39:25 -0000
Subject: WHY Snape's Worst Memory (Was: My Take on the Whole Snape/Draco/Dumbledore)
In-Reply-To: <eio7ae+5aus@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eir8vt+7r11@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161213

--- "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
> This all ties into a long-standing question... why was THIS memory
> Snapes' WORST memory.  (See
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/61591 for a
> discussion from over 3 years ago).  Some theories from then, and my
> personal opinion, is that this memory shows the moment when Snape
> realizes Lily is prepared to torment him too, and that she is just
> like all his other tormentors.

Hi All, new here, love all the discussion, Thanks for being obsessed
like me!  :)
My personal take on why this chapter in OotP is labelled Snape's Worst
Memory is just that it is the *last* thing that Snape would want Harry
to see.  We have to remember that Snape was removing this memory from
his mind before his Occulemency lessons with Harry.  So I took it mean
that Snape just wanted to make sure that Harry would never see it on
the off chance that he managed to see into Snape's mind.

With that context, it doesn't necessarily follow that this is Snape's
worst memory of his *entire* life, but just the worst one for Harry to
see.  Why would Snape put this on his "I don't care what else he may
accidently see, but I definitely don't want Potter seeing this one"
list?  I would guess just because of the sheer amount of embarrassment
that Snape experienced in the scene as well as the inferior position
that he was placed into at the hands of James.

So, again, this scene doesn't necessarily have to reflect Snape's
actual worst memory, and I doubt that he'd label it that because it
represents the end of his friendship with Lily or anything like that.
 We have to keep in mind Snape's motivation for removing this memory
at all.

Anyway, just my opinion, Thanks for having me here!
Jamie Sommers







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  8 01:20:50 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:20:50 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gryffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eiqcnj+rssi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eirbdi+n80b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161214

Eddie:
> Yep, I'm familiar with this quote.  But if you read the whole 
> of "MA's" question, the context was whether Harry's grandparents
> had been targeted by Voldemort because of _THEIR_ lineage from
> Gryffindor.  The answer was that they had not been killed by
> Voldemort.  So, I'm not persuaded that this quote answers my
> question.

Jen: I wanted to copy out the first part of that question but 
couldn't copy/paste from The Leaky Cauldron.  But gosh yes, as far 
as being persuaded soley by interviews I'm hard to convince, too.  
Heck, the whole Dumbledore as Heir theory hinges on a *pause* in 
JKR's answer.  If that's not a stretch then nothing is.  My guess is 
most readers threw out all heir theories after that interview. 

Finwitch:
> Anyway, we have Weasleys who are all redheads, including Molly (who
> was Prewett) and Albus used to have auburn hair. Red's Gryffindor 
> Colour. ALL Weasleys have been in Gryffindor House. Is there a  
> connection? Me, I think Godric was redhead...

Jen: I do wonder about the interesting timepieces those families 
have: Molly's clock, Dumbledore's watch, and now Ron's watch so 
similar to Dumbledore's.  There was a theory right after HBP 
(Catlady maybe?) that Ron's watch was from Dumbledore via his 
parents since they were so similar.  Plus it was such a notable gift 
from the constantly strapped Weasley family. If it was an heirloom, 
why was it still around to give after 5 other boys? Course, maybe 
all the children receive a special present at 17. 

Jeremiah:
> Woah. Thanks for all the insight into the Gryffindor issue. I've 
> always speculated it was Harry ('cause then it would be Gryffindor
> vs. Slytherin and in each other's face) but if it's Dumbledore... 
> well, doorknocker or not... that's a veritable trove
> of excitement! 

Jen: What, the doorknocker isn't the most compelling part of the 
theory for you? ;)  I like the parallel of Harry and Voldemort as 
the last heirs since they will be the ones in the face-off at the 
end.  If something symbolic or magical happens when both lines 
descending from Gryffindor and Slytherin die out though, (another 
fave theory), I'm willing to give up symmetry for Harry living. 
Sorry, Aberforth!

Jen R.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 01:44:44 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:44:44 -0000
Subject: House Elves / apparating / Sirius
In-Reply-To: <BBD83EA2-2511-4C92-92F9-2981F464063D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eircqc+q4hd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161215

Jodi in VA wrote:
> 
<snip>
> I have always wondered how Sirius got into Hogwarts after he escaped  
> Azkaban.  He can't apparate there.  Well, this post made me somehow  
> think that perhaps he could apparate into the Shrieking Shack (it
has no doors right?) and then take the pathway down under the Whompin  
> Willow to get inside Hogwarts.
> 
> What do you all think?

Carol responds:
I've wondered the same thing. The problem with your explanation is
that Apparating into the Shrieking Shack and following the tunnel
would only lead him as far as the Whomping Willow. He could get onto
the grounds that way and probably did, but it wouldn't take him into
the castle. That means he either had to get into Honeydukes (which
undoubtedly has anti-Apparition protections and intruder alarms) and
follow the passage to the hump-backed witch or get into some other
unblocked passage that wasn't being watched--unless he simply walked
into the castle when the doors were unlocked and he was pretty sure he
wouldn't be seen (Halloween night, for example). 

I don't recall the front doors being watched until Flitwick put a
spell on them so they could recognize a picture of Black, and the
Dementors weren't allowed on the castle grounds to guard them, yet
Dumbledore and Snape seem to think it would be impossible to sneak
into the castle in PoA and are puzzled as to how Black managed it. And
surely DD wouldn't leave the doors completely unguarded and unlocked
after the students were in bed, especially after the first attack (on
the Fat Lady). Maybe there were protections we aren't aware of, such
as portraits watching the door if anyone entered. They might not have
reacted, though, if Black transformed into a dog just as he opened the
door a crack. (He couldn't have opened it in Animagus form, and
Crookshanks, of course, can't open doors, either.)

So that pretty much leaves Honeydukes, the only question being how he
could sneak in there in Animagus form. Lupin seems to think that
Black's being an Animagus explains everything. I disagree. I think the
passages on the Marauder's Map were involved, and Crookshanks may also
have been on the alert for unwatched passages. (Filch and Mrs. Norris
together can only be in two places at once.)

At any rate, Lupin seems to think that being an Animagus accounts for
it, but I don't think so. I think Black's knowledge of the castle is
equally important. He must have used one of the secret passages,
probably the Honeydukes one. How he managed it, we'll probably never
know, but it couldn't have been through the Shrieking Shack.

Carol, who thinks that Lupin should have turned in the Marauder's Map
to Dumbledore as soon as he confiscated it







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  8 01:53:15 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 01:53:15 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eirdab+p7vh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161216

Discussion Questions:

Carol:
1. How in the world could Ron "make it snow"? What might be the 
significance, if any, of this particular piece of accidental magic?

Ceridwen:
It could be a reminder that these are still 'children' under 
wizarding law and they perform accidental magic.  It could be some 
reflection of his mental state on top of that.

Carol:
2. Lavender and Dean are both jilted in this chapter. What is your 
reaction, if any, to their jealousy and/or suffering? Which one do 
you feel is more deserving of sympathy, and why?

Ceridwen:
I think both are deserving of some limited sympathy.  These were not 
true loves of their lives after all; unlike Cho, they did not lose 
their sweethearts to death.  It hurts, but most people are hurt the 
same way at this age.  They'll both get over it.

Carol:
3. Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be disloyal to 
Ron and that he must choose between the two? What do you think Ron's 
reaction would have been if Harry had leveled with him?

Ceridwen:
I think he senses that there might be some conflict on some level 
with Ron if he changes Ginny's status in relation to Ron.  I don't 
know if he's right about this.  At the end of OotP, I thought Ron was 
hinting that Ginny might try for Harry.

Carol:
4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among 
them to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis 
either to strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get into 
the Room of Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up to. What 
do these temptations reveal about Harry and about his ability to deal 
with temptation in general? Might they foreshadow a more serious 
temptation in Book 7?

Ceridwen:
Harry is learning to deal with temptations like any normal teen.  
He's done well enough so far - he resisted the urge to use 
Sectumsempra on McLaggen, and he didn't take the easy way to get with 
Ginny or to get into the RoR.

Yes, temptation might play some part in book 7.  I could easily 
imagine LV setting up another trap, as he set up the trap at the MoM 
in OotP, to lure Harry to his death.  I could see him making it a 
very attractive move on a spur of the moment assessment.  His 
connection with Harry hasn't been broken, after all, he was just 
using Occlumency to keep Harry out during HBP.  Harry still has a way 
to go with resisting temptation, and figuring out which is 
temptation, and which is a good idea.  But he is certainly getting 
practice!

Carol:
5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom" 
(restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction 
change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was trying 
to do? Why or why not?

Ceridwen:
I thought it had everything to do with Draco's mysterious mission.  
Unlike most, I didn't know exactly what it was he was sent to do.  I 
did think he was under a lot of stress, and this was an anvil-sized 
inkling that perhaps he was being put under threat.  Later on, once I 
knew what had been going on, I completely understood what he was 
saying.

Carol:
6. Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under these 
circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or why 
not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to Draco's 
attempted Crucio?

Ceridwen:
No, I wasn't shocked that he would use it.  Harry and Draco weren't 
duelling for fun, after all.  At this point, especially when Draco 
tried to use the Cruciatus, he was definitely Harry's enemy.  And, 
since he had been wanting to use the spell, it made perfect sense to 
me that it came immediately to his mind at that point.  Other 
options: Protego, Expelliarmus, ducking?  Splashing water in Draco's 
mouth?  (note: being facetious here)

Carol:
7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody 
murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone know 
the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the 
countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape?

Ceridwen:
Snape showed up because Snape was close by.  He may have been 
following Draco or watching him, or he may have been following 
Harry.  I think Draco is the best bet here.  Unless Madam Pomphrey 
had overheard and come running, I doubt if anyone else could have 
saved Draco.  If any students had responded, they might have panicked 
at all the blood and possible death, and made the situation worse, 
not better.  I think the songlike chant was necessary for this type 
of spell.  It seems to suggest an arcane type of magic, and makes me 
think back to Sirius saying that Snape was interested in the Dark 
Arts from the time he entered Hogwarts.  A person is the sum of their 
life experiences as well as their genes.  I think it expands on 
Snape's lifetime of learning in magic.

Carol:
8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the 
scene rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the hospital 
wing to be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us about 
Snape and/or Draco?

Ceridwen:
The reference was anticlimactic to the preceeding scene.  It was a 
calming thing to say at that point:  "All over now, time to clean it 
up.  Here's what you do."  It could be that Snape was aware that 
Draco is sensitive about his appearance, or it could mean that Snape 
is trying to put a lid on any further panicking.  I think it says 
that Snape knows Draco, and can be soothing to him.

Carol:
9. Why does Harry wait for Snape to return, as if he thinks that he 
deserves to be punished, and yet lie when Snape asks him where he 
learned such a Dark spell? What do you think would have happened if 
Harry had told the truth?

Ceridwen:
Harry was shaken up.  He didn't even think of leaving.  He certainly 
didn't mean to hurt Draco like that, as shown in his immediate 
reaction.  Snape could surely find him in Hogwarts, or on his way to 
Hogsmeade, but I doubt if running away even entered his mind.  As for 
lying about the book, I think he must have thought that Snape would 
take it away from him.  And, I think he would have been right.

Carol:
10. Harry uses, or tries to use, three of the HBP's spells in this 
chapter (Muffliato, Levicorpus, and Sectumsempra), and he hides his 
book rather than risk having it confiscated. Afterwards, he defends 
the Prince against Hermione's accusations. What does this behavior 
tell us about Harry and about his relationship with the boy he knows 
only as the Half-Blood Prince?

Ceridwen:
It says that Harry is a very loyal friend, even to someone he has 
never met.  The Prince helped him out in his schoolwork, and with 
some entertaining and useful (Muffliato) spells.  Just because the 
Prince let him down with Sectumsempra, that was a one-time thing.  
Overall, he has helped, and Harry showed due gratitude and loyalty to 
him.

Carol:
11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been 
expelled.  Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" 
yet punish Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he 
so much as threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are 
the Saturday detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by 
tormenting him with his father's indiscretions or does this tactic 
disguise Snape's real purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every 
Saturday until the end of term?

Ceridwen:
I think that Snape has reluctantly had to agree that Harry is indeed 
the hope of the WW, and so needs his magical education.  And, I doubt 
if Dumbledore would have gone along with expulsion if he even tried, 
which he would also know by this point.  So he sets him a detention 
to show the pitfalls of using magic without thinking, or with a 
cavalier attitude, by using people Harry looks up to, as examples.  
It would anger him, certainly, but the lesson would stick better 
because of that.  And I think that the lesson is, not to use 
questionable magic, not to use unknown sources, and not to lie or 
cheat because none of those things will gain him victory over LV.

Carol:
12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he undergoes 
his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned it. 
What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten his 
own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make this 
detention (and its sequels) more effective?

Ceridwen:
I don't think he's forgotten his horror or remorse.  I think this is 
his way of protecting himself against overwhelming feelings of 
guilt.  Having Snape assign the punishment made this easier, but I 
think he would have used this defense mechanism no matter who set his 
detentions.

Carol:
13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the 
dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions, 
now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another floor?

Ceridwen:
Maybe he hoped to be back at teaching Potions the next year.  In any 
event, the Slytherin dorms are reached through the dungeons, so he 
would logically have an office nearby.

Carol:
14. The chapter begins with Lavender breaking up with Ron, closely 
followed by Ginny breaking up with Dean, and ends with Harry 
celebrating Gryffindor's victory (achieved without him) by finally 
kissing Ginny. What do you think JKR is trying to convey by framing 
the chapter in this way? Does the ending feel appropriate or 
inappropriate in a chapter about Sectumsempra? (And what's up with 
that "hard, blazing look"?)

Ceridwen:
I think the end and beginning set up normal life in a castle full of 
teenaged witches and wizards.  What happens in between is different 
and very out of the ordinary, and is set off by normal bookends.  I 
think JKR meant to take us from the ordinary into a very unordinary 
event, then back to everyday life so we could experience the same 
sorts of emotions Harry experiences at various times during this 
chapter.

The 'hard, blazing look'?  A look of fierce victory.

Ceridwen, thanking Carol for a good discussion and excellent 
questions.





From scarah at gmail.com  Wed Nov  8 02:02:24 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 18:02:24 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House Elves / apparating / Sirius
In-Reply-To: <eircqc+q4hd@eGroups.com>
References: <BBD83EA2-2511-4C92-92F9-2981F464063D@gmail.com>
	 <eircqc+q4hd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611071802g6b55bc7dsc16c4eca4d3f0792@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161217

> Carol responds:
> (He couldn't have opened it in Animagus form, and
> Crookshanks, of course, can't open doors, either.)

Sarah:
Either they can, or they're sneaky about availing themselves when
people open the door.  Not only did Sirius get in, but Crookshanks got
out to mosey around the grounds with him.  They're not a regular cat
and dog.

According to this map:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/hogwarts/atlas-h-jkrmap.html we can't
see whether the wall extends all the way around the forest, but even
if it does, look at the relationship between the wall and the lake
shore.  Padfoot is a strong swimmer.

I always thought that Sirius wasn't doing too much in the way of
Apparition.  It's monitored very closely by the Ministry.  He spent
the next year travelling great distances on Buckbeak.  It also might
have something to do with why he favored a motorbike back in the day.

Sarah



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  8 02:36:38 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:36:38 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eir6nu+mipa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eirfrm+5jj6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161218


> > Zgirnius;
> >The songlike chant for a 
> > healing spell makes some sense because of the association of 
> > phoenixes with healing. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't think so. The songlike quality was due to the fact that 
Snape 
> *chanted* (that is intoned the incantation in certain rhythm) 
rather 
> than pronounced it normally. Fawkes, on the other hand, sings 
without 
> words.
>

Potioncat:
This was going to be my reply to the question, and I had written it 
before I saw these replies. So I'll post it here.

The songlike countercurse is new. JKR hasn't shown us anything like 
that before. Madam Pomfrey uses potions. Even the DADA teacher who 
knew his remedies used chocolate.  I think it does make Snape seem 
very Phoenix-like. 

Let's see. Is he like a Phoenix in other ways? He sings a cure and 
stoppers death. Come to think of it he regresses to child like 
behavior and just about bursts into flame from time to time.

Sorry, it's a silly day. But I do think his song is supposed to make 
us think of a phoenix.









From liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar  Wed Nov  8 02:47:49 2006
From: liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar (liliput99ar)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 02:47:49 -0000
Subject: A Thought About Petunia Dursley (Harry's Aunt)
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAPUVJSK/9nUS6NQC5GFwjtAEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <eirggl+5ui2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161219

Bruce Alan Wilson:
> We know that mageling children have 'breakouts'--uncontrolled and
> unpredictable magical happenings--and the parents of a muggleborn
> witch or wizard would certianly suspect that there was something odd
> going on.  How many python, Aunt Marge, child-on-a-school-roof, or
> incredible shrinking sweater incidents would it take?  And wouldn't
> the explanation that little Jeremy or Jessica was a wizard or witch
> be actually a bit of a relief?

Nora now:

It is indeed what young Creevey (I don't remember his name right
now), explained to Harry after his sorting: that his father was a
milkman, that he was very surprised upon reception of the letter, and
that he didn't know that the funny stuff that he could make was magic.
By the way, in his family there happen to be two magical muggleborn
kids, Michael (?) and Denis.

Regarding Petunia, I do not think she is a witch, neither a squib.
But there is something about her that needs some explanations or
revelations in book 7, I guess. I hope we will get them.

Nora






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 05:02:06 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 05:02:06 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eiqerk+oah1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiroce+u3md@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161220

 
> Dungrollin:
> Yes, that's true, but if she went with the simplest explanations for 
> everything, the end result would be rather disjointed, there ought 
> to be a few explanations which give us answers to several questions 
> at once. Since I've never found a satisfying (to me) explanation of 
> why he didn't just AK lily on the spot, nor for the transferred 
> powers (except Harry!crux, of which this is a variant) I like 
> combining them both at the same time.
>

Neri:
Here's my favorite combination: Voldy meant to turn Lily into a living
Horcrux in GH. This is why he didn't AK her on the spot. The bonus
here is that it also explains what was to be the Gryffindor Horcrux:
since Voldy couldn't find a Gryffindor relic, he decided on a
Gryffindor student instead. I also think the special vileness of
making the mother a Horcrux by killing her son would appeal to Voldemort.

 
> Neri:
> <snip>
> This version would also give JKR a 
> > complete freedom in plotting Book 7, because she can decide if 
> such a soul bit would act as a Horcrux or not, and whether it's 
> removable and how, according to what she plans for Harry.
> 
> Dungrollin:
> She's pretty much got that anyway, given how little (and how late) 
> she's told us about Horcruxes. 
> 

Neri:
Of course she can do everything, but it's not very good writing to
mount great obstacles only to wave them out of the way with some ad
hoc explanation. JKR might not be in the habit if working out all the
details, but I can't remember her doing anything like this before.
Pitting Harry in a duel against Voldy in GoF was a huge obstacle, but
the solution (the brother wands), although it was rather arbitrary,
was carefully prepared since Book 1, so it didn't come out as a deus
ex machina.


> Dungrollin:
> Is there any other elegant explanation for the transferred powers 
> other than horcrux-harry?

Neri:
Well, the only other explanation I can remember at this moment is
Carol's, that a drop of Voldemort's blood in GH fell on Harry's open
wound, and the blood contains the magical powers. I'll leave you to
decide yourself about the elegance of this, but I must comment that if
it's possible to transfer magical powers with a simple blood
transfusion, then the implications for the WW (and possibly the muggle
world as well) are nothing short of staggering <g>.   


> Dungrollin:
> Actually, I think that works similarly with my version too, I only 
> suppose that you need a spell to make an inanimate object (something 
> that's not used to carrying a soul) into a horcrux, a living human 
> being like baby!Harry would naturally be 'sticky', and not need any 
> glue.
> 

Neri:
Hmmm
 actually, it does work in your version. Lets see if I understand
it. What you say is that a soul bit would naturally be attracted to
humans. That it actually takes a special effort to make a *non-living*
Horcrux, including clearing the area first of interferring humans? So,
if anything goes wrong with the encasing spell, and there's an
avilable human around, the default result would be a living Horcrux? I
don't know any special canon for this, but it's certainly possible.


> bboyminn:
> <snipped>
> It could be that in the end, through a yet to happen set 
> of circumstances, Voldemort will try to kill Harry and in
> doing so will send a soul-bit to hell. In a sense, in 
> trying to kill Harry under the new 'yet to happen' 
> circumstances, it will be Voldemort who kills himself.
> Perhaps Harry will try to kill Voldemort and fail, and
> think that perhaps all is lost, and his best efforts have
> failed. Then Voldemort will turn on Harry, but instead of
> killing Harry he will truly kill himself. He will destroy 
> (or release) the last remaining soul-bit, the spell will 
> rebound on a fully mortal Voldemort, and that will be the
> end. 

Neri:
I certainly didn't think about this possibility. Do you mean Voldemort
AK Harry and as a result the soul bit is released? I tend to think
about the AK as taking away the life force, but if what AK actually
does is sever the connection between the body and the soul, then I
guess it could work. Only it won't be "either must die by the hand of
the other", unless you can make a case for the one and the other being
the two Voldy soul parts



Neri






From jamie.sommers at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 05:09:58 2006
From: jamie.sommers at yahoo.com (jamie.sommers)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 05:09:58 -0000
Subject: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper... Fidelity - a Condition
In-Reply-To: <eiojc7+aea7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiror6+1vom@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161221

> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > If is primarily about the secret rather than the Trust, 
> > then why isn't it called the 'Specialis Charm'?
> > <snip>
> > It is actually called the 'Fidelius Charm', and that very 
> > strongly implies that 'Fidelity' is at the core of it.
> > <snip>
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> That's the big problem with many key spells in the series,
> we don't know how they work, at least not in detail, so
> we are left to speculate until and if JKR choses to tell
> us the whole story.
> 
> It would seem that the Fidelius Charm is made up of two
> parts 'the Secret' and 'the Secret Keeper'. I agree that
> trust in the Secret Keeper is important. You don't make
> this Charm unless you have a very serious Secret that
> needs keeping, so finding someone you can trust to keep
> the Secret is critical. 
> 
> Yet, it is the Secret itself that is being hidden, and it
> is hidden by the magical oath of Fidelity by the Secret 
> Keeper (speculation of course). "I solemnly swear that I
> will take this Secret and hold it in myself with the 
> greatest, truest, and most honorable Fidelity."
> 
> First, I have to believe the Secret Keeper Charm was 
> broken, any other option simply compicates the plot too
> much. JKR can't waste pages and pages trying to work
> around a still in effect Secret Keeper Charm. But that
> bring up the question of how and why it was broken.
<snip>

Now Jamie Sommers:

As you stated, there's really no way to know until JKR tells us, but
that doesn't stop me from having my thoughts... :)

What if the Fidelius Charm is related to a Memory Charm in that maybe
DD and Hagrid and company all knew that the Potters were *going* to
hide out at Godric's Hollow, but that as soon as the Fidelius Charm
was in place they all magically forgot the details.  Maybe they would
all have some vague knowledge that they *used* to know that
information and that a Fidelius Charm was planned, so they then *knew*
the Charm was successful when they couldn't remember the details anymore.

Then when the Charm was broken (by whatever means), they all suddenly
remembered where the Potters were hiding - and therefore KNEW that
something had gone terribly wrong.  This would explain how they all
knew how to find Harry and how they knew somewhat immediately that
Harry needed to be found.

Thoughts?
Jamie Sommers






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 06:23:40 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 06:23:40 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eir6nu+mipa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eirt5c+6fms@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161222


> > Zgirnius;
> >The songlike chant for a 
> > healing spell makes some sense because of the association of 
> > phoenixes with healing. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't think so. The songlike quality was due to the fact that Snape 
> *chanted* (that is intoned the incantation in certain rhythm) rather 
> than pronounced it normally. Fawkes, on the other hand, sings without 
> words.

zgirnius:
Presumably Snape chanted the spell because this was necessary for the 
spell to work properly. We certainly have no previous indication that 
he has any particular musical inclination, and the circumstances would 
seem to be bizarre ones for randomly breaking into song.

It still seems to me interesting, and possibly significant/ symbolic/ 
what have you, that the healing spell uses music (even if, as humans, 
wizards would sing syllables, and not whatever it is that phoenixes 
produce when they 'sing').







From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Nov  8 07:00:38 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 23:00:38 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch is important Was: Book Lengths
In-Reply-To: <eiq9bv+rj1p@eGroups.com>
References: <9697906.1162904939540.JavaMail.root@web40>
	 <eiq9bv+rj1p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611072300i52b4333dw5aa84f33ecb2d361@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161223

Anne Squires:

I think one of the important things about the Quidditch World
Cup is the twins' bet. I have seen it argued that the twins used a
time-turner to predict the outcome so accurately. Sorry, I don't
remember exactly where I read that, but, I believe it's more than
possible.

Lynda:

I'm certain that the twins bet at the Quidditch World Cup is extremely
important. I don't think that they used a time-turner, however. I think the
clue in that scene is simply to establish that the Weasleys are a family of
very powerfully magical witches and wizards. Bill as head boy, Charlie as
quidditch captain, Percy as head boy, the twins striking out on their own in
business with less than remarkable test results from their OWLS, Ron as
prefect and possibly head boy in the next book (unless that one goes to
Harry--yes I do expect the trio back at Hogwarts) and Ginny as at the least
a very talented witch (it seems the prefect positions are all accounted for
presently.  Maybe she will be quidditch captain. There's a lot of talent in
that family.

Lynda


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




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 07:04:39 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:04:39 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eiov0v+t5qp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eirvi7+c9jm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161224

> justcarol: 
> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been 
> expelled.
> Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" yet punish
> Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? 

zgirnius:
I found this question particularly interesting (thanks, Carol!) as I 
had not really considered it before at all.

I think Snape tells the staff precisely what happened because the 
staff are going to find out anyway. Draco tells Pansy, who spreads 
the story around the school pretty quickly. Snape could have acted to 
prevent this by ordering Draco not to tell anyone, but I think, in 
light of his own experiences in his sixth year, that Snape would be 
very reluctant to give such an order.


So why does Snape punish Harry for bring 'a liar and a cheat'? I am 
not precisely sure, but I made a list of facts. (My favorite last 
resort, when thinking is not getting me anywhere <g>).


1)	Snape knows it is his spell, from his book, when he makes his 
comment to Harry and sets the punishment. In particular, he knows 
that what Harry said about not knowing the effect of the spell, is 
likely true.
2)	Has Snape used the spell while at school? (Perhaps on James, 
in the incident Harry saw?) Does this affect how he evaluates a 
decision to use such a spell?
3)	Snape almost surely knows that Draco broke Harry's nose 
earlier that year. He knows Draco is a Death Eater. He may have 
suspicions that Harry felt it necessary to use the spell in self-
defense.

Putting these together, I come up with the possibility that perhaps 
Snape does not entirely diapprove of Harry's use of the spell. 
Obviously it was a stupid thing to do, not knowing the effects, but 
it may have been done in self-defence and without intent to cause 
serious harm. In other words, Snape may actually find Harry's lying 
and cheating more objectionable.

Finally, there is the question of why Snape did not present his full 
reasons to the staff. He could have told them precisely what 
happened, and that Harry lied to him, and has been cheating in 
Potions class by taking credit for original ideas which are not his 
own. So why didn't he? 

I think a big issue is the issue of proof. Harry hid the book, so 
Snape can't simply show it. Snape is certain, but this is based on 
his use of Legilimency, and his authorship of the notes in Harry's 
book. He is in a situation where he knows Harry lied to him and 
cheated at Potions, and Harry knows he did the same, so his comment 
makes sense to Harry. But proving it to anyone else would be a 
problem.









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 07:39:38 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:39:38 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
Message-ID: <eis1jq+abq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161225

While I'm sure this is old news, since we have several
Horcrux discussions going on, I will point out one hugely
significant place in the wizard world where a Horcrux is
most certainly hidden (or so I speculate). It is a place
that has tremendous significants to the Founders of the
school, is known by Voldemort, and indeed was part of
a plan by Voldemort to attack the school.

Of course, I speak of 'The Chamber of Secrets'. It was
a place known in legend, but not known in reality. That
is, everyone knew the story of it, but in many many
years (near 10 centuries) of searching no Headmaster had
ever found it. That certainly sound like a pretty safe 
place to hide something. The Cup? A Ravenclaw item?
Perhaps, though unlikely, a Gryffindor item? 

I've been predicting, for assorted reasons, that at some
point, one or more of, the Trio would go back to the
Chamber, and the recent discussions about Horcruxes have
only re-enforced that idea. It seems the logical location
for hiding a Horcrux; it's magically powerful and has
significant meaning to Voldemort.

Just thought I would throw that in.

Steve/bboyminn





From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz  Wed Nov  8 07:52:39 2006
From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Fazkleto)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 07:52:39 -0000
Subject: Thoughts on the Veil
Message-ID: <eis2c7+rl05@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161226

Fazkleto writes:
Hi there, just wondering what others think about the
Veil that Sirius fell through in OotP.
I believe that it has some sort of function as a portal
between the realms of the living and that of the dead,
and that the 'whispering' sounds heard are that of
the souls of those departed. I think that there may possibly
be a connection between the Veil and the dementors,
and also between the Veil and the room that Harry & co
could not enter while at the Ministry of Magic. I've heard
it called 'The Room of Love' or something like that,
though I'm not certain if it is called that in canon.
Anyway, any thoughts on the function of the Veil?

Cheers, Fazkleto





From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  8 08:32:12 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:32:12 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eiroce+u3md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eis4mc+ii1t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161227

> > Dungrollin:
> > She's pretty much got that [complete freedom] anyway, given how 
little (and how late) 
> > she's told us about Horcruxes. 
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Of course she can do everything, but it's not very good writing to
> mount great obstacles only to wave them out of the way with some ad
> hoc explanation. JKR might not be in the habit if working out all 
the details, but I can't remember her doing anything like this 
before. Pitting Harry in a duel against Voldy in GoF was a huge 
obstacle, but the solution (the brother wands), although it was 
rather arbitrary, was carefully prepared since Book 1, so it didn't 
come out as a deus ex machina.
> 
Dungrollin:
Sure, I agree with you, although the scar and mind-link to Voldemort 
have been set up since the first book, and the transferred powers 
and Voldy's immortality-bid from book 2, so we can't really complain 
we didn't get any foreshadowing! The theorists axiom is that that 
book 7 will be consistent with existing canon, but (as we all so 
frustratingly know) not necessarily predictable from it. 

Either the horcrux mechanics questions will never be answered, or 
she can still make up whatever she likes for book 7 (although anti-
harrycruxers will insist that she's definitively made Harrycrux 
impossible, though I don't see how). We all rather heavily rely on 
the fact that she's been thinking about this for a while, and isn't 
about to change her mind about important plot points. If we do find 
out about them, Horcrux mechanics will be canon-consistent, but not 
necessarily predictable - just like the very existence of Horcruxes 
was before we got our teeth into HBP; I certainly wrote my fair 
share of speculative "Why didn't Voldy die" posts, and never came 
anywhere near Horcruxes.


> Neri:
> Hmmm
 actually, it does work in your version. Lets see if I 
understand it. What you say is that a soul bit would naturally be 
attracted to humans. That it actually takes a special effort to make 
a *non-living* Horcrux, including clearing the area first of 
interferring humans? So, if anything goes wrong with the encasing 
spell, and there's an avilable human around, the default result 
would be a living Horcrux? I don't know any special canon for this, 
but it's certainly possible.
> 

Dung:
Yep, that's what I mean. Inanimate objects are not naturally capable 
of holding an immaterial immortal soul, but people (at least within 
the Potterverse) are. And, no, there's no canon!


> > bboyminn:
> > <snipped>
> > Then Voldemort will turn on Harry, but instead of
> > killing Harry he will truly kill himself. He will destroy 
> > (or release) the last remaining soul-bit, the spell will 
> > rebound on a fully mortal Voldemort, and that will be the
> > end. 
> 
Dung:
Why didn't Voldy kill off the bit of Voldysoul when he tried to AK 
baby Harry in GH? Or is that why you intriguingly refer to 'a yet to 
happen set of circumstances?'

Dungrollin





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 09:45:12 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:45:12 -0000
Subject: Sirius
In-Reply-To: <3202590611071802g6b55bc7dsc16c4eca4d3f0792@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eis8v8+6i3s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161228


>
> > Carol responds:
> > (He couldn't have opened it in Animagus form, and
> > Crookshanks, of course, can't open doors, either.)
> 
> Sarah:
> Either they can, or they're sneaky about availing themselves when
> people open the door.  Not only did Sirius get in, but Crookshanks got
> out to mosey around the grounds with him.  They're not a regular cat
> and dog.

Finwitch:

I wouldn't be surprised if Sirius *could* open the door. It's not like
it was *locked* and um - I can tell you that the dog my family used to
have certainly knew how to open unlocked doors. Really, all they have
to do is jump against the handle and a big dog not even that.

Also, there might be a catflap in some doors-- Yes, there's plenty of
ways Sirius could cross doors. The gates were watching human Black,
not a dog... and Sirius *certainly* knew several secret passages - all
seven on the map leading out of Hogwarts for instance. How was it,
Filch knew four, one lead to Honeydukes, one to the Shack and one was
caved in...

Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 09:52:43 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:52:43 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <eis1jq+abq8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eis9db+guek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161229


> 
> I've been predicting, for assorted reasons, that at some
> point, one or more of, the Trio would go back to the
> Chamber, and the recent discussions about Horcruxes have
> only re-enforced that idea. It seems the logical location
> for hiding a Horcrux; it's magically powerful and has
> significant meaning to Voldemort.

Finwitch:

Oh yes, I do believe there is - or was - a Horcrux in that chamber.
But exactly where? Granted, Harry was busy fighting Riddle and
worrying about Ginny... I guess the safest place would be inside the
statue of Slytherin - inside the nest of the basilisk. Hardly a safer
place exists from Voldemort's point of view... Well, Harry knows how
to open that place, at least... I suppose the 'Speak to me, Slytherin,
Greatest of the Hogwarts Four' was the password to open it...

Finwitch





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 10:41:10 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:41:10 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eirt5c+6fms@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisc86+8mbv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161230

> zgirnius:
> It still seems to me interesting, and possibly significant/ 
symbolic/ 
> what have you, that the healing spell uses music (even if, as 
humans, 
> wizards would sing syllables, and not whatever it is that phoenixes 
> produce when they 'sing').

a_svirn:
Yes, I agree. Dumbledore also said that music is the most potent magic 
or something to that effect. But I think that Snape's chanting is also 
interesting because he's undoubtedly used some obscure and probably 
ancient language. (I assume that Harry would have recognized Latin 
even if he didn't understand the actual words.) Therefore it's likely 
that Snape used something else. An ancient language for some ancient 
magic? 





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 10:59:40 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:59:40 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eirdab+p7vh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisdas+g6fr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161231


>
> Discussion Questions:
> 
> Carol:
> 1. How in the world could Ron "make it snow"? What might be the 
> significance, if any, of this particular piece of accidental magic?

Finwitch:

That despite of their current age as legal adults (or almost)
accidental magic is still a possibility. It's not limited to children.
As we know, Harry had accidental magic at 13 - and as Dumbledore put
it, even the best of them may sometimes lose control. Accidental magic
may be important later on, particularly considering the effect that
happens when Harry&Voldeemort duel.

As for how... it's MAGIC. And Snow is just frozen water, really --
they can shoot water from their wands, after all..

> Carol:
> 3. Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be disloyal to 
> Ron and that he must choose between the two? What do you think Ron's 
> reaction would have been if Harry had leveled with him?

Finwitch:

Because he's a teenage boy, because Ron hasn't been liking others go
out with Ginny-- as for Ron's reaction - he'd either be torn between
big-brother-duty and his loyalty as Harry's friend or accept it. After
all, Harry has saved Ginny's life... so if anyone gets to date Ginny,
it's Harry.

> Carol:
> 4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among 
> them to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis 
> either to strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get into 
> the Room of Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up to. What 
> do these temptations reveal about Harry and about his ability to deal 
> with temptation in general? Might they foreshadow a more serious 
> temptation in Book 7?

Finwitch:

Temptation - well, certainly. Choices, too. And it's not like it's the
first time. Book 1: the mirror. Book3: The Firebolt. (Remember Harry
seeing it in the window and not buying it?) Of course, they have also
given in sometimes - just like everyone else.

> Carol:
> 5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom" 
> (restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction 
> change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was trying 
> to do? Why or why not?

Finwitch:

Well -- It made me pity him. A bit surprised, too - that Draco knew
how to cry.
 
> Carol:
> 6. Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under these 
> circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or why 
> not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to Draco's 
> attempted Crucio?

Finwitch:

Not shocked, no. He *was* acting in self-defence, after all. The spell
had been lurking in his mind all the time, so I suppose using it was
natural reaction. Of course, he could have used Expelliarmus, but one
doesn't have time to consider things when under attack.
 
> Carol:
> 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody 
> murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone know 
> the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the 
> countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape?

Finwitch:

Snape had been tailing Draco so naturally it was he to show up. As for
why none other didn't come -- they didn't hear Myrtle. There's a
reason why Draco chose Myrtle's toilet to cry in: he didn't wish to be
heard in the act. As for the countercurse -- well, I would be
surprised if Dumbledore didn't know it, and spposedly Madam Pomfrey
did as well. We have evidence that Snape created SectumSempra, not
that he created the countercurse. For all we know, it was *Dumbledore*
to create that one, so that doesn't say anything about Snape.

> Carol:
> 8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the 
> scene rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the hospital 
> wing to be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us about 
> Snape and/or Draco?

What? That Snape knew the countercurse, of course. It tells of Snape's
knowledge in the area - due to the vow, this tells nothing more about
Snape.

> Carol:
> 9. Why does Harry wait for Snape to return, as if he thinks that he 
> deserves to be punished, and yet lie when Snape asks him where he 
> learned such a Dark spell? What do you think would have happened if 
> Harry had told the truth?

Finwitch:

Harry's truly shocked of the effects of the spell - and regrets doing
it to Draco. As for Harry lying to Snape -- well, he's SNAPE, that's
why. Had Harry told the truth, Snape would have confiscated the book,
of course -- and possibly questioned Harry further.

> Carol:
> 10. Harry uses, or tries to use, three of the HBP's spells in this 
> chapter (Muffliato, Levicorpus, and Sectumsempra), and he hides his 
> book rather than risk having it confiscated. Afterwards, he defends 
> the Prince against Hermione's accusations. What does this behavior 
> tell us about Harry and about his relationship with the boy he knows 
> only as the Half-Blood Prince?

Finwitch:

That Harry's loyalty to someone who has helped him is not overthrown
by a single not-so-good deed. Secondly, he may think that as horrible
as the spell is, well, just because the prince made it, doesn't mean
he used it. And of course, maybe deep down Harry feels that Hermione's
jealous because instead of her, Harry now has another to help him
learn potions...

> Carol:
> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been 
> expelled.  Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" 
> yet punish Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he 
> so much as threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are 
> the Saturday detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by 
> tormenting him with his father's indiscretions or does this tactic 
> disguise Snape's real purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every 
> Saturday until the end of term?

Finwitch:

1. Because of Draco attempting Crucio and Harry merely defending
himself against him. 2. Snape's well aware that since his second year,
Harry knows Snape doesn't have the authority to expel him. 3. Because
of Harry's regular meetings with Dumbledore... and the prophecy, of
course, AND the fact about Voldemort...

As for the Torment-- oh yes. Snape does that on purpose. Much like he
does by assigning Neville to disembowl Toads...

> Carol:
> 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he undergoes 
> his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned it. 
> What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten his 
> own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make this 
> detention (and its sequels) more effective?

Finwitch:

Of course he didn't forget that. As for *effective* detention? I don't
know what you mean with it-- Snape couldn't have chosen one to make
Harry *suffer* more. Of course Harry feels angry and resentful about
that -- it's a defence-mechanism he developed with Dursleys; it's
Snape; Harry's a teen.

> Carol:
> 13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the 
> dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions, 
> now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another floor?

Finwitch: Because that's the office of Slytherin Head of House. As for
his potions there -- Snape loves potions, doesn't he? The Potions he
has are ones he feels he needs, of course, some Dumbledore has asked
him to make (Stopper Death), a little side business probably... and
just in case Slughorn would need him to cover for him.
 
> Carol:
> 14. The chapter begins with Lavender breaking up with Ron, closely 
> followed by Ginny breaking up with Dean, and ends with Harry 
> celebrating Gryffindor's victory (achieved without him) by finally 
> kissing Ginny. What do you think JKR is trying to convey by framing 
> the chapter in this way? Does the ending feel appropriate or 
> inappropriate in a chapter about Sectumsempra? (And what's up with 
> that "hard, blazing look"?)
>

Finwitch:

Well, we don't need to dwell in bad spells, do we? I suppose we now
have the relationships where they will remain -- Harry&Ginny,
Ron&Hermione -- better this than Love Potion, wouldn't you say?

Finwitch





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 11:02:56 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:02:56 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eirfrm+5jj6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisdh0+3kps@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161232

> Potioncat:

> 
> The songlike countercurse is new. JKR hasn't shown us anything 
like 
> that before. Madam Pomfrey uses potions. Even the DADA teacher who 
> knew his remedies used chocolate.  I think it does make Snape seem 
> very Phoenix-like. 

a_svirn:
I dont remember is Madame Pomfrey uses other things as well, but the 
DADA teacher who knows his remedies has quite a few tricks up his 
sleeve besides chocolate. 

> Potioncat:
> Let's see. Is he like a Phoenix in other ways? He sings a cure and 
> stoppers death. Come to think of it he regresses to child like 
> behavior and just about bursts into flame from time to time.

a_svirn:
It's not the other way. It's still the same *one* way ? they both 
use something "songlike" to heal. In Snape's case, however, it's not 
really *music*. It's reciting, chanting. He still uses incantations, 
he just pronounces them rhythmically. Whereas Fawkes heals without 
using spells at all. Just music. 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 11:48:15 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:48:15 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eirdab+p7vh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisg5v+n1bv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161233

> Carol:
> 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he 
undergoes 
> his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned 
it. 
> What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten 
his 
> own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make 
this 
> detention (and its sequels) more effective?
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I don't think he's forgotten his horror or remorse.  I think this 
is 
> his way of protecting himself against overwhelming feelings of 
> guilt.  Having Snape assign the punishment made this easier, but I 
> think he would have used this defense mechanism no matter who set 
his 
> detentions.

a_svirn:
It just occurred to me that though it *should* have been easy for 
Harry to channel his guilt into resentment after Snape assigned that 
particular detention, somehow it wasn't. Paradoxically enough Harry 
simply couldn't counter Snape's spitefulness, because he knows 
pathetically little about his own parents. He should have been able 
to say (if not out loud, at least to himself): no one but yourself, 
*Sir*, remembers my father's childish misdemeanors; it is by his 
other deeds he is best remembered. Yet what does Harry know about 
James, except that he was an excellent flyer and, let us say 
diplomatically, a troublemaker at school, and joined the OOP 
afterwards? Virtually nothing. (And even less so about Lilly). In 
HBP he even indulges in a strange form of escapism fantasizing about 
James and inventing him as HBP instead of trying to learn about the 
real man. And Harry had had an ample opportunity to ask any question 
he liked in OOP, since he had spent his all vacations with Sirius 
and Remus. He hadn't, though. He doesn't know anything about his 
father's profession, his character, his hobbies, he even seemed to 
be unaware of the fact that James was pureblood. When in POA Venon 
clamed that James was unemployed and Marge apostrophized him as 
a "good-for-nothing lazy scrounger" Harry was "shaking all over" 
from anger, but does he know differently even now? It seems almost 
as if he doesn't want to know.





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 13:06:05 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:06:05 -0000
Subject: Slytherin ambition revisited./the term "racism" or "bloodism"
In-Reply-To: <cdf2qc+8jr2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisknt+uguk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161234


> Alla wrote :
> > If Sorting Hat will choose new Slyhts based on only how cunning and 
> > ambitious they are, I would like  that very much.
> 
> Del replies :
> Not me, not when it's common knowledge that those kids can't master
> their ambition ("use any means" is what the Sorting Hat says). They
> need people *in their own House* to help them keep their ambition into
> perspective, people like the Gryffindors.

Finwitch:

Still, that IS what happens. After all, Ambition, cunning, use any
means and so on -- ARE how the hat characterizes Slytherins. Yet,
Molly apparently appears to consider ambition as a virtue as she
scolds the twins... (and praises Percy?)

However, what the hat does - I think it places people more by what
they value. Hermione is studious, but she values bravery more. That's
why she's in Gryffindor, not Ravenclaw...

Percy, he has definitely lots of ambition - certainly no disregard of
rules, though. And I don't think he *values* ambition or cunning. Not
the way Slytherins do.

I don't know if I'd label ambition as a vice myself, but I'm not
calling it a virtue either. Slytherins DO.

As for the term racism considering the wizards view of "purity of
blood" as Dumbledore put it - racism is the closest analogue in Muggle
World - though yes, "bloodism" would be a more correct word...

Finwitch





From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Wed Nov  8 12:14:26 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 4:14:26 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
Message-ID: <6216949.1162988066632.JavaMail.root@web19>

No: HPFGUIDX 161235

---- a_svirn <a_svirn at yahoo.com> wrote: 

 Dumbledore also said that music is the most potent magic 
or something to that effect. 
-------------------------------------------------------

Marion here -
I'm rereading the first book (this time making notes in the margins - my apologies for those who think that's a sacrilege!), and actually underlined this passage as something that might be important later.  The passage is:

"Ah, music," he said, wiping his eyes.  "A magic beyond all we do here!" 

This takes place after everyone sings the school song to their own tune.   The school song, itself, doesn't seem to contain any omens.

I've got to go through all six books (again!), because I don't even remember the chanting that Snape did that is the topic of all these posts.  Of course, I've only read book 6 once, and listened to the audio version two or three times. :-)

Marion, who still doesn't understand how y'all can keep so many details in your heads.




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  8 14:16:49 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:16:49 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisosh+fgr0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161236

Excellent chapter discussion, Carol! Snipping it all to get to the 
questions. I have to answer in 2 parts.

And my response is formatted oddly---I cut and paste to word and word 
pad but something strange happened.

Discussion Questions: (Part 1)

1. How in the world could Ron "make it snow"? What might be the
significance, if any, of this particular piece of accidental magic?

Potioncat:

Because you asked, I started thinking about it. Reminds me of Wizard 
of Oz when the snow woke everyone up. Are Ron and Harry waking up to 
their feelings?

But the snow doesn't fit, does it? If they are turning vinegar into 
wine, why is his wand pointing into the air?

 Hey
is there something Freudian going on here? What I did notice is 
that Ron brushes the snow off Hernione's shoulders and that's when 
Lavender begins to cry. Picking lint off a companion's coat, or 
brushing something off, is generally a sign of intimacy. Seems that 
played into the plot of some book I read. Because the snow is 
otherwise out of place, I think it was to give that little insight 
into the relationship between Ron and Hermione.

At the same time, Ginny breaks up with Dean because she thought he 
was trying to help her. Actually it was Harry bumping into her, not 
Dean helping her. Does Harry even realize this?  I know, it's just an 
excuse on Ginny's part, but it seems like one of those TT things that 
happens.

Back to charms class,. JKR's made good use of Flitwick for a sort of 
double meaning. Flitwick comes over and says, "Less talk boys and 
more action
" Made me laugh this time.


2. Lavender and Dean are both jilted in this chapter. What is your
reaction, if any, to their jealousy and/or suffering? Which one do you
feel is more deserving of sympathy, and why?

Potioncat:
To be honest, I read through the romance parts pretty quickly. JKR 
has shown teen love here.  I feel sorry for both kids.

3. Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be disloyal to
Ron and that he must choose between the two? What do you think Ron's
reaction would have been if Harry had leveled with him?

Potioncat:
I could never figure this one out. Why did Harry feel this way? But, 
given that he did, he was doing a very good job of being a loyal 
friend. Ron wanted the two of them to get together all
along--from year two I think.

4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among them
to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis either to
strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get into the Room of
Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up to. What do these
temptations reveal about Harry and about his ability to deal with
temptation in general? Might they foreshadow a more serious temptation
in Book 7?

Potioncat:
Odd isn't it, that Harry thinks he needs a stroke of good luck for 
Ron to suddenly decide that Harry and Ginny would be perfect for each 
other
when all along that is what Ron wants. Harry thinks he needs 
luck for something that he already has. (Oz never did give nothing to
the tin-man, that he didn't already have
)

He feels tempted, but he resists
up to a point. I've forgotten, is 
this the book in which the hero is due to be tempted or is it next 
book---according to some theory of literature.

5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom"
(restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction
change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was trying
to do? Why or why not?

Potioncat:
I don't remember what I thought at the time. Was I reading so fast 
that I moved right into the duel? My whole opinion of Draco changed 
after DD's speech. If DD thinks Draco is worth redeeming, then I 
needed to re-think my views. I feel for him now when I read this. 
Even though he says, "it won't work" he really sounds frightened. 
It's hard to tell if Draco is saying he can't kill DD, or saying he 
can't kill because the cabinet/plan wont' work.We find out later that 
Draco's family was threatened too. Had they already been at this 
point?


6. Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under these
circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or why
not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to Draco's
attempted Crucio?

Potioncat:
Very shocked. Then and now.  Not from a judgmental way, but he had 
other more certain spells to use.  He was the DA leader after all! 
Reading this section now, it seems like Draco was using Nonverbals up 
to the point he cried out "Cruc
" Does anyone else think so?


7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone know
the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the
countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape?

Potioncat:
Why does Snape and only Snape show up so many times during Harry's 
adventures? It's the poor man's destiny.  I'm betting only Snape 
knows Sectumsempra and only he knows the 
Cure. 


8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the scene
rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the hospital wing to
be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us about Snape and/or
Draco?

Potioncat:
This scene leaves me weak at the knees one minute the boy is almost 
dead and the next he's walking to the hospital wing. Snape's comments 
seem very comforting. Hard to tell if they sound more like something 
a RL doctor would say or more like a RL family member. But Snape is 
showing more consideration than he usually does. 

9. Why does Harry wait for Snape to return, as if he thinks that he
deserves to be punished, and yet lie when Snape asks him where he
learned such a Dark spell? 

Potioncat:
Harry had no choice, but to wait.  He lies because he's in enough 
trouble as it is. He doesn't want to add the book into the mix and he 
certainly doesn't want to lose the book.







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov  8 14:31:44 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:31:44 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eisc86+8mbv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eispog+p11n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161237

 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, I agree. Dumbledore also said that music is the most potent 
magic 
> or something to that effect. But I think that Snape's chanting is 
also 
> interesting because he's undoubtedly used some obscure and probably 
> ancient language. (I assume that Harry would have recognized Latin 
> even if he didn't understand the actual words.) Therefore it's likely 
> that Snape used something else. An ancient language for some ancient 
> magic?


Potioncat:
Wait a minute...are we agreeing or disagreeing ;-)

Here's the line about Snape's counter-curse  "muttering an incantation 
that sounded almost like song."

Nothing is said about what words he used, or if Harry even heard the 
words. (Wasn't nonverbal though.)

So, to me, the song-like incantation that Snape performed 3 times, 
seems very similar to a Phoenix song. And, again, we haven't seen 
anything else ever described as "like a song" in any of the classes or 
in any of the other healing episodes.

But yes, I'd think Snape, who invented spells, has a knowledge of 
ancient magic.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 14:45:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:45:22 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eir6nu+mipa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisqi2+h4li@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161238

Zgirnius wrote:
> >The songlike chant for a 
> > healing spell makes some sense because of the association of 
> > phoenixes with healing. 
> 
a_svirn countered:
> I don't think so. The songlike quality was due to the fact that
Snape *chanted* (that is intoned the incantation in certain rhythm)
rather than pronounced it normally. Fawkes, on the other hand, sings
without words.
>
Carol responds:
But what I was wondering when I wrote the question is why the spell
requires a chantlike countercurse rather than a single word or phrase
(contrast Levicorpus/Liberacorpus). Clearly "Finite Incantatem" would
not counter Sectumsempra or Snape would have used it, and even
Levicorpus requires its own countercurse. Perhaps Sectumsempra
requires a stronger, more complex countercurse simply because it's a
stronger, more complex spell than Levicorpus, not to mention Darker
magic, but when have we seen anything resembling this chantlike spell
in a language Harry doesn't understand (perhaps Latin, perhaps not)? 

Possibly, Snape discovered through experiments (presumably not on his
schoolmates or he'd have been expelled) that no simple, one-word
countercurse could undo the effects of Sectumsempra and searched the
records for some ancient healing spell that could counter it, a spell
that he alone of modern wizards has memorized. Or perhaps he sat down
and invented that complex, chanted countercurse based on what ancient
wizards had done to counter similar Dark spells. Wither way, the spell
is unusually complex, it's songlike, it's powerfully magical, and its
magic is that of healing, not destruction.

What does it tell us about Snape that he would invent or seek out such
a spell? Snape seems almost motherly, but also very powerful, as he
sings it.

Carol, who was reminded of Gregorian chant when she read the
description of the countercurse





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  8 15:06:10 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:06:10 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisrp2+8d5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161239

Carol:
> 4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among
> them to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis
> either to strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get
> into the Room of Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up
> to. What do these temptations reveal about Harry and about his
> ability to deal with temptation in general? Might they foreshadow
> a more serious temptation in Book 7?

Jen: Dumbledore points out to Harry in the Horcrux chapter that 
while he has a 'privileged insight' into Voldemort's life, something 
a DE would kill for, he has never been seduced by the Dark Arts or 
tempted to become a follower of Voldemort.  Then in this chapter, 
Snape tells Harry that Sectumsempra is Dark Magic.  It's clear Snape 
as the HBP *was* seduced by Dark Magic, was tempted and did join 
Voldemort.  

There's that parallel between them, both being tempted by Dark Magic 
(especially when angry), but Harry's protection and choices have led 
him down a very different path.  I've wondered if Voldemort might 
offer up Snape to Harry as the ultimate temptation--will Harry 
succumb to his hatred?  No way!  But that might be a possibility for 
how temptation could play out. I'm pretty certain Voldemort's next 
move against Harry will be psychological just as he put Dumbledore 
in an impossible situation in HBP by recruiting Draco.

 
> 5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom"
> (restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction
> change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was
> trying to do? Why or why not? 

Jen: I was moved by not only his tears but his general appearance 
and the fact that his only confidante is a ghost.  That was 
indicative that if he ever did have true friends, he can't talk to 
them now. I doubt he's ever had real friendship.  My reaction hasn't 
changed, that moment was crucial for Harry to see Draco's humanity.


> 6.  Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under
> these circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why
> or why not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to
> Draco's attempted Crucio?

Jen: I agree with what KJ said, that the scene is mostly for plot 
purposes. :) Trying to view it inside the story, by the end of HBP 
there's a pattern of Harry attempting Dark Magic when backed in a 
corner or angry. Don't know if this is becoming his natural response 
because he doubts his own abilities or ??

> 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
> murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone
> know the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature
> of the countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape? 

Jen: The countercurse is a symbol of Snape's repentance, attempting 
to undo the damage he's done.

 
> 8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the
> scene rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the
> hospital wing to be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell
> us about Snape and/or Draco? 

Jen:  I thought he was trying to reassure Draco the physical damage 
wasn't life theatening or permanent. And probably Harry as well.

I can't add much more to what others have said on the other 
questions.  Thank you, Carol!  Your questions and answers by others 
helped me consider some of the scenes in a new way.

Jen R.









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 15:02:25 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:02:25 -0000
Subject: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <eiragi+5l9q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisri1+b67e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161240

bboyminn wrote:
> 
> One BIG BIG difference between British Schools, especially
> Hogwarts, and normal American schools, is that the British
> schools in question are Boarding Schools. Students don't
> go home at the end of the day and become both the parents
> and societies problem. At a boarding school the school is
> responsible for the students health, safety, wellbeing, 
> and recreational diversions 24 hours a day. <snip>
> 
> So, either the school hires an army of paid staff to keep
> the students in line, or the enlist the help of some of
> the more responsible and free students to aid them. That
> explain Prefects, while they may have many duties, some 
> serious and some strictly tokens, they are an additional 
> set of authoritive eyes on the student, and they have the
> authority to hand out punishments if needed. <snip> 
> The additional point is in British schools, the school 
> administration has a hand in creating new Prefects and 
> Head-persons, and those selected student have real 
> responsibilities and real authority.
> 
> The Head-persons, to some extent are in charge of the
> Prefects, and helps organize and control them, <snip> It
acknowledges the best all-round student in the school, and is measure
by a wide range of parameters; academics, character,
> responsibility, achievement, etc....
> 
> Certainly, Prefects are good students who are responsible
> and can be trusted, and because of this they are also
> very likely to have good grades, and by further extension
> that makes them candidates for Head-person. 
> 
> Harry and Ron lack the outstanding academics, but have
> proven themselves outstanding in other ways, and I think
> when you look a them across a broad cross section of
> criteria, they come out looking pretty good. <snip>

Carol responds:
I suppose that in an ordinary year, Harry might be appointed Head Boy.
But even if the school is open, Harry probably won't be there, at
least as a full time student. I think he'll have "too much on his
plate" to attend classes regularly, much less have the added burden of
being Head Boy.

Ron has wished for the *distinction*, as opposed to the *duties*, of
being Head Boy, but he seems to be more a loyal follower than a
leader, a necessary component of a Head Boy's character. It was good
for him to be a Prefect, but now that he knows what it's all about, he
may have changed his mind about wanting to follow in Bill's and
Percy's footsteps--assuming that he has the opportunity, which I think
is unlikely since he'll be with Harry.

Hermione has the marks and the authoiritativeness to be Head Girl, if
not the charisma that an ideal Head Girl would have, but I don't think
she'll be there, either.

I think that if the school stays open, Ernie Macmillan will be, and
ought to be, Head Boy--a nice honor for the Hufflepuffs, and Ernie is
both a good student and a hard worker. He seems to be the leader of
the Hufflepuffs in his year. As for Head Girl, I can't think of any
candidates besides Hermione, unless possibly Susan Bones, another
Hufflepuff, receives the honor.

Being Head Boy or Girl is an honor and a privilege but it's also a
major responsibiliy, one that Harry will have neither the time nor the
inclination to shoulder, IMO.

Carol, who will miss having the story center around Hogwarts and the
Harry/Snape interactions in particular






From husenlatif at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 09:14:31 2006
From: husenlatif at yahoo.com (husenlatif)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 09:14:31 -0000
Subject: where the romance?
Message-ID: <eis75n+9rdo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161241

I just wonder how the romance life of our heroes? If Harry will be with Cho Chang in the next book? What about Hermione and Ron, I never
imagine that these two person can be a couple, do you? Actually this
romance has diminished in the 6th book, and maybe it will enroll to
the 7th, remembering as Voldemort and his fellows become stronger that make the struggle harder too. But we still need a romance, because Harry will be 17 in the 7th book, right?


husenlatif




From hnjce at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 12:54:45 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 12:54:45 -0000
Subject: Abused!Petunia (was:Re: So what if...)
In-Reply-To: <20061107195714.69633.qmail@web53310.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eisk2l+nvne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161242

NJ:
> >> She is also married to Vernon who is psychologically abusive.
We see what he does to Harry who has a strong character but what is
he doing to his wife? She won't say boo to anything Vernon says.<<
>
> > >>montims:
> >> But IMO that is because she agrees with everything Vernon says,
not because she is too intimidated to disagree. When she does put
her foot down, he meekly abides by her decision.<< <snip>
>
> dragonkeeper:
> You also have to look at Vernon's sister Marge who is also
overbearing. As she berated Harry's family, Petunia said nothing on
her sister's defense and neither did Vernon.
>
> dragonkeeper
> _._,_.___
>   
 NJ:
>   Yes, Yes, Yes! Vernon's family is a whole gang of bullies. Right
down to sweet Dudders. The fact that he backs down when Petunia puts 
her foot down just shows his insecurity and the inconsistancy of the 
bullying attitude. He was probably pushed around by a parent and his 
sister and he is now passing it on to his family. When anyone stands 
up to him he is shocked and doesn't know how to deal with the 
confrontation and therefore backs down. Harry has had the self 
confidence to do this for a long time even without the threat of 
magic. You have to see this kind of behavior run through a family to 
believe it.
Hmmm...maybe Vernon is the repressed wizard - LOL.
>   NJ
>







From baby_vamp_in_velvet at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 13:27:46 2006
From: baby_vamp_in_velvet at yahoo.com (Kelly Madsen)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 05:27:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Thoughts on the Veil
In-Reply-To: <eis2c7+rl05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061108132746.80079.qmail@web31102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161243

Fazkleto wrote:         
Hi there, just wondering what others think about the
Veil that Sirius fell through in OotP.
I believe that it has some sort of function as a portal
between the realms of the living and that of the dead,
and that the 'whispering' sounds heard are that of
the souls of those departed. I think that there may possibly
be a connection between the Veil and the dementors,
and also between the Veil and the room that Harry & co
could not enter while at the Ministry of Magic. I've heard
it called 'The Room of Love' or something like that,
though I'm not certain if it is called that in canon.
Anyway, any thoughts on the function of the Veil?



Kelly:

Well its also a throwback to Paganism/ Wicca. We believe in the thinning of the veil that seperates this world from the next near Samhain. So the termonology she used makes me think of that. 




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Nov  8 15:31:59 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 07:31:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <eis1jq+abq8@eGroups.com>
References: <eis1jq+abq8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40611080731t63c4a32fqec33ffdbe7a44301@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161244

> Steve wrote:
>
> While I'm sure this is old news, since we have several
> Horcrux discussions going on, I will point out one hugely
> significant place in the wizard world where a Horcrux is
> most certainly hidden (or so I speculate). It is a place
> that has tremendous significants to the Founders of the
> school, is known by Voldemort, and indeed was part of
> a plan by Voldemort to attack the school.
>
> Of course, I speak of 'The Chamber of Secrets'. It was
> a place known in legend, but not known in reality. That
> is, everyone knew the story of it, but in many many
> years (near 10 centuries) of searching no Headmaster had
> ever found it. That certainly sound like a pretty safe
> place to hide something. The Cup? A Ravenclaw item?
> Perhaps, though unlikely, a Gryffindor item?
>
> I've been predicting, for assorted reasons, that at some
> point, one or more of, the Trio would go back to the
> Chamber, and the recent discussions about Horcruxes have
> only re-enforced that idea. It seems the logical location
> for hiding a Horcrux; it's magically powerful and has
> significant meaning to Voldemort.


Kemper now:

While reading HBP, the first time, I thought of the Chamber.  I think
many of us thought, 'Hey, what a cool place to hide something.'

But I eventually ruled it out because I believe that Dumbledore would
have searched the Chamber immediately after talking with Harry and
Lucius.  I can understand if Harry never went back as it would show a
wealth of curiosity on his part, something he seems to lack.  But
Dumbledore would have been quite curious and would have checked the
Chamber, not to be so would have been out of character for him.  Even
if he did check it immediately afterward, he would have definitely
checked it prior to scoping out the Cave.  How could he not realize
what an ideal vault the Chamber is?!?  Especially after the Diary.

But I could be wrong.

I suppose it is possible for Dumbledore to have forgotton to check the
chamber.  But if that's the case, I will call foul.

I am a fan of the cup, Ravenclaw's item, or Gryffindor's thing hiding
in plain view... but maybe that was the Diary.

Kemper



From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov  8 16:03:04 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:03:04 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisv3o+tiso@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161245

This was where the book really started to pick up for me.:-)

Carol:
> 2. Lavender and Dean are both jilted in this chapter. What is your
> reaction, if any, to their jealousy and/or suffering? Which one do 
you
> feel is more deserving of sympathy, and why?

Magpie:
They both deserve about equal sympathy, but both of them will get 
over it. 

Carol: 
> 3.  Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be 
disloyal to
> Ron and that he must choose between the two? What do you think 
Ron's
> reaction would have been if Harry had leveled with him?

Magpie:
In OotP I thought Ron's obvious desire for Harry and Ginny to be 
together was frankly strange.  I think he'd have been fine if Harry 
asked him if he could ask Ginny out.  Ron's got parts of his 
personality that are throwbacks to some earlier time. His interest 
in his sister's love life is kind of old-fashioned--not just that he 
cares, but in the way he reacts to it. But then, I think this is a 
Weasley thing and Ginny enjoys her safe rebelling against it. (And 
JKR loves giving her a chance to be all teen-feminist to Ron's 
straight man.) Of course, Harry's not too different from Ron in the 
way he thinks about him when wanting to ask Ginny out.  He considers 
it a betrayal because he wants to "defile" Ginny.  

Carol:> 
> 4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among 
them
> to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis 
either to
> strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get into the Room 
of
> Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up to. What do these
> temptations reveal about Harry and about his ability to deal with
> temptation in general? Might they foreshadow a more serious 
temptation
> in Book 7?

Magpie:
I don't think Harry has much trouble with temptation when he knows 
it's wrong.  If he feels something is wrong he usually overcomes 
temptation.  If he's going to have an issue, imo, it's going to be 
with his ability to justify things.  The Prince's spells aren't a 
temptation to Harry, exactly. It's not like he knows they're wrong 
but does them anyway. Nor does he think of himself as giving into 
temptation when he tries out his spells on other people.  He resists 
trying Sectumsempra on MacLaggen not because it's wrong, but because 
he doesn't want Hermione to see him and scold him.  He feels 
perfectly justified in irritating McLaggen.

Carol:
> 
> 5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom"
> (restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction
> change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was 
trying
> to do? Why or why not? 

Magpie:
I knew what he was being made to do and had been expecting it since 
the hint about some boy crying in the bathroom earlier.  My main 
reaction was one of recognition-Harry discovers Draco crying in the 
bathroom all the time in H/D fics. It just usually leads 
to...different results.

Carol:
> 
> 6.  Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under 
these
> circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or why
> not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to Draco's
> attempted Crucio?

Magpie:
Not at all shocked--once Harry read the spell I was waiting for him 
to use what I thought of as "the razor blade spell" on somebody.  (I 
had mistakenly thought Snape's spell he'd used on James in the 
Pensieve had been named and this was it, I guess because when we saw 
Levicorpus I figured this had to be the other one.)  

Harry of course had other options--plenty of other spells could do 
and would have if he didn't have the Prince's in his mind, but 
dramatically this was the best one to use. The Prince came through 
as usual--he offered a spell to take care of enemies and Harry, I 
think, instinctively reached for it.  That is, I think Harry does 
have a sort of instinctive connection to the Prince and for all his 
faffing around with hexing in the hallways when in a desperate 
circumstance he felt the same way about "enemies" that the Prince 
did. I think that's what makes the scene more disturbing.

Carol:
> 
> 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
> murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone 
know
> the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the
> countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape? 

Magpie:
I figure Snape spent a lot of time near Draco (heh--poor guy must 
have had one of his worst years ever sneaking around corridors) and 
that's why he showed up. No one else was around because Draco 
intentionally chose an out-of-the-way boy's room where people rarely 
went. The countercurse, which I can believe Snape alone knows (or at 
least is not known by many people) is really interesting.  I wonder 
if it requires any sort of emotion--I mean, one can't miss that 
Snape is usually sarcastic and harsh and hear he's literally 
crooning to a boy in his arms.  Interesting that someone so focused 
on emotions being weak would create or use such an intimate antidote 
for his spell--but it fits with Slytherin in my mind. It suddenly 
makes me wonder if it can only be healed by an ally and not an enemy.

Carol:
> 
> 8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the 
scene
> rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the hospital wing 
to
> be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us about Snape 
and/or
> Draco? 

Magpie:
It does add an extra bit of gentleness to Snape--usually his 
response to injuries is to order the person to the hospital wing as 
if they've annoyed him by being injured (and I don't think that kind 
of gruffness is always a bad thing). I wonder if he feels the need 
to offer more healing for the spell because he invented it. And then 
it also may just be there to indicate that the danger is passed and 
Snape's speaking normally again, talking about ingredients etc.

Carol:
> 
> 9. Why does Harry wait for Snape to return, as if he thinks that he
> deserves to be punished, and yet lie when Snape asks him where he
> learned such a Dark spell? What do you think would have happened if
> Harry had told the truth? 

Magpie:
Harry's feeling deserved to be punished is surprisingly shortlived. 
But in general I think he correctly realized there was no point in 
hiding from Snape. He's done something serious and better just stay 
there to see what's next.

Carol: 
> 10. Harry uses, or tries to use, three of the HBP's spells in this
> chapter (Muffliato, Levicorpus, and Sectumsempra), and he hides his
> book rather than risk having it confiscated. Afterwards, he defends
> the Prince against Hermione's accusations. What does this behavior
> tell us about Harry and about his relationship with the boy he 
knows
> only as the Half-Blood Prince?

Magpie:
There's been a lot of responses about Harry being a loyal friend to 
the Prince here, but I have a hard time seeing this as Harry 
sticking by a friend.  I think it's more about projection and 
justifying himself. Yes, Harry does tend to view people as allies or 
foes and he's quick to defend the former and always accuse the 
latter so I think there's a little of that.  He has kind of 
fantasized about the Prince being someone who has some reason to 
care about him or would like him personally instead of what he 
really is--a kid taking notes for himself that Harry happened to 
read.  

But I can't get away from the fact that in defending the Prince 
Harry is also defending his own interest in the Prince, which has 
always been part of Harry's relationship with him, because from the 
beginning Harry's use of the book has been connected with 
wrongdoing. He's taken credit for brilliance that wasn't his own, 
given himself an unfair advantage over the rest of the class and 
also jealously guarded that advantage. For instance, when Harry 
tells Ron that the bezoar trick wouldn't have worked for both of 
them he's probably correct, but he's also assuming an every man for 
himself attitude, and he's usually got some reason why he needs to 
be the best in the class any way possible.  He doesn't want to 
believe that he himself is tempted by any thing too bad, especially 
Dark Magic, so the Prince must also be a good guy who didn't mean to 
give Harry the violent spell he got.  (I think Harry imagines a sort 
of recipricol relationship there--he defends the Prince and 
naturally assumes the Prince would defend him.) I think defending 
the Prince is bound up with avoiding any troubling soul-searching on 
his own part. 

Carol:> 
> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been 
expelled.
> Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" yet punish
> Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he so much as
> threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are the 
Saturday
> detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by tormenting him 
with
> his father's indiscretions or does this tactic disguise Snape's 
real
> purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every Saturday until the 
end
> of term?

Magpie:
Good question.  He may be trying to keep an eye on Harry to avoid 
any other mishaps like this one.  I wonder if it's just significant 
that both Harry and Snape are happy to avoid what is presumably the 
real bad part of this whole thing--the use of incredibly Dark and 
violent magic for whatever reason. Both of them are distracted by 
their usual issues with each other--Harry is a cheat stealing 
Snape's work and coasting, Snape is unfair etc. So from the first 
when Snape asks Harry if he deserves punishment he emphatically says 
no, because he doesn't think of himself as a cheat. People seem to 
often remember Harry as being all too willing to be in detention 
this time because he knows he did wrong, but I don't think his 
reaction to this detention is much different than other ones.

Carol: 
> 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he 
undergoes
> his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned 
it.
> What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten 
his
> own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make 
this
> detention (and its sequels) more effective?

Magpie:
This is one of the more fascinating things in the book for me, one I 
hope is a set-up for book 7.  Harry still has twinges of remorse 
when the incident is brought up directly, but for the most part the 
whole thing goes away by the end of the chapter and Harry's back to 
his more usual complaints.  Pansy Parkinson's annoying him by 
villifying him with no specific focus on what she's saying and how 
accurate it is or isn't. The Slytherins are throwing generic taunts 
with no description of their content. The Gryffindors are angry that 
he can't play.  Most significantly Malfoy himself practically ceases 
to exist. I don't think he's mentioned again before he bursts 
through the Tower door, except by Ron, once, causing a twinge of 
guilt. There's nothing apparently notable about the next time they 
see each other in class. Malfoy himself isn't connected to any of 
Harry's irritations. We're told Pansy visited him in the hospital 
wing, but rather than being told that Malfoy gave her a biased story 
that she spread, he's a passive participant: she visited him, she 
villified Harry afterwards.  

Personally, I felt like Harry was frantically disconnecting from the 
incident. I know sometimes there's this kind of disconnect perhaps 
because JKR sticks to an outline (like when Harry spends all night 
thinking about Draco and all morning trying to get into the RoR 
where Draco is, then runs to a class he shares with Draco without 
any mention of Draco being there or not as Harry moves on to other 
plot concerns), but it's hard to believe she wrote a scene as 
gruesome as Sectumsempra as only a plot device and then thought she 
could hustle the person we last saw ex-sanguinating back to the prop 
closet that quickly.

Carol:
> 
> 13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the
> dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions,
> now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another 
floor?

Magpie:
It just wouldn't be detention with Snape if they weren't in a 
dungeon!

Carol: 
> 14. The chapter begins with Lavender breaking up with Ron, closely
> followed by Ginny breaking up with Dean, and ends with Harry
> celebrating Gryffindor's victory (achieved without him) by finally
> kissing Ginny. What do you think JKR is trying to convey by framing
> the chapter in this way? Does the ending feel appropriate or
> inappropriate in a chapter about Sectumsempra? (And what's up with
> that "hard, blazing look"?)

Magpie:
Well, Harry's on to everything working out really well after that 
unfortunate incident earlier. Is the author just wrapping up the 
plot threads?  Hard to say--Harry does tend to avoid ever really 
thinking about his own actions. Whenever he does something that 
leads to serious consequences he tends to either push the blame to 
someone else, justify himself completely or just move on as the 
universe rights itself again. Despite earlier complications 
Harry "wins" again--Gryffindor gets the Quidditch cup, and even 
though he didn't play as captain its his victory, his getting banned 
wasn't a problem because Ginny backs him completely (she also 
defends his use of Sectumsempra). Plus he wins the girl. After a 
description of their sunny day kiss he looks over her head ans 
surveys the defeated: Ron looks shock but accepts, Romilda is 
disappointed and Dean's so upset he breaks a glass iirc.  

And I think the hard blazing look is what JKR thinks is attractive 
about Ginny, but as usual it makes me want to run the other way. 

-m





From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov  8 16:13:37 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:13:37 -0000
Subject: Abused!Petunia (was:Re: So what if...)
In-Reply-To: <eisk2l+nvne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisvnh+dqkj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161246

 
>  NJ:
> >   Yes, Yes, Yes! Vernon's family is a whole gang of bullies. 
Right
> down to sweet Dudders. The fact that he backs down when Petunia 
puts 
> her foot down just shows his insecurity and the inconsistancy of 
the 
> bullying attitude. He was probably pushed around by a parent and 
his 
> sister and he is now passing it on to his family. When anyone 
stands 
> up to him he is shocked and doesn't know how to deal with the 
> confrontation and therefore backs down. Harry has had the self 
> confidence to do this for a long time even without the threat of 
> magic. You have to see this kind of behavior run through a family 
to 
> believe it.
> Hmmm...maybe Vernon is the repressed wizard - LOL.

Magpie:
It seems like you're assuming a lot without actual canon backup.  
Yes, Vernon seems to come from a family of bullies and is one 
himself.  But since he doesn't bully Petunia to begin with it's not 
inconsistent when he backs down to her. The idea that he dominates 
her all the time and then when she stands up to him is confused and 
gives in is not the pattern I see in canon, it's the theory you're 
trying to prove. There are actually scenes in canon where Vernon is 
not only stood up to but is faced with a bigger person laying down 
the law, and he doesn't crumple in response.  

Harry does indeed stand up to him early on--which I think calls into 
question you're theory that he is quite as abusive and controlling 
as you describe.  Especially with Petunia, which is the subject of 
the thread. You said:

NJ: I understand what you are saying but he can be seen both ways. I
have seen many abusive husbands/parents who will still shelter their
family from others. Those who are psychologically abusive are not
aware of it and many are disgusted by physical violence. Also, he
would see his wife and son as too weak to defend themselves so he
must do it. There can be more to that blustering guy behind closed
doors.

Magpie:
It seems like this understanding owes more to real life examples of 
abuse than the author's words.  There is no "behind closed doors" 
with Vernon--he's only the guy on the page, and on the page Petunia 
is not always giving in to him, nor is she particularly cowed by him 
that I see.  We are in Vernon's head for the first chapter of PS and 
he seems to be doing more than shielding Petunia from others while 
abusing her himself. She's just as rejecting of her sister's family 
as Vernon is, so I see no reason to think that she's secretly 
wanting to argue with Marge and doesn't because Vernon is there.  
Seems to me Petunia would be all too happy to spend time with a 
woman who ranted on about what awful people they were.

-m








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 16:12:29 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:12:29 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eisdas+g6fr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eisvld+dt6f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161247


Carol earlier:
> > 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody 
> > murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone
know the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of
the countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape?
> 
> Finwitch:
> 
> Snape had been tailing Draco so naturally it was he to show up. As
for why none other didn't come -- they didn't hear Myrtle. There's a
> reason why Draco chose Myrtle's toilet to cry in: he didn't wish to
be heard in the act. As for the countercurse -- well, I would be
> surprised if Dumbledore didn't know it, and spposedly Madam Pomfrey
> did as well. We have evidence that Snape created SectumSempra, not
> that he created the countercurse. For all we know, it was
*Dumbledore* to create that one, so that doesn't say anything about Snape.

Carol again:
Actually, it was a sixth-floor boys' "bathroom" (restroom), not
Moaning Myrtle's "toilet," so there's no reason why no one else would
hear Moaning Myrtle unless only Snape was around, specifically
following either Draco or Harry (I think Draco at this point).
Possibly everyone else is at dinner and that's why the others didn't
hear him. Snape would have noticed Draco's absence.

Also, since Snape invented the curse, wouldn't he have had to invent
the countercurse as well, or else discover an old healing spell that
would work to heal the cuts? What makes you think that Madam Pomfrey
would know the countercurse? Snape healed Draco himself, just as he
stopped the curses on Katie Bell and Dumbledore. DD later tells Harry
that Snape knows much more about Dark magic than Madam Pomfrey, and
Sectumsempra is his own invention, not a curse he'd be likely to tell
her about. As for Dumbledore inventing it, if he could do that, why
did he need Snape's help to be (partially) cured of the curse on the
Ring Horcrux? And I can't imagine Snape going to Dumbledore and
saying, "I've invented this terrible curse called Sectumsempra and I
can't come up with a countercurse. Can you help me?"

I think we're supposed to be astounded by Snape's inventiveness as a
Healer as well as creator of this Dark spell and by this new side of
him. Certainly he has memorized this complex spell and immediately
applies it, not once but three times, to great effect. He keeps his
head in a crisis, in contrast to Slughorn, who is flustered and
completely forgets about bezoars when Ron is poisoned.
 
Carol earlier:
> > 8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the 
> > scene rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the
hospital wing to be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us
about Snape and/or Draco?
> 
Finwitch:
> What? That Snape knew the countercurse, of course. It tells of
Snape's knowledge in the area - due to the vow, this tells nothing
more about Snape.

Carol again:
I was referring to dittany here, not the countercurse. The vow could
account for Snape's quick action in saving Draco's life, but it
doesn't account for his healing abilities. It could explain why he
used the countercurse, but it doesn't explain how he knew it (see
above), nor does it preclude his also genuinely caring about Draco.
And it doesn't explain the dittany at all. Snape was not compelled by
the vow to keep Draco from being scarred. If he hadn't known about
dittany, he would still have saved Draco's life and the vow would be kept.

With regard to the dittany, I think, first, that Snape was calming
Draco, reassuring him that the spell wouldn't leave scars if he took
dittany, but also making sure that he got to the hospital wing, away
from Harry, so the situation wouldn't escalate. The reference to
dittany also shows that Snape knows his herblore, another branch of
healing. And it shows that he knows Draco, who would be concerned
about his appearance (unlike Bill Weasley later in the book). So,
however insensitive Snape may be to Harry's psychological needs, he
seems to understand Draco's. But Snape is also trusting Harry to
remain where he is, possibly hoping that the wet and bloody restroom,
with its broken lavatories, will help to make the lesson soak in--ten
minutes alone to think about what he's done and the consequences of
using unknown spells labeled "for enemies."

Carol, who thinks that the scene does tell a good deal about Snape,
most of it lost on Harry







From snowman.birthday at gmail.com  Wed Nov  8 16:07:39 2006
From: snowman.birthday at gmail.com (Jodi in VA)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:07:39 -0500
Subject: House Elves / apparating / Sirius
In-Reply-To: <1162940246.3265.34613.m30@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1162940246.3265.34613.m30@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <3216FF7D-1098-4B57-A691-7B98558A9F4D@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161248

On Nov 7, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Jeremiah wrote:

> Jeremiah:
>
> That is exactly what I was thinking. Though (to be kinda picky) I  
> don't think that having doors on the Shrieking Shack would make it  
> easier or more difficult to apparate into or out of.

Jodi in VA replies:

What I meant was he couldn't just "open the door and walk inside the  
Shrieking Shack" [because there is no door!] ... but he could  
apparate inside.  I hadn't really thought that there was a way to get  
inside it at all until I read that post earlier about house elves  
apparating when it occurred to me that you *can* get inside the  
Shrieking Shack from Hogsmeade - just apparate.

And for some reason it always bothered me that JKR had never  
explained in any of the books how exactly Sirius got into Hogwarts  
after he escaped Azkaban.  But she tells over and over how he's in  
Hogsmeade as a dog, etc.  So that makes sense - he uses the  
passageway between the Shrieking Shack and Hogwarts / Whomping Willow.

But apparating is my own answer to this mystery for my own peace of  
mind!!  Yay!!

-Jodi






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Wed Nov  8 15:38:55 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 08:38:55 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] where the romance?
References: <eis75n+9rdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <011e01c7034b$ffec8670$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161249

husenlatif said:
>I just wonder how the romance life of our heroes? If Harry will be with Cho 
>Chang in the next book? What about Hermione and Ron, I never
> imagine that these two person can be a couple, do you? Actually this
> romance has diminished in the 6th book, and maybe it will enroll to
> the 7th, remembering as Voldemort and his fellows become stronger that 
> make the struggle harder too. But we still need a romance, because Harry 
> will be 17 in the 7th book, right?


I think the romance was very clear for Harry- Ginny is the right girl for 
him, but until he finishes off Voldemort, it's not the right time for a 
relationship. I fully expect Rowling to hook those two back up together once 
the "nasty deed" is done. It's not really the absence of romance, but more 
like a delaying of the fulfillment of it.

I really agree with your assessment of Ron and Hermione- I can't see them 
coupling. They fight too much.
Shelley








From hnjce at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 16:15:19 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 08:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] where the romance?
In-Reply-To: <eis75n+9rdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061108161519.59163.qmail@web35310.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161250



husenlatif :          I just wonder how the romance life of our heroes? If Harry will be with Cho Chang in the next book? What about Hermione and Ron, I never 
imagine that these two person can be a couple, do you? Actually this 
romance has diminished in the 6th book, and maybe it will enroll to 
the 7th, remembering as Voldemort and his fellows become stronger that make the struggle harder too. But we still need a romance, because Harry will be 17 in the 7th book, right?


  NJ: 
  Harry will stay true to Ginny. His 'romance' with Cho was just a crush. He learned early that it was not to be. Not surprising given the emphasis on House loyalty. It would be hard for two people in different Houses to maintain a strong friendship or any other type of relationship. This will be different for Neville and Luna. Luna does not seem to adhere to the strong House loyalty - and why should she the way those classmates treat her. Harry was meant to be with Ginny, you can see that in the relationship with the entire family. 
  The relationship between Ron and Hermione did not cool during HBP. It heated up - it is just that they are both too bone-headed to let each other know how they feel. She dated Krum to make Ron jealous, he dated Lavender to get back at her for 'snogging' Krum. I really thought Harry and Ginny's relationship would soften those two up or knock some sense into them - something (you would think near-death experiences would do it). 
  And each other's feelings for each other will come to play with Voldemort. It would be his style to try and force Harry to make a sacrifice. It is just a question of who will be at risk.
   
  NJ



         

 
---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

For just $24.99/mo., Vonage offers unlimited local and long- distance calling. Sign up now.

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





From kennclark at btinternet.com  Wed Nov  8 15:55:46 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 15:55:46 -0000
Subject: No Sympathy for Draco
Message-ID: <eisum2+4lrd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161251

Why so much sympathy for this heel?  Never mind the adolescent 
namecalling (Mudblood etc). Here is a guy who sends a deadly poison 
into the school with the intention of murdering someone, a guy who 
makes sure a girl gets a deadly necklace hoping that someone will touch 
it and get killed and who is willing to use unforgivable curses against 
other kids.  Oh, and he is trying to ensure murderous death eaters get 
into the school so they can wreak mayhem.

In any other UK at his age he would be held "At Her Majesties Pleasure" 
for a term not less that 25 years. In many places he would already be 
hanging from a rope or simmering gently in his chair.  He should be put 
down as soon as possible.

kenneth Clark






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Nov  8 16:25:02 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 08:25:02 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eisqi2+h4li@eGroups.com>
References: <eir6nu+mipa@eGroups.com> <eisqi2+h4li@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40611080825j4c982d1eqf46de427503daed4@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161252

> Zgirnius wrote:
> > >The songlike chant for a
> > > healing spell makes some sense because of the association of
> > > phoenixes with healing.
> >
> a_svirn countered:
> > I don't think so. The songlike quality was due to the fact that
> Snape *chanted* (that is intoned the incantation in certain rhythm)
> rather than pronounced it normally. Fawkes, on the other hand, sings
> without words.
> >
> Carol responded:
> But what I was wondering when I wrote the question is why the spell
> requires a chantlike countercurse rather than a single word or phrase
> (contrast Levicorpus/Liberacorpus).
> .... Perhaps Sectumsempra
> requires a stronger, more complex countercurse simply because it's a
> stronger, more complex spell than Levicorpus, not to mention Darker
> magic, but when have we seen anything resembling this chantlike spell
> in a language Harry doesn't understand (perhaps Latin, perhaps not)?
>
> Possibly, Snape discovered through experiments
> ... that no simple, one-word
> countercurse could undo the effects of Sectumsempra and searched the
> records for some ancient healing spell that could counter it, a spell
> that he alone of modern wizards has memorized. Or perhaps he sat down
> and invented that complex, chanted countercurse based on what ancient
> wizards had done to counter similar Dark spells. Wither way, the spell
> is unusually complex, it's songlike, it's powerfully magical, and its
> magic is that of healing, not destruction.
>
> What does it tell us about Snape that he would invent or seek out such
> a spell? Snape seems almost motherly, but also very powerful, as he
> sings it.


Kemper now:

Addressing a_svrin, Fawkes heals physical woulds with tears. Though, I
can see how his song heals despairing spirits by inspiring courage and
hope.

I think Snape composed the song-like incantation to mend the rending
curse he contrived or conknifed (get it?).

I also believe, as I said in a thread about nightingales, that this
chant -- quick question before I go on, when is human sound not a
song?  when it's spoken, yelped, or moaned? -- this chant requires a
desire to heal, maybe even the passion to do so.  Much like the
unforgivables require the intent, and maybe even the pleasure, to
possess, hurt and kill.

Wonderful questions, Carol!

Kemper, who's late for work...



From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  8 16:48:51 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:48:51 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit1pj+f3v4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161253

> Carol:
> 
> 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
> murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone know
> the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the
> countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape? 

Eddie:
I think Snape showed up because he was keeping a close eye on Draco. 
I think only Snape could have saved Draco, because only Snape would
have instantly (emphasis on "instantly") recognized Sectumsempra.  The
songlike countercurse showed a highly unusual softer side of Snape. 
He was gentle and, if I may go out on a limb without starting any new
wild speculations, "loving" towards Draco.  Have we ever seen Snape in
this light?  Ever?


> Carol:
> 8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the scene
> rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the hospital wing to
> be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell us about Snape and/or
> Draco? 

Eddie:
I think it's a continuation of my previous point: a new view of Snape
that's attentive, healing, caring, etc.


> Carol:
> 14. [...] (And what's up with that "hard, blazing look"?)

Eddie:
Compare how different this look of Ginny's is from her ORIGINAL
reaction to seeing Harry: all aflutter, tongue-tied, little-girly. 
Ginny has come of age in a way that is impossible for Harry to resist,
despite his qualms about Ron's potential reaction.


Eddie





From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 16:36:40 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:36:40 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eiroce+u3md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit12o+jrdp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161254

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

> >
> 
> Neri:
> Here's my favorite combination: Voldy meant to turn Lily into a living
> Horcrux in GH. This is why he didn't AK her on the spot. The bonus
> here is that it also explains what was to be the Gryffindor Horcrux:
> since Voldy couldn't find a Gryffindor relic, he decided on a
> Gryffindor student instead. I also think the special vileness of
> making the mother a Horcrux by killing her son would appeal to 
Voldemort.
> 
>  

Well, that would seem to me to be rather arbitrary, to say the least.  
Why on earth would Voldy want Lily, specifically, to be a horcrux?  
What is there about her that would make her, specifically, attractive 
for that purpose?  Is it simply the sadism angle?  I suppose that would 
appeal to Voldy, but it would also reveal Voldy is incredibly stupid 
(which, I grant you, he has revealed himself to be repeatedly in his 
fondness of laughably ridiculous and convoluted plots when much simpler 
and more straightforward solutions were readily available).  This would 
take the cake, however, for being convoluted and ridiculous.  DD speaks 
of the dangers of a living Horcrux, even when that Horcrux is one's 
loyal pet.  Now Voldy is going to take one of his dread enemies, fill 
said enemy with murderous rage, and then "entrust" said person with a 
piece of his soul?  That strikes me as being an -- unwise -- course of 
action even for the ludicrously incompetent Dark Lord.


Lupinlore, who does acknowledge that as an adult in the Wizarding 
World, Voldy cannot be expected to be anything but an incompetent moron






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 16:46:18 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:46:18 -0000
Subject: where the romance?
In-Reply-To: <eis75n+9rdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit1kq+o1a1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161255

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "husenlatif" <husenlatif at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I just wonder how the romance life of our heroes? If Harry will be 
with Cho Chang in the next book? 

I doubt that.  Cho seems to have served her purpose.  All signs are 
toward H/G and the eventual realization of OBHWF.


What about Hermione and Ron, I never
> imagine that these two person can be a couple, do you?

I've seen worse couples.  And JKR seems to have all but flatly said 
that R/H is a reality so everyone should just get used to it.


 Actually this
> romance has diminished in the 6th book, and maybe it will enroll to
> the 7th, remembering as Voldemort and his fellows become stronger 
that make the struggle harder too. But we still need a romance, because 
Harry will be 17 in the 7th book, right?
> 

Oh, I suspect we will have it.  But JKR's talents for romance are not 
very impressive, so I wouldn't count  on much.  R/H and H/G seem to be 
the order of the day.  R/H particularly will probably unfold during the 
great (and time-wasting) horcrux hunt.  H/G will be more problematic, 
particularly if Harry (and Ron and Hermione) are not at Hogwarts.


Lupinlore






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 17:22:18 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:22:18 -0000
Subject: No Sympathy for Draco
In-Reply-To: <eisum2+4lrd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit3oa+o46q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161256

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Clark" <kennclark at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Why so much sympathy for this heel?  Never mind the adolescent 
> namecalling (Mudblood etc). Here is a guy who sends a deadly poison 
> into the school with the intention of murdering someone, a guy who 
> makes sure a girl gets a deadly necklace hoping that someone will 
touch 
> it and get killed and who is willing to use unforgivable curses 
against 
> other kids.  Oh, and he is trying to ensure murderous death eaters 
get 
> into the school so they can wreak mayhem.
> 
> In any other UK at his age he would be held "At Her Majesties 
Pleasure" 
> for a term not less that 25 years. In many places he would already 
be 
> hanging from a rope or simmering gently in his chair.  He should be 
put 
> down as soon as possible.


Alla:

Okay, just briefly  from someone who certainly has no sympathy for 
Draco and who used to hate little shmack just as much as I hate 
Snape, but who does not anymore. ( does not hate him I mean, I 
certainly do not like him either)

YES, to all that you said - Draco dear happily signed up for 
assasinating Headmaster of his school, without knowing at first that 
Voldemort is going to blackmail him, so as far as I am concerned he 
had a murderous intent in all its glory.

Not to mention him being a racist (IMO) and doing all that annoying 
staff during five books, etc.

BUT I guess I just hope that the lessons of HBP sink in to him, 
maybe? That murder is **not** a good thing, I suppose I first and 
foremost hope that Dumbledore did not die in vain, that he managed to 
make Draco think or something.

Oh, and of course I want to see redemption story, even though I do 
doubt that it would move me much at the moment.

JMO,

Alla





From dossett at lds.net  Wed Nov  8 17:20:04 2006
From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:20:04 -0000
Subject: How Did Voldy Reconstitute? was Re: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eiojop+tp5f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit3k4+5fk3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161257

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Mike snipped greatly:
>
> OK, Carol, Steve, Snow, et al, what did I miss?
> 
> Snow: (snipped unmercifully, because I only have one comment on her
last comment)
> 
> Voldemort may be able to direct what killing is to be 
> encased in which object. Harry's case would be slightly different 
> since Voldemort had no body just after his vile killing of Lily, 
> where the heck did that piece of soul go
 Of course that soul 
> fragment wouldn't be encased since there wasn't any spell 
> accompanying it so it wouldn't be a Horcrux, would it?
> 
> Snow 

now Pat:

I have felt that the reason Voldy's soul didn't "go anywhere" after
the failed AK was because he *did* have horcruxes.  The piece of soul
that was left in his body after making the other horcruxes could not
leave and go beyond the veil because it was tied here by the other
parts of his soul.  

There are only two logical outcomes that I can think of.  Either the
piece of soul that used to reside in Voldy's body went into Harry's
scar at the time Voldy's body was killed, or the last soul piece was
just "out there," tied to earth and unable to go beyond the veil
because of the other horcruxes.  But neither of these outcomes
explains how Voldy "reconstituted" himself.  In other words, unless he
was able to "capture" the soul piece that was just "out there" to make
his new body at the end of GOF, how *did* he get a piece of soul in
the new body?

I'm not sure which outcome makes me more uncomfortable, I'm not really
in love with either of them.  Any other ideas would be helpful!

Thanks,
Pat





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 17:20:41 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:20:41 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eisdas+g6fr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit3l9+na1v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161258

> > Carol:
> > 7.Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone know 
> > the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature of the 
> > countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape?
 
> Finwitch:
> As for the countercurse -- well, I would be
> surprised if Dumbledore didn't know it, and spposedly Madam Pomfrey
> did as well. We have evidence that Snape created SectumSempra, not
> that he created the countercurse. For all we know, it was *Dumbledore*
> to create that one, so that doesn't say anything about Snape.

zgirnius:
I am not sure why you conclude that Madam Pomfrey 'supposedly' knew the 
healing incantation. I would have concluded from teh evidence in the 
books that she most likely does not. 

First, because Snape identifies Sectumsempra as Dark Magic, and we are 
told by Dumbledroe that Snape knows far more about the Dark Arts than 
she does. Dumbledore says that this is why Snape, and not Madam 
Pomfrey, is called on to heal Dumbledore and Katie Bell earlier in the 
book.

Second, because of the contrast Rowling explicitly makes in "The 
Phoenix Lament". Harry compares her helplessness in the face of Bill's 
ugly bite marks to the relative ease with which Snape closed Draco's 
wounds with his spell.







From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 17:26:53 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:26:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thoughts on the Veil
Message-ID: <20061108172653.95766.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161259

Fazkleto:

I think that there may possibly
be a connection between the Veil and the dementors,
and also between the Veil and the room that Harry & co
could not enter while at the Ministry of Magic. I've heard
it called 'The Room of Love' or something like that,
though I'm not certain if it is called that in canon.
Anyway, any thoughts on the function of the Veil?

Kelly:

Well its also a throwback to Paganism/ Wicca. We believe in the thinning of the veil that seperates this world from the next near Samhain. So the termonology she used makes me think of that. 
=================================

Jeremiah:

To further Kelly's post: when I was practicing Wicca the phrase that was used for Samhain (aka: Halloween) was "this is the night that the veil between the worlds is thinnest" meaning there is always a passage/portal between the realms of life and death and, like Dumbledore said, death is but the next adventure... to the well organized mind.

I think JKR is using the different rooms to "house" all the major aspects of living: Love, Time, Thoughts (those pesky brains) and Death. Then there are the prophesies and other things that cannot be readily explained. Death is such a strong event that using a veil to separate the realms of the living and the dead makes death not so scary but ever so definite. (this is my visceral reaction to the imagry JKR uses). And, I think it brought a tangible quality to a life event which a child Harry's age would not fully comprehend. He faces death for the first time in a way he can understand it (I say this to exclude his parent's death since he was too little to recall the entire even or the emotional context of it).

Like death, it's a one-way ticket. But I wonder about the effect on the soul that passes through? Since they do not die in the conventional way is there something that differs with them when they pass or am I being too inquisative?

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




From BrwNeil at aol.com  Wed Nov  8 17:48:02 2006
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:48:02 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: where the romance?
Message-ID: <c2f.7d3bf71.32837252@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161260

 
 
In a message dated 11/8/2006 12:24:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rdoliver30 at yahoo.com writes:

I  doubt that. Cho seems to have served her purpose. All signs are 
toward H/G  and the eventual realization of OBHWF.

What about Hermione and Ron, I  never
> imagine that these two person can be a couple, do  you?

I've seen worse couples. And JKR seems to have all but flatly said  
that R/H is a reality so everyone should just get used to  it.


Yes, I agree that all signs point to OBHWF and that is why I think that JKR  
is going to get the last laugh on all of us.  She has never discussed Harry  
and Ginny, that I know of, and she has never said that a relationship between  
Ron and Hermione would work out, only that they would date.
 
She loves to have Ron and Hermione bicker.  Maybe they are the comic  relief 
for book seven and will fight the entire book, finally admitting that  they 
should just be friends.  Ginny, on the other hand, doesn't seem to  like to be 
without a boyfriend.  What if she doesn't wait around for  Harry?
 
They are 17.  I think the best way for JKR to end the series is with  them to 
all be unattached and let the fans fight it out for decades to  come.
 
 
 

Neil



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




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Wed Nov  8 18:07:19 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:07:19 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] House Elves / apparating / Sirius
References: <1162940246.3265.34613.m30@yahoogroups.com> <3216FF7D-1098-4B57-A691-7B98558A9F4D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <020301c70361$2b927cc0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161261





  Jodi wrote:

  And for some reason it always bothered me that JKR had never 
  explained in any of the books how exactly Sirius got into Hogwarts 
  after he escaped Azkaban. But she tells over and over how he's in 
  Hogsmeade as a dog, etc. So that makes sense - he uses the 
  passageway between the Shrieking Shack and Hogwarts / Whomping Willow.

  But apparating is my own answer to this mystery for my own peace of 
  mind!! Yay!!



  Lana writes:


  Of course he could have just trotted up to the castle from Hogsmeade and slipped in the front door when one of the kids was passing thru..

  Lana
  . 
   

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




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  8 18:12:17 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:12:17 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eisvld+dt6f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit6m1+9ldm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161262

Carol:
> I think we're supposed to be astounded by Snape's inventiveness as
> a Healer as well as creator of this Dark spell and by this new
> side of him. Certainly he has memorized this complex spell and
> immediatelyapplies it, not once but three times, to great effect.
> He keeps his head in a crisis, in contrast to Slughorn, who is
> flustered and completely forgets about bezoars when Ron is 
> poisoned.

Jen: And yet since most of us knew by that point Snape was the HBP, 
we're also reminded he created the "Dark Magic" Sectumsempra to 
begin with.  It's impossible for me to see only the Healer in this 
scene and not the destructive person who would invent such a curse.  
I didn't have time to elaborate earlier, but the reason I think the 
healing spell symbolizes repentance is because Snape is both the 
cause of destruction and the means for healing the wounds he helps 
create.  Snape did not make Harry cast that spell, no, it's the 
larger issue of the kind of person who would invent that spell to 
begin with, that's a crucial piece of information in HBP.  And this 
scene is a pivotal one:  A combination of the boy Snape was and the 
man he has become.  Harry only sees one side of Snape, the darkness, 
and likely his point of view will be put to the test in the last 
book.  I find it impossible to see only positive attributes about 
Snape in this scene, though.






From hnjce at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 17:53:48 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:53:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Harry's family
Message-ID: <20061108175348.27603.qmail@web35304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161263

Still thinking of Lily's family:
   
  http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/puzzles2.html#Harrys_family
   
  I just read this. It was that it has been stated 'that Petunia was Harry's only living relative and the only living person having a blood relationship to his mother who could act as his guardian'.
  What I picked up on is the wording that she was the only living blood relation to Lily who COULD act as guardian. So that indicates to me that there was someone out there who was less able or less desirable to do the job. This could be anyone who has already been discussed from Voldemort himself, to Dumbledore who already had many responsibilties, to the financially stressed Weasleys.
  Any more thoughts here?
   
  NJ

 




From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov  8 18:11:48 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:11:48 -0000
Subject: No Sympathy for Draco
In-Reply-To: <eisum2+4lrd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit6l4+qhoq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161264

Kenneth:
> Why so much sympathy for this heel?  Never mind the adolescent 
> namecalling (Mudblood etc). Here is a guy who sends a deadly 
poison 
> into the school with the intention of murdering someone, a guy who 
> makes sure a girl gets a deadly necklace hoping that someone will 
touch 
> it and get killed and who is willing to use unforgivable curses 
against 
> other kids.  Oh, and he is trying to ensure murderous death eaters 
get 
> into the school so they can wreak mayhem.
> 
> In any other UK at his age he would be held "At Her Majesties 
Pleasure" 
> for a term not less that 25 years. In many places he would already 
be 
> hanging from a rope or simmering gently in his chair.  He should 
be put 
> down as soon as possible.

Magpie:
I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for.  I mean, I 
think we all know what happened in the book. You either feel sorry 
for the character or you don't.  Personally, while I found Draco's 
story compelling I can't say that the main thing I felt was 
sympathy. I did feel some, I think, but I felt more hope than 
sympathy--I think I may have felt more sympathy for him in earlier 
books. Maybe to me sympathy feels like something you'd give to a 
character that's just being destroyed with no hope--like Harry at 
the end describes what he feels for Draco as a drop of "pity" but I 
felt that less, I guess because I felt like throughout HBP Draco was 
becoming a stronger character and a stronger Malfoy is less pitiful 
and so less repulsive. There was something different to root for 
with him.

So I think JKR came up with a great story for the character which I 
don't think depends on feeling sympathy but feeling empathy, which 
is sometimes more important, and also seeing the potential for 
change. I think the book tries to make clear that Dumbledore thinks 
he's worth not putting down as soon as possible. In fact, another 
minor factor of his story in HBP is Harry in small ways running into 
the fact that other people find value in the character.

So I guess my main response to this is just to say: because without 
sympathy there's no story there.  Draco's starting out the way he 
does, then facing some hard truths about his true character and the 
true character of the people he's joining, is I think something 
that's going to ultimately be good for the good side--and for 
himself.  Dumbledore sees good reason to prefer rehabilitation and 
change in a person rather than just getting rid of people who don't 
start out as assets (he may have found his best man that way already 
in Snape).  DEs may see this as Dumbledore being soft or wanting to 
see good in people, but I think Dumbledore's clearly smarter than 
that.  If Malfoy changes sides, due to the events of HBP I think the 
good side would be getting a better Malfoy than the one who was a 
DE.  Getting rid of Draco at this point seems to me like throwing 
away something that could be an advantage, however small (and since 
this is a YA series it wouldn't be so small it's meaningless). From 
Harry's pov, there's no development in Harry just judging him and 
having him go away.

-m





From hnjce at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 17:10:44 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 09:10:44 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eisv3o+tiso@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061108171044.11726.qmail@web35302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161265


sistermagpie <belviso at attglobal.net> wrote: 

> 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he 
undergoes
> his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned 
it.
> What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten 
his
> own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make 
this
> detention (and its sequels) more effective?

  NJ:
  I wonder about this consequence. I know Snape revels in any opportunity to torment Harry but was there another reason for this tour of James' transgressions. Could there have been an incident that Harry could have learned from if he wasn't so focused on being so angry at Snape? Something that would help him later? Though she didn't go into detail about those wrondoings (except when they enlarged some poor kid's head). 
   
  NJ





From caaf at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  8 18:16:55 2006
From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:46:55 +0530
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
Message-ID: <BAY124-DAV18EF8B907193BB0285BAE6CAF10@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 161266

Cyril here...

<Big snip>

> Neri:
> Hmmm. actually, it does work in your version. Lets see if I 
understand it. What you say is that a soul bit would naturally be 
attracted to humans. That it actually takes a special effort to make 
a *non-living* Horcrux, including clearing the area first of 
interferring humans? So, if anything goes wrong with the encasing 
spell, and there's an avilable human around, the default result 
would be a living Horcrux? I don't know any special canon for this, 
but it's certainly possible.
> 

Dung:
Yep, that's what I mean. Inanimate objects are not naturally capable 
of holding an immaterial immortal soul, but people (at least within 
the Potterverse) are. And, no, there's no canon!

Cyril here:

True, it is difficult to find canon to support this, but all the more leeway to speculate <g>

However, this makes a lot of sense in the way that, normally, when somebody would be doing murder, the act itself is what causes the soul to tear. However, the torn soul bit does not itself detach from the body, and needs a spell to do that. Furthermore some magic is used to create the Horcrux which then contains the split off piece of soul.

So, a reason for the torn soul bit not to split is the affinity to the host body in which it already is residing. No need to search for another one. But in this case, the split piece no longer had a host body, and so it could have gone to look for one, and hence found Harry readily available.

This would not require any ability to clear the area for humans (or any other living creatures) to make a non-living Horcrux, as the process to remove the torn piece and direct it into an object could be a continuous process, without giving the soul bit opportunity to choose nearby humans (else the human from which it originally was torn out would presumably be the closest living thing and it would always be coming back there only.

> > bboyminn:
> > <snipped>
> > Then Voldemort will turn on Harry, but instead of
> > killing Harry he will truly kill himself. He will destroy 
> > (or release) the last remaining soul-bit, the spell will 
> > rebound on a fully mortal Voldemort, and that will be the
> > end. 
> 
Dung:
Why didn't Voldy kill off the bit of Voldysoul when he tried to AK 
baby Harry in GH? Or is that why you intriguingly refer to 'a yet to 
happen set of circumstances?'

Dungrollin

Cyril here - the reason that this would not have happened is because that soul bit was not yet in Harry. It only entered Harry after LV's soul was split from his body, which was after the AK.

Also, am not sure if this has been covered before, but the current speculation seems to be that the split piece that entered Harry's body was due to the murder of Lily. However, if that was the case, even James murder would have created a torn piece which was also equally available to enter Harry. Given what our limited knowlwdge about Horcruxes and the process of creating them, it is difficult to say that Lily's or James murder was the one that created the torn piece that entered Harry.

However, given Dungrollin's theory, I have a thought that the torn piece was due to the attempted murder of Harry. When LV cast the AK to kill Harry, it split his soul. The intent to kill which was actioned was enough to split the soul (even though techncally murder had not been committed). However, when the curse rebounded, the split piece was no longer staying with the main piece, because there was no body to which it had affinity, so it went in search for a new host, which was Harry. The main soul piece itself however seemed to have escaped, and not gone looking for a host body. Not sure why, but that maybe because that was the main piece that still contained LV's sense of self, and hence was not looking for a host body, somewhat similar to what happens to a normal soul on death of the body.

Cyril, not originally liking the concept of Harry!Crux, but finding the possibility that Harry has a soul bit without being a Horcrux very interesting.

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




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 18:33:15 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:33:15 -0000
Subject: Thoughts on the Veil
In-Reply-To: <eis2c7+rl05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit7tb+d5lo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161267

--- "Fazkleto" <fazkleto at ...> wrote:
>
> Fazkleto writes:
> ... wondering what others think about the Veil that 
> Sirius fell through in OotP. I believe that it has some
> sort of function as a portal between the realms of the
> living and that of the dead, .... I think that there 
> may possibly be a connection between the Veil and the 
> dementors, and also between the Veil and ... 'The Room
> of Love' ... though I'm not certain if it is called 
> that in canon.
> Anyway, any thoughts on the function of the Veil?
> 
> Cheers, Fazkleto
>

bboyminn:

I always say, don't ask a question you aren't prepared to
hear the answer to (he says with a lighthearted smile).

Here is the short version of my infinitely complex and 
highly unlikely scenario of how the Veil will be 
significant to the resolution of the series.

Long as it is, this /is/ the short version.

"Re: Harry's fate - Best of Both-Details"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156063

I'll try and find a link to the long version, but that was
posted quite a while back and may take some searching.

Steve/bboyminn





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 18:45:06 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 18:45:06 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eip0ek+qtbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit8ji+jjtj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161268

> Mike now:
> Two things come out of this Lupin quote. First, memories reside in 
> the soul and, second, your sense of *self* comes from your soul. 
> Both of theses are important to the Diary Horcrux. <snip>

Carol responds:
If memories reside in the soul, how is it that Snape and Dumbledore
take them out of their minds (brains), with no soul piece involved?
You don't have to split your soul (by commiting murder) to remove a
memory, but you do have to split your soul to detach a piece of soul
to encase in a Horcrux. It's altogether a different sort of thing. Tom
Riddle could have placed a memory or memories of himself at sixteen in
the diary for 1943 months or even years before he made it into a
Horcrux encasing a soul bit. (The diary was already, as Dumbledore
said, valuable to Tom because it proved that he was the Heir of
Slytherin. and that proof was in his memories, not in the soul bit
that anchored his core soul to the earth.)

More canon evidence that memories are in the mind and not in the soul:
Legilimency and Occlumency--the "reading" and blocking of thoughts and
memories--both include the Latin root "mens," meaning "mind." Snape
expels memories from Harry's mind, not from his soul, with the
Legili*mens* spell, just as we see DD and Snape removing thoughts from
their minds (brains).

The Unspeakables study the mysteries of mind and thought by studying
the pickled brains in the DoM. (Those who are interested in the *soul*
no doubt study what's beyond the Veil in the Death Chamber.) We see
tentacles of thought or memory trailing from the brain that attacks
Ron: "[I]t soared toward Ron, spinning as it came, and what looked
like ribbons of moving images flew from it, unravelling like rolls of
film." A few sentences later, the narrator refers to these "ribbons"
as "tentacles of thought" (OoP Am. ed. 798).

Later, Madam Pomfrey says that "thoughts could leave deeper scarring
than almost anything else" (though she's Obliviated the memories
transferred to Ron's arms with Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction, the
potion equivalent of a Memory Charm).

Altogether, I'd say it's pretty clear that thoughts and memories
reside in the brain, not the soul, and the diary could have contained
Pensieve-style memories of Tom's fifth year (at least one of them
specifically dated) before it ever became a Horcrux. That the memories
date from 1943 in no way proves that the diary became a Horcrux at
that early date.

Carol, still sure that Tom could not create a Horcrux until some time
after he talked to Slughorn and that he did not go to Little Hangleton
with the intention of creating one







From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 18:51:45 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 10:51:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: No Sympathy for Draco
Message-ID: <20061108185146.9725.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161269

Kenneth:
> Why so much sympathy for this heel? Never mind the adolescent namecalling (Mudblood etc). Here is a guy who sends a deadly poison  into the school with the intention of murdering someone, a guy who  makes sure a girl gets a deadly necklace hoping that someone will touch  it and get killed and who is willing to use unforgivable curses against  other kids. Oh, and he is trying to ensure murderous death eaters get  into the school so they can wreak mayhem. 
> In any other UK at his age he would be held "At Her Majesties Pleasure"  for a term not less that 25 years. In many places he would already be  hanging from a rope or simmering gently in his chair. He should be put  down as soon as possible.

Magpie:
I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for. I mean, I 
think we all know what happened in the book. You either feel sorry 
for the character or you don't. Personally, while I found Draco's 
story compelling I can't say that the main thing I felt was 
sympathy. <snip>
So I think JKR came up with a great story for the character which I 
don't think depends on feeling sympathy but feeling empathy, which 
is sometimes more important [...] <sninp>
in response to this is just to say: because without 
sympathy there's no story there. Draco's starting out the way he 
does, then facing some hard truths about his true character and the 
true character of the people he's joining, is I think something 
that's going to ultimately be good for the good side--and for 
himself. <snip>

+===========+=============+

Jeremiah

The way I see it Draco's character is in a situation where he has been raised to believe the things Death Eaters (i.e. his Papa) have taught him. He has grow up thinking "mudblood" and the act of calling someone a mudblood is cool. He has been living a life where these subversive, hateful things (like Muggle-baiting and the events at the Quiddich World Cup) seem like fun and excitement.

Bt now he has joined Voldemort and the theoretical fun and games he enjoyed in his youth become far too real. He actually has to kill someone. He has to commit a crime that will fracture his sould fo eternity and end someonelse's life or have his family killed. On the train to Hogwarts in HBP he seems non-chalant and very easy-going about it all but as the task draws nearer we see a boy who is filled with self-doubt, panic and true fear. Horrifying fear for his life, his father's life and the safety of his mother. 

Draco's attempts are desperate (as Dumbledore pointed out) and even though he let Death Eater into Hogwarts (truely repugnant) but when held to his task he wavers and ultimately fails. He cannot do what was asked of him and all his balking and trash-talking leaves him an empty shell of ignorance and childish pompery.

That's why I would say, "Poor Draco." What will happen to his ideology? Will he change sides? will he finally kill someone and live up to the bigotry of his family? Or will he make choices that will not betray his family line but still save the Muggle-lovers of the world?

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




From dougsamu at golden.net  Wed Nov  8 19:06:28 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:06:28 -0500
Subject: How Did Voldy Reconstitute? was Re: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
Message-ID: <073134B1-0AAE-46D5-8BB2-89193BCAEEBF@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161270

Pat:

There are only two logical outcomes that I can think of. Either the
piece of soul that used to reside in Voldy's body went into Harry's
scar at the time Voldy's body was killed, or the last soul piece was
just "out there," tied to earth and unable to go beyond the veil
because of the other horcruxes. But neither of these outcomes
explains how Voldy "reconstituted" himself. In other words, unless he
was able to "capture" the soul piece that was just "out there" to make
his new body at the end of GOF, how *did* he get a piece of soul in
the new body?

Doug:

Pat, He is NOT different from the soul piece. Voldemort relates the  
story from a self-aware point of view. There was no 'soul' in the  
three part formula to reconstitute the Cauldron!Body. It was already  
in the self-aware UglyBabyMort.


No one, no one is here. We stand in the Atlantic. We become panoramic.
          __________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>__________




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov  8 19:05:25 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:05:25 -0000
Subject: Harry's remorse  (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24,)
In-Reply-To: <eisv3o+tiso@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eit9pl+ka0c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161271

Magpie:
> Well, Harry's on to everything working out really well after that 
> unfortunate incident earlier. Is the author just wrapping up the 
> plot threads?  Hard to say--Harry does tend to avoid ever really 
> thinking about his own actions. Whenever he does something that 
> leads to serious consequences he tends to either push the blame to 
> someone else, justify himself completely or just move on as the 
> universe rights itself again. 

Jen: I'm not sure that makes Harry different from a fair percentage 
of teenage boys who prefer action or avoidance to introspection.  
JKR does a good job of showing how teenage male relationships *can* 
turn volatile with the right provocation, not only in the 
relationship between Harry and Draco but with Snape and the 
Maruaders as well.  I doubt Draco was sitting around worrying about 
the bathroom incident, either. Life moves on and they both moved 
with it. 

Plus, I think avoidance IS a sign of remorse for Harry.  He isn't 
going to dwell on his guilt like he did with Sirius' death, but the 
fact that he wants to put it from his mind indicates he's not 
comfortable with what happened.  We saw that pattern already with 
him once he moved past dwelling on Sirius' death and decided he 
didn't want to think or talk about it.  Things do bother him.  Also, 
Draco and Harry aren't so different, Draco isn't expecting an 
apology because it's not something he would do or expect. 

Magpie:
> Despite earlier complications Harry "wins" again--Gryffindor gets
> the Quidditch cup, and even though he didn't play as captain its
> his victory, his getting banned wasn't a problem because Ginny
> backs him completely (she also defends his use of Sectumsempra).
> Plus he wins the girl. After a description of their sunny day kiss
> he looks over her head ans surveys the defeated: Ron looks shock 
> but accepts, Romilda is disappointed and Dean's so upset he breaks
> a glass iirc.  

Jen: But he's the hero!!  He's supposed to get the girl and win the 
Quidditch match. :) He also gets most of the crap jobs, like facing 
Quirrellmort, slaying the Basilisk, force feeding a horrible potion 
to his mentor, and being the only one who can defeat a psychopathic 
killer.  Harry has to have *something* good happen every once in 
awhile. 

Although my son (8) is home today and out of curiousity I asked him 
what he thought about those good things happening so soon after the 
incident in the bathroom.  He said: "No...that wasn't right.  They 
should have at least tied the game." Heh. So, you may turn out to 
have more support than I will on whether this was the best ending 
for the chapter.

Jen R., who pretty much agreed on the Ginny issue and didn't care 
for her much in HBP.





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 19:25:42 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 19:25:42 -0000
Subject: Snape's chanting was: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <700201d40611080825j4c982d1eqf46de427503daed4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eitavm+7s8v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161272

Potioncat:
Wait a minute...are we agreeing or disagreeing ;-) <snip-snip>

a_svirn:
I agree that the song-like quality is important, but I disagree that 
it's anything like Phoenix's song. For Snape, and I guess for any 
other human magus, language is as essential for magic as it is 
essential for cognition. His "song" is first and foremost an 
*incantation*, albeit performed in a somewhat musical fashion. 
Fawkes's song is pure music, because the nature of his magic is 
different. 

Carol:
But what I was wondering when I wrote the question is why the spell
requires a chantlike countercurse rather than a single word or phrase
(contrast Levicorpus/Liberacorpus). <snip>

a_svirn:
Mostly I think that the curse is so nasty and so dangerous that it 
requires some arcane knowledge to counteract it. Like some ancient 
language, for instance. It does seem that particularly gruesome dark 
curses and potions are ancient rather than recent. Also the "blood 
magic" is ancient, and sectumsempra causes a severe blood loss. 

Carol, who was reminded of Gregorian chant when she read the
description of the countercurse

a_svirn:
I am more reminded of some indigenous healing practices or rituals. 
Although there is of course a certain kinship to any ritual chant, 
Georgian included. 

Kemper now:

Addressing a_svrin, Fawkes heals physical woulds with tears. Though, 
I
can see how his song heals despairing spirits by inspiring courage 
and
hope.

a_svirn:
Well, he does of course, but since he invariably produces tears 
*after* completing the song I'd say it is important, if not crucial 
part of the treatment. 

Kemper:
I think Snape composed the song-like incantation to mend the rending
curse he contrived or conknifed (get it?).

a_svirn:
Eh.. no, sorry. 






From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Nov  8 19:45:16 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:45:16 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: where the romance?
In-Reply-To: <c2f.7d3bf71.32837252@aol.com>
References: <c2f.7d3bf71.32837252@aol.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611081145p24db65e3xee253a0a484b81f3@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161273

husenlatif:
 just wonder how the romance life of our heroes? If Harry will be with Cho
Chang in the next book? What about Hermione and Ron, I never
imagine that these two person can be a couple, do you? Actually this
romance has diminished in the 6th book, and maybe it will enroll to
the 7th, remembering as Voldemort and his fellows become stronger that make
the struggle harder too. But we still need a romance, because Harry will be
17 in the 7th book, right?

Lynda:

Well, this series is not primarily romantic in nature. And, these are kids,
with hopefully long lives ahead of them (despite the fact that due to the
fact that the primary nature of the books is not romance key people keep
dying. It would be nice to see them coupled off, but its not necessary. Not
every 17 year old in real life has a boy/girlfriend after all and if fewer
felt that "have to" have a boy or girlfriend at such a young age, a lot of
heartache might be nonexistent.

Lynda


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




From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Wed Nov  8 20:04:28 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:04:28 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eit3l9+na1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitd8c+7tt8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161274

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" <zgirnius at ...> wrote:
<snip>
> zgirnius:
> I am not sure why you conclude that Madam Pomfrey 'supposedly' knew the 
> healing incantation. I would have concluded from teh evidence in the 
> books that she most likely does not. 
> 
> First, because Snape identifies Sectumsempra as Dark Magic, and we are 
> told by Dumbledroe that Snape knows far more about the Dark Arts than 
> she does. Dumbledore says that this is why Snape, and not Madam 
> Pomfrey, is called on to heal Dumbledore and Katie Bell earlier in the 
> book.
> 
<snip>

Quick_Silver:
Wouldn't someone other then Snape have to know the healing
counter-curse for Sectumsempra though? Snape used Sectumsempra on
James but James isn't described as having any scars on his face (going
from vague memory here). So I'd say that a Marauder could probably
have healed Draco as well (which actually would make sense since James
knew Levicorpus).

Quick_Silver 





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  8 20:36:19 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:36:19 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <6216949.1162988066632.JavaMail.root@web19>
Message-ID: <eitf43+ahek@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161275

> Marion, who still doesn't understand how y'all can keep so many
> details in your heads.

Eddie:

Marion -- or does everyone know you as Nancy?  :-) --
I don't keep this stuff in my head.  I re-read the books, Google,
Wikipedia, HP-Lexicon, and Search HP4GU to refresh my memory. Also, a
year or so ago I found some illicit PDF files with the complete text
of books 1-5, which makes it easier to search for stuff.  But I only
use them for my own use and not for resale and I've already bought at
least 2 copies of each of the books (American and British), so I think
JKRowling's attorneys won't come after me.

a.k.a. Eddie





From random832 at gmail.com  Wed Nov  8 20:59:48 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:59:48 -0500
Subject: Four elements, Four humours, Four personality types, Three houses?! WAS OFH!Lucius
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50611081259s13398a5y6a54bedbd57a31d0@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161276

Pippin:
[blah, four humours]

I went to the wikipedia article on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_humours, and there was a huge table
of personality aspects elements etc.

What surprised me was that none of the blood/air ones seemed to fit
with our perception of Ravenclaw, despite the other three being, if
not particularly well-suited, not particularly badly-suited either.

-- 
Random832



From hnjce at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 19:22:46 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 11:22:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups]Help for a newbie? was: where the romance?
In-Reply-To: <c2f.7d3bf71.32837252@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20061108192246.58985.qmail@web35302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161277

Neil:
Yes, I agree that all signs point to OBHWF and that is why I think that JKR is going to get the last laugh on all of us. She has never discussed Harry and Ginny, that I know of, and she has never said that a relationship between Ron and Hermione would work out, only that they would date.

She loves to have Ron and Hermione bicker. Maybe they are the comic relief for book seven and will fight the entire book, finally admitting that they should just be friends. Ginny, on the other hand, doesn't seem to like to be without a boyfriend. What if she doesn't wait around for Harry?


NJ:
  Actually, this is a question for anyone and I'm not even sure this is allowed but I need help figuring this out. I've figured out all the abbreviations so far but what is OBHWF? 
  Thanks in advance.
   
  NJ, who will be slapping her forehead after it is explained.




From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 20:07:20 2006
From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 20:07:20 -0000
Subject: Major concern and other topics
In-Reply-To: <08F13269-E329-4568-BC0D-4B5D7BF3EB67@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <eitddo+8qtn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161278

Katherine:
> I don't mean to direct this solely at you, Mitchell.  I'm sorry but > your post raised a bit of a red flag.  There are many new folks
> here, and you are all welcome, but as a long-time poster to this
> list who is not a list-elf in any way shape or form I would BEG all
> of you to please read the FAQ and do searches of the group when you
> have a question or concern like this.   Because the odds are that
> these very questions have been discussed.  Repeatedly.

Mitchell:
Hey Katherine...well as stated in my post I said I "may be wrong and this may have already been posted." I just couldnt find it.  So that's all...but thanks for the response...with SOOOOO many post on here its hard to go back a hundred pages to find a disscussion that was taking place probably in the middle of others...






From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  8 21:51:49 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:51:49 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eit6m1+9ldm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitjhl+tpl4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161280

> Jen: Snape did not make Harry cast that spell, no, it's the 
> larger issue of the kind of person who would invent that spell to 
> begin with, that's a crucial piece of information in HBP.  And this 
> scene is a pivotal one:  A combination of the boy Snape was and the 
> man he has become.

Eddie:
Harry should now have a new perspective of the temptations,
enticements, reasons that turn a good person (like his friend/hero,
the half-blood prince) into a man like Snape.  Perhaps this
could/should be the beginning of Harry's appreciation of Snape.

Eddie






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 21:53:34 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:53:34 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eitd8c+7tt8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitjku+cgr6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161281

Quick_Silver:
> Wouldn't someone other then Snape have to know the healing
> counter-curse for Sectumsempra though? Snape used Sectumsempra on
> James but James isn't described as having any scars on his face
(going from vague memory here). So I'd say that a Marauder could
probably have healed Draco as well (which actually would make sense
since James knew Levicorpus).

Carol responds:
We don't know that the nonverbal curse or hex that Teen!Severus used
in the Pensieve memory was Sectumsempra. I tend to think that it
wasn't since there's no indication that James was "cut always" (no
blood flowing profusely down his face, no suggestion that the cut
won't heal, and, as you say, no scar that we know of).

I think that the spell young Snape used was a preliminary version of
Sectumsempra, perhaps just "Sectum" ("cut"), and that Sectumsempra was
a Darker and more dangerous version developed "For Enemies" after the
so-called Prank (the trick Sirius Black played on Severus to lure him
into the Shrieking Shack the following schoolyear). 

Certainly, we don't see anyone performing a songlike countercurse on
James, nor do I think he needed one. It's unlikely that he even needed
to go to Madam Pomfrey unless, like Draco, he was vain enough to be
worried about scarring, in which case she might have given him dittany.

I very much doubt that Teen!Severus would have taught Madam Pomfrey
the countercurse to a spell that he wouldn't want her to know he had
invented. Nor would the Marauders know the complex countercurse, even
if they got hold of Severus's Potions book, because it wasn't written
in the margins of the book.

I actually think it's a Flint that James knows Levicourpus, a
nonverbal hex. But even if it isn't (say the Marauders found out about
it by eavesdropping on the Slytherins), there's no reason why they
would know about Sectumsempra and its countercurse, which I think
Severus would have kept very secret (and perhaps had not yet invented).

Carol, who thinks that Snape and only Snape knows the countercurse to
Sectumsempra





From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov  8 22:16:22 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:16:22 -0000
Subject: Harry's remorse  (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24,)/Help for a Newbie
In-Reply-To: <eit9pl+ka0c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitkvm+4tlu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161282

> Magpie:
> > Well, Harry's on to everything working out really well after 
that 
> > unfortunate incident earlier. Is the author just wrapping up the 
> > plot threads?  Hard to say--Harry does tend to avoid ever really 
> > thinking about his own actions. Whenever he does something that 
> > leads to serious consequences he tends to either push the blame 
to 
> > someone else, justify himself completely or just move on as the 
> > universe rights itself again. 
> 
> Jen: I'm not sure that makes Harry different from a fair 
percentage 
> of teenage boys who prefer action or avoidance to introspection.  
> JKR does a good job of showing how teenage male relationships 
*can* 
> turn volatile with the right provocation, not only in the 
> relationship between Harry and Draco but with Snape and the 
> Maruaders as well.  I doubt Draco was sitting around worrying 
about 
> the bathroom incident, either. Life moves on and they both moved 
> with it. 

Magpie:
I wasn't really talking about his being introspective.  Part of the 
point of the novels are Harry learning and growing.  One can learn 
from experience without becoming Hamlet, if you know what I mean. 
Draco is actually an interesting example in HBP, because in the past 
he's never been the poster child for learning from your mistakes 
either, but I think plenty of young readers noticed that this was 
something that made him seem dumb. His storyline in HBP required 
more thinking about his actions.  

Or just popping into my head--Ron in GoF gets angry at Harry etc., 
and after they make up the narrator notes that Ron seems like he's 
being extra loyal to Harry because he seems to still feel badly 
about his behavior.  It seems like Ron actually looked back on his 
behavior and it meant something to him.  Ron sometimes falls back 
into old patterns too-like when he's nervous about Quidditch again-
but I think that's when it's being shown as a specific problem for 
the character.  

It's not that Harry never learns anything, but I think he's got 
certain patterns that trip him up or aren't exactly honest.  It's 
not that he never thinks about stuff again, it's often that he 
thinks about it enough to feel only comfortably justified or 
victimized and avoid anything that he might have done that wasn't so 
good.  If he's indeed avoiding thinking about that sort of thing 
after Sectumsempra, which I wondered if he was, it's a good example. 
Why I'm not sure is that sometimes I'm not sure if I'm supposed to 
be noticing Harry's avoiding some conclusion or not.

Jen:
> 
> Plus, I think avoidance IS a sign of remorse for Harry.  He isn't 
> going to dwell on his guilt like he did with Sirius' death, but 
the 
> fact that he wants to put it from his mind indicates he's not 
> comfortable with what happened.  We saw that pattern already with 
> him once he moved past dwelling on Sirius' death and decided he 
> didn't want to think or talk about it.  Things do bother him.  
Also, 
> Draco and Harry aren't so different, Draco isn't expecting an 
> apology because it's not something he would do or expect. 

Magpie:
That was my point, that the total dropping of all things Draco in 
Harry's mind seemed like it should be a sign that Harry was doing 
that because he wasn't comfortable with it.  I'm hoping it will be 
dealt with later.  I don't think as now it works as Harry dealing 
with it this way, because he's too unaware of it.  If Harry's trying 
to avoid, he has to stop at some point.  To compare it to Snape, for 
instance, if Snape really is driven by guilt over killing Harry's 
parents as some have suggested (including Dumbledore maybe), I think 
we'll have to see it or see Snape admit/realize it.  
 
> Magpie:
> > Despite earlier complications Harry "wins" again--Gryffindor gets
> > the Quidditch cup, and even though he didn't play as captain its
> > his victory, his getting banned wasn't a problem because Ginny
> > backs him completely (she also defends his use of Sectumsempra).
> > Plus he wins the girl. After a description of their sunny day 
kiss
> > he looks over her head ans surveys the defeated: Ron looks shock 
> > but accepts, Romilda is disappointed and Dean's so upset he 
breaks
> > a glass iirc.  
> 
> Jen: But he's the hero!!  He's supposed to get the girl and win 
the 
> Quidditch match. :) He also gets most of the crap jobs, like 
facing 
> Quirrellmort, slaying the Basilisk, force feeding a horrible 
potion 
> to his mentor, and being the only one who can defeat a 
psychopathic 
> killer.  Harry has to have *something* good happen every once in 
> awhile. 

Magpie:
This is sort of TWT II: Harry should/shouldn't come in first in 
every event. Some people see a sort of exchange going on, that 
success in one area is made up by Harry's hard life in others.  To 
me it reads like two different things: Harry the hero who has heroic 
challenges, and a more ordinary school story where Harry sometimes 
avoids normal disappointments of life. I think this might have been 
brought up in discussions about the TWT, but at times it feels maybe 
artificial.

Jen:
> 
> Although my son (8) is home today and out of curiousity I asked 
him 
> what he thought about those good things happening so soon after 
the 
> incident in the bathroom.  He said: "No...that wasn't right.  They 
> should have at least tied the game." Heh. So, you may turn out to 
> have more support than I will on whether this was the best ending 
> for the chapter.

Magpie:
Heh. Your son is cool.:-)  I can't speak for how he feels, but to me 
what pulls me up in the scene is probably connected to my 
expectations of cause and effect getting disappointed but not in a 
good way.  Like, it's originally set up that way with Harry's 
actions leading to him having to miss the game--it's every day stuff 
that every kid has probably had to deal with and accepts.  When he 
wins anyway I think it's almost more of a surprise like huh...oh. 
It's anti-climactic. It almost doesn't feel like a win.  Of course, 
when I read OotP the first time I actually mistakenly thought that 
Gryffindor came in second when the year was over to show my 
expectations there.  And even so that's the book that sort of 
destroyed any illusions of suspense in Quidditch anyway.

Carol:
It's unlikely that he even needed to go to Madam Pomfrey unless, 
like Draco, he was vain enough to be worried about scarring, in 
which case she might have given him dittany.

Magpie:
Bordering-on-meaningless point, but Snape's bringing up dittany in 
the scene doesn't have to be a response to a specific vanity's of 
Draco in the scene.  It's not that I can't believe the character 
would be upset by a scars--there's plenty of instances of the 
character focusing on appearance, including his own. I'm just saying 
that Snape's bringing up the dittany didn't seem like it had to be 
that Draco-specific.  It's not in response to anything Draco's done 
or said.  The thing about scars is they are forever, and I can see 
Snape in that instance having his own reasons for wanting there to 
be no physical scars of his curse on Draco.  James was of course 
pretty vain himself, though a scar might not have been a threat to 
his vanity.  

So yeah, while I don't think vain!Draco is uncanonical, the line 
doesn't seem to be speaking to that in the scene to me.

NJ:
Actually, this is a question for anyone and I'm not even sure this 
is allowed but I need help figuring this out. I've figured out all 
the abbreviations so far but what is OBHWF?
Thanks in advance.

Magpie:
OBHWF=One Big Happy Weasley Family.  It refers to the double pairing 
of R/Hr and H/G, since Harry and Hermione both marry into the 
Weasley family.  I always spell it wrong--it's a hard acronym!

-m






From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 22:20:01 2006
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:20:01 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitl6h+q9gh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161283

<SNIP> Useful summary by Carol
> 1.  How in the world could Ron "make it snow"? What might be the
> significance, if any, of this particular piece of accidental magic?

Goddlefrood:

Could come in handy if Ron ever wanted to freeze someone or at least 
make them cold. A useful source of water perhaps, which would tend to 
suggest that this may have been an Aquaspumanti (or whatever) that 
went wrong.

> 4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among 
them to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis 
either to strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get into 
the Room of Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up to. What 
do these temptations reveal about Harry and about his ability to deal 
with temptation in general? Might they foreshadow a more serious 
temptation in Book 7?

Goddlefrood:

These certainly show that Harry is rather weak-willed and easily 
succumbs to try out new ideas and spells. This, of course, can be 
both a good and a bad thing in that he is not abashed to experiment 
while at the same time the same could lead to potentially bad 
situations. Look what happened to him after he actually tried 
Sectumsempra for instance.

It is a plausible scenario that Harry will be tempted, as he has been 
many times before, to try spells he is clearly not suited for. Here I 
am thinking of his attempted use of Crucio on more than one occasion. 
Perhaps he will get to the final confrontation and before figuring 
out how to prevail will attempt an Avada Kedavra thus giving 
Voldemort the nosebleed that would distract him from his purpose and 
lead to his downfall (just a thought).

> 6.  Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under 
these circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why or 
why not? 

Goddlefrood:

Harry had no idea of the effect of the spell and probably because of 
the rider "for enemies" he used it when he did. He had just had a 
Crucio directed at him after all and was in danger of further attack 
from a boy who had shown himself in the  past to be unaverse to using 
any tricks he can to gain an advantage in a duel (with or without 
prompting).

> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been 
expelled. Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" yet 
punish Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"? Why didn't he so 
much as threaten to expel Harry when he could have done so? Are the 
Saturday detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by tormenting 
him with his father's indiscretions or does this tactic disguise 
Snape's real purpose for keeping Harry in his custody every Saturday 
until the end of term?

Goddlefrood:

Perhps you forgot that Snape would not have a power of expulsion over 
Harry as he did not in CoS after the flying car incident. At that 
time it was either stated or strongly impled that only heads of house 
could expel pupils in their house.

There could also be an element of Snape protecting Harry in this as 
he certainly could have referred the matter to McGonagall and if 
indeed she knew all the facts it is a fair prospect that she would 
have been compelled to expel Harry. For this reason I do not believe 
Snape actually told the staff of the use of the Sectumsempra spell. 
This could also be for the reason that it was a little known spell 
and Snape wanted to keep it that way for potential future use by 
himself.

> 13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the
dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions,
now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another floor?

Goddlefrood:

Having actually gone to a school not entirely unlike Hogwarts I can 
tell you that once teachers move departments they rarely moved 
offices and I see little more in this than that. Just shows JKR has 
done her research.





From darksworld at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 22:29:33 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:29:33 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups]Help for a newbie? was: where the romance?
In-Reply-To: <20061108192246.58985.qmail@web35302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eitlod+2npi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161284

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Norma Jean Tran <hnjce at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Neil:
> Yes, I agree that all signs point to OBHWF and that is why I think 
that JKR is going to get the last laugh on all of us. She has never 
discussed Harry and Ginny, that I know of, and she has never said 
that a relationship between Ron and Hermione would work out, only 
that they would date.
> 
> She loves to have Ron and Hermione bicker. Maybe they are the comic 
relief for book seven and will fight the entire book, finally 
admitting that they should just be friends. Ginny, on the other hand, 
doesn't seem to like to be without a boyfriend. What if she doesn't 
wait around for Harry?
> 
Charles:
Actually, JKR has pretty much said that they are meant to be together 
in the Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview(available at accio quote-
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-
2.htm):

"ES: We thought it was clearer than ever that Harry and Ginny are an 
item and Ron and Hermione ? although we think you made it painfully 
obvious in the first five books ?

JKR: [points to herself and whispers] So do I!

ES: What was that?

JKR: [More loudly] Well so do I! So do I!

[All laugh; Melissa doubles over, hysterical, and may have died.]

ES: Harry/Hermione shippers - delusional!

JKR: Well no, I'm not going to - Emerson, I am not going to say 
they're delusional! They are still valued members of my readership! I 
am not going to use the word delusional. I am however, going to say ? 
now I am trusting both of you to do the spoiler thing when you write 
this up ?

[More laughter.]

JKR: I will say, that yes, I personally feel - well it's going to be 
clear once people have read book six. I mean, that's it. It's done, 
isn't it? We know. Yes, we do now know that it's Ron and Hermione. I 
do feel that I have dropped heavy -

[All crack up]

JKR: - hints. ANVIL-sized, actually, hints, prior to this point. I 
certainly think even if subtle clues hadn't been picked up by the end 
of "Azkaban," that by the time we hit Krum in Goblet...

But Ron ? I had a lot of fun with that in this book. I really enjoyed 
writing the Ron/Lavender business, and the reason that was enjoyable 
was Ron up to this point has been quite immature compared to the 
other two and he kind of needed to make himself worthy of Hermione. 
Now, that didn't mean necessarily physical experience but he had to 
grow up emotionally and now he's taken a big step up. Because he's 
had the meaningless physical experience - let's face it, his emotions 
were never deeply engaged with Lavender -

[Much laughter in which Melissa emits a "Won-Won"]

JKR: - and he's realized that that is ultimately not what he wants, 
which takes him a huge emotional step forward."

Between the books and JKR's statement there, we can safely say that 
Ron/Hermione is, period.

> 
> NJ:
>   Actually, this is a question for anyone and I'm not even sure 
this is allowed but I need help figuring this out. I've figured out 
all the abbreviations so far but what is OBHWF? 
>   Thanks in advance.

Charles:
It stands for One Big Happy Weasley Family. For future reference, 
most of the acronyms and abbreviations that get used here are in a 
database called Inish Alley that you can find under "Databases" to 
the left. It's spoken of in the HBF that all us newbies to the group 
get, but it is easy to miss in all that info.

Charles, who wants to see OBHWF at the end of book 7- well OBHWF-P. 
(OBHWF minus Percy, that is. As far as I'm concerned the power-hungry 
twit can rot)





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 22:26:27 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:26:27 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eioaa9+pesj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitlij+gbta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161285

> >>Carol:
> CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
> 24, Sectumsempra.
> <snip>
> Ginny tells her to give it a rest and reminds her that Draco was
> trying to use an Unforgiveable Curse. When the girls turn away from
> each other after a few more angry words, Harry feels oddly        
> cheerful.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Okay - you didn't ask about this, but I recall discussions about it 
in the past and since this is a fight between two girls I have a 
hard time choosing between (heh) I just had to throw in my two cents.

I liked that Ginny shut Hermione down, here.  Hermione was playing 
mother and doing her emotionally manipulative thing (like Hermione 
really cares about quidditch) so I was glad that someone actually 
called her on it.  Even if it had to be Ginny. <g>

> Discussion Questions: 
> 2. Lavender and Dean are both jilted in this chapter. What is your
> reaction, if any, to their jealousy and/or suffering? Which one do 
> you feel is more deserving of sympathy, and why?

Betsy Hp:
I agree with Ceridwen...

> >>Ceridwen:
> I think both are deserving of some limited sympathy. These were not
> true loves of their lives after all;
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
... However, Magpie reminded me of something fairly interesting.

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> ...Dean's so upset he breaks a glass iirc. 

Betsy Hp:
He does.  Actually, Dean is holding a "shattered glass in his 
hand".  Which suggests to me that Dean isn't too happy. One could 
even assume a certain level of anger.  My question is, why doesn't 
Harry care about that?  I'd always thought all of the Gryffindor 
boys of that year were friends for the most part.  Dean even 
supported Harry in GoF.  But apparently Harry is okay boggarting 
Dean's girl?  Doesn't that break some sort of guy code or something?
 
> 3.  Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be        
> disloyal to Ron and that he must choose between the two? What do   
> you think Ron's reaction would have been if Harry had leveled with 
> him?

Betsy Hp:
I agree with everyone.  Harry's being a big drama queen here and 
just creating difficulties for himself.  Ron is like the original 
H/G shipper.

> 4. Harry undergoes a number of temptations in this chapter, among 
> them to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen and to use Felix Felicis 
> either to strengthen his chances with Ginny or to help him get    
> into the Room of Requirement so he can find out what Draco is up   
> to. What do these temptations reveal about Harry and about his    
> ability to deal with temptation in general? Might they foreshadow 
> a more serious temptation in Book 7?

Betsy Hp:
The strange thing is, for me these didn't really strike me as true 
temptations.  More like, passing fancies.  I don't know that I've 
ever seen Harry really face down a true Faustian type of 
temptation.  (Doesn't Dumbledore say that Harry's power is *not* 
feeling that sort of temptation?)

The closest I think Harry has come to temptation is the question of 
whether or not to kill Pettigrew in PoA, and whether or not to give 
into jealousy and hate Ron in OotP.


> 5. What was your initial reaction to Draco crying in the "bathroom"
> (restroom) and to Moaning Myrtle comforting him? Did that reaction
> change on a second reading after you understood what Draco was    
> trying to do? Why or why not? 

Betsy Hp:
Major, massive, huge relief.  JKR finally revealed that Draco *is* a 
real boy. <g>  And of course, relief too that we finally have proof 
that Draco is handsome.  (Myrtle only goes for the lookers. <g>)

Seriously, I was pleased that Harry was finally getting a glimpse of 
the "real" Draco -- not his bully persona.

> >>Jen: 
> I was moved by not only his tears but his general appearance
> and the fact that his only confidante is a ghost. That was
> indicative that if he ever did have true friends, he can't talk to
> them now. I doubt he's ever had real friendship.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Honestly, I feel like we got clues that Draco *does* have real 
friends.  That Pansy, Blaise, Crabbe and Goyle are willing to stand 
by him even when his reputation (his family name) has taken a big 
hit.  So I felt that Draco's very real isolation had more to do with 
the terrible journey he's on, and his attempt to protect his 
friends.  Keep them seperate from the madness Voldemort has trapped 
Draco in.

> 6.  Were you shocked that Harry would try out Sectumsempra under  
> these circumstances, especially given the label "For Enemies"? Why 
> or why not? What other options, if any, did he have in response to 
> Draco's attempted Crucio?

Betsy Hp:
I wasn't shocked that Harry used it.  It's use was heavily 
foreshadowed, and while I agree Harry probably didn't *need* it, I 
think it fit character-wise for Harry to use his brand new spell.  
(He likes to try things out while under pressure after all.)

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> The Prince came through as usual--he offered a spell to take care 
> of enemies and Harry, I think, instinctively reached for it. That 
> is, I think Harry does have a sort of instinctive connection to   
> the Prince and for all his faffing around with hexing in the      
> hallways when in a desperate circumstance he felt the same way    
> about "enemies" that the Prince did. I think that's what makes the 
> scene more disturbing.

Betsy Hp:
Oh yes, Snape and Harry are so incredibly much alike.  (I think 
that's why they rub each other the wrong way.)  And Harry *does* go 
into these sort of things with a need to win that I'm betting young 
Snape (he who refused to stay down) also felt.  And of course, that 
need to win can easily take someone in the wrong direction.

Ooh, and here's an interesting thought...  I wonder if the reason 
Harry doesn't go much for temptation scenes is because *Snape* has 
already gone through them for him.  Could their connection be that 
deep?  (I can certainly buy it, but I'm betting Alla's choking on 
something right now. And Lupinlore's firing up the old mulcher. <eg>)

> 7. Why did Snape and only Snape show up when Myrtle cried bloody
> murder? Could anyone else have saved Draco, or does Snape alone   
> know the countercurse? What does the songlike or chantlike nature 
> of the countercurse suggest to you about it or about Snape? 

Betsy Hp:
On a plotty, pragmatic level, Snape is Dumbledore's watchdog.  I'm 
betting he'd been pulled off Harry-duty (Dumbledore stepping up to 
plate, and all) and put on Draco-duty.  So as with Harry in the 
past, Snape is there when Draco needs him.

On a deeper or more character driven level, I *do* think Snape 
echoes some phoenix traits.  My most favorite Potter essay of all 
time here:

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:essay:192

links Snape to various death gods and suggests that Snape actually 
personifies death in the books.  The phoenix, with its constant 
repetition of the life and death cycle, fits in with that particular 
archetype, I think.  

And as the death gods were generally really good healers, I think 
Snape did need to be the one to appear and save Harry from becoming 
a killer (accidentally or not).

> 8. Why do you think JKR included the reference to dittany in the   
> scene rather than merely having Snape take Draco up to the        
> hospital wing to be examined by Madam Pomfrey? What does it tell   
> us about Snape and/or Draco? 

Betsy Hp:
I think I might be alone in this, but I took the need for dittany as 
a sign of the seriousness of Draco's hurt.  Despite three passes of 
what appeared to be some very strong healing magic Draco still might 
scar.  I took it to mean that Harry really did come very close to 
killing Draco.
  
> 10. Harry uses, or tries to use, three of the HBP's spells in this
> chapter (Muffliato, Levicorpus, and Sectumsempra), and he hides his
> book rather than risk having it confiscated. Afterwards, he defends
> the Prince against Hermione's accusations. What does this behavior
> tell us about Harry and about his relationship with the boy he    
> knows only as the Half-Blood Prince?

Betsy Hp:
Harry has another school-boy crush. <g>  I think Harry really does 
connect with the Prince, and I honestly don't think it's a bad 
thing.  I don't see this friendship with young Snape as Harry going 
down a wrong path, and I agree with Harry that Snape did mark the 
spell as being "for enemies".  I don't think Hermione is correct in 
seeing the presence of the spell as a bad sign (oh the hypocrisy 
here).

I do think we're seeing young!Snape's growing anger with the world.  
But since I'm firmly DDM!Snape I don't think that anger will (or 
would have) ultimately lead Harry astray.  Because Harry isn't 
walking the same path at all, so the danger isn't there.  (Actually, 
the Prince may have been more dangerous, I think, in Hermione's 
hands.  She's the one most tempted by power, I think.)

> 11. Professor McGonagall tells Harry that he could have been      
> expelled. Why does Snape tell the staff "precisely what happened" 
> yet punish Harry only for being "a liar and a cheat"?

Betsy Hp:
In telling the precise story Snape nips rumors in the bud.  And the 
precise story is that Harry stupidly used a spell he doesn't know 
the effects of.  So he's not being punished for being dangerously 
violent.

> Why didn't he so much as threaten to expel Harry when he could     
> have done so? 

I really don't think Snape was ever that interested in expelling 
Harry.

> Are the Saturday detentions primarily intended to punish Harry by 
> tormenting him with his father's indiscretions or does this tactic 
> disguise Snape's real purpose for keeping Harry in his custody     
> every Saturday until the end of term?

Bit of both, really, IMO.  Snape does get Harry out of Draco's hair, 
which probably lowers the chance of a disasterous blow up of some 
kind or another.

> 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he        
> undergoes his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape 
> assigned it. What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has 
> he forgotten his own wrongdoing?
> <snip>

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> Whenever he does something that leads to serious consequences he   
> tends to either push the blame to someone else, justify himself   
> completely or just move on as the universe rights itself again.

> >>Jen: 
> I'm not sure that makes Harry different from a fair percentage
> of teenage boys who prefer action or avoidance to introspection.
> <snip>
> Plus, I think avoidance IS a sign of remorse for Harry
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree with Magpie that Harry does tend to avoid taking blame.  And 
I agree with Jen that it's typical behavior and possibly a coping 
mechanisim.

However, it does bother me that bad behavior on the part of the 
heroes is never explored within the books.  So far.  Will there be a 
reckoning in book 7?  Or is this a sort of enforced innocence, where 
Harry, having to play the part of innocent has his sins fobbed off 
on (or eaten by) convienient scapegoats?
 
> 13. Why do you think Snape continues to use his old office in the
> dungeon, complete with dead creatures floating in colorful potions,
> now that he's the DADA teacher and his classroom is on another     
> floor?

Betsy Hp:
Because making Snape move on top of everything else would have just 
been plain cruel on Dumbledore's part.  (The "Epitome of Goodness" 
doesn't make people move!!)

> 14. The chapter begins with Lavender breaking up with Ron, closely
> followed by Ginny breaking up with Dean, and ends with Harry
> celebrating Gryffindor's victory (achieved without him) by finally
> kissing Ginny. What do you think JKR is trying to convey by framing
> the chapter in this way? Does the ending feel appropriate or
> inappropriate in a chapter about Sectumsempra? (And what's up with
> that "hard, blazing look"?)

Betsy Hp:
Well you see, JKR is explaining that if you cut someone, you get the 
nookie.  (So you can take that cookie?)  Sorry.  I suppose we could 
connect the Sectumsempra curse with the pain of young love.  Neither 
of the trio end up happily without causing someone else pain.  Love 
hurts, etc., etc., etc.  (Oh, and don't forget the fluids... <eg>)

As to the "hard, blazing look" I actually kind of liked that. I 
know, I know, totally cheeze-ball of me, but while I'd have loved a 
more complex and "real" Ginny, I did like the warrior woman thing.  
If only it hadn't been pasted onto the sporty girl thing.  And the 
fiesty girl thing. And the oh so very popular girl thing.

Excellent discussion, Carol! 

Betsy Hp (so glad to be posting again -- it's been *years* y'all)





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 22:48:06 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:48:06 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eitlij+gbta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitmr6+5b6c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161286

> Betsy Hp:
> Oh yes, Snape and Harry are so incredibly much alike.  (I think 
> that's why they rub each other the wrong way.)  And Harry *does* go 
> into these sort of things with a need to win that I'm betting young 
> Snape (he who refused to stay down) also felt.  And of course, that 
> need to win can easily take someone in the wrong direction.
> 
> Ooh, and here's an interesting thought...  I wonder if the reason 
> Harry doesn't go much for temptation scenes is because *Snape* has 
> already gone through them for him.  Could their connection be that 
> deep?  (I can certainly buy it, but I'm betting Alla's choking on 
> something right now. And Lupinlore's firing up the old mulcher. 
<eg>)
<SNIP>

Alla:

Before I go to splash some cold water on my face, I just want to be 
sure how much water I should prepare to bring myself to the working 
condition again.

Are you saying that Harry and Snape's connection is some sort of 
siamese twins alike? Through time and space continuim? ;)

No seriously, while I disagree with general idea that Harry and Snape 
are *that** much alike, etc ( for example I think that saying that 
Harry and Snape hatreds are very alike is just justification of Snape 
starting the bullying campaign of eleven year old and then being 
surprised that this eleven year old is indeed developing hatred of 
that teacher), I can certainly see the similarities between them ( in 
general), but what does it mean that Snape already went through 
temptations for him?

You mean Harry's subconscious knows it and can proceed freely without 
temptations now?

I mean, I am sort of seriously interested.





From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Wed Nov  8 22:38:02 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:38:02 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] where the romance?
Message-ID: <4350647.1163025482395.JavaMail.root@web25>

No: HPFGUIDX 161287

---- husenlatif <husenlatif at yahoo.com> wrote: 

>I just wonder how the romance life of our heroes? If Harry will be with Cho >Chang in the next book? What about Hermione and Ron, I never
>imagine that these two person can be a couple, do you? 

Marion here:

I think Cho was a prop for two reasons: first, to show that Harry was growing up, and setting him up for the future relationship with Ginny.  If he'd gone right to a serious relationship with her, it wouldn't have been nearly as believable, imo; second, to give him some friction with Cedric, who would become his competitor.  Even with that friction, it was hard to dislike Cedric, who was good-looking, noble, and had a strong sense of fair play.  So why would anyone have a problem with him?  Had to be jealousy.  Cho also came in handy by bringing Marietta into the DA.  But I'm with the others who said that Cho has served her purpose.

I also agree with Lynda who said that these books aren't romanctic in nature.  The relationships are fun, but not central, and I hope they don't become so in book seven.  On a personal note, I'm not too interested in the Lupin/Tonks ship or that of Charlie (or is it Bill?) and the Veela (sp).  I did find myself rooting for Ron and Hermione to realize what we've all known for sometime, and I, for one, would like to see that continue.  And I was grinning from ear to ear when Harry and Ginny kissed that first time.  I may have even whooped a little bit. :-)  My parents always told me that a person doesn't marry one other person, but their whole family, and I couldn't be more thrilled for Harry to someday officially become a part of the family that's been so good to him all this time.   He deserves a big, close, loving family like the Weasleys (Percy aside, but I think he'll come around -- the prodigal son, and all of that).  

I'm okay speculating about the other characters like Luna and Neville.  Those aren't the questions I'm really craving answers to in the final book.  I'd much rather JKR focus on whether Snape is good or evil, if Harry will survive, etc. 

Marion






From caaf at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  8 23:01:32 2006
From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:01:32 -0000
Subject: Did LV ask Snape why he was protecting Harry
Message-ID: <eitnkc+qhc1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161288

Hi,

Have recently restarted from SS/PS, and the above question came to my
mind.

In HBP, Snape is clear that LV has questioned him, after Bella asks
him a number of questions at Spinners end. However, the above question
would not be a question that Bella would probably ask.

She did ask - And why, Snape, is Harry Potter still alive, when you
have had him at your mercy for five years? - but she would not know
that Snape had atleast on one occasion protected Harry.

LV however would know that, simply because he was possessing Quirrell,
and Snape was dueling Quirrell to prevent Harry from falling off the
broom in the Quidditch match.

Even if LV was not possessing Quirrell at that time (and IMO he was),
he surely was there in front of the Mirror of Erised when Quirrell
told Harry that Snape was muttering counter-curses to save Harry.

So the question again - did LV ever ask Snape why he was trying to
actively save Harry, and if so, what do you think Snape's response was?

Cyril, hoping that this has not been covered earlier, because I think
it would be fun to think of the possible answers that Snape would have
provided.





From shellini at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  8 22:39:01 2006
From: shellini at sbcglobal.net (Shellini Spencer)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:39:01 -0500
Subject: House Elves / apparating / Sirius
Message-ID: <5867C1EC-1F23-432D-8E34-C0FC8BF1A316@sbcglobal.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161289

> >>Jodi:
>> <snip> I have always wondered how Sirius got into Hogwarts after he escaped Azkaban. << <snip>

She did explain it. In book 3. Sirius can turn into a dog. The  
dementors could not pick up him as a dog, so he was able to escape  
and be around Hogwarts and no one was none the wiser. Only the cat,  
Crookshanks, knew him for what he was...

Also... Since he was one of the writers of the Marauders Map, he knew the secret passages ways into and out of Hogwarts. The four people that wrote the map knew how to get in and how of Hogwarts and into Hogsmeade...

I just finished book 3.. lol.. hope that helps...


Shellini

"Mother is the word for God in the eyes of children everywhere..."




From shellini at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov  8 22:33:00 2006
From: shellini at sbcglobal.net (Shellini Spencer)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 17:33:00 -0500
Subject: Harry's family
Message-ID: <FB36777F-080E-459E-AE31-95E3506439BB@sbcglobal.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161290

> >>NJ:
>> <snip>
>> What I picked up on is the wording that she was the only living blood relation to Lily who COULD act as guardian. So that indicates to me that there was someone out there who was less able or less desirable to do the job.
>> <snip>
>> Any more thoughts here? <<


Sirius Black is Harry's godfather, if I recall. He is his, or can act as, his guardian.

Shellini

"Mother is the word for God in the eyes of children everywhere..."




From caaf at hotmail.com  Wed Nov  8 22:49:19 2006
From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 22:49:19 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eisqi2+h4li@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitmtf+jbt5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161291

Cyril here

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
>
> >
> Carol responds:
> But what I was wondering when I wrote the question is why the spell
> requires a chantlike countercurse rather than a single word or phrase
> (contrast Levicorpus/Liberacorpus). Clearly "Finite Incantatem" would
> not counter Sectumsempra or Snape would have used it, and even
> Levicorpus requires its own countercurse. Perhaps Sectumsempra
> requires a stronger, more complex countercurse simply because it's a
> stronger, more complex spell than Levicorpus, not to mention Darker
> magic, but when have we seen anything resembling this chantlike spell
> in a language Harry doesn't understand (perhaps Latin, perhaps not)? 
> 
> Possibly, Snape discovered through experiments (presumably not on his
> schoolmates or he'd have been expelled) that no simple, one-word
> countercurse could undo the effects of Sectumsempra and searched the
> records for some ancient healing spell that could counter it, a spell
> that he alone of modern wizards has memorized. Or perhaps he sat down
> and invented that complex, chanted countercurse based on what ancient
> wizards had done to counter similar Dark spells. Wither way, the spell
> is unusually complex, it's songlike, it's powerfully magical, and its
> magic is that of healing, not destruction.
> 
> What does it tell us about Snape that he would invent or seek out such
> a spell? Snape seems almost motherly, but also very powerful, as he
> sings it.
> 
> Carol, who was reminded of Gregorian chant when she read the
> description of the countercurse
>


Cyril here:

IMO, Snape is probably one of the few people who can *reverse* the
impact of Sectumsempra, because it is his own spell. However, IMO,
that does not necessarily mean that he had knowledge of ancient (or
even modern) healing magic, which could counter such damaging magic.

The reason for this opinions was the following examples:

Why was Snape not able to heal himself when he was presumably (as it
is Harry's assumption about the cause) bitten by Fluffy in SS/PS.
While there is no canon (other than Harry's assumption) about the
cause, Snape clearly was limping, and should have been able to heal
himself.

Again, Snape was not able to help Arthur Weasly when he was bitten by
Nagini, and the wounds were not healing for quite some time.

Both the above wounds could be magical in a sense, that they were
caused by magical beings, and probably had something that prevented
the *normal* magical cures from being effective.

Cyril, totally agreeing with Carol and other posters on the view that
Snape used advanced, complex magic to help heal Draco, but does not
seem to show the same capability in some other instances.





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Nov  8 23:19:21 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:19:21 -0000
Subject: Did LV ask Snape why he was protecting Harry
In-Reply-To: <eitnkc+qhc1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitolp+3js0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161292

> Cyril:
> She [Bellatrix] did ask - And why, Snape, is Harry Potter still
alive, when you
> have had him at your mercy for five years? - but she would not know
> that Snape had atleast on one occasion protected Harry.
> 
> LV however would know that, simply because he was possessing Quirrell,
> and Snape was dueling Quirrell to prevent Harry from falling off the
> broom in the Quidditch match.
> 
> Even if LV was not possessing Quirrell at that time (and IMO he was),
> he surely was there in front of the Mirror of Erised when Quirrell
> told Harry that Snape was muttering counter-curses to save Harry.
> 
> So the question again - did LV ever ask Snape why he was trying to
> actively save Harry, and if so, what do you think Snape's response was?

Eddie:
We don't know canonically what Voldemort asked Snape.  But for the
sake of discussion, let's say LV asked Snape why.  I can hear Snape
saying, "My lord, if I had known it was YOU directing that slimeball
Quirrell, I never would have interfered.  As it was, I had to suppress
my repugnance of that Potter punk just to continue my spy cover."

Or something like that, but much better written.

Eddie





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 23:24:15 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:24:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Did LV ask Snape why he was protecting Harry
Message-ID: <20061108232415.50579.qmail@web54503.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161293

Cyril:

LV however would know that, simply because he was possessing Quirrell,
and Snape was dueling Quirrell to prevent Harry from falling off the
broom in the Quidditch match.

Even if LV was not possessing Quirrell at that time (and IMO he was),
he surely was there in front of the Mirror of Erised when Quirrell
told Harry that Snape was muttering counter-curses to save Harry.

So the question again - did LV ever ask Snape why he was trying to
actively save Harry, and if so, what do you think Snape's response was?

============================

Jeremiah:

I think this was explained in HBP (though indirectly, so I'm glad you brought it up) that if Potter died at Hogwarts suspicion would be on Snape. So, he had to protect Harry. It's in Spinner's End but you're right, the question was not directly asked (as far as I can remember) and the answer was brought around by a different, less direct question.

However! Having said that, I truely believe that Snape is not evil (oh! the boos and hisses are deafening!) And this touches on another topic regarding Snape's motives. All I have to say about that is my theory that Dumbledore and Snape were on the same side: that side being the one where Voldemort gets axed. Snape, as a lover of all things Dark Art-like, and Dumbledore, well, being a lover of all things Loverly, would (imo) have a kinship with their distase for the lngths that Vodemort has gone to just to secure immortality. So, in their relationship, Snape had to do and say what Dumbledore dictated because Snape owed it to him. When it came time to do the "unthinkable" Snape had no choice but to follow through and place himself at complete odds with the entire Wizadring World. What will be interresting to see is if Voldemort and the Death Eaters are convinced of Snape's true intentions.

So, Sanpe says what he needs to. :) did I go off on all that? Yikes!

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




From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Wed Nov  8 22:38:15 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 14:38:15 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] where the romance?
Message-ID: <26099719.1163025495632.JavaMail.root@web25>

No: HPFGUIDX 161294

---- husenlatif <husenlatif at yahoo.com> wrote: 

>I just wonder how the romance life of our heroes? If Harry will be with Cho >Chang in the next book? What about Hermione and Ron, I never
>imagine that these two person can be a couple, do you? 

Marion here:

I think Cho was a prop for two reasons: first, to show that Harry was growing up, and setting him up for the future relationship with Ginny.  If he'd gone right to a serious relationship with her, it wouldn't have been nearly as believable, imo; second, to give him some friction with Cedric, who would become his competitor.  Even with that friction, it was hard to dislike Cedric, who was good-looking, noble, and had a strong sense of fair play.  So why would anyone have a problem with him?  Had to be jealousy.  Cho also came in handy by bringing Marietta into the DA.  But I'm with the others who said that Cho has served her purpose.

I also agree with Lynda who said that these books aren't romanctic in nature.  The relationships are fun, but not central, and I hope they don't become so in book seven.  On a personal note, I'm not too interested in the Lupin/Tonks ship or that of Charlie (or is it Bill?) and the Veela (sp).  I did find myself rooting for Ron and Hermione to realize what we've all known for sometime, and I, for one, would like to see that continue.  And I was grinning from ear to ear when Harry and Ginny kissed that first time.  I may have even whooped a little bit. :-)  My parents always told me that a person doesn't marry one other person, but their whole family, and I couldn't be more thrilled for Harry to someday officially become a part of the family that's been so good to him all this time.   He deserves a big, close, loving family like the Weasleys (Percy aside, but I think he'll come around -- the prodigal son, and all of that).  

I'm okay speculating about the other characters like Luna and Neville.  Those aren't the questions I'm really craving answers to in the final book.  I'd much rather JKR focus on whether Snape is good or evil, if Harry will survive, etc. 

Marion






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 23:17:59 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 23:17:59 -0000
Subject: Snape / Harry & Temptation / Healing (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eitmr6+5b6c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitoj7+neu5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161295

> > Betsy Hp:
> > Oh yes, Snape and Harry are so incredibly much alike. 
> > <snip>
> > Ooh, and here's an interesting thought...  I wonder if the      
> > reason Harry doesn't go much for temptation scenes is because   
> > *Snape* has already gone through them for him.  Could their     
> > connection be that deep?  (I can certainly buy it, but I'm      
> > betting Alla's choking on something right now. And Lupinlore's   
> > firing up the old mulcher. <eg>)
> > <SNIP>

> >>Alla:
> Before I go to splash some cold water on my face, I just want to  
> be sure how much water I should prepare to bring myself to the    
> working condition again.

Betsy Hp:
Niagra Falls, baby. <BG>

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> No seriously, while I disagree with general idea that Harry and   
> Snape are *that** much alike, etc ( for example I think that      
> saying that Harry and Snape hatreds are very alike is just        
> justification of Snape starting the bullying campaign of eleven   
> year old and then being surprised that this eleven year old is    
> indeed developing hatred of that teacher), I can certainly see the 
> similarities between them ( in general), but what does it mean    
> that Snape already went through temptations for him?
> You mean Harry's subconscious knows it and can proceed freely     
> without temptations now?
> I mean, I am sort of seriously interested.

Betsy Hp:
I don't think Harry is a sort of Mini-Snape, no.  And I'm not trying 
to justify Snape's opening salvo in their on-going war.  

[Though I do think the *reason* things went so far in their first 
scene in PS/SS is because, like Snape would have before him, Harry 
refused to bend.  And Snape, not wanting to bend himself (for 
various reasons), got caught up in a game of chicken that is still 
going on.  I do put the lion's share of the blame on Snape, because 
he is the adult.  He chose to start the confrontation and he should 
have been mature enough to figure a way out of it. But I also think 
there's a similarity of personality that doomed that meeting to 
failure.] 

What I do think is that in some ways young!Snape is Harry without 
Harry's advantages.  The Slytherin side of Harry, maybe?  So just as 
the Slytherins tend to be the sin-eaters of Potterverse, I wonder if 
by taking the journey Snape has, the journey fraught with 
temptation, he's saved Harry having to make a similar trip.

I think this goes towards the Potter books as a "child healer" type 
of story.  Harry is there to heal the rift in Hogwarts (and 
therefore the WW), and I'm wondering if Snape has maybe done some 
foundation work for him.  Snape has cleaned out the poison of the 
Voldemort temptation so Harry can get on with the healing.

Does this make sense?  (Where's Sydney when I need her? <g>)

Betsy Hp (not thrilled with the subject line - but can't think of a 
better title...)





From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 00:26:50 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 00:26:50 -0000
Subject: Harry not a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eis4mc+ii1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitska+e48g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161296

 
> Dungrollin:
> Sure, I agree with you, although the scar and mind-link to Voldemort 
> have been set up since the first book, and the transferred powers 
> and Voldy's immortality-bid from book 2, so we can't really complain 
> we didn't get any foreshadowing! The theorists axiom is that that 
> book 7 will be consistent with existing canon, but (as we all so 
> frustratingly know) not necessarily predictable from it. 
> 
> Either the horcrux mechanics questions will never be answered, or 
> she can still make up whatever she likes for book 7 (although anti-
> harrycruxers will insist that she's definitively made Harrycrux 
> impossible, though I don't see how). We all rather heavily rely on 
> the fact that she's been thinking about this for a while, and isn't 
> about to change her mind about important plot points. If we do find 
> out about them, Horcrux mechanics will be canon-consistent, but not 
> necessarily predictable - just like the very existence of Horcruxes 
> was before we got our teeth into HBP; I certainly wrote my fair 
> share of speculative "Why didn't Voldy die" posts, and never came 
> anywhere near Horcruxes.
> 

Neri:
Heh. I certainly had my own share of "why didn't Voldy die" posts.
However, this analogy is perhaps not entirely fair, because "why
didn't Voldy die" wasn't actually an official mystery in the books
themselves. It was presented by JKR outside the books, with a fair
warning attached that it would be very difficult to guess (not that
this stopped any of us, naturally). Looking back I think it was meant
more as setting the tone for HBP than issuing a challenge.
 
Perhaps a more appropriate example is the mystery of the connected
Vanishing Cabinets in HBP. The solution was well prepared since Book 2
(both the cabinet at B&B and the Vanishing Cabinet at Hogwarts) with
additional information in Book 5, and the mystery ("how can Draco
smuggle things into Hogwarts?") was officially presented in Book 6.
But there was a key technical detail missing: that a pair of Vanishing
Cabinets make a passage between them. There was certainly no such
canon at any point until Draco reveals it on the tower as if it were
the most obvious thing in the world. However, if some reader was
shrewd enough to hypothesize that the cabinet in B&B could be a
Vanishing Cabinet, then hypothesizing also that it creates a passage
into the one at Hogwarts isn't a big leap at all, especially after the
official mystery "how can Draco smuggle things into Hogwarts?" is
presented.

So, it could well be that JKR also expects us to complete ourselves
the missing technical detail regarding a living Horcrux creation. When
the mystery is revealed in Book 7 some character (Aberforth?
Dumbledore in a Pensieve memory? Voldy? The soul bit itself?) will
just say something like "if anything goes wrong with a Horcrux
encasing spell, the detached soul naturally seeks the closest human")
as if it was the most obvious thing in the world. And it will be
obvious, just as it's now obvious that two Vanishing Cabinets might be
connected.

However, if Harry indeed carries a Voldy soul bit, then there's an
additional mystery: how can Harry get rid of it, or if he can't, how
can he still get rid of Voldemort? Here I think I'd feel cheated if
the solution would be some technical operation that was never even
hinted in canon before. And this is where the "no encasing spell in
GH" has a built-in advantage, because it does not require a special
operation to cleanse Harry of the soul bit.  


Neri






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  9 01:02:49 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:02:49 -0000
Subject: Snape's chanting was: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eitavm+7s8v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitunp+lalu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161297

> Carol:
> But what I was wondering when I wrote the question is why the spell
> requires a chantlike countercurse rather than a single word or 
phrase
> (contrast Levicorpus/Liberacorpus). <snip>

wynnleaf,

While I have thoroughly enjoyed Carol's questions and all the 
varying answers on this chapter, I have read them all day wondering 
why so many people assume that the songlike spell was a "chant."  No 
where does the narration describe it as a chant.

Perhaps many assume that the word "incantation" automatically means 
that the words are done in a chant.  This is not so.

Some definitions of "incantation" include:  "a ritual recitation of 
words or sounds believed to have a magical effect.  

"A formulaic use of words to produce a magical effect and to create 
an intensifying emotional temperature. The words may be chanted or 
spoken. It is very common in primitive literatures and is much used 
by sorcerers and witches, and also for ritual purposes as in a 
charm"  princeton wordnet
 
"An incantation is the words spoken during a ritual. such as those 
in praise of a god, in witchcraft or when casting a spell. It comes 
from the Latin incantare, meaning 'to utter an incantation', which 
would be done by an enchanter."  wikipedia

"A formula used in ritual recitation; a verbal charm or spell." The 
Free Dictionary

Because the words are formulaic or are recited, in no way means they 
must be "chanted" and even chanted does not necessarily equate to 
*rythmic* chanting, as some have supposed.  In fact, because JKR 
uses the word "songlike," I think we're being told that they were 
*not* chanted at all, but were closer to being a song.

So please do not assume that the countercurse (or whatever you'd 
call it) was chanted.  

Or is there some other reason why so many of you thought it was 
chanted?

wynnleaf --





From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Thu Nov  9 01:13:15 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:13:15 -0000
Subject: Who did Kreatcher talk to in OOTP?
Message-ID: <eitvbb+vht5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161298

aussie writes:

I haven't finished my re-read of OOTP (Order Of The Phoenix) yet, but 
there were a lot of JKR clues that gave the impression Kreatcher went 
to speak to someone.

>From the time Harry explained his vision or Mr Weasley's attack to 
Sirius (with Kreatcher standing outside the door) Kreatcher would 
disappear, and have a different attitude when he returned.

When Harry checked to see if Sirius was in Grimauld Place, Kreatcher 
had bandages on his hands (Dobby-like injury after disobeying his 
master).

any ideas? Has this been in discussions before?
Aussie





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov  9 01:14:35 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:14:35 -0000
Subject: Harry's remorse  (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24,)/Help for a Newbie
In-Reply-To: <eitkvm+4tlu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eitvdr+ppd6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161299

Magpie:
> I wasn't really talking about his being introspective.  Part of 
> the point of the novels are Harry learning and growing.  One can
> learn from experience without becoming Hamlet, if you know what I 
> mean. Draco is actually an interesting example in HBP, because in
> the past he's never been the poster child for learning from your 
> mistakes either, but I think plenty of young readers noticed that 
> this was something that made him seem dumb. His storyline in HBP 
> required more thinking about his actions.  

Jen:  Ah, I get your line of thought here.  In that case I may have 
to agree with your initial opinion of JKR wrapping up plot lines.  
The 'tiniest drop of pity mingled with his dislike' from Harry 
toward Draco in the White Tomb chapter (p. 596 Blooms.) may be all 
the internal growth we get from the events of HBP.  Or rather, 
likely there will be more to their relationship since the door is 
open a fraction now, I just can't see it taking the form of Harry 
reversing his opinions so much as something akin to Dumbledore 
inviting ex-DE Karkaroff to his school--a recognition that sometimes 
you have to work with people for a greater good even when you don't 
agree with his values.  "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all 
that. 

Magpie:
> Or just popping into my head--Ron in GoF gets angry at Harry etc., 
> and after they make up the narrator notes that Ron seems like he's 
> being extra loyal to Harry because he seems to still feel badly 
> about his behavior.  It seems like Ron actually looked back on his 
> behavior and it meant something to him.  

Jen: It's so easy to do with a friend and so hard with an enemy.  I 
know you're just pointing out what you'd like to see happen with 
Harry to show growth, an actual change in behavior.  Once again my 
thoughts go back to that scene when he considers Draco's fate--he 
doesn't hate Draco *more* after the tower, and for Harry that's a 
change in attitude.  Plus, he actually wonders without malice what 
Voldemort is forcing Draco to do under threat of death to him and 
his parents. (This doesn't have much to do with the Sectumsempra 
scene because I can't see revisiting that scene other than perhaps 
an apology on Harry's part if/when he and Draco work together in 
Book 7. Maybe not even that.)

Magpie:
> It's not that Harry never learns anything, but I think he's got 
> certain patterns that trip him up or aren't exactly honest.  It's
> not that he never thinks about stuff again, it's often that he
> thinks about it enough to feel only comfortably justified or
> victimized and avoid anything that he might have done that wasn't
> so good.  

Jen: I not sure about 'often' here, in fact, many examples are 
springing to my mind:  Recognizing in the DOM battle he may have led 
his friends to certain death, realizing he was selfish to never 
wonder why Neville lived with Gran, feeling shame after Lupin 
corrects him over the ill-advised Hogsmeade visit, recognizing he 
was wrong not to try harder to get the memory for Dumbledore, 
feeling guilt over Cedric's death, identifying and understanding 
Snape's feelings more than James' in the Pensieve scene....gosh, 
there are so many more but that's a start.

He does have these patterns with Snape and Draco/Slytherins. JKR's 
depiction of his behavior with enemies is more believable to me than 
if Harry was always learning from his mistakes with these guys or 
recognizing his rationalizations.  After all, if the only people 
consistently telling you to rethink things are Snape and that 
dubious walking conscience, Hermione, it's pretty hard to get the 
honest feedback you need to consider changing. 

Magpie:
> Why I'm not sure is that sometimes I'm not sure if I'm supposed to 
> be noticing Harry's avoiding some conclusion or not.

Jen: A more than fair question to ask though I'm not sure of the 
answer!

Magpie:
> This is sort of TWT II: Harry should/shouldn't come in first in 
> every event. Some people see a sort of exchange going on, that 
> success in one area is made up by Harry's hard life in others.  To
> me it reads like two different things: Harry the hero who has 
> heroic challenges, and a more ordinary school story where
> Harry sometimes avoids normal disappointments of life. I think 
> this might have been brought up in discussions about the TWT, but
> at times it feels maybe artificial.

Jen: I see your point, the division of the story. Much as I love all 
the characters and the different genres JKR uses to weave her story, 
there are times when the overlap is disconcerting and confusing.  An 
answer for one genre doesn't always work for another and sometimes I 
wish for a tighter story at the expense of some of the 
inventiveness.  Probably the story wouldn't be nearly so fun to 
deconstruct, though.  

> Magpie:
> Heh. Your son is cool.:-)  I can't speak for how he feels, but to
> me what pulls me up in the scene is probably connected to my 
> expectations of cause and effect getting disappointed but not in a
> good way.  Like, it's originally set up that way with Harry's
> actions leading to him having to miss the game--it's every day 
stuff that every kid has probably had to deal with and accepts.  
When he 
> wins anyway I think it's almost more of a surprise like huh...oh. 
> It's anti-climactic. It almost doesn't feel like a win. 

Jen:  Once I read that JKR isn't writing any more Quidditch scenes 
that sort of explained it for me.  That one was for her, she 
couldn't quite bring herself to write the last game ever as a loss 
even if that would have been a better story or ethically more 
congruent or whatever.  Just a guess. (And my son is very cool, I 
can even forgive him for being an OFH!Snaper <g>.)

Magpie:
> Of course, when I read OotP the first time I actually mistakenly
> thought that Gryffindor came in second when the year was over to
> show my expectations there.  And even so that's the book that sort
> of destroyed any illusions of suspense in Quidditch anyway.

Jen: I'm worse than Hermione when it comes to caring about 
Quidditch.  When I heard there wasn't going to be any more it was 
like "hallelujah! No more suffering through *that*."  Thank goodness 
for Luna making the Quidditch in HBP bearable.

Jen R.





From hnjce at yahoo.com  Wed Nov  8 23:46:37 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 15:46:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Harry's family
In-Reply-To: <FB36777F-080E-459E-AE31-95E3506439BB@sbcglobal.net>
Message-ID: <20061108234637.39411.qmail@web35312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161300

> >>NJ:
>> <snip>
>> What I picked up on is the wording that she was the only living blood relation to Lily who COULD act as guardian. So that indicates to me that there was someone out there who was less able or less desirable to do the job.
>> <snip>
>> Any more thoughts here? <<

  Shellini:
> Sirius Black is Harry's godfather, if I recall. He is his, or can
> act as, his guardian.

NJ: Yes, but what I'm picking up from that line is that there was another living, blood relative who could not act as guardian. A godfather is not necessarily a blood relative and Lily and Harry are obviously not a part of the Black family tree.
   
NJ




         





From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Thu Nov  9 01:32:26 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:32:26 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eit6m1+9ldm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiu0fa+gqvs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161301

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol:
> > I think we're supposed to be astounded by Snape's inventiveness 
as
> > a Healer as well as creator of this Dark spell ...
> > He keeps his head in a crisis, in contrast to Slughorn, who is
> > flustered and completely forgets about bezoars when Ron is 
> > poisoned.
> 
> Jen: And yet since most of us knew by that point Snape was the 
HBP, 
> we're also reminded he created the "Dark Magic" Sectumsempra to 
> begin with.  It's impossible for me to see only the Healer in this 
> scene and not the destructive person who would invent such a 
curse.  
> I didn't have time to elaborate earlier, but the reason I think 
the 
> healing spell symbolizes repentance is because Snape is both the 
> cause of destruction and the means for healing the wounds he helps 
> create.  ... it's the 
> larger issue of the kind of person who would invent that spell to 
> begin with, that's a crucial piece of information in HBP.  And 
this 
> scene is a pivotal one:  A combination of the boy Snape was and 
the 
> man he has become.  Harry only sees one side of Snape, the 
darkness, 
> and likely his point of view will be put to the test in the last 
> book.  I find it impossible to see only positive attributes about 
> Snape in this scene, though.
>
aussie now:
When and why did Snape invent this vicious curse? As a 5th year 
student, he used it's forerunner on James. In "Snape's worse 
Memory"(OOTP), while James was disarming Snape or inverting him, 
Snape drew blood with a curse that cut JP's cheek.

This would have been "Sect-*something" while "Sempra" is continual 
and on going of the wound he used against James in his 5th year.

When Snape accepted the challenge of going into the Shreiking Shack 
only to be saved by James, did he go in prepared with this curse - 
for enemies?
Aussie





From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Thu Nov  9 01:40:36 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 01:40:36 -0000
Subject: where the romance?
In-Reply-To: <26099719.1163025495632.JavaMail.root@web25>
Message-ID: <eiu0uk+f1n3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161302

>
> ---- husenlatif wrote: 
> 
> >Harry will be with Cho Chang in the next book?  
> 
> Marion here:
> 
> I think Cho was a prop for two reasons: first, to show that Harry 
was growing up, and setting him up for the future relationship with 
Ginny.  If he'd gone right to a serious relationship with her, it 
wouldn't have been nearly as believable, ...  Cho also came in handy 
by bringing Marietta into the DA.  But I'm with the others who said 
that Cho has served her purpose.
> 
> ... And I was grinning from ear to ear when Harry and Ginny kissed 
that first time.  I may have even whooped a little bit. :-)  My 
parents always told me that a person doesn't marry one other person, 
but their whole family, and I couldn't be more thrilled for Harry to 
someday officially become a part of the family that's been so good 
to him all this time.   He deserves a big, close, loving family like 
the Weasleys (Percy aside, but I think he'll come around -- the 
prodigal son, and all of that).  
> 
> Marion
>
aussie:
In the Post-Cho relationship in OOTP, it was SOOOoo good that the 
final Quidditch game put Ginny against Cho as Seekers. Another 
little JKR clue of things to come for HBP
Aussie





From tfaucette6387 at charter.net  Thu Nov  9 02:17:34 2006
From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:17:34 -0000
Subject: Harry's family
In-Reply-To: <20061108175348.27603.qmail@web35304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eiu33u+66ka@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161303

 Norma Jean Tran  wrote:
>
> Still thinking of Lily's family:
>
>   http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/puzzles2.html#Harrys_family
>
>   I just read this. It was that it has been stated 'that Petunia was
Harry's only living relative and the only living person having a blood
relationship to his mother who could act as his guardian'.
>   What I picked up on is the wording that she was the only living
blood relation to Lily who COULD act as guardian. So that indicates to
me that there was someone out there who was less able or less
desirable to do the job. This could be anyone who has already been
discussed from Voldemort himself, to Dumbledore who already had many
responsibilties, to the financially stressed Weasleys.
>
>

Anne Squires responds:
I understand what you're saying; however, I think the Lexicon is
saying that Petunia is Lily's only living relative, therefore, she is
the only person with whom DD "could" leave Harry.  Not that there are
others who exist but for some reason could not take in Harry.

On page 13 of SS (US hardback) Dumbledore tells McGonagall,"I've come
to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle.  They're the only family he has
left now."

On page 836 (US hardback edition)of OotP Dumbledore tells Harry, "I
put my my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood.  I delivered you
to her sister, her only living relative."

>From these statements we can conclude that Lily's only living relative
is Petunia. (Well, there's also Dudley I suppose.)






From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov  9 02:24:55 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 21:24:55 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's remorse  (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24,)/Help for a Newbie
References: <eitvdr+ppd6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005e01c703a6$40ee9320$ee7e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161304

> Magpie:
>> Or just popping into my head--Ron in GoF gets angry at Harry etc.,
>> and after they make up the narrator notes that Ron seems like he's
>> being extra loyal to Harry because he seems to still feel badly
>> about his behavior.  It seems like Ron actually looked back on his
>> behavior and it meant something to him.
>
> Jen: It's so easy to do with a friend and so hard with an enemy.  I
> know you're just pointing out what you'd like to see happen with
> Harry to show growth, an actual change in behavior.

Magpie:
Oh no, sorry.  I didn't mean that.  I was just pointing out Ron's behavior 
as showing that he seemed to be disturbed by his behavior, not that Harry 
should ever feel a similar way about Draco in wanting to make it up to him 
or anything.  With Sectumsempra it wasn't just Harry and Draco's 
relationship I was thinking about but Harry facing someone--anyone--that 
he'd just caused so much damage to, you know?  It just seemed like it was 
too invisible, like imagine accidentally shooting someone, even someone you 
hated.  Then they come back to class and it's a non-issue.  I'm not sure if 
it's intentionally put off or it's a hole.  It's a big emotional ball to 
drop for me, but JKR sometimes puts plot over finishing emotional arcs.

As you said, it's actually Draco's actions on the Tower that make Harry 
change his opinion on Draco as a person at all--the bathroom really only 
brought home possibly Draco's humanness and vulnerability. It's hard because 
usually I'd doubt we'd revisit a scene in the next book, but with this I can 
imagine that JKR would place certain things in the "second half" of this 
story because it's better for both plots.  Sort of like how she makes sure 
Ron's romantic issues tend to happen at times most convenient for Harry to 
react to them.:-)  Harry and Draco have a set number of interactions and if 
they interact in any substantial way in the seventh book in a way that's 
different I wouldn't be surprised if the past was referenced.

> Jen: I not sure about 'often' here, in fact, many examples are
> springing to my mind:  Recognizing in the DOM battle he may have led
> his friends to certain death, realizing he was selfish to never
> wonder why Neville lived with Gran, feeling shame after Lupin
> corrects him over the ill-advised Hogsmeade visit, recognizing he
> was wrong not to try harder to get the memory for Dumbledore,
> feeling guilt over Cedric's death, identifying and understanding
> Snape's feelings more than James' in the Pensieve scene....gosh,
> there are so many more but that's a start.>
> He does have these patterns with Snape and Draco/Slytherins. JKR's
> depiction of his behavior with enemies is more believable to me than
> if Harry was always learning from his mistakes with these guys or
> recognizing his rationalizations.  After all, if the only people
> consistently telling you to rethink things are Snape and that
> dubious walking conscience, Hermione, it's pretty hard to get the
> honest feedback you need to consider changing.

Magpie:
Often was probably a bad word to use--I did mean his behavior regarding 
certain characters and in certain situations.  It's not that Harry never 
learns anything (usually each book has him learning a lot) but that he, like 
most people, has certain areas where he's got a blind spot. Those are the 
relationships that seem like they need to be resolved.  With Neville and 
Luna, for instance, Harry isn't interested in them and is brought up short 
when he realizes they have experienced things he can identify with or that 
they've suffered, but there's nothing he really needs to resolve there, 
since he's never wronged them and they don't represent anything he's 
uncomfortable with in himself.  His relationshp with them stays pretty much 
the same.

With Snape, otoh, Harry would rather not identify with him and while he was 
upset in seeing a completely different Snape in a scene where he was in the 
victim role, usually he looks for things with Snape to validate the pov he 
already has. It's really only in the last two books before the end (when 
Harry and the Slytherins are in a totally different game) that Harry has 
moment where he sees them vulnerable in a way that he can't help but connect 
with. The Pensieve scene always interests me in the way Harry automatically 
identifies with Snape because of the role Snape is in, while to me it seems 
he's missing some pretty big ways he's like James.

> Jen:  Once I read that JKR isn't writing any more Quidditch scenes
> that sort of explained it for me.  That one was for her, she
> couldn't quite bring herself to write the last game ever as a loss
> even if that would have been a better story or ethically more
> congruent or whatever.  Just a guess. (And my son is very cool, I
> can even forgive him for being an OFH!Snaper <g>.)

Magpie:
Honestly, that's the feeling I get a lot, that she just can't bring herself 
to have him lose, or that she just naturally enjoys events where Harry pulls 
through.

-m 





From kking0731 at gmail.com  Thu Nov  9 02:44:30 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:44:30 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eit8ji+jjtj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiu4me+942p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161305






Mike now:
> Two things come out of this Lupin quote. First, memories reside in 
> the soul and, second, your sense of *self* comes from your soul. 
> Both of theses are important to the Diary Horcrux. <snip>

Carol responds (snipped):
If memories reside in the soul, how is it that Snape and Dumbledore
take them out of their minds (brains), with no soul piece involved?

Snow:

I would say that it is a 'mere' memory in comparison to the Diary 
memory that was a complete copy of Tom's sixteen-year-old self when 
he entered into the Diary. 

Carol:

More canon evidence that memories are in the mind and not in the soul:
Legilimency and Occlumency--the "reading" and blocking of thoughts and
memories--both include the Latin root "mens," meaning "mind." Snape
expels memories from Harry's mind, not from his soul, with the
Legili*mens* spell, just as we see DD and Snape removing thoughts from
their minds (brains).

Snow:

Snape states that Legilimency is not mind reading, it is much more:

"The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at 
leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the inside of skulls, to perused 
by any invader. The mind is a complex and many-layered thing, [
] It 
is true, however, that those who have mastered Legilimency are able, 
under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their victims 
and to interpret their findings correctly." OOP pg. 530-531

Thoughts, memories are part of the mind but the mind cannot function 
without a soul. One singular, mere memory, can be copied and placed 
for viewing in the pencieve but not a host of memories like that of a 
sixteen-year-old boy who was capable of retaining all the knowledge 
he knew previous to the memory placement. 

Carol:

The Unspeakables study the mysteries of mind and thought by studying
the pickled brains in the DoM. (Those who are interested in the *soul*
no doubt study what's beyond the Veil in the Death Chamber.) We see
tentacles of thought or memory trailing from the brain that attacks
Ron: "[I]t soared toward Ron, spinning as it came, and what looked
like ribbons of moving images flew from it, unravelling like rolls of
film." A few sentences later, the narrator refers to these "ribbons"
as "tentacles of thought" (OoP Am. ed. 798).

Snow:

That's just it. Memories are separate tentacles of thought; they are 
not collective. Each memory can be placed in a pencieve or Diary but 
a collection of memories would come from the brain, which cannot 
survive separate from the soul. 

Carol snipped:

Altogether, I'd say it's pretty clear that thoughts and memories
reside in the brain, not the soul, and the diary could have contained
Pensieve-style memories of Tom's fifth year (at least one of them
specifically dated) before it ever became a Horcrux. That the memories
date from 1943 in no way proves that the diary became a Horcrux at
that early date.

Snow:

They may indeed reside in the brain but the soul controls the brain 
and the soul is the one that ultimately makes the choices. Your brain 
can tell which path to choose or not but only the soul can make the 
choice. 

Does the brain decide who you really are or not, or does the soul of 
the person? The brain gives you options, like a pencieve, but the 
soul is what makes you who you are. You are the one who decides, and 
makes the choices from your own variety of memories, what to finally 
decide will be your final choice that you tell your brain.  

Memories can leave scars, like Ron has from the tentacles of the 
brain that attacked, but they cannot touch his soul. 

Snow






From dossett at lds.net  Thu Nov  9 02:37:29 2006
From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 02:37:29 -0000
Subject: Snape's teaching moments was  CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra, #12
In-Reply-To: <E1GhI3z-0006xx-Ft@elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <eiu499+j5ov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161306

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at ...>
wrote:
>
> Carol asked:
> > 12. Harry apparently feels only anger and resentment as he undergoes 
> > his detention, with no thought of the reasons why Snape assigned it.
> > What has happened to Harry's horror and remorse? Has he forgotten
> his
> > own wrongdoing? What, if anything, might Snape have done to make
> this
> > detention (and its sequels) more effective?
> 
> Zgirnius:
> I think the only thing that could have made the detentions more
effective is
> if they were not assigned by or supervised by Snape. 
> Harry has simply reached a point where he has not respect for Snape's
> authority as a teacher, at all, even when he knows himself to be in the
> wrong.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> Sherry now:
> 
> I actually think it is much simpler even than that, though yes, I agree,
> Harry has no respect for Snape by now.  However, I think shoving his
> father's detentions in his face, and having it be Snape doing that in
> particular is why Harry shows no remorse and resents the detentions
instead.
> I don't think the way to get to him, to make him think about his
actions is
> to force him to read all that stuff about his dad and Sirius.  I
think it
> would have the exact reverse effect and would make him feel more
defensive
> of his dad.  I know that's how I would react.  I could criticize my
dad, but
> by god, no outsider--in particular one who hated him--had better do
it!  I
> think Harry was truly upset by what happened to Draco, but I think
nearly
> any other type of detention would have had more impact on him than this.
> Again, it's another indication that Snape has no clue how to handle
Harry or
> what will get to him in a positive way.  Everything he does only
adds to the
> resentment and widens the gulf between them.
> 
> Sherry
>

now Pat:

I mostly agree with both zgirnius and Sherry, but since Snape's
farewell to Harry (post-tower) was obviously a teaching moment, I have
wondered if there was something that Harry could have learned in this
or not.  Maybe I'm really over-reaching here, because I haven't been
able to come up with anything.  Does anyone have any ideas as to what,
if anything, Harry could have learned?

~Pat  





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 03:31:26 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 03:31:26 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eit8ji+jjtj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiu7ee+m46b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161307

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Mike previously:
> > Two things come out of this Lupin quote. First, memories reside  
> > in the soul <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> If memories reside in the soul, how is it that Snape and Dumbledore
> take them out of their minds (brains), with no soul piece involved?
> You don't have to split your soul (by commiting murder) to remove a
> memory, but you do have to split your soul to detach a piece of 
> soul to encase in a Horcrux. <snip>

Mike:
Where does the soul reside within the body? I would suppose anywhere 
and everywhere. And when Dumbledore draws a memory out of his head 
it's magic! Did the memory transition through the soul before it's 
removal? Does the brain store the memories in the soul and access 
them at will? Does the soul contain all the knowledge and memory and 
feed them to the brain for processing? All I can do is guess as to 
how JKR envisioning this working, that's if she envisioned anything 
about the process at all.

But JKR certainly gave us the soul, in her world, that contains both 
memories and knowledge. "The seventh part of his soul, however 
maimed, resides inside his regenerated body. That was the part of 
him that lived a spectral existence for so many years during his 
exile; without that, he has no self at all." (DD in HBP p.503, US)

I repeat "that was the part of him that lived..." Voldemort's *self* 
survived because his *soul* survived. Voldemort retained his 
knowledge and memories within that soul, had to, that was the only 
thing that survived. He has no brain but he still has his memories, 
can still think and plot and do all the things that we normally 
associate with a brain, without a brain. This is the world JKR has 
constructed, with only his soul surviving Voldemort can do 
everything that we would think he needs a brain to do. The soul 
piece in the diary does all the same things, all the functions that 
normally require a brain. Can we agree that in the Potterverse a 
soul, or soul piece, functions as well and with the same capacity as 
a brain? Meaning the soul piece provides the memories.

The soul piece that was Vaportmort was what possessed other living 
things. Voldemort told us so and we witnessed it with Quirrell. The 
soul piece that was in the diary was what possessed Ginny, 
Dumbledore told us so. And possession was a requirement to open the 
Chamber of Secrets, the key being the need to speak Parseltongue to 
do the openning. So, in order for the diary to be used as a weapon 
(DD's term) it required a soul piece. Memories don't possess. But 
soul pieces contain memories and they possess.

The diary needed a soul piece which obviated any need to download 
memories. Why would Tom download memories into the diary? He has to 
put a soul piece into it for it to work and the soul piece contains 
*all* his memories. He doesn't have to guess which memories are 
needed, which would be ridiculously hard to discern given that he 
wouldn't know who his intended victim would be and what would be 
needed to affect the possession. Accordingly, the soul piece 
memories did not extend past what a sixteen-year-old Tom Riddle 
knew. Therefore, the soul piece was encased in the diary when Tom 
Riddle was still sixteen.

The question left, IMO, is when Tom Riddle created the Horcrux. 
There are many opinions as to the mechanics of creating a Horcrux, 
and frankly, I don't see JKR bothering to explain the mechanics. So 
everything is speculation that will most likely never be confirmed 
or even hinted. But given that we know Tom murders his father when 
he's sixteen and his father was defenseless to prevent it, doesn't 
it seem logical that Tom took advantage of this murder to create the 
Horcrux? Whatever the mechanics, it surely seems that creating a 
Horcrux at the time of the murder is the easiest process to accept 
as plausible. IOW, I can't envision a Horcrux creating process 
whereby committing a murder and making a Horcrux at the same time 
would not be workable. 

And if not then, when would he do it while he's still sixteen? 
Making the Horcrux at any other time puts an additional capability 
requirement on Horcrux creation that isn't required for simultaneous 
murder with creation. And since Tom is already planning to get away 
with triple murder, what's a little Horcrux creation on the side. 
Beats trying to do it in the orphanage or back at school.


> Carol again:
> It's altogether a different sort of thing. Tom Riddle could 
> have placed a memory or memories of himself at sixteen in
> the diary for 1943, months or even years before he made it into a
> Horcrux encasing a soul bit. (The diary was already, as Dumbledore
> said, valuable to Tom because it proved that he was the Heir of
> Slytherin. and that proof was in his memories, not in the soul bit
> that anchored his core soul to the earth.) <snip>

Mike:
The problem with your scenario is that there isn't simply memories 
in the diary of Tom at sixteen. The diary!revenant has a long 
conversation with Harry that displays knowledge, learning, 
intelligent thought and memories. All of these qualities are 
displayed from the perspective of a sixteen-year-old Tom that has 
learned new things from Ginny. Memories aren't knowledge, they can't 
think for themselves. But the diary!revenant does think for itself 
and does have knowledge and skills of a sixteen-year-old Tom.

In my scenario, Tom's memories of openning the Chamber and 
everything else are in the diary because they come with the soul 
piece. And the ability to open the Chamber with the diary exists 
with the soul piece. So my scenario keeps the diary just as valuable 
to Tom, if not more, it really can open the Chamber from the 
beginning.

Your scenario requires Tom to select which sixteen-year-old memories 
he thinks will be useful, how he could determine this you haven't 
explained. And still the diary is useless as a tool to open the 
Chamber until it got the soul piece. We only saw one memory from 
Tom's fifth year, his framing of Hagrid. But we did see an 
intelligent being, sixteen years of age. How does the it make sense 
that the diary!revenant is sixteen if it generates from an older 
soul piece?


> Carol concludes:
> Altogether, I'd say it's pretty clear that thoughts and memories
> reside in the brain, not the soul, and the diary could have 
> contained Pensieve-style memories of Tom's fifth year (at least 
> one of them specifically dated) before it ever became a Horcrux. 
> That the memories date from 1943 in no way proves that the diary 
> became a Horcrux at that early date.

Mike:
I'd say that it is more clear that memories and knowledge and at 
least one power reside within the soul. In fact, I'd say that it's 
canon, displayed on more than one occasion. And the fact that a 
sixteen-year-old Tom emerges from the diary and that this diary!
revenant must be generating from the soul piece within, pretty much 
proves that the soul piece came from a sixteen-year-old Tom Riddle.





From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Thu Nov  9 04:06:13 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 04:06:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eitjku+cgr6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiu9fl+qtj2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161308

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
<snip>
> Carol responds:
> We don't know that the nonverbal curse or hex that Teen!Severus used
> in the Pensieve memory was Sectumsempra. I tend to think that it
> wasn't since there's no indication that James was "cut always" (no
> blood flowing profusely down his face, no suggestion that the cut
> won't heal, and, as you say, no scar that we know of).
> 
> I think that the spell young Snape used was a preliminary version of
> Sectumsempra, perhaps just "Sectum" ("cut"), and that Sectumsempra 
was
> a Darker and more dangerous version developed "For Enemies" after 
the
> so-called Prank (the trick Sirius Black played on Severus to lure 
him
> into the Shrieking Shack the following schoolyear). 

Quick_Silver:
I see your point that we don't know the spell Teen!Snape used but to 
me it doesn't make sense thematically/from a literary stand point (as 
a person with no literary background) if of the two spells that we 
don't know in Snape's Worst Memory (the upside down spell and the cut 
spell) we're only told one in HBP (Levicourpus) and instead JK shows 
us the more "evolved" form of "cut" spell.

<snip> 
> I very much doubt that Teen!Severus would have taught Madam Pomfrey
> the countercurse to a spell that he wouldn't want her to know he had
> invented. Nor would the Marauders know the complex countercurse, 
even
> if they got hold of Severus's Potions book, because it wasn't 
written
> in the margins of the book.

Quick_Silver:
Isn't that based on the assumption that only Snape could have a 
counter-curse for his "cut" spell? Why couldn't the Marauders or 
Madam Pomfrey or anyone for that matter come up with a counter-curse? 
Isn't there a scene where Hermione reverse engineers one of the Twins 
products (invisibility hats??) so why couldn't someone do that with a 
spell? 

> I actually think it's a Flint that James knows Levicourpus, a
> nonverbal hex. But even if it isn't (say the Marauders found out 
about
> it by eavesdropping on the Slytherins), there's no reason why they
> would know about Sectumsempra and its countercurse, which I think
> Severus would have kept very secret (and perhaps had not yet 
invented).

Quick_Silver:
But JK has Lupin specifically say that Levicourpus was a popular 
spell during his time at Hogwarts. That to me implies that there may 
be something of a story behind and note that Harry also connects it 
(although not definitely) to the Death Eaters in GoF. Perhaps Snape 
isn't as secretive with his work as we're lead to believe. And 
doesn't Snape himself imply that James turned his inventions against 
him in during his little fit at the end of HBP? 

Quick_Silver (who agrees that having Snape save Malfoy was dramatic 
but you can't deny having Peter do it would be pretty dramatic too)






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Nov  9 05:18:12 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:18:12 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Chamber of Horcruxes
References: <eis1jq+abq8@eGroups.com> <700201d40611080731t63c4a32fqec33ffdbe7a44301@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <009b01c703be$7472f930$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161310

> Steve wrote:
>
> While I'm sure this is old news, since we have several
> Horcrux discussions going on, I will point out one hugely
> significant place in the wizard world where a Horcrux is
> most certainly hidden (or so I speculate). It is a place
> that has tremendous significants to the Founders of the
> school, is known by Voldemort, and indeed was part of
> a plan by Voldemort to attack the school.
>
> Of course, I speak of 'The Chamber of Secrets'.


One real problem with that- only one that could speak Parceltongue could 
open the Chamber of Secrets, and so if Voldemort was unable to get into it 
himself (too weak, and so forth), it's very unlikely that one of his 
faithful followers would also have that gift to go get it for him. Thus, 
posing a problem of gaining later access. But, on the flip side, that fact 
would also serve as a protection layer to keep the horcruxes safe.

None of the previous Headmasters could find it in part because they couldn't 
"speak" the opening password in Parceltongue. Even if they had a clue of 
where it was, they had no way to open it to prove it. I don't even think 
Dumbledore could speak Parceltongue, or at least I don't see any reference 
in the Books that he could, so I don't think he could have searched the 
chamber without Harry's help. It would be a good guess, though, of Voldemort 
placing some there, since we do know from Book 6 that Riddle did his first 
few murders while he was yet a student, and that he accessed the chamber 
during that time, so it fits that a Horcrux would be hidden there.

Shelley






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Nov  9 05:49:59 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:49:59 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
References: <eisqi2+h4li@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b301c703c2$e4dc2580$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161311

> Zgirnius wrote:
> >The songlike chant for a
> > healing spell makes some sense because of the association of
> > phoenixes with healing.
> >
> a_svirn countered:
> I don't think so. The songlike quality was due to the fact that
> Snape *chanted* (that is intoned the incantation in certain rhythm)
> rather than pronounced it normally. Fawkes, on the other hand, sings
> without words.


I just reread Book 1: In it, after everyone sings the school song (in the 
chapter "The Sorting Hat"), Dumbledore has this to say:
"Ah, music," he said, wiping his eyes. "A magic beyond all we do here!"

I missed it the first time though, it's such an innocent line, but after 
reading all the other books and coming back to it, I realize this is one of 
J.K.'s buried "gems" in the text. It explains the Phoenix and the healing 
chant, which was music as well. I don't think it matters the "type" of 
music, whether it's just voice or with instruments, but just that like 
"love", that is has powers to combat Dark Magic. It's funny that the school 
song was even sung in multiple "tunes" before Dumbledore made that comment, 
meaning that the music doesn't even have to be beautiful or well done to 
have that effect. I wouldn't be surprised if Lilly might have been singing 
to Harry while Voldemort was threatening her and Harry, or if she had been 
singing to Harry immediately before Voldemort breaks into the house to kill 
them. It would be very interesting if that detail came into play in the last 
book in this series.

But, this healing fact of music leads me to believe that it might have been 
Dumbledore to first realize the countercurse to that Sectumsempra spell, for 
the mere words alone might not have the full healing effect, but that is has 
to be chanted or sung for the real magic of that counterspell to be 
unleashed.

Shelley






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Nov  9 05:27:26 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 22:27:26 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
References: <eisv3o+tiso@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00a001c703bf$be4c5960$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161312

> Magpie:
> It does add an extra bit of gentleness to Snape--usually his
> response to injuries is to order the person to the hospital wing as
> if they've annoyed him by being injured (and I don't think that kind
> of gruffness is always a bad thing). I wonder if he feels the need
> to offer more healing for the spell because he invented it. And then
> it also may just be there to indicate that the danger is passed and
> Snape's speaking normally again, talking about ingredients etc.


My thought of this was totally different: Snape's spell was clearly Dark 
Magic. My thought was that he was so quick to heal Draco himself is that he 
wanted to hide the source of the spell, or at least, the very Dark nature of 
the spell. If word got out that the Prince was Snape, and that he loved Dark 
Magic, suspicion would have fallen on him all over again as being a faithful 
Death Eater in disguise. I think he healed Draco himself not out of 
fulfillment of the Vow, or out of compassion, but out of fear of someone 
finding out that he was the inventor of new spells in Dark Magic even from a 
young age. He was covering his own tracks.

Shelley






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 07:30:20 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:30:20 -0000
Subject: Who did Kreatcher talk to in OOTP?
In-Reply-To: <eitvbb+vht5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiulec+q8bq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161314

---  "Hagrid" <aussie_lol at ...> wrote:
>
> aussie writes:
> 
> I... JKR clues that gave the impression Kreatcher went 
> to speak to someone.
> 
> ... (after) Mr Weasley's > ... Kreatcher would disappear,
> and have a different attitude when he returned.
> 
> When Harry checked to see if Sirius was in Grimauld Place,
> Kreatcher had bandages on his hands (Dobby-like injury 
> after disobeying his master).
> 
> any ideas? Has this been in discussions before?
> Aussie
>

bboyminn:


This has indeed been discussed, but it is also explained
to Harry by Dumbledore at their end of book discussion.

Near Christmas when Arthur Weasley is attacked, Sirius
ordered Kreacher 'OUT!', and Kreacher took that as 
meaning get out of the house. So, Kreacher went /out/ to 
the only /available/ member of the Black family that he 
respected which was Narcissa Black-Malfoy. From her, 
Kreacher's information reached Voldemort. 

Kreacher had been ordered not to reveal any information
about the Order, or what was happening in the Black House.
But Sirius, not taking Kreacher very seriously, negelected
to prevent Kreacher from revealing minor more indirect 
information, like  the fact that Harry and Sirius were 
close, and that Harry was very likely to come to Sirius's
aid regardless of the circumstances or danger. Voldemort 
used this minor, apparently insignificant information to 
lay at trap for Harry.

Again, Dumbledore explains it all near the end of the
book.

Steve/bboyminn





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 07:54:13 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:54:13 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <009b01c703be$7472f930$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <eiumr5+lmh4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161315

---  "k12listmomma" <k12listmomma at ...> wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > ... I will point out one hugelysignificant place in 
> > the wizard world where a Horcrux is most certainly 
> > hidden (or so I speculate). ...
> >
> > Of course, I speak of 'The Chamber of Secrets'.


> Shelley: 
> 
> One real problem with that- only one that could speak 
> Parceltongue could open the Chamber of Secrets, and so
> if Voldemort was unable to get into it himself ... But,
> on the flip side, that fact  would also serve as a 
> protection layer to keep the horcruxes safe.
> 

bboyminn:

Precisely, no one could get in but a person who speaks 
parseltongue, which means that functionally no one but
Harry and Voldemort can get in, which in turn means 
there is probably no better protected place in the
wizard world.

Also, when Voldemort potentially placed the Horcrux there
the place was protected by a Basilisk, one of the 
deadliest creatures in the wizard world. No need for a
lot of fancy protective enchantments when a Basilisk is 
around. That seems like a pretty safe place.

Even if Voldemort didn't hide anything there, the real 
question is will the Trio think of the possibility and 
explore it?

There is the question of when Voldemort had the 
opportunity to place any thing in the Chamber, but the
school is pretty much empty and unprotected during the
summer. He could had sneaked in then. Or he could have
done it the time when he came for a job interview with
Dumbledore. Simple enough to slip in the bathroom, 
quickly to the Chamber, hide the object, then he's off
again.

As to whether Dumbledore explored the Chamber or not. I
don't think so, partly because there is no indication that
he speaks parseltongue, and Harry was away from the school
immediately after the incident. So, I don't see how or
when he could have searched it. Though, it may have been
on his agenda, once he started the hunt for Horcruxes in
earnest, he may have very well intended to enlist Harry's
help to search the Chamber, but died before he had a 
chance.


Steve/bboyminn






From finwitch at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 09:34:50 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:34:50 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes/languages
In-Reply-To: <eiumr5+lmh4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiusnq+if4g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161316

> bboyminn:
> As to whether Dumbledore explored the Chamber or not. I
> don't think so, partly because there is no indication that
> he speaks parseltongue, and Harry was away from the school
> immediately after the incident. So, I don't see how or
> when he could have searched it. Though, it may have been
> on his agenda, once he started the hunt for Horcruxes in
> earnest, he may have very well intended to enlist Harry's
> help to search the Chamber, but died before he had a 
> chance.

Finwitch:

Where did he get the ring, though? Was it near the orphanage or
Codrics Hollow (Voldemort was wearing it when he attacked the Potters)?

It's possible for Dumbledore to have checked out the chamber, I'd say...

 I mean Fawkes got in there somehow; There's no indication that the
entrance was ever closed (no mention of it at all, only of Myrtle) so
why not?

But maybe he didn't. Harry will go there - IF he has a way to leave
the chamber afterwards. (Fawkes, levitation, conjuring ladders). I
also wonder if Harry will try to open the corridor that had caved in
according to the twins...

OF other things...
Hmm.. Where did Dumbledore learn Mermish? I suppose he also knew
gibbledecook... And if Albus could, what are Aberforth's language
abilities? Wonder if Aberforth can speak with goats like Harry with
snakes...

Finwitch





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Nov  9 06:33:52 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:33:52 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who did Kreatcher talk to in OOTP?
References: <eitvbb+vht5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01a001c703c9$085ad9b0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161317

> aussie writes:
>
> I haven't finished my re-read of OOTP (Order Of The Phoenix) yet, but
> there were a lot of JKR clues that gave the impression Kreatcher went
> to speak to someone.
>
> From the time Harry explained his vision or Mr Weasley's attack to
> Sirius (with Kreatcher standing outside the door) Kreatcher would
> disappear, and have a different attitude when he returned.
>
> When Harry checked to see if Sirius was in Grimauld Place, Kreatcher
> had bandages on his hands (Dobby-like injury after disobeying his
> master).



Wasn't it said that he went to visit that other Black relative, Bellatrix 
LeStrange? To give her information that would help to remove the OOTP from 
the house, and maybe even to kill Sirius (which eventually did come true)? 
Kreatcher had leanings toward the Dark side of the Black family tree, and 
like his former master, seemed to disapprove of Sirius's good leanings. Read 
on, I believe it's stated where he went.

Shelley 






From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Thu Nov  9 12:07:20 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 4:07:20 -0800
Subject: What if...?  (was Snape / Harry & Temptation / Healing
Message-ID: <19246893.1163074040126.JavaMail.root@web11>

No: HPFGUIDX 161318


---- horridporrid03 <horridporrid03 at yahoo.com> wrote: 

What I do think is that in some ways young!Snape is Harry without 
Harry's advantages. 

----------------------------------------------

Marion here:

Brings up an interesting question.  Imagine if Harry wasn't the Famous Harry Potter, but just an orphan living in the same circumstances with the Dursleys.  He gets his letter and makes his way to Hogwarts, but hasn't got the background, the fortune or the insight that Hagrid and Ron gave him.  Would he have ended up in Slytherin?  (Remember, the sorting hat considered putting him there).  Would he have been an outcast and a loner like Snape?  Maybe he and Snape would have been much more alike in those circumstances.  




From surabhithesingdan at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Nov  9 10:59:47 2006
From: surabhithesingdan at yahoo.co.uk (surabhithesingdan)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 10:59:47 -0000
Subject: Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eir4cu+f3g1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eiv1n3+9dtq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161319

I never thought in my life that prof. Snape would be the half blood
prince. I am in a real confusion that whether Snape or Draco attacked DD and killed him. I don't think that DD is dead.

surabhithesingdan






From patrisia_devita at yahoo.co.id  Thu Nov  9 10:32:35 2006
From: patrisia_devita at yahoo.co.id (patrisia devita sari)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:32:35 +0700 (ICT)
Subject: Harry is Not A Horcrux, But the Sword Is
In-Reply-To: <20061107063046.74839.qmail@web90315.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20061109103235.40528.qmail@web57109.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161320

hpmyth:
      
The Writer of "Harry Potter" Myth Is TELLING a Story.
By Dumbledore's Death Harry Shall Count On Himself In fighting The Dark Lord.

By The Way:
Harry Is Not A Horcrux Because The Dark Lord Wants To Kill Harry, Why Does He Put Apiece Of His Soul In Harry's Body ?... And When ?

I think that the sword appeared in the hat in the second book will be a Horcrux.


patrisia devita sari:

Because if Harry Potter Dies The Dark Lord will be ALIVE like before. I think The Gryffindor sword isn't a horcrux because The Dark Lord cannot have it. I think Harry Potter isn't the Dark Lord's soul but I am confused .....




From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 14:47:35 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:47:35 -0000
Subject: Who did Kreatcher talk to in OOTP?
In-Reply-To: <01a001c703c9$085ad9b0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <eivf27+l9mk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161321

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" 
<k12listmomma at ...> wrote:
>
> > aussie writes:
> >
> > I haven't finished my re-read of OOTP (Order Of The Phoenix) yet, 
but
> > there were a lot of JKR clues that gave the impression Kreatcher 
went
> > to speak to someone.
SNIP
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't it said that he went to visit that other Black relative, 
Bellatrix 
> LeStrange? To give her information that would help to remove the 
OOTP from 
> the house, and maybe even to kill Sirius (which eventually did come 
true)? 
SNIP
> Shelley

Beatrice:

Actually, Dumbledore states that Kreacher went to visit Narcissa 
(Black) Malfoy.  See Dumbledore's explaination of events after 
Harry's return from the MoM battle.
>






From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Thu Nov  9 15:18:01 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 7:18:01 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry is Not A Horcrux, But the Sword Is
Message-ID: <16543936.1163085481386.JavaMail.root@web11>

No: HPFGUIDX 161322

hpmyth:

I think that the sword appeared in the hat in the second book will be a Horcrux.

Marion here:

Sorry if I'm repeating anything others have said, but there's 
so much volume in this group, and I'm forced to skim some 
of the longer posts.  I don't thing the sword will be a horcrux 
-- too easy, and Dumbledore would have surely thought of it 
and destroyed it long ago.  As far as Harry - or Lily or any 
other living thing --being a horcrux, isn't it too risky?  If the 
person dies, V's soul would die with it.  Seems to me they've 
got to be inanimate objects.  





From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov  9 15:33:50 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:33:50 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <00a001c703bf$be4c5960$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <eivhou+fl0k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161323

k12listmomma
> My thought of this was totally different: Snape's spell was 
clearly Dark 
> Magic. My thought was that he was so quick to heal Draco himself 
is that he 
> wanted to hide the source of the spell, or at least, the very Dark 
nature of 
> the spell. If word got out that the Prince was Snape, and that he 
loved Dark 
> Magic, suspicion would have fallen on him all over again as being 
a faithful 
> Death Eater in disguise. I think he healed Draco himself not out 
of 
> fulfillment of the Vow, or out of compassion, but out of fear of 
someone 
> finding out that he was the inventor of new spells in Dark Magic 
even from a 
> young age. He was covering his own tracks.

Magpie:
What tracks?  Snape invented the spell when he was at Hogwarts and 
it's already known he became a DE after that.  It also appears to be 
commonly known he was up to his eyes in the DA at that age. He 
wasn't the one who cast the spell and there was still a witness to 
what the spell did. Also just because Snape's being the Prince was a 
mystery to Harry doesn't mean it was a big thing Snape was hiding--
he might have destroyed the book if that were the case.

If Snape's got his own reason for not wanting Draco to have scars I 
would lean more towards him symbolically not wanting that evidence 
of his hand in it himself rather than scars somehow making Snape 
look guilty of something to others. As to healing Draco in general, 
Snape's often taken care of injured students. I think he'd have 
acted to save any student that was injured whether he had any 
involvement or not.

surabhithesingdan
I never thought in my life that prof. Snape would be the half blood
prince. I am in a real confusion that whether Snape or Draco 
attacked DD and killed him. I don't think that DD is dead.

Magpie:
Do you mean you're confused about which one attacked and killed 
him?  It was Snape that did the killing, though there are many 
questions as to exactly why he killed him.  Some also question 
exactly how Dumbledore died, thinking Snape's killing curse was not 
really a killing curse, but Dumbledore is dead.

-m





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 17:27:17 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:27:17 -0000
Subject: Snape's chanting was: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eivk5o+3h1t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eivodl+ofbe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161326

wynnleaf wrote:
>
> While I have thoroughly enjoyed Carol's questions and all the
> varying answers on this chapter, I have read them all day wondering
> why so many people assume that the songlike spell was a "chant." No
> where does the narration describe it as a chant.
>
> Perhaps many assume that the word "incantation" automatically means
> that the words are done in a chant. This is not so.
>
> Some definitions of "incantation" include: <snip>
>
> "A formulaic use of words to produce a magical effect and to create
> an intensifying emotional temperature. The words may be chanted or
> spoken. It is very common in primitive literatures and is much used
> by sorcerers and witches, and also for ritual purposes as in a
> charm" princeton wordnet <snip>

> Because the words are formulaic or are recited, in no way means they
> must be "chanted" and even chanted does not necessarily equate to
> *rythmic* chanting, as some have supposed. In fact, because JKR
> uses the word "songlike," I think we're being told that they were
> *not* chanted at all, but were closer to being a song.
>
> So please do not assume that the countercurse (or whatever you'd
> call it) was chanted.
>
> Or is there some other reason why so many of you thought it was
> chanted?

Carol responds:

I wonder if you're using definition 2 of chant here, while I'm using
definition 1:

Main Entry: 1chant
Pronunciation: 'chant
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English chaunten, from
Anglo-French chanter, from
Latin cantare, frequentative of canere to sing;
akin to Old English
hana rooster, Old Irish canid he sings
intransitive verb
1 : to make melodic sounds with the voice; especially : to sing a chant
2 : to recite something in a monotonous repetitive tone <protesters
were chanting outside>
transitive verb
1 : to utter as in chanting
2 : to celebrate or praise in song or chant

And here's the definition of "enchant," which is closely related to
"incantation":

Main Entry: en?chant
Pronunciation: in-'chant, en-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French enchanter, from Latin
incantare, from in- + cantare to sing -- more at CHANT
1 : to influence by or as if by charms and incantation

At any rate "enchant," "enchantment," "incantation," etc., all point
to the relationship between chanting and spells (as indicated in the
definition you cited: "an incantation may be *chanted* or spoken," and
the kind of chanting I had in mind is the very songlike Gregorian
chant (note "to sing a chant," in definition 1 of "chant"). For
examples of Gregorian chant, click here:

http://www.christdesert.org/noframes/chant/chant.html

If you've ever attended a Mass conducted in Latin, or even a
high-Church Anglican communion service with the priest and
congregation alternating chanted responses, you'll know what I mean by
a songlike chant. And the combination of "songlike" with "muttered" to
me indicates a chanted incantation. Note "song*like*. What else
besides a chant ("making melodic sounds with the voice") is songlike
but not quite an actual song? (Like Gregorian chant, Snape's spell is
chanted a cappella, but, of course, it's a solo, not a choral
performance).

Also note "cantata" and "canto" and other "song" words with the root
"canto, cantare," "to sing or chant," the same root that appears in
"incantation." If you prefer to believe that Snape actually *sang*
rather than chanted the incantation, that's fine, but the word the
narrator uses is "muttered." In any case, it's a fine distinction, and
Gregorian chant, which I had in mind when I typed the question, is
classified as a form of music. At any rate, I agree that he didn't
simply recite it. IMO, it resembled a song without actually being one.
(You don't need to have a two-octave range to chant it.)

I don't think anyone here is thinking of the sort of rhythmic chant we
hear at an American football game: "Go! Go! Go!" or in the GoF film:
"Fight! Fight! Fight!" Again, when I used "chantlike" in my chapter
discussion, I meant resembling Gregorian chant in being "songlike" but
not quite a song. (If Snape has any kind of musical ability at all, I
expect that it was quite beautiful, though the narrator, reflecting
Harry's pov, didn't say so.)

I was also thinking of ancient magic from the time of the medieval
monks when I suggested the resemblance of Snape's spell to Gregorian
chant. I'm not sure whether he researched the counterspell or invented
it, but it seems to me to be influenced by medieval healing magic in
its complexity and in being chanted rather than spoken--very different
from the counterspell to Levicorpus, which is simply Liberacorpus,
another one-word nonverbal spell.

On a sidenote, I'm also quite certain that Snape is the only one who
knows this spell. I doubt that Lupin, had he been there, or Madam
Pomfrey, or even Dumbledore could have saved Draco. I keep thinking,
"Severus! I need Severus!" Just as he has a deep interest in and
knowledge of the Dark Arts, he also has a deep interest in and
knowledge of their counterparts. And this particular counterspell is
so complex that he may have developed (or discovered) it as an adult
rather than a boy at Hogwarts. It's interesting that no countercurse
is written in the margins of the book, not even scratched-out attempts
such as "Sectum Adverto" ("heal the cut"). To me it seems important
that the person who invented the spell also be the one who created or
discovered the countercurse--part of his remorse, as Jen says.

Carol, quite convinced that Snape was chanting the "songlike"
incantation (as opposed to merely speaking a one-or two-word phrase or
actually singing, say, a hymn or other musical composition)





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 17:50:10 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:50:10 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eitmtf+jbt5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eivpoj+8kns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161327

Cyril wrote:
> 
> IMO, Snape is probably one of the few people who can *reverse* the
> impact of Sectumsempra, because it is his own spell. However, IMO,
> that does not necessarily mean that he had knowledge of ancient (or
> even modern) healing magic, which could counter such damaging magic.

Carol responds:
As indicated elsewhere, I'm not sure whether Snape invented the
counterspell or researched it, but we do know that he's an expert in
healing wounds created by Dark magic. He saves both Dumbledore and
katie Bell in HBP. And the resemblance of the counterspell to
Gregorian chant interests me. The only fairly other complex
incantation I can recall from the books is the three-part
bone/flesh/blood spell that Wormtail recited when he added those
ingredients to the Voldie-restoration potion, and there's no
indication that his spell was chanted or sung. Snape's also appears to
be in a language Harry doesn't understand, perhaps Latin, which Snape
clearly knows (see his spell names) and Harry doesn't (see his
ignorance of what the spells did until he actually cast them--lesson
to young readers--learn your Latin roots!)
> 
Cyril:
> The reason for this opinions was the following examples:
> 
> Why was Snape not able to heal himself when he was presumably (as it
> is Harry's assumption about the cause) bitten by Fluffy in SS/PS.
> While there is no canon (other than Harry's assumption) about the
> cause, Snape clearly was limping, and should have been able to heal
> himself.

Carol responds:
Good question, and one I've wondered about myself. First, JKR's
characters are at the mercy of her plot--she needs to have Harry see
Snape failing to get past the Three-Headed Dog and having him injured
and talking to Filch is one way to bring that about. But also it
appears that Snape's expertise relates to Dark spells and their
countercurses more than Dark creatures. (As an aside, I do think he
knows a lor about Dementors and Inferi, but perhaps less about
Cerberuslike dogs--or minor nuisances like Kappas.) It's also rather
surprising that he didn't have some sort of healing potion on hand,
but again, I think that character was sacrificed to plot in this
instance, and also JKR was playing her cards close to her chest with
Snape and was not ready to reveal his many gifts so soon.
> 
Cyril:
> Again, Snape was not able to help Arthur Weasly when he was bitten
by Nagini, and the wounds were not healing for quite some time.

Carol:
When did Snape have an opportunity to treat Arthur? Arthur was in the
MoM and taken immediately to St. Mungo's. Snape wouldn't even have
known about it until Arthur was in his hospital bed.
<snip>

> Cyril, totally agreeing with Carol and other posters on the view
that Snape used advanced, complex magic to help heal Draco, but does
not seem to show the same capability in some other instances.

Carol:
I'm not so sure that we "totally agree." My view is that JKR mostly
kept Snape's abilities as a Healer under wraps until HBP, when we also
learn what a brilliant student he was. However, we've had glimpses of
Healer!Snape in the antidotes he always has ready for his Potions
students in the earlier books and in his making the Wolfbane Potion
for Lupin in PoA. It seems likely that he also made the Mandrake
Restorative Potion administered by Madam Pomfrey in CoS: Professor
Sprout only grew the Mandrakes. I don't recall either her or Madam
Pomfrey actually making a potion, and Snape says to Lockhart, who
volunteers to make it, "I believe I am the Potions master at this
school." (It's only in the film that Dumbledore asks for a round of
applause for Sprout and Pomfrey.)

Carol, who never said that Snape didn't "show the same capability in
other instances" but thinks that his healing powers were intended as a
revelation in HBP





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 17:56:37 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 17:56:37 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eivmhq+i06g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eivq4l+dgin@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161328

Carol earlier:
> > It's altogether a different sort of thing. Tom Riddle could
> > have placed a memory or memories of himself at sixteen in
> > the diary for 1943, months or even years before he made it into a
> > Horcrux encasing a soul bit. (The diary was already, as Dumbledore
> > said, valuable to Tom because it proved that he was the Heir of
> > Slytherin. and that proof was in his memories, not in the soul bit
> > that anchored his core soul to the earth.) <snip>
>
> Mike:
> The problem with your scenario is that there isn't simply memories
> in the diary of Tom at sixteen. The diary!revenant has a long
> conversation with Harry that displays knowledge, learning,
> intelligent thought and memories. All of these qualities are
> displayed from the perspective of a sixteen-year-old Tom that has
> learned new things from Ginny. Memories aren't knowledge, they can't
> think for themselves. But the diary!revenant does think for itself
> and does have knowledge and skills of a sixteen-year-old Tom.
>
> In my scenario, Tom's memories of openning the Chamber and
> everything else are in the diary because they come with the soul
> piece. And the ability to open the Chamber with the diary exists
> with the soul piece. So my scenario keeps the diary just as valuable
> to Tom, if not more, it really can open the Chamber from the
> beginning.
>
> Your scenario requires Tom to select which sixteen-year-old memories
> he thinks will be useful, how he could determine this you haven't
> explained. And still the diary is useless as a tool to open the
> Chamber until it got the soul piece. We only saw one memory from
> Tom's fifth year, his framing of Hagrid. But we did see an
> intelligent being, sixteen years of age. How does the it make sense
> that the diary!revenant is sixteen if it generates from an older
> soul piece?
>
Carol responds:
Sigh! I'd really like to drop this thread, as I see your point but
don't agree with it. To reiterate briefly, in my view, the diary was
created when Tom was sixteen with memories from the year 1943, but it
was not at that time a Horcrux. Instead of writing a diary, he simply
placed in key memories at key dates to prove that he was the Heir of
Slytherin. He may have added charms to make it interactive with the
intent of reopening the Chamber of Secrets. But what you're calling
Revenant!Tom only came into existence when the diary, already a
powerful magical object of value to Tom, was turned into a Horcrux by
the addition of a soul bit. At that point, the memory of Tom as a
collective entity became capable of possession and independent thought
beyond interacting with the reader. (For example, he could change his
motivation from killing "Mudbloods," the origingal purpose of the
diary, to focusing on Harry--meeting and killing him. What he knew of
Harry, he of course learned from Ginny.) I've already explained how I
think the diary could interact with a reader without being a Horcrux.
Just look at the book that compelled a reader to keep reading and
never put it down. Ron warns Harry that books can be dangerous, and
Mr. Weasley warns him of the dangers of objects that can think for
themselves. (Look at the Sorting Hat--not dangerous, but it contains
some of the "brains"--not souls--of the Four Founders. It can think
for itself and interact with anyone whose head it sits on, but it
isn't a Horcrux.)

Why didn't Revenant!Tom, as you call him, have any memories later than
age sixteen? Because the soul bit, whenever it was placed in the
diary--not necessarily at age sixteen, when Tom himself tells Slughorn
that he doesn't know how to make a Horcrux--was split off after a
murder committed when Tom was sixteen. So even if the soul bit
incorporates additional memories, not those originally implanted in
the book like the one that Harry was invited into, those memories
don't go beyond the time of the murder or the original creation of the
diary.

I can't tell whether the murder is that of Moaning Myrtle--the diary
was created after her murder, after Dumbledore's "annoyingly close
watch" on Tom prompted Tom to put the memory of his sixteen-year-old
self into the diary--or the murder of his father, which Tom doesn't
mention but GoF!Voldemort does. I tend to think that it was the Myrtle
soul bit, which fits with the purpose of the diary and is significant
as his first murder. It makes sense to me (sense from Tom's pov) to
use Myrtle's murder for the diary and his father's for the ring. But
neither soul bit would extend the memories any farther than his
sixteenth year even if a soul bit contains memories.

I still don't think that it does. IOW, I think that the diary contains
memories because it's supposed to be interactive, but the other
Horcruxes exist solely to encase the main soul and anchor it to earth.

I'm not surprised at the inconsistencies in JKR's descriptions, for
example, having memories quite clearly in the brain in the DoM scene,
yet saying that the self is in the soul, which is why the Dementors
are so terrible. (I'd like to know how Barty Jr. is living with a
brain but not a soul, but I don't think we're going to see him.) But
I'm quite sure that a soul bit is distinct from a memory, and that it
was an ordinary, Pensieve-type memory that Harry fell into in the
diary. I'm also quite sure that no other Horcrux contains what you
call Revenant!Tom, which came into being specifically because of the
interactive nature of this particular Horcrux.

Incidentally, I think that Dumbledore simply destroyed the ring
Horcrux, and with it the soul bit (which was probably released to go
beyond the Veil rather than destroyed because the soul is immortal).
He was attacked by the protective curse on the ring, but there's no
evidence that he was possessed or that he encountered a Memory!Tom
like the one in the diary.

Carol, sure that the diary was originally intended for another purpose
and was made into a Horcrux at a later time using a soul bit from a
murder committed when Tom was sixteen





From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Nov  9 18:59:12 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 18:59:12 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eiu0fa+gqvs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eivtq0+sgdv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161329

> aussie now:
> When Snape accepted the challenge of going into the Shreiking Shack 
> only to be saved by James, did he go in prepared with this curse - 
> [Sectumsempra] for enemies?

Eddie:
I wonder, if in fact Snape had Sectumsempra at the ready, whether
James "saved" James not because Snape was in danger, but because LUPIN
was in danger from Snape.  This would mean James somehow knew that
Snape had this dangerous spell and that James thought Snape was
prepared to use it.  (This would, again, point to James having
knowledge/access to Snape's spell book.  Again, via Lily?)

Speculation on top of speculation.

Eddie






From bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 15:29:19 2006
From: bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com (bridgetteakabiit)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:29:19 -0000
Subject: Harry is Not A Horcrux, But the Sword Is
In-Reply-To: <eiqav6+6kkv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eivhgf+2opu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161330

> >>KathyO:
>> I agree Harry isn't a Horcrux, however I believe that his scar
either is or contains a Horcrux.
>> <snip>
>> It is the one thing that does make sense throughout the books, starting with Dumbledore saying scars can come in handy, and remembering that the last word in the last book is 'scar'. <<

bridgetteakabiit:
I am confused. If the scar is, or contains a horcrux, how can it be
destroyed without Harry being destroyed? That doesn't sound like it
would "come in handy" in that sense. If Voldemort can't be destroyed
until all the horcruxes are destroyed, and Harry's scar is the other
horcrux, then it sounds like Harry has to be destroyed in order for
Voldemort to be.

Plus, his scar already has come in handy...helping save Mr. Weasely, and the scar is proof that Voldemort transfered powers, such as parselmouth...which has obviously come in handy many times, since he can always understand what Voldemort is saying, plus could open the Chamber of Secrets and such.

I do think that the missing horcruxes are most likely items that have
always been around and spoken about in the books, since that is the
way the author seems to work.

bridgetteakabiit




From chuckdunphy at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 19:14:11 2006
From: chuckdunphy at yahoo.com (chuckdunphy)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:14:11 -0000
Subject: What if...?  (was Snape / Harry & Temptation / Healing
In-Reply-To: <19246893.1163074040126.JavaMail.root@web11>
Message-ID: <eivum3+soda@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161331

> >>Betsy Hp:
>> What I do think is that in some ways young!Snape is Harry without Harry's advantages. <<

> >>Marion here:
>> Brings up an interesting question.  Imagine if Harry wasn't the
Famous Harry Potter, but just an orphan living in the same
circumstances with the Dursleys.  He gets his letter and makes his
way to Hogwarts, but hasn't got the background, the fortune or the
insight that Hagrid and Ron gave him.  Would he have ended up in
Slytherin?  (Remember, the sorting hat considered putting him
there).  Would he have been an outcast and a loner like Snape?
Maybe he and Snape would have been much more alike in those
circumstances. <<

chuckdunphy:
The hat didn't finally say Slytherin,it was just saying it was
possible.  The hat hadn't made its mind up.  Also Harry conjured the
Gryffindor sword and Dumbledore said only a true Gryffindor could do
that.







From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Nov  9 20:59:20 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:59:20 -0000
Subject: Snape's teaching moments was  CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra, #12
In-Reply-To: <eiu499+j5ov@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej04r8+8gc9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161332

> now Pat:
> I mostly agree with both zgirnius and Sherry, but since Snape's
> farewell to Harry (post-tower) was obviously a teaching moment, I have
> wondered if there was something that Harry could have learned in this
> or not.  Maybe I'm really over-reaching here, because I haven't been
> able to come up with anything.  Does anyone have any ideas as to what,
> if anything, Harry could have learned?

Eddie:
On face value, Harry could have learned that ultimately he will have a
difficult time against Voldemort if he doesn't learn non-verbal
spell-casting and occlumency.  More subtly, that Snape is first and
foremost his teacher and his ally.  After all, during Snape's
farewell, he had nothing to lose in capturing Harry and taking him to
Voldemort.  Previously, Snape clearly told Bellatrix that the only
reason he never took Harry to Voldemort -- or killed him -- was
because he (Snape) was trying to maintain his cover story.  Well, the
killing of Dumbledore pretty much ended that.

IMHO.

Eddie





From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Nov  9 21:17:50 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:17:50 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <009b01c703be$7472f930$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ej05tu+4m9g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161333

> Shelley:
> None of the previous Headmasters could find it in part because they
couldn't 
> "speak" the opening password in Parceltongue. Even if they had a
clue of 
> where it was, they had no way to open it to prove it. I don't even
think 
> Dumbledore could speak Parceltongue, or at least I don't see any
reference 
> in the Books that he could, so I don't think he could have searched the 
> chamber without Harry's help.

Eddie:
Good point.

I'd like to point out, however, when Dumbledore and Harry visited the
Gaunts in the pensieve they (the Gaunts) were speaking Parseltongue
and Dumbledore appeared to understand them.  He doesn't say so
directly, but circumstantially.

Dumbledore asked Harry something like, "YOU can understand them, can't
you?", which comes right after Bob Ogden shows that he can't
understand them.  Later, Dumbledore spoke to Harry about what they had
seen without  any indication that he hadn't understood everything that
was said.

Like I said, this is circumstantial.  Also, it's possible that
Dumbledore can understand snake language without being able to
reproduce it himself (not Parseltongue, but Parsel-eared?).

Anyway, this is off on a 3rd degree tangent.

Eddie





From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 21:26:18 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:26:18 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eirdab+p7vh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej06dq+c0af@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161334


> Carol:
> 3. Why does Harry feel that going out with Ginny would be disloyal to 
> Ron and that he must choose between the two? 

Amiable Dorsai:
The Code of the Guys.  You do NOT date your best friend's sister
without his permission.  That would be worse than taking both the last
slice of pizza AND the last beer.

That Ron might actually want Harry to go out with his sister has
nothing to do with anything.  Harry needs to ask, Ron needs to give
assent.  

Mind you, once permission is granted, it may not be rescinded, save
for really serious infractions, such as abuse, or, you know, taking
the last beer AND the last slice of pizza.

Amiable Dorsai





From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Nov  9 21:57:53 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 21:57:53 -0000
Subject: Snape's chanting was: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eivodl+ofbe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej0891+id3u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161335


> wynnleaf wrote:
wondering
> > why so many people assume that the songlike spell was a "chant." No
> > where does the narration describe it as a chant.
> >
> > Perhaps many assume that the word "incantation" automatically means
> > that the words are done in a chant. This is not so.
> >
> > Some definitions of "incantation" include: <snip>
> >
> > "A formulaic use of words to produce a magical effect and to create
> > an intensifying emotional temperature. The words may be chanted or
> > spoken. It is very common in primitive literatures and is much used
> > by sorcerers and witches, and also for ritual purposes as in a
> > charm" princeton wordnet <snip>
> 
> > Because the words are formulaic or are recited, in no way means they
> > must be "chanted" and even chanted does not necessarily equate to
> > *rythmic* chanting, as some have supposed. In fact, because JKR
> > uses the word "songlike," I think we're being told that they were
> > *not* chanted at all, but were closer to being a song.

 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I wonder if you're using definition 2 of chant here, while I'm using
> definition 1:
> 
> Main Entry: 1chant
> Pronunciation: 'chant
> Function: verb
> Etymology: Middle English chaunten, from
> Anglo-French chanter, from
> Latin cantare, frequentative of canere to sing;
> akin to Old English
> hana rooster, Old Irish canid he sings
> intransitive verb
> 1 : to make melodic sounds with the voice; especially : to sing a chant
> 2 : to recite something in a monotonous repetitive tone <protesters
> were chanting outside>
> transitive verb
> 1 : to utter as in chanting
> 2 : to celebrate or praise in song or chant
 
> And here's the definition of "enchant," which is closely related to
> "incantation":
> 
> Main Entry: en?chant
> Pronunciation: in-'chant, en-
> Function: transitive verb
> Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French enchanter, from Latin
> incantare, from in- + cantare to sing -- more at CHANT
> 1 : to influence by or as if by charms and incantation
> 
> At any rate "enchant," "enchantment," "incantation," etc., all point
> to the relationship between chanting and spells (as indicated in the
> definition you cited: "an incantation may be *chanted* or spoken," and
> the kind of chanting I had in mind is the very songlike Gregorian
> chant (note "to sing a chant," in definition 1 of "chant"). For
> examples of Gregorian chant, click here:
> 
> http://www.christdesert.org/noframes/chant/chant.html
> 
> If you've ever attended a Mass conducted in Latin, or even a
> high-Church Anglican communion service with the priest and
> congregation alternating chanted responses, you'll know what I mean by
> a songlike chant. And the combination of "songlike" with "muttered" to
> me indicates a chanted incantation. Note "song*like*. What else
> besides a chant ("making melodic sounds with the voice") is songlike
> but not quite an actual song? (Like Gregorian chant, Snape's spell is
> chanted a cappella, but, of course, it's a solo, not a choral
> performance).
> 
> Also note "cantata" and "canto" and other "song" words with the root
> "canto, cantare," "to sing or chant," the same root that appears in
> "incantation." If you prefer to believe that Snape actually *sang*
> rather than chanted the incantation, that's fine, but the word the
> narrator uses is "muttered." In any case, it's a fine distinction, and
> Gregorian chant, which I had in mind when I typed the question, is
> classified as a form of music. At any rate, I agree that he didn't
> simply recite it. IMO, it resembled a song without actually being one.
> (You don't need to have a two-octave range to chant it.)
> 
> I don't think anyone here is thinking of the sort of rhythmic chant we
> hear at an American football game: "Go! Go! Go!" or in the GoF film:
> "Fight! Fight! Fight!" 


wynnleaf
Actually, my impression was that some posters were thinking of "chant"
as something akin to the sound of reading metered verse.  

Carol
Again, when I used "chantlike" in my chapter
> discussion, I meant resembling Gregorian chant in being "songlike" but
> not quite a song. (If Snape has any kind of musical ability at all, I
> expect that it was quite beautiful, though the narrator, reflecting
> Harry's pov, didn't say so.)

wynnleaf
Gregorian and other early chants are considered a form of music called
plainsong (one of my majors in college was music so we did study
this).  Plainsong is a single line of unaccompanied musical notation
to be sung, although it usually doesn't have a very wide range of
actual notes.  It is not metered and to our modern ears it appears to
have no rhythm.  

I had thought that some posters were confused about what was meant by
"chant."  If Snape's incantation was in fact like a chant, it was not
anything like reciting metered poetry (it seemed like some posters may
have thought of it like that).  Instead, it would have been unmetered,
without a discernable rhythm.  But it *would* be a song, with notes,
just without much range on the notes.  "Muttered" wouldn't change the
musical nature of it; it would just make it more quiet.  

The narration calling it "songlike" instead of more directly saying it
was a song would make sense, because from Harry's point of view he
wouldn't be able to recognize plainsong as any sort of music he was
familiar with.


Carol
> I was also thinking of ancient magic from the time of the medieval
> monks when I suggested the resemblance of Snape's spell to Gregorian
> chant. I'm not sure whether he researched the counterspell or invented
> it, but it seems to me to be influenced by medieval healing magic in
> its complexity and in being chanted rather than spoken--very different
> from the counterspell to Levicorpus, which is simply Liberacorpus,
> another one-word nonverbal spell.


wynnleaf
It is interesting that this is the first use (I think) we're shown of
music in a spell.  Doesn't Dumbledore use a similar spell later to
heal the cuts in the cave?  Sorry, no book handy to check.


Carol
> On a sidenote, I'm also quite certain that Snape is the only one who
> knows this spell. I doubt that Lupin, had he been there, or Madam
> Pomfrey, or even Dumbledore could have saved Draco. I keep thinking,
> "Severus! I need Severus!" Just as he has a deep interest in and
> knowledge of the Dark Arts, he also has a deep interest in and
> knowledge of their counterparts. And this particular counterspell is
> so complex that he may have developed (or discovered) it as an adult
> rather than a boy at Hogwarts. It's interesting that no countercurse
> is written in the margins of the book, not even scratched-out attempts
> such as "Sectum Adverto" ("heal the cut"). To me it seems important
> that the person who invented the spell also be the one who created or
> discovered the countercurse--part of his remorse, as Jen says.
> 
> Carol, quite convinced that Snape was chanting the "songlike"
> incantation (as opposed to merely speaking a one-or two-word phrase or
> actually singing, say, a hymn or other musical composition)
>

wynnleaf
I certainly agree that Snape sang the incantation -- possibly in a
plainsong manner, as early chants were.  

wynnleaf -- who hopes that all the posters realized what "chant"
implied, rather than thinking it to be something like reciting metered
verses.





From ladypensieve at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 22:17:26 2006
From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:17:26 -0000
Subject: Harry is Not A Horcrux, But the Sword Is
In-Reply-To: <eivhgf+2opu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej09dm+4olr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161336

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bridgetteakabiit" 
<bridgetteakabiit at ...> wrote:
>KathyO:I agree Harry isn't a Horcrux, however I believe that his 
scar either is or contains a Horcrux.
> 
> bridgetteakabiit:
> I am confused. If the scar is, or contains a horcrux, how can it be
destroyed without Harry being destroyed? (snip) If Voldemort can't 
be destroyed until all the horcruxes are destroyed, and Harry's scar 
is the other horcrux, then it sounds like Harry has to be destroyed 
in order for Voldemort to be.

Now Kathy (lol): This is why JKR keeps us on our toes, saying that 
Harry might actually die in the last book. Even if we figure out 
that Harry's scar is a Horcrux, how will this save Harry?  

Can you imagine being Harry?  He still has one last Horcrux to 
destroy before he meets Voldemort, yet it's no where to be found?  
Then the moment comes and he has no choice in the matter...

My personal theory is that Voldemort - in a sense - will kill 
himself when he tries to kill Harry.  The curse will be thrown at 
Harry, the Horcrux will protect itself, sending the curse back to 
Voldemort, as he sees this, he sends another curse at Harry, hitting 
him in the scar.  Both fall to the ground.  Is Harry alive?  Is 
Voldemort?

We have to wait and see what JKR has in store for us - dam it!
KathyO







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov  9 22:17:45 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 22:17:45 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes/languages
In-Reply-To: <eiusnq+if4g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej09e9+bqs5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161337

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" <finwitch at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> > As to whether Dumbledore explored the Chamber or not. I
> > don't think so, partly because there is no indication that
> > he speaks parseltongue, and Harry was away from the school
> > immediately after the incident.

> Finwitch:

> It's possible for Dumbledore to have checked out the chamber, I'd say...
> 
>  I mean Fawkes got in there somehow; There's no indication that the
> entrance was ever closed (no mention of it at all, only of Myrtle) so
> why not?
>

zanooda:

But the Chamber was closed, in fact both the lower and the upper
entrances were closed. First, when Harry and Ginny left the Chamber,
"Harry heard the stone doors close behind them with a soft hiss" (CoS,
p. 323 US). Then, after Harry and the others are back in the MM's
bathroom, they can see that "the sink that hid the pipe was sliding
back into place" (p. 325).

It seems that DD could get into the Chamber only if he really was a
Parselmouth himself, and I'm still not convinced that he was. There
was a great discussion about this on the list around the time I joined
(that's why I remember it so well, it was one of the first threads
that I read here), in April or May, and there were lots of really good
convincing arguments in favor of DD being a Parselmouth, but I'm still
not sure. Parseltongue seems like something you are born with, not
something you can learn. 





From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Nov  9 23:58:23 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:58:23 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <eiragi+5l9q@eGroups.com>
References: <eiq1l8+i3ll@eGroups.com> <eiragi+5l9q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611091558o1ca94adbs6a3547e03d7823ea@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161338

>
> bboyminn:
>
> One BIG BIG difference between British Schools, especially
> Hogwarts, and normal American schools, is that the British
> schools in question are Boarding Schools. Students don't
> go home at the end of the day and become both the parents
> and societies problem. At a boarding school the school is
> responsible for the students health, safety, wellbeing,
> and recreational diversions 24 hours a day.


montims:
I don't quite understand this.  Hogwarts is a boarding school, but most
schools in Britain are day schools, and ALL schools in Britain, to the best
of my knowledge, have head boys and girls, and prefects.  We also had those
in my primary school, with obviously lesser responsibilities.

The wonder to me is still that American schools do not have them...


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




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Nov  9 23:50:38 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:50:38 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
References: <eivhou+fl0k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <012001c70459$dbfbef30$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161339

> k12listmomma
>> My thought of this was totally different: Snape's spell was
>> clearly Dark Magic. My thought was that he
>> was so quick to heal Draco himself is that he
>> wanted to hide the source of the spell, or at least, the very Dark
> nature of the spell. If word got out that the Prince was
>> Snape, and that he loved Dark
>> Magic, suspicion would have fallen on him all over again as being
> a faithful Death Eater in disguise. I think he healed Draco
>> himself not out of fulfillment of the Vow, or out of
>> compassion, but out of fear of someone
>> finding out that he was the inventor of new spells in Dark Magic
>> even from a young age. He was covering his own tracks.
>
> Magpie:
> What tracks?  Snape invented the spell when he was at Hogwarts and
> it's already known he became a DE after that.  It also appears to be
> commonly known he was up to his eyes in the DA at that age. He
> wasn't the one who cast the spell and there was still a witness to
> what the spell did. Also just because Snape's being the Prince was a
> mystery to Harry doesn't mean it was a big thing Snape was hiding--
> he might have destroyed the book if that were the case.

Maybe I didn't make my case clear. We know Snape is a double agent- helping 
Dumbledore, and leading the Dark Lord to think he's still loyal to him at 
the same time. Yes, it was widely known that Snape HAD BEEN a Death Eater, 
but it was NOT known to everyone that he was acting as a double agent since 
then. The official word to the "public" is that Snape turned good, period, 
that he had "forsaken" all that was loyal to Voldemort. I think the 
revelation of this book, and the spells that Snape developed, would have 
cast a new light on Snape, a new suspicion on Snape that maybe it was 
Snape's nature to be "dark", not merely that he was a follower of the Dark 
Lord. Thus, someone close to Snape might have watched his actions more 
carefully- something that he didn't need at a time when he was tailing 
Draco.

I see a vital difference between the cowards who quake in the Dark Lord's 
wake, fearing what he would do to their families, and thus served the Dark 
Lord out of fear, and those that loved what Voldemort was doing, and so 
served willingly and happily. Remember what Mad Eye Moody said- that there 
were many who merely claimed to be under the Imperious Curse when they did 
the Dark Lord's bidding, and then recanted when the Dark Lord fell? He said 
we don't know how many had merely "changed their minds", meaning that they 
had once made a willing choice to serve the big baddy. Clearly, the more 
dangerous ones were the folks that served Voldemort willingly, for those 
might be the folks who run back to Voldemort when the time was right, when 
he had more power again, if they weren't killed first (just as Draco's 
father did). A love of Dark Arts from a young childhood would be an 
indication, I think, that Snape's first term as a Death Eater was a willing 
service, and that would then be an argument for Evil!Snape, being that you 
could argue that his nature didn't change. It's just a rabbit trail on the 
Evil!Snape path, that's all. Or, an attempt by Rowling to make us wonder if 
Snape was evil from the word go, and still is, even if she intends to prove 
to us in the end that he isn't.

Shelley








From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Thu Nov  9 23:24:38 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 16:24:38 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber of Horcruxes
References: <ej05tu+4m9g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <011501c70456$39cf3d50$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161340

>> Shelley:
>>  I don't even think  Dumbledore could speak Parceltongue,
>> or at least I don't see any  reference
>> in the Books that he could, so I don't think he could have
>> searched the chamber without Harry's help.
>
> Eddie:
> Good point.
>
> I'd like to point out, however, when Dumbledore and Harry visited the
> Gaunts in the pensieve they (the Gaunts) were speaking Parseltongue
> and Dumbledore appeared to understand them.  He doesn't say so
> directly, but circumstantially.
>
> Dumbledore asked Harry something like, "YOU can understand them, can't
> you?", which comes right after Bob Ogden shows that he can't
> understand them.  Later, Dumbledore spoke to Harry about what they had
> seen without  any indication that he hadn't understood everything that
> was said.
>
> Like I said, this is circumstantial.  Also, it's possible that
> Dumbledore can understand snake language without being able to
> reproduce it himself (not Parseltongue, but Parsel-eared?).
>
> Anyway, this is off on a 3rd degree tangent.


About this, I think Dumbledore is smart enough to understand that this 
language is Parceltongue, and to figure out approximately what was said. I 
was surprised that he didn't ask Harry to translate, meaning either the 
exact words weren't important, he had enough of an idea that he was "ok" 
with it, or that maybe there IS another Parceltongue somewhere out in the 
wizarding world that is a close friend of Dumbledore's that he asked already 
about it. Or, like you suggested, he's Parcel-eared.  Yes, it's anyone's 
guess why Dumbledore didn't ask Harry to translate, and we don't even know 
if this will be one of those small threads that will get resolved in the 
last book. Did he have a translation book, a Parceltongue to English book on 
his shelves, perhaps? (He did say people were always giving him books!) It 
would be interesting if we could just rummage through Dumbledore's office 
and explore all those wonderful magical gadgets that were merely mentioned 
as a collection. Maybe one of those gadgets allowed him to communicate in 
languages unknown to him naturally.

I think of another incident where Dumbledore speaks another language- it was 
with the Merpeople in the TriWizard Tournament, to find out what happened at 
the bottom of the lake. I often wondered just WHEN he acquired 
Mermaid-language- was it in school, afterward, or was it a natural gift of 
his to pick up languages? So much of Dumbledore is important to the story, 
and I have to wonder if this bit is essential to the ending of the story, or 
just a side element thrown in just to show how smart and wise Dumbledore 
really is. It might be relative to Harry if some of those gadgets were given 
to Harry to help him later, either directly, or "just in the nick of time, 
as needed", just like the Sorting Hat, Gryffindor Sword and Fawkes were sent 
to Harry in the Chamber of Secrets in his time of need.

Shelley











From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov 10 01:27:50 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 20:27:50 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
References: <eivhou+fl0k@eGroups.com> <012001c70459$dbfbef30$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <002a01c70467$70524190$33b4400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161341


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "k12listmomma" <k12listmomma at comcast.net>
To: <HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra


>> k12listmomma
> Maybe I didn't make my case clear. We know Snape is a double agent- 
> helping
> Dumbledore, and leading the Dark Lord to think he's still loyal to him at
> the same time. Yes, it was widely known that Snape HAD BEEN a Death Eater,
> but it was NOT known to everyone that he was acting as a double agent 
> since
> then. The official word to the "public" is that Snape turned good, period,
> that he had "forsaken" all that was loyal to Voldemort. I think the
> revelation of this book, and the spells that Snape developed, would have
> cast a new light on Snape, a new suspicion on Snape that maybe it was
> Snape's nature to be "dark", not merely that he was a follower of the Dark
> Lord. Thus, someone close to Snape might have watched his actions more
> carefully- something that he didn't need at a time when he was tailing
> Draco.

Magpie:
But I still don't see where any of this is suggested as having anything to 
do with Snape.  That sort of distinction has never been much of an issue in 
the books, particularly with him.  His interest in the Dark Arts while still 
at school was told to us by Sirius Black before we even saw it as something 
that was generally known (the bigger shock to him seemed to be that he'd 
been a DE).  We've never heard anything about Snape's turning good depending 
on the idea that he was never really bad to begin with.  Once it was 
revealed that Snape was a DE it didn't seem like anyone thought he was one 
of the pushed-into-it people.

But even apart from that, what would healing Draco help, since it doesn't 
erase what happened? Snape doesn't do anything to the three witnesses who 
saw the spell in action.  As far as we know Harry reports the spell to his 
friends (after Snape identifies it to him as Dark Magic) including Hermione 
who identifies it as a Dark Spell and Pansy reports whatever she knows all 
over the school.  When he sees the spell Snape knows Harry has the book and 
demands it, but doesn't do much to get it when Harry doesn't give it up and 
pretends he didn't have it--and by asking for it and letting Harry know 
Snape knows where the spell came from, he's given Harry or someone a 
potential clue to his identity.

So I'm still left thinking that Snape doesn't act like his primary 
motivation in healing Draco is covering up his teenaged career, especially 
since I don't see how healing Draco is the difference between Snape being 
outed as the HBP or not.  While on the other side it seems like Snape's 
often taken care of hurt students as a teacher, HBP suggests he's especially 
experienced at healing and he's made a deadly vow to protect Draco from 
harm.

-m 





From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 10 01:59:21 2006
From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com)
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:59:21 -0600
Subject: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
Message-ID: <4553DCF9.9080604@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161342

> montims:
> I don't quite understand this. Hogwarts is a boarding school, but most
> schools in Britain are day schools, and ALL schools in Britain, to the 
> best
> of my knowledge, have head boys and girls, and prefects. We also had those
> in my primary school, with obviously lesser responsibilities.
>
> The wonder to me is still that American schools do not have them...

Hestia Lurkswell:
It's really no wonder to me, being a U.S. citizen born and bred. The 
education system here is modeled after the old Germanic school system; 
not the British school system. Also, U.S. schools are about 
inclusiveness not talent, thus prefects and such are rare and students 
tend to get graded on a curve rather than for their abilities and merits.

As to Hogwarts being a boarding school as opposed to a day school; 
wouldn't it make more sense to have a magical school where the students 
are kept away from the outside world in order to prevent major accidents 
and mishaps and disasters from occurring? At any rate Hogwarts is an 
ancient school, and the Wizarding World is old in it's methods. Correct 
me if I'm wrong, but weren't  boarding schools the norm in the 18th and 
19th centuries?

just my thoughts on this subject...




From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 01:55:33 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 17:55:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611091558o1ca94adbs6a3547e03d7823ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20061110015533.85689.qmail@web56502.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161343


Janette <jnferr at gmail.com> wrote:                                  
 montims:
 I don't quite understand this.  Hogwarts is a boarding school, but most
 schools in Britain are day schools, and ALL schools in Britain, to the best
 of my knowledge, have head boys and girls, and prefects.  We also had those
 in my primary school, with obviously lesser responsibilities.
 
 The wonder to me is still that American schools do not have them...


Dantzel:
Oh that's no surprise! :) We have too many parents that throw fits if their children are not just as special as every other child, so we would have to have either all be prefects or none. ;)
On the topic of Ron being Head Boy, however, IF the Trio comes back to Hogwarts I see no reason why he shouldn't be. We don't exactly gets lots of examples of exemplary Head Boys or Girls, besides Percy and Penelope, so if we are to base our theories on canon, Hermione would pretty easily be Head Girl and Ron might as well be Head Boy just for the plotline. :)

We know that Rowling does not give out sweets for the good boys and girls in her books and give coal to the naughty ones. The appointment of Head Boy/Girl, in my opinion, is based on politics, since it is the Headmaster/mistress that chooses. Dumbledore chose Ron to be prefect despite less than awesome grades and his uncanny ability to cause trouble with Harry.

                                                         
                  
            
        
                                                 
                          
           
       




From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Nov 10 02:32:40 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 21:32:40 -0500
Subject: Abused!Petunia (was:Re: So what if...)
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAxyfdWW6NHkGNY3Vsz0XEZAEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161344

NJ:
"Hmmm...maybe Vernon is the repressed wizard - LOL.
> NJ
>"

NJ, I've always thought that the person who will do magic 'late in life' would
be Vernon.  It would be such a kick in the pants for him, wouldn't it?  He'd
certainly thereafter carefully examine the genealogies of any of Dudder's
girlfriends!
BAW



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





From drdara at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 05:52:03 2006
From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 21:52:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
Message-ID: <20061110055203.38380.qmail@web60721.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161345

Also, I know some people have talked about class presidents and such in American schools. Most public american schools try to model themselves after american politics and goverments. And I am only discussing public schools because some private schools are different. American public schools hold elections for class president and vice president, some do presidents for each grade and some schools have a president for the whole school, then you have student counsels, treasurer, secretary, and representatives for each grade. The representatives for each grade could sorta be like prefects and the class president and vice president could be like head boy/girl, except instead of the school principal or headmaster or teachers choosing them, the school votes for whom they would like, making it a democratic system. Ok so I've spoken my thoughts for the month, and now I'm going to crawl back into my hideyhole and wait patiently for the 7th book/ 5th movie to come out.

Danielle, from colorado 


----- Original Message ----
From: "kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com" <kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com>
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 6:59:21 PM
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)

> montims:
> I don't quite understand this. Hogwarts is a boarding school, but most
> schools in Britain are day schools, and ALL schools in Britain, to the 
> best
> of my knowledge, have head boys and girls, and prefects. We also had those
> in my primary school, with obviously lesser responsibilities.
>
> The wonder to me is still that American schools do not have them...

Hestia Lurkswell:
It's really no wonder to me, being a U.S. citizen born and bred. The 
education system here is modeled after the old Germanic school system; 
not the British school system. Also, U.S. schools are about 
inclusiveness not talent, thus prefects and such are rare and students 
tend to get graded on a curve rather than for their abilities and merits.

As to Hogwarts being a boarding school as opposed to a day school; 
wouldn't it make more sense to have a magical school where the students 
are kept away from the outside world in order to prevent major accidents 
and mishaps and disasters from occurring? At any rate Hogwarts is an 
ancient school, and the Wizarding World is old in it's methods. Correct 
me if I'm wrong, but weren't boarding schools the norm in the 18th and 
19th centuries?

just my thoughts on this subject...






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




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Fri Nov 10 07:34:45 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 23:34:45 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <20061110055203.38380.qmail@web60721.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20061110055203.38380.qmail@web60721.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611092334n15f26785nb3a2853ab459b47f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161346

Danielle:
Also, I know some people have talked about class presidents and such in
American schools. Most public american schools try to model themselves after
american politics and goverments. And I am only discussing public schools
because some private schools are different. American public schools hold
elections for class president and vice president, some do presidents for
each grade and some schools have a president for the whole school, then you
have student counsels, treasurer, secretary, and representatives for each
grade. The representatives for each grade could sorta be like prefects and
the class president and vice president could be like head boy/girl, except
instead of the school principal or headmaster or teachers choosing them, the
school votes for whom they would like, making it a democratic system.

Danielle, from colorado

In the primary grades at my school we also had one student assigned to be
the "room monitor" in each classroom and two line leaders one for the boys
and one for the girls. At my school the room monitors changed every week and
the line leaders changed every day. In the classrooms I work in now, we tend
to keep the same line leader throughout the year and the room monitor
position has been dispensed with. I work with severely handicapped children
and things run a little more smoothly if schedules don't change that much.

Lynda


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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov 10 11:16:10 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 11:16:10 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eivpoj+8kns@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej1n1q+c32u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161347

> 
> Cyril:
> > The reason for this opinions was the following examples:
> > 
> > Why was Snape not able to heal himself when he was presumably (as it
> > is Harry's assumption about the cause) bitten by Fluffy in SS/PS.
> > While there is no canon (other than Harry's assumption) about the
> > cause, Snape clearly was limping, and should have been able to heal
> > himself.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Good question, and one I've wondered about myself. First, JKR's
> characters are at the mercy of her plot--she needs to have Harry see
> Snape failing to get past the Three-Headed Dog and having him injured
> and talking to Filch is one way to bring that about. But also it
> appears that Snape's expertise relates to Dark spells and their
> countercurses more than Dark creatures.

Pippin:

Magical creatures such as werewolves can deliver cursed wounds that 
even wizards cannot  heal. It makes sense that magical 
creatures would evolve ways of overcoming magical defenses. It could 
be that sectum sempra, although it can produce a lot of physical 
damage, doesn't produce a contaminated wound.

Arthur's wounds could not be closed by stitches, so they must have
been magical as well as physical (magical wounds that will not 
close are well known in folklore.)

 Dumbledore warned that Fluffy would inflict "a very painful 
death." He may have meant the prolonged agony of magical
wounds such as Arthur suffered. Possibly the healing spell
Snape used on Draco would not work at all.  But it could be that 
it did work to some extent. Maybe the injury Harry  saw had 
already been treated and was much worse to begin with!
 It's also possible that Snape was involved in Arthur's healing 
but no one thought to mention it to Harry.

Pippin





From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Fri Nov 10 12:08:30 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 4:08:30 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about
 book 7)
Message-ID: <11857921.1163160510445.JavaMail.root@web23>

No: HPFGUIDX 161348

---- Dantzel Withers <shmantzel at yahoo.com> wrote: 
 The appointment of Head Boy/Girl, in my opinion, is based on politics, since it is the Headmaster/mistress that chooses. Dumbledore chose Ron to be prefect despite less than awesome grades and his uncanny ability to cause trouble with Harry.
************************

Marion here:
I don't know if I'd say political, although I agree that there don't seem to be rigid guidelines based on grades and following school rules.  Re: the choice of Ron as prefect, I'm reminded of two scenes.  First, in SS/PS, remember when Dumbledore was explaining the mirror of Erised to Harry.  He told Harry Ron's fondest desire: 

"Ron Weasley, who has always been overshadowed by his brothers, sees himself standing alone, the best of all of them."

Then, in OP when Dumbledore explains to Harry why he wasn't made prefect, he says,

"...I rather thought...you had enough responsibility to be going on with."

So it seems to me that Dumbledore chooses prefects based on his uncanny insight into the students themselves and their needs.  I'm still trying to figure out how Percy and Draco fit into this scenerio, though. ;-)

Marion
                                                         
                  
            
        
                                                 
                          
           
       






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Nov 10 14:43:48 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:43:48 -0000
Subject: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <11857921.1163160510445.JavaMail.root@web23>
Message-ID: <ej2374+ekv8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161349

Marion:
> So it seems to me that Dumbledore chooses prefects based on his 
uncanny insight into the students themselves and their needs.  I'm 
still trying to figure out how Percy and Draco fit into this scenerio, 
though. ;-)


Potioncat:
During Harry's years at Hogwarts, we've only known one Head Boy and no 
Head Girl. The new Prefects for Harry's 6th year weren't mentioned, 
even though Ginny would have been eligible. After all the excitement at 
the Weasley house in the 5th year, it doesn't even come up in the 6th 
year. So I suspect we won't even hear about Head Boy in the next book.

At least, that was what I thought until I read this post. I've snipped 
the two quotes that had to do with Ron and Harry as Prefects, but we 
just may see Ron as Head Boy. 

But, back to Prefects. I would say that at Hogwarts, the Heads of House 
have a major input for the Prefects. We don't know who McGonagall or 
Snape nominated. 

As for Draco, he is a leader, and perhaps Snape/DD thought he could use 
a "constructive" outlet for his leadership skills and some extra 
wholesome activities to fill his time. Too bad they didn't keep him 
busier in his 6th year!






From carla.mcculley at comcast.net  Fri Nov 10 15:18:48 2006
From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:18:48 -0000
Subject: Vernon's biggotry, what if....just a speculation
Message-ID: <ej258o+pjvc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161350

I posted this as a reply before, but I'm not sure I did it right and
I
would really like some feedback on this.  I'm new but I'm trying to
follow the rules.  Here goes..  There has been alot of speculation
about Vernon and Petunia and the possibility of the magical
community
being a part of their lives in another manner other than through
Lily.  Petunia's  hatred is clearly jealousy of her sister ("But for
mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were
proud to have a witch in the family,"  PS, chap 4).  But Vernon's
apparent hatred of the WW is so intense that it seems to be an
ingrained behaviour past just the fear of something different.

It's been established in canon that Lily was muggle born, so we
can't have another Witch or Wizard there.  We've met Marge and
Vernon wants her to know nothing about Harry's abilities, so it's
doubtful of an apparent witch or wizard in Vernon's immediately
family as well.  But wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if one of
Vernon's parents was a Squib and the shame of it forced him/her into
the muggle world and to hide his/her magical roots in order to be
accepted?  I would love to see the look on old Vernon's face finding
out that the shame of being "normal" is why Vernon's parent was cast
out....perhaps by a family of pure-bloods as hateful as the
Malfoys!  I know I'm stretching here, but it would still be a hoot
and a very interesting twist.  Opinions??  How do you think he would
react at finding something like this out.  I haven't seen anyone
else mention this, so if it's already been touched on, I apologize.


Carla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 18:05:29 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:05:29 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <012001c70459$dbfbef30$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ej2f19+t95c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161351

k2listmama (Shelley) wrote:
> Maybe I didn't make my case clear. We know Snape is a double agent-
helping Dumbledore, and leading the Dark Lord to think he's still
loyal to him at the same time. Yes, it was widely known that Snape HAD
BEEN a Death Eater, but it was NOT known to everyone that he was
acting as a double agent since then. The official word to the "public"
is that Snape turned good, period, that he had "forsaken" all that was
loyal to Voldemort. I think the revelation of this book, and the
spells that Snape developed, would have cast a new light on Snape, a
new suspicion on Snape that maybe it was Snape's nature to be "dark",
not merely that he was a follower of the Dark Lord. Thus, someone
close to Snape might have watched his actions more carefully-something
that he didn't need at a time when he was tailing Draco.

Carol responds:
I don't think that the general public knew about Snape. Unlike Lucius
Malfoy, Avery, Nott, Crabbe, Goyle, Macnair, and the others Harry
mentions in GoF, whose names Fudge says were listed in the Daily
Prophet as being declared innocent because they claimed to be under
the Imperius Curse, Snape was cleared of all charges. His name would
not have been publicized, nor was Rita Skeeter present at Karkaroff's
hearing when his name was mentioned (his own hearing would have been
private as well) as she was at Ludo Bagman's. It would have been
crucial to Snape's safety and to his role as a spy that his
involvement with the Death Eaters be kept secret. Nor do I think that
the Hogwarts parents, other than the DEs, would have allowed their
children to be taught by a man they knew was a former Death Eater.
Sirius Black didn't know that Snape had been a DE, nor, it appears,
did McGonagall before Snape revealed his Dark Mark in GoF. His role as
double agent is especially effective because so few people outside the
 Death Eaters and the members of the reconstituted Order of the
Phoenix know that he was a DE, much less that he "returned" to
Voldemort on Dumbledore's orders (or in cooperation with him as part
of a longterm plan: "If you are ready; if you are prepared"). Also, if
Rita Skeeter knew, she would certainly have listed him along with
half-giant Hagrid, werewolf Lupin, and ex-Auror Moody (this is before
Fake!Moody's identity was exposed) as one of Dumbledore's questionable
hiring choices.
> 
k2listmama: 
> I see a vital difference between the cowards who quake in the Dark
Lord's wake, fearing what he would do to their families, and thus
served the Dark Lord out of fear, and those that loved what Voldemort
was doing, and so served willingly and happily. Remember what Mad Eye
Moody said- that there were many who merely claimed to be under the
Imperious Curse when they did the Dark Lord's bidding, and then
recanted when the Dark Lord fell? He said we don't know how many had
merely "changed their minds", meaning that they had once made a
willing choice to serve the big baddy. Clearly, the more dangerous
ones were the folks that served Voldemort willingly, for those might
be the folks who run back to Voldemort when the time was right, when
he had more power again, if they weren't killed first (just as Draco's
father did). 


Carol responds:
AFAWK, only two people served Voldemort entirely willingly, the
fanatics Bellatrix Lestrange and Barty Crouch Jr. (It's possible that
the Lestrange brothers, who helped Crucio the Longbottoms, also fall
into this category. We don't see enough of them to know.) And Antonin
Dolohove, who seems evil through and through, might also qualify. But
Lucius Malfoy, loyal though he seems in CoS, GoF, and OoP, claimed the
Imperius Curse to avoid Azkaban, as did the others I listed (and
Fenrir Greyback, the Carrows [Amycus and Alecto?], and Yaxley ["Brutal
Face"?], as Snape informs us in "Spinner's End." These people, even
the (IMO) irredeemably evil Greyback, seem to be more OFH! (or OFT! =
Put for Themselves) than genuinely devoted to Voldemort, who merely
provides scope for their, erm, talents--just as he does for the
Dementors. The only actual cowards that we see are Karkaroff, who rats
on his fellow DEs to get himself out of Azkaban, then runs away for
fear of retaliation, and Peter Pettigrew, who returns to Voldemort for
fear of retaliation by his former friends. 

k2listmama:
A love of Dark Arts from a young childhood would be an indication, I
think, that Snape's first term as a Death Eater was a willing 
service, and that would then be an argument for Evil!Snape, being that
you could argue that his nature didn't change. It's just a rabbit
trail on the Evil!Snape path, that's all. Or, an attempt by Rowling to
make us wonder if Snape was evil from the word go, and still is, even
if she intends to prove to us in the end that he isn't.

Carol responds:
I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Again, I'm pretty sure that the
wizarding public has or had no clue that Snape was ever a DE though,
of course, it will be all over the newspapers now. Possibly, Fudge
will testify that he had seen Snape's Dark Mark or members of the
Wizengamot or Hogwarts teachers will break their silence. (I think the
non-Hogwarts Order members will want to remain under cover.)

But if by "rabbit trail" you mean red herring, I agree. JKR wants
Harry, and the reader, to think, or suspect, the worst of Snape at the
end of the book. And yet the HBP's Potions book shows good things as
well. There's nothing sinister in the improvements to the potions
(which Harry so dishonestly took credit for), nor in most of the
spells that Teen!Snape invented. Levicorpus and the toenail hex are no
Darker than most of the hexes that the kids use on each other, and
Muffliato is quite useful. We're meant to realize that young Snape was
a genius with a dark side and yet, IMO, to sympathize with him, too.
We understand in part why he was attracted to the DEs and yet we see
affinities with Harry as well.

Carol, sure that Snape is DDM! and will prove indispensable to Harry
in Book 7





From nmangle at cox.net  Fri Nov 10 19:03:19 2006
From: nmangle at cox.net (nmangle at cox.net)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 13:03:19 -0600
Subject: Snape's teaching moments was  CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra, #12
Message-ID: <27357731.1163185399307.JavaMail.root@centrmwml07.mgt.cox.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161352

:> Eddie:
> On face value, Harry could have learned that ultimately he will have a
> difficult time against Voldemort if he doesn't learn non-verbal
> spell-casting and occlumency.  More subtly, that Snape is first and
> foremost his teacher and his ally.  > 
> 
> 

Nicole:
Eddie, great point there, he will not have a chance if he doesn't learn them.  Really, the best he was doing with non-verbals, was reading the HBP book.  Look at what he was learning, by reading on his own, and Snape wrote it all. I think if Snape & he were better aquainted (yeah right), it would really benefit him.  Snape seems like a decent teacher, and could be a better one if he wasn't an ars, and I would like to think that given different ending circumstances, he could have helped Harry more.  He is extrememly smart and if there wasnt all the hate & tension between the two of them, he could have taught Harry so much to help him in the downfall of LV.   But that whole paragraph contained all if''s, buts & fairytale  endings that don't exist.   
So lets hope McGonagal really gets Harry learning in 7.  I think Hermione will help him a lot too.

Nicole







From jmrazo at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 10 20:17:23 2006
From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:17:23 -0000
Subject: Snape's teaching moments was  CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra, #12
In-Reply-To: <27357731.1163185399307.JavaMail.root@centrmwml07.mgt.cox.net>
Message-ID: <ej2moj+hjbc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161353


> Nicole:
> Eddie, great point there, he will not have a chance if he doesn't 
learn them.  Really, the best he was doing with non-verbals, was 
reading the HBP book.  Look at what he was learning, by reading on 
his own, and Snape wrote it all. I think if Snape & he were better 
aquainted (yeah right), it would really benefit him.  Snape seems 
like a decent teacher, and could be a better one if he wasn't an ars, 
and I would like to think that given different ending circumstances, 
he could have helped Harry more.  He is extrememly smart and if there 
wasnt all the hate & tension between the two of them, he could have 
taught Harry so much to help him in the downfall of LV.   But that 
whole paragraph contained all if''s, buts & fairytale  endings that 
don't exist.   

Phoenixgod2000:

I don't think it was a teaching moment at all. At least not a 
concious one on Snape's part.  I think that Snape, the petty sadist 
that he is, was simply toying with him, lording over him with his 
power that he was never able use on him while he was a teacher.  
Maybe Harry will take something away from their encounter and make 
Snape regret playing with him for the very short period of time it 
will takes to make Snape a grease spot on the floor.

One can dream...

Phoenixgod2000





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 20:28:02 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:28:02 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <011501c70456$39cf3d50$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ej2nci+68vn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161354

k12listmomma (Shelley) wrote:

> About this, I think Dumbledore is smart enough to understand that
this language is Parceltongue, and to figure out approximately what
was said. I was surprised that he didn't ask Harry to translate,
meaning either the exact words weren't important, he had enough of an
idea that he was "ok" with it, or that maybe there IS another
Parceltongue somewhere out in the wizarding world that is a close
friend of Dumbledore's that he asked already about it. Or, like you
suggested, he's Parcel-eared.  <snip>
> 
> I think of another incident where Dumbledore speaks another
language- it was with the Merpeople in the TriWizard Tournament, to
find out what happened at the bottom of the lake. I often wondered
just WHEN he acquired Mermaid-language- was it in school, afterward,
or was it a natural gift of his to pick up languages? So much of
Dumbledore is important to the story, and I have to wonder if this bit
is essential to the ending of the story, or just a side element thrown
in just to show how smart and wise Dumbledore really is. It might be
relative to Harry if some of those gadgets were given to Harry to help
him later, either directly, or "just in the nick of time, as needed",
just like the Sorting Hat, Gryffindor Sword and Fawkes were sent to
Harry in the Chamber of Secrets in his time of need.

Carol responds:
I think that DD's knowledge of Mermish, aside from being a plot
device, indicates his great intelligence, just like Crouch Sr.'s
ability to speak something like 150 languages (possibly an
exaggeration of Percy's part, but still we're meant to realize that
he's a gifted linguist).

Parseltongue, however, is not a human language or one spoken by
magical beings like Goblins or Merpeople. It's an animal language and
the ability to speak it seems to be inborn (but note that Animagi can
speak with animals, too--PP with rats and Sirius Black with a
half-Kneazle cat. Interesting that Squibs can also communicate with
cats, though I don't think they speak, erm, cat language). At any
rate, I don't think that DD can understand Parseltongue or he'd have
heard the Basilisk in the pipes in CoS, much less speak it or he'd
have been able to find and open the chamber. Not being Slytherin's
true Heir, he couldn't do it. So I think you're right that he's
intelligent enough to figure out more or less what Morfin is saying
from the context, from his behavior, and from Bob Ogden's reactions.
Or he understands enough to be getting on with, to borrow his own
expression, even if he doesn't understand the specics. One other
possibility, and I'm waiting to hear everyone jump on this idea as
unlikely, is that he can perform Legilimency on memories and read
Memory!Morfin's thoughts. Just a possibility I'm tossing out, not an
interpretation I'm arguing for.

Carol, apologizing to Shelley for getting her ID wrong in my previous post






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 20:42:36 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:42:36 -0000
Subject: Ron as Head Boy ( was ...My guess about book 7)
In-Reply-To: <11857921.1163160510445.JavaMail.root@web23>
Message-ID: <ej2o7s+sjl6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161355

Marion here:
> I don't know if I'd say political, although I agree that there don't
seem to be rigid guidelines based on grades and following school
rules.  Re: the choice of Ron as prefect, I'm reminded of two scenes.
 First, in SS/PS, remember when Dumbledore was explaining the mirror
of Erised to Harry.  He told Harry Ron's fondest desire: 
> 
> "Ron Weasley, who has always been overshadowed by his brothers, sees
himself standing alone, the best of all of them."
> 
> Then, in OP when Dumbledore explains to Harry why he wasn't made
prefect, he says,
> 
> "...I rather thought...you had enough responsibility to be going on
with."
> 
> So it seems to me that Dumbledore chooses prefects based on his
uncanny insight into the students themselves and their needs.  I'm
still trying to figure out how Percy and Draco fit into this scenerio,
though. ;-)

Carol responds:
I'm not certain, not being British, but I think that Dumbledore
chooses the Prefects for each House based at least in part on the
HoH's recommendation. He would probably have agreed with McGonagall
that Percy had the marks and the temperament to be Prefect--he liked
being a leader (or bossing people around, if you prefer) and enforcing
the rules. Draco was similar in some ways. I think that Blaise Zabini
and Theodore Nott also had high marks, but both, especially Theo, seem
to be loners, and Draco would have somewhat more authority over at
least the students in his year, and he seems to be popular among the
Slytherins. I don't know whether Snape and Dumbledore considered the
possibility that he might be approached by, or consider joining, the
DEs, but I imagine they both thought he needed a taste of
responsibility. Unfortunately, in part thanks to Umbridge, it turned
into a junior version of abuse of power.

Carol, agreeing that DD has uncanny insight into the students'
psychological needs but thinking that he wouldn't choose the prefects
without considering the opinions of the Heads of House





From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov 10 20:38:27 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:38:27 -0000
Subject: Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <eiv1n3+9dtq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej2o03+52jk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161356

> surabhithesingdan:
> I never thought in my life that prof. Snape would be the half blood
> prince. I am in a real confusion that whether Snape or Draco attacked
> DD and killed him. I don't think that DD is dead.

Eddie:
Sorry, but the canonical information seems clear that Snape really
killed Dumbledore.

First, here's the quote from Half Blood Prince:
[begin quote]
Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore. "Avada
Kedavra!" A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and
hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest.
[end quote]

The light came from Snape's wand.  So Snape, and not Draco, is the
attacker.

Second, JKRowling confirmed that Dumbledore is really dead.  See
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html
for the whole interview, but here's the juicy part:
[begin quote]
JK Rowling: But I see that I need to be a little more explicit and say
that Dumbledore is definitely ... dead (crowd gasps). 
[end quote]

OK, that aside, I _DO_ have one lingering question about Dumbledore's
death.  Start with the quote:
[begin quote]
Harry's scream of horror never left him; silently he was forced to
watch as Dumbledore was blasted into the air. For a split second, he
seemed to hang suspended beneath the shining skull, and then he slowly
fell backward, like a great rag doll, over the battlements and out of
sight.
[end quote]

Why was Dumbledore blasted into the air when every other AK death
we've seen, the victim just crumpled to the ground?  Why was this one
different?

Eddie





From nmangle at cox.net  Fri Nov 10 20:45:45 2006
From: nmangle at cox.net (nmangle at cox.net)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 14:45:45 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's teaching moments was  CHAPDISC:
 HBP24, Sectumsempra, #12
Message-ID: <14936338.1163191545966.JavaMail.root@centrmwml07.mgt.cox.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161357

> Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> I don't think it was a teaching moment at all. At least not a 
> concious one on Snape's part.  I think that Snape, the petty sadist 
> that he is, was simply toying with him, lording over him with his 
> power that he was never able use on him while he was a teacher.  
> Maybe Harry will take something away from their encounter and make 
> Snape regret playing with him for the very short period of time it 
> will takes to make Snape a grease spot on the floor.
> 
>
 Nicole again, 
Don't get me wrong, I can't stand the guy as much as the next person, but he if wasn't trying to help him at that moment, he would have stunned him, or jinxed him somehow.   He was Reminding him that if he didn't close his minds, he would never be able to defeat LV.
He was trying to teach him the Occlumency in the classes, but not the right way.  There was just too much there from James.  But there was still an effort.  He is a snot, he isn't a great guy, but he if he was really, truely, an evil person, he would have done something to Harry instead of adding hints of teaching in there.

Nicole, again.

 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 21:07:31 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:07:31 -0000
Subject: Vernon's biggotry, what if....just a speculation
In-Reply-To: <ej258o+pjvc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej2pmj+jjmo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161358

Carla (Ball) McCulley wrote:
>
> <snip> There has been alot of speculation about Vernon and Petunia
and the possibility of the magical community being a part of their
lives in another manner other than through Lily.  Petunia's  hatred is
clearly jealousy of her sister ("But for mother and father, oh no, it
was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud to have a witch in the
family,"  PS, chap 4).  But Vernon's apparent hatred of the WW is so
intense that it seems to be an ingrained behaviour past just the fear
of something different.
> 
> It's been established in canon that Lily was muggle born, so we
> can't have another Witch or Wizard there.  We've met Marge and
> Vernon wants her to know nothing about Harry's abilities, so it's
> doubtful of an apparent witch or wizard in Vernon's immediately
> family as well.  But wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if one of
> Vernon's parents was a Squib and the shame of it forced him/her into
> the muggle world and to hide his/her magical roots in order to be
> accepted?  I would love to see the look on old Vernon's face finding
> out that the shame of being "normal" is why Vernon's parent was cast
> out....perhaps by a family of pure-bloods as hateful as the
> Malfoys!  I know I'm stretching here, but it would still be a hoot
> and a very interesting twist.  Opinions??  How do you think he would
> react at finding something like this out.  I haven't seen anyone
> else mention this, so if it's already been touched on, I apologize.

Carol responds:
We've been told in every book that Vernon is a Muggle, and certainly
his sister Marge has no knowledge of the magical world. I seem to
recall JKR saying that Vernon has no magical powers. she has
definitely told us that Petunia and Dudley don't, and their chances,
given Petunia's sister being a witch, were greater than his. There's
been no foreshadowing of magical powers for Vernon. IMO, he's the
arch-Muggle, representing the fear of magic among those Muggles who
are aware of its existence but have no way of defending themselves
against it. Certainly, this fear is intensified once Dudley has been
given a pig's tail that has to be surgically removed and again after
the ton-tongue toffee and Dementor incidents. I think that Vernon
views magic as abnormal, unnatural, and dangerous. He wants to stamp
it out of Harry, to make him "normal."

Petunia, on the other hand, has some conception of magic from the
beginning, having lived with Lily during Lily's childhood and her
summer holidays (rats into teacups and frog spawn in her pockets,
conversations about Dementors, Azkaban, etc.). Clearly, Petunia knows
more than Vernon does about Voldemort and the events at Godric's
Hollow, and Dumbledore has corresponded with her rather than Vernon at
least twice. She also seems to know who Sirius Black is, and to
believe, as the WW does, that he betrayed her sister. For all these
reasons, I think that Petunia's fear of magic is different from
Vernon's, based on her awareness of Dark magic and its consequences
rather than, as she pretends as a cover story for Vernon, a fear of
what the neighbors will think. She knows, as Vernon does not, what can
happen to Harry if they refuse to allow him to stay in their house. I
wonder if Dumbledore has told her that Harry's magic must be kept
hidden from the neighbors, just in case the Death Eaters might hear
about it.(?) Which is not to say that Petunia wasn't jealous of Lily,
but something else is going on. Contrary to her nature, she's had to
keep secrets all this time, and on two occasions this repressed
knowledge comes bursting out of her, first when Hagrid shows up to
tell Harry that he's a wizard and deliver his Hogwarts letter and
again after the Dementor attacks Dudley. That she knows something
she's keeping from Vernon, and that her reasons are different from
his, has been apparent to me from the first chapter of the first book.
But unless the narrator is more than usually unreliable here, all
three Dursleys are Muggles incapable of performing magic under any
circumstances.

Carol, who thinks that the person who will perform magic late in life
under dire circumstances (can't remember the exact phrasing) is Figgy







From nmangle at cox.net  Fri Nov 10 21:00:17 2006
From: nmangle at cox.net (nmangle at cox.net)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 15:00:17 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24,
 Sectumsempra
Message-ID: <30666517.1163192417042.JavaMail.root@centrmwml07.mgt.cox.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161359

Eddie
> Why was Dumbledore blasted into the air when every other AK death
> we've seen, the victim just crumpled to the ground?  Why was this one
> different?

Sorry, on this one Eddie, I have to be a smart arse.  

Because it's Dumbledore!!!    All powerful, amazing, unbelievable Dumbledore.  Can you honestly have expected anything different?
That is truly what I think, it had to be huge, for DD, he couldn't have just fallen.

On that note though, how come sometimes expelliarmus just takes the wand, and other times, people are thrown with it too?

Nicole




From Aixoise at snet.net  Fri Nov 10 21:31:02 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:31:02 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Late in life magic was: Re: Vernon's biggotry, what if....just a speculation
In-Reply-To: <ej2pmj+jjmo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b901c7050f$85d6be80$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161360

Carol signs-off, writing:

<snip>Carol, who thinks that the person who will perform magic late in life
under dire circumstances (can't remember the exact phrasing) is Figgy<snip>

 

Stacey responds:  I've always thought it would either be Arabella Figg
(possibly in defending Harry or his family) or Filch.  In the latter's case,
I imagine it could either be a character turn-around making for surprising
drama (imagine him doing it to protect the twins?!?!) or it could totally be
true to character and he does something to further the Dark Lord's cause.  

 

Stacey (who desperately hopes her kids will still want to see Happy Feet
just so she can catch the trailer of OotP!) 



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





From christphrmurray at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 16:30:40 2006
From: christphrmurray at yahoo.com (christphrmurray)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:30:40 -0000
Subject: snape turning good maybe? / Secret Keepers / Horcrux
Message-ID: <ej29fg+mggp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161361

I think that Snape could turn on Voldemort if it came down to say
killing Harry.  He would turn because he hated James true, but he cared deeply for Lily, and both are there in Harry. That is why he wants to strangle Harry sometimes but never really hurts the boy. Because of Lily.

I also think Snape did turn good after James and Lily died but got cornered in HPB.  That spell made it so he either had to help Draco or die and most people, if they had to make that decision, would have done the same and probably against their will.  But Snape is going to be hunted big time and probably fighting his conscious in the next book.

And I have the idea that Dumbledore and Snape set it up due to the cursed hand, that was possibly killing Dumbledore with a slow and painful death.  It sounds like a curse that Voldemort would do to anyone who messed with his stuff.  This might be true but there is just as much evidence against it. Like Snape did kill.  Well, it still got him on the bad guy list near the top for now.

Okay, as far as the Secret Keeper thing: Harry was there. He might have to go in alone if it still works.  But I don't think it is because it was made for Lily and James.  If it was done before Harry was born, when they died so did the spell. That is how they found baby Harry in the house. Makes sense to me.

Harry being a horathingy: I think it is not possible because of the prophecy. One has to die so the other can keep going.  But Harry might not be a proper horcrux since he didn't die and that is why he stole some of Voldemorts' abilities.  Like parseltongue.

There is no real way to find out till the book comes out (hopefully this coming year on 7/7/07).  But we all know they won't tell anyone till then. And all the secrets before the new book helps build up the anticipation.

Well, have a good day.

chris murray




From Aixoise at snet.net  Fri Nov 10 21:39:21 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 16:39:21 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <30666517.1163192417042.JavaMail.root@centrmwml07.mgt.cox.net>
Message-ID: <00be01c70510$af6b7820$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161362

Nicole writes:
<snip> On that note though, how come sometimes expelliarmus just takes the
wand, and other times, people are thrown with it too? <snip>

I've often had the same thought.  While I can't remember all the times it
was used, I seem to remember that in the Shrieking Shack the Trio used it
all at the same time on Snape and this certainly would have been the reason
for it knocking him back as well as knocking his wand from his hand.
Outside of that instance (and similar to your explanation of the AK results
on DD), maybe the difference has to do with the age/experience of the wizard
(in this case, the one who cast the spell, not the one who receives it)?
Just a thought..

Stacey (who feels silly admitting that ever since she joined this group she
has dreams/ nightmares about the WW and HP plots)




 



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





From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Nov 10 21:57:03 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:57:03 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <ej2nci+68vn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej2sjf+i98q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161363

> Carol responds:
> One other
> possibility, and I'm waiting to hear everyone jump on this idea as
> unlikely, is that he can perform Legilimency on memories and read
> Memory!Morfin's thoughts. Just a possibility I'm tossing out, not an
> interpretation I'm arguing for.

Eddie:
Interesting thought.  The problem I have with this is that it would
just make him too omniscient to be allowed (to borrow a phrase).  He
would be able to pensieve-dive into all those memories he seems to
have access to and know what just about everybody was thinking and/or
concealing: Tom Riddle as boy, young man working for B&B, as a
job-seeker for DADA; At the Death Eater trials; and, as you say, with
the Gaunts.

Following your hypothesis, I suppose pensieve!Voldemort would still be
a powerfully gifted occlumens, but more powerful than a real life
Dumbledore who could try again and again and again at his leisure?

Like I said, interesting thought.  But I'd need more persuading.

Eddie






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 21:56:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:56:22 -0000
Subject: Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <ej2o03+52jk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej2si6+a43m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161364

Eddie wrote:
> Sorry, but the canonical information seems clear that Snape really
> killed Dumbledore.
> 
><snip quote>
> Second, JKRowling confirmed that Dumbledore is really dead.  See
>
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html
><snip quote>
> 
> OK, that aside, I _DO_ have one lingering question about
Dumbledore's death.  <snip>
> 
> Why was Dumbledore blasted into the air when every other AK death
> we've seen, the victim just crumpled to the ground?  Why was this
one > different?
>
Carol responds:
There are several other differences as well, including Dumbledore's
open eyes and the absence of a surprised expression (he looks like
he's asleep, not coincidentally resembling his peacefully sleeping
portrait, IMO). There's also no blinding flash or rushing noise.
(Harry could see the blinding flash of the AK that killed Cedric
through *closed eyes*. His earliest memory of his mother's death, or
perhaps the AK that gave him the scar, was also of a blinding flash of
green light.

Several possibilities have been raised to explain these differences,
one being that it wasn't a real (or successful) AK, another that Snape
nonverbally cast a second spell, for example Impedimenta, which
sometimes blasts people backwards, at nearly the same time as the AK.
I think we can safely discard a third possibility, that Snape's AK was
exceptionally powerful and knocked DD over the wall with its power. (I
think, being DDM, that he didn't want to cast the AK, which made it
less than usually powerful (no rushing sound, no blinding flash)
despite Snape's being a powerful wizard.) Dumbledore's body floats
over the wall like a rag doll, suggesting that Snape used some other
nonverbal spell (Wingardium Leviosa?) to make sure that the body
didn't remain on the tower, where Fenrir Greyback would immediately
have savaged it (remember his expressed intention to have dumbledore
for "afters").

IMO, if Snape had not sent Dumbledore's body (or the dying Dumbledore,
if he died from the poison and not the AK) over the wall, not only
would Greyback have gone after the body, but the DEs would have killed
Draco, activating Snape's UV, and Harry would have tossed off his
Invisibility Cloak and entered the fray alone, most likely ending up
dead (four DEs, including a bloodthirsty werewolf, against one kid who
can't even cast a nonverbal DADA spell). I think that Snape, who
undoubtedly saw the second broom and "put two and two together as only
Snape could," anticipated these consequences, in part, perhaps,
because of the exchanged glance with Dumbledore before he killed him
(at his request, if I interpret "Severus, please" correctly), and
protected both Draco and Harry in the only way possible, ensuring that
he could get Draco and the DEs off the tower before Harry had time to
act and risk being killed or kidnapped.

Carol, hoping that JKR is not merely being inconsistent and will
provide an explanation more or less like this one to explain these
very noticeable differences from the usual AK





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 22:24:45 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:24:45 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej2f19+t95c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej2u7d+fqoe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161365

> >>k2listmama:
> > A love of Dark Arts from a young childhood would be an          
> > indication, I think, that Snape's first term as a Death Eater   
> > was a willing service, and that would then be an argument for    
> > Evil!Snape, being that you could argue that his nature didn't    
> > change. 
> > <snip>

> Carol responds:
> <snip>
> We're meant to realize that young Snape was a genius with a dark  
> side and yet, IMO, to sympathize with him, too. We understand in   
> part why he was attracted to the DEs and yet we see affinities     
> with Harry as well.

Betsy Hp:
I guess my main issue is, and has been for a while, what exactly 
*is* dark magic?  Is it evil?  Snape identifies his curse as dark 
magic so I'll take him at his word.  But as has been pointed out 
before (by Carol, I think?) the celebrated healers in St. Mungos 
invented some pretty frightening sounding curses.  So a hurtful 
curse (which I guess is dark magic?) doesn't preclude someone from 
being good.

What I got from this particular curse is that young!Snape was 
angry.  And I'm sure that anger made him quite susceptible to 
Voldemort's temptations.  But I don't connect Voldemort with dark 
magic so much.  Mainly because JKR has failed to do so.  She's 
connected Voldemort to perversion and chaos.  But not to a specific 
form of magic (I'm comparing to Darth Vader here.)

IIRC, Hermione gets into an argument with Umbridge over this exact 
thing: what makes a spell bad or dark?  Hermione seemed to conclude 
that it depended on current fashion.

So yeah, I doubt anyone would think twice about Snape's having 
invented the Sectumsempra.  Especially as it doesn't seem to have 
required a certain mindset (as the Unforgivables apparently do). 

(I discount Hermione's opinion of the Prince here, since she was 
reacting more out of jealousy than rational thought, IMO.)

Betsy Hp





From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Fri Nov 10 22:34:37 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:34:37 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <011501c70456$39cf3d50$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ej2upt+6td2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161366

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" 
<k12listmomma at ...> wrote:
>
> I think of another incident where Dumbledore speaks another language-
 it was 
> with the Merpeople in the TriWizard Tournament, to find out what 
happened at 
> the bottom of the lake. I often wondered just WHEN he acquired 
> Mermaid-language- was it in school, afterward, or was it a natural 
gift of 
> his to pick up languages? 

Joe:
I would think that DD's ability at legilimency would give him a leg up 
(or a flipper up in this case) in understanding a speaker of a foreign 
language. Perhaps he could see visually what the Merpeople saw (HP 
helping all of the hostages). Although I think the book actually said 
he spoke mermish as well. Legilimency may not help there unless you 
can project thoughts and images as well as read them. 





From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov 10 22:47:50 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:47:50 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej2u7d+fqoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej2vim+mm5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161367

BetsyHP:
> IIRC, Hermione gets into an argument with Umbridge over this exact 
> thing: what makes a spell bad or dark?  Hermione seemed to 
conclude 
> that it depended on current fashion.


Magpie:
Do they have that discussion?  I may be thinking of the wrong scene 
but, the only discussion I remember between the two is that exchange 
that drives me crazy where Umbridge asks what Slinkhard says about 
counter-hexes and Hermione reports that he says counter-hexes are 
hexes but that people use that name to make themselves feel better 
and pretend they're really not hexes.  Which having read the books I 
would agree with.  Counter-hexes do always basically seem to be 
hexes that you throw at other people rather than, for instance, 
blocking spells.  Hermione then continues on to say that she doesn't 
agree, followed by a total non-sequitor of "Mr. Slinkhard doesn't 
like hexes, does he?  But I think they're quite useful, especially 
in self-defense."

Which drives me crazy because whether or not counter-hexes are 
actually different things than hexes (rather than just a hex you're 
calling a counter-hex because the other person hexed you first, or 
has done something to deserve it) has nothing to do with whether or 
not one likes hexes or thinks they're useful. If Hermione wants to 
disagree with Slinkhard, at least the bit quoted there, she should 
be explaining how counter-hexes are different. (Though since 
Umbridge just tells her to shut up it seems like she won some sort 
of argument.) This is like if I said shooting someone in self-
defense was still shooting them (which I think is true) and someone 
translated that into "I don't like guns and don't think they are 
ever useful in self-defense."

So looking at the whole exchange it reads more to me like Slinkhard 
is being associated with pacifism and Hermione is saying that she 
thinks violence is sometimes justified (which we readers obviously 
already know!).  I honestly don't remember any place where they 
discuss what Dark Magic is, I guess because I assume if they did 
have that discussion fandom would have pulled it apart by now 
because we'd all love to know.

-m





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 10 23:11:13 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:11:13 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej2vim+mm5b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej30uh+2aar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161368


> Magpie:
>  Hermione reports that he says counter-hexes are 
> hexes but that people use that name to make themselves feel better 
> and pretend they're really not hexes.  Which having read the books 
I 
> would agree with.  Counter-hexes do always basically seem to be 
> hexes that you throw at other people rather than, for instance, 
> blocking spells.  Hermione then continues on to say that she 
doesn't 
> agree, followed by a total non-sequitor of "Mr. Slinkhard doesn't 
> like hexes, does he?  But I think they're quite useful, especially 
> in self-defense."

zgirnius:
I believe there is an implied background position by Mr., Slinkhard 
which makes Hermione's comment logical. Recall that the chapter 
titles of his book suggest that it is Mr. Slinkhard's (great name!!) 
position that one should in fact never use magic in combat-problems 
can be solved by retreating, negotiating, compromising, etc.

My takeaway from that was that Mr. Slinkhard's position is:
1) Hexes are bad;
2) Counterhexes are hexes;
therefore...
3) none of them should ever be used, and his book is all about how 
not to use them.

So Hermione is disagreeing with the whole philosophy. Whether or not 
hexes and counterhexes are the same thing, Hermione sees a use for 
them in defense. 
 





From ladypensieve at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 00:11:09 2006
From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:11:09 -0000
Subject: Harry is Not A Horcrux, But the (SCAR) Sword Is
In-Reply-To: <16543936.1163085481386.JavaMail.root@web11>
Message-ID: <ej34et+o98g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161369

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, <lil.magill at ...> wrote:> 
Marion here:> Sorry if I'm repeating anything others have said, but 
there's 
> so much volume in this group, and I'm forced to skim some 
> of the longer posts.  I don't thing the sword will be a horcrux 
> -- too easy, and Dumbledore would have surely thought of it 
> and destroyed it long ago.  As far as Harry - or Lily or any 
> other living thing --being a horcrux, isn't it too risky?  If the 
> person dies, V's soul would die with it.  Seems to me they've 
> got to be inanimate objects.
>

Yikes - volume like no other place.  

As far as Horcruxes having to be inanimate...Dumbledore thinks that 
Nagini is one, and I didn't believe it until I read this passage 
again in OOP:

For the first time, Dumbledore sounded frightened. Harry could not 
see why: the hall was quite empty but for themselves, the sobbing 
Bellatrix still trapped under the witch statue, and the baby Fawkes 
croaking feebly on the floor --  Then Harry's scar burst open and he 
new he was dead: it was pain beyond imagining, pain past endurance --
He was gone from the hall, he was locked in the coils of a creature 
with red eyes, so tightly bound that Harry did not know where his 
body ended and the creature's began: they were fused together, bound 
by pain, and there was no escape --

And when the creature spoke, it used Harry's mouth, so that in his 
agony he felt his jaw move
 `Kill me now, Dumbledore
'

Blinded and dying, every part of him screaming for release, Harry 
felt the creature use him again
 `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

And I'll see Sirius again


And as Harry's heart filled with emotion, the creature's coils 
loosened, the pain was gone; Harry was lying face down on the floor, 
his glasses gone, shivering as though he lay upon ice, not wood


Note that it never says Voldemort or Riddle...it says CREATURE and 
COILED...

We are seeing/feeling this from Harry's point of view.  Why does 
Dumbledore feel Nagini is a Horcrux.

Still - a scar is an inanimate object and qualifies as something 
able to capture a piece of Voldemort's soul.
KathyO





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 00:29:39 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 00:29:39 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <ej2nci+68vn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej35hj+dora@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161370

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

<SNIP>

> So I think you're right that he's
> intelligent enough to figure out more or less what Morfin is saying
> from the context, from his behavior, and from Bob Ogden's 
reactions.
> Or he understands enough to be getting on with, to borrow his own
> expression, even if he doesn't understand the specics. One other
> possibility, and I'm waiting to hear everyone jump on this idea as
> unlikely, is that he can perform Legilimency on memories and read
> Memory!Morfin's thoughts. 

zanooda:

Is it possible that Morfin could tell DD about his encounter with 
Teen!Riddle when DD found him in Azkaban? The entire Riddle/Morfin 
conversation was in Parseltongue ("A Sluggish memory"), but DD seems 
to know what was said. 

We know that Riddle put some kind of memory charm on Morfin, making 
him forget that he saw Riddle that night and talked to him. Riddle 
also implanted a false memory in Morfin's mind, making him believe 
that it was him who killed the Riddles. DD says that "it took a 
great deal of skilled Legilimency" to coax the real memory out of 
Morfin. 

I just thought it was possible that when DD used Legilimency on 
Morfin and found the true memory, he lifted the memory charm and 
Morfin remembered Teen!Riddle and their whole conversation. Then he 
could recount it to DD in English.

It's not the most plausible explanation, but it's still a 
possibility, IMO.





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Nov 11 01:46:03 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:46:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
References: <ej30uh+2aar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002601c70533$27013510$ca7e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161371

> zgirnius:
> I believe there is an implied background position by Mr., Slinkhard
> which makes Hermione's comment logical. Recall that the chapter
> titles of his book suggest that it is Mr. Slinkhard's (great name!!)
> position that one should in fact never use magic in combat-problems
> can be solved by retreating, negotiating, compromising, etc.

Magpie:
Yes, that's what I assumed as well--only it drives me crazy because of 
what's actually said.  I have to imagine what the chapter is saying from 
Umbridge's agenda and Hermione's answer, and then wonder why that argument 
isn't actually presented.  What is presented, imo, makes Hermione look bad, 
not because she believes hexes can be useful, especially in self-defense (I 
agree) but because it seems like she also feels it's good to talk about 
hexes she throws euphamistically, as if they're somehow not hexes, and that 
makes me want to argue with her instead .

-m





From graverobber23 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 01:01:33 2006
From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:01:33 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <ej35hj+dora@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej37dd+20sn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161372

> <justcarol67@> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
 zanooda:
>
> Is it possible that Morfin could tell DD about his encounter with
> Teen!Riddle when DD found him in Azkaban? The entire Riddle/Morfin
> conversation was in Parseltongue ("A Sluggish memory"), but DD
seems
> to know what was said.


I do not think that DD knows parseltongue. If you remember in
Chamber of Secrets, Harry speaks parseltongue and doesn't even know
it. In his mind he is speaking English. Also he thinks in English to
open the Chamber of Secrets. Then when he spoke, it was parseltongue.
If that is the case, then when DD probed Morfin's mind, he would see
everything in English instead of parseltongue.

Also if the person thinks in English, then it would fit how DD was
acting when he asked Harry if he could understand Morfin. Since DD
already probed Morfin's mind, he would already know what happened and
what was said.

graverobber23






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 11 03:11:46 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 03:11:46 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej2u7d+fqoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej3f1i+o0gf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161373

Betsy HP:
> What I got from this particular curse is that young!Snape was
> angry.  And I'm sure that anger made him quite susceptible to 
> Voldemort's temptations.  But I don't connect Voldemort with dark
> magic so much.  Mainly because JKR has failed to do so.  She's
> connected Voldemort to perversion and chaos.  But not to a specific
> form of magic (I'm comparing to Darth Vader here.)
<snip>
> So yeah, I doubt anyone would think twice about Snape's having
> invented the Sectumsempra.  Especially as it doesn't seem to have
> required a certain mindset (as the Unforgivables apparently do). 

Jen:  There's a definite connection between Voldemort and dark 
magic, and dark magic being at least one path to his service.  
Dumbledore tells Harry that despite his privileged insight into 
Voldemort's world, he's never been 'seduced by the Dark Arts, never, 
even for a second, shown the slightest desire to become one of 
Voldemort's followers.' (HBP, chap. 23)

Coming as that does in the book about Snape's boyhood, plus Snape's 
own characterization of Sectumsempra as dark magic, there's the 
implication he was on shaky ground when he started inventing dark 
curses that caused people to bleed 'forever'. 

What's darker than Horcruxes, btw?  Maybe Voldemort started out 
interested in pure blood mania but his later goal of immortality at 
the cost his soul sounds a heckuva lot like the ultimate dark 
magic.   Not to mention his rebirth which he called Dark Magic.  
Possession is another one.  I guess I'm saying dark magic can be 
perverted magic for lack of a precise definition.

Jen R.





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 04:18:17 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:18:17 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej2vim+mm5b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej3iu9+qvk7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161374

> >>BetsyHP:
> > IIRC, Hermione gets into an argument with Umbridge over this    
> > exact thing: what makes a spell bad or dark?  Hermione seemed to 
> > conclude that it depended on current fashion

> >>Magpie:
> Do they have that discussion?  
> <snip> 
> So looking at the whole exchange it reads more to me like         
> Slinkhard is being associated with pacifism and Hermione is saying 
> that she thinks violence is sometimes justified (which we readers 
> obviously already know!).  I honestly don't remember any place    
> where they discuss what Dark Magic is, I guess because I assume if 
> they did have that discussion fandom would have pulled it apart by 
> now because we'd all love to know.

Betsy Hp:
The exact quote is this:

"He says that counterjinxes are improperly named," said Hermione 
promptly.  "He says 'counterjinx' is just a name people give their 
jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable."
[...]
"But I disagree."
[...]
"Mr Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, does he? But I think they can be 
very useful when they're used defensively."  [OotP scholastic 
hardback p. 318-319]

Which, yeah doesn't look like they're talking about Dark Magic at 
all. (Well, Hermione was really the only one talking, Umbridge was 
using the old "shut discourse down completely" method.) 

But I think that they are, in a way.  Slinkhard doesn't like jinxes, 
so I'm wondering if he doesn't label them as dark.  Would he see any 
form of aggressive magic as dark?

Because again, I think JKR is *very* unclear about what makes a 
certain type of magic, dark.  I have to assume that the WW is 
unclear about it themselves.

> >>zgirnius:
> > I believe there is an implied background position by Mr.,       
> > Slinkhard which makes Hermione's comment logical. Recall that    
> > the chapter titles of his book suggest that it is Mr.           
> > Slinkhard's (great name!!) position that one should in fact     
> > never use magic in combat-problems can be solved by retreating, 
> > negotiating, compromising, etc.

> >>Magpie:
> Yes, that's what I assumed as well--only it drives me crazy       
> because of what's actually said. I have to imagine what the       
> chapter is saying from Umbridge's agenda and Hermione's answer,    
> and then wonder why that argument isn't actually presented. What  
> is presented, imo, makes Hermione look bad, not because she       
> believes hexes can be useful, especially in self-defense (I agree) 
> but because it seems like she also feels it's good to talk about
> hexes she throws euphamistically, as if they're somehow not hexes, 
> and that makes me want to argue with her instead .

Betsy Hp:
I suspect that this is how the WW has been operating though.  
Hermione is like a giant sponge, soaking up the WW's beliefs and 
traditions almost without question.  (She does question some things, 
obviously, what with the house elves. But she seperates herself from 
the Muggle world with vigor.)  So I think she would call what she 
does a "counterjinx" and see that as an important part of not having 
her magic labeled dark.

Magpie mentioned fandom and our desperate need to discuss everything 
to death, but so many of the discussion about dark magic seem 
corrupted by outside sources, IMO.  Like Star Wars.  But the line 
between dark and light magic in Potterverse is just not that clear. 

There are certain spells that the Ministry has outlawed, but they 
can and have changed their minds about it.  So the definition seems 
much more fluid than how Yoda defined the difference between The 
Dark Side of the Force and the Light Side for example.

> >>Betsy HP:
> > <snip>
> > But I don't connect Voldemort with dark magic so much. Mainly   
> > because JKR has failed to do so. She's connected Voldemort to   
> > perversion and chaos. But not to a specific form of magic (I'm   
> > comparing to Darth Vader here.)
> > <snip>

> >>Jen: There's a definite connection between Voldemort and dark
> magic, and dark magic being at least one path to his service.
> Dumbledore tells Harry that despite his privileged insight into
> Voldemort's world, he's never been 'seduced by the Dark Arts,     
> never, even for a second, shown the slightest desire to become one 
> of Voldemort's followers.' (HBP, chap. 23)

Betsy Hp:
Right, but Dumbledore's wrong about Harry's interest in the Dark 
Arts.  Harry tried to throw a Crucio in OotP.  That's why this 
statement confused me.  Does Dumbledore not know that Harry reached 
for an Unforgivable when he was desperate?  Did JKR forget that 
she'd written that scene, or was Harry's failure good enough for her?

I definitely agree that Harry has never, and will never be, tempted 
to *join* Voldemort.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he'd refuse 
to use an AK to kill Voldemort if given the opportunity.  So does 
that mean that the Unforgivables aren't really Dark Arts?  Is that 
what makes Dumbledore's statement correct?  And if so, then what 
*are* the Dark Arts?

> >>Jen R.:
> Coming as that does in the book about Snape's boyhood, plus Snape's
> own characterization of Sectumsempra as dark magic, there's the
> implication he was on shaky ground when he started inventing dark
> curses that caused people to bleed 'forever'.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, I agree that we see Snape's growing anger and therefore his 
shaky ground.  But I just...  IIRC there's a healer whose portrait 
is hanging in St. Mungo's who invented a disembowelment curse.  Why 
wasn't the invention of that curse a bad sign?  I'm just not seeing 
how someone learning that Snape invented the Sectumsempra curse 
could jump to the conclusion that this boy is evil.  Or eager to 
join Voldemort.  (Is the Durmstrang student body flocking to 
Voldemort's side?)

> >>Jen R.:
> What's darker than Horcruxes, btw? 

Betsy Hp:
The only thing possibly darker than the Horcruxes is the ritual 
Voldemort went through in GoF to regain a body.  And that's a toss-
up.  But is that all that constitutes dark magic?  Where does normal 
magic stop and dark magic begin?

> >>Jen R.:
> Maybe Voldemort started out interested in pure blood mania but his 
> later goal of immortality at the cost his soul sounds a heckuva   
> lot like the ultimate dark magic. Not to mention his rebirth which 
> he called Dark Magic. Possession is another one. I guess I'm       
> saying dark magic can be perverted magic for lack of a precise    
> definition.

Betsy Hp:
But it's the lack of precise definition that I'm harping on.  And 
honestly, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that the Dark Arts or 
dark magic is hard to define.  It's a bit more realistic, IMO.  But 
it also means that it's harder to judge someone based on their 
interests.  

And I worry that JKR is trying to eat her cake and have it too.  
She's shaky on what exactly dark magic is, but she'll have 
McGonagall praise Dumbledore for not using some unnamed powers.  
She'll have Harry think about how he despises Draco for Draco's 
interest in "dark magic" without any indication of what exactly 
Draco has expressed interest in.  (Somehow I doubt Harry caught 
Draco pouring over books telling him how to create a horcrux.)

Betsy Hp





From wiffyboy2003 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 04:01:30 2006
From: wiffyboy2003 at yahoo.com (wiffyboy2003)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 04:01:30 -0000
Subject: Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <ej2o03+52jk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej3huq+d0pr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161375

Eddie:
> Why was Dumbledore blasted into the air when every other AK death
> we've seen, the victim just crumpled to the ground?  Why was this
> one different?


wiffyboy:
That isn't exactly true. While it is true that Frank Bryce, Cedric
Diggory, and even the fox that Bellatrix killed just fell to the
ground after being hit by AK, and, aside from Dumbledore, these are
the only characters that we actually see get hit, you seem to be
forgeting the spider that Imposter Moody killed in Harry's first DADA
class with him.

The book said something along the line of "Ron falling out of his seat
as the spider skidded to a stop in front of him."

Now, this could just be a blunder on JKR's part, but fact that the
spider seemed to have shot off from the desk always struck me as odd.
And while both the spider and Dumbledore are certainly dead, why are
they the only ones (That we've seen) that were knocked back when the
curse struck them?






From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sat Nov 11 07:07:17 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:07:17 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Late in life magic was: Re: Vernon's biggotry, what if....just a speculation
In-Reply-To: <00b901c7050f$85d6be80$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>
References: <ej2pmj+jjmo@eGroups.com>
	 <00b901c7050f$85d6be80$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611102307g318224f2l501f7864ddff4260@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161376

Stacey:

Stacey responds: I've always thought it would either be Arabella Figg
(possibly in defending Harry or his family) or Filch.

Lynda:

I've always thought that the funniest thing JKR could do would be to make
the late in life magic user Aunt Marge. Just because it would be a type of
justice.

Lynda (who just decided that Happy Feet will be a movie worth seeing--who
needs company at the movies. If I go by myself and the movie's a dud I can
leave and not disappoint anyone--and I'll have seen the OOP preview.)


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




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 11 07:29:03 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:29:03 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej3iu9+qvk7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej3u3v+8i71@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161377

Jen R: There's a definite connection between Voldemort and dark
> magic, and dark magic being at least one path to his service.
> Dumbledore tells Harry that despite his privileged insight into
> Voldemort's world, he's never been 'seduced by the Dark Arts,
> never, even for a second, shown the slightest desire to become one
> of Voldemort's followers.' (HBP, chap. 23)

Betsy Hp:
> Right, but Dumbledore's wrong about Harry's interest in the Dark
> Arts.  Harry tried to throw a Crucio in OotP.  That's why this
> statement confused me.  Does Dumbledore not know that Harry 
> reached for an Unforgivable when he was desperate?  Did JKR forget
> that she'd written that scene, or was Harry's failure good enough
> for her?

Jen: I read Dumbledore's quote as two separate issues:  First, Harry 
has privileged insight into Voldemort's world, something a DE would 
kill for, and that world includes followers seduced by the Dark 
Arts.  Second, Dumbledore does not believe Harry has been seduced by 
the Dark Arts to the extent that he has a desire to join Voldemort. 

Betsy Hp:
> I haven't seen anything to suggest he'd refuse to use an AK to
> kill Voldemort if given the opportunity.  So does that mean that
> the Unforgivables aren't really Dark Arts?  Is that what makes
> Dumbledore's statement correct?  And if so, then what *are* the
> Dark Arts?

Jen R: I also haven't seen any reason to believe Harry could 
complete a successful AK!  He doesn't study these spells or try to 
perfect them, as usual he's impulsively flinging things out in a 
tight spot, hoping something will stick.  I'm not ruling out a 
storyline with Harry being tempted to hurt/kill someone and having 
to choose, though that was well done with Draco already. Maybe JKR 
will go for the parallel between the two of them. 

Betsy Hp:
> Yes, I agree that we see Snape's growing anger and therefore his
> shaky ground.  But I just...  IIRC there's a healer whose portrait
> is hanging in St. Mungo's who invented a disembowelment curse. 
> Why asn't the invention of that curse a bad sign?  I'm just not
> seeing how someone learning that Snape invented the Sectumsempra
> curse could jump to the conclusion that this boy is evil.  Or eager
> to join Voldemort.  (Is the Durmstrang student body flocking to
> Voldemort's side?)

Jen: Snape is not only angry, he invented and perfected a spell that 
kills someone slowly by allowing them to bleed to death unless a 
countercurse is administered. I called Snape's situation shaky 
ground instead of evil because we have no idea whether he actually 
used this spell on someone or trained others to use it or what.  
Snape *did* take a more active role in learning Dark Arts than Harry 
unless he just needed to know some Latin to invent the spell. I'm 
not saying Sectumsempra is on the level of an Unforgiveable, there 
is a countercurse and Harry wasn't sent to Azkaban.  

(I thought the disembowlment curse was a misguided attempt to cure 
some ill in the same way people thought blood letting or drilling 
holes in the skull would cure a disease, i.e, pretty rudimentary 
<g>).  

Betsy Hp:
> But it's the lack of precise definition that I'm harping on.  And 
> honestly, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that the Dark Arts or 
> dark magic is hard to define.  It's a bit more realistic, IMO.
> But it also means that it's harder to judge someone based on 
> their interests.  

Jen R.:  Yeah, I'd like a definition, too.  Mostly what I do is make 
assumptions:  Some combination of things said by Dumbledore, 
Hermione and Harry are *mostly* true because those are JKR's chosen 
ones when it comes to telling the story.   Some things will prove 
false and those will be the 'aha' moment in book 7.  Pretty deep 
analysis, eh? 

Betsy hp: 
> And I worry that JKR is trying to eat her cake and have it too.  
> She's shaky on what exactly dark magic is, but she'll have 
> McGonagall praise Dumbledore for not using some unnamed powers.  
> She'll have Harry think about how he despises Draco for Draco's 
> interest in "dark magic" without any indication of what exactly 
> Draco has expressed interest in.  (Somehow I doubt Harry caught 
> Draco pouring over books telling him how to create a horcrux.)

Jen R: Maybe Harry will find out Draco wasn't the one to Imperio 
Rosmerta, can't actually cast a Crucio, isn't a full-fledged 
Voldemort follower with a Dark Mark--I think those were supposed to 
be the reasons Harry determined Draco was going down the dark magic 
road, learning from Bella?  New information could change his 
thinking. 

Jen R.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Nov 11 11:31:02 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:31:02 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej3u3v+8i71@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej4c9m+du9f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161378

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
>
> Jen R: There's a definite connection between Voldemort and dark
> > magic, and dark magic being at least one path to his service.
> > Dumbledore tells Harry that despite his privileged insight into
> > Voldemort's world, he's never been 'seduced by the Dark Arts,
> > never, even for a second, shown the slightest desire to become one
> > of Voldemort's followers.' (HBP, chap. 23)
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> > Right, but Dumbledore's wrong about Harry's interest in the Dark
> > Arts.  Harry tried to throw a Crucio in OotP.  That's why this
> > statement confused me.  Does Dumbledore not know that Harry 
> > reached for an Unforgivable when he was desperate?  Did JKR forget
> > that she'd written that scene, or was Harry's failure good enough
> > for her?

Geoff:
But the fact that Harry tried to use an Unforgiveable at the Ministry does 
/not/ necessarily mean that he has been seduced by the dark arts. As 
you say, Harry was desperate but I am prepared to bet that we will all do 
things which are questionable - particularly when life has us up against 
the wall. I can remember a few occasions when I've chosen wrong 
solutions in similar circumstances and quietly felt guilty afterwards.

Harry is not an angel; that is what makes him so believeable. Even the 
pleasantest of people has a dark side - not in the Voldemort sense but 
in general terms. If he never stepped out of line, he would be too 
squeaky clean to be the sort of hero who appeals to so many different 
folk.

But it doesn't make him Death Eater material, not by a long chalk.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Nov 11 12:26:05 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:26:05 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej2u7d+fqoe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej4fgt+ehl6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161379

 
> Betsy Hp:
> I guess my main issue is, and has been for a while, what exactly 
> *is* dark magic?  Is it evil?  Snape identifies his curse as dark 
> magic so I'll take him at his word.  But as has been pointed out 
> before (by Carol, I think?) the celebrated healers in St. Mungos 
> invented some pretty frightening sounding curses.  So a hurtful 
> curse (which I guess is dark magic?) doesn't preclude someone from 
> being good.

Potioncat:
Oh, I have some canon, only I cannot get to it. JKR recently updated 
her website with a description of hexes, jinxes, charms, etc. I 
cannot navigate that very busy page on my very dark monitor. Can 
someone find it and post it?

JKR says that hexes and jinxes are sort of Dark. In my mind it was 
along the line of a little Dark...or maybe it's the difference 
between Dark and dark (someone here uses that comparison)

To me it means Dark Magic is like drug use. I'd bet eveyone here 
would agree that drug use is bad. But some of us wouldn't think it 
was wrong to use pot. Yet others of us would include alcohol as a 
drug and a few would include tobacco as a drug.  

So Dark Magic could start out innocently enough. A jinx here, a hex 
there. Someone like young Snape with a great deal of resentment and a 
bit of paranoia could go too far. 





From ghost_silver_wolf at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Nov 11 09:41:41 2006
From: ghost_silver_wolf at yahoo.co.uk (ghost_silver_wolf)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:41:41 -0000
Subject: What determins weither a muggle born will happen?
Message-ID: <ej45sl+6ve0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161380

Is their a genetic factor involved in the muggle family, or is it
purely random?

I believe there might be a slight genetic factor, the Creevy (sic)
twins  both been wizards.








From kennclark at btinternet.com  Sat Nov 11 11:25:04 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:25:04 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <ej37dd+20sn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej4bug+4hvm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161381

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "graverobber23" 
<graverobber23 at ...> wrote:
> 
> I do not think that DD knows parseltongue. 

Kenneth says:
Mmm.  I would have thought that Voldemort would have included some 
parseltongue in his defences of the horcrux locations.  Perhaps thats 
why DD had the injury to his hand.  The defense of the ring involved 
some curse in parseltongue which DD, not knowing it, couldn't respond 
to until it was too late to save the hand.  Perhaps thats why he took 
Harry with him on his next horcrux expedition so that he had a 
parseltongue with him in case he came up against the same kind of 
problem.

Kenneth






From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Nov 11 09:16:24 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 02:16:24 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
References: <ej3u3v+8i71@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000d01c70572$0fbd3fe0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161382

Shelley here: really snipped conversation just to shed some light on this 
one spell-
> Betsy Hp:
>> IIRC there's a healer whose portrait
>> is hanging in St. Mungo's who invented a disembowelment curse.
>> Why wasn't the invention of that curse a bad sign?

> Jen:  (I thought the disembowlment curse was a misguided attempt to cure
> some ill in the same way people thought blood letting or drilling
> holes in the skull would cure a disease, i.e, pretty rudimentary
> <g>).

Shelley:
Here's how I imagine a disembowlment (spell) would be used to heal someone, 
and I think it might be consistent with what Rowling has written when it 
came to Harry's arm and Lockhart's mistake which lead to his bones being 
removed: Imagine a wizard, however it happens, is cursed or has an ailment 
that starts rotting away his insides. The healers try as they may to heal 
the tissue, but maybe it's one of those curses that just won't leave, and so 
that wizard is in iminant danger of dying without a working stomach, spleen, 
kidneys, intestine, and so forth. What if they already knew how to REGROW 
organs the same way that Madame Pomfrey was able to regrow Harry's bones? 
Then one obvoius solution would be to remove the diseases/damaged/cursed 
organs, and then administer the healing spell to regrow new (healthy and 
uncursed!) organs. Now, since the wizarding world doesn't have the 
equivilant proceedure of a scalpel to cut away only the diseased tissue in a 
surgery, then a spell would need to be developed to remove those 
contaminated organs, hence, the development of the disembowlment spell as 
the first step of that 2 step process. Used properly, it's a life-saver. 
Used by an evil person who has no intention of giving the receipient the 
spell to regrow the organs, and it's a killer. I don't know if the spell 
would be exactly the same, and be performed the same, but clearly the intent 
would make the end result a healing spell or a curse meant to kill someone 
in a very grusome fashion. (Shutter! By comparison, an Avada Kadavra would 
be quick and painless, and more humane, I think!)

Could it be possible that Snape's spell could be used in a surgery 
situation? I know the sounds very unlikely, since the wizards don't do 
surgeries the way that Muggles do. I can't image another possibility of it 
being used for good, especially when Young!Snape had clearly labeled it "For 
Enemies". (Unless maybe you could use Sectumsempra to drain cursed blood out 
of a person and replace it with new blood at the same time to purge a body 
of poison???) In this, intent is everything. The spell is evil because the 
intended outcome is evil. The curse is Dark because the intended outcome is 
Dark. A healer's spell, by contrast, would not be labeled as a curse (nor 
Dark Magic) because the spell wasn't even close to a curse in it's 
application, where the end result saves a life rather than takes it.


> Betsy Hp:
>> But it's the lack of precise definition that I'm harping on.  And
>> honestly, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that the Dark Arts or
>> dark magic is hard to define.

I think the definition is very precise: it fully depends on the intent of 
the user at the time of use. But, as we see many times in the Harry Potter 
books, someone is judged only from their outside actions, and the person in 
not questioned on their intent. The rumors will spread about what the real 
intent was, while that person is chucked straight into Azakaban, possibly 
without even a proper trial. Thus, many witches and wizards wouldn't go 
anywhere near a spell that could be considered to have Dark roots or be too 
close to a curse, out of fear of being punished even if their intent was 
good.

Shelley 






From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Nov 11 12:26:18 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:26:18 -0000
Subject: Did LV ask Snape why he was protecting Harry
In-Reply-To: <eitnkc+qhc1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej4fha+bjmk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161383

Cyril writes:

Hi,

Have recently restarted from SS/PS, and the above question came to my
mind.

In HBP, Snape is clear that LV has questioned him, after Bella asks
him a number of questions at Spinners end. However, the above
Question would not be a question that Bella would probably ask.

She did ask - And why, Snape, is Harry Potter still alive, when
youhave had him at your mercy for five years? - but she would not
know that Snape had atleast on one occasion protected Harry.

LV however would know that, simply because he was possessing
Quirrell,and Snape was dueling Quirrell to prevent Harry from
falling off the broom in the Quidditch match.

So the question again - did LV ever ask Snape why he was trying to
actively save Harry, and if so, what do you think Snape's response
was?



Tinktonks: I thought that this had been covered at some point. I
seem to recall the Snape had told LV that he had believed him dead
(for which he was foolish) and that due to this he was unwilling to
allow Harry to be harmed under Dumbledores nose. I cant remember
where I read this but I feel sure that its right.

LV is a realist. He knows that if HP died Snape would be the first
blamed and that Snape would have no reason to act differently.

Its really great to have these kind of Questions? I love getting
down to the nitty gritty and really questioning themes of the book
(time lines etc just arent for me. I feel JKR makes mistakes with
them because she doesnt VALUE them as much as plot lines and
Characters. So thats where I really feel her clues will be!)






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Nov 11 13:54:51 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:54:51 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej3iu9+qvk7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej4knb+cnas@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161384


> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Right, but Dumbledore's wrong about Harry's interest in the Dark 
> Arts.  Harry tried to throw a Crucio in OotP.  That's why this 
> statement confused me.  Does Dumbledore not know that Harry reached 
> for an Unforgivable when he was desperate?  Did JKR forget that 
> she'd written that scene, or was Harry's failure good enough for her?
> 
> I definitely agree that Harry has never, and will never be, tempted 
> to *join* Voldemort.  I haven't seen anything to suggest he'd refuse 
> to use an AK to kill Voldemort if given the opportunity.  So does 
> that mean that the Unforgivables aren't really Dark Arts?  Is that 
> what makes Dumbledore's statement correct?  And if so, then what 
> *are* the Dark Arts?
<snip>:
> But it's the lack of precise definition that I'm harping on.  And 
> honestly, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that the Dark Arts or 
> dark magic is hard to define.  It's a bit more realistic, IMO.  But 
> it also means that it's harder to judge someone based on their 
> interests.  
> 
> And I worry that JKR is trying to eat her cake and have it too.  
> She's shaky on what exactly dark magic is, but she'll have 
> McGonagall praise Dumbledore for not using some unnamed powers.  
> She'll have Harry think about how he despises Draco for Draco's 
> interest in "dark magic" without any indication of what exactly 
> Draco has expressed interest in.  (Somehow I doubt Harry caught 
> Draco pouring over books telling him how to create a horcrux.)

Pippin:
 I bet if you asked the list to give specific examples of what 'evil' is, 
we'd get widespread agreement on a few broad issues and bitter debate 
on many others. The wizarding world can't be any different and still 
be 'real'. Naturally there will be disagreement on which spells are dark,
and also on the 'fight fire with fire' strategy. Draco's murderous
plot is a variant of the  'ticking bomb' scenario, after all. We can
imagine what someone like Crouch Sr would do if he had known
as much about Draco's plot as Dumbledore claims to have
known. And there are some people here, I think, who would say
that stronger measures were definitely justified. 

But I think it's important to remember why Harry's curse failed --
all that was behind it was righteous anger, and that wasn't enough
to power an Unforgivable Curse, according to Bella. Although
there are some people Harry would enjoy hurting, he has never 
actually been tempted to hurt someone  because he would 
enjoy it. He thinks, for example that it would feel very good to
turn Dudley into something with feelers, but there's no answer
to that thought from his will, no sense that he needs that
feeling and should bring it about. He experiences no remorse
when he sees that Ron and Hermione have damaged fingers
from Hedwig's pecking, but that again was righteous anger.
Harry was not thinking that it would feel good to punish 
somebody and then discovering he had a grievance against
Ron and Hermione. 

We don't know if righteous anger is enough to work an
AK, but from what Bella says, the answer is no, so if Harry
needs to kill Voldemort without succumbing to temptation, 
he will have to find another way to do it.

Pippin




 





From surabhithesingdan at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Nov 11 08:20:46 2006
From: surabhithesingdan at yahoo.co.uk (surabhithesingdan)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:20:46 -0000
Subject: SHIP /Ron and Hermy
Message-ID: <ej414u+r120@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161385

I think that Ron and Hermy like each other.In the 4th book Ron is
angry when Hermy goes with Krum.He asked Hermy whether she would come
with him but she refused. When Ron says that you have gone with the
enemy she says that next time he should ask her before anyone else
asks. In the 5th book Ron doesn't like Hermy sending letter to Krum.
What do we take up with that? Simple. They like each other.

surabhithesingdan






From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Sat Nov 11 13:58:18 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 5:58:18 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What determines whether a muggle born will
 happen?
Message-ID: <7584279.1163253498834.JavaMail.root@web30>

No: HPFGUIDX 161386


---- ghost_silver_wolf <ghost_silver_wolf at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: 

=============
Is their a genetic factor involved in the muggle family, or is it
purely random?

I believe there might be a slight genetic factor, the Creevy (sic)
twins  both been wizards.

Marion here:

This has always been an inconsistancy that bothers me a bit.  The emphasis is on "blood" but you've got Hermione, for example, who has no other wizards in the family, Harry, who's considered "pure blood" but whose maternal grandparents are probably muggles, and Filch, who comes from a wizard family but is a squib.  So my contention is that blood has nothing much to do with it.  And in that case, how can there be so much discrimination based on "blood"?  

Marion










From carla.mcculley at comcast.net  Sat Nov 11 14:50:21 2006
From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 14:50:21 -0000
Subject: Vernon's biggotry, what if....just a speculation
In-Reply-To: <ej2pmj+jjmo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej4nvd+rvga@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161387

> Carla (Ball) McCulley wrote:
<SNIP>
> But wouldn't it be a kick in the pants if one of
> > Vernon's parents was a Squib and the shame of it forced him/her
into
> > the muggle world and to hide his/her magical roots in order to be
> > accepted?  I would love to see the look on old Vernon's face
finding
> > out that the shame of being "normal" is why Vernon's parent was
cast
> > out....perhaps by a family of pure-bloods as hateful as the
> > Malfoys!  I know I'm stretching here, but it would still be a
hoot
> > and a very interesting twist.  <SNIP>
Carol responds:
> We've been told in every book that Vernon is a Muggle, and
certainly
> his sister Marge has no knowledge of the magical world. I seem to
> recall JKR saying that Vernon has no magical powers. she has
> definitely told us that Petunia and Dudley don't, and their
chances,
> given Petunia's sister being a witch, were greater than his.
There's
> been no foreshadowing of magical powers for Vernon. IMO, he's the
> arch-Muggle, representing the fear of magic among those Muggles who
> are aware of its existence but have no way of defending themselves
> against it. <SNIP>


Yes, yes, I know.  Oddly enough, I've read the books as well.  I
enjoyed them so much I felt like having a little fun with the
characters. The scenario wasn't a speculation on the next book.  It
was a "what if" and a "wouldn't it be funny" type question, thus
the "what if" in the subject line.  I just thought it would be funny
to see Vernon in that situation since he is so paranoid about
wizards.


Carla




From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Nov 11 16:05:04 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 11:05:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
References: <ej3iu9+qvk7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004201c705ab$276f4aa0$e198400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161388

> Betsy Hp:
> But it's the lack of precise definition that I'm harping on.  And
> honestly, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that the Dark Arts or
> dark magic is hard to define.  It's a bit more realistic, IMO.  But
> it also means that it's harder to judge someone based on their
> interests.
>
> And I worry that JKR is trying to eat her cake and have it too.
> She's shaky on what exactly dark magic is, but she'll have
> McGonagall praise Dumbledore for not using some unnamed powers.
> She'll have Harry think about how he despises Draco for Draco's
> interest in "dark magic" without any indication of what exactly
> Draco has expressed interest in.  (Somehow I doubt Harry caught
> Draco pouring over books telling him how to create a horcrux.)

Magpie:
Yes, that was--I snipped this part but--that's why I knew I'd remember an 
actual conversation about the subject because so many of us have wondered 
about it.  But it actually doesn't really seem to be an important part of 
the Potterverse.  Not in the way it is in something like Star Wars where you 
have it laid out as a danger and something a hero could fall to.

JKR just put up that bit about hexes and curses etc., and said they sort of 
get darker and darker, but of course we see our heroes using hexes all the 
time. There's no connection drawn between Snape making up attack curses and 
Ginny's bat bogey, which is all kinds of awesome. And when it comes to them 
doing things that we might agree are pretty dark there's always the defense 
that it's okay because it was done in righteous anger--which I admit always 
confuses me because righteous anger is a perfectly good ticket to evil. 
Snape's the kid who did seem to get seduced  by the Dark Arts and he always 
strikes me as having plenty of righteous anger.

Harry's obviously not been seduced by anything here, but it's not like he's 
not tempted.  Ironically, the first magic he's ever tempted to do is curse 
Dudley, which Hagrid cautions him against "not because it wouldn't be a good 
thing" but because he might get caught using Magic in a Muggle zone. 
There's no noting of curses as Dark Magic, just a level higher than Harry's 
at that moment.

It seems like a lot of times Dark Magic is just the Potterverse version of 
pornography: We can't define it, but we know it when we see it, and when we 
see it it's going to be Magic done by a bad guy.  So Draco's starting to 
attempt a Crucio at Harry that never goes through (he doesn't complete it so 
we don't know how strong it would have been, though to me it seems far more 
like Harry's to Bella than Bella to Neville) is Dark Magic but Harry's 
throwing a Crucio at Bella that has a limited effect but isn't quite right 
is not a problem because Harry's anger is righteous while Draco's anger in 
the bathroom isn't (it's probably more desperate and a channel for lots of 
frustrations).  But still when Harry says that Draco's obsessed with the 
Dark Arts you can't help but think about it.  Obviously Draco's always been 
loudly pro-Voldemort, he says he thinks kids should learn them like they do 
at Durmstrang, and he's quite possibly learned curses at home along with 
Occlumency.  But it's not like we see Draco doing Dark Magic much more than 
we see other kids do it.  Even the Imperio, if he cast it, is something done 
in an extreme situation.  His whole project in HBP is definitely Dark, but 
most of the time his magic's pretty standard.

We don't even really get an idea from DADA classes.  They're called Defense 
Against the Dark Arts but the class is really more just straight 
Self-Defense Against Anything Trying to Kill You.  They study Dark Creatures 
with no explanation as to why these creatures are Dark compared to others 
that we hear.  Protection against things like Inferi seems to make sense as 
presumably they're made with Dark Arts. The Patronus makes sense, but as yet 
that hasn't been taught in class that I remember.  Shields and blocks 
counter hexes and curses, which are dark, but it's understood that in a duel 
you'll be blocking and throwing curses.

I guess the difference with many universes is usually Dark Magic comes from 
a different place.  The Dark Side is a different side of the Force than the 
Light Side.  Black Magic calls on different sources that White Magic, lets 
say.  The Potterverse seems to have all magic basically be the same, and 
define it more on how you'd judge the person's actions--if it seems kinda 
evil and bad, it's Dark.  It's not about showing good people seduced by evil 
magic (even Crouch who one could say went bad, wasn't exactly seduced by 
Dark Magic that I can see).  It's more like any baddie who's also a 
Voldemort baddie is by definition seduced by the Dark Arts.

-m 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 16:27:37 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:27:37 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej4fgt+ehl6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej4tlp+3njl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161389

Betsy Hp wrote:
> > I guess my main issue is, and has been for a while, what exactly 
> > *is* dark magic?  Is it evil?  Snape identifies his curse as dark 
> > magic so I'll take him at his word.  But as has been pointed out 
> > before (by Carol, I think?) the celebrated healers in St. Mungos 
> > invented some pretty frightening sounding curses.  So a hurtful 
> > curse (which I guess is dark magic?) doesn't preclude someone from 
> > being good.

Carol responds:
I did mention the entrail-expelling curse recently, but I got the idea
from Sydney:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/147903

I do think it could do some nasty damage in a duel or battle, but Jen
could be right that it's a crude form of (or attempt at) healing. I
don't really see it, though.
> 
> Potioncat:
> Oh, I have some canon, only I cannot get to it. JKR recently updated 
> her website with a description of hexes, jinxes, charms, etc. I 
> cannot navigate that very busy page on my very dark monitor. Can 
> someone find it and post it?
> 
> JKR says that hexes and jinxes are sort of Dark. In my mind it was 
> along the line of a little Dark...or maybe it's the difference 
> between Dark and dark (someone here uses that comparison)
<snip>
> 
> So Dark Magic could start out innocently enough. A jinx here, a hex 
> there. Someone like young Snape with a great deal of resentment and
a bit of paranoia could go too far.
>
Carol responds:
It does seem that there's a continuum, with the Unforgiveables near
the Dark end and Horcruxes as Darkest of all. The spell/potion that
resurrected Voldemort, and for that matter, the potion and spells that
gave him fetal form, are also extremely Dark. Most Charms, OTOH,
especially Wingardium Leviosa, which only causes an object to float or
hover, seem like what might be called Light Magic.

I looked up "black magic" on the Internet to see if it would help me
to define JKR's Dark Magic and discovered several definitions ranging
from evil to unnatural, with a component of selfishness on the
practitioner's part in some cases. But it seems to me that *all* magic
is "unnatural" in the sense that it doesn't occur in nature, which is
why characters ranging from Vernon Dursley to LOTR's Sam Gamgee
("Don't turn me into anything unnatural!") are afraid of it. So evil,
selfishness, degree of permanence and harm to other, degree of
violation of nature, tampering with the will or rights of others (the
Unforgiveables) all might be components. I would think that curses
without a countercurse would be Dark, as would poisons without
antidotes. There seems to be a component of gruesomeness as well, from
the items on sale in Borgin and Burke's to (I htate to say it) the
slimy things floating in jars in Snape's office. And yet almost the
very first thing we see in Diagon Alley is a shop that sells beetle
eyes to the general public as potion ingredients. It's all very confusing.

It's apparent, though, that the WW has a pretty good idea of what the
Dark Arts consist of. Durmstrang teaches them, Hogwarts teaches
defense against them. Draco says that "we" (Death Eaters) don't need
defense against them (perhaps at this point he's still wishing to
learn the Dark Arts instead of DADA). Harry knows instantly when he
enters 12 GP that he's in a house belonging to Dark wizards (all the
Slytherin symbols in combination with gruesomeness, I suppose). And
yet I think it's possible to misjudge a witch or wizard based on
appearances, for example, little James assuming that little Severus is
infatuated by the Dark Arts. All those "curses" he knew or invented at
eleven must have been hexes or jinxes along the lines of the toenail
hex. Sectumsempra, invented when he was about sixteen (late fifth year
if it's really the spell used in the Pensieve scene, sixth year after
the Prank if it's a Darker revision of that earlier spell) is the
first sign that he's heading toward Darkness. Maybe that and an
"unnatural" gift for Potions, which does not seem to be James's forte.

It may help to look at the creatures that are classified as Dark,
which also seem to be ranked as minor (Boggarts, Kappas, Grindylows)
and major (Basilisks, Werewolves [sorry, Lupin!], Dementors). Inferi,
though not creatures, are also very Dark, the creation of Dark
wizards. The distinction here seems to be degree of danger combined
with willingness or desire to kill. (A Basilisk or an Inferius is
essentially a killing machine with no other purpose.)

Does that help at all, Betsy? If you or I were struck with a hex that
caused tentacles or fungus growths to sprout from our face, we'd think
that was pretty Dark magic because we'd be helpless against it, but to
a wizard, who could probably cure it with Finite Incantatem or some
other simple countercurse, it would be only slightly darker than Jelly
Legs. Possibly any hex or jinx or minor curse that can be fended off
with a Protego isn't very Dark, in their view? But a cursed object
like the opal necklace would be Dark because it appears innocous but
is actually deadly to the touch. There's no defense against it for the
unwary or unwarned (unless you barely touch it through a hole in your
glove and Snape is on hand to identify the curse and stop it in its
tracks before it does further harm).

Carol, who also finds the "counterjinxes" passage confusing and is
aware of no *specific* counterjinxes or counterhexes in any case, only
finite Incantatem and Protego (and whatever Snape is silently doing to
deflect Harry's hexes, which is self-defense and harmless to his
opponent and therefore not Dark)





From penhaligon at gmail.com  Sat Nov 11 16:47:01 2006
From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:47:01 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What determins weither a muggle born will happen?
In-Reply-To: <ej45sl+6ve0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001501c705b1$0898f260$6501a8c0@TheDesktop>

No: HPFGUIDX 161390

Ghost_silver_wolf said: 
> I believe there might be a slight genetic factor, the Creevy 
> (sic) twins  both been wizards.

Just for the record, the Creevey brothers are not twins. Dennis is younger
than Colin.

Panhandle




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 11 18:01:47 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:01:47 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <004201c705ab$276f4aa0$e198400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ej536b+tofr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161391

Magpie
<snipping>
> I guess the difference with many universes is usually Dark Magic
> comes from a different place.  The Dark Side is a different side 
of 
> the Force than the Light Side.  Black Magic calls on different 
> sources that White Magic, lets say.  The Potterverse seems to have 
> all magic basically be the same, and define it more on how you'd 
> judge the person's actions--if it seems kinda evil and bad, it's
> Dark.  It's not about showing good people seduced by evil magic 
> (even Crouch who one could say went bad, wasn't exactly seduced by
> Dark Magic that I can see).  It's more like any baddie who's also a
> Voldemort baddie is by definition seduced by the Dark Arts.

Jen:  Here's my take on the three main paths to Voldemort, the way I 
glean JKR's presentation of characters who are his followers:

1)  Wizards like Lucius who place the pure blood issue above all 
else, 
who think Voldemort's goal is to rid the WW of muggleborns.
2)  Those who are coopted into service out of fear like Peter.
3)  Those who have immersed themselves in the study of the Dark Arts 
and view Voldemort as a path to magical knowledge.  My assumption is 
Snape fits here.

Not all DE's in his service are 'seduced' by the Dark Arts in the 
sense they hold this discipline above all else.  All may use dark 
spells to do his bidding and even someone like Peter has to learn 
how to AK. And others don't fall into these categories, they have 
personal reasons to be a DE much like Crouch Jr. who probably 
initially wanted to get back at his father and only later became a 
fantatic.  His hook was a substitute father rather than pure blood 
ideals or interest in dark magic.

Voldemort recruits in the same way he recruited Draco: he finds the 
one thing a person can be lured by and uses it to his advantage.  In 
the case of Draco, glory for himself and his family by following in 
the footsteps of his father was probably the initial hook. 

Snape, who values intellect & and study, including the study of dark 
arts, was probably recuited in a similar way--'let me show you all I 
know, you will be a Master one day of the Dark Arts, above all 
others with no equal.'  Snape aleady has the anger, but he also has 
a growing belief the Dark Arts are the path to something more than 
what he's accomplished in his regular studies at Hogwarts, something 
that will give him not only intellectual glory but power over his 
enemies.  Thus he's seduced by the siren call of the Dark Arts as 
the end and Voldemort as the means.


Jen R.





From kennclark at btinternet.com  Sat Nov 11 18:18:17 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:18:17 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej4knb+cnas@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej5459+a0l7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161392

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
> We don't know if righteous anger is enough to work an
> AK,>
 
Kenneth says:  I dont think anger, righteous (whatever that may mean 
to any individual) or otherwise is relevant here.  Its hate or love.  
In the Potterverse magical power is inextricably linked to love and 
hate.  Some spells obviously work best (only?) when love is involved 
and some (as Bella says) only have real effect if the level of hate 
attached to their wielding is sufficient.  Morality doesn't have much 
to do with it so we are all wasting our time trying to assess whether 
spells are good or bad or whether people are good or evil.  Its to do 
with the nature of the energy they commit.

Kenneth Clark






From foodiedb at optonline.net  Sat Nov 11 18:14:29 2006
From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:14:29 -0000
Subject: Felix question
In-Reply-To: <ej3iu9+qvk7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej53u5+sm1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161393

Hi all,

I know that this question may be silly/simple...but there is no such 
thing as a silly question...right?  Right?  Okay, here it is:  Why 
doesn't Harry just drink some Felix right before, or while he is 
facing Voldemort?

David






From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 17:38:25 2006
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 09:38:25 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What determins weither a muggle born will happen?
In-Reply-To: <ej45sl+6ve0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061111173825.97670.qmail@web33208.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161394

ghost_silver_wolf wrote:
   
> Is their a genetic factor involved in the muggle family, or is it
> purely random?
>
> I believe there might be a slight genetic factor, the Creevy (sic)
> twins both been wizards.


I, Melanie's, reply:

Hmm that is a very intriguing question, one I had a huge debate on last night.  I believe it's a latent gene.  I am not really sure how else one could justify it.  I mean it runs in families, but I think that someone like Lily or Hermione had a person in their family (even if it was highly distant) that was a which or a wizard.  
   
Hmm I hope that wasn't too pathetic for a first post.  
   
Melanie
   




From hnjce at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 15:43:27 2006
From: hnjce at yahoo.com (Norma Jean Tran)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 07:43:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What determins weither a muggle born will happen?
In-Reply-To: <ej45sl+6ve0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061111154327.98525.qmail@web35314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161395

ghost_silver_wolf wrote:
> Is their a genetic factor involved in the muggle family, or is it
> purely random?
>
> I believe there might be a slight genetic factor, the Creevy (sic)
> twins both been wizards.



I've wondered this too, is it genetics or chance? And what if two squibs produce a powerless child? Is he/she also a squib or is that child now a muggle? 
   
NJ






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 18:53:27 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 18:53:27 -0000
Subject: What determins weither a muggle born will happen?
In-Reply-To: <ej45sl+6ve0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej5677+90lj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161396

---  "ghost_silver_wolf" <ghost_silver_wolf at ...> wrote:
>
> Is their a genetic factor involved in the muggle family,
> or is it purely random?
> 
> I believe there might be a slight genetic factor, the 
> Creevy (sic) twins  both been wizards.
>

bboyminn:

We have discussed this before but not for a long long 
time.

I will repeat one or two old theories for you -

- Some believe or speculate that there is a finite amount
of magic in the world. When there aren't enough wizard
births to use all this available magic, the magic seeks 
our compatible muggles to inhabit.

-If you don't like the idea of a quantified amount of 
magic then you could look at it as a finite number of 
available magical souls that are available. When the 
wizard world doesn't produce enough babies to take on all
the available magical souls then the souls seek out 
compatible muggles.

-The other theory is genetic. Some where in the very 
distant past of Hermione's family history, wizards do
exist, but through many generations of inter-breeding 
with muggles, that dominant (in the general sense) trait
has faded out. Now, though a combination of the correct 
genetics, the magical characteristic has re-asserted 
itself.

Perhaps it was merely the fact the both Hermione's father
and her mother both had traces of magical ancestry in their
genetic past. When two repressed magical genes came 
together, they created a dominant genetic characteristic.

We had a few people here who are truly knowledgable in
the science of genetics, and they point out that this
idea is generally flawed, but I'm not sure it has to
stand up to pure science. Remember 'The Island of Dr.
Moreau', or 'Frankenstien' or 'Jurassic Park' many other
fiction stories. They may be based in a trace of science,
but absolutely do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

-Perhaps, there is no explanation beyond magic. Why are
some people blessed with genius? Yes, it could be the
blending of positive genetic characteristics, but genius
is far to rare for that to account for it. So, maybe 
magic is just a gift from the gods, the same way the
genius in it's various forms is.

Mull these ideas over and see if you can come up with
any new possibilities. 

Of the above, genetics has definitely been discussed to 
the greatest depth, and can be found by searching old
posts.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 19:39:07 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:39:07 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej536b+tofr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej58sr+cqqf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161397

Jen wrote:  Here's my take on the three main paths to Voldemort, the
way I glean JKR's presentation of characters who are his followers:
> 
> 1)  Wizards like Lucius who place the pure blood issue above all 
> else, who think Voldemort's goal is to rid the WW of muggleborns.
> 2)  Those who are coopted into service out of fear like Peter.
> 3)  Those who have immersed themselves in the study of the Dark Arts 
> and view Voldemort as a path to magical knowledge.  My assumption is 
> Snape fits here.
> 
> Not all DE's in his service are 'seduced' by the Dark Arts in the 
> sense they hold this discipline above all else.  All may use dark 
> spells to do his bidding and even someone like Peter has to learn 
> how to AK. And others don't fall into these categories, they have 
> personal reasons to be a DE much like Crouch Jr. who probably 
> initially wanted to get back at his father and only later became a 
> fantatic.  His hook was a substitute father rather than pure blood 
> ideals or interest in dark magic.
> 
> Voldemort recruits in the same way he recruited Draco: he finds the 
> one thing a person can be lured by and uses it to his advantage.  In 
> the case of Draco, glory for himself and his family by following in 
> the footsteps of his father was probably the initial hook. 
> 
> Snape, who values intellect & and study, including the study of dark 
> arts, was probably recuited in a similar way--'let me show you all I 
> know, you will be a Master one day of the Dark Arts, above all 
> others with no equal.'  Snape aleady has the anger, but he also has 
> a growing belief the Dark Arts are the path to something more than 
> what he's accomplished in his regular studies at Hogwarts, something 
> that will give him not only intellectual glory but power over his 
> enemies.  Thus he's seduced by the siren call of the Dark Arts as 
> the end and Voldemort as the means.

Carol responds:

I agree that the DEs have varying motivations, but I'm not sure we
have any clear evidence that Voldemort actively recruits followers.
(Even Draco may have expressed a desire to join before he was given
his much-discussed assignment.) I think that people with friends and
relatives among the DEs tend to join him without his actively having
to seek them out. For example, I think that Regulus Black would have
joined via his cousin, Bellatrix (doesn't his brother Sirius say that
their parents regarded him at first as "a right little hero" for
joining up?). 

I agree that Severus Snape was motivated primarily by intellectual
concerns, but I think he was looking for recognition and acceptance
more than power. IMO, he either approached Lucius Malfoy or was
approached by him ("The Dark Lord will reward your talents, Severus,
and provide you with the recognition you deserve"). I don't think that
Voldemort knew about him unless Malfoy informed him that he had a
young friend with prodigious talents who should be recruited before he
began working for the other side.

As for Barty Jr., certainly he was rebelling against his father, but,
like Regulus, he was a Pureblood. Possibly, he originally thought that
his father was a Blood Traitor for fighting Voldemort. And since he
was a talented boy (twelve OWLs), he may also have wanted recognition
for his talents from someone other than the Ministry (which he would
naturally associate with his father). I'm not sure, but I think he may
have fallen under the spell of a certain beautiful older woman and
become her follower, much as the Lestrange brothers had done before
him. Just my view, not anything I can prove.

Carol, who pronounces "Lestrange" with a long a, not as "Lestrawnge"
(the brothers may have a French or Norman ancestor, but they're English)





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 11 19:39:10 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:39:10 -0000
Subject: Felix question
In-Reply-To: <ej53u5+sm1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej58su+7hii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161398

David:
> I know that this question may be silly/simple...but there is no such 
> thing as a silly question...right?  Right?  Okay, here it is:  Why 
> doesn't Harry just drink some Felix right before, or while he is 
> facing Voldemort?

Jen: Voldemort might be too great a wizard to be outsmarted by Felix, 
he could see what Harry was up to and manipulate the sitaution to his 
advantage.  Which is to say I don't think JKR will recycle this plot 
again because she used it to great effect in HBP <g>. Plus, she's 
spent so much time on they way Harry is protected from 
Voldemort's 'lure of power'--love--and that will be the deciding 
factor in the defeat of Voldemort rather than a tricky potion. 

Jen R., hoping Felix will play a part one more time so we can hear 
about one of Slughorn's perfect days.





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Nov 11 18:59:58 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:59:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
References: <ej536b+tofr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007301c705ca$a8179940$e198400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161399

 Jen:  Here's my take on the three main paths to Voldemort, the way I
> glean JKR's presentation of characters who are his followers:
>
> 1)  Wizards like Lucius who place the pure blood issue above all
> else,
> who think Voldemort's goal is to rid the WW of muggleborns.
> 2)  Those who are coopted into service out of fear like Peter.
> 3)  Those who have immersed themselves in the study of the Dark Arts
> and view Voldemort as a path to magical knowledge.  My assumption is
> Snape fits here.

Magpie:
I am a little hesitatant about saying for sure how Snape was recruited, 
because I think sometimes the idea of Snape being drawn by knowledge is 
separated from Voldemort's Pureblood agenda when it's not.

Voldemort's Dark Knowledge is, imo, linked to immortality, which is also 
connected to his Pureblood agenda.  Genocide is an expression of a 
narcissistic desire for immortality: the group is strong and will endure 
forever if the foreign, weaker element is removed like a sickness.  That's 
why the group being "cleansed" is often talked about in terms of filth or 
disease, one that's attacking the host from within. (The Black Family Motto 
nicely pairs the two: toujours pur.)

I think that's more the two things that are set against each other: 
mortality and true connections to other people (love) vs. the search for 
personal immortality which destroys love.

I think teen!Snape and teen!Draco are both attracted to that in different 
ways, as is Barty Crouch.  Voldemort for some, I think, offers an 
alternative to messier human relations, one that promises something like 
them while really being the antithesis.  It also seems to me more Rowling's 
style to make evil a bit more simple, if that makes sense.

-m





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 20:20:51 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:20:51 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej4c9m+du9f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej5bb3+f3ka@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161400

> >>Geoff:
> But the fact that Harry tried to use an Unforgiveable at the       
> Ministry does /not/ necessarily mean that he has been seduced by   
> the dark arts.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right, but he wasn't afraid to try it.  So apparently the curiosity 
or the interest is not a problem.  Which I'm fine with, but it also 
means that a willingness to use a certain type of magic doesn't 
automatically make one dark.  (Which agrees with the WW's aurors, 
their best of the best, training to use Unforgivables.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But it's the lack of precise definition that I'm harping on. And
> > honestly, I don't think it's a *bad* thing that the Dark Arts or
> > dark magic is hard to define.

> >>Shelley:
> I think the definition is very precise: it fully depends on the   
> intent of the user at the time of use. 

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but as in RL, intent is so hard to figure out.  Was Draco trying 
to kill Dumbledore with an intent of gain or an intent of 
protection?  Why did young!Snape invent the Sectumsempra?  Why did 
Harry reach for an Unforgivable when chasing down Bella?

> >>Shelley:
> But, as we see many times in the Harry Potter books, someone is   
> judged only from their outside actions, and the person in not     
> questioned on their intent.
> <snip>
> Thus, many witches and wizards wouldn't go anywhere near a spell   
> that could be considered to have Dark roots or be too close to a   
> curse, out of fear of being punished even if their intent was good.

Betsy Hp:
Which brings the definition of Dark Arts back to a somewhat 
capricious decision based on the fashion of the times.  Especially 
on the lower end of the scale.  Which, again, I'm fine with.  It's 
when the we're asked to judge a character based on his or her 
magical use that I get a bit nervous.  Especially in the case of 
Snape and Draco where I think intent is harder to judge.

> >>Pippin:
> I bet if you asked the list to give specific examples of          
> what 'evil' is, we'd get widespread agreement on a few broad      
> issues and bitter debate on many others. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  And actually, I think this is one of the strengths of the 
series (depending, of course, on how JKR handles the ending), 
because it encourages readers to think about what makes something 
good or bad.  It's not laid out for you, you have to figure it out 
on you own. (Or at least, that's the way I read the books. <g>)

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> But it actually doesn't really seem to be an important part of
> the Potterverse. Not in the way it is in something like Star Wars 
> where you have it laid out as a danger and something a hero could 
> fall to.
> <snip>
> It seems like a lot of times Dark Magic is just the Potterverse   
> version of pornography: We can't define it, but we know it when we 
> see it, and when we see it it's going to be Magic done by a bad   
> guy. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And yet, I think JKR has played with that theory.  Fake!Moody was a 
prime example.  He demonstrated Unforgivables and the kids all 
thought he was super cool.  (They saw him as detached from the 
darkness of the Unforgivables, I guess.)  The way he tortures Draco 
is seen as funny and righteous.  Though we later find out it wasn't 
done in righteous anger at all.

So while I agree that some of the *characters* tend to judge actions 
or magic according to their view of the people doing them, I'm not 
sure they are actually correct in doing so.  (Book 7 will reveal 
whether I'm right in this or not.)

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> It's apparent, though, that the WW has a pretty good idea of what 
> the Dark Arts consist of. Durmstrang teaches them, Hogwarts teaches
> defense against them. Draco says that "we" (Death Eaters) don't    
> need defense against them (perhaps at this point he's still       
> wishing to learn the Dark Arts instead of DADA). Harry knows      
> instantly when he enters 12 GP that he's in a house belonging to   
> Dark wizards (all the Slytherin symbols in combination with       
> gruesomeness, I suppose). 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think the WW *thinks* they have a pretty good handle on what Dark 
Arts are. (Especially with the MoM eager to provide definitions. 
<g>)  But I get the sense that it's actually pretty fluid.  When 
does one leave defense and enter into offense?  

Also, Harry has, I think, a mistaken view of what constitutes "dark 
wizards".  He's been told all Slytherins are dark.  And I'm pretty 
sure he's wrong.  (If this is a healing story, he'll have to be 
wrong about that.)  Not that Harry is always wrong, and not to say 
there wasn't darkness at Grimmauld Place (it was a dying house at 
the center of a dying family -- how could it not be dark?), but I 
think Harry still sees things too starkly at the moment.

> >>Carol:
> The distinction here seems to be degree of danger combined
> with willingness or desire to kill. (A Basilisk or an Inferius is
> essentially a killing machine with no other purpose.)
> Does that help at all, Betsy? If you or I were struck with a hex   
> that caused tentacles or fungus growths to sprout from our face,   
> we'd think that was pretty Dark magic because we'd be helpless    
> against it, but to a wizard, who could probably cure it with      
> Finite Incantatem or some other simple countercurse, it would be   
> only slightly darker than Jelly Legs.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
As Shelley says, it's about intent.  So the werewolf, driven by 
bloodlust is dark.  But Lupin, with his usual human complexities, is 
not dark.  Would a shark be dark, though?  It's essentially a 
killing machine, but without malice really.  So I wonder about the 
basilisk.  An Inferius is a dark creation because it desecrates the 
dead and also it destroys without meaning.  A werewolf is 
essentially a disease.

Hitting Draco with a Jelly Legs is fine.  Hitting Filch with the 
same, or Dudley, would be darker because neither can defend against 
it.  So fluidity is still there.

(And actually, an irony has been the fairly shoddy teachers Harry 
has had for DADA.  Plus the double irony of a DADA professor 
teaching defense against dark creatures while at the same time 
*being* a dark creature, thereby bringing into question the very 
certainty of what exactly is a dark creature.)

> >>Jen: Here's my take on the three main paths to Voldemort, the   
> way I glean JKR's presentation of characters who are his followers:
> 1) Wizards like Lucius who place the pure blood issue above all
> else, who think Voldemort's goal is to rid the WW of muggleborns.

Betsy Hp:
Seduced by the power Voldemort offers, maybe? Or Voldemort's ability 
to quickly realize a political goal.  (This seemed to be a popular 
one, I think.  The WW leaned toward Voldemort for a while because 
they liked his politics, IIRC.) 

> >>Jen R:
> 2) Those who are coopted into service out of fear like Peter.

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, Peter.  Now there's a fascinating character.  Honestly, I think 
Peter was more drawn by power and brutality.  He really seemed to 
enjoy Sirius and James attacking Snape.  I think he likes being 
attached to the most powerful bully in the playground, as Sirius 
said.  There's a sadism element here.  An element that drew Bella 
and Crouch, Jr. to Voldemort's side, I think.

> >>Jen R:
> 3) Those who have immersed themselves in the study of the Dark Arts
> and view Voldemort as a path to magical knowledge. My assumption is
> Snape fits here.

Betsy Hp:
I just don't see this one.  Snape is the intellectual of 
Potterverse, but he seems to have done just fine on his own.  I 
don't see Voldemort playing the part of teacher.  I don't see him as 
a holder of forbidden knowledge.

I think Snape went to Voldemort out of anger, not curiosity.  
Possibly because he agreed with the political views that attracted 
Lucius to Voldemort's side.  

> >>Jen R:
> <snip>
> Snape aleady has the anger, but he also has a growing belief the  
> Dark Arts are the path to something more than what he's           
> accomplished in his regular studies at Hogwarts, something that   
> will give him not only intellectual glory but power over his      
> enemies. Thus he's seduced by the siren call of the Dark Arts as
> the end and Voldemort as the means.

Betsy Hp:
Are you getting all this from the Sectumsempra curse?  It seems like 
a bit of a leap, IMO.  Young!Snape came up with a curse for his 
enemies.  A gruesome one, yes.  But I don't recall anything in the 
books suggesting young!Snape was frustrated by a lack of knowledge.  
That he was trying to learn something Dumbledore had forbidden him.

And I really don't get the sense that Voldemort is the 
representative of Dark Magic, or the Dark Arts.  I agree with Magpie 
that the magic of Potterverse just hasn't been laid out that way.  
Magic is a tool.  You shape it, it doesn't shape you. If that makes 
sense.

Betsy Hp





From dougsamu at golden.net  Sat Nov 11 20:21:38 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:21:38 -0500
Subject: Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
Message-ID: <26A17B3C-0DA9-437B-99C8-7783E6318971@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161401

wiffyboy:

why are they the only ones (That we've seen) that were knocked back  
when the
curse struck them?

doug: grasping?

Hmmmm, wasn't the fox airborne? leaping? or was it in the grass?  
Weren't the family in chairs? Would the chairs have been enough  
support to negate any additional or changed momentum? If the fox was  
*in* the grass, perhaps an altered momentum wasn't *seen*, or if it  
was jumping, perhaps the added momentum was in the direction of  
motion? Wouldn't a wild animal presumably flee away from a threat?

I have no answers either as to Bryce and Diggory.... It might indeed  
hinge on being *seen*


Why are Humans the only primates with chins and nuclear weapons?
        __________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>__________




From nerdie55 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 19:38:32 2006
From: nerdie55 at yahoo.com (nerdie55)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:38:32 -0000
Subject: Usage of the word Squib in the mid-18th century by Oliver Goldsmith
Message-ID: <ej58ro+6gev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161402

Some time ago I read the book "The Vicar of Wakefield" by Oliver
Goldsmith and to my surprise he calls someone a squib, just like in
the Harry Potter books. In his case, according to Johnson's
dictionary, it refers to a "petty (little, insignificant) man, as you
can see in the photo - collections sections where I put scans of the
page and the notes referring to it.

Squib sounds nice, but JKR didn't make the word up herself, the
meaning of course is hers, but not the actual word. Funny how you meet
things like that occasionally.

nerdie55






From the_sadness_in_my_eyes_aint_fake at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 20:10:31 2006
From: the_sadness_in_my_eyes_aint_fake at yahoo.com (sad_angel_crying tears_of_blood)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 12:10:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Felix question
Message-ID: <20061111201032.11402.qmail@web57914.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161403

> >>David:
>> I know that this question may be silly/simple. ..but there is no such thing as a silly question...right? Right? Okay, here it is: Why 
doesn't Harry just drink some Felix right before, or while he is 
facing Voldemort? <<


That might be a silly/simple question but I think it's true. Come on he could just drink some Felix and have good luck right. The problem is where is he going to get more Felix. 

sad_angel




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 21:05:38 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:05:38 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <007301c705ca$a8179940$e198400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ej5dv2+h394@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161404

> Magpie:
> I am a little hesitatant about saying for sure how Snape was 
recruited, 
> because I think sometimes the idea of Snape being drawn by 
knowledge is 
> separated from Voldemort's Pureblood agenda when it's not.
> 
> Voldemort's Dark Knowledge is, imo, linked to immortality, which is 
also 
> connected to his Pureblood agenda.  Genocide is an expression of a 
> narcissistic desire for immortality: the group is strong and will 
endure 
> forever if the foreign, weaker element is removed like a sickness.  
That's 
> why the group being "cleansed" is often talked about in terms of 
filth or 
> disease, one that's attacking the host from within. (The Black 
Family Motto 
> nicely pairs the two: toujours pur.)

a_svirn:
In general I would agree, but with Voldemort in particular I am not 
so sure. I don't think he is particularly interested in the group 
survival. His narcissism is more straightforward ? with only himself 
as its focus. For him pureblood agenda is not really linked with his 
quest for immortality; he is just using the former as a bait for the 
likes of Draco (and Snape?), without being interested in such 
nonsense himself. As it is often the case with fictional villains he 
admitted as much in COS to Harry, when he was about to kill him. I am 
not so sure, however, that he had been this open with his own 
followers. If Sirius to be believed Romulus was attracted by 
the "toujours pur" bit, but as we know almost for sure he tried to 
stop Voldemort from achieving his main ambition. I am guessing he 
hadn't been aware of its nature at first. 

Also, since it is only his own immortality Voldemort is preoccupied 
with, his "dark knowledge linked to immortality" couldn't have been 
much of a lure for Snape, since it wasn't a sort of knowledge 
Voldemort was likely to share. In fact he is liable to kill anyone 
who gets too interested about it. Whatever else Snape might have been 
delusional about in his youth, he surely knew that. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 21:16:07 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 21:16:07 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej5bb3+f3ka@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej5ein+33ui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161405

 
> Betsy Hp:
> As Shelley says, it's about intent.  So the werewolf, driven by 
> bloodlust is dark.  But Lupin, with his usual human complexities, is 
> not dark.  Would a shark be dark, though?  It's essentially a 
> killing machine, but without malice really.  

a_svirn:
Werevolves are also without malice, really. They are driven by 
bloodlust they can't help, not by vengeance or, say, their concerns for 
the "greater good". By your own logic Lupin in the Shrieking Shack 
scene is more dark that Grayback in the Tower scene. Of course, we know 
that Grayback is not entirely without malice either ? he bit Lupin to 
punish Lupin's father. 





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Nov 11 22:44:20 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:44:20 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
References: <ej5dv2+h394@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00bd01c705e2$ede05bc0$e198400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161406

a_svirn:
Also, since it is only his own immortality Voldemort is preoccupied
with, his "dark knowledge linked to immortality" couldn't have been
much of a lure for Snape, since it wasn't a sort of knowledge
Voldemort was likely to share. In fact he is liable to kill anyone
who gets too interested about it. Whatever else Snape might have been
delusional about in his youth, he surely knew that.


Magpie:
I think I explained myself badly there.  I meant I think something more 
related to what Betsy says here:

Betsy Hp:
I just don't see this one.  Snape is the intellectual of
Potterverse, but he seems to have done just fine on his own.  I don't see 
Voldemort playing the part of teacher.  I don't see him as a holder of 
forbidden knowledge.

I think Snape went to Voldemort out of anger, not curiosity.  Possibly 
because he agreed with the political views that attracted Lucius to 
Voldemort's side.

Magpie:
Iow, I don't think that Voldemort is truly interested in anyone else's 
immortality besides his own, definitely.  But I think the lure of the DEs 
can still be immortality--just of the kind that I've read described as 
fueling genocide in the real world.

So I more mean, as Betsy said, not that Snape saw Voldemort as a teacher who 
would give him personally the secret to immortality, but that the 
quasi-immortal talk of the DEs (purifying the race of Wizards, the strength 
the group promised against enemies of true Wizards etc.) could be attractive 
in itself.

Snape was obviously a very intelligent Wizard, more so than average it 
seems.  And he does seem to think outside the box more than a lot of other 
Wizards do (I wonder if we'll learn why no one ever speaks of Snape's great 
smarts while he was at Hogwarts--we hear people still remember how bright 
James, Lily and Sirius were, but Snape's more known for his social 
shortcomings).  But there's no indication that he couldn't have pursued his 
own experiments without Voldemort.  The Slytherins who became DEs may have 
appreciated him more than others and that would probably be attractive too, 
but I think that the thing that seems to have really gotten Snape was anger 
and hatred, not intellectual curiosity.  When I said he as tempted by the 
immortality Voldemort stood for I didn't mean literal things like Horcruxes 
but the stuff your average DE would know that isn't necessarily spoken of as 
a quest for immortality but is tangled up with one in the real world.

-m







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 23:24:03 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 23:24:03 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej5ein+33ui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej5m2j+npsn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161407

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > As Shelley says, it's about intent.  So the werewolf, driven by 
> > bloodlust is dark.  But Lupin, with his usual human             
> > complexities, is not dark.  Would a shark be dark, though?  It's 
> > essentially a killing machine, but without malice really.  

> >>a_svirn:
> Werevolves are also without malice, really. They are driven by 
> bloodlust they can't help, not by vengeance or, say, their        
> concerns for the "greater good".

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but werewolves are driven by a perverse sort of hunger.  Sharks 
kill to eat and to survive.  But werewolves kill or bite to cause 
pain.  I don't get the sense that their urge to hunt is driven by 
hunger or survival instincts.  It's more a way to perpetuate a 
terrible curse.

However, it's also a mindless kind of darkness.  So I agree that the 
werewolf isn't driven by vengence or even malice.  At least, not 
from what we've learned in the books.  The bloodlust seems pretty 
mindless.

> >>a_svirn:
> By your own logic Lupin in the Shrieking Shack scene is more dark 
> that Grayback in the Tower scene. Of course, we know that Grayback 
> is not entirely without malice either ? he bit Lupin to 
> punish Lupin's father.

Betsy Hp:
Well, both men are humans in each scene.  So neither could be called 
a "Dark Creature".  Or, I suppose you could, but they aren't lost in 
their bloodlust, a creature of dark instinct.  They're human and so 
capable of darkness, but not dark by definition. So I'd say 
Grayback, in his desire to eat Dumbledore as a human not a werewolf, 
is actually the darker of the two.  (This presupposes a good Lupin.)

The interesting thing (IMO) is that I'd call Grayback darker than 
your usual werewolf.  He positions himself so when he turns he's 
most likely to attack a child.  (IIRC the books imply that as a 
werewolf he doesn't consciously choose his victim, just goes for the 
nearest, and most vulnerable human.)  So Grayback acts out of 
malice, using the werewolf within.  But it's the human, not the wolf 
that feels the malice.

Which goes towards the idea that it's not the magic, but the 
wielder, that makes something dark.

Betsy Hp





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 23:30:36 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 23:30:36 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <00bd01c705e2$ede05bc0$e198400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ej5mes+gkuc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161408

> Magpie:
>
<snip> Iow, I don't think that Voldemort is truly interested in 
anyone else's 
> immortality besides his own, definitely.  But I think the lure of 
the DEs 
> can still be immortality--just of the kind that I've read described 
as 
> fueling genocide in the real world.
> 
> So I more mean, as Betsy said, not that Snape saw Voldemort as a 
teacher who 
> would give him personally the secret to immortality, but that the 
> quasi-immortal talk of the DEs (purifying the race of Wizards, the 
strength 
> the group promised against enemies of true Wizards etc.) could be 
attractive 
> in itself. <snip>

a_svirn:
Oh, sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess I got 
confused because you said earlier that "sometimes the idea of Snape 
being drawn by knowledge is
separated from Voldemort's Pureblood agenda when it's not". Yet if he 
was tempted by the usual pureblood claptrap then his motivation is 
not much different from, say,  McNair's or Grayback's. In which case, 
I'd say, we can definitely separate it from more "noble" thirst for 
knowledge. "Quasi-immortality" does not require any special 
knowledge ? it's a pretty basic stuff about survival. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 11 23:49:10 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 23:49:10 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej5m2j+npsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej5nhm+h4m8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161409

> Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, but werewolves are driven by a perverse sort of hunger.  
Sharks 
> kill to eat and to survive.  But werewolves kill or bite to cause 
> pain.  I don't get the sense that their urge to hunt is driven by 
> hunger or survival instincts.  <snip>

a_svirn:
Actually, from what we can see in canon werewolves attack because are 
rendered insane by their illness. They do not *consciously* want to 
cause pain; they simply have certain cravings and act on instinct, 
much like sharks. Maybe it's not exactly a *survival* instinct, but 
it's still an instinct, not an *intent*. 

> Betsy Hp:

> Well, both men are humans in each scene.  So neither could be 
called 
> a "Dark Creature".  Or, I suppose you could, but they aren't lost 
in 
> their bloodlust, a creature of dark instinct.  They're human and so 
> capable of darkness, but not dark by definition. So I'd say 
> Grayback, in his desire to eat Dumbledore as a human not a 
werewolf, 
> is actually the darker of the two.  (This presupposes a good Lupin.)
> 
> The interesting thing (IMO) is that I'd call Grayback darker than 
> your usual werewolf.  He positions himself so when he turns he's 
> most likely to attack a child.  

a_svirn:
But, in doing so, he acts in his human capacity. In his human 
incarnation he makes plans to use himself ? in his monster 
incarnation ? as a weapon. Rather like Sirius tried to use Lupin. So, 
I'd say he's darker than Lupin not as a werewolf, but as a human 
being.  

> Betsy Hp:
But it's the human, not the wolf 
> that feels the malice.

a_svirn:
My point exactly. 






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 00:07:29 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:07:29 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej5mes+gkuc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej5ok1+t5l5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161410

> >>a_svirn:
> <snip>
> Yet if he [Snape] was tempted by the usual pureblood claptrap then 
> his motivation is not much different from, say,  McNair's or      
> Grayback's. In which case, I'd say, we can definitely separate it 
> from more "noble" thirst for knowledge.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm pretty sure Snape's motives for joining the Death Eaters were 
not noble.  Actually, I'd rate Lucius's and Regulus's motives as 
more noble in that there was at least a principle involved.  A wrong-
headed principle, but a principle none the less. 

Because Snape is a half-blood he was either operating under a form 
of self-hatred, or he had a reason outside of politics to join the 
Death Eaters.  With Snape, I can easily believe it's a complex 
tangle of both.  But I really do think anger and determination to 
not be a victim (so fear) were a major driving force.

With Grayback...  I distrust his truthfulness.  If his motivation is 
*really* a better life for werewolves, then there's a hint of 
nobility there.  But based on what we've seen of the character, I'd 
say he's more excited about all the lovely victims Voldemort can 
provide.  In which case, his motivations aren't noble at all.  

Betsy Hp





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 12 00:46:58 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:46:58 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
References: <ej5mes+gkuc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00e801c705f4$10060ea0$e198400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161411

a_svirn:
Oh, sorry I misunderstood what you were saying. I guess I got confused 
because you said earlier that "sometimes the idea of Snape being drawn by 
knowledge is separated from Voldemort's Pureblood agenda when it's not". Yet 
if he was tempted by the usual pureblood claptrap then his motivation is
not much different from, say,  McNair's or Grayback's. In which case, I'd 
say, we can definitely separate it from more "noble" thirst for knowledge. 
"Quasi-immortality" does not require any special
knowledge - it's a pretty basic stuff about survival.

Magpie:
I phrased it badly.  Basically I do think that Snape has a thirst for 
knowledge based on what we've seen about him, but I don't think his reasons 
for joining the DEs are very different from those others.  I think there's a 
common fanfic impulse to separate Snape as much as possible from anything 
unattractive about DEs, and often this is done by starting with the idea 
that Snape wasn't attracted to the DEs for anything violent, destructive or 
racist, but because Voldemort offered him a chance to find knowledge. I 
don't think Snape's motives for joining the DEs were noble, though his 
reasons for leaving them could have been.

Betsy Hp:
Well, both men are humans in each scene.  So neither could be called a "Dark 
Creature".  Or, I suppose you could, but they aren't lost in their 
bloodlust, a creature of dark instinct.  They're human and so
capable of darkness, but not dark by definition. So I'd say Grayback, in his 
desire to eat Dumbledore as a human not a werewolf, is actually the darker 
of the two.  (This presupposes a good Lupin.)

[...]

> Hmm, but werewolves are driven by a perverse sort of hunger.  Sharks > 
> kill to eat and to survive.  But werewolves kill or bite to cause > pain. 
> I don't get the sense that their urge to hunt is driven by > hunger or 
> survival instincts.  <snip>

a_svirn:
Actually, from what we can see in canon werewolves attack because are 
rendered insane by their illness. They do not *consciously* want to cause 
pain; they simply have certain cravings and act on instinct,
much like sharks. Maybe it's not exactly a *survival* instinct, but it's 
still an instinct, not an *intent*.

Magpie:
I agree--but to address what Betsy said in those first sentences, I think 
"werewolf" refers to a man who changes into a wolf etc., so Lupin actually 
is a Dark creature whether he's human or not.  An actual wolf, even a rabid 
one, would not be a Dark Creature, I don't think, just an animal.  It may 
almost be thought of as a possession--the regular human is possessed by this 
dark spirit that causes it to do things, and thus becomes a Dark Creature as 
well.

But as you said, werewolves have no intent any more than a rabid wolf would. 
I feel like it's not so much that Fenrir is any darker a creature than 
Lupin. They're both equally dark because they're both werewolves. But Fenrir 
is more...bad?  Does that word work?  He's a Dark Creature with good morals, 
Fenrir is a Dark Creature with bad morals.

-m






From BCs at BonniDune.com  Sun Nov 12 00:33:06 2006
From: BCs at BonniDune.com (Kelly Whiteman)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:33:06 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <007301c705ca$a8179940$e198400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ej5q42+sjnt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161412

Magpie:
> Voldemort's Dark Knowledge is, imo, linked to immortality, which is 
also 
> connected to his Pureblood agenda.  

BonniDune:

I think Voldemort's Dark Knowledge is linked to power, not 
immortality. In one of the books he says something to the effect 
that "there is no good or bad, just power and the strength to use it."

As someone who has been victimized, Snape would be drawn to this 
concept of personal power.

For Voldemort himself, the ultimate power is immortality.  As a child 
he assumed that his mother could not have been a witch because she did 
not have the power to not die.

BonniDune 






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 01:20:12 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 01:20:12 -0000
Subject: Snape / Harry & Temptation / Healing
In-Reply-To: <eitoj7+neu5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej5ssc+nlhc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161413

---  "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

> ,,,heavily edited....
>
> Betsy Hp:
> 
> I think this goes towards the Potter books as a "child 
> healer" type of story.  Harry is there to heal the rift
> in Hogwarts (and therefore the WW), and I'm wondering if
> Snape has maybe done some foundation work for him. Snape
> has cleaned out the poison of the Voldemort temptation 
> so Harry can get on with the healing.
> 
> Does this make sense?  (Where's Sydney when I need her?
> <g>)
> 
> Betsy Hp (not thrilled with the subject line - but can't
> think of a better title...)
>

bboyminn:

Oddly, and I say 'oddly' because you and I are so rarely
on the same page, to some extent I can see what you are
saying. Perhaps in a sense, by seeing Snape, even knowing
that Snape changed sides (bad->good), and by seeing the
mistakes Snape has made, Harry out of shear determination
to never be like Snape is equally determined to not make
those same mistakes.

Note in the scene in which Dumbledore points out that 
despite the horrible things that have happened all through
Harry's life, Harry has never been tempted by the Dark 
Side. To which, Harry furiously agrees. He will never go
over to the Dark Side 'Voldemort kill my parents!'. 

By implication, distant vague implication, what Harry is 
saying is that he could never be like Snape, tempted to
the power, sense of superiority, and self-affirmation
that the Dark Side initially provides. 

Harry has been alienated his whole life, before, during, 
and most likely after Hogwarts, it would be very easy for 
a put-upon person like Harry to seek out and hold on to 
the very thing that can give him was one might expect to 
be lacking in his life. Purpose, sense of superiority, 
value, meaning, combined with the shared aspects that bring
him a sense of human belonging the way a cult brings a sense
of belonging. 

Yet, Harry sees what returned when Snape returned to the
good side. He sees that the experience was like a poison
that can never be fully purged, and he doesn't want any 
part of that. He will never yield to the temptation of
Voldemort offerring to bring his parents back from the
dead, nor any other enticement that Dark Side could offer
him.

In that sense, Snape serves as a model for a good guy who
did it all wrong, and paid a dear price for it.

Naturally, I have had to grossly overstate my case to make
my point, but if you dial what I have said back to a more
subliminal subconsious level, then I think, yes, Snape has
made the terrible mistakes that Harry will never allow
himself to make. Better to be a good guy and stay a good
guy, even if it brings suffering, pain, loss, and even 
death. Better that than a reformed bad guy.

Again, I admit to way overstating myself, but have I at 
least touched on some aspect of what you were trying to
say????

Steve/bboyminn





From aceworker at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 01:40:46 2006
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:40:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Dumbledores AK Death (Was Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
Message-ID: <591883.95596.qm@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161414

<<Eddie:
 > Why was Dumbledore blasted into the air when every other AK death
 > we've seen, the victim just crumpled to the ground?  Why was this
 > one different?
 
<<<wiffyboy:
<<While it is true that Frank Bryce, Cedric 
 <<Diggory, and even the fox that Bellatrix killed just fell to the 
 <<ground after being hit by AK, and, aside from Dumbledore, these are 
<<the only characters that we actually see get hit, you seem to be 
 <<forgeting the spider that Imposter Moody killed in Harry's first DADA 
 <<class with him. 
 
<<The book said something along the line of "Ron falling out of his seat 
 as the spider skidded to a stop in front of him." 
 
 <<Now, this could just be a blunder on JKR's part, but fact that the 
 <<spider seemed to have shot off from the desk always struck me as odd. 
 
DA Jones here:

There are two possible answers: 

1. Momentum. Both Dumbledore and the spider may have made some sort of reflexive move to get out the way thus adding momentum in the direction away from the spell. So DD prior momentum carried him over the wall, not the spell.

2. Both DD blasting and the spider skittering were the result of 'low life force prior to the spell. The movement was the result of the extra-energy of the spell disapating. Spider don't strile me as creatures with a lot of life energy. Killing a spider with an AK is rather a lot of overkill. It's liike dropping a real bomb instead of a bug bomb. DD lifeforce was also very low because of the poison and the blackened hand, he was very near death when he died so it was the extre energy of the AK that blasted him back. 

Although the oddest thing is his bleeding mouth. The AK is not supposed to leave any physical marks, although the bleeding mouth may be the result of additional physical damamge from the fall or prior damage from the potion Harry didn't notice. 

Or it was all faked. What do you think?

What do you think?         
  
 
---------------------------------
Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

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




From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Sun Nov 12 01:28:42 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 01:28:42 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <00e801c705f4$10060ea0$e198400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ej5tca+83af@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161415

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
<snip>
> Magpie:
> I phrased it badly.  Basically I do think that Snape has a thirst 
for 
> knowledge based on what we've seen about him, but I don't think his 
reasons 
> for joining the DEs are very different from those others.  I think 
there's a 
> common fanfic impulse to separate Snape as much as possible from 
anything 
> unattractive about DEs, and often this is done by starting with the 
idea 
> that Snape wasn't attracted to the DEs for anything violent, 
destructive or 
> racist, but because Voldemort offered him a chance to find 
knowledge. I 
> don't think Snape's motives for joining the DEs were noble, though 
his 
> reasons for leaving them could have been.

Quick_Silver: 
But it isn't just a fanfic impulse I'd say, Bella charges Snape with 
slithering out of action during Spinner's End. So I get the 
impression from the books that we're supposed to view Snape and his 
relationship with the violence, racism, and destruction of the Death 
Eaters as being a strained relationship perhaps? However at the same 
time during the end of HBP the Death Eaters present, including 
Greyback, seemed to be cowed by Snape's mere presence.

Quick_Silver 





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 02:16:41 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:16:41 -0000
Subject: Confused. WAS: Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra
In-Reply-To: <ej3huq+d0pr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej6069+a0is@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161416

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wiffyboy2003" 
<wiffyboy2003 at ...> wrote:
>
> Eddie:

> > Why was Dumbledore blasted into the air when every other AK death
> > we've seen, the victim just crumpled to the ground?  Why was this
> > one different?
 
> wiffyboy:
<SNIP>

> you seem to be forgeting the spider that Imposter Moody killed in 
> Harry's first DADA class with him. The book said something along 
> the line of "Ron falling out of his  seat as the spider skidded 
> to a stop in front of him."
>  Now, this could just be a blunder on JKR's part, but fact that the
> spider seemed to have shot off from the desk always struck me as 
> odd.


zanooda:

The spider was running in Ron's direction when Fake!Moody AK'd it. 
Wasn't it supposed to continue moving for a while after dying due to 
inertia or something like that(sorry, I'm really bad at physics and 
not so good at English, either :-)? Especially on the smooth surface 
of the table.

> Carol wrote:

>There are several other differences as well, including Dumbledore's
>open eyes and the absence of a surprised expression (he looks like
>he's asleep, not coincidentally resembling his peacefully sleeping
>portrait, IMO). There's also no blinding flash or rushing noise.
>(Harry could see the blinding flash of the AK that killed Cedric
>through *closed eyes*. His earliest memory of his mother's death, or
>perhaps the AK that gave him the scar, was also of a blinding flash 
>of green light.


zanooda:

Now that we know that DD is definitely dead it's not so important 
anymore if Snape's AK was real or not. Just for the sake of 
argument, all the listed differences can be explained.

1. True, Cedric's eyes were open, and DD's closed, but couldn't he 
close them right before he died, or maybe just blinked?

2. It seems that AK victims keep the expression they had at the 
moment of death. Cedric looked surprised, but the three Riddles 
looked terrified. DD wouldn't look surprised, because he knew what's 
coming ("Severus, please") and he wouldn't look terrified, because 
he was not afraid neither of Snape nor of the death("the next great 
adventure" and all). He died at peace with himself, that's why he 
looks so peaceful.

3. As for the the absence of a flash of green light, it can be 
explained too. It all depends on where you stand when the curse is 
cast, IMO. If you face the caster, you see a flash of light, but if 
you watch from aside, you see it as a beam . It's kind of like a 
flashlight, if you are not facing it, you are not blinded. 

On the tower Harry wasn't facing Snape, IMO. He was going to open 
the door when he heard Draco's footsteps, so he just stepped aside. 
I picture the whole scene like this: DD is at the part of the wall 
facing the door, Malfoy, Snape and the DEs facing DD, their backs to 
the door, and Harry at the side part of the wall, right or left from 
the door. I even thought Harry should be behind Snape's back, but, 
as he can see the expression on Snape's face, I'll go with the side 
wall. He can't see the flash, because he is not on the way of the 
the curse.

4. Same goes for the rushing noise. Maybe you only can hear and feel 
it if the curse moves in your general direction, which is not true 
for the tower scene.

It's not so easy to explain why DD falls slowly. Being myself firmly 
in DDM!Snape camp, I would like Carol's explanation to be true 
(Snape sent DD down using Wingardium Leviosa, in order to save his 
body from being mutilated by Greyback). There is a possibility 
though that the whole "slow fall" thing is just some kind of mind 
trick, you know. After all, Sirius is also described to fall through 
the veil slowly, but it's not true. It's just the way Harry sees it.





From snapes_witch at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 02:18:25 2006
From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:18:25 -0000
Subject: What determines whether a muggle born will happen?
In-Reply-To: <7584279.1163253498834.JavaMail.root@web30>
Message-ID: <ej609h+vm8g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161417

 

 
Marion here:
> 
> This has always been an inconsistancy that bothers me a bit.  The 
emphasis is on "blood" but you've got Hermione, for example, who has 
no other wizards in the family, Harry, who's considered "pure blood" 
but whose maternal grandparents are probably muggles, and Filch, who 
comes from a wizard family but is a squib.  So my contention is that 
blood has nothing much to do with it.  And in that case, how can 
there be so much discrimination based on "blood"?  
> 

Snape's Witch replies:
No, Harry isn't considered  a pureblood.  Harry's a half-blood just 
like Tom Riddle and Snape. IMO that's deliberate similarity on Jo's 
part. True, both of his parents are magical but that's not the same 
as being pureblood.

Snape's Witch






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 02:33:03 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 02:33:03 -0000
Subject: Snape / Harry & Temptation / Healing
In-Reply-To: <ej5ssc+nlhc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej614v+tm2b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161418

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I think this goes towards the Potter books as a "child 
> > healer" type of story.  Harry is there to heal the rift
> > in Hogwarts (and therefore the WW), and I'm wondering if
> > Snape has maybe done some foundation work for him. Snape
> > has cleaned out the poison of the Voldemort temptation 
> > so Harry can get on with the healing.
> > Does this make sense?

> >>bboyminn:
> Oddly, and I say 'oddly' because you and I are so rarely
> on the same page, to some extent I can see what you are
> saying. Perhaps in a sense, by seeing Snape, even knowing
> that Snape changed sides (bad->good), and by seeing the
> mistakes Snape has made, Harry out of shear determination
> to never be like Snape is equally determined to not make
> those same mistakes.
> <major snip>
> Again, I admit to way overstating myself, but have I at 
> least touched on some aspect of what you were trying to
> say????

Betsy Hp:
I think so...  (This is made difficult because I'm not really sure 
myself what I'm trying to say. <g>)  Though I was more thinking of 
this happening on a more... subtextual level.  Not that Harry looks 
at Snape and says "never will I be like him", but that Harry doesn't 
even have to face Snape's challenge because Snape has already gone 
through it, so the challenge no longer exists.

However...  I'm trying to fit this idea in with the rift in Hogwarts 
that began when Slytherin left (or was cast out).  Voldemort 
obviously took advantage of a weakness.  Slytherin, with its 
outsider status, was vulnerable.  (I'm thinking wounded gazelle 
meets hungry lions, here.)

So Slytherin came under Voldemort's sway.  And that has to change, 
obviously.  Slytherin needs to come back, move away from Voldemort.  
Snape, then, would represent that breaking away from Voldemort's 
influence.  Something Harry's never had to do because he was never 
tempted to come under that influence in the first place. (Huh...  
Suddenly the original Sorting carries a whole new meaning.)

And, it's not that Harry's had to really *fight* to stay away from 
Voldemort.  He's always seen Voldemort in his true ugliness.  I 
think everyone else (including Snape) were probably taken in by 
Voldemort's Tom-Mask of a charming and beautiful man.  Harry briefly 
met that mask in CoS.  But Tom very quickly revealed his true nature.

Yeah, I have no idea if this cleared anything up. But I'm glad to be 
on a similar page Steve. <g>

Betsy Hp





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 12 04:24:44 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2006 23:24:44 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
References: <ej5q42+sjnt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <011301c70612$7d04e800$e198400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161419

> BonniDune:
>
> I think Voldemort's Dark Knowledge is linked to power, not
> immortality. In one of the books he says something to the effect
> that "there is no good or bad, just power and the strength to use it."
>
> As someone who has been victimized, Snape would be drawn to this
> concept of personal power.
>
> For Voldemort himself, the ultimate power is immortality.  As a child
> he assumed that his mother could not have been a witch because she did
> not have the power to not die.

Magpie:
But that concept of power isn't just Voldemort's.  His followers are called 
"Death Eaters."  Power over death is the ultimate power.  And the impulse 
for this kind of genocide has been linked in the real world to a 
narcissistic fantasy of immortality through perfection.  The individual 
gains strength through the immortal group once it has been purified of the 
dirty/diseased element weakening it from within.

Quick_Silver:
But it isn't just a fanfic impulse I'd say, Bella charges Snape with 
slithering out of action during Spinner's End. So I get the impression from 
the books that we're supposed to view Snape and his relationship with the 
violence, racism, and destruction of the Death Eaters as being a strained 
relationship perhaps? However at the same time during the end of HBP the 
Death Eaters present, including Greyback, seemed to be cowed by Snape's mere 
presence.

Magpie:
But that wouldn't necessarily mean Snape joined for some different reason. 
Regulus and Draco both seemed to have problems with some things DEs did, yet 
they didn't join for reasons at odds with Voldemort.  As a young man Snape 
actually shows some impulses towards violence and destruction in creating 
Sectumsempra for his enemies, and he calls Lily a Mudblood.  So to me it 
seems like there's nothing in canon that suggests that Snape joined the DEs 
for some other reason while there is evidence that he was okay with those 
reasons.  It's just that evidence isn't enough for many people.

It's certainly been given as a distinct possibility that Snape had a change 
of heart, that he did have problems with the reality of being a DE, and that 
he may now no longer believe the same things.  But I see no reason to think 
it wasn't a real change of heart or a reality check a la the two Black 
cousins (though Snape actually seems to have done better than both of them 
at stomaching the DE life).

-m 





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 12 05:02:34 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 05:02:34 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej5bb3+f3ka@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej69ta+j6ii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161420

> Betsy Hp:
> Are you getting all this from the Sectumsempra curse?  It seems like
> a bit of a leap, IMO.  Young!Snape came up with a curse for his 
> enemies.  A gruesome one, yes.  But I don't recall anything in the 
> books suggesting young!Snape was frustrated by a lack of knowledge.  
> That he was trying to learn something Dumbledore had forbidden him.

Jen:  All theories about Snape's motivation require a leap! Take you 
own theory.  Maybe Snape's anger led him to Voldemort, but surely not 
all angry young men join Voldemort, so how did one lead to the other 
in his case?  

Then there's the one we might call the 'pureblood claptrap' theory 
(hehe, thanks a_svirn): Snape called Lily a Mudblood, he was ashamed 
of his parentage and called himself the Half-Blood Prince much like 
Tom Riddle called himself Lord Voldemort (speculates Harry). The leap 
here is explaining why Voldemort accepted a half-blood into the inner 
circle.  Did Snape offer something others could not or did Voldemort 
and the DE's decide he was a really cool guy so they could overlook 
the little parentage problem?  Or did they not know his parentage and 
if so, how did he manage to hide it without the charm, magical power 
and manipulative powers of Tom Riddle?

Seduction by Dark Arts suffers from the same problem of incomplete 
information.  There's the Sectumsempra, but Hermione may be right the 
HBP had a 'nasty sense of humour' and that's the end of it.  There's 
the statement by Dumbledore that magical people can be seduced by the 
Dark Arts and are tempted to join Voldemort.  We haven't actually 
*met* an example of such a person, so maybe one is to come or maybe 
the old guy is talking in generalities.  Then JKR tells us Dumbledore 
doesn't give Snape the DADA job because it might bring out the worst 
in him and, yes indeedy, he gets the job and almost immediately gets 
enmeshed in what appears to be a darkish spell with devastating 
outcomes.  Was Snape's 'worst' getting trapped in the spell or 
something else entirely?  So yeah, there are leaps all over the place 
on this one.


Betsy Hp: 
> And I really don't get the sense that Voldemort is the 
> representative of Dark Magic, or the Dark Arts.  I agree with Magpie 
> that the magic of Potterverse just hasn't been laid out that way.  
> Magic is a tool.  You shape it, it doesn't shape you. If that makes 
> sense.


Jen: Dark magic can shape a person, it shapes Voldemort into a snake-
like creature with red eyes and that's only the outward manifestation 
of the process going on inside him.  He *believes* he is only 'pushing 
the boundaries of magic' but they seem to be pushing back.  Crouch Jr. 
was certainly changed from the boy screaming for his mother in Azkaban 
to the man Harry met in GOF.  I'm guessing years under the Imperius 
curse augmented whatever his natural inclinations were.  

JKR doesn't lay this out like the dark side of the force because she 
doesn't need to.  She isn't concerning herself with why people become 
DE's with the same clinical precision Lucas tracked Anakin's fall to 
the Dark Side because that's not the story she is trying to tell. 
Wizards join Voldemort, there are reasons why...what, we aren't 
satisfied by that? <g>


Carol:
> I agree that Severus Snape was motivated primarily by intellectual
> concerns, but I think he was looking for recognition and acceptance
> more than power. IMO, he either approached Lucius Malfoy or was
> approached by him ("The Dark Lord will reward your talents,
> Severus, and provide you with the recognition you deserve"). I 
> don't think that Voldemort knew about him unless Malfoy informed 
> him that he had a young friend with prodigious talents who should
> be recruited before he began working for the other side.

Jen R: Like wealth or political clout, intellect is a means to sway 
others and therefore is a type of power.  There's a responsibility 
attached to having a great intellect and choosing what to do with it;  
Snape could have chosen a much better outlet for his intellect than 
the DE's but something led him to put aside a promising career for 
service with Voldemort.  Re: recruitment, I don't think the how will 
prove to be as important as the why.  Your suggestions about Lucius 
are completely plausible.

Jen R.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 17:51:08 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:51:08 -0000
Subject: Usage of the word Squib in the mid-18th century by Oliver Goldsmith
In-Reply-To: <ej58ro+6gev@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej7muc+s25h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161421

---  "nerdie55" <nerdie55 at ...> wrote:
>
> Some time ago I read the book "The Vicar of Wakefield"
> by Oliver Goldsmith and to my surprise he calls someone
> a squib, just like in the Harry Potter books. In his 
> case, according to Johnson's
> dictionary, it refers to a "petty (little, insignificant)
> man, ...
> 
> Squib sounds nice, but JKR didn't make the word up 
> herself, .... Funny how you meet things like that 
> occasionally.
> 
> nerdie55
>

bboyminn:

Actually, you can look in any dictionary and find the 
word 'Squib', and JKR has applied it very appropriately
in her books.

A Squib is a round of ammunition, ordnance, shell, or
firecracker that is a 'dud', that is, it is incapable 
of firing or exploding. So, in this sense, a magical 
Squib is a 'round' or 'firecracker' that didn't go off. 
They had the magical potential, but that potential was 
unrealized. In other words, they were a 'dud'.

This can also be applied to people in the real world.
If you want to indicate a person is a failure or
worthless, you would call them a 'dud' or a 'Squib'.

A squib is also one of a variety of devices for setting
off or igniting a firework, rocket, or other device; though
where I come from we would more likely call such a device 
a 'punk'.

A Squib is also a 'lampoon'; a short witty humorous
satirical bit of writing or speech. So, one could 
say that JKR is squibbing the squib. 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/squib

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 12 18:02:27 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 12 Nov 2006 18:02:27 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/12/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1163354547.10.74144.m36@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161422


Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 12, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


Set up birthday reminders
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
 www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20061112/e707b844/attachment.html>

From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 18:26:28 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 18:26:28 -0000
Subject: Felix question
In-Reply-To: <20061111201032.11402.qmail@web57914.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ej7p0k+8q07@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161423

---  sad_angel_crying tears_of_blood
<the_sadness_in_my_eyes_aint_fake at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>David:
> >> ... Why doesn't Harry just drink some Felix right 
> >> before, or while he is facing Voldemort? <<
> 
> 
> That might be a silly/simple question but I think it's
> true. Come on he could just drink some Felix and have 
> good luck right. The problem is where is he going to 
> get more Felix. 
> 
> sad_angel
>

bboyminn:

Luck to a certain extent is like Fate, it can favor you
but that doesn't guarantee that it will protect you. I
think we are giving too much weight to the power of luck.
Luck may guide Harry along the right path illuminating
his way, but even the right path can be fraught with
unseen dangers, and sometimes luck alone is not enough
to protect you. 

To some extent, Harry doesn't really know when he will
face Voldemort again. While he certainly anticipated
trouble in all his adventures, I don't think he 
necessarily anticipated meeting Voldemort each time.
Since he never knows when Voldemort will pop up, he 
would have to take the 'Luck' Potion all the time. JKR
foresaw this and had Slughorn explain why the 'Luck' 
potion can not be taken on a regular basis; nasty long
term side effects that result in the opposite of luck.

Now Harry could carry a bottle of 'Luck' around with him
at all times and that would certainly help, but I don't
think it comes with a guarantee. It might sway things to
his favor, but sometimes, even when things are going your
way, the force against you is so overwhelming that even
the very best of luck is not enough to save you. 

Also, I think there is an element in bottled luck that is
very similar to taking drugs. If you take drugs, you feel
very very good, but it is an illusion. You are not being
good, life is not good, it merely /feels/ good. When you
come down, nothing has changed, you are still trapped in
the same miserable life you were always in, and you still
have all the problems you always had. So, you get high
again, just so you can feel good for a while, then it 
wears off and around and around you go never really 
accomplishing anything.

I think feeling 'lucky' is no substitute for creating you
own genuine luck. Work hard, gain skill, apply those skills
diligently and you will create you own very real luck that
won't wear off after a few  hours. That is what Harry 
really needs to do, he needs to create his own genuine luck
through skill, determination, and perseverance, and though
high moral fiber. That will carry him a lot farther and
serve him far better than any artificial bottled luck.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn





From cindiknits at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 17:56:03 2006
From: cindiknits at yahoo.com (cindiknits)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:56:03 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <eiqcnj+rssi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej7n7j+f3dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161424

> Eddie:
> 
> 2) If Harry was a Gryffindor heir, then possibly his mother Lily was,
> which means Aunt Petunia would be, which means Dudley (!) would be a
> Gryffindor heir.
> 
Cindi:  Or, perhaps Harry is a Gryffindor heir through James, not 
Lily, (maybe Dumbledore is James's great grandfather or something), 
which means I don't have to have nightmares about Disgusting Dudley 
being even slightly magical. 






From dcrnj at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 17:05:53 2006
From: dcrnj at yahoo.com (Doug)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:05:53 -0000
Subject: What If (Doug's Theory)
Message-ID: <ej7k9h+o04s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161425

What if Dumbledore is a phoenix animagus. At his funeral his body was
hidden by white flames and then Harry for a brief moment thought he saw a phoenix soaring. If this were true Snape had to be in on a plot not with LV but with Dumbledore to make LV think Dumbledore is dead & put Snape in place as LV's right hand man (ready to help take him down when the time comes.) Harry's safety in the meantime was insured by his return to his family home at the Dursleys until he's seventeen. If this is true it opens up a host of possiblities for how the final book will develop. Finding the horcruxes would be much easier by a Dumbledore presumed dead and lots of twists & turns finding out who was in on the plot(the anti LV organization is called "the order of the phoenix" after all.)

Doug






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 20:03:49 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:03:49 -0000
Subject: Heir of Gyffindor  (Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper)
In-Reply-To: <ej7n7j+f3dj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej7un5+b979@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161426

> > Eddie:
> > 
> > 2) If Harry was a Gryffindor heir, then possibly his mother Lily 
was,
> > which means Aunt Petunia would be, which means Dudley (!) would be 
a
> > Gryffindor heir.
> > 
> Cindi:  Or, perhaps Harry is a Gryffindor heir through James, not 
> Lily, (maybe Dumbledore is James's great grandfather or something), 
> which means I don't have to have nightmares about Disgusting Dudley 
> being even slightly magical.
>

Alla:

Sorry, Cindi. I do not want you to have nightmares :) but Dumbledore 
is not Harry's grandfather or relative, much as I would love to be 
true. :)

>From JKR website:

Professor Dumbledore is Harry's real grandfather/close relative of 
some description.
If Dumbledore had been Harry's grandfather, why on earth would he have 
been sent to live with the Dursleys?

Alla:
I **loved** that answer in a sense that JKR's only reason to send 
Harry to Dursleys was blood protection, but did wished JKR would not 
need to say that outside the books and mde it clearer within the 
books :)

Alla, who does agree with Jen that possibility of Dumbledore being the 
Heir was not squashed at all.





From vidarfe at start.no  Sun Nov 12 20:09:06 2006
From: vidarfe at start.no (vidar_fe)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 20:09:06 -0000
Subject: What If (Doug's Theory)
In-Reply-To: <ej7k9h+o04s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej7v12+9fcv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161427

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doug" <dcrnj at ...> wrote:
>
> What if Dumbledore is a phoenix animagus. At his funeral his body was
> hidden by white flames and then Harry for a brief moment thought he
saw a phoenix soaring. If this were true Snape had to be in on a plot
not with LV but with Dumbledore to make LV think Dumbledore is dead &
put Snape in place as LV's right hand man (ready to help take him down
when the time comes.) Harry's safety in the meantime was insured by
his return to his family home at the Dursleys until he's seventeen. If
this is true it opens up a host of possiblities for how the final book
will develop. Finding the horcruxes would be much easier by a
Dumbledore presumed dead and lots of twists & turns finding out who
was in on the plot(the anti LV organization is called "the order of
the phoenix" after all.)

Vidar:
Unfortunately, Jo Rowling has already shot down this theory. It was at
the reading in New York in August, together with Stephen King and John
Irving. You can read what she said at
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html,
at about the middle of the page.






From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Nov 12 21:03:29 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:03:29 -0000
Subject: Off-list from HPfGU: Re: Pettigrew was Potter's Secretkeeper...
In-Reply-To: <eio0sa+6t76@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej8271+1oi8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161428

I'm doing my weekly read of the week's worth of posts, and must tell
you I laughed out loud at:

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
<< (I can just see James: "What are we all doing here? Where are we?"
and PP having to tell him, "Oh, 'The Potters are hiding in Godric's
Hollow.' That's you, you know. Fidelius charm, mate. That's why Lily
pointing her wand at me." and James say, "Oh, right. Now I remember." >>





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Nov 12 21:23:24 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:23:24 -0000
Subject: Usage of the word Squib in the mid-18th century by Oliver Goldsmith
In-Reply-To: <ej7muc+s25h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej83cc+n3jo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161429

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

nerdie55:
> > Some time ago I read the book "The Vicar of Wakefield"
> > by Oliver Goldsmith and to my surprise he calls someone
> > a squib, just like in the Harry Potter books. In his 
> > case, according to Johnson's
> > dictionary, it refers to a "petty (little, insignificant)
> > man, ...
> > 
> > Squib sounds nice, but JKR didn't make the word up 
> > herself, .... Funny how you meet things like that 
> > occasionally.

bboyminn:
> Actually, you can look in any dictionary and find the 
> word 'Squib', and JKR has applied it very appropriately
> in her books.
> 
> A Squib is a round of ammunition, ordnance, shell, or
> firecracker that is a 'dud', that is, it is incapable 
> of firing or exploding. So, in this sense, a magical 
> Squib is a 'round' or 'firecracker' that didn't go off. 
> They had the magical potential, but that potential was 
> unrealized. In other words, they were a 'dud'.
> 
> This can also be applied to people in the real world.
> If you want to indicate a person is a failure or
> worthless, you would call them a 'dud' or a 'Squib'.
> 
> A squib is also one of a variety of devices for setting
> off or igniting a firework, rocket, or other device; though
> where I come from we would more likely call such a device 
> a 'punk'.
> 
> A Squib is also a 'lampoon'; a short witty humorous
> satirical bit of writing or speech. So, one could 
> say that JKR is squibbing the squib. 
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/squib
> 
> Just passing it along.

Geoff:
There is an additonal informal meaning, certainly in UK English 
usage where something or someone failing to come up to 
expectations or proving a disappointment is referred to as a
"damp squib".






From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Sun Nov 12 21:28:50 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:28:50 +0100
Subject: JKR and the boys
Message-ID: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>

No: HPFGUIDX 161430

After watching the PoA film again, I stumbled about a scene quite at the
beginning that is not in the book. It's the scene where the boys have fun in
the dormitory, imitating animals and having a small pillow fight afterwards.
That's a nice insight in the "private life" of Harry and his friends - and
that's the point, I really miss that in the books. The scene in the film was
important to show the everyday life of students at Hogwarts - no, of male
students at Hogwarts. The same situation with girls would have been
different - don't ask me for details, but the behaviour was quite "boyish"
in my impression.

That leads to my thesis:
JKR does not understand boys well and has great difficulties describing them
and their full emotional and social capacities. On the other hand, her
description of girls is much more realistic and comprehensive.

I'm not very good at finding loads of quotes to support impressions like
that, so please forgive me if you expect such. But I will try to explain
what I mean, by writing about the main male and female character in the
book: Harry and Hermione, especially concerning romantic emotions.
Harry is... well, let's say "unprepared" and not very clever with girls. We
have an insight in his thoughts, but this doesn't make the situation more
clear. His desires seem to come from a dark place in himself that he is
unaware of. In HBP, JKR uses the metaphor of the roaring dragon. Similarly,
he doesn't recognize his feelings of jealousy with Cho.
Harry thinks about how to approach a girl, how not to make a fool of
himself, but he clearly doesn't know what he really wants. And he doesn't
understand girls at all - which might be realistic concerning "romantic"
situations in teenage years, but I think it is a general problem with Harry.

He has very few friends, and he seems not to be interested in students apart
from those who are his friends. This is shown differently in the films, by
the way.
What makes this situation unrealistic IMO is Harry's past until he came to
Hogwarts. He had a very hard time not only at the Dursley's, but at
elementary school as well. A person being bullied so much will most probably
develop good knowledge of human nature - especially a bright boy like Harry.
It's vital for him to understand people and to "read their minds" in order
to find out who will harm him and who will not. JKR seems to have left out
the emotional and social intelligence in her "Harry Potter" character. Her
Harry Potter is naive concerning girls, uninterested concerning students in
general apart from his friends, and ignorant concerning emotional and social
interaction with most of his teachers, apart from Hagrid maybe.

On the other side - Hermione Granger. She is extremely intelligent and the
academic star of Hogwarts. Additionally, she seems to be very good at
understanding people. She is the person who explains everything to Harry
when he is clueless again. She seems to have very close friendships with
several girls including Ginny, she is very clever at sorting out emotional
and romantic relationships between girls and boys. She even seems to
understand Harry's emotions better than Harry himself, Consequentially she
is Harry's main advisor. No question, Hermione is wrong sometimes, and she
failed to "catch" Ron for a long time. But compared with Harry, she is not
only an academic genius, she has much more facets in her social and
emotional profile.

Let's take a look at the three main characters - Ron and Harry are boys,
Hermione a girl. Ron is described as a total fool concerning his social and
emotional relationships. Yes, that Ron who is one of seven children with
uncounted relatives. Ron who as all children with many siblings had to learn
social interactions very, very early - but he didn't. Harry, being bullied
most of his life, needing to quickly distinguish between "good" and "bad"
people, to develop a good knowledge of human nature - but he didn't.
Hermione, an only child, on the other hand - well, she may have had a
difficult childhood as well, we don't know exactly. But she is an expert in
romances, an advisor for the boys, and "best friends" with several girls as
well.

Harry and Ron are tumbling from black to white and back, while Hermione
seems to know all shades of grey and deals with most emotional situations
like an expert. Now, this is not right in my point of view. Girls may have
more of what scientists call "emotional intelligence" statistically - but
that doesn't mean that boys are so simple and (emotionally) stupid like JKR
describes Harry and especially Ron. Boys are different than girls - due to
biological and social reasons - but they are not as simple as the male
characters in JKR's HP books are.

My impression is, that JKR does not know very much about boys becoming men,
or boys' interactions at all. Otherwise she would show us more "boys'
situations" like that in the PoA film mentioned at the beginning of my post.
Do we actually see any signs of fights (not only physical) among the boys to
find a ranking? Do we listen to any chat about girls and which boy has done
whatever with a specific girl, or which girl is most interesting? To
describe teenage boys (and girls as well) without ever mentioning sexuality
is very difficult, which is another weak point of the HP series IMO - but
that would be worth another post. JKR seems to master this difficult task
with girls - but her young male characters are far from being realistic.




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sun Nov 12 20:28:06 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:28:06 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Felix question
References: <ej7p0k+8q07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02c401c70699$0fa987c0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161431

>> David:
>> ... Why doesn't Harry just drink some Felix right
>>  before, or while he is facing Voldemort? <<

> bboyminn:
>> Luck to a certain extent is like Fate, it can favor you but that doesn't guarantee that it will protect you.
>> <snip>
>> Also, I think there is an element in bottled luck that is very similar to taking drugs. If you take drugs, you feel very very good, but it is an illusion. 
>> <snip>
>> I think feeling 'lucky' is no substitute for creating you own genuine luck. Work hard, gain skill, apply those skills diligently and you will create you own very real luck that won't wear off after a few  hours. That is what Harry really needs to do, he needs to create his own genuine luck through skill, determination, and perseverance, and though high moral fiber. That will carry him a lot farther and serve him far better than any artificial bottled luck. <<



I would argue a different reason that we won't ever see Harry with a bottle 
of Felix in his pocket right before meeting Voldemort: it's just not in his 
character. Harry never has been afraid of Voldemort. He sees it as his 
destiny, and while he might be a little scared inwardly, he's never let that 
fear drive him in any way. We don't seem him quaking in any of the previous 
encounters. So, he's really different than Slughorn, who moves from house to 
house in fear, avoiding any confrontation, and who we know would take Felix 
if he was told he had a meeting with the Dark Lord that evening. It's like 
Harry is thinking, well, if I am going to get into a ruffle with Voldemort, 
let's make it head on so I can kill him (or he kill me), and then it will be 
done. Harry isn't one to rely on luck- he has more confidence in his skills, 
his brain, his ability to think he way through things. Notice that when he 
has a bottle of Felix, he gives the bottle away to his friends, and that 
really shows Harry's character for who he is- more concerned about the lives 
of others rather than his own.

Shelley 






From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 12 22:09:47 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 17:09:47 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR and the boys
References: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <007f01c706a7$45bce1a0$6d86400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161432

Miles:
> That leads to my thesis:
> JKR does not understand boys well and has great difficulties describing 
> them
> and their full emotional and social capacities. On the other hand, her
> description of girls is much more realistic and comprehensive. <snip>

> On the other side - Hermione Granger. She is extremely intelligent and the
> academic star of Hogwarts. Additionally, she seems to be very good at
> understanding people. She is the person who explains everything to Harry
> when he is clueless again. She seems to have very close friendships with
> several girls including Ginny, she is very clever at sorting out emotional
> and romantic relationships between girls and boys.

Magpie:
Yipes! Rowling's description of girls is realistic and comprehensive?  As a 
woman I'm a little offneded.  I'm sure Rowling knows plenty about girls, 
having been one, but I find her portrayal of girls in general in her books 
to be mostly putting across a stereotype.  Hermione does not, as you said, 
have very close friendships with several girls including Ginny.  She has 
friendships with no girls besides Ginny--in fact seems to hold most of the 
ones she meets in contempt.  And of course, she's become friends with Ginny 
through Ron--they're practically already the sisters in law they are fated 
to be--and their friendship is mostly shown in terms of bonding over their 
romantic conquests.  In OotP I found myself thinking the reason Hermione sat 
up late knitting was to avoid spending time with dorm mates who were all 
closer with each other than her. Once in a while she'll put on a girl act to 
make Ron jealous, but usually she's just with the boys.

Rowling's interviews, iirc, are full of little throwaways about "how women 
are," always referring to ways in which they respond to men, and almost 
always describing behavior that's not universal any more than saying "well, 
you know men, men are all stupid!" would be a truly fair portrait of all men 
all the time.  While I wouldn't ever say that Rowling is clueless about 
women, I would never say that she's presented a comprehensive and realistic 
portrait of them in her books, since their lives in her book are mostly 
centered around the men.  (So much so that a Potion that makes someone mad 
with desire for you is a product exclusively used by girls...because what 
teenaged boy would ever find that useful?  Boys are just dopes who can't be 
responsible for their chest monsters in the face of all those scheming 
women!) Her books present a particular view of women, but not one that all 
women relate to themselves.

-m






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 22:45:15 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:45:15 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <ej885r+e914@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161433

> >>Miles:
> After watching the PoA film again, I stumbled about a scene quite 
> at the beginning that is not in the book. It's the scene where the 
> boys have fun in the dormitory, imitating animals and having a    
> small pillow fight afterwards. That's a nice insight in           
> the "private life" of Harry and his friends - and that's the      
> point, I really miss that in the books.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I really, really agree here, Miles.  Actually, based on the books, 
Harry has very few friends.  He's not friends with Neville, Dean or 
Seamus.  He barely knows the names of people in his house outside of 
his quidditch teammates and year.  He doesn't know the names of 
people his age but not in his house.  (There's a fanfic out there 
where Harry's cluelessness about his fellow students is a bit of a 
running joke.  It's funny because it's canon.)

> >>Miles:
> That leads to my thesis:
> JKR does not understand boys well and has great difficulties      
> describing them and their full emotional and social capacities. On 
> the other hand, her description of girls is much more realistic    
> and comprehensive.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh dear.  And see, I thought JKR was doing a better job with the 
boys. <g>  Though, honestly, the things that annoy me about JKR's 
main female characters are still true to certain kinds of girls.  So 
maybe you're right.

It did bother me recently that Harry didn't worry about Dean at all 
when he and Ginny first kissed.  I really thought that was an 
example of bad conduct as per the guy code of behavior.  (But, I'll 
defer to greater experts here. <g>)

> >>Miles:
> He [Harry] has very few friends, and he seems not to be interested 
> in students apart from those who are his friends. This is shown   
> differently in the films, by the way. What makes this situation   
> unrealistic IMO is Harry's past until he came to Hogwarts. He had 
> a very hard time not only at the Dursley's, but at elementary     
> school as well. A person being bullied so much will most probably
> develop good knowledge of human nature - especially a bright boy  
> like Harry. It's vital for him to understand people and to "read   
> their minds" in order to find out who will harm him and who will   
> not. JKR seems to have left out the emotional and social          
> intelligence in her "Harry Potter" character.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Harry's intelligence does go a bit wobbly at times.  Frankly, I 
think it's for plot purposes.  There are times JKR needs Harry to 
not notice something, and so he doesn't.  Even though he'd have to 
be stupid not to.  Not knowing the names of students he's been 
having classes with for several years is a prime example.

The fact that first year Harry didn't figure out Draco's social 
group (to better identify possible foes) is a bit strange too, I 
think.  That Harry didn't pick up the social hierarchy in the 
Griffindor Common Room is odd.  Though I suppose one could argue 
that by being taken under the Weasley family wing Harry knew all of 
the hierarchy he needed to know.

So for the most part, I'm agreeing with you.  But it's all about to 
come crashing down. <g>

> >>Miles:
> On the other side - Hermione Granger. She is extremely intelligent 
> and the academic star of Hogwarts. Additionally, she seems to be   
> very good at understanding people. She is the person who explains 
> everything to Harry when he is clueless again. She seems to have   
> very close friendships with several girls including Ginny, she is 
> very clever at sorting out emotional and romantic relationships   
> between girls and boys.

Betsy Hp:
First of all, Hermione doesn't have any female friends.  Ginny comes 
the closest (and I'll guess that Hermione would call Ginny her best 
girlfriend) but Ginny is a very far second to Ron and Harry.  Ginny 
might tell Hermione everything.  Hermione does not return the favor.

And I don't think Hermione understands people at all.  I think she's 
quick at picking up on other clues, but I don't think she really 
understands what motivates people or how they operate.  Hermione has 
too often said the exact wrong thing for me to be impressed with her 
social skills.

As to her sorting out Harry's love life:  I think she picked up all 
of her information on Cho either in the girls' restroom (*prime* 
source of that sort of gossip) or may have quizzed Lavender and 
Parvati.  But I'm quite sure Hermione did not figure out all of 
Cho's issues on her own.

I do think Hermione hoped for Ginny and Harry to get together and 
did her best to help that relationship along.  But not because she 
had such a keen insight into either Harry or even Ginny for that 
matter.

> >>Miles:
> She even seems to understand Harry's emotions better than Harry   
> himself, Consequentially she is Harry's main advisor.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I've always felt Ron was more up on the proper care and feeding of 
Harry.  Hermione is more often clueless about what Harry is stressed 
about and how to relieve that stress, and Ron has to step in.

Actually, I've gotten the impression that of the trio, Ron is the 
better at figuring people out.  I don't think Hermione sees it, but 
I think Ron is written as more often correctly identifying the 
emotional sense of those around him.

> >>Miles:
> <snip>
> Ron is described as a total fool concerning his social and        
> emotional relationships. Yes, that Ron who is one of seven        
> children with uncounted relatives. Ron who as all children with    
> many siblings had to learn social interactions very, very early - 
> but he didn't.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, see I think Ron is described as a fool by *Hermione*, but I 
think the way the books play out, Ron really is the knowledgable one 
when it comes to social and emotional relationships.  Ron is 
incredibly unsure of himself.  And I think he believes Hermione when 
she shuts him down (or he did anyway), but I'm hopeful that he'll 
come into his own in book 7.  For Harry's sake as well as his own.

> >>Miles:
> <snip>
> Harry and Ron are tumbling from black to white and back, while    
> Hermione seems to know all shades of grey and deals with most     
> emotional situations like an expert.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I would say the DA club was an example of Hermione *not* dealing 
well with shades of grey, and *not* understanding the emotional 
situations of the people in the club.  The problem is that Hermione 
*thinks* she knows this stuff.  But she doesn't.  (Her handling of 
the centaurs is another example.)

Of course, that's what I'm *hoping* is going on.  If you're right, 
if Hermione is supposed to be as good as she thinks she is, than I 
will say that I think JKR has fallen down in her portayal of girls 
as well as boys.  Because Hermione (like Ginny) will have stepped 
fully formed from JKR's head.  Without any vulnerabilities or weak 
spots to outgrow Hermione becomes a flat and annoying character.

I tend to give JKR more of a pass with the boys because they do have 
weaknesses to overcome.

Betsy Hp





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 23:31:05 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:31:05 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <ej8arp+apii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161434

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at ...> wrote:
<SNIP>
> He has very few friends, and he seems not to be interested in 
students apart
> from those who are his friends. This is shown differently in the 
films, by
> the way.
> What makes this situation unrealistic IMO is Harry's past until he 
came to
> Hogwarts. He had a very hard time not only at the Dursley's, but at
> elementary school as well. A person being bullied so much will 
most probably
> develop good knowledge of human nature - especially a bright boy 
like Harry.
> It's vital for him to understand people and to "read their minds" 
in order
> to find out who will harm him and who will not. JKR seems to have 
left out
> the emotional and social intelligence in her "Harry Potter" 
character.
<SNIP>


Alla:

Hmmmm, not ever being a boy, certainly cannot contradict your 
general impressions,  and snipping almost everything basically to 
disagree with this one idea.

I think it is quite plausible that Harry cannot read people well. I 
mean, yeah, it is vital for him to figure out who would have hurt 
him and who would not.

But this is not a general rule ( from my experience) that alll 
bullied kids will develop this. Say Harry defensive mechanism is to 
shy away from people who may have hurt him and just to open up to 
very few, so while what you are saying is possible, I disagree that 
how Harry copes is unrealistic.

So, I would agree with Betsy that Harry's intelligence is often 
sacrificed for plot purposes, but this is can be explained 
realistically enough IMO.

Alla,

who thinks that in general JKR got a lot of boys and girls 
interactions spot on, but certainly did not capture all of them, but 
only those that are necessary for the story.


 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 12 23:37:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:37:22 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <007f01c706a7$45bce1a0$6d86400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ej8b7i+r9al@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161435

Miles wrote:
> > <snip>
> > JKR does not understand boys well and has great difficulties
describing them and their full emotional and social capacities. On the
other hand, her description of girls is much more realistic and
comprehensive. <snip>
> 
> > On the other side - Hermione Granger. She is extremely intelligent
and the academic star of Hogwarts. Additionally, she seems to be very
good at understanding people. She is the person who explains
everything to Harry when he is clueless again. She seems to have very
close friendships with several girls including Ginny, she is very
clever at sorting out emotional and romantic relationships between
girls and boys.
> 
> Magpie:
> Yipes! Rowling's description of girls is realistic and
comprehensive?  As a woman I'm a little offneded.  I'm sure Rowling
knows plenty about girls, having been one, but I find her portrayal of
girls in general in her books to be mostly putting across a
stereotype.  Hermione does not, as you said, have very close
friendships with several girls including Ginny.  She has friendships
with no girls besides Ginny--in fact seems to hold most of the 
> ones she meets in contempt.  And of course, she's become friends
with Ginny through Ron--they're practically already the sisters in law
they are fated to be--and their friendship is mostly shown in terms of
bonding over their romantic conquests.  In OotP I found myself
thinking the reason Hermione sat up late knitting was to avoid
spending time with dorm mates who were all closer with each other than
her. Once in a while she'll put on a girl act to make Ron jealous, but
usually she's just with the boys. <snip>

Carol responds:

While I'm not offended by JKR's portraits of girls (and women), I
agree with Magpie that they're stereotyped. Hermione is the smart girl
with few friends (if it weren't for the troll incident, it would be no
friends); Pansy Parkinson is the name-calling bad girl, who
nevertheless is as much a "girly girl" as the only two female friends
we see, Lavender Brown and Parvati Patil. (We're *told* that Cho Chang
and Marietta [last name escapes me] are friends, but we hardly see
them interacting at all, except for Marietta trying to hurry Cho out
of the meeting in the Hog's Head.) The girls seem to run around in
gangs (Harry and Ron can't find one alone to ask her out) and do
little except giggle. Now, I do think that Hermione did a good job of
explaining Cho's complex feelings, but I'm not sure it was in
character for her to do so. She shows very little empathy most of the
time (e.g., her reaction to the death of Lavender's pet rabbit). The
only feelings we see her express are hurt when Ron's words or actions
offend her and anger and the desire for revenge on numerous occasions.
I wish I could like her better, having been an "insufferable
know-it-all" myself in my teenage years, but I only really like her in
a few scenes, for example, the spat with Ron after the Yule Ball when
she understands that they like each other and he still hasn't got a
clue why he's so jealous of Viktor Krum.

I will say, though that there are reasons why Hermione would have a
better grasp on some social situations than Ron and Harry despite
being an only child. For one thing, she's a girl and girls mature
earlier than boys, not to mention that she's almost a full year older
than Harry. For another, she's probably been exposed to a wider social
circle than either boy even though I'd guess that she's never been
popular. Her parents are dentists, presumably well off if not exactly
rich. She's probably gone to good Muggle schools and she certainly
read a great deal (and presumably watched television and movies)
before she attended Hogwarts. Harry, in contrast, never associated
with anyone except the Dursleys, who regarded him as "abnormal," and
never had any friends at school, whereas Ron, though he has a lot of
big brothers who tease and/or dominate him and a slightly younger
sister (whose influence on his emotional and social development is
probably negligible), really doesn't seem to have any friends of his
own, either, never having gone to school. (JKR says on her website
that the Weasley children were homeschooled.)

I don't think it's odd that these two lonely boys bond with each other
more than with their dormmates (Dean and Seamus also pair off, leaving
Neville as the odd man out). Maybe there are fewer fistfights and less
swearing and sex talk than we'd expect among teenage boys, but after
all, these are kids' books and JKR is trying to limit the sexual
relationships to "snogging" and to leave any curse words worse than
"damn" unspecified. (Well, we do have Vernon's "no more effing owls!"
but that's a rare outburst and a Muggle one at that.) The WW may be
rough in its way, with dangerous classes and a single dangerous sport,
but it doesn't expose its kids to sex, bad language, and video games
(I mean violence) through the media the way the RW does. No computers,
no X-Boxes or Game Boys, no TV, no movies, no rap or heavy metal music
with vicious, violent lyrics (so far as we know). Granted, the
Muggleborns are exposed to these influences till they're eleven and
again over the holidays, but Wizarding culture, with its own concerns
and everyday dangers, seems to win out.

I think we need to look not only at the particular characters and
their circumstances, but at the WW itself, and at JKR's intended
audience. If she were writing a realistic book about teenagers in a
late-twentieth-century boarding school, I'd say she didn't have a
clear grasp of teenage emotions or values or relationships (the
importance of being "cool"; the social death that results from being
seen reading; the inability to put two sentences together without some
sort of swear word). But, then, I'd have no interest whatever in
reading such a book, nor would I encourage kids who see too much of
that sort of thing in real life to read it.

Granted, most teenage boys don't ascribe their jealousy and sexual
attraction to monsters in their insides, JKR's rather unfortunate and
overused metaphor in HBP. But teenage romance is not her forte. What
she does understand, IMO, is the very human tendency to push
uncomfortable emotions, such as guilt or grief, to one side, and to
project them in the form of anger onto a convenient target, in this
case, Snape. I think she's right, too, that many boys (and men) prefer
to take action to solve problems rather than talking about their
emotions. Harry and Cho are oil and water (or yin and yang?) in that
respect and will never understand each other--or not until they're at
least ten years older, at which time it will be too late.

Carol, who thinks that most of the time JKR gets Harry's psychology
right, even though his inability to grasp subtle distinctions can be
as frustrating for the reader as it is for Snape






From darksworld at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 00:09:24 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:09:24 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ej8arp+apii@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej8d3k+l0e1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161436

<Snip!>
> Alla,
> 
> who thinks that in general JKR got a lot of boys and girls 
> interactions spot on, but certainly did not capture all of them, but 
> only those that are necessary for the story.
>
Charles:

I think that one of the reasons we don't see a lot of those 
interactions and rounded out character development is a time thing. 
What we need to remember is days and weeks of Hogwarts life are 
snipped out of the story because they just aren't that relevant to the 
ultimate story of Harry and Voldietwit having to eventually try to off 
each other face to face. Douglas Adams, author of the wonderful 
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series explained it really well in So 
Long and Thanks For All The Fish, "...the reasons for this are 
obvious: editing, selection, the need to balance that which is 
interesting with that which is relevant and cut out all the tedious 
happenstance. [...] It's guff. It doesn't advance the action..." Those 
who have read the book know that there is a great deal more, but I'm 
not going to reproduce a whole chapter of a book here. 

My point, I trust is clear. While some of the stuff that gets cut are 
things we'd love to know, they don't figure into the story she's 
ultimately trying to tell, and thus get the ax, either preemptively by 
not ever getting written, or in editing, either by JKR herself acting 
alone or in concert with her editors. The balance between ultimate 
characterization or actually getting on with the getting on...

Charles, who loves (most of) the characters and can accept a little 
bit of flatness in them for the sake of the wonderful storylines JKR 
has given us.





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 00:35:27 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:35:27 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ej5bb3+f3ka@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej8ekf+s8k0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161437


Betsy:

>(Where's Sydney when I need her? <g>)

*sydney leaps in in her trademark spangled jumpsuit*   Did someone call?

Wow, some really interesting discussion swirling around here... I
think I sublimilally sensed a bunch of posts with "Snape" in the
subject line and it drew me over..

Betsy:

>So just as
>the Slytherins tend to be the sin-eaters of Potterverse, I wonder if
>by taking the journey Snape has, the journey fraught with
>temptation, he's saved Harry having to make a similar trip.

Sydney:

Hmmm.. my powers are formidable of course.. *strains back on
metaphor*.  Ouch!  Kidding.. actually, I see where you're coming from,
in the sense that in a novel as in a dream you can think of all the
characters as representing different elements of the psyche.  I've
seen people express this in the idea that Ron is the heart, Hermione
the mind, and Harry the spirit for instance.  It's not Harry's job to
get tainted and the be purified;  the whole point of the character is
that his purity is essential to his nature.  I'm really drawn to the
idea that the Horcrux-hunt will involve Harry absorbing more bits of
Voldemort's soul (I've always assumed Harry already has one, per
Dumbledore himself in CoS).  Like Frodo is the only one pure enough to
bear the burden of the Ring, only Harry, the 'spirit' character, can
absorb and destroy all the bits corruption that Voldemort represents. 

Snape's role is different, I see him as the doorway character (as so
well laid out in the "Anubis archetype" essay here: 
http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:essay:192).  He has to be
the guy whose been to the bottom and back.  People talk about 'grey'
Snape but I see him as more 'black and white'-- holding both the black
and white and separating and incorporating them.  Zebra!Snape! 
Speaking of which:

Carol:

>I agree that the DEs have varying motivations, but I'm not sure we
>have any clear evidence that Voldemort actively recruits followers.

Sydney:

I think we do have something to go with on Snape:

"Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord!' said Snape
savagely. 'Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who
cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow
themselves to be provoked so easily - weak people, in other words -
they stand no chance against his powers! He will penetrate your mind
with absurd ease, Potter!"


IMO we're being told here that Snape's seduction by Voldemort was
through his emotions, not his intellect-- and they seem to have been
rather specific emotions-- "sad memories".  I wouldn't say Snape's
pursuit of arcane knowledge is something that he's since shied away
from, in fact, going by his DADA introductory speech he sees knowledge
of the Dark as important in combating it.  Snape's efforts to block
himself off the Dark Side, if you will, seem to be centered around
repression and cutting himself off from emotional weakness.  I think
that's where we should be looking to find the fatal slip.  At some
point Snape wallowed in sad memories and allowed himself to be
provoked and as he sees it that's what got him.

I don't quite know where JKR is going with Snape and the pure-blood
thing.  I think Harry was right the first time in thinking a Death
Eater  would hardly be bragging about being a Half-Blood, so there's
something quite weird with the whole HBP moniker.  If I had to come up
with a theory I'd say it has something to do with Lily and the Prank
and possibly with the Princes and who they were... I dunno, I don't
think it's guessable what happened.  Personally I'm just as happy to
wait for Book VII! 

> Betsy Hp:
>> IIRC there's a healer whose portrait
>> is hanging in St. Mungo's who invented a disembowelment curse.
>> Why wasn't the invention of that curse a bad sign?

> Jen: (I thought the disembowlment curse was a misguided attempt to cure
> some ill in the same way people thought blood letting or drilling
> holes in the skull would cure a disease, i.e, pretty rudimentary
> <g>).

Sydney:

I really don't think this is where JKR is going with this, especially
because the guy in question is credited with inventing the
Entrail-Expelling CURSE, if I'm not mistaken, and furthermore, the
portraits of the famous healers on the walls are described as
'brutal-looking'.  Could someone check the OoP for me?  I don't have
my books with me... isn't there some other mention of the healers as
credited with inventing curses?  Anyways, I don't think it's a
coincidence that the idea of Snape as a healer is introduced in the
same book as he is as a curse-inventor.  Presumably this ties in with
the "Snake lore" that JKR is going to be using in Book VII (per an
old, unearthed interview at the Leaky Cauldron).  Snakes in most
mythologies are associated with the doorway between life and death
going both ways; I'm sure we're all familiar with the snakes coiled
around the caduceus or Staff of Asclepius, the symbol of the medical
profession.

Sydney



"The general prejudice against Mr. Darcy is so violent, that it would
be the death of half the good people in Meryton to attempt to place
him in an amiable light."






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 13 00:56:19 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:56:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys
References: <ej8b7i+r9al@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00be01c706be$889d46b0$6d86400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161438

> Carol responds:
>
> While I'm not offended by JKR's portraits of girls (and women), I
> agree with Magpie that they're stereotyped.

Magpie:
Just to be clear--I was not saying I was offended by the portrayals (though 
I have noticed a pattern) so much as offended or horrified by the idea that 
the portrayals in these books represent a comprehensive portrait of my sex. 
They work fine for the plot, and one can see why a lot of things aren't 
developed.  As you say, she's not writing a book about modern adolescent 
life or the social interactions of teenagers (in some ways JKR's are better 
than the real thing--there's little of that girl-on-girl viciousness 
compared to the real world that we see).

When you think of the tons of characters in this series, you can see how JKR 
juggles people based less on making sure all areas of Harry's life are 
richly detailed and more on who's necessary for the plot.  We already have 
lots of characters we need updates on in every books--the woman's got to 
narrow the focus somewhere.

In the end it all kind of comes together. Hermione's character's developed 
so that it's hard to imagine her with of girlfriends, and her focusing on 
the things she does instead make sense.  Her role isn't exactly a girl who 
is friends with two boys, but the third member of this fictional trio chosen 
to balance each other and fight evil.

-m






From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Nov 13 01:50:35 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:50:35 -0000
Subject: Violence/MoreHP/Fidelius/HBP'sCurses/DD'sWatch/Sneak In/CounterJinx/WhyJoinLV
Message-ID: <ej8j1c+f5jc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161439

Pippin wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160910>:

<< I think they symbolize extremism, regardless of platform. The
werewolves are seeking additional rights, the pureblood faction wishes
to restore rights it once had and restrict the rights of others,
Voldemort panders to both while his private agenda does not include
sharing power with anyone. But they are all united under the Dark
Mark, in other words, by their acceptance of violence as a means to
political ends. >>

'Violence as a means to political ends'? Like the American Revolution?

forbidden_corridor wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161059>:

<< even if [the seventh book] was available by the next day I was sure
I would finish reading it off in a week's time. So what would happen
next? I felt I just could not move on without Harry Potter. I fell
asleep praying and wishing JKR lives long enough to write many books
on Harry Potter that I would never have a day to move on without Harry
Potter.. >>

Even if she were willing to spend her life writing only about this one
subject, she can't write as fast as we can read. I'm afraid you will
have to make do with fanfic -- there seems to be enough fanfic on-line
to keep a reader busy for a lifetime.

Eddie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161091>:

<< I think [that Dumbledore and the other Order members didn't know
that Peter was the Secret Keeper] proves canonically that only Sirius,
Voldemort, and Peter knew where the Potters were hiding UNTIL the
secret was broken. Hagrid couldn't have found Harry at Godric's Hollow
before the secret was broken. >>

Dumbledore, Hagrid, and any one else necessary could be told the
Secret by the Secret Keeper without knowing who was the Secret Keeper.
Peter could write it in a note, as we saw in OoP that Dumbledore
Secret Keeper told Harry the Grimmauld Place Secret by writing it in a
note. And Peter could have written the note in handwriting disguised
to look like Sirius's.

<< So, any suggestion that the secret is still intact is, IMO, going
to have to deal with these canonical facts. >>

Altho' I completely agree that the Fidelius Charm must have been
broken *somehow* that night.

Eddie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161116>:

<< James used Levicorpus on Snape -- a spell Snape invented. How did
James learn this spell? From Lily, I speculate. I'm thinking that
Snape only ever told her about it, and then she went and blabbed it to
Snape's worst enemy. If I'm right, then Snape felt betrayed by Lily
the moment James used Levicorpus. >>

Please remember that Sirius and Remus said that that spell was
extremely popular among all the students that year, and there were
times you couldn't step out of your dorm room without finding yourself
hanging upside down by an ankle. To me it seems likely that James,
Sirius, and Remus didn't learn it from Lily and had no idea it had
been invented by Snape. I imagine that Snape taught it to the
Slytherins that he hung out with (IIRC, Rosier, Wilkes, Avery,
Bellatrix Black, and Rodolphus Lestrange) and most of them taught it
to a few other friends, and some Slytherin taught it to a Ravenclaw
he/she was dating, who taught it to some other Ravenclaws, who taught
it to other friends of theirs....

Eddie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161329>:

<< I wonder, if in fact Snape had Sectumsempra at the ready, whether
James "saved" [Snape] not because Snape was in danger, but because
LUPIN was in danger from Snape. This would mean James somehow knew
that Snape had this dangerous spell and that James thought Snape was
prepared to use it. >>

I think James had no idea that Severus had Sectumsempra, but still he
was protecting Remus. There is the danger to which you point, that
sixteen year old Severus had some anti-werewolf spells or weapons.
There is the more likely danger, that Severus would be unable to
defend himself against the werewolf and it would kill him. I wouldn't
be surprised if the Wizards have the death penalty or a life sentence
in Azkaban for a werewolf who kills a wizard during an uncontrollable
wolf frenzy; it's not fair, but it is in character. At best, Remus
would have to live with this killing on his conscience for the rest of
his life. 

Jen wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161214>:

<< There was a theory right after HBP (Catlady maybe?) that Ron's
watch was from Dumbledore via his parents since they were so similar. >>

No, I was the one who counter-argued that the watches are described
differently. DD's in PS/SS: "It was a very odd watch. It had twelve
hands but no numbers; instead, little planets were moving around the
edge." Ron's watch in HBP: "a heavy gold watch with odd symbols around
the edge and tiny moving stars
instead of hands."

Ron's watch - no hands. DD's watch - 12 hands.
Ron's watch - odd symbols. DD's watch - no mention of odd symbols.
Ron's watch - moving stars. DD's watch - moving planets.
I also think that 'instead of hands' is a bit closer to the center
than 'around the edge'.

Some suggest that the 12 hands on DD's watch are 12 people over whom
he is watching, but I think that watch is strictly astrological In my
theory, the 12 hands divide the 12 houses. (In the physical world, the
sky turns and the Houses stay in place except for like 1 degree a day,
but the watch face stays in place and the House Hands turn.) The
planets around the edge move in accordance with the planets in the
real sky. DD knows, or there is some marking not specified in JKR's
description, where the constellations are. Such a watch can tell time
AND tell you the moment's astrological influences. I don't think JKR
believes in astrology, but the centaurs do.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161215>:

<< Dumbledore and Snape seem to think it would be impossible to sneak
into the castle in PoA and are puzzled as to how Black managed it. And
surely DD wouldn't leave the doors completely unguarded and unlocked
after the students were in bed, especially after the first attack (on
the Fat Lady). (snip) Lupin seems to think that Black's being an
Animagus explains everything. I disagree. >>

Maybe some student leaves a window slightly open for a pet cat or pet
owl to come in and out, and Crookshanks told Snuffles. I agree they're
not an ordinary cat and dog -- they communicate in far more abstract
ideas (e.g. take this note to Quality Quidditch Supplies and give it
to the shop assistant) than I've ever known any cat to use. 

Magpie wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161367>:

<< Which having read the books I would agree with. Counter-hexes do
always basically seem to be hexes that you throw at other people
rather than, for instance, blocking spells. >>

I completely agree with you about Hermione's non sequitur, but I don't
agree with you about counter-curses. (I believe that counter-curse,
counter-hex, counter-jinx are the same. See
<http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=24>) 

One that comes immediately to mind is Fake!Moody teaching the about
the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra): "Not nice," he said calmly. "Not
pleasant. And there's no counter-curse. There's no blocking it. Only
one known person has ever survived it, and he's sitting right in front
of me."

Also in GoF, we have Hermione helping Harry prepare for the Third
Task: "He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm, though. This
was supposed to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that
deflected minor curses; Hermione managed to shatter it with a well
placed Jelly-Legs Jinx. Harry wobbled around the room for ten minutes
afterwards before she had looked up the counter-jinx."

PS/SS: "At that moment Neville toppled into the common room. How he
had managed to climb through the portrait hole was anyone's guess,
because his legs had been stuck together with what they recognized at
once as the Leg-Locker Curse. He must have had to bunny hop all the
way up to Gryffindor tower.

Everyone fell over laughing except Hermione, who leapt up and
performed the countercurse. Neville's legs sprang apart and he got to
his feet, trembling."

And Quirrelmort's confession: ""No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your
friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set
fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with
you. Another few seconds and I'd have got you off that broom. I'd have
managed it before then if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercurse,
trying to save you."

In the latter three examples, the counter-curse removes the effects of
its specific curse (Jelly-Legs Jinx, Leg-Locker Curse, broomstick
curse). The broomstick example shows Snape's counter-curse can remove
the effects of Quirrelmort's curse while that curse is still being
cast. Presumably if the counter-curse was cast powerfully enough and
fast enough, it could remove the effects of the curse before they even
occured, thus serving to *block* the curse entirely. So Fake!Moody's
"no counter-curse, no way to block it" would be repetition for
emphasis.

Jen wrote in <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161391>:

<< 1) Wizards like Lucius who place the pure blood issue above all
else, who think Voldemort's goal is to rid the WW of muggleborns.
2) Those who are coopted into service out of fear like Peter.
3) Those who have immersed themselves in the study of the Dark Arts
and view Voldemort as a path to magical knowledge. My assumption is
Snape fits here. >>

and 4) << And others don't fall into these categories, they have
personal reasons to be a DE much like Crouch Jr. who probably
initially wanted to get back at his father and only later became a
fantatic. His hook was a substitute father rather than pure blood
ideals or interest in dark magic. >>

I think Lucius went joined Voldemort as a way personally to gain power
(expecting that Voldemort will be dictator over all wizards, and
Lucius will tell Voldemort what to do) rather than because of the pure
blood issue. I think Regulus Black seems to have joined because of the
pure blood issue.

I don't think that many people joined the Death Eaters in intellectual
pursuit of the Dark Arts (e.g. seeking access to forbidden books). 

I have whole categories (not just 'Other') for those who joined
because their friends had joined, and for those who joined because the
recruiter was a very attractive person of the appropriate sex and age,
and for those who joined because the Death Eater organization had the
power to keep law enforcement from interfering with their crimes (e.g.
if the senior Crabbe and Goyle hadn't joined because Lucius told them
to, they might have joined as a way to avoid getting arrested for
practising a hobby of beating up wizards and raping witches), and for
those who joined because they expected to get money or some other
desire (e.g. 'Pay me 50 Galleons or the Death Eaters will visit your
home and leave nothing but the Dark Mark in its place', but also 'one
of our members in the Ministry Personnel Department can upwardly
adjust your scores on that promotional exam').





From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Mon Nov 13 02:37:30 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:37:30 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
Message-ID: <cf2.1b76b26.3289346a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161440

Carol
<big snip>
I think that Dumbledore simply destroyed the ring!Horcrux, and with  it
the soul bit (which was probably released to go beyond the Veil  rather
than destroyed because the soul is immortal). He was attacked by  the
protective curse on the ring, but there's no evidence that he  was
possessed or that he encountered a Memory!Tom like the one in the  diary.

Nikkalmati:
 
I know there are several theories about what happens to a split soul piece  
that is released either when LV was disembodied or when a Horcrux is  
destroyed.  IMHO the most likely is that the soul fragment joins the  original main 
soul.  In this way as each Horcrux is destroyed, LV becomes  more human and thus 
eventually he is able to die. LV would not have to be  aware of this process.  
It makes sense that a soul has a desire to remain  or to become whole.  We 
know he had committed multiple murders, not  all of which have been used to 
create a Horcrux.   Could all these  pieces have been liberated to cross over when 
LV became a spirit or did  they adhere to LV's main soul?  As long as the 
main soul, the one with  LV's consciousness, is on this side of the Veil, I think 
the loose  soul pieces will stay with it.  A soul is inherently immortal and 
it is  inherently one.   Admittedly, we have not seen any changes in LV after  
the Diary soul was released or after the ring soul was released, but that may 
be  simply our POV or that the changes are not that dramatic.  However,  
eventually LV will become more and more like Tom Riddle and less like a  snake.  
Also, if Harry is carrying a piece of LV's soul in his scar, all  that would 
have to happen is for the scar to be split open and the soul piece  will return 
to LV on its own.
 
Nikkalmati
 


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




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Mon Nov 13 02:50:30 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:50:30 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's teaching moments was  CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectum...
Message-ID: <c2c.304839d.32893776@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161441

>Phoenixgod2000:

>I don't think it was a teaching moment at  all. At least not a 
conscious one on Snape's part. I think that Snape, the  petty sadist 
that he is, was simply toying with him, lording over him with  his 
power that he was never able use on him while he was a teacher.  
Maybe Harry will take something away from their encounter and make 
Snape  regret playing with him for the very short period of time it 
will takes to  make Snape a grease spot on the floor.
 
Nikkalmati:
 
Well, why was SS playing with Harry then?  Why didn't he just squash  him as 
he obviously could have?  (or if that would annoy LV just wrap him  up like a 
fly in a spider web and take him along to LV as a present?)   Snape here is 
clearly giving Harry advice about how to defeat LV.  
 
BTW it puzzles me somewhat that in the last part of HBP we see absolutely  no 
reaction on Harry's part to the revelation that Snape is the Half-Blood  
Prince.  Does he believe him?  Has it turned him away from the Potions  book?  He 
normally would at least discuss it with Ron and Hermione,  wouldn't he?
 
Nikkalmati


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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 13 03:06:43 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:06:43 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:Violence/MoreHP/Fidelius/HBP'sCurses/DD'sWatch/Sneak In/CounterJinx/WhyJoinLV
References: <ej8j1c+f5jc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00f101c706d0$bfde0030$6d86400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161442

> Magpie wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161367>:
>
> << Which having read the books I would agree with. Counter-hexes do
> always basically seem to be hexes that you throw at other people
> rather than, for instance, blocking spells. >>

Catlady:
>
> I completely agree with you about Hermione's non sequitur, but I don't
> agree with you about counter-curses. (I believe that counter-curse,
> counter-hex, counter-jinx are the same. See
> <http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=24>)
>
> One that comes immediately to mind is Fake!Moody teaching the about
> the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra): "Not nice," he said calmly. "Not
> pleasant. And there's no counter-curse. There's no blocking it. Only
> one known person has ever survived it, and he's sitting right in front
> of me."
>
> Also in GoF, we have Hermione helping Harry prepare for the Third
> Task: "He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm, though. This
> was supposed to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that
> deflected minor curses; Hermione managed to shatter it with a well
> placed Jelly-Legs Jinx. Harry wobbled around the room for ten minutes
> afterwards before she had looked up the counter-jinx."
>
> PS/SS: "At that moment Neville toppled into the common room. How he
> had managed to climb through the portrait hole was anyone's guess,
> because his legs had been stuck together with what they recognized at
> once as the Leg-Locker Curse. He must have had to bunny hop all the
> way up to Gryffindor tower.
>
> Everyone fell over laughing except Hermione, who leapt up and
> performed the countercurse. Neville's legs sprang apart and he got to
> his feet, trembling."
>
> And Quirrelmort's confession: ""No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your
> friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set
> fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with
> you. Another few seconds and I'd have got you off that broom. I'd have
> managed it before then if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercurse,
> trying to save you."
>
> In the latter three examples, the counter-curse removes the effects of
> its specific curse (Jelly-Legs Jinx, Leg-Locker Curse, broomstick
> curse). The broomstick example shows Snape's counter-curse can remove
> the effects of Quirrelmort's curse while that curse is still being
> cast. Presumably if the counter-curse was cast powerfully enough and
> fast enough, it could remove the effects of the curse before they even
> occured, thus serving to *block* the curse entirely. So Fake!Moody's
> "no counter-curse, no way to block it" would be repetition for
> emphasis.

Magpie:

:sigh::  Now, why couldn't you have been the one arguing with Umbridge? 
Because your explanation makes perfect sense, yet it seemed like in OotP 
that counter-hexes were used as things you could throw at people no matter 
what they were doing.  But your description of them here, with the canon 
backup, makes it clear that they aren't hexes at all, but things that 
deactivate hexes.  Learning the spell that counters a specific hex is a 
completely different thing than learning a hex in itself. So the argument 
"he doesn't like hexes" is still a strange follow-up--if you don't like 
hexes, sheilds are a good thing!

I don't know a lot about pacifists in the real world, but I wouldn't imagine 
they'd be against protecting yourself.

-m 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 03:11:51 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:11:51 -0000
Subject: Snape's teaching moments was  CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectum...
In-Reply-To: <c2c.304839d.32893776@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ej8npn+lj2m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161443

> >Phoenixgod2000:
> 
> >I don't think it was a teaching moment at  all. At least not a 
> conscious one on Snape's part. I think that Snape, the  petty 
sadist 
> that he is, was simply toying with him, lording over him with  his 
> power that he was never able use on him while he was a teacher.  
> Maybe Harry will take something away from their encounter and make 
> Snape  regret playing with him for the very short period of time 
it 
> will takes to  make Snape a grease spot on the floor.
>  
> Nikkalmati:
>  
> Well, why was SS playing with Harry then?  Why didn't he just 
squash  him as 
> he obviously could have?  (or if that would annoy LV just wrap 
him  up like a 
> fly in a spider web and take him along to LV as a present?)   
Snape here is 
> clearly giving Harry advice about how to defeat LV.  
<SNIP>

Alla:

Sorry, that is not clear to me **at all*. In fact the first time I 
read the argument that Snape is not having fun with Harry, but 
teaching him, I was really surprised, but that is IMO of course.



Snape is playing with Harry because tormenting him is what he always 
does, IMO and here he takes the last possibility before escaping, 
since whatever else happens in book 7 Snape is not going to be his 
teacher anymore and will not be in the position of power  to run his 
mouth at someone who cannot answer by the virtue of being a student 
IMO.

As to why Snape would not want to bring HArry to Voldemort, if he is 
evil or OFH. Well, if he is evil, he may want for Harry to defeat 
Voldemort, if he knows about prophecy and then to kill Harry 
himself, since Snape IMO considers Harry to be easy pray.

If he is still LID, well, Neri explains it better, but Snape would 
still feel life debt over his head and may not want Harry dead.

Nikkalmati:  
> BTW it puzzles me somewhat that in the last part of HBP we see 
absolutely  no 
> reaction on Harry's part to the revelation that Snape is the Half-
Blood  
> Prince.  Does he believe him?  Has it turned him away from the 
Potions  book?  He 
> normally would at least discuss it with Ron and Hermione,  
wouldn't he?
>  

Alla:

I think he was thinking primarily about DD death and Snape role in 
it, IMO he may return to digesting it in book 7.

JMO,

Alla





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Mon Nov 13 03:48:53 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 19:48:53 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>
References: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <700201d40611121948j7193a4d5j6302d2645a2021b6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161444

> Miles:
> ...
> My impression is, that JKR does not know very much about boys becoming men,
> or boys' interactions at all. Otherwise she would show us more "boys'
> situations" like that in the PoA film mentioned at the beginning of my post.
> Do we actually see any signs of fights (not only physical) among the boys to
> find a ranking? Do we listen to any chat about girls and which boy has done
> whatever with a specific girl, or which girl is most interesting? To
> describe teenage boys (and girls as well) without ever mentioning sexuality
> is very difficult, which is another weak point of the HP series IMO - but
> that would be worth another post. JKR seems to master this difficult task
> with girls - but her young male characters are far from being realistic.


Kemper now:
Male sexuality is subtly though seldomly addressed by JKR.  She does
so with a crude joke.  The joke is, IIRC, used twice and by the same
person: Ron.

Ron is a dirty bird.  He asks Lavender if he could look at Uranus.
Ron's a perv.  A wonderful, funny perv as are many a boy... most of
whom wouldn't pose that request of Lavender out of fear rather than
decorum.  But most boys would think it (or something similar) and,
more than likely, speak it when in each others company.

We also don't see in the story Harry's first nocturnal emission (or
self discovery) but then that would distract from the story even
though it's very much a part of growing up male.

I think JKR does her best to show true boyhoodness within the limits
of the type of story she's writing.

Kemper



From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 13 03:49:46 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:49:46 -0000
Subject: Violence/MoreHP/Fidelius/HBP'sCurses/DD'sWatch/Sneak In/CounterJinx/WhyJoinLV
In-Reply-To: <ej8j1c+f5jc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej8q0q+hk0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161445

Jen:
> 3) Those who have immersed themselves in the study of the Dark Arts
> and view Voldemort as a path to magical knowledge. My assumption is
> Snape fits here. >>

Catlady:
> I don't think that many people joined the Death Eaters in
> intellectual pursuit of the Dark Arts (e.g. seeking access to
> forbidden books). 

Jen:  Not book learning, no.  Right about the time the Marauders and 
Snape were students at Hogwarts, Voldemort described himself 
as 'experimenting' and 'pushing the boundaries of magic'.  There 
would likely be rumors around Hogwarts, or at least in Slytherin 
House during Snape's student years, about this powerful wizard who 
was creating a circle of cronies around himself as he pursued new 
magical territory in dark magic.

So I'm saying *if* word was out about the mysterious Voldemort and 
*if* Snape had a growing interest in creating spells of the dark 
magic variety, he might have been interested to know there was a 
wizard out there who was considered to be both magically powerful 
and innovative in the area of Dark Arts. And he might wonder how to 
seek him out.  And that's enough from me on this subject. ;-)

Jen, who will remember Catlady's points about the watch issue next 
time the subject comes up.






From leslie41 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 03:56:26 2006
From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 03:56:26 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ej8ekf+s8k0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej8qda+4peb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161446

Sidney:


> I don't quite know where JKR is going with Snape and the pure-blood
> thing.  I think Harry was right the first time in thinking a Death
> Eater  would hardly be bragging about being a Half-Blood, so 
> there's something quite weird with the whole HBP moniker.  If I 
> had to come up with a theory I'd say it has something to do with 
> Lily and the Prank and possibly with the Princes and who they 
> were... I dunno, I don't think it's guessable what happened.  
> Personally I'm just as happy to wait for Book VII! 

Leslie:

Oh, I think the HBP thing is Snape all over! What Snape has done 
reminds me of what gays have done with the word "Queer".  He's 
reclaimed a derisive moniker and in doing so has empowered himself and 
rendered that word less capable of hurting him.  He's claimed it for 
his own. 

The idea that he's a half-blood AND a "prince/Prince" only reinforces 
this for me.    






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 04:42:16 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 04:42:16 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ej885r+e914@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej8t38+l0ua@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161447


> Betsy Hp:
> First of all, Hermione doesn't have any female friends.  Ginny comes 
> the closest (and I'll guess that Hermione would call Ginny her best 
> girlfriend) but Ginny is a very far second to Ron and Harry.  Ginny 
> might tell Hermione everything.  Hermione does not return the favor.

Amiable Dorsai:
Other than to trust her with the single juiciest bit of gossip in all
of Gryffindor Tower (The identity of Victor Krum's date to the Yule
ball).  This from a witch who is so good at keeping secrets that her
right hand has yet to be informed that she possesses a left hand, much
less what it's doing.

The idea that Ginny is not a close friend of Hermione is
insupportable, even if she doesn't tell Ginny other people's secrets;
she doesn't tell anybody else other people's secret's either.

Betsy Hp:
> As to her sorting out Harry's love life:  I think she picked up all 
> of her information on Cho either in the girls' restroom (*prime* 
> source of that sort of gossip) or may have quizzed Lavender and 
> Parvati.  But I'm quite sure Hermione did not figure out all of 
> Cho's issues on her own.

Amiable Dorsai:
Because *Hermione Granger* the smartest witch of her generation, isn't
going to have any contacts in *Ravenclaw*, nor any insight into the
rest of the "smart crowd".  Betsy, think that through.

Then (harkening back to her friendship with Ginny) note that she
*didn't* sort out Harry's love life.  She merely told Harry what he
did wrong after the fact; she never suggested any way he could fix it,
pretty unlike her, really, unless she had a reason not to.  Recently,
you described Ron as "the original H/G shipper".  I'm not so sure you
haven't nominated the wrong member of the trio for that role.

Amiable Dorsai





From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Sun Nov 12 22:44:26 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:44:26 +0100
Subject: JKR and the boys
References: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles> <007f01c706a7$45bce1a0$6d86400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <007c01c706ac$1e5b7400$15b2a8c0@miles>

No: HPFGUIDX 161448

> Magpie:
> Yipes! Rowling's description of girls is realistic and comprehensive?
> As a
> woman I'm a little offneded.  I'm sure Rowling knows plenty about
> girls,
> having been one, but I find her portrayal of girls in general in her
> books
> to be mostly putting across a stereotype.

Miles:
My main point is that Hermione is described much more detailed, and that her
character has much more depth than Ron's or even Harry's. Which is
surprising - we have an insight in Harry's thoughts, but still Hermione's
emotional and social profile is more exact.
The question is not so much whether the girls and women in the Potterverse
are like women and girls in real life are or should be - the point is, that
there are much more details and shades of grey in the description of the
female Hogwarts students we know compared to the male ones.
JKR knows girls better than she knows boys, yes, but as an author she should
be able to write about both in an appropriate way - especially when her main
character is a boy.
We see lots of girls chatting in groups, talking about whatever, giggling
and so on. Quite realistic, right? Hermione does not care too much about
these groups. But do we see groups of boys hanging around, talking or
fighting, like in the PoA film scene mentioned? Rarely - but real boys do
have social interactions with their peer groups, not only girls. The film
makers seem to have realised that problem and added some "boys scenes" to
the films that are not in the books.

> Magpie:
> While I wouldn't ever say that Rowling is clueless
> about
> women, I would never say that she's presented a comprehensive and
> realistic
> portrait of them in her books, since their lives in her book are
> mostly
> centered around the men.  (So much so that a Potion that makes
> someone mad
> with desire for you is a product exclusively used by girls...because
> what
> teenaged boy would ever find that useful?  Boys are just dopes who
> can't be responsible for their chest monsters in the face of all
> those scheming
> women!) Her books present a particular view of women, but not one
> that all
> women relate to themselves.

Miles:
I agree that the women in Potterverse are not very feministic ;). We could
discuss this, but really, that's not my point here!

Miles




From darksworld at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 07:10:31 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:10:31 -0000
Subject: Tom Riddle and the Diary!Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <cf2.1b76b26.3289346a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ej95p7+4muh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161449

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote:
<snip>  A soul is inherently immortal and 
> it is  inherently one.   Admittedly, we have not seen any changes 
in LV after  
> the Diary soul was released or after the ring soul was released, 
but that may 
> be  simply our POV or that the changes are not that dramatic.  
However,  
> eventually LV will become more and more like Tom Riddle and less 
like a  snake.  
> Also, if Harry is carrying a piece of LV's soul in his scar, all  
that would 
> have to happen is for the scar to be split open and the soul piece  
will return 
> to LV on its own.
>  
> Nikkalmati
>  

Charles:
This brings up some interesting questions. If LV cannot feel the 
difference in his soul when a horcrux is destroyed, then is it really 
possible that a soul piece has returned to him? If that's the case 
would he have been able to feel when he had extracted a piece of his 
soul to create a horcrux? I can't quite buy that theory, especially 
because DD speaks of the soul pieces themselves as being destroyed 
(IIRC).

As to Moldybutt becoming more human with each horcrux destroyed, I 
like the idea, but for a different reason. As each soul piece is sent 
beyond the veil, it weakens that protection of immortality that LV 
has been seeking. I'm intrigued with the notion of him becoming more 
and more Tom Riddle as the horcruxes are destroyed. If that is the 
case, what version of Tom Riddle are we to expect. Would it be Pre-
Horcrux!Tom-a battle of adolescents? Mature!Tom, about like when he 
came to DD for a job (although more human in appearance)? Or might it 
be Old!Tom- a nasty piece of work in his seventies or eighties? I 
personally like the idea of a young Tom fighting Harry in the final 
battle. Two teenagers duking it out for the future of the WW? 
Priceless!

Charles, who wants to see the ultimate schoolyard spat- Harry 
James "Chosen One" Potter vs. Tom Marvolo "He-Who-Must-Usually-Be-
Hyphenated" Riddle at the foot of the astronomy tower!





From chrusokomos at gmail.com  Mon Nov 13 08:13:37 2006
From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:13:37 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
Message-ID: <ej99fh+geb4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161450



Hi, I'm sorry if this theory has been discussed before, but I was
wondering about the row Hagrid overhears in the forest - DD and SS
arguing about something. 

I don't have the book here, but as I remember it Hagrid says, 'looks
like Snape is feeling a bit overworked, that's all...he said that
Dumbledore was taking too much for granted and that maybe he, Snape,
didn't want to do it anymore'.

After one finishes the book, it's obvious to think (I'm taking the
view that Snape is good and DD asked him to be killed because he was
dying) that SS felt it was too much to kill his mentor, and that he
didn't want to do it.

But yesterday I thought, wait a moment! SS had made the UV, so there
was no way he could have backed off from killing DD (well, except if
DM got there first). The row in the forest, though, sounds like
something that SS isn't forced to do, something he can say no at any
minute to.

So that's it. Any idea on what DD was asking SS to do, taking for
granted that he'd do it?

chrus





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 10:24:00 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:24:00 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ej8qda+4peb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej9h40+498t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161451


> Sidney:
> 
> 
> > I don't quite know where JKR is going with Snape and the pure-blood
> > thing.  I think Harry was right the first time in thinking a Death
> > Eater  would hardly be bragging about being a Half-Blood, so 
> > there's something quite weird with the whole HBP moniker. 

> Leslie:
> 
> Oh, I think the HBP thing is Snape all over! What Snape has done 
> reminds me of what gays have done with the word "Queer".  He's 
> reclaimed a derisive moniker and in doing so has empowered himself and 
> rendered that word less capable of hurting him. 

Sydney:

Yes, but we're talking about a guy who joined a violent anti-gay
organization calling himself 'the Queer'.  I think JKR has something
up her sleeve with that, I just don't know what.  Snape's descent and
return function pretty much require him to have bought into the DE
ideology.  But the HPB thing complicates everything.  Not so much the
fact that he IS a half-blood, which plays into Snape's duality and
self-loathing in a very cool way, but the fact that he has this
bizarre nickname that JKR thought was so amazing that she called the
whole book after it.  She flags the oddity of it with "if he'd been a
budding Death Eater he wouldn't have been boasting about being
"Half-Blood", would he?"

I'm dying to know who the Princes were... did Snape give himself the
nick-name, or did other people call him the half-blood Prince to
distinguish him from the pure-blood Princes?  

Sydney





From bawilson at citynet.net  Mon Nov 13 04:57:27 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:57:27 -0500
Subject: What determines whether a muggle born will happen?
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAB8PIVOX/50++Bi15CH1HuQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161452

In Hermione's case, I think that there were some Wizardling ancestors way back.
Not all families keep track of their genealogies all that carefully.  Slughorn
referred to a potions master with the surname 'Granger'; what if this Granger
had produced a squib son or grandson who had been one of Hermione's ancestors?
IIRC, the potions master in question lived back in the early 19th C.--long
enough to have been forgotten by his Muggle descendants.  Add another squib
ancestor in Mrs. Granger's line and there you have it--the exact combination of
genes coming together to produce a witch.

BAW


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





From nmangle at cox.net  Mon Nov 13 05:19:59 2006
From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 23:19:59 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR and the boys
References: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles> <700201d40611121948j7193a4d5j6302d2645a2021b6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d001c706e3$5d4cb700$ba726144@MaggieAngle>

No: HPFGUIDX 161453

Miles:
> My impression is, that JKR does not know very much about boys becoming men,
> or boys' interactions at all. Otherwise she would show us more "boys'
> situations" like that in the PoA film mentioned at the beginning of my post.
> Do we actually see any signs of fights (not only physical) among the boys to
> find a ranking? Do we listen to any chat about girls and which boy has done
> whatever with a specific girl, or which girl is most interesting? To
> describe teenage boys (and girls as well) without ever mentioning sexuality
> is very difficult, which is another weak point of the HP series IMO - but
> that would be worth another post. JKR seems to master this difficult task
> with girls - but her young male characters are far from being realistic.

Nicole:
Did you read OOTP yet? Boys fighting?  Look at Harry & Draco & quidditch match?
What you also have to realize in the sexuality part, is that she started this book for kids books that adults happen to read.  My 10 year old has read up to HPB (just started) and he LOVES HP, but I can tell you if there was any thing sexual in them, he wouldn't be reading them, they wouldn't be in any school libraries, and the movies wouldn't be movies kids could go see.  She has to tone it down.  But you also have to remember, boys raised in cuboards probably lack a little experience in the girls vs. boys department.
Another point, is this is Harry vs. LV, detail on gossip between kids isn't high on his list.. beating LV is.  
Oh, and through out the series, HP is constantly talked about, hushed over, gossiped about, there are several that have interest in him in HBP, but just crushes, don't you think?

Nicole







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 14:29:13 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 14:29:13 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ej99fh+geb4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ej9vfp+m3lt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161454

chrustoxos: 
> So that's it. Any idea on what DD was asking SS to do, taking for
> granted that he'd do it?
> 

zgirnius:
I think they were discussing the Draco problem. Dumbledore was telling 
him to keep watching his moves and discourage him from any further 
attempts like the necklace. Snape had already failed to get through to 
Draco in the conversation we saw during Slughorn's Christmas party. 
Just before the conversation, he had probably noticed Draco was up to 
something new (if Harry noticed Draco disappearing for hours, surely 
Snape would). He may have been telling Dumbledore he was not sure he 
could stay in top of the problem. This also fits in with Dumbledore 
tellin Snpae to continue the investigation 'in his house'.

Another idea I had was that they may have been discussing plans for 
after Snape leaves Hogwarts. It is my opinion that they assumed Snape 
would be forced to leave Hogwarts by the DADA position curse, and 
probably planned for him to do so as the apparent murderer of 
Dumbledore.

So I think Dumbledore was saying Snape should say close to Voldemort, 
to spy on him, or possibly be near to help Harry in the final 
confrontation.





From grangerohini at yahoo.co.in  Mon Nov 13 11:03:04 2006
From: grangerohini at yahoo.co.in (grangerohini)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 11:03:04 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
Message-ID: <ej9jd8+6953@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161455

I've been reading Harry Potter book 1 ..and I've already read all books 3
times now . I've got a question that in book 1 in the end when
Dumbledore said to Harry that he can ask anything but Dumbledore will
answer only those questions which he will think suitable for Harry
to hear (he said something like that) and Harry's first question was
about Lily that why didn't Voldy kill Lily in the first place. Why did
he ask her to step aside? But Dumbledore didn't answer, right? He said he
will answer him later but I think he didn't in all the books ..so
what is the answer? Dumbledore told Harry everything but just that
question of Harry's.
What's the answer? How and when will Dumbledore answer it?

grangerohini





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 13 15:22:42 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:22:42 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ej9vfp+m3lt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eja2k2+oecs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161456

zgirnius:
> I think they were discussing the Draco problem. Dumbledore was
> telling him to keep watching his moves and discourage him from any
> further attempts like the necklace. Snape had already failed to
> get through to Draco in the conversation we saw during Slughorn's
> Christmas party. Just before the conversation, he had probably
> noticed Draco was up to something new (if Harry noticed Draco
> disappearing for hours, surely Snape would). He may have been
> telling Dumbledore he was not sure he could stay in top of the
> problem. 

Jen: The part I don't get with the Draco explanation is why Snape 
felt he couldn't watch over him anymore and keep him out of 
trouble.  He's not exactly a whiner type and with the Unbreakable he 
*has* to do this and not because Dumbledore is telling him to!  Then 
I start wondering if Hagrid heard and reported everything exactly as 
is or if he made some assumptions to fill in the gaps?  Or missed a 
few key words?  That makes me start wondering about your second 
option here:

zgirnius:
> So I think Dumbledore was saying Snape should say close to
> Voldemort, to spy on him, or possibly be near to help Harry in the
> final confrontation [after leaving Hogwarts because of the DADA
> curse].

Jen: This one fits Snape except for one minor thing--more on that.  
Snape wouldn't mind watching over Draco as much as Harry.  If he 
doesn't believe in the prophecy like Dumbledore does (or doesn't 
think Harry is the Chosen One since he doesn't know the full 
prophecy) then Snape wouldn't think watching over Harry is crucial, 
he wouldn't see the harm in backing out of the deal with 
Dumbledore.  If there *is* a deal.  The one part that doesn't fit 
here is Dumbledore bringing up 'making investigations in your own 
house'--if Dumbledore knows about the UV then wouldn't he know Snape 
would do everything he could to stop Draco?  Maybe he doesn't know 
about the UV, or this is the part where Hagrid didn't hear the whole 
argument.  He did mention this section in vague terms 'summat abou' 
Snape makin' investigations in his house, in Slytherin.'

Jen R., thinking JKR wanted to keep the argument purposely vague for 
Book 7.





From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 13 16:21:35 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 16:21:35 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys/ Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ej9h40+498t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eja62f+btm5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161457

> Miles:
> My main point is that Hermione is described much more detailed, 
and that her
> character has much more depth than Ron's or even Harry's. Which is
> surprising - we have an insight in Harry's thoughts, but still 
Hermione's
> emotional and social profile is more exact.
> The question is not so much whether the girls and women in the 
Potterverse
> are like women and girls in real life are or should be - the point 
is, that
> there are much more details and shades of grey in the description 
of the
> female Hogwarts students we know compared to the male ones.
> JKR knows girls better than she knows boys, yes, but as an author 
she should
> be able to write about both in an appropriate way - especially 
when her main
> character is a boy.
> We see lots of girls chatting in groups, talking about whatever, 
giggling
> and so on. Quite realistic, right? Hermione does not care too much 
about
> these groups. But do we see groups of boys hanging around, talking 
or
> fighting, like in the PoA film scene mentioned? Rarely - but real 
boys do
> have social interactions with their peer groups, not only girls. 
The film
> makers seem to have realised that problem and added some "boys 
scenes" to
> the films that are not in the books.

Magpie:
Ah--I think I see what you mean now. And yes, I think it's 
particularly odd that we don't get this when Harry lives in a dorm 
with four other boys.  We really don't get a lot of scenes of the 
kind of cameraderie you'd get in that situation.  Harry doesn't seem 
to know the other boys any more than he would if they didn't live 
together.  With girls we do get some sense of groups hanging out 
together.  Mostly JKR's main characters are only ever concerned with 
the plot.  I found Hermione in OotP to be, actually, especially odd 
this way.  I felt like her character just moved from one plot scheme 
to another with not a second for normal life: she was organizing 
Harry's romantic life, solving mysteries in the paper, coming up 
with the DA, handling Hagrid's issues, writing to Viktor--then when 
she had a moment to herself she was knitting hats to free the house-
elves.    

I would suggest that we might see more of the regular boy type stuff 
in the Pensieve scene, where the Marauders seemed to have a more 
easy-going relationship with each other. Not that we got a detailed 
look into their relationship, but we did get a sense of it, I 
thought.



> Sydney:
> 
> Yes, but we're talking about a guy who joined a violent anti-gay
> organization calling himself 'the Queer'.  I think JKR has 
something
> up her sleeve with that, I just don't know what.  Snape's descent 
and
> return function pretty much require him to have bought into the DE
> ideology.  But the HPB thing complicates everything.  Not so much 
the
> fact that he IS a half-blood, which plays into Snape's duality and
> self-loathing in a very cool way, but the fact that he has this
> bizarre nickname that JKR thought was so amazing that she called 
the
> whole book after it.  She flags the oddity of it with "if he'd 
been a
> budding Death Eater he wouldn't have been boasting about being
> "Half-Blood", would he?"

Magpie:
Heh--I know, isn't it great?  Because I've seen more than once after 
HBP people assume that now that Snape's a Half-blood we know he 
couldn't have really bought into the Pureblood stuff, nor could he 
be allied with any Slytherins--he must have been miserable in the 
house really etc.  Or it's suggested he had to hide who he was, but 
that doesn't seem practical either.

It seems like one thing we've learned about Purebloods is that they 
know who they all are. They're almost a family more than a race. 
Ernie knows he's Pureblood back 9 generations, and that doesn't seem 
to put him on the level of the Blacks, Weasleys, Prewetts, Bones and 
Malfoys. I don't recall any Princes on the Black's tree, nor have we 
heard of any current students with the name.  

What I think we do know is that Snape's background probably would 
have been known at school, and any Pureblood who cared about such 
things would know perfectly well he wasn't one of them. The fact 
that Snape uses that nickname shows both that he's claiming the 
title for himself and that Blood did mean something to him.  I mean, 
he could have called himself the Potions Prince. So was his 
bloodline made something of by the Princes?  

And then look at his relationship with the Blacks in Spinner's End.  
These people, even if they don't know his father was a Muggle, would 
I'd think know Snape wasn't a Pureblood family, yet he seems to have 
worked his way into an important position with them--Narcissa goes 
to him when she's in trouble.  (In that scene is role is almost what 
Sirius' would have been had he stayed with the family--he's 
protecting the Black family.)

I could even imagine--and obviously this is pure speculation--but I 
could imagine Lily encouraging him to be defiant about his Half-
blood status (like if the Prince's rejected him as a Half-Blood he 
turned their name for him around to make himself the Half-blood 
Prince) and then later he wound up going overboard. He's better than 
the other Prince's despite being a Half-blood.

-m





From ladypensieve at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 17:29:57 2006
From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:29:57 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <ej9jd8+6953@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejaa2l+rimr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161458

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "grangerohini" wrote:> What's 
the answer? How and when will Dumbledore answer it?

Personal opinion: Harry hates Snape enough already and Dumbledore 
knows it. He doesn't want Harry to know the truth...that Snape was 
at Godrics Hollow when everything happened and that the Dark Lord 
had used Legilimens to see that Snape had a soft spot for Lily.  He 
decided to give her a chance to stay alive because he could use her 
later against Snape if he got out of hand.  Unfortunately Voldemort 
is not a patient man, so he ended up killing Lily because she 
wouldn't get out of the way.

Another thought I have - which is even worse - is that Voldemort 
didn't know which child to choose, only once he used Legilimens, he 
could see that if he chose the Potter boy he might have a stronger 
hold over Snape because of his feelings towards Lily.  So, in 
essence, Snape may be the true reason Harry was chosen as the one to 
defeat the Dark Lord.

Dumbledore couldn't tell this to Harry...it would mar his years at 
Hogwarts, and quite possibly turn him into someone who only sought 
revenge.  Obviously there's more to the story...and a big part of 
Snape's forcing Harry harder than he would any other student to 
learn Occlumency would be because Snape knows more than anyone that 
if you have to be around the Dark Lord...your Occlumency skills must 
be excellent...which is why he improved his own after Lily's death.  
He wanted no one else to suffer.

KathyO





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 17:25:12 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:25:12 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <eja2k2+oecs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eja9po+kqhk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161459

zgirnius wrote:
> > I think they were discussing the Draco problem. Dumbledore was
telling him to keep watching his moves and discourage him from any
further attempts like the necklace. Snape had already failed to get
through to Draco in the conversation we saw during Slughorn's
Christmas party. Just before the conversation, he had probably noticed
Draco was up to something new (if Harry noticed Draco disappearing for
hours, surely Snape would). He may have been telling Dumbledore he was
not sure he could stay in top of the problem. 
> 
Jen responded: 
The part I don't get with the Draco explanation is why Snape 
> felt he couldn't watch over him anymore and keep him out of 
> trouble.  He's not exactly a whiner type and with the Unbreakable he 
> *has* to do this and not because Dumbledore is telling him to!

Carol comments:
I agree with Jen that Snape isn't a whiner, but I also agree with
zgirnius that Snape must have seen following Draco as futile at this
point. I think he probably knew (and had reported to Dumbledore) that
he was using the RoR; he had found out what he could (virtually
nothing) from Crabbe and Goyle by putting them in detention; Draco was
not cooperating and would only become more hostile if he realized that
Snape was following him. It's even possible that Snape was afraid of
finding out exactly what Draco was doing, or failing to do, because
the vow might compel him to do it for Draco ("if it seems Draco will
fail"). After all, the vow doesn't specify that Snape must kill
Dumbledore; it states that he must watch over and protect Draco "carry
out the deed that the Dark Lord has instructed Draco to perform" if it
appears that Draco will fail to do it.

Now, I don't think that Snape would hesitate to protect Draco with or
without a vow, but he must feel frustrated at this point, as in what
more do you want me to do? And although I don't think Hagrid is quite
correct, Snape certainly *is* overworked--teaching duties (with
remedial lessons for Crabbe and Goyle, apparently); HoH duties now
magnified because of Draco; double agent duties, whatever that entails
during the school year; and the usual after-hours hall prowling and
reporting to Dumbledore. So, though I agree that he wouldn't complain
about being overworked, he apparently sees some of what he's doing as
futile" "You take too much for granted, Dumbledore!" Maybe it's
watching Harry added into the mix that he doesn't want to do any more,
but I don't think so. I don't see how that would fit in with "you take
too much for granted," unless Snape doesn't believe that Harry is the
Chosen One, which IMO doesn't fit with any of his actions so far. And
yet he knows that he must watch over Draco because of the UV, so it
must be the "investigations into his House" that he sees as futile. He
knows who's behind both the necklace and poisoned mead; he's already
told Draco to stop using such amateurish tactics; he's not going to
get Draco to sit down with him again. I'm guessing that he's saying
that it's pointless to follow Draco and Dumbledore is reminding him of
his "promise" (UV) to "watch over him"--to the best of his ability,
which does not include every moment of the night and day. (Just how
the later weekly detentions with Harry fit in here, I'm not sure.
Possibly, he's protecting the boys from each other.)

Jen:
  Then 
> I start wondering if Hagrid heard and reported everything exactly as 
> is or if he made some assumptions to fill in the gaps?  Or missed a 
> few key words?  

Carol responds:
Oh, absolutely. Instead of Harry as eavesdropper missing key words (as
in the Quirrell/Snape conversation in the forest in SS/PS or the
listening at the door in HBP), we have an incomplete secondhand report
by a less than reliable source of information who is guessing about
Snape's meaning and motives. So I'd say there's a lot more to this
conversation than Snape being overworked, true though that is, and the
key question, IMO, is one that Hagrid doesn't even consider: what,
exactly, is Dumbledore taking for granted? Is it that they can somehow
stop Draco without activating the vow? If so, I'd say that Snape is
right. Just about anything they do is going to endanger either Draco
(and therefore Snape) or Dumbledore or both. Maybe Dumbledore thinks
that they can put off the confrontation indefinitely and Snape knows
that isn't true?

Jen:
That makes me start wondering about your second 
> option here:
> 
> zgirnius:
> > So I think Dumbledore was saying Snape should say close to
Voldemort, to spy on him, or possibly be near to help Harry in the
final confrontation [after leaving Hogwarts because of the DADA curse].
> 
> Jen: This one fits Snape except for one minor thing--more on that.  
> Snape wouldn't mind watching over Draco as much as Harry.  If he 
> doesn't believe in the prophecy like Dumbledore does (or doesn't 
> think Harry is the Chosen One since he doesn't know the full 
> prophecy) then Snape wouldn't think watching over Harry is crucial, 
> he wouldn't see the harm in backing out of the deal with 
> Dumbledore.  If there *is* a deal.  The one part that doesn't fit 
> here is Dumbledore bringing up 'making investigations in your own 
> house'--if Dumbledore knows about the UV then wouldn't he know Snape 
> would do everything he could to stop Draco?  Maybe he doesn't know 
> about the UV, or this is the part where Hagrid didn't hear the whole 
> argument.  He did mention this section in vague terms 'summat abou' 
> Snape makin' investigations in his house, in Slytherin.'

Carol responds:
Snape has been watching over Harry throughout the books, so I don't
think that's the problem. It's something peculiar to HBP, something
related to Draco's assignment and the UV, as indicated by
"investigations into his house." I don't think he wants to stop
teaching the cursed DADA course, which is crucial to the fight against
LV, especially since he has only one year to do it. And I think he's
known all along, at least since his Dark Mark started coming back and
he began making preparations, on DD's orders, to return to LV ("If you
are ready; if you are prepared") that he would one day have to return
to the DEs in seeming earnest. Certainly, the moment he accepted the
DADA position, he knew that, as did Dumbledore. 

As for the UV, Dumbledore tells Harry that he knows more about what's
going on than Harry does, and I think that includes the UV. If Snape
were keeping something that important from him, he would know it,
superb Occlumens or no. I think that confessing that he's taken the UV
actually increases DD's trust in Snape, not the reverse. Nor do I
think that DD's words to Draco, "Of course that is what he would tell
you, Draco, but--" indicate that DD didn't know about the UV. Because
of course it *is* what Snape would tell Draco. For one thing, it's
true. He did take a UV to protect Draco (and if necessary, do the
deed, but he doesn't tell Draco that part), so that's what he would
give as his reason for watching Draco--a perfectly true, if
incomplete, reason in keeping with his pose as a double agent loyal to
Voldemort. And of course he *wouldn't* tell Draco that he was also
watching over him for Dumbledore, to whom he was genuinely loyal. So
the sentence can be finished with something along the lines of, "Of
course that's what he would tell you, Draco, but he was working for me
as well as for your mother."

As for not wanting to help Harry in the final confrontation, I don't
see how that's consistent with DDM!Snape, who is going back to
Voldemort for exactly that reason, as far as we can guess, and giving
Harry last-minute advice, saving him from a Crucio, and not taking the
opportunity to either kill or kidnap him.

So unless what Snape doesn't want to do is carry out his vow by
killing Dumbledore if he's pushed to it by unavoidable circumstances,
the only explanation that makes sense to me is that he doesn't want to
keep following (and thereby antagonizing) Draco, knowing that it's
wholly pointless. Fortunately for both of them, he obeys Dumbledore
and is on hand to save Draco from Sectumsempra. In any case, I think
that what DD takes for granted is that they can keep delaying the
confrontation and consequently prevent the activation of the vow (and
the DADA curse). In the end, they're both right. Following Draco
enables Snape to save him from Harry, but nothing, not even Snape's
death from breaking the vow (and taking Harry and Draco with him), can
save Dumbledore.
 
> Jen R., thinking JKR wanted to keep the argument purposely vague for 
> Book 7.

Carol, agreeing completely on that part of your argument






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 18:11:26 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:11:26 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <ejacge+4c36@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161460

--- "Miles" <miles at ...> wrote:
>
> After watching the PoA film again, I stumbled about a
> scene ... where the boys have fun in the dormitory, 
> imitating animals and having a small pillow fight 
> afterwards.
> That's a nice insight in the "private life" of Harry 
> and his friends - and that's the point, I really miss 
> that in the books. ... the behaviour was quite "boyish"
> in my impression.
> 
> That leads to my thesis:
> JKR does not understand boys well and has great 
> difficulties describing them and their full emotional 
> and social capacities. On the other hand, her 
> description of girls is much more realistic and 
> comprehensive.
> 
> 

bboyminn:

So many good quotes and comments in this thread, though I
confess I don't agree with many of them; still it's 
difficult to know who to respond to, so I'm going back to
the beginning and starting from there.

I see this /mistake/ being made many many times with 
regard to artists, social commentators, and authors in 
the real world, some how the overly liberal 'do gooders'
(no offense intended to anyone) some how think it is this
/persons/ job to create a universally postive universally
complete portrayal of whatever the 'objector' is objecting
to. Sadly, it is NOT.

JKR's job is not to create a univerally positive and
universally complete picture of ALL boy and ALL girls. It
is her job to create the characters of Hermione, Ron, and
Harry along with their /individual/ personalities /within/
the confines and context of the story. 

Can you really point to one individual boy or one 
individual girl in the real world and say they portray 
the universally postive and complete image of all boys or
all girls. I don't think so.

Harry is Harry, flaws and all. Personally, and I have 
commented on this several times in the past, I think JKR
does an amazing job of depicting the inner workings of 
the male mind in her books. Most 'boy' depictions I read
in books by female authors is always slightly skewed. 
'The Outsiders' by E.S.Hinton springs to mind; yes, it's
a good story, but I think she falls far far short of 
truly capturing the male voice and personality. But I 
think JKR is right-on within the confines of the 
available story.

Take Harry's body dysmorphia as he walks over to meet Cho
to begin their first real date; been there, done that. 
Take Harry's cluelessness about what is motivating Cho in
the tea shop; again, been there, done that. Take Harry's
general anxiety over asking Cho out; once again, been 
there, done that.

Boys relate to life very differently than girls. You are
rarely going to hear boys discussing their /feelings/. 
With guys, it's more of an unspoken understanding, similar
to that way Harry didn't need Ron to apologies after the
Dragon task. Hermoine thought they should talk about it 
and hug, but to the boys, the understanding was there but
unspoken. That's all boys need, or at least think they 
need.

Another good example is Ron's reaction when Harry is 
thinking  about breaking into Umbridge's office. Hermione
is trying to talk him out of it, and Ron is minding his 
own business though I'm certain he has many opinions on 
the matter. Finally, Ron tells Hermione to 'shut it', 
Harry can make up his own mind. That's how guys do it. 
Your very best friend will allow you to out your life at 
extreme risk and say nothing, because as a friend, he 
knows that allowing you that freedom to chose is part of
what guy friends do; even when that particular choice
is completely stupid and illogical.

I remember the great controversy that occurred at one 
time accusing JKR of not providing /positive/ female role
models in her books. I remember the 'Fat' controversy over
JKR's depiction of vitue relative to body size. None of 
these things matter because JKR is not writing a book 
about any of that. She has specific characters that have 
specific personalities that are run through specific 
circumstances, and her only concern is whether they react
'in-character' to the events they encounter.

As long as we are on the subject of personalities let's 
take Harry's. Through his whole life Harry is an outsider,
a loner, partly because he had no one else to associate 
with; Dudley, Vernon, and Petunia saw to that. Why are 
people surprised that Harry acts exactly that way when
he comes to Hogwarts? Harry has never had any reason to
trust anyone, and he carries on in that model. He does
find Ron and Hermoine, and that is two more friends than
he has ever had in his life. He clings to them dearly.
Yet, he still has no reason to trust people in general,
and especially has no reason to trust adults. Where were
the adults when Dudley and the gang were chasing him 
around the schoolyard? Where were the adults when Harry
was locked in the cupboard or locked in his barred room?

People spoke of the type of personality that is created
by Harry's circumstances growing up. Yet, I defy you to
find a single person who conforms completely to a 
projected universal personality as a result of those
circumstances. Harry has become an observer. Yes, he 
understands people to some extent, and from a distance is
able to divine their underlying motivations. But he is
also still a kid, and his actions and misinterpretations
reflect that. From Harry's perspective, and given his
circumstances, observing from a distance is a survival
mechanism, and it is a proven effective strategy in his
mind. Consequently, Harry doesn't get to know other kids
the way a more normal outgoing kid would. Consequently,
he has observed from a distance other Slyterin kids in 
his COMC class, but sensing the potential for danger, or
at least conflict, he has kept his distance. I think the
only people outside Gryffindor that Harry knows are 
people who for good or bad have gotten in his face. He
knows Ernie because Ernie has made himself known. He
knows Justin because Justin has made himself know. He 
knows Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle because they have very 
much made themselves known. But he doesn't kwow Blaise 
because Blaise has apparently kept his distance from 
Harry. 

Hermione for all her know-it-all book knowledge is not
very skilled socially. JKR said in an interview comment
about Hermione that she is really very insecure. In books
she finds safety and certainty. As to how she can know so
much about the Harry/Cho situation, it is her detached 
book-smart. It is always easier to know, understand, and
solve other people's problems because you don't have any
emotional investment in other people's problems. I'm sure
we have all found that in out own lives, far easier to 
solve our friends problems that to face our own.

So, in summary, it is not JKR job to positively model
all people in all situations; it is her job to model
these specific flawed people in these specific unusual
circumstances.

Personally, I am positively stunned by how well JKR
captures the inner landscape of her male characters. I
think it is a stunning achievement, and a task she 
succeeds at far better than most other female authors.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Steve/bboyminn





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 18:15:43 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:15:43 -0000
Subject: CoS -Harry's knowledge of Lord Voldemort- Post 2
Message-ID: <ejacof+df4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161461

Post 2 ? Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ? Harry's knowledge
of Lord Voldemort

This is the second in a series of posts.  The first post address 
information from SS/PS and can be found at Post #161027

1. Here are a couple of facts about Borgin and Burkes that we learn 
from Harry's accidental visit to the store. This may be relevant as 
we know from HBP that LV worked there for a period of
time:
A. Located in Knockturn Alley ? an area off of Diagon Alley
associated with Dark Magic (Hagrid).
B. Mr. Borgin runs the shop (no information on Mr. or Ms. Burke)
C. Borgin is acquainted with the Malfoy family.
D. It is a "large, dimly lit wizard's shop- but nothing in here
was ever likely to be on a Hogwarts school list." (Harry)
E. Included in the items mentioned in the store are the
vanishing cabinet, the hand of glory, the opal necklace, etc.
F. Mr. Malfoy sells Borgin some poisons that might be seen as 
dangerous/ illegal, because of Mr. Weasley's new Muggle Protection 
Act.
G. Borgin believes in the importance of wizarding blood.
(All of the above are taken from pages 49-54)

2. Slytherin is rumored to have built a secret chamber which
housed a monster whose purpose was to purge the school of any who
are not pure blooded (131).

3. Access to the Chamber of Secrets is rumored to be limited
only to the heir of Slytherin (Slytherin's descendents) (131)

4. The Chamber of Secrets was opened 50 years before Harry's
2nd year (aprox. 1992) which places the opening around 1942.
4a. Nearly Headless Nick died in 1492 which is 500 years exactly from 
the opening of CoS (133).  

5. Tom Marvolo Riddle kept a "blank" diary, purchased in
Vauxhall Road, London, dating back 50 years prior to the year that
the Chamber was last opened (231)

6. Tom Riddle received a "Special Service to the School Award"
the same year that the CoS was opened (231)

7. "[W]hile Harry was sure he had never heard the name TM Riddle 
before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though 
Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and half-
forgotten." (233-4)

8. Riddle also received a "Medal for Magical Merit" and was
head boy during his time at Hogwarts (234)

9. Riddle used "magic" to leave his memories in the diary. He is
able to "speak" to people who write on the pages (240) (We know know 
that the magic in question here is the horcrux TR encased in the 
diary - probably after Myrtle's death -HBP).

10. Hagrid was expelled for opening the chamber and Myrtle was killed 
on June 13, 1943. (243)

11. The CoS was opened in Riddle's 5th year at Hogwarts.  (241) This 
was also Hagrid's 3rd year (in SS /PS Hagrid reveals that he  was 
expelled in his third year).

11. The diary has powers similar to the pensieve (242)

12. Tom Riddle spent summers at a muggle orphanage (244).
However, in the year that he opened the CoS, TR wanted to stay at
Hogwarts for the summer. Headmaster Dippet indicated that this was
not possible given the events surrounding the chamber, (243-4)
however, TR frames Hagrid and the attacks cease. (246) Does TR get
to stay at Hogwarts that summer?
A. We know that TR leaves the orphanage to murder his father in
the summer of his 6th year (one year later). Does he go back to the
orphanage? Does he leave it at any other time during those
summers? Does he visit Grindelwald?

12. Hagrid, Moaning Myrtle, and Olive Hornby attended school
with LV (299)

13. Moaning Myrtle was killed when LV released the basilisk 50
years before (299)

14. LV grows stronger by feeding on Ginny's soul (her deepest
secrets and darkest fears) and begins to "feed a little bit of his
soul back to her" (310).

15. TR was responsible for opening the CoS (312) opening the CoS 
requires that the person speak parsletongue.  (300)

16. TR (the TR in the diary) is seeking to destroy Harry (313)

17. Dumbledore did not favor TR as the other professors did. TR
believes that DD may have guessed he was responsible for opening the
CoS (312)

18. Tom Marvolo Riddle is Lord Voldemort (I am Lord Voldemort is
an anagram from TMR's name) (314)

19. LV's goal is to be feared by wizards everywhere and to
become the greatest sorcerer in the world (314)

20. LV's eyes gleam red (313)

21. LV is a descendent of Salazar Slytherin (314)  Harry, Salazar 
Slitherin, and Lord Voldemort speak parseltongue (192 and 314)

22. LV is angered at the suggestion that Dumbledore is better /
stronger than he is. LV is afraid of DD (314)

23. TR sees a resemblance between himself and Harry (both
orphans, raised by muggles, both parsemouths, dark hair) yet, TR sees
nothing "special" about Harry (317)

24. LV is a parselmouth (317) as was Slytherin (191)

25. Harry destroyed the diary horcrux by plunging a basilisk
fang into it (317)

26. Ginny was possessed by Riddle and forced to open the chamber
(323)

27. Dumbledore taught TR / LV when he was at Hogwarts (329)

28. LV "disappeared after leaving the school . . . traveled far
and wide . . .sank so deeply into the Dark arts, consorted with the
very worst of our kind, underwent so many dangerous, magical
transformations, that when he resurfaced as LV, he was barely
recognizable." ? Dumbledore (329)

29. Dumbledore believes that LV may have "unintentionally"
transferred some of his powers to Harry when he tried to kill him
(333)

30.  Lucius Malfoy owned or possessed LV's diary prior to the opening 
of CoS.  It was he who gave it to Ginny knowing / hoping that it 
would possess her and allow her to open the chamber and implicating 
her in future murders of muggleborns.  Malfoy hoped to discredit 
Arthur and ruin the chances of his muggle protection act.  (236)









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 18:16:20 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:16:20 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <ejaa2l+rimr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejacpk+mqsi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161462

KathyO wrote:
<snip> Harry hates Snape enough already and Dumbledore 
> knows it. He doesn't want Harry to know the truth...that Snape was 
> at Godrics Hollow when everything happened and that the Dark Lord 
> had used Legilimens to see that Snape had a soft spot for Lily.  He 
> decided to give her a chance to stay alive because he could use her 
> later against Snape if he got out of hand.  Unfortunately Voldemort 
> is not a patient man, so he ended up killing Lily because she 
> wouldn't get out of the way.
> 
> Another thought I have - which is even worse - is that Voldemort 
> didn't know which child to choose, only once he used Legilimens, he 
> could see that if he chose the Potter boy he might have a stronger 
> hold over Snape because of his feelings towards Lily.  So, in 
> essence, Snape may be the true reason Harry was chosen as the one to 
> defeat the Dark Lord.
> 
> Dumbledore couldn't tell this to Harry...it would mar his years at 
> Hogwarts, and quite possibly turn him into someone who only sought 
> revenge.  Obviously there's more to the story...and a big part of 
> Snape's forcing Harry harder than he would any other student to 
> learn Occlumency would be because Snape knows more than anyone that 
> if you have to be around the Dark Lord...your Occlumency skills must 
> be excellent...which is why he improved his own after Lily's death.  
> He wanted no one else to suffer.

Carol responds:

I understand the persistent idea that Snape loved Lily, for which
there is at least a shred of evidence, but I don't understand why
people think that Snape was present at Godric's Hollow. He had been
teaching at Hogwarts for two months and could not have been spending
tiem with the Death Eaters. His DE assignment was to spy on
Dumbledore, not to accompany Voldemort on murder missions. 

Since (according to PoA), Snape didn't know that PP had been made the
Secret Keeper the week before, we have no reason to believe that he
knew that the Potters were at Godric's Hollow. (Yes, it's possible
that he could have seen a note written to Dumbledore by PP in a
disguised hand, but that's a pretty far-fetched explanation for his
knowledge, and JKR would have to find some roundabout way to bring it
into the plot. And why would PP have told anybody [except LV] when the
whole idea was to keep the Potters' whereabouts secret?)

There's evidence that PP (who could hide in rat form) was at Godric's
Hollow (he later retrieved Voldemort's wand, and would have needed to
show him the house in any case), but no evidence of anyone else's
presence. James calls out to Lily that *he* is here--not *they*. No
indication of anyone else's presence, and JKR has informed us that
Snape wasn't there under the Invisibility Cloak.

Nor do I see how Snape could be present as a DE without being noticed
by James or as his usual self without being killed by Voldemort. How
could he have known that Voldemort was going to kill the Potters that
night unless Peter Pettigrew told him, and why on earth would PP do
that? It wasn't in his best interest for anyone to know, especially
not his old enemy Severus Snape, and according to PoA, Snape didn't
know that PP was the Secret Keeper. Instead, he believed for all those
years, as DD did, that Sirius Black was the traitor.

Voldemort's order to Lily to stand aside can be explained in a number
of ways (the "silly girl" was unarmed and in his way; he expected her
to value her life over her son's and do as he said; and, if need be,
he didn't want to split his soul by murdering her because he wanted to
use the soul fragment from Harry's murder to create his last Horcrux).
I see absolutely no reason for a request by Snape to spare Lily to be
necessary and no reason to believe that LV would honor such a request.

It's quite possible that Snape's remorse for informing Voldemort of
the Prophecy relates primarily to Lily (with the life debt to James as
a secondary motive--how dare he die without letting me save him?), but
there's no need for Snape to be at Godric's Hollow and no need for LV
to know about Snape's feelings on the matter. He's not a superb
Occlumens for nothing.

Carol, sure that Snape was at Hogwarts and knew nothing about Godric's
Hollow until his Dark Mark began to fade and it was too late to help
the Potters






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Mon Nov 13 18:28:43 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:28:43 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
In-Reply-To: <eiq5ks+m9tb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejadgr+fvtp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161463

Abergoat writes:

TinyTonks, Sirius states that he convinced James and Lily to make the
switch so I think we have to include them on the list of people 'in
the know' and so they can be the casters.

Personally, I don't think there are 'problems' with Fidelius if people
buy into the idea that the mysterious person that MIGHT have been at
Godric's Hollow moved Harry (and Lily's body) from the standing
portion of the house to the destroyed portion so that Hargid could see
them. I imagine James' body was in the room already, I suspect his
fight with Voldemort is what destroyed that portion of the house.

Here is a feasible sequence of events with the tidbits of canon that
support each speculation:

1) Lily cast Fidelius

Canon support: Lily's wand was good for charms (book 1) and Slughorn
called her 'one of the brightest STUDENTS' (not potion makers) he ever
taught. She was head girl, and James was warily of her wand in OotP.
She may have been capable of an 'immensely complex' charm.


2) Peter was told to give the secret to Dumbledore (Potters would not
be present, they are hiding)

Canon support: see support for #3


3) Peter chose to give secret to Dumbledore polyjuiced as Sirius to
frame Sirius for what Peter knew was coming (murder).

Canon support: Dumbledore, PoA
"I myself gave evidence to the Ministry that Sirius HAD BEEN the
Potters' Secret-Keeper" (emphasis mine)


4) Dumbledore had asked James for the Invisibility Cloak because James
had agreed, for their safety and the safety of the SK, to have the SK
give the secret to Dumbledore's Voldemort spy hidden under the cloak
at the same time Dumbledore was given the secret (I doubt James knew
the spy was Snape and Peter certainly had no idea Snape was there.)

Canon support: JKR says we should be asking why Dumbledore had the
cloak. This would make the cloak key to how the mystery person at
Godric Hollow got the secret.


5) Snape found out that Voldemort was going to Godric's Hollow and ran
there first, telling them to run. But because he couldn't resist
saying something extremely offensive about Sirius Black, the man he
THOUGHT was the SK, James knocked Snape unconscious.

Canon support: Snape, PoA
"Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you
should be thanking me on bended knee!<snip>You'd have died like your
father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black"


6) Lily, unaware that her son was the target and thinking Voldemort
didn't kill children (Hagrid expressed surprise about this in book 1)
took the time to hide Snape, the man she now knew to be Dumbledore's
spy and therefore more valuable than her. (Not to mention letting
Voldemort kill Snape when Snape had tried to save them is rather bad
form).

Canon support: For some strange reason Lily hadn't even picked up her
son, let alone run even though James was 'buying her time'. Voldemort
says James fought couragously so I doubt he died in two seconds...and
Lily is begging for mercy, like she thinks that Voldemort is killing
her son to punish her...or to make her do something. 

We have no proof that Lily knew anything about the prophecy.
Dumbledore certainly wasn't in a big hurry to share it with
Harry...why would he share it with the Potters and Longbottoms?
Dumbledore himself says the prophecy is just words until someone acts
on them, if the Longbottoms and Potters were already hiding because
Voldemort was after them for their 'defiances' what was to be gained
by telling them?

Conclusion:
The advantage of all this is that there will be a portion of the house
to see when Harry returns to Godric's Hollow. An additional advantage
is that Harry's great weapon against Voldemort is 'love' but he is
presently in the grip of 'hate', hatred for a man that MAY have tried
to save his parents...but James prejudice (and fast Quidditch
reflexes) MAY have prevented it.

Again, Snape's quote. Doesn't it sound like Snape thinks that he tried
to save James' life but James refused the help because of belief in
Sirius?
Snape, PoA
"Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you
should be thanking me on bended knee!<snip>You'd have died like your
father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black"


> Charles, off to vote himself-and glad he's got several Libertarians 
> to vote for, including a gubernatorial candidate!

Abergoat writes:
Hmm, wonder if you are in Arizona, too.

Abergoat





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 18:24:50 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:24:50 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys/ Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <eja62f+btm5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejad9i+b5t1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161464

Magpie:

> It seems like one thing we've learned about Purebloods is that they 
> know who they all are. They're almost a family more than a race.

Sydney:

I think the 'racial' metaphor of magic/non-magic blood is entangled
with a class metaphor.  Class is still an amazingly bitter and
senstive subject in Britain and goes hand in hand with race
discussions in terms of 'otherness' and the establishment and
prejudice and resentment. Especially as the Wizarding World has a
distinctly 1920's between-the-wars vibe and at the same time draws a
lot of its atmosphere from Dickens.  The idea of the family trees and
intermarriage is a lot more resonant of a class than a race thing.

Then there's that JKR's placed Snape in an industrial northern town. 
 That carries a lot of baggage-- there were huge race riots in the
mill town of Bradford in the mid-nineties, Yorkshire is the stronghold
of the British National Party, and it's also where the 7/7 bombers
were from.  Of course, it's also Bronte country and maybe the
Heathcliffiness is all there is to it!    

Magpie:

>I don't recall any Princes on the Black's tree, nor have we 
> heard of any current students with the name.  

Yeah-- these guys have come out of nowhere.  Are they freaks of nature
like the Gaunts, or what?  I'm still clinging on to my hope that
there's some sort of Knockturn Alley connection with Snape-- before
HBP I was convinced he was a social-climbing, barrow-boy Cockney
urchin.  Maybe it's the way he uses this almost comically formal
language-- a bit like a Dickens social climber like Mr. Guppy in
"Bleak House".  He definitely has that self-made vibe of... oh, how
did Trelawney put it?  "A pushing, thrusting young man" (I must say
there's a spray of coffee decorating that page of my copy of HBP, but
I have sort of a dirty mind). 

Okay, so now he's a social climbing Northern urchin, but maybe the
Princes came from Knockturn, and that's where he picked up all those
curses he came to school with?  Mostly I just love the location of
Knockturn alley and want an excuse to take the book back there.

Magpie:

 > And then look at his relationship with the Blacks in Spinner's End.  
> These people, even if they don't know his father was a Muggle, would 
> I'd think know Snape wasn't a Pureblood family, yet he seems to have 
> worked his way into an important position with them--Narcissa goes 
> to him when she's in trouble. 

Sydney:

Yeah, it's so intriguing!  Because on the one hand JKR's really set
him up as the familiar figure of the chip-on-shoulder lower-class guy
trying to 'pass'.  But he's more than passing, he seems to have
established a very respectable position with the biggest snobs in the
place.  It doesn't seem possible that they don't know who he is, the
insularity of the pureblood world is such a theme.  Maybe they respect
him as playing the game right, that in a way he knows his 'place'? 
There's an edge of that in Umbrige's line that Lucius 'speaks highly
of him', which implies that Lucius has a right to pass judgement.  I
don't get that vibe so much in Spinner's End, especially because Bella
argues with him like an equal.  Argh!  I think we'll just have to wait
on this one!

Magpie:

> I could even imagine--and obviously this is pure speculation--but I 
> could imagine Lily encouraging him to be defiant about his Half-
> blood status 

Sydney:

I feel sure there's some sort of connection with Lily and the Potions
book, and that might extend to the nickname.  I read a very cool
theory somewhere that the famous significance of Harry having Lily's
eyes is that that's why he's the only one who can make out the
handwriting in the HPB book-- Snape spelled it 'for lily's eyes only'!
 It goes with the idea that the whole significance of "Snape's Worst
Memory" is acutally the use of Levicorpus-- that Lily had to hide a
smile because she knew it was Snape's spell, and Snape snapped at her
because he thought she had passed his secret spells to James.


-- Sydney, a bit incoherent..   





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Nov 13 17:49:21 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:49:21 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys
References: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles> <007f01c706a7$45bce1a0$6d86400c@Spot> <007c01c706ac$1e5b7400$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <004801c7074c$0d30cf40$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161465

> Miles:
> The question is not so much whether the girls and women in the Potterverse
> are like women and girls in real life are or should be - the point is, 
> that
> there are much more details and shades of grey in the description of the
> female Hogwarts students we know compared to the male ones.
> JKR knows girls better than she knows boys, yes, but as an author she 
> should
> be able to write about both in an appropriate way - especially when her 
> main
> character is a boy.
> We see lots of girls chatting in groups, talking about whatever, giggling
> and so on. Quite realistic, right? Hermione does not care too much about
> these groups. But do we see groups of boys hanging around, talking or
> fighting, like in the PoA film scene mentioned? Rarely - but real boys do
> have social interactions with their peer groups, not only girls. The film
> makers seem to have realised that problem and added some "boys scenes" to
> the films that are not in the books.


I think you are looking at Harry and Ron, and maybe missing Malfoy and his 
gang. Boys do fight, and such, and we definitely see that with Dudley and 
his gang, and with Malfoy and his gang. Harry and Ron don't get into fights? 
Baloney- they are tempted to in the many scenes when Malfoy confronts them 
(as a bully) in the hallway or in Potions class, and in most of those scenes 
that Rowling writes, there is a teacher nearby that prevents them from 
really going at it, or Hermione is there to nag them to behave. Malfoy baits 
Harry for a duel on the roof at midnight, and he takes that offer. 
Circumstances that Rowling writes along the way always seem to get in the 
way of them having a good brawl (in one Mad Eye Moody's imposter steps in), 
but she doesn't stop it in one Quidditch match when Umbridge was at the 
school. We can't forget that Ron was only burping slugs because he did try 
to hex Malfoy, and had he successfully done so without a broken wand, no 
doubt that would have been a nice brawl. And, didn't Hermione actually punch 
Malfoy? In that one, I can only image the two boys being in shock, 
otherwise, they would have jumped right in and finished what Hermione 
started.

We have to remember that they are at school, and as such, there are always 
teachers hovering around. And, for the boy "conquest" of girls, 
realistically, that wouldn't happen until their 6th and 7th years, and she 
does show them pairing off in Book 6, meaning that sex would have only 
followed after that (so, they haven't gotten to that yet?) They aren't 
exactly hanging around the older kids to really "hear" it, although Ginny 
did know of Percy and his girlfriend, and you have no way of knowing how far 
they went when they met in secret. In our world, we see boys best "being 
boys" when they are in all male settings, such as gym class. Rowling has 
written this setting as mainly mixed classes in everything- the broom flying 
exercises are mixed, Quidditch is mixed, the classes are mixed. You do see 
boys being mischievous- the Weasley twins, for example and a fair amount of 
boy stuff.

Frankly, any comment I see of Rowling not knowing her teenage boys is 
hogwash- Ron and Harry look like the type of boys that I hung around with as 
a kid. We were always mixed groups too, at late middle school age. Those 
boys that were always in boy-only groups were the bullies, like Malfoy and 
his gang, and frankly, those were the boys that were always bragging of 
their sexual exploits too. Those that hung around in mixed groups were 
usually more mature, in my estimation, that those that didn't mix. 
Personally, I think Rowling is spot on in her description of boys. She 
didn't want Harry to be a Malfoy, or a Dudley. She's drawing a more mature, 
sensitive character, and those types of boys really do exist in life.

Shelley 






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Mon Nov 13 18:52:35 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:52:35 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <ej9jd8+6953@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejaetj+ps5d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161466

Abergoat writes:

KathyO, I agree with you - I think there is a very good chance that
Snape was at Godric's Hollow, and this is why JKR says we should be
asking why Dumbledore needed the cloak. He needed it so his Voldemort
spy could be given the secret without the Secret Keeper knowing. I
imagine James would agree to this for the protection of his family,
not knowing the spy was Snape.


grangerohini wrote:

> Harry's first question was about Lily that why didn't Voldy kill 
> Lily in the first place. 

I suspect your question is very important to the story but to clarify,
Harry doesn't ask Dumbledore about his mother, his first question was
why Voldemort wanted to kill Harry. Dumbledore chose not to answer
because he (as Dumbledore tells us later) viewed Harry as too young to
be burdened with knowledge of the prophecy.

> Why did he ask her to step aside? 

Even though Harry doesn't ask this question, JKR tells us it is
important: 

JKR: [Others besides Lily] may have been given a choice [to live], but
not in that particular way.

So your question is getting down to what was 'special' about Lily's
sacrifice. I believe Fake Moody gave us the clues to this, he says few
people have the necessary 'strength of character' to resist Imperius.
I suspect Voldemort's demands to 'step away' were tests of the
Imperius he cast on Lily...it didn't work because of her strength of
character (the important thing about Lily JKR says she showed in
OotP?). 

If Voldemort couldn't control Lily then she was useless to him
so he would kill her...killing someone he had under Imperius. That has
to be EXTREMELY unusual...given that it is unusual to be able to
resist Imperius at all.

Further support:
JKR suggests it is important that Harry has Lily's eyes. When Harry is
resistant to Imperius in class, Fake Moody says "watch his eyes,
that's where you see it". (GoF, Ch 15) But then Harry also seems to
find legilimency easy, a magic done with the eyes. Was Lily a
Legilimens? There are plenty of fun directions that could go...was she
the Legilimens that perfected Snape's Occlumency? But that's off topic.

Abergoat





From lil.magill at adelphia.net  Mon Nov 13 18:54:49 2006
From: lil.magill at adelphia.net (lil.magill at adelphia.net)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 10:54:49 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys
Message-ID: <19095003.1163444090003.JavaMail.root@web16>

No: HPFGUIDX 161467




Steve bboyminn:

JKR's job is not to create a univerally positive and
universally complete picture of ALL boy and ALL girls. It
is her job to create the characters of Hermione, Ron, and
Harry along with their /individual/ personalities /within/
the confines and context of the story. 

Can you really point to one individual boy or one 
individual girl in the real world and say they portray 
the universally postive and complete image of all boys or
all girls. I don't think so.

Harry is Harry, flaws and all. Personally, and I have 
commented on this several times in the past, I think JKR
does an amazing job of depicting the inner workings of 
the male mind in her books. Most 'boy' depictions I read
in books by female authors is always slightly skewed. 
'The Outsiders' by E.S.Hinton springs to mind; yes, it's
a good story, but I think she falls far far short of 
truly capturing the male voice and personality. But I 
think JKR is right-on within the confines of the 
available story.

Take Harry's body dysmorphia as he walks over to meet Cho
to begin their first real date; been there, done that. 
Take Harry's cluelessness about what is motivating Cho in
the tea shop; again, been there, done that. Take Harry's
general anxiety over asking Cho out; once again, been 
there, done that.

Boys relate to life very differently than girls. You are
rarely going to hear boys discussing their /feelings/. 
With guys, it's more of an unspoken understanding, similar
to that way Harry didn't need Ron to apologies after the
Dragon task. Hermoine thought they should talk about it 
and hug, but to the boys, the understanding was there but
unspoken. That's all boys need, or at least think they 
need.

Another good example is Ron's reaction when Harry is 
thinking  about breaking into Umbridge's office. Hermione
is trying to talk him out of it, and Ron is minding his 
own business though I'm certain he has many opinions on 
the matter. Finally, Ron tells Hermione to 'shut it', 
Harry can make up his own mind. That's how guys do it. 
Your very best friend will allow you to out your life at 
extreme risk and say nothing, because as a friend, he 
knows that allowing you that freedom to chose is part of
what guy friends do; even when that particular choice
is completely stupid and illogical.

I remember the great controversy that occurred at one 
time accusing JKR of not providing /positive/ female role
models in her books. I remember the 'Fat' controversy over
JKR's depiction of vitue relative to body size. None of 
these things matter because JKR is not writing a book 
about any of that. She has specific characters that have 
specific personalities that are run through specific 
circumstances, and her only concern is whether they react
'in-character' to the events they encounter.

As long as we are on the subject of personalities let's 
take Harry's. Through his whole life Harry is an outsider,
a loner, partly because he had no one else to associate 
with; Dudley, Vernon, and Petunia saw to that. Why are 
people surprised that Harry acts exactly that way when
he comes to Hogwarts? Harry has never had any reason to
trust anyone, and he carries on in that model. He does
find Ron and Hermoine, and that is two more friends than
he has ever had in his life. He clings to them dearly.
Yet, he still has no reason to trust people in general,
and especially has no reason to trust adults. Where were
the adults when Dudley and the gang were chasing him 
around the schoolyard? Where were the adults when Harry
was locked in the cupboard or locked in his barred room?

People spoke of the type of personality that is created
by Harry's circumstances growing up. Yet, I defy you to
find a single person who conforms completely to a 
projected universal personality as a result of those
circumstances. Harry has become an observer. Yes, he 
understands people to some extent, and from a distance is
able to divine their underlying motivations. But he is
also still a kid, and his actions and misinterpretations
reflect that. From Harry's perspective, and given his
circumstances, observing from a distance is a survival
mechanism, and it is a proven effective strategy in his
mind. Consequently, Harry doesn't get to know other kids
the way a more normal outgoing kid would. Consequently,
he has observed from a distance other Slyterin kids in 
his COMC class, but sensing the potential for danger, or
at least conflict, he has kept his distance. I think the
only people outside Gryffindor that Harry knows are 
people who for good or bad have gotten in his face. He
knows Ernie because Ernie has made himself known. He
knows Justin because Justin has made himself know. He 
knows Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle because they have very 
much made themselves known. But he doesn't kwow Blaise 
because Blaise has apparently kept his distance from 
Harry. 

Hermione for all her know-it-all book knowledge is not
very skilled socially. JKR said in an interview comment
about Hermione that she is really very insecure. In books
she finds safety and certainty. As to how she can know so
much about the Harry/Cho situation, it is her detached 
book-smart. It is always easier to know, understand, and
solve other people's problems because you don't have any
emotional investment in other people's problems. I'm sure
we have all found that in out own lives, far easier to 
solve our friends problems that to face our own.

So, in summary, it is not JKR job to positively model
all people in all situations; it is her job to model
these specific flawed people in these specific unusual
circumstances.

Personally, I am positively stunned by how well JKR
captures the inner landscape of her male characters. I
think it is a stunning achievement, and a task she 
succeeds at far better than most other female authors.

Marion's two cents:

I agree with everything Steve has said here, and will just add one thing that he didn't touch on, and that's the whole celebrity factor.  Harry, as well as being a teenager who's led a sheltered life and has been treated shabbily, also finds himself an overnight celebrity.  Aunt Petunia's fascination with lives of celebrities (though she pretends to be disgusted by them) and the Dursley's fawning over the boss in order to climb the social ladder have given Harry a little bit of insight into how celebrities (or people in power) are used.  From his initial trip into the Leaky Cauldron, I think he must have been on guard.  Hearing about his fame from Hagrid is completely different than having strangers wanting to approach you everywhere you go.  Would Cho have gone out with Harry if he hadn't been THE Harry Potter?  Maybe, maybe not.  We'll never know and, unfortunately, neither will Harry.  So it doesn't surprise me at all that Harry holds his tried and true friends close, and is slow to let others into the "inner sanctum".  

Marion








From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 18:39:55 2006
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (ladymela99)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:39:55 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ej5q42+sjnt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejae5r+sb1l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161468

Bonniedune:

I think Voldemort's Dark Knowledge is linked to power, not
immortality. In one of the books he says something to the effect
that "there is no good or bad, just power and the strength to use 
it."

As someone who has been victimized, Snape would be drawn to this
concept of personal power.

For Voldemort himself, the ultimate power is immortality. As a child
he assumed that his mother could not have been a witch because she 
did
not have the power to not die.

My (Melanie) reply:

While I personally agree with you about Voldemort's need for power I 
wonder if his lack of caring what he is doing to other people just a 
mere decision on his part not to think about it.  Or perhaps, given 
Tom's sadistic thoughts he actually enjoys the power to hurt, 
torture, and kill people.  He also wants to be immortal due to the 
fact that this skill will ensure that nobody can ever take his place 
and that his legacy will continue on.

I agree Snape was more than likely drawn to Voldemort in his desire 
to gain personal power but I also think it was a chance to belong to 
a group of people.  I know that many people join a certain 
organizations, cults etc. to find a sense of family.  As sick or 
twisted as it is in many ways Snape found that he could help 
Voldemort with his wide-array of potions and charms knowledge. He 
enjoyed that he was respected by these people and that gave him 
power.  This was afterall a boy who at 15 was already creating 
spells..something I haven't even seen Harry himself do.  

I'm a little confused as to why you feel Voldemort doesn't believe 
his mother was a witch?  I have only heard him deny his father, who 
abandoned him as a child when he found out that they were in fact 
magical.  I see your point that he felt his mother was weak in 
dying.  A powerful person should want to live forever, in 
Voldemort's mindset at least.  

Melanie











From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Mon Nov 13 19:16:02 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:16:02 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ej99fh+geb4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejag9i+po82@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161469

Abergoat writes:
Interesting posts!

The idea that Snape is tired of watching over Draco is intriguing. Is
there a chance that the 'you take too much for granted' is Snape
disagreeing with Dumbledore that Draco isn't capable of killing?

The bit about "investigations into his own house" has always bothered
me so I was very interested to read your ideas. If the subject is
Draco (because Dumbledore and Snape both know about Draco's 'task' and
that Draco is behind the attacks) then the comment doesn't fit. But if
Dumbledore DIDN'T know it was Draco then he was untruthful on the
tower when he says to Draco that he knew Draco was responsible for
some time.

Is there any possibility 'his own house' actually referred to
Spinner's End? I don't think so...but it might be fun to speculate. I
also thought Draco's 'I have better help than you!!!' was
interesting...wonder who it is. Probably Bella, but where is she? And
why was Tonks near the Room of Requirement when it is no where near
Dumbledore's office?

Carol wrote:
Maybe Dumbledore thinks that they can put off the confrontation
indefinitely and Snape knows that isn't true?

Abergoat writes:
That seems feasible.

Chrus, I think it is a reasonable speculation that Dumbledore said
'you made the vow, you will fulfill it' and Snape felt that was
'taking too much for granted'. From Bella's words at Spinner's End it
seems Snape doesn't do the 'dirty work' like killing - so Snape may
have objected that Dumbledore thought Snape was capable of killing. If
so, Dumbledore neatly checkmated Snape: Snape's choice was two dead
men and a teenage killer or performing the act himself so there was
only one dead man and an adult murderer.

But that investigations into the house don't fit in...

Abergoat





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 19:22:37 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:22:37 -0000
Subject: The Missing Tapestry... (was..He was taking too much for granted)
In-Reply-To: <eja9po+kqhk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejaglt+cmv2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161470

--- "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Carol comments:
> ... I think he probably knew (and had reported to 
> Dumbledore) that he was using the RoR; he had found out
> what he could (virtually nothing) from Crabbe and Goyle 
> by putting them in detention; Draco was not cooperating 
>and would only become more hostile if he realized that
> Snape was following him. ...heavily edited....

bboyminn:

Sorry, I'm off on a completely new subject now.

We have discussed the differences between portraits and
pictures in the past. In short, my theory is that pictures
are like actors in commercials, they are very 
superficially draw and have extremely exaggerated 
personalities because in the few seconds of a commercial,
you have to be able to recognise them immediately, but 
again absolutely no substance.

Portraits on the other hand are like actors in a 
biographical movie or stage play. They can very much 
capture the /subjects/ personality and character traits
and indeed portray the person to great depth and with 
great believability, yet ultimately when probed at depth,
the character portrayal breaks down. The actor can only 
know just so much, and magical portraits have limits to
their knowledge and abilities.

I'm very much reminded of Hal Holbrook portrayal of Mark 
Twain in his one man show. He captures Mark Twain so
completely. He knows his history in detail, but 
ultimately there are things he can't know and questions
he can't answer.

The reason I am even talking about all this is Carol and
others were discussing what Snape and Dumbledore are able
to know and find out with regard to Draco and, this is
important, the Room of Requirements.

People wonder how Dumbledore can be so all-knowing, yet 
we forget that Dumbledore had hundreds of spies 
strategically located around the castle and even in the
wizard world at large. The spies are of course the many
magical portraits. There is no movement or action inside
the castle that is not observed by one or more portraits,
who if they think it is important, or if Dumbledore has 
requested the information, will certainly report relevant
information to Dumbledore. 

The brain flash I had as I read Carol's post was that it
is a Tapestry that is outside the Room of Requirements,
and upon that revelation, I couldn't help wonder if that
was intentional, and whether Tapestries are 
semi-intelligent and as realized as a portrait, or if they
are caricature like photographs? 

Why, do I wonder, and why would it be significant for a
Tapestry to be outside the Room of Requirements? If the
characters in the Tapestry had no substance and have no
portrait-like autonomy, but are simply doomed to play out
the same role over and over again, as do the trolls in 
the Tapestry outside the Room of Requirements, then they
could never act as spys for Dumbledore, and consequently
Dumbledore, and by extension Snape, could never know what
was going on outside the Room of Requirements.

Unlike photographs and much like portraits, Tapestries 
are artistic renderings. That could implie an intelligence
similar to portraits. Yet, all our depictions of 
Tapestries show limited interaction. We see them react to
people waking by, but we never see them /interact/. They
are always playing out their Tapestry roles. 

The tapestry outside the room of requirements is of a 
wizard trying to teach ballet to trolls, and the characters
in the tapestry do not seem to ever be outside the context 
of that event. Yes, they may pause are react to passers-by,
but again, we never see them inter-act. This leads me to 
conclude that tapestries are without substance, and there
fore can not act as Dumbledore's spies. Having reached 
this conclusion, I further conclude that JKR intentionally
put a tapestry outside the Room of Requirement so that
their could be no observation of the comings and goings of
that room.

I have no idea how or why that is significant, it was just
a thought that came to me as I read Carol's post.

Remember, you heard it here first.

Steve/bboyminn





From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 13 19:31:41 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:31:41 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys/ Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ejad9i+b5t1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejah6t+belb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161471

Shelley:
And, didn't Hermione actually punch 
> Malfoy? In that one, I can only image the two boys being in shock, 
> otherwise, they would have jumped right in and finished what 
Hermione 
> started.

Magpie:
Hermione slapped Malfoy.  Sorry, that movie contamination drives me 
crazy.  Ron and Malfoy do get into a fist fight in PS/SS. I agree 
JKR seems to try to put in as many near-fights as she can, with 
teachers to break it up.  And of course there's also dueling which 
is a kind of fighting--Malfoy and Harry begin to duel in GoF and in 
HBP, obviously, they have a pretty big fight.

Shelley:
> Frankly, any comment I see of Rowling not knowing her teenage boys 
is 
> hogwash- Ron and Harry look like the type of boys that I hung 
around with as 
> a kid. We were always mixed groups too, at late middle school age. 
Those 
> boys that were always in boy-only groups were the bullies, like 
Malfoy and 
> his gang, and frankly, those were the boys that were always 
bragging of 
> their sexual exploits too. Those that hung around in mixed groups 
were 
> usually more mature, in my estimation, that those that didn't mix. 
> Personally, I think Rowling is spot on in her description of boys. 
She 
> didn't want Harry to be a Malfoy, or a Dudley. She's drawing a 
more mature, 
> sensitive character, and those types of boys really do exist in 
life.

Magpie:
I think that's a little unfair, to assume that your situation was 
necessarily a mark of maturity. People are friends with who they 
happen to become friends with, imo. I was friends with a group of 
boys in high school, but the four of them were basically their own 
tight group by themselves as well. Boys that happen to have close 
friends who are mostly boys are not, imo, automatically less mature 
than those who hang out in co-ed groups.  Likewise girls who are 
mostly friends with girls are not less mature than girls who hang 
out with boys. It just happens to be who you become friends with. 

Malfoy, as it happens, seems to be very good friends with Pansy 
Parkinson (she seems to be his girlfriend, but then so will Ron be 
Hermione's and Ginny is Harry's) so he's not always in an all-male 
group either. He doesn't seem so much less sensitive than Harry in 
those ways--Harry seems to view girls as generally foreign creatures 
so doesn't seem all that sensitive that way. Malfoy's a jerk in 
plenty of ways, but doesn't seen particularly testosterone heavy. 
His only scene of bragging about sexual exploits is to play up his 
arm injury to Pansy when he's 13--something Harry comes around to 
two years later with Cho. Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle are I think 
sometimes conspicuous in how different they are from each other.

Steve:
I remember the great controversy that occurred at one
time accusing JKR of not providing /positive/ female role
models in her books. I remember the 'Fat' controversy over
JKR's depiction of vitue relative to body size. None of
these things matter because JKR is not writing a book
about any of that. She has specific characters that have
specific personalities that are run through specific
circumstances, and her only concern is whether they react
'in-character' to the events they encounter.

Magpie:
Wait--just because it's not JKR's job to write a book about this 
stuff doesn't mean it doesn't matter.  Anything in the books is up 
for discussion.  If you can discuss how well you think JKR has 
presented Harry and Ron and boys as why, there's nothing wrong with 
someone pointing out the constant fat jokes, particularly since that 
mostly came out in response to JKR herself stating on her website 
how terrible it is when people care about weight. Everything in the 
books is part of the books.  It's not that she's supposed to present 
everyone perfectly, but looking at the way she deals with any 
certain thing is imo a perfectly legitimate way to look at the book. 
There's lots of ways to present people imperfectly, after all. I 
think one of the strongest glues holding the books together are just 
this sort of thing, that JKR has certain strong basic truths that 
come through with all the characters and make everything hold 
together--and too there are certain conflicts she tends to reach for 
more than others.  It's impressive that she manages to take these 
truths and patterns and give them to such a wide array of 
characters, but noticing patterns is part of the fun of seeing how 
it's not really reality, just a constructed illusion of reality.

Sydney:

I think the 'racial' metaphor of magic/non-magic blood is entangled
with a class metaphor. Class is still an amazingly bitter and
senstive subject in Britain and goes hand in hand with race
discussions in terms of 'otherness' and the establishment and
prejudice and resentment. Especially as the Wizarding World has a
distinctly 1920's between-the-wars vibe and at the same time draws a
lot of its atmosphere from Dickens. The idea of the family trees and
intermarriage is a lot more resonant of a class than a race thing.

Magpie:
Heh--I was going to suggest that but don't feel really qualified to 
talk about the class issue.  But that is what it feels like a lot of 
the time to me. The Pureblood thing, even as Ernie describes it, 
seems more reminiscent of aspirations to blue blood than, say, race 
percentages.

Sydney:

I feel sure there's some sort of connection with Lily and the Potions
book, and that might extend to the nickname. I read a very cool
theory somewhere that the famous significance of Harry having Lily's
eyes is that that's why he's the only one who can make out the
handwriting in the HPB book-- Snape spelled it 'for lily's eyes 
only'!

Magpie:
I'd just heard that one myself--I originally thought it was silly, 
supposing Harry could read it only because of his eyes, but then 
when I understood it had been spelled that way by Snape it made much 
more sense.

-m 





From technomad at intergate.com  Mon Nov 13 19:33:50 2006
From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 13:33:50 -0600
Subject: FILK: The Green-and-White Flag
Message-ID: <000801c7075a$a6f40710$b4560043@D6L2G391>

No: HPFGUIDX 161472

I've committed another filk...
  ----------

The Green-and-White Flag

ttto The Red Flag (Billy Bragg version)

by Eric Oppen

Our House's flag is green-and-white
We snooze by day and skulk by night
And what we're planning in our schemes
You'd not see in your wildest dreams

	Chorus:

	Then raise the serpent banner high
	The emblem of the house that's sly
	Though Gryffs and Huffs may point and sneer
	The Slytherin flag's flying here!

It was first raised by Salazar
It serves the House that's best by far
In later times when things got grim
We Slytherins kept faith with him!

Our enemies will all be dazed
Our friends will stand there, all amazed
They won't believe what we can do
When we to Green and White are true!

In battle or the Quidditch field
The Green and White will never yield
And though our day may not come fast
The Slytherins will win at last!

And when the fight is through and done
And Slytherin has finally won
The other Houses will attest
That Green and White is truly best!



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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Nov 13 19:35:07 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:35:07 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <ejahdb+4juh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161473

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at ...> wrote:
> He has very few friends, and he seems not to be interested in students apart
> from those who are his friends. This is shown differently in the films, by
> the way.
> What makes this situation unrealistic IMO is Harry's past until he came to
> Hogwarts. He had a very hard time not only at the Dursley's, but at
> elementary school as well. A person being bullied so much will most probably
> develop good knowledge of human nature - especially a bright boy like Harry.
> It's vital for him to understand people and to "read their minds" in order
> to find out who will harm him and who will not.

Pippin:
Some people react this way. I think Lupin is a good example. But I think
Harry received so many negative messages that the only way he could
survive was to tune people out. Naturally his people reading skills 
would suffer from lack of practice and that in turn would contribute
to the bullying and make a vicious cycle.

Often, kids get bullied *because* they don't read people well. They 
don't pick up the cues that their behavior is being perceived as weird or 
improper, they persist in their behavior instead of modifying it, they 
alienate people, and then the bullies pick on them because they can.

 But this isn't really a book about teen romances or
teen friendships. According to the author, it's about a boy who doesn't
know who he is. That lack of self knowledge sort of precludes any
deep knowledge of other people. 

I think Harry  was only able to relate to Ron and Hagrid at first because
they are *so* easily read; they almost served as a primer for the rest of 
humanity. With their support Harry was able to develop the skils at
people-reading that he didn't form at a younger age. He is getting
pretty good now, though he still needed a boost from Felix to manage
Slughorn. His NEWT level will be managing Snape, assuming
DDM!Snape, that is. 

Harry still hasn't gotten the hang of the social judo that would let him
deal with Snape's insults without damage to his own ego. I think we'll
see him get that. But since it can't happen till Book Seven, JKR has
to keep Harry somewhat socially retarded until it does. 

The same with her romances. She doesn't want to get into hot water
of teen sex, but after all does every treatment of the subject have to
be gritty? 

Pippin





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 19:40:59 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:40:59 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ejag9i+po82@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejahob+asun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161474

Abergoat:

> Is there any possibility 'his own house' actually referred to
> Spinner's End? I don't think so...but it might be fun to speculate.

Sydney:

I suspect some sort of play on words too-- Hagrid says, ".. and then
he said summat abou' Snape makin' investigations in his house, in
Slytherin."  Maybe the Slytherin is Salazar Slytherin, and Hagrid is
interpolating the 'House' part?  Because not long after that
Dumbledore locates the Slytherin Horcrux, so maybe Snape had some
access to information on Salazar that was helpful.  Because he's the
current head of House?

Abergoat:

> Chrus, I think it is a reasonable speculation that Dumbledore said
> 'you made the vow, you will fulfill it' and Snape felt that was
> 'taking too much for granted'. From Bella's words at Spinner's End it
> seems Snape doesn't do the 'dirty work' like killing - so Snape may
> have objected that Dumbledore thought Snape was capable of killing. If
> so, Dumbledore neatly checkmated Snape: Snape's choice was two dead
> men and a teenage killer or performing the act himself so there was
> only one dead man and an adult murderer.

> But that investigations into the house don't fit in...

Sydney:

I think the "house investigations" was starting in on another subject,
and as for the rest, yeah, I'm certain that's what was going on, and
the 'checkmating' of Snape is just how I see the Tower scene! 

The fact that Snape says he doesn't want to do it anyMORE suggests
that he was once reconciled to the idea and has gotten cold feet as
the event looms.

Sydney








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 20:21:02 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:21:02 -0000
Subject: CoS -Harry's knowledge of Lord Voldemort- Post 2
In-Reply-To: <ejacof+df4r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejak3e+cq7h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161475

Beatrice wrote:
>
> Post 2 ? Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ? Harry's knowledge
> of Lord Voldemort
<snip>
> D. It is a "large, dimly lit wizard's shop- but nothing in here
> was ever likely to be on a Hogwarts school list." (Harry)

Carol responds:
I don't think Harry actually says or thinks this. It's the
third-person narrator, reflecting Harry's pov. right?
<snip>

> 5. Tom Marvolo Riddle kept a "blank" diary, purchased in
> Vauxhall Road, London, dating back 50 years prior to the year that
> the Chamber was last opened (231)

Carol:
I think you mean fifty years before the present school year (1992-93),
not fifty years before the Chamber was opened (1942-43 or maybe 1943).
<snip>
> 
> 8. Riddle also received a "Medal for Magical Merit" and was
> head boy during his time at Hogwarts (234)

Carol:
I'd forgotten the Medal for Magical Merit, thanks. Odd that no other
character seems to have received one AFAWK. What chapter is this
reference in? (I have the American edition and the page numbering is
different.)
> 
Beatrice:
> 9. Riddle used "magic" to leave his memories in the diary. He is
> able to "speak" to people who write on the pages (240) (We know know 
> that the magic in question here is the horcrux TR encased in the 
> diary - probably after Myrtle's death -HBP).

Carol:
Oops. I've already argued that the memories could have been placed in
the diary and an interactive charm placed on it before Tom turned it
into a Horcrux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161328 and
accompanying thread.
What does CoS say about it (without bringing in what we "know" from
HBP)? We do know from CoS that Tom decided to preserve the memory of
himself in the diary after Myrtle's death and the Hagrid incident,
which appear in a specifically dated memory, but what else does CoS
say and who is the source?)

Beatrice: 
> 10. Hagrid was expelled for opening the chamber and Myrtle was
killed on June 13, 1943. (243)

Carol:
Hagrid is framed on June 13. I'm not sure that he was expelled that
same day. (It must have been soon afterwards, however.)
> 
Beatrice:
> 11. The CoS was opened in Riddle's 5th year at Hogwarts.  (241) This 
> was also Hagrid's 3rd year (in SS /PS Hagrid reveals that he  was 
> expelled in his third year).
> 
> 11. The diary has powers similar to the pensieve (242)

Carol:
Which we haven't seen yet, either. Maybe it would be better to say
what it can do from the perspective of a reader who hasn't read the
later books?

Beatrice:
<snip>
> A. We know that TR leaves the orphanage to murder his father in
> the summer of his 6th year (one year later). Does he go back to the
> orphanage? Does he leave it at any other time during those
> summers? Does he visit Grindelwald? <snip>

Carol responds:
Dumbledore says in HBP that they were killed in Tom's sixteenth year,
but he has to mean when Tom was sixteen (which would technically be
his seventeenth year), in July or August 1943, after Myrtle's murder
but before the conversation with Slughorn about Horcruxes. However,
CoS doesn't tell us anything about these events. We only know that Tom
hated his "filthy Muggle father" and had already started to call
himself Lord Voldemort to rid himself of his father's name. There's no
evidence that Diary!Tom knew that he would kill his father or even
that he knew about Grindelwald. (He must have heard about him, but he
doesn't mention him, nor do we *know* even now that Grindelwald had a
Horcrux. I'll bet he did, but only because that's how I piece the
puzzle together.)

Well, so far you've unearthed information that came in handy for GoF
(the Pensieve), OoP (the Pensieve again; LV's attempt to possess
Harry, and Ginny's account of what it was like to be possessed), and
HBP (more Pensieve adventures, Horcruxes, and the items from Borgin
and Burkes).

You didn't mention his learning through the Serpensortia spell
(Snape's idea) that he was a Parseltongue or Snape's teaching him and
the entire duelling club that highly useful defensive spell,
Expelliarmus (Snape's first DADA lesson) though he receives hardly any
credit for it. (Harry does tell Lockhart that he shouldn't have let
Snape teach them that one.)

But what did Harry learn in CoS that hasn't already been used in
solving that mystery or Draco's in HBP or simply added to his
knowledge base like Expelliarmus?

You did raise some questions that we can't really answer yet, like
what Tom did over his summer holidays, but what did Harry learn in CoS
know that he doesn't realize he knows or whose significance he has not
yet realized? The existence of Grindelwald and his defeat by
Dumbledore, for one. And Snape's concern when Ginny was taken into the
Chamber of Secrets might have been a clue to where his loyalties lie
(with Dumbledore, IMO), but of course Snape's hand clutching the chair
didn't register with either Harry or Ron, or rather, the gesture did
momentarily, but its significance didn't.

Carol, who finds the older books so familiar now that it's hard to see
anything new in them





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Nov 13 20:43:38 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:43:38 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ejahob+asun@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejaldq+cqmf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161476

 
> Abergoat:
> 
> > Chrus, I think it is a reasonable speculation that Dumbledore said
> > 'you made the vow, you will fulfill it' and Snape felt that was
> > 'taking too much for granted'. From Bella's words at Spinner's End it
> > seems Snape doesn't do the 'dirty work' like killing - so Snape may
> > have objected that Dumbledore thought Snape was capable of killing. If
> > so, Dumbledore neatly checkmated Snape: Snape's choice was two dead
> > men and a teenage killer or performing the act himself so there was
> > only one dead man and an adult murderer.
> 
> > But that investigations into the house don't fit in...
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> I think the "house investigations" was starting in on another subject,
> and as for the rest, yeah, I'm certain that's what was going on, and
> the 'checkmating' of Snape is just how I see the Tower scene! 

> The fact that Snape says he doesn't want to do it anyMORE suggests
> that he was once reconciled to the idea and has gotten cold feet as
> the event looms.

Pippin:
It's reasonable to think that 'I don't want to do it any more' refers to
the vow and 'you take too much for granted' has to do with Snape's
loyalty, but I think that those are the misinterpretations we are
supposed to make and we should be asking whether Snape ever
agreed to do anything else and  what else Dumbledore took 
for granted. 

What comes to my mind is that Snape agreed to do something at
the end of GoF --"If you are ready....if you are prepared" and that
Dumbledore took it for granted that Death Eaters could not 
enter the castle--"which, I admit, I thought impossible." In that
case it sounds to me as though Snape was arguing that he should
abandon the watchful waiting strategy and deal with Draco more 
directly, but  he couldn't do it without compromising his double
agent role, which Dumbledore was not willing to permit.

How that would fit in with the vow, I am not sure, but the third
clause only takes effect if it seems Draco will fail, which leaves the
door open for any number of ruses which would avoid the 
appearance of imminent failure. 

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 21:15:26 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:15:26 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys/ Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ejad9i+b5t1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejan9e+5au1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161478

Magpie:
> 
> > It seems like one thing we've learned about Purebloods is that
they know who they all are. They're almost a family more than a race.
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> I think the 'racial' metaphor of magic/non-magic blood is entangled
> with a class metaphor.  Class is still an amazingly bitter and
> senstive subject in Britain and goes hand in hand with race
> discussions in terms of 'otherness' and the establishment and
> prejudice and resentment. Especially as the Wizarding World has a
> distinctly 1920's between-the-wars vibe and at the same time draws a
> lot of its atmosphere from Dickens.  The idea of the family trees
and intermarriage is a lot more resonant of a class than a race thing.

Carol responds:
I'm not British, of course, but I agree with both of you based on my
knowledge of English literature and history (more interesting to me
than the American equivalents). The "vibe" to me is almost medieval.
Think of the lengths to which the Plantagenet monarchs went to get
papal dispensations to marry their own cousins of varying degrees so
that the "blood royal" wouldn't be polluted through marriage to
commoners or outsiders. 

Sydney: 
> Then there's that JKR's placed Snape in an industrial northern town. 
>  That carries a lot of baggage-- there were huge race riots in the
mill town of Bradford in the mid-nineties, Yorkshire is the stronghold
> of the British National Party, and it's also where the 7/7 bombers
> were from.  Of course, it's also Bronte country and maybe the
> Heathcliffiness is all there is to it! 

Carol:
"Race" in what sense? If you mean the antagonism between Yorkshire and
the southern counties, you can see that in the era of Richard III, who
died in 1485, and probably before. As you say, it's a class thing, not
race, with the Southerners regarding the Northerners as almost
barbarians and the Northerners seeing the Southerners as soft and
corrupt. But I don't see Snape in that picture at all. Just because he
lives in Spinner's End as an adult doesn't mean it was his childhood
home. It's as good a place as any to hide from both sides.   
> 
> Magpie:
> 
> >I don't recall any Princes on the Black's tree, nor have we 
> > heard of any current students with the name.

Carol:
True, but Harry would not have noticed the Princes in OoP. He's only
looking at the recent portions of a tree that goes back (IIRC) a
thousand years, and only noticing familiar names. Gaunt and Peverell
must be on there somewhere, too, if it's true that the purebloods are
all related, but we don't see them. Nor does Harry notice the name
Yaxley, which appears on the bit of the tree that see on the Lexicon
site--and matches the last name of a Death Eater (Brutal Face, I'll
bet my lunch on it). He's only interested in Tonks and Draco and other
people that he has close contact with. So the name Prince could be
there a few generations back, or a dozen generations back, and he'd
take no notice. (Everybody has eight great-grandparents and sixteen
great-great-grandparents. It doesn't take long for a name to get lost,
especially if it's a wife's maiden name.)


As fo no students of that name, it seems that the pureblood families
(Weasleys excepted) seem to have only one or two children and to die
out. We've seen the end of the Crouch, Gaunt, and Black lines just in
the last three books. True, the Blacks have female descendants, but
the male line is extinguished, and with it the family name.) So Eileen
Prince could have been the only child of the Pureblood Princes, and
her father might also have been an only child or only son. Eileen
could be Sirius Black's mother's third cousin twice removed and he'd
never know it.  

Sydney:
<snip> 
> Okay, so now he's a social climbing Northern urchin, but maybe the
> Princes came from Knockturn, and that's where he picked up all those
> curses he came to school with?  Mostly I just love the location of
> Knockturn alley and want an excuse to take the book back there.

Carol:
Or maybe not. He could have been raised by the Princes with no
connection to the industrial North, even if Spinner's End was one his
father's house. (Its chandeliers and walls of books with magically
opening doors suggest that it wasn't Tobias's home. I rather think
that's Snape's own modification--at least as likely as a Knockturn
Alley connection. Or, if you like Knockturn Alley, maybe he had a shop
there in his early DE days. He needed paid employment or a business,
right? To my knowledge, DEs don't get paid.

> Sydney:
> 
> Yeah, it's so intriguing!  Because on the one hand JKR's really set
> him up as the familiar figure of the chip-on-shoulder lower-class
guy trying to 'pass'.  But he's more than passing, he seems to have
> established a very respectable position with the biggest snobs in
the  place.  It doesn't seem possible that they don't know who he is,
the insularity of the pureblood world is such a theme.  Maybe they
respect him as playing the game right, that in a way he knows his
'place'? 
> There's an edge of that in Umbrige's line that Lucius 'speaks highly
> of him', which implies that Lucius has a right to pass judgement.  I
> don't get that vibe so much in Spinner's End, especially because
Bella argues with him like an equal.  Argh!  I think we'll just have
to wait on this one!

Carol:
I don't wholly agree. Yes, he's reshaped his image so that he's no
longer a stoop-shouldered, pallid teenager with a neglected look (as a
pureblood family might treat the half-blood grandson that they were
forced to take in on his father's death--see, I think the shouting man
is Grandpa Prince, which would explain the absence of Muggle clothes
in Snape's childhood memory. Not even Harry would fail to spot those.)
 He seems to need to earn a living, perhaps because the Princes
refused to support him after he came of age. That doesn't mean that he
came from a working class background. Lucius as a wealthy pureblood
who doesn't have to work would be naturally condescending to a less
wealthy but highly talented halfblood whom he regards as his protege
(the "lapdog" idea) and who has to teach for a living. But
intellectually and in terms of magical power, Snape is at least his
equal and Lucius knows it. And Bella, though she won't admit it, is
flat out afraid of Snape. Otherwise, she'd never have tried to prevent
Narcissa from seeing him or taught Draco elementary Occlumency to keep
him from knowing what Draco was up to.

> Sydney:
> 
> I feel sure there's some sort of connection with Lily and the
Potions book, and that might extend to the nickname.  I read a very
cool theory somewhere that the famous significance of Harry having
Lily's eyes is that that's why he's the only one who can make out the
> handwriting in the HPB book-- Snape spelled it 'for lily's eyes
only'! <snip>

Carol:
All of the references to Lily's eyes have been to their color (and
once, IMO, to their unusual almond shape). Having Lily's eyes helped
Harry get the memory from Slughorn. I think we've seen the last of
that motif in HBP.

Carol, not sure why she disagrees with these speculations when she
agrees that "blood" is about class more than "race"






From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 17:08:40 2006
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:08:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <ej9jd8+6953@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061113170840.15402.qmail@web33213.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161479

grangerohin:
I've been reading Harry Potter book 1 ..and I've already read all books 3 times now . I've got a question that in book 1 in the end when Dumbledore said to Harry that he can ask anything but Dumbledore will answer only those questions which he will think suitable for Harry to hear (he said something like that) and Harry's first question was about Lily that why didn't Voldy kill Lily in the first place. Why did he ask her to step aside? But Dumbledore didn't answer, right? He said he will answer him later but I think he didn't in all the books ..so what is the answer? Dumbledore told Harry everything but just that question of Harry's. What's the answer? How and when will Dumbledore answer it?

Melanie:   
My reply:  Wow see I forgot this part..I forgot Harry asked about his mom.  Hmmm that is interesting.  I suppose one could assume that Harry is more than likely going to visit Dumbledore's painting.  Or he may go to the pensieve again, perhaps, there are answers in that.
 




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 22:14:54 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:14:54 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <eja2k2+oecs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejaqou+d0a0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161480

 
> Jen: The part I don't get with the Draco explanation is why Snape 
> felt he couldn't watch over him anymore and keep him out of 
> trouble.  He's not exactly a whiner type and with the Unbreakable 
he 
> *has* to do this and not because Dumbledore is telling him to!  
Then 
> I start wondering if Hagrid heard and reported everything exactly 
as 
> is or if he made some assumptions to fill in the gaps?  Or missed a 
> few key words?  That makes me start wondering about your second 
> option here:

zgirnius:
I forgot to say-I think Snape is arguing for a more direct 
intervention, instead of continuing to soft-pedal the issue. It is my 
opinion that Dumbledore always planned a confrontation with Draco 
such as the one he actually got (only, minus the Death Eaters!), in 
which he would make Draco understand that 'he is not a killer', and 
then offer him preotection. And Snape was beginning to fear that 
Dumbledore, in assuming that Snape could prevent a disaster before 
that confrontation took place, was taking too much for granted. (This 
would make Snape right to worry, in the end, sinc ehe did not figure 
out the cabinet plot).






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 22:29:41 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:29:41 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <00e801c705f4$10060ea0$e198400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ejarkl+9njo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161481

> a_svirn:
> Actually, from what we can see in canon werewolves attack because 
are 
> rendered insane by their illness. They do not *consciously* want to 
cause 
> pain; they simply have certain cravings and act on instinct,
> much like sharks. Maybe it's not exactly a *survival* instinct, but 
it's 
> still an instinct, not an *intent*.
> 
> Magpie:
> I agree--but to address what Betsy said in those first sentences, I 
think 
> "werewolf" refers to a man who changes into a wolf etc., so Lupin 
actually 
> is a Dark creature whether he's human or not.  An actual wolf, even 
a rabid 
> one, would not be a Dark Creature, I don't think, just an animal.  
It may 
> almost be thought of as a possession--the regular human is 
possessed by this 
> dark spirit that causes it to do things, and thus becomes a Dark 
Creature as 
> well.
> 

<snip>

a_svirn:
I think your analogy is exactly right ? the curse of lycanthropy does 
bear a strong resemblance to possession.  The trouble is that no one 
usually thinks the possessed persons "dark" or evil. They are 
regarded as *victims* of Evil, not agents of it. And the same goes 
for werewolves. It is a human Grayback  who is malicious and whose 
intent is wicked, not a wolf Grayback, after all. A wolf Grayback is 
just insane ? doesn't know what he does and why. Which brings us to 
back to the supposed intent-darkness correlation. Either we have to 
agree ? rather lamely ? that werewolves are actually a special case, 
an exception from that rule, or we have to face the possibility that 
we've been going with a false premise. 





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 13 22:42:40 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:42:40 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ejacge+4c36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejasd1+hafa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161482

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

> Personally, I am positively stunned by how well JKR
> captures the inner landscape of her male characters. I
> think it is a stunning achievement, and a task she 
> succeeds at far better than most other female authors.
> 
> Remember, you heard it here first.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Geoff;
With respect, you're not the first. :-)

I have been intending to reply along the same lines as you 
but just haven't had the time.

However, I shall start with a quote just to show that there 
is no new thread under the sun, (with apologies to 
Ecclesiastes chapter 1 verse 9).

Over three years ago in July 2003, a poster called Fred Uloth, 
wrote the following in message 79417 in a thread "Things 
that will come into play later":

> Hmm...I'm led to believe a woman wrote this post. I think
> JKR nailed male relationships very well with this one. For
> women, a good friend is someone with whom they can cry,
> share emotions, discuss whatever. To a man (at least in 
> Teens and Tweens) a good friend is someone who is there,
> shows loyalty and doesn't pry into emotional issues. The girls 
> (Hermy, Cho, Jenny) are the one that keeps bringing up the
> topics Harry wants to avoid (death, dreams, etc). Neville's 
> comment after Sirius dies is as intimate a question as any
> guy would get with another guy. If Ron were asking the
> questions that Hermione asks and Harry didn't blow his top,
> then I'd say the people who think Harry is light in the loafers 
> may have a leg to stand on. JKR has a VERY good handle on
> relationship dynamics of teenage boys. Guys don't want to
> talk about it...not when the wounds are still fresh anyway..
>if they do, it will only be with a female that they really trust.
> I don't think we should be slighting Ron for being a typical
>  teenage boy...when push comes to shove, Ron is always 
> on Harry's side.

To which I replied:

"She has indeed handled male relations well. I feel that I relate 
to HP because I can see myself at that age. I was considered 
something of a "boffin" (probably a geek in modern speech!,
something like Hermione even in having my nose in books and 
more interested in intellectual things. Being at an all-male
school (the UK norm at that time) didn't help my contact with
girls and, like HP, I had a number of disasters a la Cho Chang.

One of the things which I always dislike is the "big boys don't 
cry" attitude often drummed into our heads. Looking at Harry's 
responses to some of the deep emotional moments, I can recall 
when my eldest son was born and there was a medical crisis 
which threatened both mother and baby. I was left out on a limb 
feeling absolutely devastated waiting for news and wishing that
I could go and have a good bawl on someone's shoulder - and 
I couldn't. There wasn't a shoulder handy and I couldn't break
through the conditioning.

There is also the male bonding which I recently mentioned in 
connection wih CS Lewis' "Four Loves" - friends together just to 
enjoy each other's company. My wife often berates me because 
in phone conversations with our two sons, who are still in London, 
she gets involved in their "relationship" lives - particularly the 
younger one who has had a couple of relationship crash-landings 
but, when I get to the phone, we discuss DVDs, politics, computers 
et al. Fred is right, that's the way male dynamics often work -and 
not only teens and tweens."

***

Coming up to the current thread, we have to remember that we are 
only seeing part of the Hogwarts year. In Philosopher's Stone for 
example, out of a 45-46 week year if you count the Christmas and 
Easter holidays as well as the three terms, how much time do we 
really share with the Trio?

And, with sexual development, in how many books involving young 
people would you find the question of wet dreams and as some one 
put it euphemistically and (amusingly) self-discovery aired as part 
of the plot of the story? Can you imagine Ron bouncing into breakfast, 
sitting down next to Harry and saying out loud "I've just had a 
smashing wet dream?"

As some older members will know, my wife and I ran a boys' club at 
our church for 10 years until we stepped down in the summer of last 
year. These weren't just church guys; there were a couple of dozen 
mid-teens from a wide range of backgrounds. It used to be interesting 
discreetly eavesdropping on their conversations when they were sitting 
a game out or stopping for a drink. References to sex were very muted 
and casual. There would be more ribbing for one of the lads who was 
glued to his mobile phone swapping texts with girls than any discussion 
of anything more "hands on".

I agree wholeheartedly with Steve - and previous posters back in 2003 - 
that, in my view speaking as a mere male - JKR has got an amazing grasp 
of our thought processes. Amazing, because after 35 years of marriage, I 
still don't always fathom which way my wife's train of thought is going, nor 
my daughter's for that matter.

Possibly, like Harry and Ron, I just have the emotional range of a teaspoon. 
:-)





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 22:59:06 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:59:06 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys/ Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ejan9e+5au1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejatbq+ihun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161483

> > Sydney:
> > 
> > I think the 'racial' metaphor of magic/non-magic blood is 
entangled
> > with a class metaphor.  Class is still an amazingly bitter and
> > senstive subject in Britain and goes hand in hand with race
> > discussions in terms of 'otherness' and the establishment and
> > prejudice and resentment. Especially as the Wizarding World has a
> > distinctly 1920's between-the-wars vibe and at the same time 
draws a
> > lot of its atmosphere from Dickens.  The idea of the family trees
> and intermarriage is a lot more resonant of a class than a race 
thing.
> 
> Carol responds:
> I'm not British, of course, but I agree with both of you based on my
> knowledge of English literature and history (more interesting to me
> than the American equivalents). The "vibe" to me is almost medieval.
> Think of the lengths to which the Plantagenet monarchs went to get
> papal dispensations to marry their own cousins of varying degrees so
> that the "blood royal" wouldn't be polluted through marriage to
> commoners or outsiders. 
> 

a_svirn:
Well, that's hardly got anything to do with being British! For one 
thing the Plantagenets were anything but, for another the Habsburgs 
or, say, the Valois weren't any better!  

I agree that the pureblood oligarchy is a social thing in its heart. 
Yet their mythology and their system of values are somewhat "racist" 
in their outlook.  Of course, racial boundaries in the Potterverse 
are different from those in real life and have more to do with being 
or not being magical than with being white or black. Purebloods and 
mugglebornes belong to the same "race", or "breed" or whatever we'll 
agree to call it (which is why I think the pureblood prejudice 
against mugglebornes is mostly social), but wizards and muggles are 
two easily definable "races".  Which is why the prejudice against 
muggles is not exactly a prejudice. The way Rowling invented it 
wizards really *are* superior, simply because they are magical and 
muggles are not. 






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 23:05:21 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:05:21 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys/ Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ejan9e+5au1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejatnh+g18i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161484


> Sydney:
> > Then there's that JKR's placed Snape in an industrial northern town.
> >  That carries a lot of baggage-- there were huge race riots in the
> mill town of Bradford in the mid-nineties, Yorkshire is the stronghold
> > of the British National Party, and it's also where the 7/7 bombers
> > were from.  

> Carol:
> "Race" in what sense? If you mean the antagonism between Yorkshire and
> the southern counties, you can see that in the era of Richard III, who
> died in 1485, and probably before. As you say, it's a class thing, not
> race, with the Southerners regarding the Northerners as almost
> barbarians and the Northerners seeing the Southerners as soft and
> corrupt.

Sydney: 

No, in this case I meant race as in race-- the big headline issues of
the BNP, white-pakistani race riots of the last 10-20 years,
skinheads, and terrorism, with which Northerness is sadly freighted at
the moment.  It's just part of the soup of reference JKR is counting
on her readers bringing to the book, as she counts on their knowledge
of Nazis and the KKK to set a mood for Death-Eaterness, or Enid Blyton
to set a mood of boarding-schoolness.  She's a very allusive writer in
that way-- she draws on a collective set of what you might call
cultural imagery.  It's what lets her strike so many chords with her
readers so economically.

Now that the reader associates Snape with row-housing in a northern
industrial town, there's a flood of imagery that goes with it-- more,
probably for a British reader than an American one, but still anyone
might start thinking:  unemployment, sweatshops, exploitation, angry
working class.  This is sort of an aside, but did you ever see the
"Monty Python" episode where "No one expects the Spanish
Inquisition!"?  The sketch actually starts with a cliche 'period
drama' set with a Typical Mill Foreman with Typical Northern Accent
coming into the scene and saying "Trouble a' th'mill".  If you google
"Trouble at the Mill" you'll see just how much this phrase was used
even before the sketch! 

Anyways-- my point, if I had a point, is that we've been introduced to
a new 'set' and this set has been attached to Snape.  The 'Burrow' set
of the cottage overrun with healthy children brings its associations
and expectations, the 'island prison' set of Sirius Black ditto, the
'identikit suburban house' of the Dursleys ditto.  Whether this is
Snape's childhood home or not (I very much think it is), JKR painted
this cliche set-- and I mean cliche in the warmest possible way!--
with some care.  Snape's now been grafted onto everything implied with
living in a decrepit northern town and that would include class, race,
and regional resentments.  'Resentment' and 'Snape' go together like
fish and chips, so so far it's all in tune.


Carol:

But I don't see Snape in that picture at all. Just because he
> lives in Spinner's End as an adult doesn't mean it was his childhood
> home. It's as good a place as any to hide from both sides.  

Sydney:

I realize it's not made explicit, but I'm going with the Law of
Narrative Economy.  This is the picture that JKR puts Snape in, these
are the images she wants to connect with him.  Snape's already been
established as poor in OoP (greying underwear, spitting and swearing),
and living in somewhere dingy and full of flies, and we're supposed to
be intrigued by what his background is.  Personally I think this is
completing the picture to say:  not just working class, northern mill
town working class. 
  

Carol:

> Or, if you like Knockturn Alley, maybe he had a shop
> there in his early DE days. He needed paid employment or a business,
> right? To my knowledge, DEs don't get paid.

Sydney:

I used to have this theory that Snape worked for Borgin and Burkes,
but that turned out to be Tom Riddle! 


> > Sydney:
> >
> > Yeah, it's so intriguing!  Because on the one hand JKR's really set
> > him up as the familiar figure of the chip-on-shoulder lower-class
> guy trying to 'pass'. 

> Carol:
> I don't wholly agree. Yes, he's reshaped his image so that he's no
> longer a stoop-shouldered, pallid teenager with a neglected look (as a
> pureblood family might treat the half-blood grandson that they were
> forced to take in on his father's death--see, I think the shouting man
> is Grandpa Prince, which would explain the absence of Muggle clothes
> in Snape's childhood memory. Not even Harry would fail to spot those.)
>  He seems to need to earn a living, perhaps because the Princes
> refused to support him after he came of age. That doesn't mean that he
> came from a working class background.

Sydney:

I guess I'm just rolling with how JKR has presented the character so
far-- he lives in a row house in a crap town, when he was a kid he was
neglected and unrefined (he's swearing a blue streak, not using the
cool cutting insults he does now), he now has a slightly
inappropriately formal way of speaking, he's a schoolmaster who puts
on airs, he's hypersensitive about people respecting him and calling
him 'sir'.  For me this all adds up into... rats, I have to use the
word again-- maybe not a cliche but a familiar character from the sort
of fiction JKR habitiually draws from.  The working-class lad made
good.  Of course there's a very common storyline with this character--
the poor relation, made to feel his unworthiness and vowing to get his
own back (Heathcliff, Steerpike, Uriah Heep).  I wouldn't feel a bit
surprised if we get this storyline with Snape leading up to his
joining the DE's.  Although there's alternate storylines that could
also work-- I'm quite fond of support-of-the-family Snape, where his
mother or other relations were counting on him to make something of
himself and rescue the family from poverty.  He seems to be from a
young age a sort of go-to guy for people (at least the much older
Karkaroff instinctively turned to him for 'what are we going to do!!')
and he seems very natural with an air of put-upon responsibility, so I
 wouldn't be surprised if this was the storyline either.

Carol:

 Lucius as a wealthy pureblood
> who doesn't have to work would be naturally condescending to a less
> wealthy but highly talented halfblood whom he regards as his protege
> (the "lapdog" idea) and who has to teach for a living. But
> intellectually and in terms of magical power, Snape is at least his
> equal and Lucius knows it. And Bella, though she won't admit it, is
> flat out afraid of Snape.

Sydney:

Yeah, but to someone like Lucius talent and intellect WOULDN'T make a
half-blood Snape his equal, or to someone like Bella either.  That's
what's mysterious about that whole relationship.


> > Sydney:
I read a very
> cool theory somewhere that the famous significance of Harry having
> Lily's eyes is that that's why he's the only one who can make out the
> > handwriting in the HPB book-- Snape spelled it 'for lily's eyes
> only'! <snip>
>
> Carol:
> All of the references to Lily's eyes have been to their color (and
> once, IMO, to their unusual almond shape). Having Lily's eyes helped
> Harry get the memory from Slughorn. I think we've seen the last of
> that motif in HBP.

Sydney:
Here's the quotage from the horse's mouth:

"Q: Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in your
world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit
like ...
A: Why do you want to know this?
Q: I just vaguely wondered.
A: Why?
Q: Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily
Potter's eyes.
A: Aren't you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I'm
going to say no more, very clever."

So the Lily's eye's thing is some magical thingie.

-- Sydney, feeling smug about remembering to save this post before
hitting send, as yahoo ate it the first time;  unless of course she
winds up double-posting in which case could the mods remove the spare.. 





From Aixoise at snet.net  Mon Nov 13 23:11:14 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (usaixoise)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:11:14 -0000
Subject: The Pensieve was Re: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <20061113170840.15402.qmail@web33213.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ejau2i+nlv5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161485


> Melanie wrote:   
> My reply:  Wow see I forgot this part..I forgot Harry asked about 
his mom.  Hmmm that is interesting.  I suppose one could assume that 
Harry is more than likely going to visit Dumbledore's painting.  Or 
he may go to the pensieve again, perhaps, there are answers in that.
>

Stacey responds:

The thing about the pensieve is that it's not just the receptacle 
that's important.  If I'm not mistaken, memories are bottled up and 
finding where Dumbledore has stored his (out of the reach of LV and 
followers one would expect)would be difficult.  Possibly DD's 
portrait could tell Harry where they're hidden.  

I sincerely think that a trip to the portrait is likely in book 7 as 
well as (on another note) some type of communication with Sirius from 
the beyond (mirror? Nigellus' or Mother Black's, or some other 
portrait at 12 Grimauld place?).

Stacey







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 23:15:51 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:15:51 -0000
Subject: CoS -Harry's knowledge of Lord Voldemort- Post 2
In-Reply-To: <ejak3e+cq7h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejaub7+ncub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161486

> Beatrice wrote:

<SNIP>

> > 10. Hagrid was expelled for opening the chamber and Myrtle was
> > killed on June 13, 1943. (243)

zanooda:

Not that it matters much, but Myrtle was not killed on June 13, IMO, 
but some time earlier. Dippet says to Memory!Tom that he cannot allow 
him to stay at Hogwarts "in light of the recent tragedy... the death of 
that poor little girl..."(p.244 US hardback). It doesn't sound to me 
like it happened this same day. Maybe you are thinking about the movie 
(shhh!), where we actually see the body being carried out.


> Carol:

> I'd forgotten the Medal for Magical Merit, thanks. Odd that no other
> character seems to have received one AFAWK. What chapter is this
> reference in? (I have the American edition and the page numbering is
> different.)

zanooda:

Sorry, I know that this question is not to me, but since I'm already 
writing... Harry wants to find out more about Riddle and finds his name 
on a Medal for Magical Merit on p. 234 US hardback.

While looking for quotes, I noticed something that I never noticed 
before. Diary!Riddle mostly calls himself a memory, but then he says:" 
I decided to leave behind a diary, preserving my sixteen-year-old self 
in its pages..." (p.312). Isn't "self" much more than "a memory"? He 
couldn't have talked about diary being a Horcrux, could he? Or is it 
just a figure of speach? 







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 23:21:34 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:21:34 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ej8t38+l0ua@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejaulu+ruuc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161487

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > First of all, Hermione doesn't have any female friends.  Ginny  
> > comes the closest (and I'll guess that Hermione would call Ginny 
> > her best girlfriend) but Ginny is a very far second to Ron and   
> > Harry.  Ginny might tell Hermione everything.  Hermione does not 
> > return the favor.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> Other than to trust her with the single juiciest bit of gossip in 
> all of Gryffindor Tower (The identity of Victor Krum's date to the 
> Yule ball).  This from a witch who is so good at keeping secrets   
> that her right hand has yet to be informed that she possesses a    
> left hand, much less what it's doing.

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but that's juicy gossip as per Hermione's roommates, the 
giggling girls.  It's not the sort of thing Hermione cares about, 
and the only reason she's keeping quiet about it is to annoy Ron.  
For Hermione, it's not a big secret.  (It's a big secret for Ron, 
but he's more into that sort of thing.)  But when it comes to 
Hermione's big secrets, Ginny doesn't know.  Neither do Ron or Harry 
for that matter.  Not until Hermione wants them to know.  Hermione 
is actually pretty self-sufficient.  I get the sense that she's used 
to, or well able to handle, being by herself.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> The idea that Ginny is not a close friend of Hermione is
> insupportable, even if she doesn't tell Ginny other people's      
> secrets; she doesn't tell anybody else other people's secret's    
> either.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but my point was that Hermione doesn't share *her* secrets with 
Ginny.  Not any big ones, anyway.  And I'm not even saying that 
Ginny isn't a friend to Hermione.  I'm talking about her status, and 
Ginny definitely comes *after* Ron and Harry.  Which is fine.  But 
it makes it hard to say that the relationship between Ginny and 
Hermione is a good example of two close girlfriends.  Neither of the 
two seem to find having a close girlfriend all that important.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > As to her sorting out Harry's love life:  I think she picked up 
> > all of her information on Cho either in the girls' restroom     
> > (*prime* source of that sort of gossip) or may have quizzed      
> > Lavender and Parvati.  But I'm quite sure Hermione did not       
> > figure out all of Cho's issues on her own.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> Because *Hermione Granger* the smartest witch of her generation,   
> isn't going to have any contacts in *Ravenclaw*, nor any insight   
> into the rest of the "smart crowd".  Betsy, think that through.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  As the beginnings of the DA club show us.  It might seem 
logical that the smart chick hangs with the smart kids.  But as per 
the books, she doesn't.  She hangs with Ron and Harry.  

And honestly, since the Gryffindors don't have a single class with 
the Ravenclaws (IIRC), it's not too hard to imagine that Hermione 
knows very little about individuals within Ravenclaw house.

And really, (thinking things through as you've urged me to do, 
Amiable Dorsai, <g>) how on earth would Hermione, with her lack of 
interest in quidditch, have any sort of special understanding about 
Cho's flying record?  Are we supposed to assume Hermione has been 
watching the Ravenclaw games avidly over the years and recognizes 
that Cho isn't flying up to her usual game and is so very interested 
she can't rest until she figures out why?

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> <snip>
> Recently, you described Ron as "the original H/G shipper".  I'm   
> not so sure you haven't nominated the wrong member of the trio for 
> that role.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, was Hermione rooting for H/G earlier than Ron?  It wouldn't 
surprise me if Ginny *told* Hermione that she was hoping Harry asked 
her to the Yule Ball.  But that just signals awareness of a crush.  
Something Ron cottoned onto as early as CoS (possibly even PS/SS).

And Hermione's attitude during GoF seemed much more "goodness this 
boy and girl thing is soo silly" than "this is what hopes and dreams 
are made of!<3!).  For some reason I've always seen Ron as the first 
of the trio to hit sexual awareness or to suddenly realize that boys 
and girls will pair off eventually.

So I think I'll stick to Ron as the original H/G shipper.  But I'm 
open to argument. <g>

> >>Miles:
> > <snip>
> > But do we see groups of boys hanging around, talking or         
> > fighting, like in the PoA film scene mentioned? Rarely - but     
> > real boys do have social interactions with their peer groups,   
> > not only girls.
> > <snip>

> >>Shelley:
> I think you are looking at Harry and Ron, and maybe missing Malfoy 
> and his gang. Boys do fight, and such, and we definitely see that 
> with Dudley and his gang, and with Malfoy and his gang. Harry and 
> Ron don't get into fights? Baloney- they are tempted to in the    
> many scenes when Malfoy confronts them...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Not to speak for Miles, but I was under the impression he wasn't 
talking full out fighting with intent to really harm, but the sort 
of playful tussling that boys will often engage in with their 
friends.  (Which is what the PoA film scene shows.)

It's the kind of thing I think Harry and Ron *would* get into with 
their dormmates (towel fights, wrestling matches, king of the castle 
type stuff) and certainly with each other.  Ron, with his many 
brothers, would automatically start that sort of behavior, I'd 
think.  And I doubt Harry is so socially maimed that he wouldn't 
join in.

JKR doesn't write any such scenes into the books.  The movie 
directors (and if I remember some interviews correctly, the actors) 
have thrown such interactions into the films.  However, I'm not sure 
I'd say that JKR didn't write such scenes in because she's unaware 
of boys' normal behavior.

Within the books I don't think there's a single interaction that 
doesn't somehow go towards the plot.  The only reason we get 
giggling groups of girls is because it hampers Harry's ability to 
approach Cho.  There's not a reason to show what Harry and his 
dormmates get up to because it doesn't go towards the plot.

[Though there's that scene in OotP when Harry realizes that Seamus 
thinks he's probably lying about Voldemort.  It's not a friendly 
scene but I thought it played out fairly true to how boys interact.  
What was interesting (to me, anyway) was Ron's easy assumption of 
power there.]

I think we're supposed to read those types of scenes in whenever Ron 
and Harry go flying together at the Burrow, or when the guys 
disappear into their dorms at night and Harry's not stressed out 
about something.  Kind of like bathing -- we don't see Harry do it, 
but we assume it's happened.

Betsy Hp





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 13 23:31:53 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:31:53 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys/ Dark Magic and Snape
In-Reply-To: <ejatnh+g18i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejav99+d796@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161488

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Sydney:
> > > Then there's that JKR's placed Snape in an industrial northern town.
> > >  That carries a lot of baggage-- there were huge race riots in the
> > mill town of Bradford in the mid-nineties, Yorkshire is the stronghold
> > > of the British National Party, and it's also where the 7/7 bombers
> > > were from.  
> 
> > Carol:
> > "Race" in what sense? If you mean the antagonism between Yorkshire and
> > the southern counties, you can see that in the era of Richard III, who
> > died in 1485, and probably before. As you say, it's a class thing, not
> > race, with the Southerners regarding the Northerners as almost
> > barbarians and the Northerners seeing the Southerners as soft and
> > corrupt.
 
Geoff:
For information, Richard III was involved in the Wars of the Roses which were 
between the houses of Lancaster and York both of which were in the North.

My mother came from Lancashire, where I grew up; my father was a 
Yorkshireman so I'm a genuine Tudor with very firm Northern roots.
:-)





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Mon Nov 13 23:55:29 2006
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:55:29 -0000
Subject: FILK: Slish Slash
Message-ID: <ejb0lh+hjgm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161489

Despite the title, this is a purely Canonic filk, and goes along with 
the current discussion on Chapter 24

Slish Slash (HBP, Chap. 24) 

To the tune of Bobby Darrin's Splish Splash

Darrin's rendition of this song can be heard on this you-tube video 
(ignore the silly visuals)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O_wFfguwUI

THE SCENE: The Sixth Floor Restroom.  HARRY describes a deadly 
encounter with Draco, and an even deadlier encounter with Snape 

HARRY:
Sneak snap, I was checking the map
Looking for a dot of Draco
The Malfoy boy in the toilet gave an "Oy!"
Makin' ev'ry tear-duct to flow

As I stepped in the john, Draco pulled out his wand
I ducked a Crucio curse
>From that Slytherin blonde, and then-a
Slish, slash! A Prince curse in a flash!
Well, how was I to know just what a Sectumsempra does?

There was a-slashing and a-slicing
Hurting and a-spurting, bleeding and a-bleating
Moanin' and a Myrtlin', yeah!

(Myrtle plays a sax solo, as Draco writhes in time to the music)

Thunk thud, he's all drenched in blood
Myrtle gave a deafening shriek, yeah!
Ill will, I did not mean to kill
Draco M. with Half-Blood techniques

There was Sevvy Snape in a royal stew
She hurtled, Miss Myrtle, straightaway down the loo 
A-well-a, slish slash, he healed up that gash
He went and used his magical charms, yay...

He was a-humming and a-healing, litany made o' dittany, 
Progressin' convalescin', barrin' all the scarrin', yeah!

(Snape picks up the sax left behind by Myrtle, and plays a solo as he 
escorts Draco to Madam Pomfrey ? HARRY resumes his vocal as Snape 
returns)

Yes, he was a-glaring and a-growling
I was Legilimencing sensing, yeah
He was inspecting and dissecting, woo!
He was accusing my perusing
He was convincing I'd been Princing
Looking through my booking
Slish, slash, yeah!

Yes, I'm not commencin' Occlumencin' (one time!)
He is a-dealing out detentions, woo wee!
He is a-quitting me from Quidditch 
Yes, he was a-glaring and a-growling

.

    -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 13 23:57:46 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 23:57:46 -0000
Subject: Snape and the Malfoys (was:Re: JKR and the boys/ Dark Magic and Snape)
In-Reply-To: <ejatnh+g18i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejb0pq+f6gh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161490

> >>Sydney:
> I guess I'm just rolling with how JKR has presented the character 
> so far-- he lives in a row house in a crap town, when he was a kid 
> he was neglected and unrefined (he's swearing a blue streak, not   
> using the cool cutting insults he does now), he now has a slightly
> inappropriately formal way of speaking, he's a schoolmaster who   
> puts on airs, he's hypersensitive about people respecting him and 
> calling him 'sir'.  For me this all adds up into... rats, I have   
> to use the word again-- maybe not a cliche but a familiar         
> character from the sort of fiction JKR habitiually draws from.    
> The working-class lad made good. 
> <snip>
> Yeah, but to someone like Lucius talent and intellect WOULDN'T    
> make a half-blood Snape his equal, or to someone like Bella        
> either.  That's what's mysterious about that whole relationship.

Betsy Hp:
Personally, I *love* the idea of Snape as a Northern boy (lad? 
boy?).  It provides such cool depth to him, plus it adds weight to 
the punkrock!Snape I have lingering in the back of my head (favorite 
form of Snape, EVER)...  but I digress.

I'll admit that I'm fascinated by the relationship between the 
Malfoys and Snape.  From the tiny little hints and glimpses we've 
seen, Lucius and Snape seem to have a good working relationship.  
Which does contradict Snape's background (even just the half-blood 
part) and Lucius's prejudices.

And I wonder...  Through the books I've read (and that's my only way 
of understanding the British class system -- very hard for an 
American to grasp, I think) the upperclass could be very pragmatic 
at times.  If need be they could embrace the "working-class lad made 
good".  I'm thinking about Lord Peter Wimsey and the police officer 
guy (can't remember his name) who often worked with him and 
eventually married into the family.

Of course, Peter Wimsey was a good guy and not a part of any class 
cult (unless you could count his dinner club? <g>).  But Dorothy 
Sayers was writing in the 1920's time period you mentioned, Sydney.  
And perhaps something happened after Voldemort disappeared that made 
Lucius see Snape in a whole new light.

The difficulty is that we're dealing with a family we've got so 
little insight into, and Snape.  Talk about blind men and the 
elephant!  But Snape really did seem to take the position of Malfoy 
family protector in the Spinner's End chapter.  If the WW works 
anything like posited in my second most favorite HP essay here:

http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/7250.html

Perhaps an argument could be made that Lucius's position as Patron 
was harmed by his link to Voldemort after the fall.  Perhaps Snape 
agreed to step in as a sort of silent partner.  Especially with 
Snape so well positioned next to Dumbledore (the most powerful 
Patron at that time).  If Lucius was pragmatic enough (and Voldemort 
seemed to describe him as such) I think he'd be willing to treat, 
and even perhaps see to an extent, Snape as an equal.  Especially if 
Snape seemed willing to play the game (stay true to pureblood 
traditions, etc.).

And Snape, in turn, would think well of the family that took him 
under their wing, despite his questionable background.  Because he 
really seems fond of Draco and seemed very patient and kind with 
Narcissa.

Betsy Hp (feeling a bit babbly today)





From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Nov 14 00:09:50 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:09:50 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ejahob+asun@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejb1ge+cbps@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161491

Pippin:
> In that case it sounds to me as though Snape was arguing that he 
> should abandon the watchful waiting strategy and deal with Draco 
> more directly, but he couldn't do it without compromising his double
> agent role, which Dumbledore was not willing to permit.

Abergoat asks:
But was it possible for Snape to deal 'directly' with Draco? I'm not
sure if the vow allows that. What type of action are you thinking
Snape wanted to take? Could be an interesting direction!


Sydney wrote:

> I suspect some sort of play on words too-- Hagrid says, ".. and then
> he said summat abou' Snape makin' investigations in his house, in
> Slytherin."  Maybe the Slytherin is Salazar Slytherin, and Hagrid is
> interpolating the 'House' part?  Because not long after that
> Dumbledore locates the Slytherin Horcrux, so maybe Snape had some
> access to information on Salazar that was helpful.  Because he's the
> current head of House?

Abergoat writes:

Definitely interesting speculation, we know that Dumbledore is trying
to find horcruxes and he knows that Voldemort has Slytherin's locket
and DD is confident the locket became a horcrux...  Doesn't Dumbledore
say something about quick thinking on Snape's part saving Dumbledore's
life from the ring? So it is possible Snape knows what Dumbledore is
doing and they were talking about the continuing search...

Or perhaps Eileen Prince was the owner of the Ravenclaw relic and
Dumbledore is telling Snape he needs to search the house that his
mother was murdered in and THAT is what Snape objects to...hey, all
those 'old, leather bound' books (suggesting 'expensive') seems to be
a clue to me! 

I'm rather fond of the idea that Dumbledore trusts Snape completely
because he knows that Snape learned Voldemort killed Eileen
Prince...and blamed the murder on someone else because it was a
horcrux murder. Dumbledore certainly stressed this in HBP, suggesting
that in book seven we will learn the other relics were obtained in
similar fashion - one or more murders and a murderer 'caught' for each
remaining relic (perhaps only one, Ravenclaw's).

Abergoat





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 00:16:50 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:16:50 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ejarkl+9njo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejb1ti+lc0b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161492

> >>Magpie:
> > I agree--but to address what Betsy said in those first          
> > sentences, I think "werewolf" refers to a man who changes into a 
> > wolf etc., so Lupin actually is a Dark creature whether he's    
> > human or not.  An actual wolf, even a rabid one, would not be a 
> > Dark Creature, I don't think, just an animal. It may almost be   
> > thought of as a possession--the regular human is possessed by   
> > this dark spirit that causes it to do things, and thus becomes a 
> > Dark Creature as well.
> > <snip>

> >>a_svirn:
> I think your analogy is exactly right ? the curse of lycanthropy   
> does bear a strong resemblance to possession.  The trouble is that 
> no one usually thinks the possessed persons "dark" or evil. They   
> are regarded as *victims* of Evil, not agents of it.

Betsy Hp:
Not in the WW though.  At least, not when it comes to werewolves.  
My understanding is that once a human is infected with the werewolf 
curse, they *become* Dark Creatures.  They are, by definition (and 
legally apparently) Dark.  As such they *are* considered agents of 
evil.  That's why Lupin couldn't teach, why he has such a hard time 
finding a job, and why he had to be snuck into Hogwarts.

> >>a_svirn:
> And the same goes for werewolves. It is a human Grayback  who is   
> malicious and whose intent is wicked, not a wolf Grayback, after   
> all. A wolf Grayback is just insane ? doesn't know what he does   
> and why. Which brings us to back to the supposed intent-darkness   
> correlation. Either we have to agree ? rather lamely ? that       
> werewolves are actually a special case, an exception from that    
> rule, or we have to face the possibility that we've been going    
> with a false premise.

Betsy Hp:
Well, my argument has been that there isn't a clear delineation 
between good magic and dark magic.  That is depends to a large 
extent on the fashion of the times.

Werewolves have been designated Dark Creatures by the MoM.  As per 
the WW's political center, Lupin is a Dark Creature, full moon or 
no.  And if Grayback wasn't a werewolf, but still liked to eat 
people, he'd be sick and wrong, but not automatically dark.

An argument was made (by Shelley, I think?) that the difference 
between dark magic and good magic rests on intent.  But since intent 
is so hard to read, the WW shied away from spells they felt only 
those with bad intent would use.  Which would give certain spells a 
bad reputation and lead to them being labeled "dark".

But it still comes down to fallible human-beings deciding what magic 
is okay and what magic is dark.  Very unlike the Star Wars universe 
where the Dark Side is dark by its own virtues, not public opinion.  
In Potterverse the intent of the werewolf on the night of the full 
moon leads to the possesed human being labeled dark.

Betsy Hp





From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 14 00:38:36 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:38:36 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
References: <ejarkl+9njo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005201c70785$39458290$cf98400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161493

a_svirn:
I think your analogy is exactly right - the curse of lycanthropy does
bear a strong resemblance to possession.  The trouble is that no one
usually thinks the possessed persons "dark" or evil. They are
regarded as *victims* of Evil, not agents of it. And the same goes
for werewolves. It is a human Grayback  who is malicious and whose
intent is wicked, not a wolf Grayback, after all. A wolf Grayback is
just insane - doesn't know what he does and why. Which brings us to
back to the supposed intent-darkness correlation. Either we have to
agree - rather lamely - that werewolves are actually a special case,
an exception from that rule, or we have to face the possibility that
we've been going with a false premise.

Magpie:
I wonder if that is meant to mirror the problems with the way they're dealt 
in canon.  I mean, it seems to me that werewolves being classified the way 
they are is seen by JKR as a misconception. Lupin *shouldn't* be judged as 
anything but the man he is, with a condition that's not his fault but can be 
controlled.  Fenrir, too, should be judged by his human self (which is bad).

So we're kind of back to Dark being a "I know it when I see it" sort of 
thing.  Werewolves almost seem to be dark because they disturb people.

Sydney:

Anyways-- my point, if I had a point, is that we've been introduced to a new 
'set' and this set has been attached to Snape.  The 'Burrow' set
of the cottage overrun with healthy children brings its associations and 
expectations, the 'island prison' set of Sirius Black ditto, the 'identikit 
suburban house' of the Dursleys ditto.  Whether this is Snape's childhood 
home or not (I very much think it is), JKR painted
this cliche set-- and I mean cliche in the warmest possible way!--with some 
care.

Magpie:
Makes one see why JKR tried so hard and was disappointed to have to drop the 
Theo Nott/Draco Malfoy scene. People mostly focus on her description for 
what it tells us about Theo Nott, but I think one of the reasons JKR said 
she wanted to include it was to show Draco's home and how different it was 
from Harry's.  The Manor House set.

BetsyHP:
And Snape, in turn, would think well of the family that took him under their 
wing, despite his questionable background.  Because he really seems fond of 
Draco and seemed very patient and kind with Narcissa.

Magpie:
I've never been able to figure out his history with Draco either. In CoS 
when Draco was offering to put in a good word for Snape at home I thought as 
far as Draco knew Snape and Lucius didn't know each other. But by HBP you'd 
think Draco knew more about the history.  Though who knows?  I guess mostly 
it's hard to believe Draco wouldn't have made a point of showing everybody 
he knew Snape the first day if he actually had known him. So possibly this 
relationship never led to Snape coming to the house. Or perhaps he and 
Lucius have kept their distance over the years, while still managing to 
maintain a connection almost through signals--Lucius speaking highly of 
Snape and Snape hearing about it, Draco reporting how much he likes Snape.

Yeah, I'm dying to know exactly what Snape and Lucius' relationship is. 
Honestly, you can't have Sirius throw in a line about Snape being somebody's 
lapdog without some explanation given the relationship we see. Perhaps 
Draco's storming out the moment Snape brought Lucius up in HBP was more than 
just a signal to Draco's feelings, but also one of JKR's little hint/covers.

-m 





From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Mon Nov 13 23:42:44 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 00:42:44 +0100
Subject: JKR and the boys
References: <ej8b7i+r9al@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <016801c7077d$6d9fbcc0$15b2a8c0@miles>

No: HPFGUIDX 161494

justcarol67 wrote:
> Now, I do think that Hermione did a good job of
> explaining Cho's complex feelings, but I'm not sure it was in
> character for her to do so. She shows very little empathy most of the
> time (e.g., her reaction to the death of Lavender's pet rabbit). The
> only feelings we see her express are hurt when Ron's words or actions
> offend her and anger and the desire for revenge on numerous occasions.

Miles:
My point is not whether Hermione is a positive character we can like. I
simply think her social and emotional capacities are described in a more
detailed and realistic way than those of Harry. I really don't see why it
should be out of character for her to know about Cho's feelings - she simply
talked to other girls, knows about how they feel in similar situations. We
quite often learn about her "life as a girl" in her peer group, not
directly, but through her talking about other girls.

justcarol67 wrote:
> I will say, though that there are reasons why Hermione would have a
> better grasp on some social situations than Ron and Harry despite
> being an only child. For one thing, she's a girl and girls mature
> earlier than boys, not to mention that she's almost a full year older
> than Harry. For another, she's probably been exposed to a wider social
> circle than either boy even though I'd guess that she's never been
> popular.

Miles:
Possible reasons, but does it really can make such a big difference, that
both boys are more or less foolish and she is doing quite well? I doubt -
there are good reasons for both Harry and Ron being a special kind of
experts concerning social behaviour, so I'd expect maybe an even game.

justcarol67 wrote:
> Maybe there are fewer fistfights and less
> swearing and sex talk than we'd expect among teenage boys,

Miles:
There are none!

justcarol67 wrote:
> but after
> all, these are kids' books and JKR is trying to limit the sexual
> relationships to "snogging" and to leave any curse words worse than
> "damn" unspecified.

Miles:
This is really another topic. I think there would have been better ways than
just ignoring sexuality at all.

justcarol67 wrote:
> Granted, most teenage boys don't ascribe their jealousy and sexual
> attraction to monsters in their insides, JKR's rather unfortunate and
> overused metaphor in HBP. But teenage romance is not her forte.

Miles:
It's a big black spot in her talent (which is otherwise extraordinary).

Charles Walker Jr wrote:
> I think that one of the reasons we don't see a lot of those
> interactions and rounded out character development is a time thing.
> What we need to remember is days and weeks of Hogwarts life are
> snipped out of the story because they just aren't that relevant to the
> ultimate story of Harry and Voldietwit having to eventually try to off
> each other face to face. (...)
> My point, I trust is clear. While some of the stuff that gets cut are
> things we'd love to know, they don't figure into the story she's
> ultimately trying to tell, and thus get the ax, either preemptively by
> not ever getting written, or in editing, either by JKR herself acting
> alone or in concert with her editors.

Miles;
I would not expect extra chapters, just small scenes - that would have been
more than enough. Besides - why do you think the filmmakers, who had to cut
lots of stuff from the books ADDED scenes that characterise boys and Harry
as a boy among others? The dormitory scene, the twins giving Harry the map
in PoA; the tent scene after the Quidditch final, the dancing scene with
McGonagall in GoF. Obviously they missed something that is necessary for the
plot - to show that Harry is member of a group of other boys. I miss this in
the books, don't you?

> Nicole:
> Did you read OOTP yet? Boys fighting?  Look at Harry & Draco &
> quidditch match?
> What you also have to realize in the sexuality part, is that she
> started this book for kids books that adults happen to read.  My 10
> year old has read up to HPB (just started) and he LOVES HP, but I can
> tell you if there was any thing sexual in them, he wouldn't be
> reading them, they wouldn't be in any school libraries, and the
> movies wouldn't be movies kids could go see.  She has to tone it
> down.  But you also have to remember, boys raised in cuboards
> probably lack a little experience in the girls vs. boys department.

Miles:
I read all the books at least twice. I don't think we can see Harry vs.
Draco as "boy fights". They fight for Gryffindor and Slytherin, Good and
Evil, Dumbledore and Voldemort - that's a different thing.
Concerning sexuality - well, you can write about it in a way both kids and
Puritans won't mind rather than not mention it at all. JKR can't, which is a
pity.

> bboyminn:
> I see this /mistake/ being made many many times with
> regard to artists, social commentators, and authors in
> the real world, some how the overly liberal 'do gooders'
> (no offense intended to anyone) some how think it is this
> /persons/ job to create a universally postive universally
> complete portrayal of whatever the 'objector' is objecting
> to. Sadly, it is NOT.

Miles:
The only thing I ask for is a realistic insight into a boy's thoughts and
social life. I do not mind about what a boy should be or not.

> bboyminn:
> JKR's job is not to create a univerally positive and
> universally complete picture of ALL boy and ALL girls. It
> is her job to create the characters of Hermione, Ron, and
> Harry along with their /individual/ personalities /within/
> the confines and context of the story.

Miles:
And she fails with "her" boys. Each individual shows signs of the groups he
is a part of - especially his gender group. JRK *tries* to show it - the
boys are dump, don't understand anything and we do not see any sign of 'boy
groups' at all. Girls are emotional experts, are sensitive and act as parts
of social groups, i.e. peer groups. Well.

k12listmomma wrote:
> I think you are looking at Harry and Ron, and maybe missing Malfoy
> and his
> gang. Boys do fight, and such, and we definitely see that with Dudley
> and
> his gang, and with Malfoy and his gang. Harry and Ron don't get into
> fights? Baloney- they are tempted to in the many scenes when Malfoy
> confronts them (as a bully) in the hallway or in Potions class, and
> in most of those scenes
> that Rowling writes, there is a teacher nearby that prevents them from
> really going at it, or Hermione is there to nag them to behave.
> Malfoy baits

Miles:
Sorry, you missed my point. I spoke about fights IN the peer group. And not
only physical fights - to see who is the "alpha Gryffindor" in his year, and
in the entire House. Now, where do we see anything like that?

Geoff Bannister wrote:
> Coming up to the current thread, we have to remember that we are
> only seeing part of the Hogwarts year. In Philosopher's Stone for
> example, out of a 45-46 week year if you count the Christmas and
> Easter holidays as well as the three terms, how much time do we
> really share with the Trio?

Miles:
I have to repeat what I posted earlier in this mail: The films are even
shorter, but they show more "boy's social life" than the books. Why?

Geoff Bannister cited:
>> JKR nailed male relationships very well with this one. For
>> women, a good friend is someone with whom they can cry,
>> share emotions, discuss whatever. To a man (at least in
>> Teens and Tweens) a good friend is someone who is there,
>> shows loyalty and doesn't pry into emotional issues. The girls
>> (Hermy, Cho, Jenny) are the one that keeps bringing up the
>> topics Harry wants to avoid (death, dreams, etc). Neville's
>> comment after Sirius dies is as intimate a question as any
>> guy would get with another guy. If Ron were asking the
>> questions that Hermione asks and Harry didn't blow his top,
>> then I'd say the people who think Harry is light in the loafers
>> may have a leg to stand on.

Miles:
Who exactly are the male friends of Harry? Who are the boys he relates to in
a non-superficial way? Where are the boys he is hanging around with apart
from Quidditch practice and school lessons?

Miles, who really likes to see so many replies to his original post. It's so
easy, just post a critical remark about JKR, and loads of people can't keep
their fingers off the keyboards ;)




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 14 01:02:38 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:02:38 -0000
Subject: Snape Believes Harry is Chosen One? (Re: '...He was taking too much...)
In-Reply-To: <eja9po+kqhk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejb4je+kfjc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161495

Carol:
> As for not wanting to help Harry in the final confrontation, I
> don't see how that's consistent with DDM!Snape, who is going back
> to Voldemort for exactly that reason, as far as we can guess, and
> giving Harry last-minute advice, saving him from a Crucio, and not
> taking the opportunity to either kill or kidnap him.

Jen: It's plausible Snape can be DDM and still not think Harry will 
defeat Voldemort, it's the same way Harry can be DDM and not believe 
in Snape!  I believed *everything* Snape said about Harry in 
Spinner's End, that he considers him a mediocre wizard to the last 
and that likely until the defeat of the Basilisk, Snape wondered if 
Harry was a budding Dark Wizard (Parselmouth).  In his own mind he 
doubts Harry will be the one to bring LV down, heck, Snape may even 
secretly believe *he* will be the one to bring LV down.  He's loyal 
to Dumbledore and has been watching over Harry for him, but not for 
a minute do I think he's 100% simpatico with Dumbledore that Harry 
is the Chosen One.  As usual DD hasn't shared all the information, 
most notably the full contents of the Prophecy, so once again 
someone is relying only on Dumbledore's word.

Snape returned to Voldemort because he is loyal to Dumbledore and 
because he has no other choice but to be a spy if he doesn't want to 
join Voldemort for good.  No one else in the WW will give him the 
second chance DD has and he will be killed if he doesn't at least 
make the pretense of returning to Voldemort. His choices are being 
dragged into the arena or walking in there himself, oddly enough.

Snape isn't interested in murdering, torturing or kidnapping Harry, 
though he probably wished he could expel him during that run across 
the grounds <g>.  I think he bitterly resents Harry, but that's no 
reason to want him dead.  And if there's even an *outside* chance 
Harry knows something about defeating Voldemort from Dumbledore, or 
the even smaller possibility Harry *is* the Chosen One, well, there 
are many reasons to keep him alive and intact. 

I see big surprises for Harry in Book 7 when he realizes Snape is 
not who he thought he was, but I'm betting on an equally big 
surprise for Snape when he discovers Dumbledore was right about 
Harry. 

Jen R.





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 14 01:17:57 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:17:57 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted
In-Reply-To: <eja9po+kqhk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejb5g5+gn8m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161496

Carol comments:
> I agree with Jen that Snape isn't a whiner, but I also agree with
> zgirnius that Snape must have seen following Draco as futile at
> this point <snipped good list of reasons why it was futile>. 

zgirnius:
> I forgot to say-I think Snape is arguing for a more direct 
> intervention, instead of continuing to soft-pedal the issue. It is
> my opinion that Dumbledore always planned a confrontation with 
> Draco such as the one he actually got (only, minus the Death
> Eaters!), in which he would make Draco understand that 'he is not a
> killer', and then offer him preotection. And Snape was beginning
> to fear that Dumbledore, in assuming that Snape could prevent a
> disaster before that confrontation took place, was taking too much
> for granted. 

Jen:  OK, these two points help explain how the fight could have 
been about Draco.  Snape *wasn't* whining then--I'm so relieved<g>--
instead he could have been expressing a legitimate 
doubt: "Dumbledore, I've done everything you've asked of me, but if 
you think I can discover what Draco is up to from tailing him or 
questioning those useless goons, Crabbe and Goyle, then you are..... 
mistaken.  You take [ME] too much for granted.'  'Now Severus, back 
to work dear man, you promised and you must know my plan will work 
given my prodigious brain power.'  (Hehe, sorry, couldn't resist.  
Now everyone knows why I don't write fan fiction.)

Abergoat had a question about 'investigations into your own house', 
wondering how that would fit in with the rest of the fight.  If the 
above is true then this comment could have been Dumbledore reminding 
Snape that there are others in Slytherin House who might have 
knowledge about Draco's task, either directly from Draco (Pansy 
comes to mind) or from overhearing something he said. I do like the 
play on words, though, 'your house' as in Spinner's End. 

Jen R.








From gav_fiji at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 01:45:43 2006
From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:45:43 -0000
Subject: CoS -Harry's knowledge of Lord Voldemort- Post 2
In-Reply-To: <ejacof+df4r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejb747+s848@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161497

> Beatrice:
> B. Mr. Borgin runs the shop (no information on Mr. or Ms. Burke)

Goddlefrood:

Well, not at that stage, but now that the books have progressed 
somewhat we have been introduced to Caractacus Burke, Borgin's 
partner. I would suggest that when looking at information in the 
books it is not always useful to look at the facts in isolation. 
Dumbledore himself would indubitably agree with me on this point, 
which is why he uses the Pensieve to seek patterns.

> Beatrice:
> G. Borgin believes in the importance of wizarding blood.

Goddlefrood:

I thought this was somewhat of a fop to Malfoy. Borgin's actual views 
have not been made clear. What has come through about this, so far 
and probably to remain minor character, is that he agrees with 
whomsoever he is talking to but his real opinions are withheld.

> Beatrice:
> 3. Access to the Chamber of Secrets is rumored to be limited
> only to the heir of Slytherin (Slytherin's descendents) (131)

Goddlefrood:

Not so, or so I recall. It was rumoured that only Slytherin's heir 
could open the Chamber but it was not only he / she who could access 
it.

> Beatrice: 
> 4a. Nearly Headless Nick died in 1492 which is 500 years exactly 
from the opening of CoS (133).

His date of death was 31st October 1492, not exactly 500 years from 
the beginning of CoS. All subsequent timelines have been worked out 
from this date, which remians (correct me if I'm wrong) the only 
exact date specified in canon up to the point reached.

> Beatrice
> 5. Tom Marvolo Riddle kept a "blank" diary, purchased in
> Vauxhall Road, London, dating back 50 years prior to the year that
> the Chamber was last opened (231)

Goddlefrood:

The diary was not kept blank, although the wrapping of quotations 
indicates the true meaning well enough. The mechanism for the diary 
being ostensibly blank, in that the entries do not show, has not 
been, and probably will not, be revealed.

> Beatrice: 
> 9. Riddle used "magic" to leave his memories in the diary. He is
> able to "speak" to people who write on the pages (240) (We know 
know that the magic in question here is the horcrux TR encased in the 
> diary - probably after Myrtle's death -HBP).

Goddlefrood:

Do we actually know this? Would not the diary act in the same way if 
the Horcrux were not present? This has not been explained.

> Beatrice:
> 10. Hagrid was expelled for opening the chamber and Myrtle was 
killed on June 13, 1943. (243)

Goddlefrood:

Where did this date come from? Is it from one of the timelines 
wortked out by fans perhaps? No firm date was stated in the book and 
if, as is purported, these posts derive from the books only, then 
should such unverified information be included, and does it progress 
any detection in any event?

> Beatrice:
> A. We know that TR leaves the orphanage to murder his father in
> the summer of his 6th year (one year later). Does he go back to the
> orphanage? Does he leave it at any other time during those
> summers? Does he visit Grindelwald?

Goddlefrood:

Wasn't it in the summer of his fifth year that he murdered his father 
and grandparents? The information regarding what Tom Riddle did while 
at school is all but complete. Better clues might come from 
discussion of what he did between leaving Borgin & Burkes's 
employment and his re-emergence into the wizarding world with a 
vastly changed appearance and name.





From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 02:47:36 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 02:47:36 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ejacge+4c36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejbao8+3lgd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161498

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> Personally, I am positively stunned by how well JKR
> captures the inner landscape of her male characters. I
> think it is a stunning achievement, and a task she
> succeeds at far better than most other female authors.
>
> Remember, you heard it here first.
>
>

Well, I guess this is just one of those areas where many of us will
never understand where the other side is coming from.  I have often
found JKR's grasp of emotions and emotional psychology to be so
laughably bad as to inspire nothing but derision.  Especially in HBP
her dealing with Harry's emotions were so unbelievable I couldn't
credit that she thought anyone could  buy it.

As has been pointed out in the past, the problem is that JKR's
characters react as they have to react in order for the plot to go in
a certain way, not in ways that are believable, understandable, or in
any way satisfying for the reader.  So, for instance, Harry is deeply
affected by Cedric's death but he shrugs off Sirius' demise with an
incredibly silly stiff-upper-lip speech.  Yeah, right.  All the
issues between him and Dumbledore are swept firmly under the rug with
three sentences.  Excuse me while I engage in incredulous laughter at
the bad writing.

JKR often confuses detail with completeness.  Her plots, for
instance, are incredibly detailede, but often filled with huge,
gaping holes.  Similarly her characters' reactions are worked out in
detailed ways that are dictated by the plot, not believable or well-
written in terms of believing in the characters -- much less in terms
of buying the messages she tries to send about how we are supposed to
view the characters.


Lupinlore






From cindiknits at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 01:53:56 2006
From: cindiknits at yahoo.com (cindiknits)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:53:56 -0000
Subject: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
Message-ID: <ejb7jk+imhh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161499

I'm sure this question doesn't rise to the level of much of the
discourse on this list (I'm amazed at the depth of thought everyone
puts into their posts), but I'm wondering:  if Tom Riddle hated his
father and his father's name so much, why did he make an anagram out
of that very name when he decided to create a new name for himself? A
name he hoped would someday strike fear into the heart of everyone who
heard it. In one of the books (CofS?) He comments to the effect "Do
you think I was going to keep my filthy muggle father's name"? But
really, he did keep his father's name, even though he could have
called himself anything. So in a way, he's paying homage to a person
he supposedly hated. I did a quick search of the archives but didn't
find a discussion of this specific point. Doesn't anyone but me find
this interesting?

cindiknits






From darksworld at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 03:46:57 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 03:46:57 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <016801c7077d$6d9fbcc0$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <ejbe7h+t891@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161500

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at ...> wrote:
> justcarol67 wrote:
> > but after
> > all, these are kids' books and JKR is trying to limit the sexual
> > relationships to "snogging" and to leave any curse words worse 
than
> > "damn" unspecified.
> 
> Miles:
> This is really another topic. I think there would have been better 
ways than
> just ignoring sexuality at all.
>
Charles:
I don't see sexuality being ignored as such, I see it being shunted 
aside in order to push ahead the story. The snogging is all we see, 
because that is all that someone in the peer group is likely to let 
others see. I remember vividly Ginny's description of Ron and 
Lavender "Thrashing around like a pair of eels." *That* in my opinion 
is a big hint that there are further elements of sexuality in the 
castle we don't see.

> Charles Walker Jr wrote:
> > I think that one of the reasons we don't see a lot of those
> > interactions and rounded out character development is a time 
thing.
<snip>
> 
> Miles;
> I would not expect extra chapters, just small scenes - that would 
have been
> more than enough. Besides - why do you think the filmmakers, who 
had to cut
> lots of stuff from the books ADDED scenes that characterise boys 
and Harry
> as a boy among others? The dormitory scene, the twins giving Harry 
the map
> in PoA; the tent scene after the Quidditch final, the dancing scene 
with
> McGonagall in GoF. Obviously they missed something that is 
necessary for the
> plot - to show that Harry is member of a group of other boys. I 
miss this in
> the books, don't you?
> 
Charles:
Actually, I don't. I think that it is going on behind the scenes for 
the most part. Also, I think even if we did see it in the books, 
Harry would most likely be on the fringes of it because of the load 
he carries. As far as the scenes added in the movies (sorry List 
elves, one brief statement then I'll get off it.) I think they were 
more of something for the lowest common denominator- those who cannot 
deal with Harry being a boy without that kind of scene. (This is not 
intended as an insult, please don't take it as such.) As far as them 
having to cut stuff, they cut a lot of stuff they shouldn't have that 
will have to be dealt with in a new way to move parts of the story in 
OotP and HBP- the house elf stuff. 

Back to the topic at hand, I think that Harry is a boy, but not 
necessarily a member of a group other than the trio. I mean, his 
first year, he was trying to find out about the stone, his second, 
who was trying to kill muggleborns and what the strange voices he 
kept hearing were, and in his third he was worried about someone 
breaking into the castle past a horde of dementors to off him. Then 
comes fourth year, he gets thrown into yet another situation that 
threatens his life. After fourth year, he knows that his greatest 
enemy is back and trying to kill not just him, but a lot of other 
people. I think I can forgive Harry for not being a typical boy- he 
just doesn't have the bloody time. That is not to say that there is 
none of the stuff you're looking for behind the scenes, just that it 
wouldn't figure greatly in Harry's life, just as it doesn't figure in 
the books. 

Add to that the fact that not all boys have quite that kind of 
relationship with their friends. I didn't. Most of my relationships 
were with people like myself who read a lot and played with computers 
and electronics for fun. In short, geek relationships are a bit 
different. And let's face it, Harry is a sort of geek. A battle geek, 
yes, but he's got other things on his mind rather than trying to be 
normal and fit in, no matter how bad he wants to, or at least thinks 
he wants to. 

> Miles:
<snip> I don't think we can see Harry vs.
> Draco as "boy fights". They fight for Gryffindor and Slytherin, 
Good and
> Evil, Dumbledore and Voldemort - that's a different thing.

Charles:
No, Harry fights Draco because he insults Harry's mother as well as 
the Weasleys.

> Concerning sexuality - well, you can write about it in a way both 
kids and
> Puritans won't mind rather than not mention it at all. JKR can't, 
which is a
> pity.

Charles:
JKR does, but using subtextual clues rather than blatant mentions. 
Granted, this is a sensual rather than sexual description, but the 
whole time stop thing when Harry and Ginny first kiss is packed with 
sexuality. The whole "several sunlit days" thing is, I think as 
blatant as I'd want JKR to get.

> Miles:
> The only thing I ask for is a realistic insight into a boy's 
thoughts and
> social life. I do not mind about what a boy should be or not.
> 

Charles:
Harry is not a typical boy. I find his thought processes fairly 
realistic for the most part. I would say that other than being a 
wizard and a "savior" type, and the being raised by wicked relatives, 
I can identify readily with Harry when I think back on my childhood. 
(Then again, I knew I was atypical even then. I don't, however, think 
for a second that Harry was ever meant to be a typical teenager.)

> Miles:
> <snip> I spoke about fights IN the peer group. And not
> only physical fights - to see who is the "alpha Gryffindor" in his 
year, and
> in the entire House. Now, where do we see anything like that?
> 

Charles:
We don't see it, because Harry doesn't participate. He doesn't care 
to be anybody's leader, he wants peace in between fighting off murder 
attempts. And I will toot this bugle 'til I drop-not all boys behave 
like animals!

> Geoff Bannister wrote:
> > Coming up to the current thread, we have to remember that we are
> > only seeing part of the Hogwarts year. In Philosopher's Stone for
> > example, out of a 45-46 week year if you count the Christmas and
> > Easter holidays as well as the three terms, how much time do we
> > really share with the Trio?
> 
> Miles:
> I have to repeat what I posted earlier in this mail: The films are 
even
> shorter, but they show more "boy's social life" than the books. Why?
> 

Charles:
What you are calling "boys'social life" is the behavior that I 
disdained in my childhood. I hated the jerks who thought that beating 
people up was a good thing and there weren't any "I'm the boss 'cause 
I can beat you up" groups that I was part of. In fact, where I grew 
up, that tended to be limited to one particular subset of boys, we 
called them "jocks," and while the teachers and coaches loved them, 
the majority of the school couldn't stand them.

> Geoff Bannister cited:
> >> JKR nailed male relationships very well with this one. For
> >> women, a good friend is someone with whom they can cry,
> >> share emotions, discuss whatever. To a man (at least in
> >> Teens and Tweens) a good friend is someone who is there,
> >> shows loyalty and doesn't pry into emotional issues. The girls
> >> (Hermy, Cho, Jenny) are the one that keeps bringing up the
> >> topics Harry wants to avoid (death, dreams, etc). Neville's
> >> comment after Sirius dies is as intimate a question as any
> >> guy would get with another guy. If Ron were asking the
> >> questions that Hermione asks and Harry didn't blow his top,
> >> then I'd say the people who think Harry is light in the loafers
> >> may have a leg to stand on.
> 
> Miles:
> Who exactly are the male friends of Harry? Who are the boys he 
relates to in
> a non-superficial way? Where are the boys he is hanging around with 
apart
> from Quidditch practice and school lessons?
> 
Charles:
Ron- his best friend. Any others are incidental because Harry doesn't 
have that many friends. It is shown in several ways. Look at the 
train rides. He keeps looking for people to sit with because he does 
not have that many friends. It seems to be hard for people to fathom, 
but Harry isn't popular, even though he's famous.

> Miles, who really likes to see so many replies to his original 
post. It's so
> easy, just post a critical remark about JKR, and loads of people 
can't keep
> their fingers off the keyboards ;)
>

Charles: 
Spoken like a true troll, Miles.

Charles, who's sick of people claiming that to be male you have to 
act like a wild animal and fight for superiority all the time.






From darksworld at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 03:58:48 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 03:58:48 -0000
Subject: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <ejb7jk+imhh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejbeto+i0tu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161501

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cindiknits" <cindiknits at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm sure this question doesn't rise to the level of much of the
> discourse on this list (I'm amazed at the depth of thought everyone
> puts into their posts), but I'm wondering:  if Tom Riddle hated his
> father and his father's name so much, why did he make an anagram out
> of that very name when he decided to create a new name for himself? 
A
> name he hoped would someday strike fear into the heart of everyone 
who
> heard it. In one of the books (CofS?) He comments to the effect "Do
> you think I was going to keep my filthy muggle father's name"? But
> really, he did keep his father's name, even though he could have
> called himself anything. So in a way, he's paying homage to a person
> he supposedly hated. I did a quick search of the archives but didn't
> find a discussion of this specific point. Doesn't anyone but me find
> this interesting?
> 
> cindiknits
>

Charles:
Unintentional on Voldemort's part, but intentional on JKR's I'm sure, 
it shows the fact that no matter where you go, there you are. He can 
twist it and tweak it all he wants, but at the base, he is still Tom 
Marvolo Riddle.

Charles, who thinks that this point may boomerang around to us in 
book 7





From drdara at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 04:08:19 2006
From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:08:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys
Message-ID: <20061114040820.42451.qmail@web60712.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161502

I think Harry was more affected by Cedric's death for several reasons, one of them being that Cedric was a young man, and a very innocent person, someone whom Harry felt he had killed. Plus, Cedric was the very first person that Harry knew that was killed in front of him. Cedric didn't die in a battle, he was killed like he was just an annoying fly on the wall. Harry felt responsible for his death. On the other hand, Sirius was older, had been through war before. While Harry felt responsible for Sirius's death as well, he was able to move on quicker, because he had just gone through something like this before, and because he knew that is how Sirius wouldv'e wanted to go. Out with a bang. The deaths of different people affect people differently. My dad died this summer, and I am still not over it, and not done dealing. I was very close to him. His death was very unsuspected. I think that if Bill had died, Harry would have been deeply affected too. Cedric was just too young
 and too much a surprise death to Harry.

    And I think people also need to realize that when it comes to movies, the people put in scenes to help fill time, spaces and gaps that lead to the next scene. So the scene with the boys being teenage boys is just that, filler. JKR doens't need to fill time or space like that. She probably thinks we have imaginations and can think that some of this stuff happens, just like we all know they use the toilet and shower and bathe and brush their teeth. Also the daily interactions between Harry and some of the people at Hogwarts just arent' just that important to the story.  

    And Hermione is a hanging out with boys know it all. I should know, I am Hermione. I had maybe 1 real close girlfriend growing up, most of my real good friends were boys. Hermione is a whole year older than most of her classmates, I was too. I found it difficult to get along with the girls in my class because we were on different pages, no common ground. Hermione is like that too. She doens't hang out with Lavendar or Parvati because she doesn't have much of anything in common with them. Hermione is very logical at times and very much a bookworm, and the giggling girls L&P aren't like that. 
    Well that's all for tonight. Nite folks

Danielle, from Colorado 

----- Original Message ----
From: lupinlore <rdoliver30 at yahoo.com>
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:47:36 PM
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys

--- In HPforGrownups@ yahoogroups. com, "Steve" <bboyminn at .. .> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> Personally, I am positively stunned by how well JKR
> captures the inner landscape of her male characters. I
> think it is a stunning achievement, and a task she 
> succeeds at far better than most other female authors.
> 
> Remember, you heard it here first.
> 
> 

Well, I guess this is just one of those areas where many of us will 
never understand where the other side is coming from. I have often 
found JKR's grasp of emotions and emotional psychology to be so 
laughably bad as to inspire nothing but derision. Especially in HBP 
her dealing with Harry's emotions were so unbelievable I couldn't 
credit that she thought anyone could buy it.

As has been pointed out in the past, the problem is that JKR's 
characters react as they have to react in order for the plot to go in 
a certain way, not in ways that are believable, understandable, or in 
any way satisfying for the reader. So, for instance, Harry is deeply 
affected by Cedric's death but he shrugs off Sirius' demise with an 
incredibly silly stiff-upper- lip speech. Yeah, right. All the 
issues between him and Dumbledore are swept firmly under the rug with 
three sentences. Excuse me while I engage in incredulous laughter at 
the bad writing.

JKR often confuses detail with completeness. Her plots, for 
instance, are incredibly detailede, but often filled with huge, 
gaping holes. Similarly her characters' reactions are worked out in 
detailed ways that are dictated by the plot, not believable or well-
written in terms of believing in the characters -- much less in terms 
of buying the messages she tries to send about how we are supposed to 
view the characters.

Lupinlore






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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 04:10:02 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 04:10:02 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys/Harry as famous but not popular
In-Reply-To: <ejbe7h+t891@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejbfiq+kd98@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161503

> Charles:
> Ron- his best friend. Any others are incidental because Harry 
doesn't 
> have that many friends. It is shown in several ways. Look at the 
> train rides. He keeps looking for people to sit with because he 
does 
> not have that many friends. It seems to be hard for people to 
fathom, 
> but Harry isn't popular, even though he's famous.
<SNIP of the whole post basically>


Alla:

Bravo, Charles. I never bought the argument of Harry being so 
popular as well. Just look at how **easy** the vultures from the 
general population turn at him, whether it would be Harry being 
suspecting of being Heir of Slytherin or whether Harry being 
suspected 
of being well, crasy when he claims that Voldemort is returned.

Why would Harry want to open up to **anybody** when he never knew 
kindness ( except first year of his life) from anybody, adults or 
kids 
alike?

The fact that he did become friends with Ron is a gift that Harry 
cherishes IMO and those few people that he loves and who love him, 
etc.

No,I always saw Harry, Ron and Hermione becoming friends partially 
because they were social outcasts - yes, despite all Harry's 
popularity.

Here is the boy, who supposedly defeated Voldemort and dissappeared, 
the boy from poor family of **blood traitors** and geeky, smart girl.

Why would they be so popular on Hogwarts social scene, I am not 
sure, 
ues, despite Harry being the boy who lived.

IMO of course.

Alla





From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 03:37:16 2006
From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:37:16 -0600
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
Message-ID: <455939EC.308@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161504

Knowing how it's canon that Snape doesn't like the name Potter and 
anyone born with that name; I'm supposing he's arguing with Dumbledore 
about how he's going or not going to deal with Harry. I'm thinking 
Severus doesn't want to continue teaching Harry once he's forced to deal 
with Dumbledore's demise.

that's just my opinion.

Hestia Lurkwell






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 06:27:00 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 06:27:00 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <ej2nci+68vn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejbnjk+1e0q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161505

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > k12listmomma (Shelley) wrote:
> 
> > About this, I think Dumbledore is smart enough to understand that
> > this language is Parceltongue, and to figure out approximately 
> > what was said. I was surprised that he didn't ask Harry to 
> > translate, <snip> 
> > Or, like you suggested, he's Parcel-eared.  <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> <snip> 
> Parseltongue, however, is not a human language or one spoken by
> magical beings like Goblins or Merpeople. It's an animal language 
> and the ability to speak it seems to be inborn (but note that 
> Animagi can speak with animals, too--PP with rats and Sirius Black 
> with a half-Kneazle cat. Interesting that Squibs can also 
> communicate with cats, though I don't think they speak, erm, cat 
> language). At any rate, I don't think that DD can understand 
> Parseltongue or he'd have heard the Basilisk in the pipes in CoS, 
> <snip>

Mike:
I also like the idea of Parsel-eared. I'd like to point out that the 
memory of Tom encountering his Uncle Morfin was conducted entirely 
in Parseltongue. Surely Dumbledore was able to understand what was 
going on there a little more than just getting the gist of it. Being 
slightly sleuthy, Morfin tells Tom that Merope took the locket. This 
would be where Dumbledore learned that bit of info. Combining that 
with Hokey's memory gets Dumbledore to Burke, which informs him that 
Merope was in London. I suppose he could have just guessed that 
Merope took and pawned the locket, but Dumbledore likes a little 
more positive proof. 

I'm thinking that this memory and the first memory have enough info 
in them that Dumbledore must have gathered more than just the gist. 
And not asking Harry for a translation seems to cinch it for me that 
Albus didn't need it. I'm also down with Parseltongue being 
inheirited, for the most part. Although, I do think a very 
intelligent and powerful wizard like Dumbledore could learn it, it 
is a magical language after all.

As far as hearing the Basilisk, I put this down to plot device. JKR 
needed Harry to be the only one (as far as he knew) who could hear 
the Basilisk. It falls in line with Harry and Ron *discovering* the 
entrance in Myrtle's loo, like Dumbledore couldn't have figured that 
out 50 years ago when he had more and direct knowledge. BTW, those 
pipes in the walls must have been huge to accomodate a Basilisk. 
Doesn't sound like that would pass a code inspection if you ask 
me. ;-)

> Carol cont.:
> much less speak it or he'd have been able to find and open the 
> chamber. Not being Slytherin's true Heir, he couldn't do it.
> <snip>

Mike:
OK, I can't resist <eg> If only Slytherin's heir can open the 
chamber, how did Harry do it? Ginny could do it because she had a 
piece of Riddle's soul possessing her, meaning the soul of Riddle 
identified him as the heir of Slytherin. Did Harry have something in 
him that would also identify him as the heir of Slytherin, thereby 
allowing him to open the chamber?

The evidence mounts. <veg>

Mike





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 14 07:47:42 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:47:42 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <016801c7077d$6d9fbcc0$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <ejbsau+amvg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161506

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at ...> wrote:
 
Geoff:
> > Coming up to the current thread, we have to remember that we are
> > only seeing part of the Hogwarts year. In Philosopher's Stone for
> > example, out of a 45-46 week year if you count the Christmas and
> > Easter holidays as well as the three terms, how much time do we
> > really share with the Trio?
> 
> Miles:
> I have to repeat what I posted earlier in this mail: The films are even
> shorter, but they show more "boy's social life" than the books. Why?


Geoff:
I don't think that they show that much more than the books. Taking POA 
as an example, the scene which is quoted where the boys are in the 
dormitory imitating various animals takes up - what? - a minute and a 
half of film time.


> Geoff Bannister cited:
> >> JKR nailed male relationships very well with this one. For
> >> women, a good friend is someone with whom they can cry,
> >> share emotions, discuss whatever. To a man (at least in
> >> Teens and Tweens) a good friend is someone who is there,
> >> shows loyalty and doesn't pry into emotional issues. The girls
> >> (Hermy, Cho, Jenny) are the one that keeps bringing up the
> >> topics Harry wants to avoid (death, dreams, etc). Neville's
> >> comment after Sirius dies is as intimate a question as any
> >> guy would get with another guy. If Ron were asking the
> >> questions that Hermione asks and Harry didn't blow his top,
> >> then I'd say the people who think Harry is light in the loafers
> >> may have a leg to stand on.
 
> Miles:
> Who exactly are the male friends of Harry? Who are the boys he 
> relates to in a non-superficial way? Where are the boys he is hanging
> around with apart from Quidditch practice and school lessons?

Geoff:
May I just underline that, in the section above, I am quoting another 
contributor. They were not my words.

To your question above, why does he have to hang around with a lot of 
the others? Not everybody does.

When I was Harry's age, I had one close friend and a few others whom 
I saw, usually at weekends because we shared certain interests. However, 
they were not the sort of real friends with whom I shared "deep" thoughts.

Harry has spent many years without true friends because of the Dursleys' 
interference. It's not so easy to build that sort of structure when you're 
eleven and your links with friends are non-existent or have been disrupted. 
One of the reasons I didn't make a lot of close friends was that, one, we 
moved from Lancashire to London when I was nine and, two, when I 
started in the First year at grammar school when I was eleven, there was 
only one other boy who came from my old junior school, - and I didn't 
even know him.





From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 12:22:24 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:22:24 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ejaulu+ruuc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejcce0+3g2d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161507

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > First of all, Hermione doesn't have any female friends. Ginny
> > comes the closest (and I'll guess that Hermione would call
> > Ginny her best girlfriend) but Ginny is a very far second to
> > Ron and Harry. Ginny might tell Hermione everything.
> > Hermione does not return the favor.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> Other than to trust her with the single juiciest bit of gossip in
> all of Gryffindor Tower (The identity of Victor Krum's date to 
> the Yule ball). This from a witch who is so good at keeping 
> secrets that her right hand has yet to be informed that she 
> possesses a left hand, much less what it's doing.

Betsy Hp:
>Ah, but that's juicy gossip as per Hermione's roommates, the
>giggling girls. 

Amiable Dorsai:
Whom she did not tell.

She did tell Ginny.

Betsy Hp:
>It's not the sort of thing Hermione cares about,
>and the only reason she's keeping quiet about it is to annoy Ron.
>For Hermione, it's not a big secret. (It's a big secret for Ron,
>but he's more into that sort of thing.) But when it comes to
>Hermione's big secrets, Ginny doesn't know.

Amiable Dorsai:
You keep writing things like that.  Why do you think so?  Ginny seems
to be tolerably well-informed about Hermione's snogging partners, for
example.  What big secrets (of her own) has Hermione kept from Ginny?

Betsy Hp:
 >Neither do Ron or Harry for that matter. Not until Hermione wants
> them to know.  Hermione is actually pretty self-sufficient. I 
> get the sense that she's used to, or well able to handle, being by 
> herself.

Amiable Dorsai:
Able to handle being alone?  I dunno, the little girl who ran into
that loo was desperate to have friends.  She found two that night. 
The evidence seems to be that she's found a third.

Is it a Cho-Marietta kind of friendship?  Obviously not--Hermione's no
Cho, Ginny's no Marietta--but surely you're not going to tell me that
that's the only kind of close friendship women can have; if you did, I
wouldn't believe you.  My wife, my sisters, female friends of mine,
all seem to have many varieties of close friendships.  Ginny and
Hermione's, as I see it, would fit right in.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> The idea that Ginny is not a close friend of Hermione is
> insupportable, even if she doesn't tell Ginny other people's
> secrets; she doesn't tell anybody else other people's secret's
> either.

>Betsy Hp:
> Yes, but my point was that Hermione doesn't share *her* secrets 
> with Ginny. Not any big ones, anyway.

Amiable Dorsai:
There you go again...  Point that canon at me Betsy, I can take it.

>Betsy Hp:
> And I'm not even saying
> that Ginny isn't a friend to Hermione. I'm talking about her 
> status, and Ginny definitely comes *after* Ron and Harry.

Amiable Dorsai:
Granted, that her Lost Boys rank pretty high on Wend... erm,
Hermione's priority list, how is it that her friendship with Ginny is
so insignificant that you can write, as you did, that "First of all,
Hermione doesn't have ANY female friends."?  (emphasis mine) You uhm,
weasleyed that a bit in your next sentence but still, it seems rather
broad.

Betsy Hp: 
>Which is fine. But it makes it hard to say that the relationship
>between Ginny and Hermione is a good example of two close
>girlfriends. Neither of the two seem to find having a close
>girlfriend all that important.

Amiable Dorsai:
Unless, of course, I'm right, and Hermione and Ginny have as close a
friendship as the facts seem to indicate.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > As to her sorting out Harry's love life: I think she picked up
> > all of her information on Cho either in the girls' restroom
> > (*prime* source of that sort of gossip) or may have quizzed
> > Lavender and Parvati. But I'm quite sure Hermione did not
> > figure out all of Cho's issues on her own.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> Because *Hermione Granger* the smartest witch of her generation,
> isn't going to have any contacts in *Ravenclaw*, nor  any insight
> into the rest of the "smart crowd". Betsy, think that through.

Betsy Hp:
>Exactly. As the beginnings of the DA club show us. It might 
>seem logical that the smart chick hangs with the smart kids. But 
>as per the books, she doesn't. She hangs with Ron and Harry.

Amiable Dorsai:
I didn't say she had buddies in Ravenclaw, I said she had contacts,
which, as you point out, her recruitment of the DA clearly shows.  

A hypercompetitive student like Hermione is going to check out and
keep tabs on the competition.  Been there, done that, had it done to
me--to and by both sexes.
 
Betsy Hp:
>And honestly, since the Gryffindors don't have a single class with
>the Ravenclaws (IIRC), it's not too hard to imagine that Hermione
>knows very little about individuals within Ravenclaw house.

Amiable Dorsai:
If Runes and Arithmancy aren't top heavy with Ravenclaws, I'll eat
Buckbeak.  

Without ketchup.

And then, of course, there's the Prefect network.  You suggested that
Hermione overheard gossip about Cho in the girl's room.  Quite
plausible, but I'd suggest it was the Prefects Bathroom where the real
dirt got dished. Anything Lavender and Parvati had would be second
hand, at best.

Go check the DA list, all six non-Slytherin prefects from Hermione's
year were in the DA.  Hermione can, and does, network.

Betsy Hp:
>And really, (thinking things through as you've urged me to do,
>Amiable Dorsai, <g>) how on earth would Hermione, with her lack of
>interest in quidditch, have any sort of special understanding about
> Cho's flying record? Are we supposed to assume Hermione has been
>watching the Ravenclaw games avidly over the years and recognizes
>that Cho isn't flying up to her usual game and is so very
>interested she can't rest until she figures out why?

Amiable Dorsai:
Nope, I'm asking you to assume that Cho became a Person of Special
Interest to Hermione as soon as one of Hermione's boys asked her out
to the Yule Ball, especially as that made Cho a rival to her other
good friend, Ginny (more on that in a bit). As to how Hermione knew
that Cho wasn't flying up to her usual standard, well, she had at
least two Weasleys to tell her that--one of whom probably considered
Cho a Person of Even More Special Interest than Hermione did.

If you don't believe that Hermione made a special study of Cho,
consider for a moment that Hermione expected Cho to kiss Harry well
before the fact.

Betsy Hp:
>Hmm, was Hermione rooting for H/G earlier than Ron? It 
>wouldn't surprise me if Ginny *told* Hermione that she was hoping
>Harry asked her to the Yule Ball. But that just signals awareness
>of a crush.  Something Ron cottoned onto as early as 
>CoS (possibly even PS/SS).

Amiable Dorsai:
If mere awareness of the crush qualifies, then you win, Ron knew Ginny
was infatuated with The Boy Who Lived before Hermione knew there was a
Ginny.

If we're talking active collaboration, then I'm going to claim the
palm.  As Ginny allowed Michael Corner to pick her up at the Yule
Ball, it seems to me that Hermione started to give Ginny advice about
Harry as early as the opening of "Goblet", if not before.

Go back and read the description of the Gryffindor Common room's
occupants during Harry and Ginny's first kiss in HBP--Dean crushed his
glass, Ron was "wearing an expression appropriate to having been
clubbed over the head" but Hermione... Hermione "was beaming".

She loves it when a plan comes together.  More importantly, I'd
suggest, she loves it when two of her best friends finally come
together.  

Betsy Hp:
>And Hermione's attitude during GoF seemed much more "goodness this 
>boy and girl thing is soo silly" than "this is what
> hopes and dreams are made of!<3!). 

Amiable Dorsai:
You're going to have to fire some more canon at me to get me to accept
that--what I recall is a Hermione who took the whole thing very
seriously indeed, to the point where she dolled herself up for the
first time we ever see, applying herself so assiduously to the task
that her two best male friends took a while to recognize her.

Amiable Dorsai






From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Nov 14 11:42:53 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:42:53 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
In-Reply-To: <ejadgr+fvtp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejca3t+nee4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161508

Abergoat writes:
 
TinkTonks, Sirius states that he convinced James and Lily to make the
switch so I think we have to include them on the list of people 'in
the know' and so they can be the casters.
 
Personally, I don't think there are 'problems' with Fidelius if 
people buy into the idea that the mysterious person that MIGHT have 
been at Godric's Hollow moved Harry (and Lily's body) from the 
standing portion of the house to the destroyed portion so that 
Hargid could see them. I imagine James' body was in the room 
already, I suspect his fight with Voldemort is what destroyed that 
portion of the house.
<<MASSIVE SNIP>>

TinkTonks Responds:

My problem is that on the JKR Website FAQ's JKR says that the status 
of the secret remains the same if a SK dies (Which DD thought PP 
had). So therefore wouldnt the best course of action for DD have 
been to rebuild GH and have someone keep Harry there? Nobody could 
reach him!

If your theories (Which I like very much by the way) are right I 
dont understand why D would have chosen a life of misery for Harry!

Tinktonks






From dougsamu at golden.net  Tue Nov 14 13:43:15 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 08:43:15 -0500
Subject: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
Message-ID: <BCAA1F1C-972F-4E3D-847A-C28BED2E186E@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161509

cindiknits:

if Tom Riddle hated his father and his father's name so much, why did  
he make an anagram out of that very name when he decided to create a  
new name for himself?

doug:
And why was 'bone of the father' necessary to form the new body?

  There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.
__________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>__________




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 14:33:05 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:33:05 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape (was:Re: CHAPDISC: HBP24, Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ejb1ti+lc0b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejck31+dvkh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161510

> > >>a_svirn:
> > <snip> the curse of lycanthropy   
> > does bear a strong resemblance to possession.  The trouble is 
that 
> > no one usually thinks the possessed persons "dark" or evil. 
They   
> > are regarded as *victims* of Evil, not agents of it.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Not in the WW though.  At least, not when it comes to werewolves.  
> My understanding is that once a human is infected with the werewolf 
> curse, they *become* Dark Creatures.  They are, by definition (and 
> legally apparently) Dark.  As such they *are* considered agents of 
> evil. 

a_svirn:
Well, certainly, but the question is by what (whose) definition? We 
have sort of established (I think) that werewolves aren't 
*intentionally* dark. Therefore either they aren't really dark, and 
it was an unfortunate mistake that they were labelled as such, or the 
definition is not what we think it is. 

 
> Betsy Hp:
<snip> 
> Werewolves have been designated Dark Creatures by the MoM.  As per 
> the WW's political center, Lupin is a Dark Creature, full moon or 
> no.  And if Grayback wasn't a werewolf, but still liked to eat 
> people, he'd be sick and wrong, but not automatically dark.
> 
> An argument was made (by Shelley, I think?) that the difference 
> between dark magic and good magic rests on intent.  But since 
intent 
> is so hard to read, the WW shied away from spells they felt only 
> those with bad intent would use.  Which would give certain spells a 
> bad reputation and lead to them being labeled "dark".
> 
> But it still comes down to fallible human-beings deciding what 
magic 
> is okay and what magic is dark.  

a_svirn:
Which, to use Draco's words, is a bit of a joke, isn't it? Fudge and 
Dolores Umbridge aren't exactly moral authorities. 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 15:15:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:15:13 -0000
Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes
In-Reply-To: <ejbnjk+1e0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejcmi1+icd9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161511

Carol earlier:
> > [Dumbledore couldn't understand Parseltongue] much less speak it
or he'd have been able to find and open the chamber. Not being
Slytherin's true Heir, he couldn't do it.
> > <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> OK, I can't resist <eg> If only Slytherin's heir can open the 
> chamber, how did Harry do it? Ginny could do it because she had a 
> piece of Riddle's soul possessing her, meaning the soul of Riddle 
> identified him as the heir of Slytherin. Did Harry have something in 
> him that would also identify him as the heir of Slytherin, thereby 
> allowing him to open the chamber?
> 
> The evidence mounts. <veg>

Carol:
"You can speak Parseltongue, Harry, because Lord Voldemort can speak
Parseltongue." Harry unquestionably inherited at least one and
probably several of Voldemort's *powers*. But we're no further along
than we were in proving that Harry or his scar contains a soul bit.
I'm not saying that it isn't, only that we can't treat this theory as
canonical, nor is it the only possible explanation for Harry's
acquisition of some of Voldie's powers.

As for "Parsel-eared," the concept has not been introduced in the
books, and I can't imagine Dumbledore not dealing with the problem in
some more effective way if he really could hear the Basilisk. (BTW, is
it just coincidence that Professor Sprout was growing mandrakes that
year or are they always a project for the second years? Probably,
we'll never know.)

Carol, who hopes she doesn't sound humorless but has said all she has
to say about the diary and the ostensible soul bit in Harry's scar





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 14:51:02 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:51:02 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <005201c70785$39458290$cf98400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ejcl4m+tsid@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161512

> Magpie:
> I wonder if that is meant to mirror the problems with the way they're 
dealt 
> in canon.  I mean, it seems to me that werewolves being classified 
the way 
> they are is seen by JKR as a misconception. Lupin *shouldn't* be 
judged as 
> anything but the man he is, with a condition that's not his fault but 
can be 
> controlled.  Fenrir, too, should be judged by his human self (which 
is bad).

a_svirn:
That's sort of what I think myself. But that's a kind of explanation 
that prompts further questions. Like what if there are other creatures, 
persons and charms that were labelled dark unjustly? Even more ominous: 
what if there are charms or potions that *should* have been proclaimed 
dark, but weren't for some opportunistic reason? In short, what if Dark 
Magic is what the Ministry says it is? If so, we can safely dismiss the 
notion. 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 16:09:18 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 16:09:18 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejcl4m+tsid@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejcpne+fcpu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161513

a_svirn:
> That's sort of what I think myself. But that's a kind of explanation 
> that prompts further questions. Like what if there are other
creatures, persons and charms that were labelled dark unjustly? Even
more ominous: 
> what if there are charms or potions that *should* have been proclaimed 
> dark, but weren't for some opportunistic reason? In short, what if
Dark Magic is what the Ministry says it is? If so, we can safely
dismiss the notion.
>
Carol:
But what if it isn't? What if "Unforgiveable" means something more
than a lifetime sentence to Azkaban (which would hardly serve as a
deterrent after a person has cast one Unforgiveable). Bellatrix says
that you have to *mean* the Unforgiveable Curses, and surely it's
important that she's such an expert at casting the Cruciatus Curse and
Harry failed to cast one effectively. I also think and hope that Harry
won't resort to using Unforgiveable Curses, aside from Voldemort's
skill at Legilimency and his ineptitude at Occlumency and nonverbals
(if he can't Crucio Snape, how can he Crucio Voldemort?). It's the
sadism, the desire to hurt or control others, that disturbs me. It
also appears that the Unforgiveables corrupt the soul of the caster
(and I'm not talking about Horcruxes and soul splitting murders here).
Both Crouches seem to have been driven mad by them (and Bellatrix is a
psychopath). I think that Snape is right to steer Harry away from Dark
magic, if only to prevent Harry from turning out like him. 

Maybe Dark magic has the potential to corrupt the user, to turn him
evil or to lead him into an obsession with some unnatural goal, such
as immortality or control over others' minds.

I think that at least in JKR's mind, we're dealing with something more
than definitions by the Ministry of Magic, something concrete and
definable if not absolute and fixed. Just as Gandalf wouldn't use the
One Ring because it would destroy him, there are powers that
Dumbledore is too noble (and too sensible?) to use. Barty Crouch Sr.
succumbed to temptation, using the weapons of the enemy against him,
and was destroyed by the very weapons he had used or authorized
(Imperius and Avada Kedavra). Surely, that's not the direction JKR
wants Harry to go.

Carol, concerned that, Dumbledore to the contrary, Harry *has* been
tempted by the Dark Arts, specifically the Cruciatus Curse, and hoping
he'll overcome that temptation in Book 7





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 14 17:20:16 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:20:16 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejcl4m+tsid@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejctsg+mmin@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161514


> > Magpie:
> > I wonder if that is meant to mirror the problems with the way they're 
> dealt  in canon.  I mean, it seems to me that werewolves being classified 
> the way they are is seen by JKR as a misconception. Lupin *shouldn't* be 
> judged as  anything but the man he is, with a condition that's not his 
fault but  can be controlled.  Fenrir, too, should be judged by his human 
self (which is bad).
> 
> a_svirn:
> That's sort of what I think myself. But that's a kind of explanation 
> that prompts further questions. Like what if there are other creatures, 
> persons and charms that were labelled dark unjustly? Even more ominous: 
> what if there are charms or potions that *should* have been proclaimed 
> dark, but weren't for some opportunistic reason? In short, what if Dark 
> Magic is what the Ministry says it is? If so, we can safely dismiss the 
> notion.

Pippin:
But we can't, because that would be saying that there is no good and
evil, only power and those too weak to use it. The fact that their
ability to distinguish between good and evil is subject  to error
does not release wizards from trying to make the distinction. The
perfect must not be allowed to become the enemy of the good.

I agree that some Dark Magic is proceeding unrecognized. The spells
that enslave House Elves should be labelled Dark, IMO, but
clearly they aren't.

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 14 17:42:04 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:42:04 -0000
Subject: Violence/MoreHP/Fidelius/HBP'sCurses/DD'sWatch/Sneak In/CounterJinx/WhyJoinLV
In-Reply-To: <ej8j1c+f5jc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejcv5c+dbkk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161515

-
> Pippin wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160910>:
> 
> << I think they symbolize extremism, regardless of platform. The
> werewolves are seeking additional rights, the pureblood faction wishes
> to restore rights it once had and restrict the rights of others,
> Voldemort panders to both while his private agenda does not include
> sharing power with anyone. But they are all united under the Dark
> Mark, in other words, by their acceptance of violence as a means to
> political ends. >>

Catlady:
> 'Violence as a means to political ends'? Like the American Revolution?

Pippin:

Canon refers more than once, IIRC, to Sirius's deadened eyes.
Those who are deprived of their rights and freedom are being murdered,
whether swiftly or by inches.   JKR clearly does not think much of the 
Slinkhards who would not lift a hand, or a wand, to save them.

But though Voldemort may lure the naive with a promise  to seek 
the rights of the many, he can only deliver privileges to the few. 
 His resort to terror bears that out. Voldemort must create fear 
because in the absence of a common ideal only fear can hold his 
disparate troops together.  Those who realize that and remain 
under the Dark Mark have bartered their claim to justice for 
something else.

Pippin





From deepblue972000 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 10:21:35 2006
From: deepblue972000 at yahoo.com (Charles Dias)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 10:21:35 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <ejb7jk+imhh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061114102135.26792.qmail@web34209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161516

Cindi:  
<snip>                         
If Tom Riddle hated his father and his father's name so much, why did he make an anagram out of that very name when he decided to create a new name for himself? A name he hoped would someday strike fear into the heart of everyone who heard it. In one of the books (CofS?) He comments to the effect "Do you think I was going to keep my filthy muggle father's name"? But really, he did keep his father's name, even though he could have called himself anything. So in a way, he's paying homage to a person he supposedly hated.  


Charles Dias:
I think his problem was about using the father's name clearly within his own name (Thomas Marvolo RIDDLE) but as it's not clearly seen on the anagram (Lord Voldmort) it's not a problem for him. But I partly agree with you about the indirect homage to his so hated father's name.




From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 15:21:16 2006
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:21:16 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Pensieve was Re: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <ejau2i+nlv5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061114152116.24715.qmail@web33205.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161517

Stacey wrote: The thing about the pensieve is that it's not just the receptacle that's important. If I'm not mistaken, memories are bottled up and finding where Dumbledore has stored his (out of the reach of LV and followers one would expect)would be difficult. Possibly DD's portrait could tell Harry where they're hidden. 
   
  Melanie's reply: I guess you're right about that.  But I mean in all honesty we don't know how helpful Dumbledore's portrait can be.  I think it can offer some insight but I mean on the same token pictures seem to vary as to how much they are willing to give out, or really can give out.  I suppose we will have to see.  

<Stacey wrote again: I sincerely think that a trip to the portrait is likely in book 7 as well as (on another note) some type of communication with Sirius from the beyond (mirror? Nigellus' or Mother Black's, or some other portrait at 12 Grimauld place?).>
   
  Melanie's reply:  The portrait I can see.  I am not sure how, once again Mrs. Black would be helpful besides throwing out insults.  Sirius might be in the book in some way..but I am finding such a thing more and more unlikely.  I doubt the mirror will be much help because I personally believe that while you can hear voices beyond the veil I don't think two-way communication really takes place.  I could  be wrong.  
   
  Melanie



 




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 14 18:50:56 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 18:50:56 -0000
Subject: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <20061114102135.26792.qmail@web34209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ejd36g+g21q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161518

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Charles Dias <deepblue972000 at ...> wrote:
>
> Cindi:  
> <snip>                         
> If Tom Riddle hated his father and his father's name so much, why did he make an 
anagram out of that very name when he decided to create a new name for himself? A name 
he hoped would someday strike fear into the heart of everyone who heard it. In one of the 
books (CofS?) He comments to the effect "Do you think I was going to keep my filthy 
muggle father's name"? But really, he did keep his father's name, even though he could 
have called himself anything. So in a way, he's paying homage to a person he supposedly 
hated.  
> 
> 
> Charles Dias:
> I think his problem was about using the father's name clearly within his own name 
(Thomas Marvolo RIDDLE) but as it's not clearly seen on the anagram (Lord Voldmort) it's 
not a problem for him. But I partly agree with you about the indirect homage to his so 
hated father's name.

Geoff:
His construction of the anagram seems to be a bit of a con really. His name, which by the 
way, is TOM Marvolo Riddle becomes "I am Lord Voldemort:" He had to do something with 
the odd i, a and m!

An interesting speculation is how he actually arrived at the name. We have discussed it on 
numerous occasions here and I lean to a fairly widely accepted view that it's from the 
French "flight of death" or "theft of death" but was that in his addled mind or not? Or did 
he just cut the letters out of a piece of paper and just twiddle them around on a tabletop?

Perhaps we shall never know.






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 14 20:00:30 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:00:30 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ejb1ge+cbps@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejd78u+u6uj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161519


> Pippin:
> > In that case it sounds to me as though Snape was arguing that he 
> > should abandon the watchful waiting strategy and deal with Draco 
> > more directly, but he couldn't do it without compromising his double
> > agent role, which Dumbledore was not willing to permit.
> 
> Abergoat asks:
> But was it possible for Snape to deal 'directly' with Draco? I'm not
> sure if the vow allows that. What type of action are you thinking
> Snape wanted to take? Could be an interesting direction!
> 

Pippin:
I'm thinking Snape wanted to do what he did in the end: grab Draco
by the scruff of the neck and drag him to safety. Defying Voldemort's
orders would have resulted in Snape's death, vow or no vow, unless
he could successfully fake it, but in any case it would have ended his
role as double agent, in which he could serve not only as spy but
as Dumbledore's ace in the hole. 

 Would the vow stop him from doing that?  It only says, "Should it 
prove necessary...if it seems Draco will fail..."  JKR could drive a 
coach and six flying horses through that one.  

For example:
Is the vow capable of divination? Does it know that Draco's
imminent failure will prove that it was necessary for Snape to fulfill
the vow or does it have to wait until some consequence has 
occured?  If not, how long does Snape have to act? As soon
as  possible? Within a reasonable amount of time?  Indefinitely?

 And what is meant by necessary: necessary to kill Dumbledore
or necessary to save Draco if he fails? In Narcissa's DE mindset
the two are linked. She could not conceive of letting a known 
enemy live when you have the power to destroy him. But 
DDM!Snape could.

It seems to me that Dumbledore must have planned to
feign his own death even before Snape took the vow. There
really was no choice. The elephant in the HPB livingroom is
the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort that took 
place in OOP. Once that happened it should have been clear,
though no one mentions it, that Dumbledore's days as 
Headmaster were numbered. There is no escaping Voldemort
once he has tried to kill you (unless you're Harry), and 
Voldemort definitely tried to kill Dumbledore then.

Pippin





From shelle18 at sccoast.net  Tue Nov 14 17:50:33 2006
From: shelle18 at sccoast.net (shelle18 at sccoast.net)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:50:33 GMT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Performer of fidelius charm
Message-ID: <mailman.145.1576215647.17272.hpforgrownups@archive.hpfgu.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 161520

> If your theories (Which I like very much by the way) are right I 
> dont understand why D would have chosen a life of misery for Harry!
> 
> Tinktonks


Maybe to teach Harry to recognize the signs of a bully vs. true 
friendship? 

Michelle

---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using SCCoast.net's SCCourier E-mail Service.
http://www.sccoast.net






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 14 20:25:15 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:25:15 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <016801c7077d$6d9fbcc0$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <ejd8nb+klfc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161521

Miles:
> Sorry, you missed my point. I spoke about fights IN the peer group. 
And not only physical fights - to see who is the "alpha Gryffindor" in 
his year, and in the entire House. Now, where do we see anything like 
that?

Ceridwen:
I think Harry's dorm mates are in a very different situation here than 
other dorms would be.  They have the 'one and only, genuine, original' 
Boy Who Lived.  No one can top that.  Beat out the other boys at... 
what? when Harry had already beaten Voldemort as a toddler.  It's very 
possible that Neville, Seamus and Dean have fought it out amongst 
themselves for the Not The Boy Who Lived Alpha Male of their dorm, but 
Harry, and Ron, who rode shotgun for Harry since SS/PS, are not 
involved.

Ceridwen.





From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 20:48:13 2006
From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:48:13 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <eja2k2+oecs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejda2d+i7ev@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161524

> Jen: This one fits Snape except for one minor thing--more on 
that.  
> Snape wouldn't mind watching over Draco as much as Harry.  If he 
> doesn't believe in the prophecy like Dumbledore does (or doesn't 
> think Harry is the Chosen One since he doesn't know the full 
> prophecy) then Snape wouldn't think watching over Harry is 
crucial, 
> he wouldn't see the harm in backing out of the deal with 
> Dumbledore.  If there *is* a deal.  The one part that doesn't fit 
> here is Dumbledore bringing up 'making investigations in your own 
> house'--if Dumbledore knows about the UV then wouldn't he know 
Snape 
> would do everything he could to stop Draco?  Maybe he doesn't know 
> about the UV, or this is the part where Hagrid didn't hear the 
whole 
> argument.  He did mention this section in vague terms 'summat 
abou' 
> Snape makin' investigations in his house, in Slytherin.'
> 
> Jen R., thinking JKR wanted to keep the argument purposely vague 
for 
> Book 7.

Mayb DD didn't mean Slytherin at all. Maybe Dumbledore is talking 
about investigating what is going on at Snape's house. Where 
Wormtail is and where he made the UV with Narcissa. Maybe DD wants 
Snape to keep an eye out on the goings on in his house - meaning his 
HOME! 

About Snape 'not wanting to do it anymore', Snape is wary of risking 
his neck again and again for the Order. He doesn't want to be in 
with LV and the DE's anymore. That he wants out of the job. IMO.

As much as I want to hate Snape and would LOVE to see him destroyed 
as a DE, I think that Snape is going to redeem himself in the last 
book. That he truly still is on the Order's side and doing things at 
DD's instructions and that DD did have Snape kill him to make it 
look like Snape was still serving LV.

We'll just have to wait and see.

Jenni from Alabama (who thinks that JK is taking her own sweet time 
in finishing the last book. And who thinks that there is no way that 
JK can tie up all the loose ends left undone in just one book, but 
we'll see!)







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 14 21:19:19 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:19:19 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ejd8nb+klfc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejdbsn+qj83@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161525

 
> Ceridwen:
  It's very 
> possible that Neville, Seamus and Dean have fought it out amongst 
> themselves for the Not The Boy Who Lived Alpha Male of their dorm, 
but 
> Harry, and Ron, who rode shotgun for Harry since SS/PS, are not 
> involved.


Potioncat:
Well, we have something of that when Seamus expresses doubt about 
Harry in the beginning of (oh shoot, which book was it?) It becomes a 
face off; Harry and Ron against Seamus and Dean.

Actually, over the years, it seems Neville has become the odd man 
out, rather than there being a clear cut fight for leader. Ron and 
Harry buddy up; Seamus and Dean buddy up; and Neville wanders about 
on his own.

All in all, though, I think many aspects of the 'School Days of Harry 
Potter' are lost to the needs of the greater plot. 

I really enjoyed that scene in the movie too. Was it "amimal 
crackers" they were eating?





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 21:23:35 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:23:35 -0000
Subject: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <ejd36g+g21q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejdc4n+d0ku@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161526

---  "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  Charles Dias <deepblue972000@> wrote:
> >
> > Cindi:  
> > <snip>                         
> > If Tom Riddle hated his father and his father's name
> > so much, why did he make an anagram out of that very 
> > name when he decided to create a new name for himself?
> > ...
> > 

> 
> Geoff:
> His construction of the anagram seems to be a bit of a
> con really. His name, which by the way, is TOM Marvolo 
> Riddle becomes "I am Lord Voldemort:" He had to do 
> something with the odd i, a and m!
> 


bboyminn:

I'm somewhat in agreement with Geoff here. I suspect that
perhaps this was Tom's idea of an inside joke. Sort of,
'Hey everyone, I'm hiding right here in plan sight, and
you are all too stupid to see who I really am'.

Of course, it goes beyond that, to some extent I think it
might have been about transformation or transmogrification.
Tom took who he was and transformed that into the most
feared name in the history of the wizard world. In a sense,
he transcended his old Self, and became a new greater Self.
I think there is some symbolic connection to his past that
is important to him, and that fuels this 'transcendent'
process.

On a side note, I wonder which came first 'I am Lord 
Voldemort' or 'Tom Marvolo Riddle' from the perspective 
of the author? Also, has anyone worked out any alternative
amagrams? Does anyone know of a anagram generator on the
Internet that might help?


> Geoff:
>
> An interesting speculation is how he actually arrived
> at the name. ... fairly widely accepted view that it's 
> from the French "flight of death" ... but was that in 
> his addled mind or not? Or did he just cut the letters 
> out of a piece of paper and just twiddle them around on
> a tabletop?
> 
> Perhaps we shall never know.
>

boyminn:

That's an interesting question. In a sense, in asking what
Voldemort did, we are asking what JKR did. To some extent
all names have meaning, for example, my name 'Steven', or
more historically 'Stephen', means 'Crown', but I doubt
that my parents had that in mind when they named me.

So, JKR many have simply come up with a name that sounded
cool, and realized the implications later. Or she may have
constructed the name based on those implications and worked
back to the name Tom M. Riddle. Note, she did have to
fudge the name slightly to make it work (/I AM/ Lord 
Voldemort).

Could we work back to a better name than Tom M. Riddle if
we change it to 'Call Me Lord Voldemort' or 'The Honorable
Lord Voldemort' or whatever?

I don't recall JKR ever having been asked this question.
Though I can't imagine why not, it seems a very obvious
question. And, I refer both to Voldemort's motivations,
and to the authoral construction of both names.

Perhaps you are right 'Perhaps we shall never know'.

Steve/bboyminn






From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 21:30:51 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thomas Marvolo Riddle
Message-ID: <20061114213051.74366.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161527

Cindi: 
<snip> 
If Tom Riddle hated his father and his father's name so much, why did he make an anagram out of that very name when he decided to create a new name for himself? A name he hoped would someday strike fear into the heart of everyone who heard it. <snip>

Charles Dias:
I think his problem was about using the father's name clearly within his own name (Thomas Marvolo RIDDLE) but as it's not clearly seen on the anagram (Lord Voldmort) it's not a problem for him. But I partly agree with you about the indirect homage to his so hated father's name.

===========================================
Jeremiah

I think that in keeping his father's name and giving cause to strike fear in people's hearts would be a character trait of LV. His capacity to transform something/someone into a new form would only be hightened by keeping his father's name and transforming that name into one that mobody dares to utter. Very powerful. He hs taken Tom (common name) Riddle (not so common but definitey not absurd) and Marvolo (rare... in my opinion) and made it something beyond fear... it is un mentionable and without any reason for it. Nothing will happen if you say Lord Voldemort. But the fear of it is greater than the threat.

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




From darksworld at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 21:52:44 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:52:44 -0000
Subject: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <20061114213051.74366.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ejddrc+iflc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161528

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, J <tidblgr72 at ...> wrote:

> Jeremiah
> 
> I think that in keeping his father's name and giving cause to 
strike fear in people's hearts would be a character trait of LV. His 
capacity to transform something/someone into a new form would only be 
hightened by keeping his father's name and transforming that name 
into one that mobody dares to utter. Very powerful. He hs taken Tom 
(common name) Riddle (not so common but definitey not absurd) and 
Marvolo (rare... in my opinion) and made it something beyond fear... 
it is un mentionable and without any reason for it. Nothing will 
happen if you say Lord Voldemort. But the fear of it is greater than 
the threat.

Charles Walker:

Perhaps the reason he decided that none should speak his name stems 
from the fact that it comes from his father's name. I mean, the whole 
thing starts out with an anagram, then he wants to be known as 
Voldemort. But as it wears on, he realizes that his fathers name is 
still inherent in proclaiming "I am Lord Voldemort" and he begins 
first to lash out at his followers for speaking his name, which then 
carries from them to the general population.

Charles Walker, liking this line of speculation.





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 21:56:39 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:56:39 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejcce0+3g2d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejde2n+jr6j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161529

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > But when it comes to Hermione's big secrets, Ginny doesn't know.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> You keep writing things like that.  Why do you think so?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hermione doesn't tell Ginny about figuring out Rita Skeeter's 
secret, capturing her, or her big plan to have Rita write Harry's 
story up.  Ginny seems to find out about the DA club along with 
everyone else (after Ron and Harry).  There's nothing to suggest 
Ginny knew about the contract being hexed.

Ginny wasn't involved at all in Hermione's attempt to save Buckbeak, 
even after Ron and Harry bowed out for a bit.  Ginny isn't involved 
in Hermione's SPEW (wasn't Neville the only other person Hermione 
was able to get involved?). 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Hermione is actually pretty self-sufficient. I get the sense    
> > that she's used to, or well able to handle, being by herself.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> Able to handle being alone?  I dunno, the little girl who ran into
> that loo was desperate to have friends.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I'm not suggesting Hermione doesn't need or want friends.  She 
was very keen on befriending Harry and (most especially?) Ron.  But 
when Hermione has a plan or an idea of some sort, she very rarely 
feels the need to bounce it off of somebody or have someone come 
along and help her with it.  

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> Is it a Cho-Marietta kind of friendship?  Obviously not--         
> Hermione's no Cho, Ginny's no Marietta--but surely you're not     
> going to tell me that that's the only kind of close friendship    
> women can have; if you did, I wouldn't believe you.  My wife, my  
> sisters, female friends of mine, all seem to have many varieties   
> of close friendships.  Ginny and Hermione's, as I see it, would    
> fit right in.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not arguing that there's only one way of writing close female 
friendship.  What I am saying is that I don't see evidence that 
Hermione and Ginny are *close* female friends.  Whatever the manner 
or means.  In many ways I'd label them "friendly" rather 
than "friends". 

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> Granted, that her Lost Boys rank pretty high on Wend... erm,
> Hermione's priority list, how is it that her friendship with Ginny 
> is so insignificant that you can write, as you did, that "First of 
> all, Hermione doesn't have ANY female friends."?  (emphasis mine) 
> You uhm, weasleyed that a bit in your next sentence but still, it 
> seems rather broad.

Betsy Hp:
Of the girls in Hogwarts the closest Hermione comes to having a 
female friend is her relationship with Ginny.  But, they don't seem 
all that close (for the reasons and the canon I stuck up above).  So 
when it's suggested that Hermione *does* have tons of female 
friends, I question. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > As to her sorting out Harry's love life: I think she picked up
> > all of her information on Cho either in the girls' restroom
> > (*prime* source of that sort of gossip) or may have quizzed
> > Lavender and Parvati. But I'm quite sure Hermione did not
> > figure out all of Cho's issues on her own.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> <snip>
> And then, of course, there's the Prefect network.  You suggested   
> that Hermione overheard gossip about Cho in the girl's room.  Quite
> plausible, but I'd suggest it was the Prefects Bathroom where the 
> real dirt got dished. Anything Lavender and Parvati had would be  
> second hand, at best.
> Go check the DA list, all six non-Slytherin prefects from         
> Hermione's year were in the DA.  Hermione can, and does, network.
> <snip>
> If you don't believe that Hermione made a special study of Cho,
> consider for a moment that Hermione expected Cho to kiss Harry well
> before the fact.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, actually I totally agree with everything you've written above.  
What I took issue with was super-intuitive!Hermione who figured out 
Cho's issues by sheer empathy.  Which is just not Hermione.  
Networking!Hermione I totally buy.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> <snip>
> If we're talking active collaboration, then I'm going to claim the
> palm.  As Ginny allowed Michael Corner to pick her up at the Yule
> Ball, it seems to me that Hermione started to give Ginny advice    
> about Harry as early as the opening of "Goblet", if not before.
> Go back and read the description of the Gryffindor Common room's
> occupants during Harry and Ginny's first kiss in HBP--Dean crushed 
> his glass, Ron was "wearing an expression appropriate to having    
> been clubbed over the head" but Hermione... Hermione "was beaming".
> She loves it when a plan comes together.  More importantly, I'd
> suggest, she loves it when two of her best friends finally come
> together.  

Betsy Hp:
Oh no, I think Hermione wants Ron for herself <g>.  But yes, I 
totally buy Hermoine as a fan of OBHWF.  And I also agree that she's 
manipulative.  So maybe Hermione is the first H/G shipper.  (And now 
she has Ginny fulfilling her purpose...) <eg>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > And Hermione's attitude during GoF seemed much more "goodness    
> > this boy and girl thing is soo silly" than "this is what hopes   
> > and dreams are made of!<3!).  

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> You're going to have to fire some more canon at me to get me to   
> accept that--what I recall is a Hermione who took the whole thing 
> very seriously indeed, to the point where she dolled herself up   
> for the first time we ever see, applying herself so assiduously to 
> the task that her two best male friends took a while to recognize 
> her.

Betsy Hp:
I was thinking more of Hermione's disdain for Harry and Ron worring 
over who they were going to take to the dance.  Hermione didn't 
really care all that much about it.  She didn't work to get Krum as 
a date, he worked to get her.  And while she did take some time to 
doll herself up, she was also very careful to point out that this 
was not her normal behavior.  It was just not all that stressful for 
Hermione, relative to Harry and Ron.

Betsy Hp





From ladypensieve at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 21:59:39 2006
From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:59:39 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <ejacpk+mqsi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejde8b+4ege@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161530

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:I 
understand the persistent idea that Snape loved Lily, for which
> there is at least a shred of evidence, but I don't understand why
> people think that Snape was present at Godric's Hollow. He had been
> teaching at Hogwarts for two months and could not have been 
spending tiem with the Death Eaters. His DE assignment was to spy on
Dumbledore, not to accompany Voldemort on murder missions. 

Kathy responds:

I approached this from a different point of view - definitely not 
one of those fans who believed that Snape was 'in love' with Lily.  
I'm trying to figure out why Dumbledore trusted Snape, and why he 
hasn't explained this to Harry. If the reason were simple, 
Dumbledore would have no reason not to tell Harry that he has damned 
Snape with little reason.  This means the reason Dumbledore trusts 
Snape is tied in with something that could make Harry distrust him 
even more than usual...to the point of hatred.

The chapter on Occlumency made me wonder: Why is it that Snape was 
so vicious with Harry?  There could be many reasons, but it could 
also be that Snape's own failure at it may have - in some way - 
caused problems for Snape.  Remember we're told that Voldemort is 
excellent at Legilimens. 

There's a constant arguement over why Voldemort chose the Potters 
over the Longbottoms.  JKR is going to tie this in a neat little 
bundle for us - so - what if it is as simple as Voldemort used 
Legilimens on Snape when he wasn't expecting it, when he wasn't as 
good at Occlumency as he is in the present books.  He finds SNAPE'S 
WORST MEMORY, and sees what Harry saw that day when he fell into the 
pensieve.  The difference is that Voldemort is looking for ways of 
keeping Snape under his thumb while he's off working at Hogwarts.

What if the whole reason the Potters were chosen is because of 
Snape's memory...what becomes his WORST memory only because it was 
the cause of Lily's death.  Voldemort would rid the world of someone 
that Snape hated - James - and spare the life of a woman who had 
been kind to him - except that his patience wore thin and he killed 
her anyway.

Add to this..to assure Snape's loyalty, he brought him with him to 
Godric's Hollow - without Snape knowing where he was actually 
going.  We still don't understand why the house blew up.  Something 
had to have happened there that was unexpected for all parties 
concerned.

My thought is that when Snape saw that Voldemort was going to kill 
Lily that he AK'd Voldemort - or did something to try and stop him - 
and that the two curses together caused a major reaction. What 
happened after that may explain the missing 24 hours.

So I agree with your thought that Snape wasn't going on DE missions -
however this was a special case to secure his position with 
Voldemort.

Carol continues: Since (according to PoA), Snape didn't know that PP 
had been made the Secret Keeper the week before, we have no reason 
to believe that he knew that the Potters were at Godric's Hollow.Nor 
do I see how Snape could be present as a DE without being noticed
by James or as his usual self without being killed by Voldemort. How
could he have known that Voldemort was going to kill the Potters that
night unless Peter Pettigrew told him, and why on earth would PP do
that? It wasn't in his best interest for anyone to know, especially
not his old enemy Severus Snape, and according to PoA, Snape didn't
know that PP was the Secret Keeper. Instead, he believed for all 
those years, as DD did, that Sirius Black was the traitor.

Kathy again:  Dumbledore didn't have to tell Harry about #12 - he 
only write it on a piece of paper. That ends the need for Snape to 
know who the secret keeper was. The rest is explained above, as it 
was a test to keep Snape in line. 

Carol again:  I see absolutely no reason for a request by Snape to 
spare Lily to be necessary and no reason to believe that LV would 
honor such a request.

Kathy responds: As you can see, I don't believe that Snape 'asked' 
for Lily to be spared.  I believe Snape is the reason the Potters 
were picked, and the reason they died.  Again, a very good reason 
for Dumbledore not to explain anything to Harry as to why he trusts 
Snape so completely.

Carol again:  It's quite possible that Snape's remorse for informing 
Voldemort of the Prophecy relates primarily to Lily (with the life 
debt to James as a secondary motive--how dare he die without letting 
me save him?), but there's no need for Snape to be at Godric's 
Hollow and no need for LV to know about Snape's feelings on the 
matter. He's not a superb Occlumens for nothing.

Kathy responds:  Again, most of the answer is above.  Why did Snape 
become so good at Occlumency?  Perhaps because of this situation, 
where it explains why that particular memory has become a chapter 
entitled "Snape's Worst Memory".   

Carol again: Carol, sure that Snape was at Hogwarts and knew nothing 
about Godric's Hollow until his Dark Mark began to fade and it was 
too late to help the Potters.

Kathy responds:  I hope you're right, but I have a feeling that 
Harry will have more reasons to hate Snape in Book 7, and one of 
them will be that it was Snape who, in a way, is responsible for his 
family being chosen by Voldemort.  Snape's role has remained 
important throughout all of the books.  It makes sense that he had a 
part to play in the Potter's deaths, not to mention that we are 
never told why he is so trusted by Dumbledore.

KathyO
>






From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 22:03:49 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 14:03:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
Message-ID: <20061114220349.68126.qmail@web54514.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161531

bboyminn:
 Also, has anyone worked out any alternative
amagrams? Does anyone know of a anagram generator on the
Internet that might help?
=================

Jeremiah:
Hee hee... I love this. It makes no sense but I can be fun to figure out. I grabbed the ones that made me giggle or had something cryptic in hte words. (mostly silly, thouhg.)

here Ya go!

'Immortal, odd lover.' (that's my personal favorite.)

ODD LIVER LO MOM ROT
MILDER DOOM VOLT OR
MILDER MOOD VOLT OR
DRIVEL LORD MOO TOM
DRIVEL LORD MOM TOO 
LIVED OLD MOM ROTOR
LIVED OLD MOM OR ROT
DEVIL ROD LO MOM ROT
LIVED DROOL MOM ROT
LIVED DOLOR MOM ROT
LIVED DOLOR MOM TOR
LIVED LORD MOM ROOT
DIMMER DOOR LO VOLT
VIDEO DORM ROLL TOM
DRIER MOLD VOLT MOO
OVERLORD MOLD OMIT
OLDER LORD VOMIT OM
DROVE ROD OMIT MOLL
VOTED DOOM RIM ROLL
RED LORD VOMIT LOOM
LID LORD VOTE MOM OR
LID LORD VETO MOM OR
LID LORD REV MOM TOO
DRILL DOOM OVER TOM 
MILD DROOL VET ROOM
MILD DROOL MOVE ROT
IDOL DORM LOVER TOM
DIM LORD MOVER LOOT
DIM LORD MOVER TOOL
DIM LORD MOVE LO ROT
TORRID OLD LOVE MOM
VOID LORD MELT ROOM
MOLD LORD RIVET MOO 
MOLD LORD MOVE TRIO
OLD LORD MOVER OMIT
OLD LORD ROVE IT MOM
LORD DOLT ROMEO VIM
LORD DOOM REVOLT MI
LORD DOOM LOVE TRIM
LORD DORM VILE MOOT
LORD ROD EVIL MOM TO
DOOM TROD OVER MILL
 (they said Drool, Love, Mom, Rot... and lots of other funny things!)

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




From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 21:04:31 2006
From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 13:04:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <20061114102135.26792.qmail@web34209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20061114210431.34702.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161532

Thomas Riddle may have claimed hating his father's name, but he needed his bones to return in the Goblet of Fire.
   
I was doing some research recently for my own writing and found Tom Riddle in a book of faeries as a mischievous Hearth Faery. 
   
Interesting.
   
Dragonkeeper



 
---------------------------------
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.

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





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 22:23:32 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:23:32 -0000
Subject: Tom Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <ejddrc+iflc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejdfl4+cnjd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161533

Charles Walker wrote:
> 
> Perhaps the reason he decided that none should speak his name stems 
> from the fact that it comes from his father's name. I mean, the whole 
> thing starts out with an anagram, then he wants to be known as 
> Voldemort. But as it wears on, he realizes that his fathers name is 
> still inherent in proclaiming "I am Lord Voldemort" and he begins 
> first to lash out at his followers for speaking his name, which then 
> carries from them to the general population.

Carol responds:
When he first invented the name, he was a kid at school, sixteen years
old or younger. I don't think he wanted the nickname he created to
impress his Slytherin gang to be generally known, any more than he
wanted it to be known that he was a Parseltongue and the Heir of
Slytherin, the person who had opened the Chamber of Secrets. His
so-called friends were sharers of his secrets and, to a lesser extent,
sharers in his power. Secrecy was a necessary component of that power.
I think that's the reason why the Death Eaters don't speak his name
and why they refer to him almost reverentially as the Dark Lord.

Once the name became generally known, after he returned to England,
transformed beyond recognition by his Horcruxes and perhaps by other
experiments, his name would be enough, by itself, to cause fear,
especially if the general public didn't know who he really was. Quite
possibly, one of the duties of the early Death Eaters was to spread
rumors and fear. It might even have been Death Eaters passing as
upright citizens who first referred to their master as He Who Must Not
Be Named. (You Know Who would have come later, as shorthand among
Voldie's enemies after the custom of avoiding his name was
well-established.) Just speculating, naturally.

Carol, altering the subject line to fit the canon





From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Tue Nov 14 22:33:07 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:33:07 -0000
Subject: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <20061114210431.34702.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ejdg73+i6hs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161534

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dragonkeeper 
<dragonkeeper012003 at ...> wrote:
>
> Thomas Riddle may have claimed hating his father's name, but he 
needed his bones to return in the Goblet of Fire.
>    
> I was doing some research recently for my own writing and found Tom 
Riddle in a book of faeries as a mischievous Hearth Faery. 
>    
> Interesting.
>    
> Dragonkeeper
> 

Joe:
What was the name of the book you found Tom Riddle in? If JKR used 
this as a resource it might contain other interesting bits of 
information that could find their way into book 7 or explain things 
from the first 6.





From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Tue Nov 14 22:14:49 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:14:49 +0100
Subject: JKR and the boys
References: <ejbe7h+t891@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00ae01c7083a$5002e1c0$15b2a8c0@miles>

No: HPFGUIDX 161535

Charles Walker Jr wrote:
>> Miles, who really likes to see so many replies to his original
> post. It's so
>> easy, just post a critical remark about JKR, and loads of people
> can't keep
>> their fingers off the keyboards ;)
>>
>
> Charles:
> Spoken like a true troll, Miles.

Miles:
Maybe you should check your Dictionary of Internet Lingo.
I meant what I wrote, I found arguments for my position and presented them,
others found pros and cons as well, and we all saw/see an IMO interesting
discussion. My idea of a mailing list like this is to provoke discussions.
By the way, your insult was the first piece in this discussion that seems to
have a bit of Troll smell.

Miles, shaking his head




From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 00:46:52 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 00:46:52 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ejbao8+3lgd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejdo1s+2u26@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161536

lupinlore: 
> Well, I guess this is just one of those areas where many of us will
> never understand where the other side is coming from. 

<Snip>

>  So, for instance, Harry is deeply
> affected by Cedric's death but he shrugs off Sirius' demise with an
> incredibly silly stiff-upper-lip speech.  Yeah, right.  All the
> issues between him and Dumbledore are swept firmly under the rug
> with three sentences.  Excuse me while I engage in incredulous
> laughter at the bad writing.

Amiable Dorsai:
You're right, I don't understand where you're coming from.

Did you really expect Harry, who would have learned not to cry before
he learned how to read, to do anything other than to suppress his
grief, to sweep it under the rug?  He hasn't "shrugged off" Sirius'
death, he's still suffering from it, and his problems with Dumbledore,
the night he and Dumbledore go on their little excursion to the
Birdbath of Doom.

He spends much of the book questioning Dumbledore's judgement, often
to his face.  He's so emotionally frazzled that he doesn't, at first,
understand what his feelings for Ginny mean; so compulsive--to the
point of obsession--that *Ron* tells him to chill about *Malfoy*.

By the end of the book, he's a ball of rage.  I think he dumped Ginny
as much to keep her from seeing that side of him as to protect her
from Voldemort--perhaps more so.

I thought it was excellent characterization.

Amiable Dorsai





From jamie.sommers at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 14 23:37:55 2006
From: jamie.sommers at yahoo.com (jamie.sommers)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:37:55 -0000
Subject: Felix question
In-Reply-To: <ej7p0k+8q07@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejdk0j+on9i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161537

> bboyminn:
>
<snip>
> Now Harry could carry a bottle of 'Luck' around with him
> at all times and that would certainly help, but I don't
> think it comes with a guarantee. It might sway things to
> his favor, but sometimes, even when things are going your
> way, the force against you is so overwhelming that even
> the very best of luck is not enough to save you.
<snip>

I think this is the important point.  We are led to believe that Ron,
Hermione and Ginny all took some of the 'Luck' potion before the DEs
invaded Hogwarts.  Their luck did not prevent the DEs in getting in,
Draco sneaking by them, Draco (or the rest) from getting away from the
main skirmish to get up to the tower, or DDs death.  It is implied
that it may have helped them to live and not get hit by the DEs
attacks, IIRC.  But this attack was, as Steve worded it, "so
overwhelming" that 'Luck' wasn't going to help them *win*.

Just my observation, :)
Jamie Sommers






From cindiknits at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 01:42:16 2006
From: cindiknits at yahoo.com (cindiknits)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 01:42:16 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejctsg+mmin@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejdr9o+vgin@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161538

> > a_svirn:
 Even more ominous: 
> > what if there are charms or potions that *should* have been 
proclaimed 
> > dark, but weren't for some opportunistic reason? In short, what 
if Dark 
> > Magic is what the Ministry says it is? If so, we can safely 
dismiss the 
> > notion.
> 
> Pippin:
> But we can't, because that would be saying that there is no good 
and
> evil, only power and those too weak to use it. 

Cindi's bit:  While I agree that there is "good" and "evil" in the 
abstract, it is sometimes very difficult to label specific things as 
being 100%, always evil or 100% always good in reality.  What is 
evil in one situation (killing someone who doesn't want to die by 
giving them an overdose of a drug) might be merciful and "good" in 
another (IMO physician assisted suicide).  The difference here is 
the intent of the person doing the act.  What seems to make 
something a "dark" art is the intent behind the action.  Thus, for 
example, you have to really want to torture someone for "Crucio" to 
have an effect.

I do think, as a_svirn suggests, that to a certain degree, dark 
magic is what the MM says it is, even it the idea makes me a bit 
uncomfortable. Three things come readily to mind; I'm sure there are 
others:

1.  The use of polyjuice potion.  Not considered a dark art to the 
MM, but certainly it's hard to imagine that most people would use 
this for benevolent purposes. It would almost certainly be used to 
spy on others.  If used for "good" spying, it's OK, if used by Barty 
Crouch, it's not.

2.  Memory modification: Surely an argument can be made that it's 
just wholly inappropriate to mess with someone's mind like that, 
even as a means to an end, but the MM doesn't see it that way. I 
understand its value, but there's something really violative in the 
act of manipulating someone's mind. But MM folks seem to use this 
tactic at the drop of a hat.

3.  The use of veritus serum. This reminds me a bit of the imperious 
curse. Both involve taking over another person's mind and forcing 
them to do things they would not normally do.  

So I think that, yes, to a large extent, there is no inherent good 
or evil attached to specific spells, but the intent of the caster 
can make something evil/dark. Even AK has its benificent purposes, 
if Snape was indeed acting out of good intent when the used it on 
Dumbledore.

Just some thoughts on a very interesting topic.






From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Wed Nov 15 02:56:16 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:56:16 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys
Message-ID: <494.bd376f0.328bdbd0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161539

>Magpie
>snip>
Malfoy, as it happens, seems to be very good friends with Pansy  
Parkinson (she seems to be his girlfriend, but then so will Ron be  
Hermione's and Ginny is Harry's) so he's not always in an all-male 
group  either. He doesn't seem so much less sensitive than Harry in 
those  ways--Harry seems to view girls as generally foreign creatures 
so doesn't  seem all that sensitive that way. Malfoy's a jerk in 
plenty of ways, but  doesn't seen particularly testosterone heavy. 
His only scene of bragging  about sexual exploits is to play up his 
arm injury to Pansy when he's  13--<snip>
 
Nikkalmati:
 
I have been listening to GOF and I was struck about something about Malfoy  
in the scene in the forest at the World Cup when Ron, Harry and Hermione are  
fleeing the riot caused by the DEs.   He says something like "keep  that bushy 
head down if you don't want to be part of the entertainment" and  "having you 
turned upside down would be good for a laugh" and "they can tell  you're a 
Mudblood"  (quotes from memory but more or less  accurate).   It can be read as 
Malfoy taunting and insulting Hermione,  but I wonder if it can't be read as a 
sincere warning.  Maybe he doesn't  want Hermione to be attacked by the DEs, 
but can't come across that way in front  of Harry and Ron. 
 
Nikkalmati
 


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




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Wed Nov 15 03:42:50 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:42:50 EST
Subject: Karakoff and Snape
Message-ID: <c3e.949b27d.328be6ba@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161540

Sydney said:
>[Snape]He seems to be from a
young age a sort of go-to guy for  people (at least the much older
Karkaroff instinctively turned to him for  'what are we going to do!!')

Nikkalmati
 
This made me think - what was the relationship between IK and SS?   They 
apparently were DEs together and knew each other when not all DEs  did.   IK does 
seem to be appealing to SS for help in GOF.   Did Snape know IK had tried to 
sell him down the river to save his own  skin before the Wizengemot?  
(spelling?)  Is he refusing to help him  or give him advice because of that or did he 
simply think IK had made his  bed and would have to lie in it.  Why was IK 
caught and killed by the DEs  in England a year later?  Couldn't he have gone back 
to  Durmstrang?  
 
Nikkalmati


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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 15 04:08:42 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 23:08:42 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys
References: <494.bd376f0.328bdbd0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <009b01c7086b$bd747f80$99ba400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161541

> Nikkalmati:
>
> I have been listening to GOF and I was struck about something about Malfoy
> in the scene in the forest at the World Cup when Ron, Harry and Hermione 
> are
> fleeing the riot caused by the DEs.   He says something like "keep  that 
> bushy
> head down if you don't want to be part of the entertainment" and  "having 
> you
> turned upside down would be good for a laugh" and "they can tell  you're a
> Mudblood"  (quotes from memory but more or less  accurate).   It can be 
> read as
> Malfoy taunting and insulting Hermione,  but I wonder if it can't be read 
> as a
> sincere warning.  Maybe he doesn't  want Hermione to be attacked by the 
> DEs,
> but can't come across that way in front  of Harry and Ron.

Magpie:
Many people have definitely had that theory over the years. Personally, I 
don't think he's warning her out of a desire to do good. I always thought it 
was more showing that while Malfoy has no good intentions towards the Trio, 
his priorities are in getting their attention, coming across as in-the-know, 
and being threatening...not actually seeing Hermione tormented by DEs.

-m 





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Nov 15 06:23:34 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 22:23:34 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejde2n+jr6j@eGroups.com>
References: <ejcce0+3g2d@eGroups.com> <ejde2n+jr6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611142223x31b63c2bv57511b5b342f1ce6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161542

Lynda:

I tend to think that Hermione and Ginny have a pretty good friendship.
Hermione is not the type of girl too have an overabundance of female (or
male for that matter) friends. Rather, she has a lot of acquaintances and a
few friends and there are a number of things that she simply chooses not to
share, even with certain of those people who are her friends. Some things
she keeps to herself. This idea is borne out in cannon by the fact that she
does not tell Ron and Harry who her date for the Yule ball is, or that she
hexed that piece of parchment that she had all of the DA members sign. Or,
that she had contacted Rita Skeeter in OOP. There are simply some things she
chooses to either keep to herself or share with only a select few, and not
always the same select few.

Lynda


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




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 15 07:40:23 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:40:23 -0000
Subject: Torture (was: Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <eir4cu+f3g1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejeg97+nf9k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161543

"a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:

> I don't think that anyone else could have 
> saved Draco,[from Sectumsempra] since it's
> Snape's invention and it is probably
> unknown in the WW.

I that's probably true.

> All in all it [Sectumsempra] looks like
> a more serious affair than Crusatius.

I very strongly disagree. Sectumsempra causes physical damage so
eventually it will kill you and thus set you free. Crusatius by
contrast will not kill you but it will make you wish it did. It will
put you in hell and do so indefinably. That is dark, that is evil,
that is true horror. I am incapable of imagining anything worse.
Fortunately.  

> Muggle torture is a messy business and 
> the actual pain is only part of the problem.
> The worst of it is that survivals suffer
> from damage, both physical and mental,
> long after the event if not forever. By
> contrast it's really preposterous how 
> in the WW people just shrug and go about 
> their business as soon as the curse is lifted.

A shrug? The Crucatius Curse drove Neville's parents insane and they
were far far from wimps, they were brave and mighty Aurors. Granted
Harry received the curse several times and remained sane but few would
deny he was exceptional, and I don't think even Harry was unaffected
by the experience. When you hurt so bad you want to die, well, you
tend to remember that.

Eggplant     








From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 15 08:17:41 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 08:17:41 -0000
Subject: JKR (was:Harry's Knowlege of Lord Voldemort)
In-Reply-To: <einrs5+dmb2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejeif5+88cr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161544

Somebody named JKR wrote: 

> There are bits of all six books that 
> I would go back and tighten up. 

"Well
.. you could lighten up a bit on the adverbs" He said furiously. 

> My feeling is that Phoenix is overlong

JKR you don't know what you're talking about! Your main flaw as a
writer is that every single one of your books are far far too short.

Eggplant  






From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com  Wed Nov 15 09:21:57 2006
From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 09:21:57 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <006e01c706a1$8f015900$15b2a8c0@miles>
Message-ID: <ejem7l+pqe2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161545

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" <miles at ...> wrote:
>
> After watching the PoA film again, I stumbled about a scene quite 
at the
> beginning that is not in the book. It's the scene where the boys 
have fun in
> the dormitory, imitating animals and having a small pillow fight 
afterwards.
<snip> AmanitaMuscaria now - Agreed, that was a scene that 
contributed and broadened understanding of the characters, unlike 
some of the movie contamination.

> Harry is... well, let's say "unprepared" and not very clever with 
girls. We
> have an insight in his thoughts, but this doesn't make the 
situation more
> clear. His desires seem to come from a dark place in himself that 
he is
> unaware of. 

AM again - Well, I can't imagine Harry (or Dudley, for that matter) 
would have got much insight or help with his emotions and identifying 
them. Anything that wasn't basic obeying of commands seems to have 
been treated by the Dursleys as frightening and dangerous. ("I won't 
blow the house up, honest!" But they never believed him .. I'm 
paraphrasing here) I suspect Harry has taken that to mean any 
emotions are frightening and dangerous.


> He has very few friends, and he seems not to be interested in 
students apart
> from those who are his friends. This is shown differently in the 
films, by
> the way.
> What makes this situation unrealistic IMO is Harry's past until he 
came to
> Hogwarts. He had a very hard time not only at the Dursley's, but at
> elementary school as well. A person being bullied so much will most 
probably
> develop good knowledge of human nature - especially a bright boy 
like Harry.
> It's vital for him to understand people and to "read their minds" 
in order
> to find out who will harm him and who will not. 

AM again - Another way of responding to such treatment is to be 
completely confused by people, to not understand their motivations at 
all, and thus to become resigned to people reacting in ways that you 
cannot possibly foresee. So Harry doesn't tell people things, because 
he can't predict their reactions. He doesn't open up to possible 
friends, because they may not be friends. He isn't socially clued up 
because he wasn't socialised from ages 1-11. Same with the emotions, 
he has very little information to work with. 
I find the reactions and actions pretty believable, if you accept his 
past as true. And because of that, I don't find it strange that there 
isn't more student life description, as we're seeing it all from 
Harry's POV, mostly, and he can't be an accurate reporter as he 
hasn't the social skills to be so.
Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria 





From grangerohini at yahoo.co.in  Wed Nov 15 11:03:56 2006
From: grangerohini at yahoo.co.in (grangerohini)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 11:03:56 -0000
Subject: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <ejb7jk+imhh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejes6s+bda2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161546

I think Voldy wasn't trying to pay any homage to his father but to his
mother as this name was kept by her.  Yea its true tht he hated his
father but it's never mentioned that he hated his mother also, so maybe
because of her he chose to make an anagram out of the name which was
given to him by her.


grangerohini




From LynnKQuinn at aol.com  Wed Nov 15 15:18:24 2006
From: LynnKQuinn at aol.com (eyemlynn)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:18:24 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
In-Reply-To: <ejca3t+nee4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejfb40+lcst@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161547

> TinkTonks:
>
> My problem is that on the JKR Website FAQ's JKR says that the status
> of the secret remains the same if a SK dies (Which DD thought PP
> had). So therefore wouldnt the best course of action for DD have
> been to rebuild GH and have someone keep Harry there? Nobody could
> reach him!
>
> If your theories (Which I like very much by the way) are right I
> dont understand why D would have chosen a life of misery for Harry!


Lynn:
DD believed Sirius to be the SK so as far as he was concerned, SB would be in Azkaban blabbing to everyone where Harry was. PP wouldn't have factored in since no one knew he was the SK except SB.

Lynn







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 15 16:03:11 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:03:11 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejde2n+jr6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejfdnv+p4it@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161548

Betsy HP
> Hermione doesn't tell Ginny about figuring out Rita Skeeter's 
> secret, capturing her, or her big plan to have Rita write Harry's 
> story up.  Ginny seems to find out about the DA club along with 
> everyone else (after Ron and Harry).  There's nothing to suggest 
> Ginny knew about the contract being hexed.> 
> Ginny wasn't involved at all in Hermione's attempt to save Buckbeak, 
> even after Ron and Harry bowed out for a bit.  Ginny isn't involved 
> in Hermione's SPEW (wasn't Neville the only other person Hermione 
> was able to get involved?). 

Pippin:
SPEW's not a  secret. I suspect Ginny didn't want to have anything to
do with it and said so, for all the reasons enumerated by the other
characters. But as Harry wasn't paying much attention to Ginny's
opinions in GoF, we didn't get to hear about it.

There were long stretches in PoA when Ron and Harry weren't talking 
to Hermione at all, and that might have been when Ginny and 
Hermione got to be close. 

As for the other examples, I don't think Ginny's interested in the
detective stuff.  If she was, being excluded from the Trio's activities
would be unbearable.  Ginny isn't into it, just like
Hermione isn't into Quidditch. I'm sure that both Ginny and Harry
 think the ideal life would have a lot more Quidditch and a lot less
people trying to kill you, thank you very much.

Also, Hermione's intellectual isolation is part of the story, and
it would cut across it if she had Ginny to bounce her ideas off of.
Hermione hasn't learned to bounce her ideas off *anyone*, and
that's one of the things she has to learn to do. She's just too
insecure to attempt it. 

 But the girls must be close, IMO, not to resent the time Harry 
spends with the other, even with no romantic rivalry. 

JKR can be a very economic writer, so one giggly conversation about 
love potions has to stand in for six years of girl talk, just like canary 
creams and levicorpus have to stand in for six years of rough-housing. 

But that doesn't mean JKR hasn't noticed how boys and girls behave. 
Ron makes a few off color jokes a year or so apart, and that has to
stand in for a phase that was probably just as annoying and
intensive  as SPEW. But civil rights has more to do with the story
than sex does, so we get more about SPEW than we did about Uranus,
thank goodness. If Voldemort was recruiting from the sexually
repressed we'd have a different story (or a very smutty fanfic <veg>)


> Betsy Hp:
> I was thinking more of Hermione's disdain for Harry and Ron worring 
> over who they were going to take to the dance.  Hermione didn't 
> really care all that much about it.  She didn't work to get Krum as 
> a date, he worked to get her.  And while she did take some time to 
> doll herself up, she was also very careful to point out that this 
> was not her normal behavior.  It was just not all that stressful for 
> Hermione, relative to Harry and Ron.

Pippin:
Yeah, Hermione was so cool over it all that she got into a screaming,
shouting, hairdo destroying brawl with Ron. She never gets worked
up about that stuff, except when she sends killer canaries to peck
someone's eyes out. Are we reading the same books?

Pippin





From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 15:26:34 2006
From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 07:26:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thomas Marvolo Riddle
In-Reply-To: <ejdg73+i6hs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061115152634.89517.qmail@web53302.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161549

Joe:
> What was the name of the book you found Tom Riddle in? If JKR used
> this as a resource it might contain other interesting bits of
> information that could find their way into book 7 or explain things
> from the first 6.


I found my information in the Great Encyclopedia of Faeries. I thought he would be a good character to work with because his nature for malevolent mischief. The legend of the Tom Riddle faery if British so she might have heard it. I'm not sure. 
   
I also found information on the Great Basilisk also used in Chamber of Secrets. That too is British legend.
   
I don't think there would be much connection between the dark faery and Voldemort, unless... UNLESS...the Slyhterian line began with a union of a druid and faery around the time of Roman occupation of England.
   
dragonkeeper



 




From snowman.birthday at gmail.com  Wed Nov 15 15:50:04 2006
From: snowman.birthday at gmail.com (Jodi in VA)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 10:50:04 -0500
Subject: Tom Marvolo Riddle
Message-ID: <8B6E8027-A6C4-4403-B1E4-F9C74808D5C6@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161550

Geoff:

An interesting speculation is how he actually arrived at the name. We  
have discussed it on numerous occasions here and I lean to a fairly widely accepted view that it's from the French "flight of death" or "theft of death" but was that in his addled mind or not? Or did he just cut the letters out of a piece of paper and just twiddle them around on a tabletop?

Perhaps we shall never know.


Jodi replies:
He probably used a wand.  I wonder if the wand re-sorted and re- 
sorted for him to come up with proper-looking or at least  
pronouncable names too!

-- Jodi in VA





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 16:30:26 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:30:26 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ejdo1s+2u26@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejffb2+jfm4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161551

Amiable Dorsai wrote:
<snip> 
> Did you really expect Harry, who would have learned not to cry
before he learned how to read, to do anything other than to suppress
his grief, to sweep it under the rug?  He hasn't "shrugged off"
Sirius' death, he's still suffering from it <snip>
> By the end of the book, he's a ball of rage. <snip>
> 
> I thought it was excellent characterization.

Carol responds:
Not to mention that he's projecting his guilt for his involvement
(however inadvertent) in the death of Sirius Black onto Snape in the
form of rage. He couldn't do that with Cedric, whose death he also
felt guilty about (and relived in nightmares); Snape was not involved
in any way. But even Harry knows, and briefly admits to himself in
HBP, that blaming Snape in this instance is emotionally gratifying. So
it's part stiff upper lip, part repression, and part transferring the
blame onto a scapegoat whom he already hates. And Dumbledore, who
can't explain why he trusts Severus Snape, can't help Harry sort out
these mixed-up emotions. Of course, not having a funeral or even a
memorial service for Black didn't help Harry, either. He hasn't been
given a chance to grieve for his godfather in a normal fashion.

Carol, who thinks that Sirius Black's body will be returned through
the Veil and he'll be given a real funeral in Book 7





From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Nov 15 17:32:20 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:32:20 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
In-Reply-To: <ejfb40+lcst@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejfiv4+u0tl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161552

TinkTonks:

My problem is that on the JKR Website FAQ's JKR says that the status
of the secret remains the same if a SK dies (Which DD thought PP
had). So therefore wouldnt the best course of action for DD have
been to rebuild GH and have someone keep Harry there? Nobody could
reach him!

If your theories (Which I like very much by the way) are right I
dont understand why D would have chosen a life of misery for Harry!
 
 
Lynn:
DD believed Sirius to be the SK so as far as he was concerned, SB 
would be in Azkaban blabbing to everyone where Harry was. PP 
wouldn't have factored in since no one knew he was the SK except SB.

Tinktonks;

I see where your coming from but I dont see Azkaban as the have a 
gossip in the execise yard kind of joint. More the solitary 
confinment assylum kind of deal.

Plus I would imagine Dumbledore would have SB cast as a sinister sly 
snide kinda guy. Knowledge is power - and he wouldn't be likely to 
share his power with inmates.

Just my humble opinion!

Tinktonks







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 15 21:49:13 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:49:13 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
In-Reply-To: <ejfiv4+u0tl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejg20p+5819@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161553

inktonks;
> 
> I see where your coming from but I dont see Azkaban as the have a 
> gossip in the execise yard kind of joint. More the solitary 
> confinment assylum kind of deal.
> 
> Plus I would imagine Dumbledore would have SB cast as a sinister sly 
> snide kinda guy. Knowledge is power - and he wouldn't be likely to 
> share his power with inmates.
> 

Pippin:
Sirius says he could overhear what other prisoners were saying,
though they all went quiet after a while. But the most important thing
is that *Voldemort* knew the secret, so Godric's Hollow was no longer 
safe in any case.

Pippin





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 22:40:04 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:40:04 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejcpne+fcpu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejg504+84rg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161554

a_svirn:
> That's sort of what I think myself. But that's a kind of explanation
> that prompts further questions. Like what if there are other
creatures, persons and charms that were labelled dark unjustly? Even
more ominous:
> what if there are charms or potions that *should* have been 
proclaimed
> dark, but weren't for some opportunistic reason? In short, what if
Dark Magic is what the Ministry says it is? If so, we can safely
dismiss the notion.
>
Carol:
But what if it isn't?

a_svirn:
I would be glad to be proved wrong. 

Carol:
What if "Unforgiveable" means something more
than a lifetime sentence to Azkaban (which would hardly serve as a
deterrent after a person has cast one Unforgiveable).

a_svirn:
Actually, it would. You'd be hard put to find a better deterrent. 

Carol:
Bellatrix says
that you have to *mean* the Unforgiveable Curses, and surely it's
important that she's such an expert at casting the Cruciatus Curse and
Harry failed to cast one effectively. 

a_svirn:
Yes, of course it's important. It shows that Harry isn't a malicious 
person. The thing is that you have to *mean* any magic you perform 
for it to work. Harry had to *mean* the Summoning charm, and he 
concentrated pretty hard to get the meaning across. Neville had to 
*mean* the Ridicculus charm, Pettigrew had to *mean* the Fidelius 
(only he didn't) etc. As far as I can see all magic is *intentional*, 
so to speak, except for the times when it isn't. In those cases it's 
called Accidental Magic. Which lives us with a kind of circular 
definition: Dark Magic is magic performed with dark intentions. Not 
exactly helpful. 

Carol:
Maybe Dark magic has the potential to corrupt the user, to turn him
evil or to lead him into an obsession with some unnatural goal, such
as immortality or control over others' minds.

a_svirn:
Maybe. But it seems to me that this hypothesis it at odds with your 
earlier statement about the importance of intent. Is Voldemort dark 
because he *means* to be dark, or has he just sort of tumbled into it 
without really meaning to? 

Pippin:
But we can't, because that would be saying that there is no good and
evil, only power and those too weak to use it. The fact that their
ability to distinguish between good and evil is subject to error
does not release wizards from trying to make the distinction. The
perfect must not be allowed to become the enemy of the good.

a_svirn:
For once I am in complete sympathy with you, Pippin. The notions of 
Good and Evil cannot be and shouldn't be simply dismissed. But why 
not leave it at that? Why should we multiply essences beyond 
necessity and muddle waters with this Dark Arts thing? If I am a 
wicked person and did some evil deed, shouldn't I be judged and 
condemned for a crime I committed rather than for the means I 
employed to achieve my ends? 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 22:50:38 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:50:38 -0000
Subject: Torture (was: Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ejeg97+nf9k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejg5ju+b6rr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161555


> A shrug? The Crucatius Curse drove Neville's parents insane and they
> were far far from wimps, they were brave and mighty Aurors. Granted
> Harry received the curse several times and remained sane but few would
> deny he was exceptional, and I don't think even Harry was unaffected
> by the experience. When you hurt so bad you want to die, well, you
> tend to remember that.
> 
> Eggplant
>
a_svirn:
You would think so, wouldn't you? And yet, Pettigrew had been tortured 
routinely during GOF and always bustled about doing his chores as soon 
as the curse was lifted. Cedric evinced the mildest of surprises when 
Harry relieved him of the curse and resumed his chase without further 
ado. He even bested Harry at it. 





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 23:22:47 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:22:47 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejfdnv+p4it@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejg7g7+3u47@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161556

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > Ginny wasn't involved at all in Hermione's attempt to save      
> > Buckbeak, even after Ron and Harry bowed out for a bit.  Ginny   
> > isn't involved in Hermione's SPEW (wasn't Neville the only other 
> > person Hermione was able to get involved?). 

> >>Pippin:
> SPEW's not a  secret. I suspect Ginny didn't want to have anything 
> to do with it and said so, for all the reasons enumerated by the   
> other characters.

Betsy Hp:
Right, but IMO, that goes towards Ginny and Hermione not being bosom 
friends. Either Ginny would support Hermione while thinking her 
mad.  Or she wouldn't support Hermione and Hermione would be a bit 
depressed or annoyed by it.  IIRC, Ginny's opinion never registered 
as a factor.

> >>Pippin:
> But as Harry wasn't paying much attention to Ginny's opinions in   
> GoF, we didn't get to hear about it.

Betsy Hp:
I have two feelings about this sort of thought (both very much my 
opinion, of course).  

One, this is an excuse used to cover up or explain away bad writing 
on JKR's part.  Even if your POV character doesn't pay attention to 
something, an author should be able to get across what they choose 
to get across.  If Ginny and Hermione were close friends at this 
time the reader should be aware of it, even if Harry doesn't care.  
If JKR failed to do so than she's done a bad job writing Ginny's and 
Hermione's relationship.

Or two, this is an excuse used by readers to explain why something 
they think is happening isn't covered at all in the narrative.  JKR 
is a good enough writer to get across the important information, so 
if it's not there, then it's really not there.  Ginny and Hermione 
don't have a special relationship.

I waffle between the two. <g>  But at the moment I'm giving JKR the 
benefit of the doubt.
 
> >>Pippin:
> There were long stretches in PoA when Ron and Harry weren't       
> talking to Hermione at all, and that might have been when Ginny   
> and Hermione got to be close. 

Betsy Hp:
But we're told that Hermione spends that time with Hagrid or 
researching to find a way to save Buckbeak. Ginny is never described 
as being with her.  When Ron and Harry had their fight in GoF, we 
are told that Ron is hanging out with Dean and Seamus, so I'm not 
sure why JKR wouldn't mention that Hermione hung around Ginny in 
PoA, if that's what we're supposed to see.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Also, Hermione's intellectual isolation is part of the story, and
> it would cut across it if she had Ginny to bounce her ideas off of.
> Hermione hasn't learned to bounce her ideas off *anyone*, and
> that's one of the things she has to learn to do. She's just too
> insecure to attempt it. 

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  Which is why I don't see Ginny as Hermione's best friend.  
Hermione doesn't *need* Ginny.  I think Hermione likes Ginny just 
fine.  And Hermione enjoys Ginny's company when she's visiting the 
Burrow.  But while at Hogwarts, with everything else going on, 
Hermione only has time for her best friends, Ron and Harry, and 
their overlapping interests.

Since I don't see Ginny resenting Hermione at all over this, I 
assume that Ginny doesn't feel the need to make Hermione her best 
friend either.

> >>Pippin:
>  But the girls must be close, IMO, not to resent the time Harry 
> spends with the other, even with no romantic rivalry. 

Betsy Hp:
Hermione has no reason to resent Ginny until the end of HBP.  And 
since Ginny has no claim on Harry until that point, I'm not sure 
what she'd resent Hermione over.  Especially as we know that Ron is 
a bit closer to Harry anyway.

I think Hermione and Ginny are comfortable together.  They're not so 
entirely different they can't get on when they're together.  But I 
just don't see the two as best friends.  If they have a choice, they 
tend to hang with other people.

> >>Pippin:
> JKR can be a very economic writer, so one giggly conversation     
> about love potions has to stand in for six years of girl talk,     
> just like canary creams and levicorpus have to stand in for six   
> years of rough-housing. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Which is what Miles was missing I think (I'm quite possibly putting 
words in Miles's mouth here): the economics over simple and warming 
human interaction.  By putting story-telling economics over 
character development there's a human element missing from the 
Potter books.  Something the director of PoA felt so essential he 
actually wrote such a scene into the film.

And for me, I can say the economic giggling about love potions 
failed.  It's not enough to get me to see Ginny and Hermione as 
bosom friends.  If JKR wanted me to buy that sort of thing she 
needed to throw a bit more in.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > It [the Yule Ball] was just not all that stressful for Hermione, 
> > relative to Harry and Ron.
 
> >>Pippin:
> Yeah, Hermione was so cool over it all that she got into a        
> screaming, shouting, hairdo destroying brawl with Ron. She never   
> gets worked up about that stuff, except when she sends killer     
> canaries to peck someone's eyes out. 

Betsy Hp:
But that wasn't over the stress of *dating*.  That was the stress of 
*Ron*.  Hermione effortlessly landed the school's most eligible 
bachelor soon into the asking process.  Harry and Ron spent most of 
the time scared stiff about landing a date, and only end up with a 
date at the last minute (Ron needing Harry's help).  Hermione 
effortlessly shows up beautifully groomed and beautifully dressed.  
Harry is as effortlessly gorgeous, but Ron has to suffer through 
awkward formal clothes that make him look and feel uncomfortable.  
IIRC Hermione dances quite well, Harry dances badly, and Ron refuses 
to dance at all.  Hermione has a wonderful time, Harry is bored 
stiff, Ron is miserable.  

We get a similar deal in HBP with Slughorn's Christmas party.  
Hermione effortlessly lands a date that meets her political 
requirements.  Harry does his awkward grab thing, and of course Ron 
was never invited in the first place.  The only awkwardness Hermione 
has to go through is a date who's intentions are quite different 
from hers.

So yeah, I do think Hermione has the social aspects of dating pretty 
much sown up.  And from the moment she's expected to figure it out 
no less.  It's the falling in love thing that she's struggling 
through. (Which actually fits in with her character quite well.)

> >>Pippin:
> Are we reading the same books?

Betsy Hp:
I think we're reading the same books...  I'm just reading them in 
the back of soon to be closed bar, sucking down cheap cigarettes and 
cheaper liquor, fighting off a headache and a broken heart.  While I 
loved HBP for what it did for the "bad guys" (read Slytherins), the 
Gryffindors took some pretty bad lumps, IMO.  

While I still love the various ethical questions the Potter books 
raise, I'm starting to get a bit terrified of JKR's conclusion.  
When the books end, will I even like the main characters anymore?

Betsy Hp (contemplating a full series reread... someday)





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 23:28:38 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:28:38 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejg504+84rg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejg7r6+jd80@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161557

> Carol:
> What if "Unforgiveable" means something more
> than a lifetime sentence to Azkaban (which would hardly serve as a
> deterrent after a person has cast one Unforgiveable).
> 
> a_svirn:
> Actually, it would. You'd be hard put to find a better deterrent. 

Carol again:
I disagree. Once you've cast a single Unforgiveable, whether it's
Imperius, Cruciatus, or AK, you've sentenced yourself to Azkaban.
There's nothing whatever to deter you from casting as many additional
Unforgiveables as you choose, assuming that your moral standards are
shaky or nonexistent, and presumably it gets easier each time. If
Draco had succeeded in killing a weakened Dumbledore, what would keep
him from killing or Crucioing other people? In fact, even his Crucio
of Harry would have sentenced him to Azkaban had it succeeded,
removing any effect the threat of Azkaban may have had on his decision
not to kill Dumbledore (which leads me to believe that it wasn't Draco
who Imperio'd Rosmerta. That alone would have removed the deterrent
effect of the threat of Azkaban, as well as any natural hesitation to
cast a really Dark curse considered by the WW to be Unforgiveable).
> 
> Carol:
> Bellatrix says
> that you have to *mean* the Unforgiveable Curses, and surely it's
> important that she's such an expert at casting the Cruciatus Curse
and Harry failed to cast one effectively. 
> 
> a_svirn:
<snip> As far as I can see all magic is *intentional*, so to speak,
except for the times when it isn't. In those cases it's called
Accidental Magic. Which lives us with a kind of circular definition:
Dark Magic is magic performed with dark intentions. Not exactly helpful. 

Carol:
I think it's quite helpful, at least for a start. Dark magic is,
apparently, magic performed with the intent to harm or some other evil
motive--for example, the unnatural extension of life or denial of
death--which, BTW, requires harm to others, blood from one living
person, flesh from another, and bone from a dead man. The other
restorative potion (the one that created Fetal!mort) required unicorn
blood, which involves the death of something innocent. Sectumsempra
was dark because it required the intent to harm (Harry wasn't
innocently playing around with a friend; he knew it was "for enemies")
and/or because its purpose is to harm. The same with the curses on the
opal necklace and the ring Horcrux, the intention and power to harm or
kill. In contrast, memory charms, however much we all despise them,
were not created and are not normally used with the intent to harm. In
fact, they're often used (condescendingly, to be sure) to "help"
Muggles deal with what they ostensibly can't cope with or understand,
such as attacks by dragons or giants or being "blown up" by your
sister-in-law's nephew.
> 
> Carol:
> Maybe Dark magic has the potential to corrupt the user, to turn him
> evil or to lead him into an obsession with some unnatural goal, such
> as immortality or control over others' minds.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Maybe. But it seems to me that this hypothesis it at odds with your 
> earlier statement about the importance of intent. Is Voldemort dark 
> because he *means* to be dark, or has he just sort of tumbled into
it without really meaning to? 

Carol:
In his case, he was already corrupted by Dark magic, or by the desire
to perform it, before he even knew he was a wizard. But I think that
someone like Barty Jr. would become progressively more evil (or
psychotic) the more Unforgiveables he performed. Surely, helping to
Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity required intent to harm but also
harmed Barty himself in some way. We talk about "hardened criminals,"
but they don't start out hardened, however much they desire to harm
others. They have to act on those desires first, and for Barty and the
other Death Eaters, and potentially for Draco and even Harry, the
Unforgiveable Curses provided the means to the end. They succumbed to
the temptation to use them and so they fell into evil, perhaps
irredeemable evil (which is why I'm so concerned for snape now that
he's cast an AK, but that's another thread).

Voldemort is dark because he wished to harm others, succeeded in doing
so and took pleasure in it, and promoted his own lust for power and
immortality with no concern for others. The magic he used is dark
because it requires dark motives like his and either harms others or
promotes unnatural ends by unnatural means, with Horcruxes being the
prime example.

Carol, feeling that she's further muddied the waters rather than
clearing away the Darkness





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 23:49:59 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 23:49:59 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejg504+84rg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejg937+1kad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161558

> >>Carol:
> > Maybe Dark magic has the potential to corrupt the user, to turn 
> > him evil or to lead him into an obsession with some unnatural   
> > goal, such as immortality or control over others' minds.

> >>a_svirn:
> Maybe. But it seems to me that this hypothesis it at odds with    
> your earlier statement about the importance of intent. Is          
> Voldemort dark because he *means* to be dark, or has he just sort 
> of tumbled into it without really meaning to? 

Betsy Hp:
I think, by seeing Voldemort's background, we're told pretty clearly 
that young Tom *meant* to go dark.  Even before he learns he's a 
wizard Tom clearly enjoyed having power over others, enjoyed causing 
them pain.  It's not the magic that put Tom on the path of becoming 
Voldemort; Tom chose to go that way all by himself.  Magic merely 
provided a means.  If Tom hadn't been a wizard he may well have 
become a serial killer.

I think power can still be a source of corruption if used 
unchecked.  But I do think with magic power is power and it's the 
way it's *used* that differentiates between good and evil.  For 
example, Lockhart's abilities with memory charms.  The memory charms 
aren't dark.  Lockhart's abilities with them didn't make him a dark 
wizard.  But the *way* he used them was bad.

> >>Pippin:
> > But we can't, because that would be saying that there is no good 
> > and evil, only power and those too weak to use it. The fact that 
> > their ability to distinguish between good and evil is subject to 
> > error does not release wizards from trying to make the          
> > distinction. The perfect must not be allowed to become the enemy 
> > of the good.

> >>a_svirn:
> For once I am in complete sympathy with you, Pippin. The notions   
> of Good and Evil cannot be and shouldn't be simply dismissed. But 
> why not leave it at that? Why should we multiply essences beyond 
> necessity and muddle waters with this Dark Arts thing? If I am a 
> wicked person and did some evil deed, shouldn't I be judged and 
> condemned for a crime I committed rather than for the means I 
> employed to achieve my ends?

Betsy Hp:
You know, I wonder if Voldemort didn't employ the "muddled waters" 
to corrupt Quirrell?  We know Quirrell was good at his subject 
(DADA), so I think it's safe to assume he'd have had a good idea of 
what magic is dark and what magic is light as per the MoM (which I'm 
assuming is a key source of the current definitions).  It'd have 
been easy for someone as well-versed and as well-spoken as Voldemort 
to start asking some questions.  "Why is this spell dark and this 
one not?"  "Couldn't that dark spell be a benefit on certain 
occasions, and that light one an ill?"  Talk about devil's advocate!

If the WW has made the MoM's definitions of dark and light magic 
their ethical crutch I can see them being quite susceptible to that 
sort of  manipulation.  And I can see them concluding that there's 
no good or evil, just power.

Which would suggest that designating light and dark magic *harms* 
rather than helps the fight against evil.

Betsy Hp (suspecting Snape may have figured that out, probably 
Dumbledore too)





From aceworker at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 15 23:57:37 2006
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Felix question
Message-ID: <20061115235737.48860.qmail@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161559

 
 <Jamie Sommers:

 <I think this is the important point.  We are led to believe that Ron,
<Hermione and Ginny all took some of the 'Luck' potion before the DEs
 <invaded Hogwarts.  Their luck did not prevent the DEs in getting in,
<Draco sneaking by them, Draco (or the rest) from getting away from the
 <main skirmish to get up to the tower, or DDs death.  It is implied
 <that it may have helped them to live and not get hit by the DEs
 <attacks, IIRC.  But this attack was, as Steve worded it, "so
 <overwhelming" that 'Luck' wasn't going to help them *win*.
 
 <Just my observation, :)
 <Jamie Sommers

Interesting point, but I'm going to make this observation. The only evidence that we have that anyone took the Felix Felis is Ginny dancing while Amycus is thowin crucio curses at her. (By the way is this a flint? I don't remember the crucio curse being something you can dodge in any of the other books. It doesn't seem to be a 'beam' curse anywhere but here that I can remember.)

There is no direct evidence that say Ron and Hermione or Neville or Luna took the potion. In fact since Neville it really seems Neville didn't since he was injured. 

In fact it would be very much in char for Ron and Hermione to refuse it use in order to save it for Harry. Most likely they tricked Ginny into thinking that the rest of them took it. Maybe they just had either Ginny take it. 

DA Jones
       

 
---------------------------------
Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows. $310,000 Mortgage for $999/mo -  Calculate new house payment

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




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 00:51:26 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 00:51:26 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejg7r6+jd80@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejgcme+einb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161560

> Carol:
> <snip> Once you've cast a single Unforgiveable, whether it's
> Imperius, Cruciatus, or AK, you've sentenced yourself to Azkaban.
> There's nothing whatever to deter you from casting as many 
additional
> Unforgiveables as you choose, assuming that your moral standards are
> shaky or nonexistent, and presumably it gets easier each time. 

a_svirn:
Even so, I would have to weigh the pleasure and profit I get from 
killing and torturing against the possibility of being caught (this 
time around) and sent to Azkaban. What's more, there wouldn't be 
anything else to stop me. 

> Carol:
> I think it's quite helpful, at least for a start. Dark magic is,
> apparently, magic performed with the intent to harm <snip>

a_svirn:
That's sounds awfully vague. I mean, any curse is designed to cause 
harm (and, I imagine, quite a few *counter-curses* also). Besides, 
you don't even have to use curses to cause harm. Suppose Zabini's 
mother tuned her lovers into porcelain figurines and kept them on her 
dressing table. Would it be a "cool piece of transfiguration" or dark 
magic? 

> Carol:
or some other evil
> motive--for example, the unnatural extension of life or denial of
> death--which, BTW, requires harm to others, blood from one living
> person, flesh from another, and bone from a dead man. The other
> restorative potion (the one that created Fetal!mort) required 
unicorn
> blood, which involves the death of something innocent. <snip>

a_svirn:
Yes, I thought that's what the Dark Arts are supposed to be 
about: "meddling with affairs of death", theft of death, death 
eating, immortality, horcruxes, etc.  At least it makes sense 
historically ? that's what necromancy was about and, although it 
actually derives from *nekros* ? `dead' in the Middle Ages it was 
often understood as "negromancy" ? black magic. But this is a very 
special branch of knowledge, and it quite lives out the 
Unforgivables, Sectumsempra, werewolves etc.  

> Carol:
 In contrast, memory charms, however much we all despise them,
> were not created and are not normally used with the intent to harm. 

a_svirn:
We don't know with what intent they were invented. Maybe the chap who 
invented them genuinely thought that there is nothing wrong with 
violating other people's minds. Then again, maybe the chap who 
invented Imperius thought there is nothing wrong with violating other 
people's wills. The fact is they are being used to cause harm on 
regular basis. 

> Carol:
In
> fact, they're often used (condescendingly, to be sure) to "help"
> Muggles <snip>

a_svirn:
Well, I am sure "Aunt Elladora" Black hacked off her elves' heads for 
their own good too. Something should have had to be done to put them 
out of their misery. 

> > Carol:
> > Maybe Dark magic has the potential to corrupt the user, to turn 
him
> > evil or to lead him into an obsession with some unnatural goal, 
such
> > as immortality or control over others' minds.
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > Maybe. But it seems to me that this hypothesis it at odds with 
your 
> > earlier statement about the importance of intent. Is Voldemort 
dark 
> > because he *means* to be dark, or has he just sort of tumbled into
> it without really meaning to? 
> 
> Carol:
> In his case, he was already corrupted by Dark magic, or by the 
desire
> to perform it, before he even knew he was a wizard. But I think that
> someone like Barty Jr. would become progressively more evil (or
> psychotic) the more Unforgiveables he performed. Surely, helping to
> Crucio the Longbottoms into insanity required intent to harm but 
also
> harmed Barty himself in some way. We talk about "hardened 
criminals,"
> but they don't start out hardened, however much they desire to harm
> others. 

a_svirn now:
No. But they became hardened because they wanted to harm others in 
the first place. You don't get corrupted because some stuff is simply 
irresistible. You get corrupted because you yourself are 
susceptible.  

> Carol:
They have to act on those desires first, and for Barty and the
> other Death Eaters, and potentially for Draco and even Harry, the
> Unforgiveable Curses provided the means to the end. They succumbed 
to
> the temptation to use them and so they fell into evil, perhaps
> irredeemable evil (which is why I'm so concerned for snape now that
> he's cast an AK, but that's another thread).

a_svirn:
This is all very well, but do we need slap a "dark" label to the 
Unforgivables just because they provide the means to the end? You can 
kill without the unforgivables, for that matter you can kill even 
without magic at all. It's murder itself that counts not the way you 
accomplish it. 





From jferer at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 01:02:10 2006
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:02:10 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <ejde8b+4ege@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejgdai+mk2k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161561

Kathy: "There's a constant arguement over why Voldemort chose the
Potters over the Longbottoms. JKR is going to tie this in a neat
little bundle for us - so - what if it is as simple as Voldemort used
Legilimens on Snape when he wasn't expecting it, when he wasn't as
good at Occlumency as he is in the present books. He finds SNAPE'S
WORST MEMORY, and sees what Harry saw that day when he fell into the
Pensieve."

I never understood the "Voldemort chose Harry [to kill]."  I can't
think of any reason at all why Voldemort wouldn't kill both boys that
fit the prophecy, and the Potters was the house he went to first.  Why
wouldn't Voldemort, having successfully killed Harry, move on to the
Longbottom's house?  It could have been as simple a matter as he found
the Potters first. I call it the King Herod solution to the prophecy
problem. By losing his body we never found out what Voldemort would
have done that night.

Jim Ferer





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 01:10:04 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:10:04 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejg937+1kad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejgdpc+vmne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161562

> Betsy Hp:
>> I think power can still be a source of corruption if used 
> unchecked.  But I do think with magic power is power and it's the 
> way it's *used* that differentiates between good and evil.  For 
> example, Lockhart's abilities with memory charms.  The memory 
charms 
> aren't dark.  Lockhart's abilities with them didn't make him a dark 
> wizard.  But the *way* he used them was bad.
>

a_svirn:
I don't know about that, since I can't be entirely sure what *dark* 
is. But they are definitely evil. 

> Betsy Hp:
> You know, I wonder if Voldemort didn't employ the "muddled waters" 
> to corrupt Quirrell?  We know Quirrell was good at his subject 
> (DADA), so I think it's safe to assume he'd have had a good idea of 
> what magic is dark and what magic is light as per the MoM (which 
I'm 
> assuming is a key source of the current definitions).  It'd have 
> been easy for someone as well-versed and as well-spoken as 
Voldemort 
> to start asking some questions.  "Why is this spell dark and this 
> one not?"  "Couldn't that dark spell be a benefit on certain 
> occasions, and that light one an ill?"  Talk about devil's advocate!

a_svirn:
We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his soul 
to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be corrupted as 
much as Voldemort did. 

> Betsy Hp: 
> If the WW has made the MoM's definitions of dark and light magic 
> their ethical crutch I can see them being quite susceptible to that 
> sort of  manipulation.  And I can see them concluding that there's 
> no good or evil, just power.

a_svirn:
Actually, I don't believe anyone in the WW pays much attention to the 
Ministry's definition. The bad guys don't care much because they are 
bad, and the good guys don't care because "their ethical crutch" is 
different from that of the Ministry. 

> Betsy Hp: 
> Which would suggest that designating light and dark magic *harms* 
> rather than helps the fight against evil.

a_svirn:
Basically, it suggests that it's about political struggle, not about 
struggle against evil. 







From mros at xs4all.nl  Thu Nov 16 01:56:35 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:56:35 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
References: <ejgcme+einb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000901c70922$726be480$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 161563

Isn't Dark Arts/Magic defined not what it does to other people but what it does to the one who uses it? 
Perhaps it's addictive. Seducive. It changes you. It's like a drug.

Marion - who probably is being influenced by 25 years of being a Tolkien fan

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




From jferer at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 02:02:52 2006
From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:02:52 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejgdpc+vmne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejggsc+qja4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161564

Betsy: "I think power can still be a source of corruption if used 
unchecked.  But I do think with magic power is power and it's the way
it's *used* that differentiates between good and evil.  For example,
Lockhart's abilities with memory charms.  The memory charms aren't
dark.  Lockhart's abilities with them didn't make him a dark wizard. 
But the *way* he used them was bad."

I agree. The Laws of Magic (depending on what version you see) say
that "Black Magic is a matter of symbolism and intent."  If that's so,
then the symbolism and powers called on must be evil or dark for the
magic to be dark; so Lockhart's use of a memory charm for his own
unethical ends is not dark magic. It also goes on to say that using
Black Magic *always* destroys the user eventually. 

That leads to whether using a Cruciatus Curse or even AK must always
be Dark. If it's in the heat of battle versus evil the "intent" part
may not be there. OTOH, you could argue that Bella's enthusiastic use
of the Cruciatus Curse has driven her mad, or maybe just madder than
she was to begin with.

Jim Ferer





From aratchford at gmail.com  Thu Nov 16 02:09:59 2006
From: aratchford at gmail.com (mandrina_q)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:09:59 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <ejgdai+mk2k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejgh9n+fav0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161565

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" <jferer at ...> wrote:
>
  " I can't think of any reason at all why Voldemort wouldn't kill 
both boys that fit the prophecy, and the Potters was the house he 
went to first. Why wouldn't Voldemort, having successfully killed 
Harry, move on to the Longbottom's house?"<<<

I fully agree.  I think that the current war with Harry is focused as 
much on revenge and anger than on any basis in prophecy. Voldemort 
lost nearly everything trying to destroy Harry and yet Harry lives.  
Voldemort could very well be after Harry as much (if not more) out of 
retaliation and a spirit of vengeance than in response to any 
prophecy.  Voldemort, having never heard the full prophecy himself, 
may not even know the full extent of how closely tied his fate is to 
Harry's.  
  There is no reason at all that Neville could be dead at this moment 
if there hadn't been such a fiasco at the Potter's.

Amanda
-brand spanking new member.
28 years old yesterday
Seattle, WA, USA
I understand the Slytherin Point of View
Pleased to be here :)






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 02:21:11 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 02:21:11 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejgdpc+vmne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejghun+10914@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161566

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > For example, Lockhart's abilities with memory charms.  The      
> > memory charms aren't dark.  Lockhart's abilities with them      
> > didn't make him a dark wizard.  But the *way* he used them was   
> > bad.

> >>a_svirn:
> I don't know about that, since I can't be entirely sure what      
> *dark* is. But they are definitely evil. 

Betsy Hp:
I was going by what the WW says.  I don't think they consider memory 
charms "dark" magic.  Not the way they fling them about, anyway.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > You know, I wonder if Voldemort didn't employ the "muddled      
> > waters" to corrupt Quirrell? 
> > <snip>

> >>a_svirn:
> We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his   
> soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be        
> corrupted as much as Voldemort did. 

Betsy Hp:
Where did you get that quote?  I couldn't find it.  What I found was 
this:

"I met him when I traveled around the world.  A foolish young man I 
was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil.  Lord 
Voldemort shouwed me how wrong I was.  There is no good and evil, 
there is only power, and those too weak to seek it." [SS scholastic 
paperback p.291]

That quote doesn't suggest to me that Quirrell set out to join with 
Voldemort, nor that he was even contemplating becoming corrupted in 
a desire for... more power I guess?  I think it does point to a 
rather naive young man whose understanding of good and evil was so 
weak he didn't recognize evil when he was confronted by it.

The idea that only those who mean to be corrupted can be corrupted 
is... harsh, maybe?  Wouldn't Ginny (who *did* pour her soul into 
Voldemort) be tainted by Quirrell's brush?  Wouldn't we have to 
assume that Ginny somehow wanted to be possessed?

Huh... I feel like there's a medieval philosopher or artist or 
writer (or all of the above <g>) who's discussed this particular 
road to hell.  Something about empty knowledge or ignorance or 
something?  Does this ring any bells for anyone?

> > Betsy Hp: 
> > If the WW has made the MoM's definitions of dark and light magic 
> > their ethical crutch I can see them being quite susceptible to   
> > that sort of  manipulation.
> > <snip>

> >>a_svirn:
> Actually, I don't believe anyone in the WW pays much attention to 
> the Ministry's definition. The bad guys don't care much because    
> they are bad, and the good guys don't care because "their ethical 
> crutch" is different from that of the Ministry. 

Betsy Hp:
The WW isn't divided between Death Eaters and the Order.  Most of 
the British WW follows the directions of the MoM quite closely.  We 
see that with how easily the MoM sways public opinion. Gosh, even 
Hermione wants things to be "Ministry Approved".

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > Which would suggest that designating light and dark magic       
> > *harms* rather than helps the fight against evil.

> >>a_svirn:
> Basically, it suggests that it's about political struggle, not    
> about struggle against evil.

Betsy Hp:
Which enables evil to slip in.  Like Voldemort does with Quirrell 
possibly, and definitely does in OotP.  As long as the WW keeps 
these arguments on a political level, no one is really trying to 
figure out what is good and what is evil.  Which means no one is in 
a position to fight against evil.

Instead everyone's figuring out what magical creature is up 
(goblins!), and which ones are down (werewolves!).  What virtue is 
in (Courage and Gryffindor!), and what virtue is out (Cunning and 
Slytherin!).  What spells are hip (Obliviate!) and what spells are 
square (Imperio!).

It's a bad foundation to stand on, not very sturdy, easily shifted 
around depending on the political winds.  Recognizing the emptiness 
of the labels puts the struggle in proper perspective, IMO. Gets you 
past the politics and to the root of the issue.

Betsy Hp





From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov 16 02:17:19 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:17:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
References: <ejg937+1kad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009a01c70925$58717920$cb8c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161567

> Betsy Hp:
> If the WW has made the MoM's definitions of dark and light magic
> their ethical crutch I can see them being quite susceptible to that
> sort of  manipulation.  And I can see them concluding that there's
> no good or evil, just power.
>
> Which would suggest that designating light and dark magic *harms*
> rather than helps the fight against evil.

Magpie:
I find in reading that the fact is in the WW there is only power when it 
comes to magic.  Which is not to say that good and evil don't exist, just 
that magic is magic.  There's not much mysterious mysticism attached to it, 
and when there is it's usually more a metaphor for the mystery of something 
else, like love. It's not like they reach for a different kind of magic when 
they make a Dark Spell.  JKR has her kids harm each other in mild ways all 
the time with little discussion about what spells are right or wrong--except 
for the ones designated to be so.  (She also used the word Dark to describe 
some of those things.) And most of those, as a_svirn said, are pretty clear. 
It's not that it's bad to use Crucio because it's demonic in origin and you 
might become possessed, it's bad because you're torturing someone.

This also leads into a tangent, but I've always honestly wondered if fandom 
didn't take the Unforgivable thing more seriously than JKR did legally.  The 
legal system in HP is one of many things that seems tranparently dependent 
on plot, so I find it hard to really take it for granted unless I've seen 
something used before. So whenever I hear about the idea of going to Azkaban 
for using an Unforgivable I have a hard time picturing it because JKR seems 
so totally uninterested in the legal system taking care of anyone.  She may 
end up using that to the situation, but usually they seem to just pass on 
by.

When Harry tried to throw one in OotP I originally thought that was 
important in terms of his using this Dark Curse, but it turns out it really 
wasn't. It was just a teenaged boy looking to throw the pain he felt at 
someone else. It wasn't that he didn't access the demonic power he needed, 
it was that he did what he wanted to do and it wasn't torture someone. Harry 
never thought back on it, nor did anyone else. The next year Draco almost 
throws one in a fight because he was humiliated by being caught crying by 
the boy he'd never want to see him cry and nobody's all that amazed by the 
idea. It's hard to reconcile something that's so bad using it once gets you 
life imprisonment with spells that we see used all over the place, even a 
couple of times by teenaged characters.

-m 





From darksworld at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 03:04:59 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:04:59 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <009a01c70925$58717920$cb8c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ejgkgr+54nd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161568

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
> When Harry tried to throw one in OotP I originally thought that was 
> important in terms of his using this Dark Curse, but it turns out 
it really 
> wasn't. It was just a teenaged boy looking to throw the pain he 
felt at 
> someone else. It wasn't that he didn't access the demonic power he 
needed, 
> it was that he did what he wanted to do and it wasn't torture 
someone. Harry 
> never thought back on it, nor did anyone else. The next year Draco 
almost 
> throws one in a fight because he was humiliated by being caught 
crying by 
> the boy he'd never want to see him cry and nobody's all that amazed 
by the 
> idea. It's hard to reconcile something that's so bad using it once 
gets you 
> life imprisonment with spells that we see used all over the place, 
even a 
> couple of times by teenaged characters.

Charles:
Actually, the surprising thing to me is that there isn't *more* of 
that kind of thing going on in the background. Not necessarily the 
unforgivables, but the fighting like Draco and Harry in the restroom. 
It strikes me that in aa castle full of *armed* teenagers, there's 
bound to be a lot more strife that ends up in wand waving than we 
see. Then again, knowing the kid you are picking on just might turn 
around and start firing jinxes at you could bequite the deterrent. 

This may be opening up a much larger can of worms than I want to, but 
could the Draco/Death Eater thing be likened somewhat to Columbine? 
Not necessarily in the details of the attack, but in the emotional 
aftermath that would be felt by the students of the school. In both 
cases, we have a group of students who were not well liked who 
unleash terror on their schoolmates. The actual events are worlds 
apart, but the few glaring similarities bear a little thinking about.

In both cases we have plans to create terror in the school that were 
thought out beforehand. In both cases, the events turn deadly for 
more than one individual. (Noting of course that the Columbine 
shootings claimed a lot more innocents.) In both cases there is a 
serious public repercussion (although we have yet to see the complete 
fallout of the Draco plot until book 7).

Just curious as to what others think, and certainly not trying to 
belittle Columbine. I met a few of the Columbine survivors months 
afterwards, and they were still shell shocked, even after all that 
time. I have to wonder what the effects of what Draco (and Snape) did 
on, well your average Hufflepuff first year would be? 

Charles, preparing to take cover.





From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Nov 16 03:25:14 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:25:14 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ejd78u+u6uj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejglmq+7ui2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161569


Pippin wrote:

>  Would the vow stop him from doing that?  It only says, "Should it 
> prove necessary...if it seems Draco will fail..."  JKR could drive a 
> coach and six flying horses through that one.  


Abergoat writes:

Cannot argue there! ;) Although I do think the story is most
interesting if Snape was in a Catch22 on the top of the tower with the
choice between two dead men and a teenager killer (Harry or Draco) or
one dead man and an adult murderer. I'm not sure how Harry would have
reacted in Dumbledore died from the effects of the potion.
 
Pippin wrote:

> It seems to me that Dumbledore must have planned to
> feign his own death even before Snape took the vow. There
> really was no choice. The elephant in the HPB livingroom is
> the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort that took 
> place in OOP. Once that happened it should have been clear,
> though no one mentions it, that Dumbledore's days as 
> Headmaster were numbered. There is no escaping Voldemort
> once he has tried to kill you (unless you're Harry), and 
> Voldemort definitely tried to kill Dumbledore then.

Abergoat writes:

Don't you think that Tom Riddle wanted to murder Dumbledore during his
visit to the Headmaster's Office but lacked the necessary courage
without his supporters in tow? That's what I thought JKR suggested
with Harry wanting to shout warning to Dumbledore.

Abergoat





From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Nov 16 03:38:58 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 03:38:58 -0000
Subject: Performer of fidelius charm
In-Reply-To: <ejca3t+nee4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejgmgi+cu3n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161570

Tinktonks wrote:

> I dont understand why D would have chosen a life of 
> misery for Harry!

Abergoat responds:

Excellent point, but was there anyone to raise Harry in what was left
of Godric's Hollow?  If the person that (hypothetically) moved Harry
was Dumbledore's Voldemort spy then he/she was too valuable to lose to
a nanny position. And Harry couldn't really grow up isolated from
everyone and be normal. Plus Godric's Hollow may only be one room at
this point.

Lynn wrote:
> DD believed Sirius to be the SK so as far as he 
> was concerned, SB would be in Azkaban blabbing 
> to everyone where Harry was. PP wouldn't have 
> factored in since no one knew he was the SK except SB.

Abergoat writes:

Wow, that's an even better point...but I see TinyTonks's
argument, I don't think the prisoners are allowed visitors
under normal conditions. I believe Sirius says that Barty Sr
and his wife were only allowed in because Barty Jr was dying.

Pippin wrote:

> But the most important thing is that *Voldemort* knew 
> the secret, so Godric's Hollow was no longer
> safe in any case.

Abergoat writes:

I buy that argument completely, along with Michelle's comment that
there was hope that Harry might find friendship in the Dursley
household. He didn't, but Dumbledore couldn't be certain the Dursley's
wouldn't rise to the occasion.

Abergoat





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 04:03:46 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:03:46 -0000
Subject: Old predictions for book 6 and 7 post
Message-ID: <ejgnv2+u8k8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161571

HAHA. I was going through some old posts ( not just mine, many that 
I am bookmarking - mine and others) and what do I see?

Here is one of our predictions posts ( and mine are there too)


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119198


and Oh goodness, what was I thinking when I said the following, let 
me ask you? :)


"Alla previously:

6. Harry will think that Snape betrayed the Order in HBP.

Lupinlore:

> 2-1 in favor of this or some similar belief by Harry about Snape.
>
Alla previously:

7. We will learn in book 7 that Snape did not betray the Order."


Was I predicting DD!M Snape here?

Nooooooooo. Shudders. Well, in my justification the HBP did not come 
out yet and had I known that Snape will AK Dumbledore, I would not 
have said that.

I was probably thinking more along the lines of second hand evidence 
that would become available to Harry of Snape's betrayal, not 
something that Harry will witness himself.

Oh well, whatever comes, comes :)

Alla






From dustin_pppr at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 04:47:52 2006
From: dustin_pppr at yahoo.com (dustin_pppr)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 04:47:52 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter WAS a Horcrux
Message-ID: <ejgqho+iu81@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161572

I have searched the forums and never come across this idea, which
occurred to my girlfriend and I as we were driving across the
mid-west, listening to GOF.

Harry was a horcrux.  We have no other explanation for the connection
between him and LV, and Dumbledore has specifically mentioned that
there is a connection and the scar is part of it.  So, LV stored a
part of his soul in HP, whether on purpose or by accident.

I said Harry WAS a horcrux, but I do not think he is one anymore.  My
reason: Dumbledore's gleam of triumph at the end of GOF.  HP explains
that LV used his (HP's) blood in the potion and that his mother's
protection is gone, and HP notices a gleam of "something like triumph"
in Dumbledore's eyes.

The misdirection is that HP notices the gleam after explaining his
mother's protection is useless now and we think maybe Dumbledore is
evil.  But, Dumbledore feels triumphant because the spell/potion LV
used to get a body back used HP's blood and Dumbledore realizes that
this extracted/removed/un-did the horcrux and that HP is no longer a
storage for a part of LV's soul.

Why else is Dumbledore triumphant?  Did LV make HP a horcrux
intentionally?  Did he know that the spell/potion would cause HP not
to be a horcrux anymore?  Was LV's goal to undo the horcrux because he
realized it was a mistake to make HP his 7th?

The above are not rhetorical questions so please respond to them.

DP






From jmrazo at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 16 07:26:03 2006
From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 07:26:03 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejg7g7+3u47@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejh3qb+dhhp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161573


> Betsy Hp:
> I have two feelings about this sort of thought (both very much my 
> opinion, of course).  
> 
> One, this is an excuse used to cover up or explain away bad writing 
> on JKR's part.  Even if your POV character doesn't pay attention to 
> something, an author should be able to get across what they choose 
> to get across.  If Ginny and Hermione were close friends at this 
> time the reader should be aware of it, even if Harry doesn't care.  
> If JKR failed to do so than she's done a bad job writing Ginny's 
and 
> Hermione's relationship.

Phoenixgod2000:  

A bad job of writing Ginny? I'm shocked.  Shocked I say :)

> Or two, this is an excuse used by readers to explain why something 
> they think is happening isn't covered at all in the narrative.  JKR 
> is a good enough writer to get across the important information, so 
> if it's not there, then it's really not there.  Ginny and Hermione 
> don't have a special relationship.
> 
> I waffle between the two. <g>  But at the moment I'm giving JKR the 
> benefit of the doubt.

I've lost a lot of faith in JKR. The past two books have been 
disappointing in my view.  There have been pieces of greatness in 
both of them but a lot of disappointment as well. And all of that 
disappointment involved Characterization sacrificed for Plot.

Sometimes I think she has lived so long with these characters in her 
head that sometimes forgets to include things for all the people who 
can't peer into her brain. I think she probably does believe that 
Hermione and Ginny are best girlfriends and they are--in her head--
but I don't think she does a good job of conveying that in the text.
  
> Betsy Hp:

> I think Hermione and Ginny are comfortable together.  They're not 
so 
> entirely different they can't get on when they're together.  But I 
> just don't see the two as best friends.  If they have a choice, 
they 
> tend to hang with other people.

Frankly I think they are that different. I think Harry, Ron, and 
Draco--if they could get past Draco's assery--would have more in 
common with each other than Hermione and Ginny do.  I can't imagine 
what they would even talk about aside from Harry. 
 
> Betsy Hp:
> Which is what Miles was missing I think (I'm quite possibly putting 
> words in Miles's mouth here): the economics over simple and warming 
> human interaction.  By putting story-telling economics over 
> character development there's a human element missing from the 
> Potter books.  Something the director of PoA felt so essential he 
> actually wrote such a scene into the film.

I don't know about Miles but it is what I am missing in the story. It 
is one thing to say that that stuff happens offscreen but Harry 
demonstrates again and again that is isn't happening at all.  He is 
too ignorant of others in the school for Harry to be goofing around 
with them offscreen. and regardless of how insular harry is, that 
just isn't plausible.  When I was in school, I was hardly a big man 
on campus in a much bigger school than Hogwarts and I could have 
named every student in my class and said something about them. 
> 
> And for me, I can say the economic giggling about love potions 
> failed.  It's not enough to get me to see Ginny and Hermione as 
> bosom friends.  If JKR wanted me to buy that sort of thing she 
> needed to throw a bit more in.

> Betsy Hp:

> So yeah, I do think Hermione has the social aspects of dating 
pretty 
> much sown up.  And from the moment she's expected to figure it out 
> no less.  It's the falling in love thing that she's struggling 
> through. (Which actually fits in with her character quite well.)

She does seem to have the dating scene sown up but I actually do find 
that out of character.  This is the girl who in her first year had 
almost no friends and barely knew how to act around the ones who were 
her friends.  she got better over the years, but I have known a lot 
of students in my years as a teacher just like Hermione (male and 
female both) and I can tell you they are no good at dating except 
inside their head. Get them in a real situation and without fail they 
fall apart.  For her to be somehow antisocial and an uberdater cool 
chick strikes me as inconsistent writing and a cheap way of showing 
up the guys and making them look pathetic.
 
> Betsy Hp:
> I think we're reading the same books...  I'm just reading them in 
> the back of soon to be closed bar, sucking down cheap cigarettes 
and 
> cheaper liquor, fighting off a headache and a broken heart. 

I think I've seen you there...Except I don't have the whole broken 
hearted thing going :) I have my gorgeous wonderfully supportive 
fiance (Hi Honey!) with me in the bar plying me with liquor because 
she finds my drunken rants on Snape endlessly amusing.

Seriously, I spent all of halloween drunkenly debating HP in a seedy 
biker bar...

phoenixgod2000, who isn't even touching the gender stuff in Harry 
Potter. That could set me off on a rant lasting for days.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Nov 16 12:02:17 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:02:17 -0000
Subject: Old predictions for book 6 and 7 post
In-Reply-To: <ejgnv2+u8k8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejhk09+eu18@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161574

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> HAHA. I was going through some old posts ( not just mine, many that 
> I am bookmarking - mine and others) and what do I see?
> 
> Here is one of our predictions posts ( and mine are there too)
> 
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/119198
> 
> 

Potioncat:
Oh, very interesting. I'd encourage everyone to go back to that post. 
Was that part of a larger thread? I seem to remember someone taking a 
poll, or keeping a record of book 7 predictions. Has the list ever 
looked back at that?

When the one of the book covers was released the list went crazy 
discussing the name Libatius Borge (is that right?) We were sure 
knowing something about the author of the potions text would help us 
glean something about the story itself---well, we were sort of right.

Good find, Alla.







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Nov 16 11:03:35 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:03:35 -0000
Subject: Snapes Behaviour and Legimens
Message-ID: <ejhgi7+vm0u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161575

I wanted to take a minute to probe in to the reasons for Snape's 
behavior.

Sorry for being a little off topic but it will come back round I 
promise. In an episode of Red Dwarf (very funny cult TV show) there 
is a device called a "mind probe" a system for detecting if people 
are guilty of crimes. In this episode Arnold Rimmer is put in prison 
for murdering over 1000 people. He did not murder anyone; however he 
still felt the guilt that his incompetence had resulted in the chain 
of actions that caused their deaths.

So back to Harry Potter. Harry doesn't REALLY understand what a 
Legimens sees or feels. Snape is adamant it is not like reading a 
book as Harry understands 'mind reading'. LV always knows when 
people are lying. I think it is not just PICTURES that you see, like 
in the penseive, but feelings and thoughts. (Canon for this would be 
where LV knows Wormtail wants to desert him in GOF).

This being the case I am totally buying in to the theory that 
Snape's Worst memory was extracted by LV with Snape's running 
commentary of thoughts. I think he cared for Lily. I'm not getting 
in to the 'love' debate but I'm pretty sure he admired her and had a 
certain soft spot. Was probably in awe of her power too.

So LV has this golden piece of info. Maybe LV even uses his powers 
to extract the prophecy and Snape's thoughts about that. And maybe 
Snape's thoughts were to worry for Lily's safety, thereby telling LV 
that Lily is the key, (even if she need not have been). Snape's 
initial assumption not LV's led LV to the Potters.

Given the damage that caring about someone caused I thing caused 
Snape to turn in to a **expletive** so that nobody could get close 
to him again, so that he could not put anyone else in danger by 
caring for them.

This explains to me the look of hatred he has when he AK's DD. He 
hates himself as realizes fully for the first time that he 'loves' 
DD and that this has caused DD's death (In Snape's mind if not in 
reality-or WW reality anyway)

I also think that Snape's hatred is not really aimed at Harry, it is 
caused by Harry. Snape hates himself for depriving Harry of a 
family, he also hates that he has caused this boy to be marked as 
LV's equal and possibly be murdered by him. That's why he is so 
strict on Harry and gets so annoyed when Harry is bad at something. 
When Neville is rubbish Snape ignores him most of the time, 
occasionally remarking on his inadequacies. When Harry is bad it is 
almost a manic disapproval with Snape.

I think Snape believes in the prophecy, and is fighting against the 
possibility that he (Snape) could be responsible for the loss of the 
WW's last chance of defeating LV by marking someone unworthy.

Just my ideas. What do you guys think?

Tinktonks







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Nov 16 10:30:02 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:30:02 -0000
Subject: Torture (was: Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ejg5ju+b6rr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejheja+3cfj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161576

Eggplant:

A shrug? The Crucatius Curse drove Neville's parents insane and they
were far far from wimps, they were brave and mighty Aurors. Granted
Harry received the curse several times and remained sane but few 
would deny he was exceptional, and I don't think even Harry was 
unaffected by the experience. When you hurt so bad you want to die, 
well, you tend to remember that.

a_svirn:

You would think so, wouldn't you? And yet, Pettigrew had been 
tortured routinely during GOF and always bustled about doing his 
chores as soon as the curse was lifted. Cedric evinced the mildest 
of surprises when  Harry relieved him of the curse and resumed his 
chase without further ado. He even bested Harry at it.

Tinktonks:

I think that the length of prolonged attack is important. Let me put 
it in (unfortunately very sadistic) comparible. Someone is touched 
by a redhot poker momentarily. The damage is significant but could 
be passed off temporarily if in pursuit of something and the effects 
would be minimal.

Ok so we've seen an analogy for cedric & Harry. Now PP, someone puts 
a redhot poker to your skin to teach you a lesson whenever they 
think you need it. This would undoubtedly leave you a wreck of a 
human being (which most would argue PP is, I have never seen him as 
evil. Just his spirit defeated) very damaging but this would not 
necessarily show through to people who did not understand your 
experience-they may just assume you are evil, dim or a recluse etc.

Now The Longbottoms, a sustained attack where you are repeatedly and 
systematically tortured for hours, maybe days....... I think even 
the strongest of bodies or minds would be ruined. People who have 
been prisoners of was for a time tend to come back haunted.

Using this analogy I can understand how there are different levels 
of effect. Plus the whole 'meaning' it thing. Moody/crouch(through 
Krum) didn't 'hate' Cedric, it was a means to an end. However the 
Torture of the Longbottoms was through fear desperation and I'm 
prety sure in Bella's case hate for anyone keeping them from LV. 
These are powerful emotions with which to perform POWERFUL curses!

Tinktonks






From pam_rosen at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 05:35:49 2006
From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen)
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:35:49 -0800
Subject: Snake Lore
Message-ID: <001f01c70941$13c1ca20$6601a8c0@happy5274c44ef>

No: HPFGUIDX 161577

An old interview from 2002 with JKR has surfaced on The Leaky Cauldron, in
which she states that "snake lore" will have something to do with book 7.  I
did a little research on snake mythology and basilisks in my old copy of
Bullfinch's Mythology, Chapter 36, and even I was surprised by what I found.
I would like to humbly share this with you and see if anyone thinks there's
some major clues here:
 
"...Jonston, a learned physician, sagely remarks: "I would scarecely believe
that it kills with its look, for who could have seen it and lived to tell
the story?"  The worthy sage was not aware that those who went to hunt for
the basilisk of this sort took with them a mirror, which reflected back the
deadly glare upon its author, and by a kind of poetical justice slew the
basilisk with its own weapon."
 
Even more interesting about a basilisk's death in battle:
 
"There is an old saying tht everything has its enemy--and the (basilisk)
quailed before the weasel.  The basilisk might look daggers; the weasel
cared not, but advanced boldly to the conflict. When bitten, the weasel
retired for a moment to eat some rue, which was the only plant the basilisk
could not wither, returned with renewed strength and soundness to the
charge, and never left the enemy till he was stretched dead on the plain."
 
And,
 
"The basilisk was some use after death....its carcass was suspended in the
temple...and in private houses, as a sovereign remedy against spiders."
 
I am not sure if this means anything, but surely JKR is aware of this text,
because we've seen some of it already in CoS, but if the theory that Nagini
is making Voldemort come back more snake-like than human holds, backed up by
JKR's 2002 comments, then we have set ups for mirrors, battles, a plant that
the basilisk can't kill, eaten by a Weasel for strength, and who survives
the battle.  And finally, there is a passage in Bullfinch's that describes
the death of the basilisk: "...a certain holy man, going to a fountain in
the desert, suddenly beheld a basilisk. He immediately raised his eyes to
heaven, and with a pious appeal to the Deity laid the monster dead at his
feet."
 
These are three different legends, but any of them could apply. I don't make
any claims to knowing anything, and I am sure this learned group is aware of
this book, but this seems too cooincidental in my mind and I was just
wondering what anyone thought.  Please don't flame me...I'm fragile as it
is, unemployed at the holidays, with enough time to research snake lore and
to wonder. :-)
 

Pam



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





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 15:17:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:17:56 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejgdpc+vmne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejhvf4+ga0s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161578

Betsy Hp:
> >> I think power can still be a source of corruption if used
unchecked.  But I do think with magic power is power and it's the way
it's *used* that differentiates between good and evil.  For example,
Lockhart's abilities with memory charms.  The memory charms aren't
dark.  Lockhart's abilities with them didn't make him a dark wizard. 
But the *way* he used them was bad.
> >
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't know about that, since I can't be entirely sure what *dark* 
> is. But they are definitely evil. 

Carol responds:
How are they "definitely evil"? They have the potential to harm, but
how is, say, Aunt Marge harmed by not knowing that she was blown up
and punctured? How are the Robertses harmed by being allowed to forget
that they were levitated and turned upside down by Death Eaters? Maybe
oblivion is best in those cases. Otherwise, they might live in fear
for the rest of their lives. (Granted, Aunt Marge deserves it, but I'm
not talking about what the victim deserves. I'm talking about
Obliviate and what it can accomplish, as well as the intention of the
Obliviators, who clearly are not Dark wizards.)

> a_svirn:
> We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his
soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be corrupted
as much as Voldemort did. <snip>

Carol responds:

Exactly. He *chose* to fall into evil, to be seduced by the Dark Arts
he was supposed to be fighting. Think of Saruman in LOTR, who "studied
too deeply the arts of the enemy." He was tempted to *practice* the
very arts that he studied, in his case creating evil creatures and
trying to create a Ring of Power. Snape can study the Dark Arts, but
as long as he doesn't yield to temptation and practice them, he won't
be a Dark wizard. Quirrell, in allowing Voldemort to possess him,
became Dark himself, capable of murder (or attempted murder), killing
unicorns and drinking their blood to sustain his evil master, stealing
and using (or rather, attempting to steal and use) the Sorceror's
Stone to resurrect that master. Peter Pettigrew also fell, not through
the temptation to power but through fear and the desire to side with
the biggest bully in his world, whether that's the schoolyard or the
WW. Temptation led him to practice Dark Arts, from Avada Kedavra to
the Dark spells and potions that restored Voldemort. Bellatrix, with
her sadistic impulses, would naturally be pulled spells designed with
no other purpose than to hurt, kill, or dominate, in particular the
Unforgiveable Curses. The desire to use them, which would be far
stronger than the threat of Azkaban (and whatever damage such spells
do to the soul) would be, for her, irresistible--Dark spells turning a
potentially Dark witch into a genuinely Dark witch.

As for the other Blacks, who keep vials of blood and cursed objects in
their house, maybe they only have a propensity to evil. Certainly,
killing their house-elves and putting their heads on the wall would
qualify as Dark, whether they AKd the elves, poisoned them, or
murdered them by beheading.

I'm wondering, though, about Narcissa and Draco. Dobby calls the whole
family "bad, Dark wizards." There's no question that Lucius, a Death
Eater who torments Muggles (with non-Dark spells used with dark
intent), has Imperio'd at least two people, and placed what he knew to
be a Dark object (the diary that would open the CoS and release a
monster, whether or not he knew it was a Basilisk) in a little girl's
cauldron, is a Dark wizard, but why did he consider the rest of the
family Dark? Was it because they supported Voldemort and abused Dobby
himself? It can't, in draco's case, be because he approved of the
diary scheme. He didn't know about it. All he knew was that the
Chamber of Secrets was going to be opened again and that last time it
had been opened, a "Mudblood" died. (I don't think it was their blood
prejudice that made them Dark in his view, but maybe hoping for the
death of innocent people did.) But Dobby's view of Dark and the WW's
view may be two different things.

In any case, I think we're meant to consider objects such as those
sold in Borgin and Burke's, including the cursed opal necklace and the
Hand of Glory, as well as those kept by Lucius Malfoy in the hidden
chamber under his drawing room, as Dark because they are used
exclusively to harm others. The same goes for the diary, even before
it became a Horcrux, because its purpose is to release the Basilisk
and "purify" Hogwarts of those "unworthy" to attend.

Is a spell or object sinister? Is it intended solely to harm or to
promote some unnatural aim such as immortality? Chances are it's Dark,
and so is the wizard who uses it, in most cases. It's *possible* that
Avada Kedavra, a curse designed to kill, can be used for good purposes
since it doesn't cause suffering, but since its intended purpose is
murder and the person using it must intend to kill his victim, it is
itself Dark. I can't see Crucio ever being used for good, or Imperio,
either. (Imagine a parent Imperioing a child to clean up his room.
That parent has become a tyrant, controlling rather than teaching the
child.)

Carol, still worried about the effects of the AK, an unquestionably
Dark curse because it is the instrument of murder, on Snape's mind and
motives, as well as his soul






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 16 15:38:32 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:38:32 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejg7g7+3u47@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eji0lo+10f3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161579

> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > But as Harry wasn't paying much attention to Ginny's opinions in   
> > GoF, we didn't get to hear about it.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I have two feelings about this sort of thought (both very much my 
> opinion, of course).  
> 
> One, this is an excuse used to cover up or explain away bad writing 
> on JKR's part.  Even if your POV character doesn't pay attention to 
> something, an author should be able to get across what they choose 
> to get across. 
 If Ginny and Hermione were close friends at this 
> time the reader should be aware of it, even if Harry doesn't care.  
> If JKR failed to do so than she's done a bad job writing Ginny's and 
> Hermione's relationship.

> 

Pippin:
Why, though? JKR is a novelist, not a newscaster. She doesn't have
to give us breaking news as it happens, details at eleven. The
great paradox of the Potterverse is that we see most of what
happens from Harry's PoV, yet if Harry were the astute observer
he appears to be, we wouldn't have a story. 

Harry misses stuff. Once we know that, JKR is free to use that
to build suspense, IMO. Leaving us to speculate over what Ginny's
really like is no different than leaving us hanging about what 
happened in Godric's Hollow. For those of us who saw Ginny
marked out as Harry's girl from the moment he saw her on the
platform, learning before Harry did  that she was close to Hermione 
or that she was interested in Quidditch wouldn't have been a clue, it
would have been a dead giveaway, and it would have made
Harry look dumb. He's supposed to be oblivious, not stupid.

As it is, we do get  notice that a relationship had developed. That
giggly love potion business -- who else does Hermione ever let 
herself get giggly with? And giving Ginny advice on how to win
Harry!! Hermione's awfully protective of him, you know, she wouldn't
hand that out to just anyone. She'd want to know Ginny pretty well
first, and Ginny, for her part wouldn't let just anyone in on her
deepest secrets, not after what happened to her in CoS. So for
those things to happen, they have to be close.

We didn't see the closeness developing because it would have killed
the  H/G suspense, and because the focus of the stories isn't on normal
social development. 

It seems to me the bad writing charge is an excuse used by readers
to explain why something they wanted to read about isn't in the books.
But is it bad writing that makes us so intrigued by these imaginary
people's lives that we're not satisfied with the story JKR is telling us
about them and want something different?

 
> > >>Pippin:
> > There were long stretches in PoA when Ron and Harry weren't       
> > talking to Hermione at all, and that might have been when Ginny   
> > and Hermione got to be close. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But we're told that Hermione spends that time with Hagrid or 
> researching to find a way to save Buckbeak. Ginny is never described 
> as being with her.  When Ron and Harry had their fight in GoF, we 
> are told that Ron is hanging out with Dean and Seamus, so I'm not 
> sure why JKR wouldn't mention that Hermione hung around Ginny in 
> PoA, if that's what we're supposed to see.

Pippin:
Harry never speculates about what goes on in the girls' dorm. But
Hermione spends an awful lot of time in there.

> Betsy Hp:
> Which is what Miles was missing I think (I'm quite possibly putting 
> words in Miles's mouth here): the economics over simple and warming 
> human interaction.  By putting story-telling economics over 
> character development there's a human element missing from the 
> Potter books.  Something the director of PoA felt so essential he 
> actually wrote such a scene into the film.

Pippin:
Filmmaking is a very different art -- it's collaborative, immediate, 
visual and dramatic, all things that novels don't have to be. JKR 
can write that Harry was looking forward to Hogwarts and seeing
his friends again, the filmmakers have to show us. Which they do.


> > >>Pippin:
> > Yeah, Hermione was so cool over it all that she got into a        
> > screaming, shouting, hairdo destroying brawl with Ron. She never   
> > gets worked up about that stuff, except when she sends killer     
> > canaries to peck someone's eyes out. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But that wasn't over the stress of *dating*.  That was the stress of 
> *Ron*.  Hermione effortlessly landed the school's most eligible 
> bachelor soon into the asking process.  

Pippin:
Yeah, too bad it wasn't the date *she* wanted. Or have you forgotten
the infamous, "Next time there's a ball, ask me before someone else
does and not as a last resort!" 

If she really had the dating stuff down, not that I'd expect her to
at going on sixteen, she'd have:

a) Found a way to let Ron know she was a girl

b)Let him know she'd be up for an invite to the ball

c)Made him think it was all his idea.

Instead, Hermione tried hard to make it seem like she could 
care less what Ron is up to, but the stress of it made her 
explode.

Betsy Hp:

> We get a similar deal in HBP with Slughorn's Christmas party.  
> Hermione effortlessly lands a date that meets her political 
> requirements.  

Pippin:
Except that she doesn't twig that his intentions are different
than hers. That's part of the dating thing too. And I shouldn't
think it would be hard to get a date for Slughorn's parties.
Draco can't be the only Slugclub wannabe.


Pippin





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 16 16:50:35 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:50:35 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejh3qb+dhhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eji4sr+rl66@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161580

Betsy Hp:
> Which is what Miles was missing I think (I'm quite possibly
> putting words in Miles's mouth here): the economics over simple
> and warming human interaction.  By putting story-telling economics
> over character development there's a human element missing from
> the Potter books.  

phoenixgod2000:
> I don't know about Miles but it is what I am missing in the story.
> It is one thing to say that that stuff happens offscreen but Harry
> demonstrates again and again that is isn't happening at all.  He is
> too ignorant of others in the school for Harry to be goofing 
> around with them offscreen. and regardless of how insular harry
> is, that just isn't plausible.  When I was in school, I was hardly
> a big man on campus in a much bigger school than Hogwarts and I
> could have named every student in my class and said something
> about them. 

Jen:  Since OOTP the problem seems like one of so *many* characters, 
the room feels crowded with party guests and you get the sense 
everyone is stuck in place waiting for Harry to make the rounds and 
mingle.  Maybe the sheer volume of characters more than the 
economical storytelling pushes out some of the heartwarming 
interactions. Or both things contribute because Harry only has time 
to mingle with characters who will advance the plot or the 
occasional quick 'hi, how are you?' to the character passing by who 
either completed his/her big plot moment or is waiting for it.

OOTP started to feel chaotic, with more and more whirlwind 
interactions.  That's when it hit me, anyway. I expected to meet new 
main characters in the first half of the series, but it struck me as 
an odd choice to spend pages and pages on Luna and Grawp in OOTP, 
and Scrimgeour in HBP, when we'd never met them before that moment.  
(Was there any way to have already known characters fill these 
roles? I guess that Q. will be answered in Book 7.)  Like with 
Aberforth, there have been hints all along about him so he won't be 
such a surprise if he comes to the forefront. Or Scabbers, we didn't 
know he was Peter but still he was in the story before his debut.  
The new DADA was set up early on so that's become an expectation for 
a new character each book.

Anyway, I'm off the subject a little but do think the sheer volume 
of characters has undermined the relationships.  I'd rather have 
seen a few of Grawp's pages in OOTP devoted to relationship 
development myself. 

Jen R.





From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 16 16:46:16 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:46:16 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted' -- another idea
In-Reply-To: <ejglmq+7ui2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eji4ko+q7d4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161581

The phrase "take too much for granted," generally is used when one 
thinks the other is assuming too much.  Obviously, this could fit 
the idea that Snape thinks Dumbledore is making too strong an 
assumption that Draco won't kill him.  But I've been wondering if it 
could mean something else.

I think there's a lot of evidence that Dumbledore attempted a 
complex plan the night he was AK'd, and I imagine he'd been planning 
it for sometime, waiting for everything to come together to put it 
into action.  

However, I think Dumbledore's planning depended on a lot of 
variables falling into place exactly as he hoped.  One could say 
that he had to take for granted that a lot of events would occur 
just as he predicted.  And that is what I'm suspecting Snape was 
worried about -- that Dumbledore's plan allowed for Draco to 
continue with his task, but for events to culminate according to a 
plan of Dumbledore.  

So Dumbledore brought in Order members to patrol within the castle 
(which Harry, watching the Marauders Map, had not seen all that 
year), along with recalling Lupin from his werewolf mission to also 
be in the castle that night.  Dumbledore called for Harry, then sent 
him out on the pretext of obtaining the invisibility cloak while 
Dumbledore put the final touches of his plan in place.  Dumbledore 
had Snape waiting down in the dungeons for his signal (sending Harry 
to him), and set out for Hogsmeade with Harry -- making his presence 
in Hogsmeade purposefully obvious.  However, when Dumbledore 
returned his plan had developed a big flaw.  Dumbledore intended to 
send Harry to Snape -- very possibly to get him out of the way 
entirely -- and for Snape to get to Dumbledore before more events 
took place.  Dumbledore attempted to send Harry to Snape twice, but 
both times events overtook them as Draco and the DE's were moving 
more quickly than Dumbledore had planned.  Ultimately, the plan 
broke down when Harry was on the tower, frozen and vulnerable and a 
witness to Snape's AK of Dumbledore.  If Harry had not been there, 
the only witnesses to the AK would have been people whose testimony 
would have perhaps never been heard, at least not for some time, and 
Snape would not necessarily have had to flee Hogwarts.  

Knowing about the Vow, Draco's task, etc., it makes almost no sense 
for Dumbledore *not* to attempt to plan around it and use it.  
Personally, I think Dumbledore actually did try to fake his death, 
but that the plan necessitated Snape's prompt actions to make it 
work.  With Harry on the tower -- attempts to send him away having 
failed -- there was no way Snape could remain to help effect a faked 
death for Dumbledore.  [No, we don't *know* that Snape would have 
dropped dead from the Vow if he didn't kill Dumbledore there and 
then.  But of course, Dumbledore would know how the Vow worked and 
take that into consideration.]

My guess is that Snape did follow through with Dumbledore's plans 
for how to visibly AK him without really killing him, but that 
without Snape to complete help for Dumbledore (he may have ingested 
Draught of Living Death, or something lethal from the cave), 
Dumbledore would die anyway.

In any case, what I'm basically saying is that Snape's argument with 
Dumbledore is due to anxiety over the intricate nature of 
Dumbledore's plans and the fact that they relied on too many 
variables whose outcome Snape felt Dumbledore was taking for 
granted.  What I'm supposing is that some of those things Dumbledore 
took for granted *did* fail him.  His plan depended on a certain 
timing from Draco.  But events moved too swiftly within the castle, 
foiling Dumbledore's two attempts to get Harry to Snape and Snape 
back to Dumbledore -- thereby ultimately resulting in Dumbledore's 
death.

The "investigations into his house" could be regarding Draco and the 
exact nature of his plans, which Dumbledore would want in order to 
make his own plans as carefully as possible.

Just an idea... depends strongly on the notion that DD planned 
events for that night.  I'm retaining the idea that DD planned to 
fake his death, but that he failed, because I think it explains the 
various odd clues and anomolies surrounding those events and the AK, 
as well as allowing for JKR's pronouncement that Dumbledore is dead.

wynnleaf





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 16 17:12:50 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:12:50 -0000
Subject: Snake Lore
In-Reply-To: <001f01c70941$13c1ca20$6601a8c0@happy5274c44ef>
Message-ID: <eji66i+j4n0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161584

Pam:
> [Looks up Bullfinch's Mythology, Chapter 36]

> "...Jonston, a learned physician, sagely remarks: "I would 
scarecely believe that it kills with its look, for who could have 
seen it and lived to tell the story?"  The worthy sage was not aware 
that those who went to hunt for the basilisk of this sort took with 
them a mirror, which reflected back the deadly glare upon its author, 
and by a kind of poetical justice slew the basilisk with its own 
weapon."

Ceridwen:
If we can take some things liberally, then LV must be 'the basilisk' 
in this case.  If it wasn't for his horcruxes, he would have had 
his 'look' (his AK) reflected back at him and so be destroyed by his 
own weapon.  As it was, his body was destroyed and it was only the 
unnatural steps he took toward immortality which kept his soul on 
earth.

Another parallel is in the Johnson quote: '...who could have seen it 
and lived to tell the story?'  The Avada Kedavra, LV's 'basilisk 
look', is an unblockable spell - who could be hit with this spell and 
live to tell the story?

Harry could have, and did, of course.  Both of these events happened 
the same night, when LV went to kill Harry.

And, I would also say that Harry would be 'the weasel' here, not one 
of the Weasleys.  The weasel doesn't care about the basilisk's deadly 
stare or poisonous fangs, but goes straight into the fray.  When he 
needs to regroup, he takes rue and immediately returns to the fight.  
Rue is an herb, but the verb 'to rue' means to regret.  Harry has 
regrets in the different books, but he gets over them and returns to 
fight.  The weasel defeats the basilisk, it is Harry's prophesied 
destiny to either defeat LV or be defeated by him.  In other words, 
it is his unique job in the WW to defeat LV, no one else's.  So the 
weasel would have to be Harry if the basilisk is LV.  In my opinion, 
of course.

Interesting find, Pam!

Ceridwen.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 17:14:16 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:14:16 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <eji4sr+rl66@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eji698+ro7h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161585

Jen wrote:  
<snip>> 
> OOTP started to feel chaotic, with more and more whirlwind 
> interactions.  That's when it hit me, anyway. I expected to meet new 
> main characters in the first half of the series, but it struck me as 
> an odd choice to spend pages and pages on Luna and Grawp in OOTP, 
> and Scrimgeour in HBP, when we'd never met them before that moment.  
> (Was there any way to have already known characters fill these 
> roles? I guess that Q. will be answered in Book 7.)  Like with 
> Aberforth, there have been hints all along about him so he won't be 
> such a surprise if he comes to the forefront. Or Scabbers, we didn't 
> know he was Peter but still he was in the story before his debut.  
> The new DADA was set up early on so that's become an expectation for 
> a new character each book.
> 
> Anyway, I'm off the subject a little but do think the sheer volume 
> of characters has undermined the relationships.  I'd rather have 
> seen a few of Grawp's pages in OOTP devoted to relationship 
> development myself. 

Carol responds:
Scrimgeour's role is foreshadowed in OoP, rather like the reference to
"young Sirius Black" in SS/PS:

"Lupin glanced at Harry, then said to Tonks, 'What were you saying
about Scrimgeour?'

"'Oh . . . yeah . . . well, we need to be a bit more careful, he's
been asking Kingsley and me funny questions. . . .'" (OoP Am. ed. 122,
ellipses in original). 

It's pretty clear from this brief reference that Scrimgeour is Tonks'
and Kingsley's superior and that he'll reappear in a later book or
books. (There's a similar reference to Ragnok the Goblin in relation
to Bill Weasley as the Order's liaison to the Goblins, so I'm waiting
for him to reappear. Even the ominously named Bode, who is Imperio'd
and then killed in OoP, was identified as an Unspeakable in GoF.)

As for Luna, there was no way to foreshadow her, since she's Ginny's
age, not Harry's, except for a casual reference to the Lovegoods as
not attending the QWC in GoF. We get to meet her and are introduced
primarily to her eccentricity in OoP, but we also glimpse her
intuitive understanding of Harry's needs, a talent that I'm sure will
be further developed in Book 7. It was necessary to introduce her in
OoP rather than HBP so that she, like Neville, could be a loyal member
of the DA and participate in the fiasco at the MoM (and be part of the
events at the end of HBP on the night of Dumbledore's death). I wonder
if she'll provide some insight into Snape!

As for Grawp, he's foreshadowed by the revelation about Hagrid's
giantess mother, Fridwulfa, in GoF. I'd be perfectly happy if he'd
never entered the story, but then JKR would have had to provide a deus
ex machina to rescue Harry and "Hermy" from the not-so-benevolent
Centaurs in OoP.

Carol, pretty sure that Luna and Scrimgeour have small but important
roles left to play but hoping that we've seen the last of Grawpy






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 17:49:23 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:49:23 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Ginny and Harry/SHIP sort of
In-Reply-To: <eji0lo+10f3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eji8b3+i0oa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161586

> Pippin:
> Why, though? JKR is a novelist, not a newscaster. She doesn't have
> to give us breaking news as it happens, details at eleven. The
> great paradox of the Potterverse is that we see most of what
> happens from Harry's PoV, yet if Harry were the astute observer
> he appears to be, we wouldn't have a story. 
> 
> Harry misses stuff. Once we know that, JKR is free to use that
> to build suspense, IMO. Leaving us to speculate over what Ginny's
> really like is no different than leaving us hanging about what 
> happened in Godric's Hollow. For those of us who saw Ginny
> marked out as Harry's girl from the moment he saw her on the
> platform, learning before Harry did  that she was close to Hermione 
> or that she was interested in Quidditch wouldn't have been a clue, 
it
> would have been a dead giveaway, and it would have made
> Harry look dumb. He's supposed to be oblivious, not stupid.
> <SNIP>

Alla:

I agree with you Pippin on this, well almost anyways - I think Harry 
missing staff is a fair justification to spring something on us, but 
not always if that makes sense.

I certainly agree for example that Harry will miss Hermione and Ginny 
friendship developing, yes, but as to Ginny character development, I 
don't know?

Missing relationship clues, yes, sure, missing Ginny being interested 
in  Quidditch?

Harry could have and should've, US as readers? I do not think I 
agree. One mentioning of Twins talking of Ginny stealing their 
brooms, etc, would have been nice IMO.

I am not complaining **too much**. I am happy with Ginny we have now 
( hides from Phoenixgod), but do I think that she appeared out of 
nowhere to some degree.


JMO,

Alla







From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Nov 16 18:17:27 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:17:27 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejh3qb+dhhp@eGroups.com>
References: <ejg7g7+3u47@eGroups.com> <ejh3qb+dhhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611161017v3466da8esb433d6befa078960@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161587

>
> Phoenixgod2000:
>
> I think Harry, Ron, and
> Draco--if they could get past Draco's assery--would have more in
> common with each other than Hermione and Ginny do.  I can't imagine
> what they would even talk about aside from Harry.


montims:
but then you are not a teenage girl at Hogwarts.  They can talk about
classes, teachers, the Weird Sisters, RW v WW politics, the food, all manner
of things.  Hermione is a year ahead of Ginny, so she can prepare her for
school stuff in a way that her brothers can't...

Phoenixgod2000:

> When I was in school, I was hardly a big man
on campus in a much bigger school than Hogwarts and I could have
named every student in my class and said something about them.

montims:
now I went to school in England where there were 30 pupils in my class, and
3 classes in my year.  Due to a dysfunctional childhood, I was (and am
still, to some extent - can you tell?) lacking in social skills.  I hung out
with 2 other girls occasionally, could not name every single student in my
class even after 7 years, and had no idea who the others in my year were,
let alone those in other years.

Phoenixgod2000:

> She does seem to have the dating scene sown up but I actually do find
that out of character.  This is the girl who in her first year had
almost no friends and barely knew how to act around the ones who were
her friends.  she got better over the years, but I have known a lot
of students in my years as a teacher just like Hermione (male and
female both) and I can tell you they are no good at dating except
inside their head. Get them in a real situation and without fail they
fall apart.  For her to be somehow antisocial and an uberdater cool
chick strikes me as inconsistent writing and a cheap way of showing
up the guys and making them look pathetic.

montims:
however, me again (and I am not saying I am like Hermione, just giving a
real life example that differs from your experience) - at 14 I started going
out with Steve (17, apprentice in the local factory and owning a car) and
went out with him for 6 years.  He was gorgeouslooking but shy, and equally
messed up by his parents.  At 16 I had my hair Sassoon-styled and got
contact lenses.  We made a fabulous couple, as the photos still prove when I
can bear to see what I used to look like, and my school life (which I hated)
was just a way of marking time till the evening came.  People from school
who knew me as drab and dreary couldn't believe it was me if they saw me
out.  I was grown up with Steve, and his equal, and he only knew me from
outside of classes.  It was at school that I felt insecure and out of
place.  I think the parallel is clear.


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




From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 18:27:08 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:27:08 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys
In-Reply-To: <ejffb2+jfm4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejiahs+s3q4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161588

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

And Dumbledore, who
> can't explain why he trusts Severus Snape, can't help Harry sort out
> these mixed-up emotions. Of course, not having a funeral or even a
> memorial service for Black didn't help Harry, either. He hasn't been
> given a chance to grieve for his godfather in a normal fashion.
> 
> Carol, who thinks that Sirius Black's body will be returned through
> the Veil and he'll be given a real funeral in Book 7
>

I'm not sure that DD is any more to blame than anybody else when it 
comes to that.  The adults surrounding Harry really do seem to be 
emotionally retarded, ludicrously incompetent, often ignoble, nut 
cases.  Lupin, at least, has an excuse.  The others just seem to be 
incompetent morons.

Getting Sirius' body back from the veil would be interesting, but 
would, I suspect, open up a can of worms that would rival the 
whole "DD speech in OOTP" or "veritaserum not being used on Sirius" 
or "ludicrously incompetent and convoluted Voldemort plans in OOTP 
and GoF" cans of worms.  To wit, how to get the body back without 
crossing through the veil?  And if one can cross the veil to get the 
body, why couldn't one cross the veil to get the living Sirius?  Not 
to mention it still doesn't answer the question of why there wasn't a 
memorial for Sirius, body or no.

Lupinlore









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 18:57:57 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:57:57 -0000
Subject: Snape's Behaviour and Legilimency
In-Reply-To: <ejhgi7+vm0u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejicbl+shio@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161589

List Elves: This is my fourth attempt at this post. I deleted two of
them because of typos and insufficiently developed ideas. Please keep
this one and delete the previous version if it ever shows up.

Tinktonks wrote:
<snip>>
> So back to Harry Potter. Harry doesn't REALLY understand what a
> Legimens sees or feels. Snape is adamant it is not like reading a
> book as Harry understands 'mind reading'. LV always knows when
> people are lying. I think it is not just PICTURES that you see, like
> in the penseive, but feelings and thoughts. (Canon for this would be
> where LV knows Wormtail wants to desert him in GOF).

Carol responds:
Snape says that Voldemort can usually tell when a person is lying and
only a skilled Occlumens can conceal the thought or memory that
reveals the lie. But it's not clear whether those thoughts and
memories contain words and sounds or only pictures. We do know,
however, that the "thought" that rises to the forefront of Harry's
mind when Snape is using Legilimency on him in "Sectumsempra" is the
image of his Potions book--no sound, no thoughts, no accompanying
actions, just a mental image of a book (one that Snape is sure to
recognize, particularly if the book is opened to reveal the
handwriting in the margins). The image is all that's required for
Snape to know that Harry is "a liar and a cheat" (IOW, Harry didn't
find Sectumsempra in a library book, as Snape would know already,
having invented the spell himself; he found it in the HBP's [Snape's]
old Potions book, which Harry is obviously using to "earn" undeserved
high marks in Potions). 

The memories revealed through the Legilimens spell that Snape uses in
OoP (including his own memories revealed through Harry's Protego) also
appear to be silent images (at any rate, no sounds are described
though it's possible that Harry hears what the hook-nosed man is
shouting at Snape's mother), but they are presented in the third
person, with young Severus or Harry visible in most cases, just as the
person whose memory is being explored is visible in the Pensieve. In
no case are we inside that person's mind, experiencing his thoughts
and feelings. What is revealed through the Legilimens spell or the
thoughts/memories removed from a person's head and placed in a
Pensieve is an objective record of the memory, what a third-person
observer would see and perhaps hear, not what the person whose memory
it is felt at the time. Harry feels neither Severus's pain nor his
humiliation in the "worst memory"; he only observes and to some degree
deduces what Severus feels.

Tonktonks:
> This being the case I am totally buying in to the theory that
> Snape's Worst memory was extracted by LV with Snape's running
> commentary of thoughts. <snip>

Carol:
Snape specifically placed this memory in the Pensieve so that neither
Harry nor Voldemort (using Legilimency on Harry or accessing it via
the scar) could see it. He would know if Voldemort had actually
extracted the memory, which would require a wand, not the fleeting
glimpse allowed by the Legilimens spell or eye-to-eye Legilimency, and
would require a Pensieve to view. And he would not know from the
memory, with its third-person perspective, how Snape felt about Lily.
He would only know that the angry and humiliated Teen!Severus had
turned on his would-be rescuer and called her a Mudblood and that she
had retaliated by calling him Snivellus and telling him to wash his
underwear. Voldemort, who knows nothing about love, would hardly infer
from this bit of information, even if it were available to him, that
Teen!Severus loved Lily. Most likely, he would think that the slightly
older Snape whose memory he was examining would be glad to see both
James and Lily dead. But my point is, he wouldn't have access to any
such detailed memory, only perhaps a glimpse of Lily and Severus
exchanging angry insults (each had hurt the other's feelings or
pride)--assuming that young Snape wasn't already a superb Occlumens
before Godric's Hollow, a point I'm not convinced of in any case.

Tinktonks:
> This explains to me the look of hatred he has when he AK's DD. He
> hates himself as realizes fully for the first time that he 'loves'
> DD and that this has caused DD's death (In Snape's mind if not in
> reality-or WW reality anyway)

Carol:
The look relates to Dumbledore, not to Lily, and is better explained
by his hating himself for killing Dumbledore or (temporarily) hating
Dumbledore for forcing him to keep the UV and kill him. The similarity
to Harry's feeling of revulsion (repulsion) for feeding Dumbledore the
poison in the Pensievelike bowl in the cave cannot be coincidence, IMO.

Tinktonks:
> I also think that Snape's hatred is not really aimed at Harry, it is
> caused by Harry. Snape hates himself for depriving Harry of a
> family, he also hates that he has caused this boy to be marked as
> LV's equal and possibly be murdered by him. That's why he is so
> strict on Harry and gets so annoyed when Harry is bad at something.
> When Neville is rubbish Snape ignores him most of the time,
> occasionally remarking on his inadequacies. When Harry is bad it is
> almost a manic disapproval with Snape.
>
> I think Snape believes in the prophecy, and is fighting against the
> possibility that he (Snape) could be responsible for the loss of the
> WW's last chance of defeating LV by marking someone unworthy.

Carol:
While I more or less agree with these two paragraphs, this view does
not require Voldemort's knowledge of Snape's worst memory or even of
his feelings, if any, for Lily. Snape's self-hatred or remorse has
already been explained as relating to his regret for revealing the
Prophecy to Voldemort, and, IMO, it was greatly intensified by his
failure to prevent the Potters' deaths. We don't know why he regretted
their deaths. Maybe he simply didn't want to be a party to the murder
of people he knew, particularly an innocent child. Maybe it relates to
the life debt (how dare James die without letting Snape repay the life
debt!) or to unrequited love for Lily or simple respect and affection
for her despite the insult that escaped him when she injured his pride
by trying to rescue him (he was quite capable of defending himself in
a fair fight even then, IMO).

I agree that Snape knows that Harry is the Chosen One though he's not
happy about it and that he's doing his best to provoke Harry into
learning--following rules and directions, remembering what a bezoar is
for, understanding Occlumency and the consequences of not learning it.
I disagree that he doesn't care what Neville learns. He's determined
that Neville will learn what he's doing wrong in Potions if it takes
threatening to test his potion on Trevor to do it. (Not the greatest
teaching methods, but I do think he desperately wants them both to
learn.) I've already discussed my in loco inimicis theory--in both
Occlumency and DADA, Snape presents himself as the enemy in order to
force Harry to react (to repel the Legilimens spell or to cast a
nonverbal Protego). In essence, he is provoking Harry into practicing
on him the skills he'll need when he faces his real enemy, Voldemort.
It's the only way he can reach a boy who hates and distrusts him and
whom he in turn hates and distrusts, the only way he knows to force
him to learn what he needs to know to destroy their common enemy,
Voldemort. This confrontational style appears one last time in the
duel in which Snape easily and contemptuously deflects Harry's
attempts to attack him, using Legilimency on him as Voldemort would
and taunting him to close his mouth (nonverbal spells) and his mind
(Occlumency).

As for Snape's hating his having "caused this boy to be marked as
Voldemort's equal," Snape doesn't know that part of the Prophecy
(unless he's removed his own memory from his head and explored it in
the Pensieve, unknown to Dumbledore), but his role in Harry's becoming
the Prophecy Boy and his consequent regret are already explained by
his being the eavesdropper without the need for LV to know his worst
memory or his feelings, if any, about Lily.

Carol, who thinks that "Snape's Worst Memory" is the narrator's
description, reflecting Harry's pov, and not necessarily accurate
(certainly, it's not accurate after HBP if Snape is DDM)









From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 16 18:51:34 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:51:34 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ejglmq+7ui2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejibvm+qt7p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161590

> Abergoat writes:
> 
> Cannot argue there! ;) Although I do think the story is most
> interesting if Snape was in a Catch22 on the top of the tower with the
> choice between two dead men and a teenager killer (Harry or Draco) or
> one dead man and an adult murderer. I'm not sure how Harry would have
> reacted in Dumbledore died from the effects of the potion.

Pippin:
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, 
contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and 
unrealistic. --John F. Kennedy.

Any outcome that lets Harry go on believing in the myth of Killer!Snape,
even reluctant Killer!Snape, makes things too easy, IMO. Harry has to
realize that it's a myth (assuming DDM!Snape of course) that he is
using to avoid confronting his own sense of responsibility. 

> Abergoat writes:
> 
> Don't you think that Tom Riddle wanted to murder Dumbledore during his
> visit to the Headmaster's Office but lacked the necessary courage
> without his supporters in tow? That's what I thought JKR suggested
> with Harry wanting to shout warning to Dumbledore.
>

Pippin:
I agree about wanting to kill Dumbledore. Harry had all those visions of 
wanting to sink his teeth into Dumbledore. But IMO Tom never had the 
courage to take Dumbledore on until he knew for sure no one could 
kill him. Harry guessed back in CoS that Dumbledore had seen through 
Tom from the beginning, and in HBP we found out that was true. I think 
that was the reason that Dumbledore was the only one Tom ever feared.

Pippin





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 17:28:27 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:28:27 -0000
Subject: Snape's Behaviour and Legilimency
In-Reply-To: <eji511+b76o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eji73s+ki4d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161591

Tinktonks wrote:
<snip>>
> So back to Harry Potter. Harry doesn't REALLY understand what a
> Legimens sees or feels. Snape is adamant it is not like reading a
> book as Harry understands 'mind reading'. LV always knows when
> people are lying. I think it is not just PICTURES that you see, like
> in the penseive, but feelings and thoughts. (Canon for this would be
> where LV knows Wormtail wants to desert him in GOF).

Carol responds:
Snape says that Voldemort can usually tell when a person is lying and
only a skilled Occlumens can conceal the thought or memory that
reveals the lie. But it's not clear whether those thoughts and
memories contain words and sounds or only pictures. We do know,
however, that the "thought" that rises to the forefront of Harry's
mind when Snape is using Legilimency on him in "Sectumsempra" is the
image of his Potions book--no sound, no thoughts, no accompanying
actions, just a mental image of a book (one that Snape is sure to
recognize, particularly if the book is opened to reveal the
handwriting in the margins). The image is all that's required for
Snape to know that Harry is "a liar and a cheat" (IOW, Harry didn't
find Sectumsempra in a library book, as Snape would know already,
having invented the spell himself; he found it in the HBP's [Snape's]
old Potions book, which Harry is obviously using to "earn" undeserved
high marks in Potions. 

The memories revealed through the Legilimens spell that Snape uses
(including his own memories revealed through Harry's Protego) in OoP
also appear to be silent images (at any rate, no sounds are described
though it's possible that Harry hears what the hook-nosed man is
shouting at Snape's mother), but they are presented in third-person,
with young Severus or Harry visible in most cases, just as the person
whose memory is being explored is visible in the Pensieve. In no case
 is harry or the reader inside that person's mind, experiencing
his thoughts and feelings. What is revealed through the Legilimens
spell and the thoughts/memories removed from a person's head and
placed in a Pensieve is an objective record of the memory, what a
third-person observer would see and perhaps hear, not what the person
felt at the time. Harry feels neither Severus's pain nor his
humiliation in the "worst memory"; he only observes and/or deduces them.

Tonktonks:
> This being the case I am totally buying in to the theory that
> Snape's Worst memory was extracted by LV with Snape's running
> commentary of thoughts. <snip>

Carol:
Snape specifically placed this memory in the Pensieve so that neither
Harry nor Voldemort (using Legilimency on Harry or accessing it via
the scar) could see it. He would know if Voldemort had actually
extracted the memory, which would require a wand, not the fleeting
glimpse allowed by the Legilimens spell or eye-to-eye Legilimency, and
would require a Pensieve to view. And Voldemort would not know from
the memory, with its third-person perspective, how Snape felt about
Lily. He would only know that the angry and humiliated Teen!Severus
had turned on his would-be rescuer and called her a Mudblood and that
she had retaliated by calling him Snivellus and telling him to wash
his underwear. Voldemort, who knows nothing about love, would hardly
infer from this bit of information, even if it were available to him,
that Teen!Snape loved Lily. Most likely, he would think that Snape
would be glad to see both James and Lily dead. But my point is, he
wouldn't have access to any such detailed memory, only perhaps a
glimpse of Lily and Severus exchanging angry insults (each had hurt
the other's feelings or pride)--assuming that young Snape did not know
Occlumency at that time, a point I'm not convinced of.

Tinktonks:
> This explains to me the look of hatred he has when he AK's DD. He
> hates himself as realizes fully for the first time that he 'loves'
> DD and that this has caused DD's death (In Snape's mind if not in
> reality-or WW reality anyway)

Carol:
The look relates to Dumbledore, not to Lily, and is better explained
by his hating himself for killing Dumbledore or (temposarily) hating
Dumbledore for forcing him to keep the UV and kill him. The similarity
to Harry's feeling of revulsion (repulsion) for feeding Dumbledore the
poison in the Pensievelike bowl in the cave cannot be coincidence, IMO.

Tinktonks:
> I also think that Snape's hatred is not really aimed at Harry, it is
> caused by Harry. Snape hates himself for depriving Harry of a
> family, he also hates that he has caused this boy to be marked as
> LV's equal and possibly be murdered by him. That's why he is so
> strict on Harry and gets so annoyed when Harry is bad at something.
> When Neville is rubbish Snape ignores him most of the time,
> occasionally remarking on his inadequacies. When Harry is bad it is
> almost a manic disapproval with Snape.
>
> I think Snape believes in the prophecy, and is fighting against the
> possibility that he (Snape) could be responsible for the loss of the
> WW's last chance of defeating LV by marking someone unworthy.

Carol:
While I more or less agree with these two paragraphs, this view does
not require Voldemort's knowledge of Snape's worst memory or even of
his feelings, if any, for Lily. Snape's self-hatred or remorse has
already been explained as relating to his regret for revealing the
Prophecy to Voldemort, and, IMO, it was greatly intensified by his
failure to prevent the Potters' deaths. We don't know why he regretted
their deaths. Maybe he simply didn't want to be a party to the murder
of people he knew, particularly an innocent child. Maybe it relates to
the life debt (how dare James die without letting Snape repay the life
debt!) or to unrequited love for Lily or simple respect and affection
for her despite the insult that escaped him when she injured his pride
by trying to rescue him (he was quite capable of defending himself in
a fair fight even then, IMO).

I agree that Snape knows that Harry is the Chosen One though he's not
happy about it and that he's doing his best to provoke Harry into
learning--following rules and directions, remembering what a bezoar is
for, understanding Occlumency and the consequences of not learning it.
I disagree that he doesn't care what Neville learns. He's determined
that Neville will learn what he's doing wrong in Potions if it takes
threatening to test his potion on Trevor to do it. (Not the greatest
teaching methods, but I do think he desperately wants them both to
learn without his coddling or favoring them, which would be at odds
with both his natural instincts and the image he wants to present to
Draco and the other children of DEs. 

I've already discussed my in loco inimicis theory--in both
Occlumency and DADA, Snape presents himself as Harry's enemy in order
to force Harry to react (to repel the Legilimens spell or to cast a
nonverbal Protego). In essence, he is provoking Harry into practicing
on him the skills he'll need when he faces his real enemy, Voldemort.
It's the only way he can reach a boy who hates and distrusts him and
whom he in turn hates and distrusts, the only way he knows to force
him to learn what he needs to know to destroy their common enemy,
Voldemort. This confrontational style appears one last time in the
duel in which Snape easily and contemptuously deflects Harry's
attempts to attack him, using Legilimency on him as Voldemort would
and taunting him to close his mouth (nonverbal spells) and his mind
(Occlumency).

As for Snape hating his having caused this boy to be marked as
Voldemort's equal, he doesn't know that part of the Prophecy (unless
he's removed his own memory and explored it in the Pensieve, unknown
to Dumbledore), but his role in Harry's becoming the Prophecy Boy is
already explained by his being the eavesdropper without the need for
LV to know his worst memory or his feelings, if any, about Lily.

Carol, who thinks that "Snape's Worst Memory" is the narrator's
description, reflecting Harry's pov, and not necessarily accurate
(certainly, it's not accurate after HBP if Snape is DDM)






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 19:13:37 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:13:37 -0000
Subject: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of possession (Was: JKR and the boys)
In-Reply-To: <ejiahs+s3q4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejid91+dhmk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161592

Carol earlier:
> And Dumbledore, who can't explain why he trusts Severus Snape, can't
help Harry sort out these mixed-up emotions. Of course, not having a
funeral or even a  memorial service for Black didn't help Harry,
either. He hasn't been  given a chance to grieve for his godfather in
a normal fashion.
> > 
> > Carol, who thinks that Sirius Black's body will be returned
through the Veil and he'll be given a real funeral in Book 7
> >
> Lupinlore responded:
> I'm not sure that DD is any more to blame than anybody else when it 
> comes to that.  The adults surrounding Harry really do seem to be 
> emotionally retarded, ludicrously incompetent, often ignoble, nut 
> cases.  Lupin, at least, has an excuse.  The others just seem to be 
> incompetent morons.
> 
> Getting Sirius' body back from the veil would be interesting, but 
> would, I suspect, open up a can of worms that would rival the 
> whole "DD speech in OOTP" or "veritaserum not being used on Sirius" 
> or "ludicrously incompetent and convoluted Voldemort plans in OOTP 
> and GoF" cans of worms.  To wit, how to get the body back without 
> crossing through the veil?  And if one can cross the veil to get the 
> body, why couldn't one cross the veil to get the living Sirius?  Not 
> to mention it still doesn't answer the question of why there wasn't
a memorial for Sirius, body or no.

Carol again:
Sorry to be unclear: I wasn't blaming Dumbledore for the absence of a
memorial service for Sirius Black, only pointing out that Harry didn't
have the opportunity to come to terms with his godfather's death that
a funeral or memorial service offers and noting that DD couldn't help
Harry sort out his anger at Snape, whom Harry chooses to blame for
Black's death, for complicated reasons that have nothing to do with Black.

As for Sirius Black's body coming back through the Veil, that's part
of my hypothesis that non-Horcrux!Harry will defeat Voldemort through
the power of possession (one of the powers that he acquired at
Godric's Hollow but doesn't know about yet). The idea is that the pain
caused by Harry's possessing him (Love and all that) would drive
Possessed!LV through the Veil, leaving Harry's body outside. LV would
have to stay there as Sirius does, being dead but not murdered, but
the spare soul inside him (Harry's) would not have to stay there.
After Harry spoke, using Voldemort's voice, to reveal his presence,
Dead!Sirius would lend Soul!Harry his body so that Harry could return
through the Veil. Harry would then reenter his own body, and Black's
body would be available for burial (he would not return from the dead,
nor would Harry, who was only possessing Voldemort and not dead).

Okay, it's rather far-fetched and gruesome, but I like it better than
Horcrux!Harry because it would allow Harry to live and to destroy
Voldemort without committing murder and using Voldemort's own powers
against him.

Carol, who doesn't consider Dumbledore and the adults in general a
bunch of incompetents but isn't arguing that point at the moment





From Aixoise at snet.net  Thu Nov 16 19:12:52 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (usaixoise)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:12:52 -0000
Subject: Wizards and nosy muggle neighbors...
Message-ID: <ejid7k+2f2a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161593

I did a search through the archives for any discussion on this but 
couldn't find it.  I was wondering if anyone had thought about what 
Wizards/ Witches said about their professions when asked by nosy 
nieghbors.  Although Arthur Weasley works in a department dealing with 
Muggle artifacts, he displays very little knowledge of them and one 
could imagine he would have a hard time lying his way through an answer.

Memory charms?  Are they and their houses as "invisible" to Muggles as 
the Leaky Cauldron is?

And (admittedly a silly question) how do wizards/witches do their 
grocery shopping?  I can't imagine they grow/raise all they need and 
going all the way to Diagon Alley for weekly trips would seem 
laborious.  I'm not sure there's an answer, just wondering if others 
have wondered about the more mundane aspects of the WW.

Stacey





From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov 16 19:28:34 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:28:34 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejh3qb+dhhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejie52+nr7r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161594

> Phoenixgod2000:  
> 
> A bad job of writing Ginny? I'm shocked.  Shocked I say :)

Magpie:
Heh--half of these examples I feel like saying, "But remember that 
was Ginny 1. Ginny 1 and Ginny 2 are two different people, so she 
and Hermione had different friendships."

Phoenixgod:

> Frankly I think they are that different. I think Harry, Ron, and 
> Draco--if they could get past Draco's assery--would have more in 
> common with each other than Hermione and Ginny do.  I can't 
imagine 
> what they would even talk about aside from Harry. 

Magpie:
Well, JKR pretty much always falls back on boy machinations when it 
comes to their relationship so I don't know that she can either.:-) 
Personally, I really find they feel like sisters-in-law to me. 
They're family, or will be--Hermione already practically lives at 
the house. That especially clicked in HBP when Ginny puts Hermione 
down to defend her man's curse. That was pretty much what I imagine 
them like as adults, women who talk about their husbands all the 
time to each other, but when it comes down to it the men have a more 
independent friendship with each other while the women fight if the 
men fight, if that makes sense.  It's the type of thing you see a 
lot on certain kinds of sitcoms, and it goes well with the general 
views of romance in the books, imo.  I also automatically imagine 
that Hermione and Ginny will presumably also raise children 
together, but probably privately judge the other's methods of child-
raising.

Phoenixgod:

> I don't know about Miles but it is what I am missing in the story. 
It 
> is one thing to say that that stuff happens offscreen but Harry 
> demonstrates again and again that is isn't happening at all.  He 
is 
> too ignorant of others in the school for Harry to be goofing 
around 
> with them offscreen. and regardless of how insular harry is, that 
> just isn't plausible.  When I was in school, I was hardly a big 
man 
> on campus in a much bigger school than Hogwarts and I could have 
> named every student in my class and said something about them. 

Magpie:
It's funny because it would be just as easy for the narrator to just 
tell us who people are with the assumption Harry would know. Instead 
we're more often told that yes, Harry really has no idea.

phoenixgod:
> She does seem to have the dating scene sown up but I actually do 
find 
> that out of character.  This is the girl who in her first year had 
> almost no friends and barely knew how to act around the ones who 
were 
> her friends.  she got better over the years, but I have known a 
lot 
> of students in my years as a teacher just like Hermione (male and 
> female both) and I can tell you they are no good at dating except 
> inside their head. Get them in a real situation and without fail 
they 
> fall apart.  For her to be somehow antisocial and an uberdater 
cool 
> chick strikes me as inconsistent writing and a cheap way of 
showing 
> up the guys and making them look pathetic.

Magpie:
I admit, that's how I've always taken it. (Even in GoF it's a little 
wonky describing Harry and Hermione hanging out together alone.) The 
Yule Ball is obviously a little Cinderella fantasy, beginning with 
the sports star happening to fall for Hermione just from watching 
her read in the library. Not that it couldn't ever happen, but I 
think I'd actually like Hermione more (not that I really dislike the 
character, but she never seems to have any vulnerability that makes 
me care about her or makes her seem real to me) if we saw how it was 
sometimes painful to be the smart girl who's friends with two boys 
who have other interests. She seemed like a chaperone at the Yule 
ball to me; I had more warmth for Pansy in her pink ruffles than 
Hermione in her mature, powder-blue dress with a French twist that 
made her sound 35 to me.  Even the "I see no difference" seems more 
a plot thing to get Hermione's teeth fixed for her transformation 
rather than something that makes me feel badly for her.  She makes 
other girls look pathetic too.

Likewise, while I can see why R/Hr is much more economical for the 
plot, I would have believed Ron honestly preferring Lavender.  But 
as it is of course it's not contest: Ron's an idiot who can't help 
but really love Hermione, and Lavender is just as ridiculous as she 
seems and doesn't really like Ron the way Hermione can.  So anyway, 
yes, I didn't really connect anything to Hermione's character in the 
Yule ball.  It just seemed like as much of a "Hermione's good at 
everything" as the random knowledge she has about the WW that we 
assume she gets through books.  I sometimes wish Ron were the one to 
start dating first. In the books it seems always assumed that Ron's 
always got to be worse than Harry and Hermione at everything, but I 
wouldn't be surprised if girls started liking Ron early on.

Err...of course now I'd love to hear your rant on gender.:-)

-m






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 16 19:54:36 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 19:54:36 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ejibvm+qt7p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejifls+1mtu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161595

---
> 
> Pippin:
 
> Any outcome that lets Harry go on believing in the myth of Killer!
Snape,
> even reluctant Killer!Snape, makes things too easy, IMO. Harry has to
> realize that it's a myth (assuming DDM!Snape of course) that he is
> using to avoid confronting his own sense of responsibility. 

wynnleaf

This got me thinking about JKR's intent with the parallel descriptions 
of Harry and Snape's "hatred" and "revulsion/repulsed."  Generally, 
the focus in discussion regarding these descriptions is that JKR's 
intent was to show that Snape is feeling more or less the same things 
Harry was -- revulsion for his action in AKing Dumbledore and hatred 
at himself for having to do it.

But I had not thought to flip over the meaning of what JKR is doing 
here.  It isn't just that Snape is like Harry in intent and action, 
but also that Harry is like Snape.  

We had already been shown that Harry was repressing his own sense of 
responsibility for Sirius' death and was transferring a lot of that 
guilt into his hatred of Snape, blaming Snape for Sirius' death almost 
as much as or more than he was blaming Bellatrix and Voldemort.  

Perhaps JKR's intent in using the parallel descriptions of Harry and 
Snape, is not solely to give us a hint at what Snape thinks and feels 
at that moment, but also to show us that Harry will need to eventually 
come to grips with his own actions and deal with his own sense of 
guilt, rather than projecting all of that guilt onto Snape.

wynnleaf, who just can't see JKR resolving Harry's conflicts with 
Snape through a last minute sacrificial death on Snape's part, and 
an "I guess he was loyal after all," realization by Harry.







From xcpublishing at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 20:00:20 2006
From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (Cheryl)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:00:20 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
Message-ID: <ejig0k+31rf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161596

Phoenixgod2000:
A bad job of writing Ginny? I'm shocked. Shocked I say :)

Nicky Joe:
LOL!  I can't agree more.  I've tried and tried to like her, but darn 
it, there's just not enough to go on!  She in the whole series for, 
like, five minutes.  I didn't want to be TOLD who she was, I wanted 
to be SHOWN.

Phoenixgod2000:

I think she probably does believe that
Hermione and Ginny are best girlfriends and they are--in her head--
but I don't think she does a good job of conveying that in the text.

Nicky Joe:
It wouldn't have been that difficult, either.  A simple mention by 
Hermione about doing something with Ginny once in awhile would have 
helped.  Heck, I've seen fanfic do a better job at making Ginny a 
character!

Phoenixgod2000:

regardless of how insular Harry is, that
just isn't plausible. When I was in school, I was hardly a big man
on campus in a much bigger school than Hogwarts and I could have
named every student in my class and said something about them.

Nicky Joe:
That ALWAYS bugged me about the series.  Harry lived a decade in 
Muggleland and had ZERO friends?  That's not only implausible, it's 
downright ludicrous.  It would have been pretty simple to get rid of 
any Muggle friends of Harry's by having them move away or something, 
but to not give him any at all?  That's just wrong.  I know why she 
did it, but I don't have to like it.

Phoenixgod2000:
She does seem to have the dating scene sown up but I actually do find
that out of character.

Nicky Joe:
I'm frankly surprised she made a nod to the dating thing at all, as 
she's shown a marked reluctance to writing any relationships that 
transcend friendship.  I've always wondered why and I suppose it's 
because she started out with Harry having fairly superficial 
feelings.  There just isn't a whole lot of emotional depth there.  
Although we're in Harry's head, we never get to feel a satisfying 
level of his anguish or joy or rage.  JKR simply doesn't write that 
way.

Phoenixgod2000:
I have my gorgeous wonderfully supportive
fiance (Hi Honey!) with me in the bar plying me with liquor because
she finds my drunken rants on Snape endlessly amusing.

Nicky Joe:
That is the funniest thing I've heard all week!  Are we all 
completely demented?  Oh yeah, of course we are
  I just posted a 
fanfic on Fiction Alley after I swore up and down I'd NEVER write 
one.  I think I was under an Imperius curse
  Yeah!  That's my story 
and I'm sticking to it










From elissa_ryan at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 18:45:06 2006
From: elissa_ryan at yahoo.com (elissa_ryan)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:45:06 -0000
Subject: Snapes Behaviour and Legimens
In-Reply-To: <ejhgi7+vm0u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejibji+gqbo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161597

Tinktonks:
> <snipping Legilimency theory>
> I also think that Snape's hatred is not really aimed at Harry, it is 
> caused by Harry. Snape hates himself for depriving Harry of a 
> family, he also hates that he has caused this boy to be marked as 
> LV's equal and possibly be murdered by him. That's why he is so 
> strict on Harry and gets so annoyed when Harry is bad at something. 
> When Neville is rubbish Snape ignores him most of the time, 
> occasionally remarking on his inadequacies. When Harry is bad it is 
> almost a manic disapproval with Snape.


Elissa:
This is very close to an idea about Snape's behavior I've been 
cherishing since reading HBP, though I think it is more of an emotional 
response for Snape, rather than frustration with Harry's progress.  
Dumbledore claims that revealing the partial prophecy to Voldemort is 
the greatest regret of Snape's life.  The way Snape treats Harry and 
Neville (though I know this is often argued about here <g>) is the best 
evidence to my eyes, that Dumbledore is correct about Snape's remorse.

I believe that Snape set out from the very beginning to make sure that 
Harry Potter would despise him.  

Snape feels guilty about the impact his actions have had on Harry's
life.  But he has to be around Harry to teach and protect him (if
you buy DDM!Snape, which I do).  He also cannot own up to his
guilt because Dumbledore wants to protect Harry from knowledge
about the circumstances surrounding the prophecy for as long as
possible.  I think that Snape's sense of honor forbids him from
allowing Harry to have any positive feelings for him, since Snape
believes that if Harry were in possession of all the facts, he would hate 
him, and rightly so, for the role he played in the deaths of his parents 
and the course Harry's life has taken.

In other words, knowing his guilt, Snape wouldn't be able to stand
himself if an unknowing Harry cared for or trusted him at all.  
Antagonizing Harry makes sure that it will never happen, and honor 
is satisfied.

Now, I don't discount Snape's feelings towards James at all, but I
think that the anger Snape holds for James is the emotion that he
is calling on to be so hateful towards Harry.  Kind of a method
acting exercise, if you will.  He is harnessing that emotion to
convince Harry, and probably himself.

I think the ability to do something like that is bourne out well
by his reputation as a superb Occlumens, which JKR has said 
requires similar skills; and also evidenced by that look of loathing 
as he AK'ed Dumbledore, where he was harnessing similar emotions 
to be able to perform that curse on a man he certainly respected, if 
not outright loved.

AFAIK, though Snape is obviously a tough and demanding sort of
teacher, we have not seen him treat any other students, in or out
of Gryffindor, the way he treats the Trio and Neville.  He goes
after them to anger Harry, but in Neville's case, I am thinking he
also feels guilt for what happened to the Longbottoms.  (I know
that JKR has said that the DE's who went after them didn't know the 
contents of the prophecy, but for the sake of economy, I have to 
believe that the Longbottoms were targeted in some way because 
of it, or it would be *some* coincidence)

This may not be the most mature way to handle such a situation,
but I feel that it is very in character for Snape; he may be a bitter,
vindictive sort, but he also seems to have a very strong, if somewhat
singular sense of honor, pride and integrity.

~Elissa, delurking <g>







From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 18:38:31 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:38:31 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejh3qb+dhhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejib78+10k1a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161598

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" <jmrazo at ...> 
wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> I've lost a lot of faith in JKR. The past two books have been 
> disappointing in my view.  There have been pieces of greatness in 
> both of them but a lot of disappointment as well. And all of that 
> disappointment involved Characterization sacrificed for Plot.
> 
> Sometimes I think she has lived so long with these characters in 
her 
> head that sometimes forgets to include things for all the people 
who 
> can't peer into her brain. I think she probably does believe that 
> Hermione and Ginny are best girlfriends and they are--in her head--
> but I don't think she does a good job of conveying that in the text.
>   

I think that hits the nail squarely on the head.  JKR, as I've said 
before, sometimes confuses detail with thought.  That is because she 
has a lot of detail in the plot, she thinks the plot is well thought 
out, when in fact it has holes in it large enough to drive a dragon 
through.

Similarly, because she has the reactions of the characters plotted 
out in advance, she thinks they are well-thought out, when in fact 
all they are is plotted and pre-determined.  Often it feels that 
characters react in unbelievable ways simply because it is convenient 
for the plot that they do so.  Thus, why does DD come up with such a 
bizarre way of treating Harry in OOTP, not even bothering with a note 
saying "I know this is hard on you but trust me, I have my reasons?" 
or better yet having Sirius convey such a sentiment along the lines 
of "I've talked to Dumbledore and he promises his bizarre behavior 
and decisions will be fully explained" or if Sirius must be isolated 
having McGonnagall convey the same information. Because it is 
convenient for the plot that he come up with such an inexplicable and 
ludicrous approach to the situation, just as it is convenient that 
McGonnagall take her idiotic stance with regard to Harry and Umbridge.

To make matters worse, JKR is often a victim of the rule of three.  
What she means to write, what she actually writes, and what people 
read often bear no relation to one another at all.


Lupinlore







From CliffVDY at juno.com  Thu Nov 16 20:24:04 2006
From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:24:04 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter WAS a Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ejgqho+iu81@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejihd4+9or8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161599

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dustin_pppr" <dustin_pppr at ...>
wrote:
<snip>
> Harry was a horcrux.  We have no other explanation for the connection
> between him and LV, and Dumbledore has specifically mentioned that
> there is a connection and the scar is part of it.  So, LV stored a
> part of his soul in HP, whether on purpose or by accident.
> 
> I said Harry WAS a horcrux, but I do not think he is one anymore.  My
> reason: Dumbledore's gleam of triumph at the end of GOF.  HP explains
> that LV used his (HP's) blood in the potion and that his mother's
> protection is gone, and HP notices a gleam of "something like triumph"
> in Dumbledore's eyes.
> <snip>

Cliff here:

The simple reason is that because LV became human again using Haryy's
blood, maybe DD thinks that LV is also no longer imortal. DD couldn't
identify all of the horcruxes and the triumph may mean that they don't
all have to be destroyed to kill LV. Speculation.





From rapid_white_wolf at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Nov 16 20:10:48 2006
From: rapid_white_wolf at yahoo.co.uk (rapid_white_wolf)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 20:10:48 -0000
Subject: Wizards and nosy muggle neighbors...
In-Reply-To: <ejid7k+2f2a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejigk8+tf31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161600

> >>Stacey:
>> I did a search through the archives for any discussion on this but couldn't find it.  I was wondering if anyone had thought about what Wizards/ Witches said about their professions when asked by nosy nieghbors.
>> <snip>
>> And (admittedly a silly question) how do wizards/witches do their grocery shopping?  I can't imagine they grow/raise all they need and going all the way to Diagon Alley for weekly trips would seem laborious. << <snip>

rapid_white_wolf:
Maybe wizards avoid contact with muggles as much as possible, which
could explain the lack of understanding they display towards muggles.

Perhaps they have a home shopping service, what would be the wizard
equivlent of the internet ;)

rapid_white_wolf







From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 20:51:27 2006
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:51:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Uninformed Harry: Good or Plot Contrivance (was: Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejib78+10k1a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <793041.71477.qm@web33211.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161601

> >>Lupinlore wrote:
>> <snip>   
>> Often it feels that characters react in unbelievable ways simply because it is convenient for the plot that they do so. Thus, why does DD come up with such a bizarre way of treating Harry in OOTP, not even bothering with a note saying "I know this is hard on you but trust me, I have my reasons?" or better yet having Sirius convey such a sentiment along the lines of "I've talked to Dumbledore and he promises his bizarre behavior and decisions will be fully explained" or if Sirius must be isolated having McGonnagall convey the same information. Because it is convenient for the plot that he come up with such an inexplicable and ludicrous approach to the situation, just as it is convenient that McGonnagall take her idiotic stance with regard to Harry and Umbridge. << <snip>


Melanie's reply:  I see your point about someone conveying the information about Dumbledore but if he was really scared about the connection he and Harry have getting out don't you think that he did the right thing.  McGonnagall worked in an institution that monitored the owls, classes, and basically every movement the teachers and students did.  It was scary the extent that Umbridge went through.  Similiarly, Sirius couldn't owl him, and the fireplace was not fool proof.  Perhaps, the mirror would have worked but we don't even know.  
   
I think that keeping Harry in the dark was what they felt was best.  Knowing Harry he would try and convince DD that it's not fair...Harry, like his father, doesn't really follow many  rules after all does he?  
   
Melanie




From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov 16 22:11:48 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:11:48 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejib78+10k1a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejinn4+95mk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161602

phoenixgod:
> > I've lost a lot of faith in JKR. The past two books have been 
> > disappointing in my view.  There have been pieces of greatness 
in 
> > both of them but a lot of disappointment as well. And all of 
that 
> > disappointment involved Characterization sacrificed for Plot.
> > 
Lupinlore:

> Similarly, because she has the reactions of the characters plotted 
> out in advance, she thinks they are well-thought out, when in fact 
> all they are is plotted and pre-determined.  Often it feels that 
> characters react in unbelievable ways simply because it is 
convenient 
> for the plot that they do so.  
<snipping>

Magpie:
This is something I really felt as I was reading in OotP, where 
characterization really seemed dependent on plot as I read.  In the 
past usually the times I was most aware of it in reading was where 
there was a scene I thought really worked emotionally but was then 
swept aside.

I know JKR is very partial to outlines and God knows what she's 
doing has been successful so it's not like I'd tell her she was 
doing it wrong, but I really never feel any emotional arc as real in 
the books. They seem like they work better in outline form. Like in 
the outline it makes sense to say: So Ron is angry at Harry because 
he thinks he put his name in the Goblet.  Fight fight fight. Ron 
sees danger of dragon in first task and apologizes. Fight ends.

She's got the catalyst all laid out, but it doesn't really follow 
the emotions or take advantage of the stuff that comes up. The fight 
ends with just Ron saying he was wrong, and all the emotions 
underneath just disappear as if they never existed or were never 
said. And I know teenaged boys are supposed to be more action-
oriented and they don't talk about feelings etc., but the subtext 
can still be there.  I thought the greatest emotional moment in GoF 
was Harry throwing the badge at Ron and accusing him of wanting a 
scar, but once the fight was over it was like it was all Ron and no 
Harry.  Unfortunately, a lot of my favorite emotional moments in 
canon are followed by exactly that kind of non-followthrough. (I 
almost wonder if that's yet another reason for the popularity of 
fanfic in this series.)

It's not that emotions are never important, it's just they're only 
important as motivators.  I understand, for instance, the reading 
that Sirius' death is supposed to be a factor that we just don't 
hear about in HBP, but to me it seems like Harry just announces 
early on that it's not going to be a storyline, and therefore it 
really might as well not exist--except for times when it helps the 
plot, like by drumming up anger at Snape, and even there it's one of 
many factors.  Even while I accept that Harry hasn't forgotten about 
Sirius, I don't think you can say that getting over the death of his 
beloved godfather is part of the main character of HBP. Plenty of YA 
books do deal with stuff like that, and this isn't. Harry's 
emotional motivations are right there in your face and cause him to 
do stuff--like in OotP there's parts where it's like Harry's playing 
anger pinball, being angry at one person and another.  Some people 
thought his anger was sudden in that book, others had handy reasons 
for why the events of GoF would cause it, but certainly the book 
isn't that interested in making a case for it why he's angry beyond 
what he's dealing with right there.  

There's a certain satisfaction to watching JKR juggle all of this 
stuff, but it's a different satisfaction, imo, than that of really 
engaging with emotions.  Harry's a great character more for what he 
goes through than his personal uniqueness as a character in himself--
that's not what drives the story.  (I think that's also why there's 
more room for something like angry!Harry in OotP--the books don't 
center on the uniquely special personality of Harry as an 
individual.)

-m





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 22:31:20 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:31:20 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <eji0lo+10f3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejioro+t1nb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161603

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > If Ginny and Hermione were close friends at this time the reader 
> > should be aware of it, even if Harry doesn't care. If JKR failed 
> > to do so than she's done a bad job writing Ginny's and           
> > Hermione's relationship.

> Pippin:
> Why, though? JKR is a novelist, not a newscaster. She doesn't have
> to give us breaking news as it happens, details at eleven. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So it's good I'm not asking her for that. <g>  We don't know 
Hermione's visiting Hagrid in PoA at the very moment she visits 
him.  But we do find out about it because it's important to 
establish what Hermione (a main character) is doing while being 
shunned by Ron and Harry (two other main characters).

The idea that Hermione is *also* hanging out with Ginny, 
establishing a close friendship, and that JKR does not, can not, and 
should not, share that with us is...  well, it's confusing.  How can 
you argue that Hermione and Ginny were hanging out together when 
canon doesn't show it happening?

As you say, JKR is a novelist, not a newscaster.  She doesn't have 
to evenly and unemotionally feed us the facts.  She's supposed to 
paint a picture that gives us a feel for the main characters and 
their relationships.  If a relationship between two major characters 
is never spoken of in the books, odds are the relationship never 
happened.

If it was *supposed* to have happened and JKR just didn't get around 
to covering it, then the story got away from her and she's playing 
catch up.  Which is bad writing.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> For those of us who saw Ginny marked out as Harry's girl from the 
> moment he saw her on the platform, learning before Harry did  that 
> she was close to Hermione or that she was interested in Quidditch 
> wouldn't have been a clue, it would have been a dead giveaway, and 
> it would have made Harry look dumb. He's supposed to be oblivious, 
> not stupid.

Betsy Hp:
The H/G ship was supposed to be a mystery?  First I've heard of 
that.  I thought the ship played as pretty obvious from the moment 
Ginny piped up on the train platform. 

If JKR sacrificed character development for mystery than she made a 
story telling error, IMO.  (Though I'm confused as to how Hermione's 
relationship with Ginny figures at all into Harry's relationship 
with Ginny.)

> >>Pippin:
> As it is, we do get  notice that a relationship had developed. That
> giggly love potion business -- who else does Hermione ever let 
> herself get giggly with? And giving Ginny advice on how to win
> Harry!! Hermione's awfully protective of him, you know, she       
> wouldn't hand that out to just anyone.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It still doesn't work for me.  It's too little, too late, and far 
too unimportant for the Hermione I know.  And that's the same 
Hermoine who loves giving advice to anyone who might ask for it.  
And who has never displayed any odd protectiveness over who Harry 
might or might not date.  (I think we're back to the "different 
books" thing.)

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> We didn't see the closeness developing because it would have killed
> the  H/G suspense, and because the focus of the stories isn't on   
> normal social development.

Betsy Hp:
So Hermione is unable to have any female friendships on page because 
that would pull the focus off the story?  But she *is* allowed to 
hang around Hagrid a lot.  I really don't get this.
 
> >>Pippin:
> It seems to me the bad writing charge is an excuse used by readers
> to explain why something they wanted to read about isn't in the    
> books.

Betsy Hp:
But, that's what *you're* doing.  You're asking me to believe in a 
friendship that isn't supported by the books. I'm only pointing out 
that, as per canon, Hermione and Ginny spend far too little time 
together to be called best friends.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But that wasn't over the stress of *dating*.  That was the      
> > stress of *Ron*.  Hermione effortlessly landed the school's most 
> > eligible bachelor soon into the asking process.  

> >>Pippin:
> Yeah, too bad it wasn't the date *she* wanted. Or have you         
> forgotten the infamous, "Next time there's a ball, ask me before   
> someone else does and not as a last resort!"  
> If she really had the dating stuff down, not that I'd expect her to
> at going on sixteen, she'd have:
> a) Found a way to let Ron know she was a girl
> b)Let him know she'd be up for an invite to the ball
> c)Made him think it was all his idea.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So rather than a super-savvy teenager, Hermione should have aimed 
for godhood? (And of course, there's no *way* Hermione could have 
asked Ron out.  Next thing you'll be expecting Hermione to work 
after marriage. <eg>) 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > We get a similar deal in HBP with Slughorn's Christmas party.  
> > Hermione effortlessly lands a date that meets her political 
> > requirements.  

> Pippin:
> Except that she doesn't twig that his intentions are different
> than hers. That's part of the dating thing too.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  Hermione's got the mechanics down (land cool date, look 
hot) but doesn't get the emotional aspects.

> >>Pippin:
> And I shouldn't think it would be hard to get a date for           
> Slughorn's parties. Draco can't be the only Slugclub wannabe.

Betsy Hp:
Probably not.  But Hermione goes with a fellow club member (wouldn't 
do to sully herself with a non-elite).

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So yeah, I do think Hermione has the social aspects of dating
> > pretty much sown up. And from the moment she's expected to      
> > figure it out no less. It's the falling in love thing that she's 
> > struggling through. (Which actually fits in with her character   
> > quite well.)

> >>Phoenixgod:
> She does seem to have the dating scene sown up but I actually do  
> find that out of character. This is the girl who in her first year 
> had almost no friends and barely knew how to act around the ones   
> who were her friends. she got better over the years, but I have   
> known a lot of students in my years as a teacher just like         
> Hermione (male and female both) and I can tell you they are no    
> good at dating except inside their head. Get them in a real       
> situation and without fail they fall apart. For her to be somehow 
> antisocial and an uberdater cool chick strikes me as inconsistent 
> writing and a cheap way of showing up the guys and making them    
> look pathetic.

Betsy Hp:
I think Hermione changes from the geeky outsider to intense Class 
President (I'm thinking Reese Witherspoon in "Election" here) from 
PS/SS to... I'd say PoA.

It *is* a stretch, IMO, to take a girl with absolutely no interest 
in hair, clothes, and makeup and have her show up looking as sleek 
and sophisticated as, well, a 35 year old (thanks, Magpie!).  
Especially since there's no fairy godmother figure showing her the 
ropes. But an argument could be made that what with magic and 
Hermione's research skills she figured out the tricks of the trade 
in time for her big night.  And it makes sense that it's the human 
factor Hermione falls down on.

I agree with Magpie that it takes some depth out of Hermione's 
character.  I much preferred the spastic brain of PS/SS to the scary 
future dictator of the world of HBP.  I'm just hoping that in book 7 
the scary dictator gets deflated and figures out it's okay to be a 
spastic brain.

> >>Phoenixgod:
> > I don't know about Miles but it is what I am missing in the     
> > story. It is one thing to say that that stuff happens offscreen 
> > but Harry demonstrates again and again that is isn't happening   
> > at all. He is too ignorant of others in the school for Harry to 
> > be goofing around with them offscreen.
> > <snip>

> >>Magpie:
> It's funny because it would be just as easy for the narrator to   
> just tell us who people are with the assumption Harry would know. 
> Instead we're more often told that yes, Harry really has no idea.

Betsy Hp:
And JKR does do the "Harry's known this for a while folks" route 
with other things.  Like that shortcut to Gryffindor tower.  I don't 
think we ever shared the moment that he and Ron discovered the 
shortcut, but as readers we can agree that he's known about it for a 
while now.  It goes towards his comfort and knowledge of Hogwarts.

Why doesn't she do something similar when say McLaggen shares his 
eating too much pixie dust (or whatever his quidditch excuse is) 
story?  Have Harry remember that occasion, for example.  I wonder if 
JKR *does* want Harry to appear isolated and socially backward?

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I think we're reading the same books... I'm just reading them in
> > the back of soon to be closed bar, sucking down cheap cigarettes
> > and cheaper liquor, fighting off a headache and a broken heart.

> >>Phoenixgod:
> I think I've seen you there...Except I don't have the whole broken
> hearted thing going :)

Betsy Hp:
Hee! I'm still at a point that I don't like not liking the main 
characters anymore.  And I'm still hopeful that this a darkness JKR 
wrote on purpose.  That she'll come sailing into the bar with book 7 
and prove that our love is still true.  That the good guys are still 
admirable and likable.  That the Potter books will stand the test of 
time.  (It's getting late, but I'm not leaving.  They'll have to 
throw my carcass out. <g>)

Betsy Hp (pulled from different posts so the order is questionable)






From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 20:58:45 2006
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 12:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of possession (Was: JKR and the boys)
In-Reply-To: <ejid91+dhmk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <869459.5606.qm@web33214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161604

Carol writes: <As for Sirius Black's body coming back through the Veil, that's part of my hypothesis that non-Horcrux! Harry will defeat Voldemort through the power of possession (one of the powers that he acquired at Godric's Hollow but doesn't know about yet). The idea is that the pain caused by Harry's possessing him (Love and all that) would drive Possessed!LV through the Veil, leaving Harry's body outside. LV would have to stay there as Sirius does, being dead but not murdered, but the spare soul inside him (Harry's) would not have to stay there.  After Harry spoke, using Voldemort's voice, to reveal his presence, Dead!Sirius would lend Soul!Harry his body so that Harry could return through the Veil.  Harry would then reenter his own body, and Black's body would be available for burial (he would not return from the dead, nor would Harry, who was only possessing Voldemort and not dead).

Okay, it's rather far-fetched and gruesome, but I like it better than
Horcrux!Harry because it would allow Harry to live and to destroy
Voldemort without committing murder and using Voldemort's own powers
against him.

Carol, who doesn't consider Dumbledore and the adults in general a
bunch of incompetents but isn't arguing that point at the moment>
   
  
Melanie's reply:  Gosh that is just depressing to me.  To me the idea of Sirius's soul hanging out with a live Voldemort just makes me want to cringe.  
   
I still say the most likely outcome of the books is Harry going to "heaven" which in my mind is behind the veil and finally meeting his parents and of course having Sirius introduce them.  I just think that is the sweetest and most sincere way to end the books.  I can't imagine Harry ever being happy after all of this and going on to live this normal life with Ginny.  IT's just strange to me.  
   
Melanie





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 23:29:19 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:29:19 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <009a01c70925$58717920$cb8c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ejis8f+mnp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161605

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > If the WW has made the MoM's definitions of dark and light magic
> > their ethical crutch I can see them being quite susceptible to   
> > that sort of  manipulation.  And I can see them concluding that 
> > there's no good or evil, just power.
> > Which would suggest that designating light and dark magic *harms*
> > rather than helps the fight against evil.

> >>Magpie:
> I find in reading that the fact is in the WW there is only power  
> when it comes to magic.  Which is not to say that good and evil   
> don't exist, just that magic is magic.  There's not much          
> mysterious mysticism attached to it, and when there is it's       
> usually more a metaphor for the mystery of something else, like   
> love. It's not like they reach for a different kind of magic when 
> they make a Dark Spell. 

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  Magic is a tool.  And it's completely neutral -- like 
gravity.  However, by creating labels for different spells, 
designating one set dark and another light, the WW has set 
themselves up for failure.  They've removed room for discussion. So, 
instead of discussing the ethics of memory spells they simply rely 
on the fact that the MoM says memory spells are good.

So the WW has weakened their ethical muscles.  Which means it's 
easier for a slick talker to explain away evil.  If the WW is 
starting with a false or empty premise, it's easy to knock them 
down.  By getting caught up in their labels they completely miss the 
point and the real battle.  Which isn't over spells but over actual 
intents and actions and goals.

> >>a_svirn:
> > We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his
> > soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be      
> > corrupted as much as Voldemort did. <snip>

> >>Carol:
> Exactly. He *chose* to fall into evil, to be seduced by the Dark   
> Arts he was supposed to be fighting. 

Betsy Hp:
Where are you guys getting this from? Canon-wise I mean.  And don't 
you agree that it means Ginny is also evil?  If you don't, how does 
she escape?

> >>Carol:
> Think of Saruman in LOTR, who "studied too deeply the arts of the 
> enemy." He was tempted to *practice* the very arts that he        
> studied, in his case creating evil creatures and trying to create 
> a Ring of Power. Snape can study the Dark Arts, but as long as he 
> doesn't yield to temptation and practice them, he won't be a Dark 
> wizard.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think referring back to LOTR is a mistake.  JKR has set up an 
entirely different magical system here.  There is nothing within the 
Potter books to suggest that the Dark Arts are active in any sense.  
They don't seduce.  They aren't addictive.  They don't turn anyone 
evil.  Snape can study and explore and try out and experiment with 
as many "dark" spells as he wishes to.  As long as his *intent* is 
pure, as long as he's aware of why he's doing what he's doing, he'll 
be fine.

The weight is on the wizard, not on the magic.  There is 
no "forbidden" knowledge in JKR's world.

> >>Carol:
> Quirrell, in allowing Voldemort to possess him, became Dark        
> himself... <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think you're putting the cart before the horse.  Quirrell decided 
there was no such thing as good and evil, so refused to see any 
action as evil, and therefore allowed Voldemort to posses him.

It wasn't the action of possession that made Quirrell dark.  
Quirrell became dark and so allowed the possesson to occur.  
Quirrell decided killing was okay (since there's no such thing as 
evil) so he killed.  *That's* what made him dark.  Not the *way* he 
chose to kill.

> >>Carol:
> Bellatrix, with her sadistic impulses, would naturally be pulled  
> spells designed with no other purpose than to hurt, kill, or      
> dominate, in particular the Unforgiveable Curses. The desire to   
> use them, which would be far stronger than the threat of Azkaban   
> (and whatever damage such spells do to the soul) would be, for    
> her, irresistible--Dark spells turning a potentially Dark witch   
> into a genuinely Dark witch.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Again, I think you've got the order of events backwards.  Bellatrix 
is sadistic and cruel.  So she acts in a sadistic and cruel manner.  
Magic is a tool she uses to do those actions.  That's all.  They 
don't create or feed the sadism in her.  They don't have that 
power.  Bellatrix does, she feeds her own sadism.  Even without 
magic she'd have developed as she does.

> >>Magpie:
> This also leads into a tangent, but I've always honestly wondered 
> if fandom didn't take the Unforgivable thing more seriously than   
> JKR did legally.  
> <snip>
> When Harry tried to throw one in OotP I originally thought that   
> was important in terms of his using this Dark Curse, but it turns 
> out it really wasn't. It was just a teenaged boy looking to throw 
> the pain he felt at someone else. It wasn't that he didn't access 
> the demonic power he needed, it was that he did what he wanted to 
> do and it wasn't torture someone. Harry never thought back on it, 
> nor did anyone else.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  I think this definitely speaks to magic not being an 
instigator of anything.  A person is who they are all on their own.  
The magic is just a tool they use.

It's like if Harry threw a knife at Bellatrix.  It hurts her, and 
Harry's glad.  But Bellatrix sneers that it didn't hurt that much 
and he needs to figure out where to best hit someone if he wants to 
cause real pain.  That's because Bellatrix is into pain and knows 
how to use a knife to achieve that goal.  But that wasn't Harry's 
goal really.

And the knife is just a knife.  It doesn't influence anyone.  It's 
just a tool. 

Betsy Hp 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 23:42:20 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:42:20 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejghun+10914@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejit0s+ppeq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161606

> > >>a_svirn:
> > We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened 
his   
> > soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be        
> > corrupted as much as Voldemort did. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Where did you get that quote?  I couldn't find it.  

a_svirn:
I admit it wasn't the exact quote. But Dumbledore did say:

"Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with 
Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason."

And before that Voldemort himself:

"See what I have become?" the face said. "Mere shadow and vapor ... I 
have form only when I can share another's body... but there have 
always been those *willing* [emphasis mine ? a_svirn] to let me into 
their hearts and minds...."

So here we have it: a man full of hatred, freed and ambition, eager 
to share his soul with Voldemort. Not a pretty picture. 

> Betsy Hp:
> The idea that only those who mean to be corrupted can be corrupted 
> is... harsh, maybe?  Wouldn't Ginny (who *did* pour her soul into 
> Voldemort) be tainted by Quirrell's brush?  Wouldn't we have to 
> assume that Ginny somehow wanted to be possessed?

a_svirn:
Why on earth should we assume anything of the sort? Ginny didn't 
succumb for the Lure of the Dark. She was *violated* by the Dark, 
forcibly possessed by it. She even tried to fight it when she 
realized what was going on. She wasn't full of ambition or hatred; 
she simply fell for a charming boy who turned out to be totally 
rotten. Happens all the time.

> Betsy Hp:
> Huh... I feel like there's a medieval philosopher or artist or 
> writer (or all of the above <g>) who's discussed this particular 
> road to hell.  Something about empty knowledge or ignorance or 
> something?  Does this ring any bells for anyone?

a_svirn:
I can only think of "little knowledge is a dangerous thing" (that's 
Pope). 

> Betsy Hp:
> The WW isn't divided between Death Eaters and the Order.  Most of 
> the British WW follows the directions of the MoM quite closely.  We 
> see that with how easily the MoM sways public opinion. 

a_svirn:
Quite the contrary, they break dozens of those regulations at a time. 
Just think of the World Cup. As for the opinion it wasn't exactly the 
Ministry who swayed it, it was the Daily Prophet. At that time it was 
in league with the Ministry, but it is not always the case.

> Betsy Hp:
Gosh, even 
> Hermione wants things to be "Ministry Approved".

a_svirn:
When she's not busy kidnapping, blackmailing, hexing and confounding 
other people she does. 

> Betsy Hp:
> It's a bad foundation to stand on, not very sturdy, easily shifted 
> around depending on the political winds.  Recognizing the emptiness 
> of the labels puts the struggle in proper perspective, IMO. Gets 
you 
> past the politics and to the root of the issue.

a_svirn:
Hear, hear!






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 23:46:46 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:46:46 -0000
Subject: JKR and Emotional Arcs (was:Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejinn4+95mk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejit96+82kk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161607

> >>phoenixgod:
> > I've lost a lot of faith in JKR. The past two books have been 
> > disappointing in my view.  There have been pieces of greatness 
> > in both of them but a lot of disappointment as well. And all of 
> > that disappointment involved Characterization sacrificed for    
> > Plot.

> >>Lupinlore:
> > <snip>
> > Often it feels that characters react in unbelievable ways simply 
> > because it is convenientfor the plot that they do so.  
> > <snipping>

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> I know JKR is very partial to outlines and God knows what she's 
> doing has been successful so it's not like I'd tell her she was 
> doing it wrong, but I really never feel any emotional arc as real 
> in the books. 
> <snip of example>

Betsy Hp:
For me the odd moment was Ron and Quidditch in HBP.  I mean, I 
thought a big chunck of Ron's development in OotP was his quidditch 
sub-plot.  He thinks he's a disaster but then finally has a moment 
where he realizes he's not.  And it was great.

And then it all repeats in HBP.  Why?  So Hermione can hex 
McLaggen?  So Harry has something to be tense about as quidditch 
captain? So Ron remains the trio's fool? 

It didn't make sense.  It was like JKR had completely forgotten 
everything she'd written in OotP. And Ron had forgotten being 
carried on his classmates' shoulders and knowing that he'd done 
something on his own merit.

> >>Magpie:
> There's a certain satisfaction to watching JKR juggle all of this 
> stuff, but it's a different satisfaction, imo, than that of really 
> engaging with emotions.  Harry's a great character more for what   
> he goes through than his personal uniqueness as a character in     
> himself-- that's not what drives the story.  (I think that's also 
> why there's more room for something like angry!Harry in OotP--the 
> books don't center on the uniquely special personality of Harry as 
> an individual.)

Betsy Hp:
I wonder if that's why I suffered from a bit of an HBP drop?  I was 
sooo excited about HBP, and as I mentioned before, I was thrilled 
with what happened with the Slytherins (the Malfoys, the train 
compartment, Snape).  But as I thought about the main characters, I 
felt more and more let down.  I found I didn't really care about 
them all that much anymore.  In many ways, I just stopped liking 
them.  Which isn't the best way to feel about a book, IMO.

Betsy Hp





From drdara at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 00:10:43 2006
From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
Message-ID: <20061117001043.42137.qmail@web60712.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161608

Phoenixgod2000:
A bad job of writing Ginny? I'm shocked. Shocked I say :)

Nicky Joe:
LOL! I can't agree more. I've tried and tried to like her, but darn 
it, there's just not enough to go on! She in the whole series for, 
like, five minutes. I didn't want to be TOLD who she was, I wanted 
to be SHOWN.

Phoenixgod2000:
?I think she probably does believe that
Hermione and Ginny are best girlfriends and they are--in her head--
but I don't think she does a good job of conveying that in the text.

Nicky Joe:
It wouldn't have been that difficult, either. A simple mention by 
Hermione about doing something with Ginny once in awhile would have 
helped. Heck, I've seen fanfic do a better job at making Ginny a 
character!

As many people have pointed out, this is from Harry's point of view, he's not going to notice Ginny much. My older siblings friends never noticed me much either. Most don't unless the younger siblings are very outgoing and included in everything. Until OOPT Ginny was very shy around Harry.
Danielle

Phoenixgod2000:
?regardless of how insular Harry is, that
just isn't plausible. When I was in school, I was hardly a big man
on campus in a much bigger school than Hogwarts and I could have
named every student in my class and said something about them.

Nicky Joe:
That ALWAYS bugged me about the series. Harry lived a decade in 
Muggleland and had ZERO friends? That's not only implausible, it's 
downright ludicrous. It would have been pretty simple to get rid of 
any Muggle friends of Harry's by having them move away or something, 
but to not give him any at all? That's just wrong. I know why she 
did it, but I don't have to like it.

And it is plausible that Harry didn't have any friends, kids in that age bracket can be very self centered and cruel, Dudley picked on Harry so much, that other kids were afraid that if they hung out with Harry they would get picked on too. As well as the fact is that some kids are very into what other people looked like and since Harry looked poor and scraggly no one wanted to hang out with him.  Plus Harry didn't really rock the boat much, so he wouldn't have gone thru the trouble of making friends, because he would feel bad about being invited to his friends home and never being able to invite them to his because petunia would never allow it. And again, the story is told from the viewpoint of when he goes to hogwarts. So he could have had friends when he is at school, that he just doesn't socialize with outside of school or school activities. I have plenty of friends like that, I see them at school or work and not outside of, we get along pretty well, we just don't
 socialize outside those paremeters. Hogwarts sound almost like the size of a regular american high school or smaller, depends on how well you trust JKR's math. my graduating class had over 400 students in it, I didn't know them all. I knew maybe 100 by face and name only because I went to school with them since we were 13yrs old. Would I remember them now, probably not. And again this is worth repeating, the story is from Harry's viewport, so we know only what he sees, or feels, or whatever the author feels like letting us know. It's getting to the point where everyone is nitpicking every little detail, that you are getting away from the point that this is a piece of fiction. Authors may try to make things work in a real way, but it doens't always turn out that way. GET OVER IT!!! When you guys decide to write your own story and get it published do it the way you want to do it, right down to the very last perfect detail. This is Rowlings story, and she's made it clear
 she's a human being that makes mistakes, we all know her math is horrible.

Danielle




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Don't quit your job - take classes online
www.Classesusa.com


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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 00:21:36 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 16:21:36 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR and Emotional Arcs (was:Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
Message-ID: <20061117002136.79499.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161609

> >>phoenixgod:
> > I've lost a lot of faith in JKR. The past two books have been 
> > disappointing in my view. There have been pieces of greatness 
> > in both of them but a lot of disappointment as well. And all of 
> > that disappointment involved Characterization sacrificed for 
> > Plot.

> >>Lupinlore:
> > <snip>
> > Often it feels that characters react in unbelievable ways simply 
> > because it is convenientfor the plot that they do so. 
> > <snipping>

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> I know JKR is very partial to outlines and God knows what she's 
> doing has been successful so it's not like I'd tell her she was 
> doing it wrong, but I really never feel any emotional arc as real 
> in the books. 
> <snip of example>

Betsy Hp:
For me the odd moment was Ron and Quidditch in HBP. I mean, I 
thought a big chunck of Ron's development in OotP was his quidditch 
sub-plot. He thinks he's a disaster but then finally has a moment 
where he realizes he's not. And it was great.

And then it all repeats in HBP. Why? So Hermione can hex 
McLaggen? So Harry has something to be tense about as quidditch 
captain? So Ron remains the trio's fool? 

It didn't make sense. It was like JKR had completely forgotten 
everything she'd written in OotP. And Ron had forgotten being 
carried on his classmates' shoulders and knowing that he'd done 
something on his own merit.

> >>Magpie:
> There's a certain satisfaction to watching JKR juggle all of this > stuff, but it's a different satisfaction, imo, than that of really  engaging with emotions. Harry's a great character more for what  he goes through than his personal uniqueness as a character in  himself-- that's not what drives the story. <snip>

Betsy Hp:
<snip> I found I didn't really care about them all that much anymore. In many ways, I just stopped liking
them. Which isn't the best way to feel about a book, IMO.

Betsy Hp
___________________

Jeremiah:
I'm sorry to those of you who feel let down. I look at it as a system for getting us to the end. There are somethings that seem a bit contrived but the enormity of this story is such that there has to be a bit of streaching with the emotions.

I also feel that, in regards to Ron, he's a character that is like his father. Happy-go-lucky to an extent but always meek in a way. Lacking self esteem from growing up in a family where one brother works with Dragons, another is a treasure hunter for Gringots, yet another works for the Minister for Magic. I'd have self-esteem issues, too! So, one success on the Quiddich pitch doesn't make him snap out of it. He's grown up that way. It takes a long time. (as a guy with esteem issues I identify with ron... a lot).

As far as the relationship between the boys... well, yeah. It's not all chatty and personal. Boys don't really express themselves like girls do. Blame it on whatever you like... the broken chromosome or social conditioning...  It's just the way we boys are. And I remember having a really hard time once, I cried, and I was treated with kid-gloves for a long time after. My dad still thinks I'm going to burst out in tears and I'm 34! LOL.

So, I believe in the reactions from Harry, Ron, Seamus and the rest. I also believe in the relationships between the girls. Hemione is very complex to me. She's brainy and more "masculine" in some ways bu she still has friends who are girls... not as close as Ron and Harry but she even gets girly chummy with Ginny. Ah, well. I guess I just see it differently.

Jeremiah: not crying... on the outside.

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




From aratchford at gmail.com  Fri Nov 17 00:00:30 2006
From: aratchford at gmail.com (mandrina_q)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:00:30 -0000
Subject: Wizards and nosy muggle neighbors...
In-Reply-To: <ejigk8+tf31@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejiu2u+ntnp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161611

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rapid_white_wolf" 
<rapid_white_wolf at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Stacey:
> >> I  I was wondering if anyone had thought about what Wizards/ 
Witches said about their professions when asked by nosy nieghbors.
> >> <snip>
> >> And (admittedly a silly question) how do wizards/witches do 
their grocery shopping?  I can't imagine they grow/raise all they 
need and going all the way to Diagon Alley for weekly trips would 
seem laborious. << <snip>


  I think it would seriously come down to a matter of choice.  I feel 
like some wizards would have no problem living in a muggle 
neighborhood with muggle neighbors.  Evidence of this being a likely 
scenario is that we know of dozens of wizards who have fallen in love 
with and married muggles.  They would have to have met those people 
somewhere.
  In some cases, I'm sure that wizards choose not to entangle 
themselves with muggles at all and choose to live 'off the grid' per 
se (i.e. "the burrow" in the country or Malfoy Manor on a large tract 
of private land in Wiltshire).  Many of those wizards would, in my 
opinion, choose to take on the inconveniences of confining themselves 
to a wizards-only society.  Those folks would likely just take the 
matter of having to apparate themselves to Diagon Alley to do the 
grocery shopping for the week as par for the course.  You may also 
consider that, in a case such as the Malfoys, they likely have a 
house elf or two who could likely be sent out for those type of 
chores.
   And as for the wizards who do shop in muggle supermarkets... well, 
if we take the size of the Hogwarts student body relative to the size 
of the population of Britain as a whole as an example, then the 
wizarding community would not be so vast as to be on the radar in 
most places.  And don't we all have that one eccentric person... that 
one old lady who dressses funny and talks to herself in the produce 
section?  Haven't we all seen that one unusual gentleman in the 
bowler hat and bow tie with the sweater vest on in the middle of the 
summer?  Wizards don't have to really blend in, just fly under the 
radar, so to speak.

-Manda







From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 16 23:40:53 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 15:40:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of possession (Was: JKR and the boys)
Message-ID: <20061116234053.45474.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161612

Carol writes: <As for Sirius Black's body coming back through the Veil, that's part of my hypothesis that non-Horcrux! Harry will defeat Voldemort through the power of possession (one of the powers that he acquired at Godric's Hollow but doesn't know about yet). The idea is that the pain caused by Harry's possessing him (Love and all that) would drive Possessed!LV through the Veil, leaving Harry's body outside. LV would have to stay there as Sirius does, being dead but not murdered, but the spare soul inside him (Harry's) would not have to stay there. After Harry spoke, using Voldemort's voice, to reveal his presence, Dead!Sirius would lend Soul!Harry his body so that Harry could return through the Veil. Harry would then reenter his own body, and Black's body would be available for burial (he would not return from the dead, nor would Harry, who was only possessing Voldemort and not dead).

Okay, it's rather far-fetched and gruesome, but I like it better than
Horcrux!Harry because it would allow Harry to live and to destroy
Voldemort without committing murder and using Voldemort's own powers
against him.

Carol, who doesn't consider Dumbledore and the adults in general a
bunch of incompetents but isn't arguing that point at the moment>

-------------

Jeremiah:

I'm totally confused by that. LOL. (So many exclamation points).

Jeremiah- who is going to have a drink to soften the blow of being totally confused by exclamation points. 

(I'm just having fun... No hurt feelings? Hooray!)

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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 00:37:56 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:37:56 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <20061117001043.42137.qmail@web60712.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ejj094+u642@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161613

Danielle:
<SNIP>
And again this is worth repeating, the story is from Harry's 
viewport, so we know only what he sees, or feels, or whatever the 
author feels like letting us know. 

Alla:

Yep. I am aware of that and I think pretty much everybody who 
participates in this thread does. What people are saying, I believe 
is that sometimes it would not hurt to let us know a little bit more 
to make character development a little more believable for some 
readers.

I adore Harry's character. I think Rowling does a bang on job with 
him. I think he deserves the very best girl Rowling can offer him 
and I certainly love him with Ginny, but Supercoool!Ginny whom I am 
okay with now in many ways appeared out of nowhere as far as I am 
concerned.

Danielle:
It's getting to the point where everyone is nitpicking every little 
detail, that you are getting away from the point that this is a 
piece of fiction. Authors may try to make things work in a real way, 
but it doens't always turn out that way. GET OVER IT!!! When you 
guys decide to write your own story and get it published do it the 
way you want to do it, right down to the very last perfect detail. 
This is Rowlings story, and she's made it clear
>  she's a human being that makes mistakes, we all know her math is 
horrible.

Alla:

Yep, that's what we do here - nitpicking every little detail, 
admiring what author does if we wish, criticising what author does 
if we wish. I am certainly not going to get over anything, if I feel 
that something in the books not written as well as I would love to 
see.

Yes, it is just my wish as a reader and that is Rowling story ( I am 
aware of it too), but even though I love the books very much I am 
not going to stop from criticising the things I do not love ( there 
is still much less on the negative part of the scales for me, much 
less than for Betsy or LL, but those things are there).

JMO of course,

Alla





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 00:42:37 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:42:37 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejctsg+mmin@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejj0ht+le31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161614

> > a_svirn:
> > I don't know about that, since I can't be entirely sure what
*dark*
> > is. But they are definitely evil.
>
> Carol responds:
> How are they "definitely evil"? They have the potential to harm, but
> how is, say, Aunt Marge harmed by not knowing that she was blown up
> and punctured?

a_svirn:
She is harmed because her mind is violated. Violation of any kind,
body or mind, is evil. I admit, though, I can't prove that violation 
is
evil. It's not my theory or my hypothesis; it's my symbol of faith.

> Carol:
How are the Robertses harmed by being allowed to forget
> that they were levitated and turned upside down by Death Eaters?
Maybe
> oblivion is best in those cases. Otherwise, they might live in fear
> for the rest of their lives.

a_svirn:
Well, quite apart from my personal beliefs, it's useless to say that
wizards are concerned with muggles' mental health. The only thing
they are concerned with is their own convenience.

> Carol:
(Granted, Aunt Marge deserves it, but I'm
> not talking about what the victim deserves. I'm talking about
> Obliviate and what it can accomplish, as well as the intention of
the
> Obliviators, who clearly are not Dark wizards.)

a_svirn:
How about the Aurors who used the unforgivables with the permission
of Crouch Sr?

>
> > a_svirn:
> > We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his
> soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be corrupted
> as much as Voldemort did. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
>
> Exactly. He *chose* to fall into evil, to be seduced by the Dark
Arts
> he was supposed to be fighting.

a_svirn:
If he had a choice in the matter it wasn't really a seduction. I
always thought phrases like "he chose to be seduced" are supposed to
be ironic.

Carol:
Think of Saruman in LOTR, who "studied
> too deeply the arts of the enemy." He was tempted to *practice* the
> very arts that he studied, in his case creating evil creatures and
> trying to create a Ring of Power.

a_svirn:
Quirrel was tempted by *power*. Arts of any kind were just means to
achieve it. Or, rather, were meant to be. What he actually achieved
was abject slavery.


> Carol:
> In any case, I think we're meant to consider objects such as those
> sold in Borgin and Burke's, including the cursed opal necklace and
the
> Hand of Glory, as well as those kept by Lucius Malfoy in the hidden
> chamber under his drawing room, as Dark because they are used
> exclusively to harm others. The same goes for the diary, even before
> it became a Horcrux, because its purpose is to release the Basilisk
> and "purify" Hogwarts of those "unworthy" to attend.

a_svirn:
Maybe we are meant to consider all of the above Dark. But I cannot
quite shake off the feeling that it only confuses the matter.
Obviously objects and charms that harm are no good and should be
banned. But when we start to label some of them ? arbitrary ? dark,
while leaving others and no less harmful out, it's an invitation for
trouble. A good deal of the twins merchandise is "used exclusively to
harm others". So how come it's not dark? Just because they come from
a good family and sell their goods at Diagon Alley instead of
Knockturn Alley? That's strikes me as unfair to say the least. As
lady Bracknell might have said, nowadays the right address is no
guarantee of respectability.

> Carol:
> Is a spell or object sinister? Is it intended solely to harm or to
> promote some unnatural aim such as immortality?

a_svirn:
Yes, that would be my vote. But this leaves out things like the
unforgivables.






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 17 01:15:37 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 01:15:37 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejis8f+mnp8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejj2fp+aoro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161615

Betsy Hp:
> Exactly.  Magic is a tool.  And it's completely neutral -- like 
> gravity.  However, by creating labels for different spells, 
> designating one set dark and another light, the WW has set 
> themselves up for failure.  

Jen: Then every society fails because all have to take a stab at 
designating right and wrong and fail to do it perfectly. We're 
seeing a snapshot in time of what the WW has decided so far.

The conversation between Slughorn and Riddle was a defining moment 
because Sluhorn made a moral statement about the WW:  Killing tears 
a person's soul, magic used to murder someone is not only legally 
wrong, it actually harms the person casting the curse and therefore 
magic can't be neutral.  JKR doesn't have to explain the outcome of 
every spell on a person's soul and psyche, we can extrapolate out 
from there.

Now I would have liked to know that bit *sooner*, but JKR just isn't 
linear.  When an issue comes up, it comes up.

Betsy Hp:
> So the WW has weakened their ethical muscles.  Which means it's 
> easier for a slick talker to explain away evil.  If the WW is 
> starting with a false or empty premise, it's easy to knock them 
> down.  By getting caught up in their labels they completely miss
> the point and the real battle.  Which isn't over spells but over
> actual intents and actions and goals.

Jen: Not to harp (well, maybe I am <g>) it's just this is the 
dilemma of every society, too.  We can say an action is legal or 
not, but society will find it difficult to legislate intention or 
goals.  Action is definable and measurable and usually the focus of 
laws. The others have potential power but are unrealized until they 
translate into action.

Betsy Hp:
> There is nothing within the Potter books to suggest that the Dark
> Arts are active in any sense.  They don't seduce.  They aren't
> addictive.  They don't turn anyone evil.  Snape can study and 
> explore and try out and experiment with as many "dark" spells as
> he wishes to.  As long as his *intent* is pure, as long as he's
> aware of why he's doing what he's doing, he'll be fine.
> 
> The weight is on the wizard, not on the magic.  There is 
> no "forbidden" knowledge in JKR's world.

Jen:  This isn't how I read it even though I agree with you JKR 
hasn't laid out her working theory in an organized way so much as a 
metaphorical one.  Take the change in Voldemort's physical body 
in "Lord Voldemort's request", the magic he is pursuing has 
irrepreably altered him and we find out later that pulling pieces of 
his soul out of his body did this to him.  He is using magic as a 
tool, yes, but it's a two-way street: He uses the magic and the 
magic changes him.  

Another metaphor is Harry's power to love.  This power is one part 
Harry, one part 'the curse that failed' and one part Lily's 
sacrifice.  Magic changed him, gave him a protection against 
Voldemort that differentiates him from others who have been lured to 
Voldemort's side for whatever reason.  It hasn't changed him on the 
outside that we know of, but it's affected his soul according to 
Dumbledore. 


Jen R.






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Nov 17 02:38:14 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 02:38:14 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <ejibvm+qt7p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejj7am+dls5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161616

Pippin wrote:

> Any outcome that lets Harry go on believing 
> in the myth of Killer!Snape, even reluctant 
> Killer!Snape, makes things too easy, IMO. Harry 
> has to realize that it's a myth (assuming 
> DDM!Snape of course) that he is using to avoid 
> confronting his own sense of responsibility.

Abergoat writes:

I couldn't agree more, I suspect Harry's actions 
at the end of HBP where he gets creative with Snape's
relationship with Dumbledore comes down to guilt.
Deep down Harry realizes that he was responsible
for Dumbledore's weakened state, even though DD
demanded obedience in the cave.

Wynnleaf, I agree - I seriously doubt that Harry's
enlightenment will come from Snape sacrificing himself.
I assume enlightenment will come gradually, probably
through Hagrid whom I suspect knows Snape (and Eileen)
VERY well. (I'm taking bets that Eileen gave Hagrid
that flowery pink umbrella! lol)

Abergoat





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 03:16:40 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:16:40 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejj2fp+aoro@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejj9io+ngvr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161617

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Exactly.  Magic is a tool.  And it's completely neutral -- like 
> > gravity.  However, by creating labels for different spells, 
> > designating one set dark and another light, the WW has set 
> > themselves up for failure.  

> >>Jen: Then every society fails because all have to take a stab at 
> designating right and wrong and fail to do it perfectly. We're 
> seeing a snapshot in time of what the WW has decided so far.

Betsy Hp:
I completely agree that every society has to go through these sort 
of descisions.  Equate Potterverse magic with science (which I think 
is the clearest way to look at it) and societies have that sort of 
discussion all the time.  Cloning, stem-cell, you name it, we talk 
about the good or evil of it.

I get the sense that the WW doesn't discuss issues the same way. And 
it might be the snapshot issue, but there's just a... lack of 
engagement from what I've seen.  Their best schools don't seem to 
talk about it at all.

> >>Jen:
> The conversation between Slughorn and Riddle was a defining moment 
> because Sluhorn made a moral statement about the WW:  Killing     
> tears a person's soul, magic used to murder someone is not only   
> legally wrong, it actually harms the person casting the curse and 
> therefore magic can't be neutral.

Betsy Hp:
But, there are ugly aspects to science too.  A nuclear bomb, for 
example.  But the science itself is neutral.  That a torn soul can 
be stored, again it's a tool.  The horrific part is deciding to kill 
someone to further your own life.  So it's still not the magic, it's 
the human being doing the action.  Because it's *killing* that tears 
your soul.  Not killing by magic. (At least, I don't recall Slughorn 
specifying that it has to be a magical killing.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So the WW has weakened their ethical muscles.  Which means it's 
> > easier for a slick talker to explain away evil.
 
> >>Jen: Not to harp (well, maybe I am <g>) it's just this is the 
> dilemma of every society, too.  We can say an action is legal or 
> not, but society will find it difficult to legislate intention or 
> goals.  Action is definable and measurable and usually the focus   
> of laws. The others have potential power but are unrealized until 
> they translate into action.

Betsy Hp:
I might be equating fandom's version of Potterverse magic with the 
books, but I really get the sense that unlike todays society, the WW 
just doesn't discuss these things.  They go with the flow. Something 
gets called "dark", that's it, it's dark.

And while we *do* call actions legal or illegal, we tend to see our 
tools as fairly neutral.  Though of course, some items lend 
themselves to illegal behavior more than others.  Rifle versus 
machine gun, for example.

> Betsy Hp:
> > There is nothing within the Potter books to suggest that the Dark
> > Arts are active in any sense.  They don't seduce.  They aren't
> > addictive.  They don't turn anyone evil.  Snape can study and 
> > explore and try out and experiment with as many "dark" spells as
> > he wishes to.  As long as his *intent* is pure, as long as he's
> > aware of why he's doing what he's doing, he'll be fine.
> > The weight is on the wizard, not on the magic.  There is 
> > no "forbidden" knowledge in JKR's world.

> >>Jen:  This isn't how I read it even though I agree with you JKR 
> hasn't laid out her working theory in an organized way so much as 
> a metaphorical one.  Take the change in Voldemort's physical body 
> in "Lord Voldemort's request", the magic he is pursuing has 
> irrepreably altered him and we find out later that pulling pieces 
> of his soul out of his body did this to him.  He is using magic as 
> a tool, yes, but it's a two-way street: He uses the magic and the 
> magic changes him.  

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but the magic doesn't actively seek out to change Voldemort.  
It's like, if you were trying to build an automic bomb in your 
basement and you suffered radiation poisoning.  It's not that the 
evilness of the bomb reached out to change you.  It's the dangerous 
nature of the materials involved.  Voldemort is ripping out pieces 
of his soul, and that effects him.  The magic is still passive.  
Still just a tool.

> >>Jen: 
> Another metaphor is Harry's power to love.  This power is one part 
> Harry, one part 'the curse that failed' and one part Lily's 
> sacrifice.  Magic changed him, gave him a protection against 
> Voldemort that differentiates him from others who have been lured 
> to Voldemort's side for whatever reason.  It hasn't changed him on 
> the outside that we know of, but it's affected his soul according 
> to Dumbledore. 

Betsy Hp:
Ah the love thing.  I'm still unclear about what this is exactly.  
Harry certainly isn't an above average loving person.  His mother 
provided him a physical shield of some sort which is great, but 
still just a tool.  And Harry won't think of joining Voldemort 
because Voldemort killed his parents.  Which isn't magical at all.

So I'm still not seeing an active magic that actually shapes the 
user any more than any tool will. 

Betsy Hp





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Fri Nov 17 02:31:36 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:31:36 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Ginny and Harry/SHIP sort of
In-Reply-To: <eji8b3+i0oa@eGroups.com>
References: <eji0lo+10f3d@eGroups.com> <eji8b3+i0oa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611161831p3be26f13y29f635219686b179@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161618

Alla:

Harry could have and should've, US as readers? I do not think I agree. One
mentioning of Twins talking of Ginny stealing their brooms, etc, would have
been nice IMO.

Lynda:

Oh, I never assumed that the twins knew Ginny had been stealing their
brooms. I have always thought (since Hermione revealed that tidbit) that
none of her brothers realized what she was doing. After all, they didn't let
her play with them, at least apparently not until after she made the
Gryffindor team.

Lynda


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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov 17 05:13:09 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 00:13:09 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
References: <20061117001043.42137.qmail@web60712.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00b101c70a07$134e0ec0$5d98400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161619

Danielle:
As many people have pointed out, this is from Harry's point of view, he's 
not going to notice Ginny much. My older siblings friends never noticed me 
much either. Most don't unless the younger siblings are very outgoing and 
included in everything. Until OOPT Ginny was very shy around Harry.

Magpie:
And as it turns out her real personality isn't shy at all.  Go figure.

Harry does notice Ginny.  If he didn't notice her, she wouldn't be in the 
book at all.  She has a perfectly coherent personality in books 1-4 with 
plenty of opportunity for us to certainly know that Hermione is doing stuff 
with her. And another perfectly coherent personality in books 5-6 with a 
certain relationship with Hermione that we see.  JKR manages to put across 
that Dean and Seamus are friends that way, and that Neville doesn't have 
friends. Harry lives with Ginny most of each year. Seems kind of silly to 
say there's no way JKR could pass a Ginny/Hermione relationship in front of 
his face. It's as easy as throwaway lines about Hermione filling her 
non-Harry/Ron time with Ginny instead of knitting or being in the library or 
making SPEW stuff or writing to Viktor or studying or being with Hagrid--all 
of which we hear her doing (without giving away the secret H/G even, since 
imo the obvious reason Hermone is friends with Ginny is because Ron is 
Ginny's brother, and Hermione shares her room at Ron's house, at least from 
the beginning of GoF onward).

 Of course she doesn't do that because it interferes with what she needs. It 
gives Hermione a big relationship to juggle at Hogwarts when she usually 
needs her focused on Harry or Ron all the time. She also needs to get rid of 
Ginny when she's not needed. If she's too close to Hermione she would have 
to either be involved or kept out of the loop.

Deanielle:
Plus Harry didn't really rock the boat much, so he wouldn't have gone thru 
the trouble of making friends, because he would feel bad about being invited 
to his friends home and never being able to invite them to his because 
petunia would never allow it. And again, the story is told from the 
viewpoint of when he goes to hogwarts. So he could have had friends when he 
is at school, that he just doesn't socialize with outside of school or 
school activities.

Magpie:
Actually, I was re-reading PS recently and it's pretty economical the way 
JKR puts it across.  Harry's basically got to be Cinderfella and a regular 
kid.  That is, we're set up with this kid in a really bad home situation, 
but clearly it's not a story about a kid who's going to learn to deal with 
that situation because he's not looking to adapt at all.  He hates things at 
home, understandably, but also hates things at school--and that doesn't seem 
to just apply to any time Dudley and his gang are chasing him. He feels like 
a regular kid who just hates school. We've got the throaway excuse for 
friends with Dudley's gang, but of course that's all it is.  A fictional 
excuse that we're supposed to accept-Harry's a cool kid but has no friends 
because his cousin's a bully and scares people off.   In fact, even more 
ironic, the one person who is not mean to Harry is Mrs. Figg and he hates 
being with her too because she's boring. Harry's Muggle life doesn't just 
suck in the dark Dursley way--it's also boring with stuff like school and 
old ladies with cats.

Basically, Harry makes perfect sense as a protagonist of a book who's not 
staying in this world long.

Danielle:
 It's getting to the point where everyone is nitpicking every little detail, 
that you are getting away from the point that this is a piece of fiction. 
Authors may try to make things work in a real way, but it doens't always 
turn out that way. GET OVER IT!!!

Magpie:
This is a list about analyzing these books.  That means we look at what JKR 
does and what she doesn't do.  Pointing out that she's not doing a 
particular set up for her protagonist is not necessarily missing the point, 
it's noticing how the book works.  We analyze on the list. That, too, can be 
gotten over with effort.

Jeremiah:
I'm sorry to those of you who feel let down. I look at it as a system for 
getting us to the end. There are somethings that seem a bit contrived but 
the enormity of this story is such that there has to be a bit of streaching 
with the emotions.

Magpie:
I wouldn't say I have no expectations for the books because of course we all 
do--expectation is part of reading.But in describing the things that I 
thought were a letdown I thought I already said I knew this was true.  I 
feel like I get that JKR is concentrating on some things and not others, 
which is why it doesn't surprise me when, for instance, the moments I 
mentioned suddenly go away. I don't think it's always quite fair to claim 
this is an expectation in the sense of wanting the books to be written my 
way. Building expectations is part of writing, and setting up an emotional 
scene does raise the expectation it will be fully played out. JKR's always 
playing with expectations and probably intends to satisfy them.
But I still think it's interesting to talk about that, because sometimes the 
trade-off creates another element to the series as well. It's part of it 
too.

I mean, I agree that it's a system of getting us to the end, but that's 
exactly what we're saying, that it often reads like a system to get us to 
the end--or especially in HBP, to kill time until the real story can come to 
a head in June.

-m







From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca  Fri Nov 17 07:12:29 2006
From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:12:29 -0000
Subject: Mandrake Restorative Potion
In-Reply-To: <eguf2n+ka82@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejjnct+u1a8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161620

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wrexx1" <wrexx at ...> wrote:
>
> My granddaughter has stumped me (once again) with a magical 
question,
> hope you folks can help: How does one administer the Mandrake
> Restorative Potion to people who are essentially petrified? If the
> answer to that one is too easy, then how about dealing with Nearly
> Headless Nick for me. Since ghosts, paralyzed or otherwise, are
> incapable of eating or drinking, how do we fix up Nick?
> Thanks
> Wrexx
>

Shaunie:

I'm very behind in my reading and I hope this reply isn't too late...
How about this: since it is through the victim's eyes that the 
damage 
is done(the victim must see a reflection of a basilisk's eyes to 
become Petrified) the Mandrake Draft is applied to, or dropped into, 
their startled, open peepers (dropped /through/ Nick's, I suppose).





From kmrhapsody at gmail.com  Fri Nov 17 07:04:32 2006
From: kmrhapsody at gmail.com (kmrhapsody)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 07:04:32 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejie52+nr7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejjmu0+h4fd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161621

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> > Phoenixgod2000:  
> > 
> > A bad job of writing Ginny? I'm shocked.  Shocked I say :)
> 
> Magpie:
> Heh--half of these examples I feel like saying, "But remember that 
> was Ginny 1. Ginny 1 and Ginny 2 are two different people, so she 
> and Hermione had different friendships."
<snip>

Hidey-ho...first post....

You know, honestly, I really didn't care much for Ginny (or Hermione)
in HBP, but I am starting to think that her new characterization is
JKR's response to all of the complaints she got about not having a
strong female character.

I do not say this to imply that I feel Ginny is meant to become that
singular archetype that readers are looking for, but it makes sense
that it would be easier to give those qualities to someone less
developed like Ginny versus someone as "well planned" as Hermione.

Possibly off topic.....

There it is.

K.






From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 15:10:03 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:10:03 -0000
Subject: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
Message-ID: <ejkjcb+9ha7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161622

Beatrice:

I have a theory.  Admittedly, it is a wild theory.  So, if you will 
indulge me, let us leave "the firm foundations of fact and [journey] 
together through the murky marshes of memory into the thickets of 
wildest guesswork" (HBP, 197).

A Theory:  What if the Potters had a house elf? We are told that 
house elves usually belong to families with old money/ estates...it 
would explain Harry's fortune. They are an old family so perhaps 
there is a house elf...ahhh now I hear the wheels turning...But, 
Beatrice the house elf would go to Harry and he would already know 
about him/her. So 


JKR has broadly hinted that there is more to Petunia than meets the 
eye. She has squelched the ideas that Petunia is magic or a squib on 
several occasions.

What if there is literally MORE to her than meets the eye: It is the 
secret to her immaculate house. 

We know that when the Potter's died Harry was left on the Dursley's 
doorstep with a note from Dumbledore and that Harry was left a large 
quantity of gold.  The gold was kept in Gringott's and the Dursley's 
have been unaware of its existence (although Vernon and Petunia now 
know that Harry has money, because Dumbledore reveal this information 
at the beginning of HBP). But was there more to the inheritance a 
secret perhaps that has been kept from Harry?

Let's start with the letter.  Most likely the letter contained an 
explanation (or a brief summary) of what happened to the Potters, a 
brief explanation of the magical protection that Petunia could 
provide to Harry, and a request that she take care of him.  What if 
there was a little more?  We know that the Potters were an old 
wizarding family (Lily certainly was muggle-born) but James's family 
seems to have roots in the wizarding community (OotP).  What if like 
other old wizarding families, the Potters had a house elf?

Now, I know what many of you are thinking: that there isn't really 
any explicit textual evidence to support this theory.  But JKR is 
quite masterful at adding new and surprising information in the 
texts.  While she may occasionally allude to hidden information. For 
example, Sirius, he is mentioned in PS/SS, but we have no clue as to 
how significant this character is until PoA.  

So, back to my theory.  Suppose that DD indicates in his letter to 
Petunia that there is a house elf who will enter into the service of 
the family, if Petunia desires it. As Harry's Guardian
Petunia will command the house elf until Harry reaches the age of 
majority (17, although Petunia thinks it is 18 like Dudley as we see 
in HBP). Although Petunia hates magic, she sees the opportunity: she 
can have the perfect house that she desires with very little work. 

She takes in Harry and actually embraces the idea of having a house 
elf. While she probably resents this idea, she cannot resist the 
temptation of having a perfectly clean home.  There are multiple 
references to how clean the house is, perhaps Petunia has a different 
kind of mother's little helper.  She orders the elf to never reveal 
his / herself to Vernon, Dudley, or anyone, especially Harry, but 
there is a small problem.  This will only work until Harry is of age, 
when he will fully come into his estate and the elf as part of that 
estate. So this elf has secretly been caring for the Dursley's 
(hating every moment I am sure). This is why Petunia seems so 
startled to hear that Harry is of age at 17 - "uh oh, I will lose my 
slave." 

It is not completely unthinkable as the trio are at Hogwarts for 4 
years, before they know about house elves in the castle. The house 
elves at Hogwarts are able to clean the towers, man the fires, cook 
and serve without revealing themselves.  

There are additional implications.  First, that the elf was present 
that night in Godric's Hollow and may have some information for 
Harry.  Second, that while Petunia was able to prevent the elf from 
revealing his/her self to Harry, Vernon, and Dudley, she may not have 
thought to forbid the house elf from making contacts outside of the 
home.  This may explain Dumbledore's comment at the end of OotP, that 
he has watched Harry "more closely than he [Harry] can possibly 
imagine."

Okay, I am steeling myself to be flamed.  

Beatrice...who sounds a bit mad and hopped up on coffee






From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Nov 17 13:51:06 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:51:06 -0000
Subject: Snapes Behaviour and Legimens
In-Reply-To: <ejibji+gqbo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejkeob+ceem@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161623

Elissa:
This is very close to an idea about Snape's behavior I've been
cherishing since reading HBP, though I think it is more of an
emotional response for Snape, rather than frustration with Harry's
progress. Dumbledore claims that revealing the partial prophecy to
Voldemort is the greatest regret of Snape's life.  The way Snape
treats Harry and Neville (though I know this is often argued about
here <g) is the best evidence to my eyes, that Dumbledore is correct
about Snape's remorse. <snipped theory>

Tinktonks:

I love it, I love your views on the whole thing. I think you
interpret the books very similarly to the way I do. Sometimes I find
it hard to believe that people think Snape is evil.

Personally I loved his motivations and I think that it is great that
he is this emotionally tortured character who is ALWAYS misunderstood or cast as the bad guy.

What intrigues me is that in an interview with Alan Rickman (just the best guy to play Snape or what) in a film magazine that was so long ago I cant remember properly, it said that JK Rowling told him
something about Snapes back story that would help him play the role
and understand the man.

I have fun hypothesizing what that could be.

Any clues?

Tinktonks







From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 17 15:58:30 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 15:58:30 -0000
Subject: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejkjcb+9ha7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejkm76+co5o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161624

Beatrice:
> She takes in Harry and actually embraces the idea of having a 
> house elf. While she probably resents this idea, she cannot resist
> the temptation of having a perfectly clean home.  There are 
> multiple references to how clean the house is, perhaps Petunia has
> a different kind of mother's little helper.  She orders the elf to
> never reveal his / herself to Vernon, Dudley, or anyone,
> especially Harry, but there is a small problem.  This will only
> work until Harry is of age, when he will fully come into his
> estate and the elf as part of that estate. So this elf has secretly
> been caring for the Dursley's (hating every moment I am sure). 
> This is why Petunia seems so startled to hear that Harry is of age
> at 17 - "uh oh, I will lose my slave." <snip>


Jen:  Hehe, I couldn't help thinking as I read this part: "Petunia 
doesn't need a House Elf, she has *Harry*." ;-)

I hope there's something coming about the unnaturally clean house 
and a House Elf might be as good a reasons as any (and likely 
extremely funny when Vernon finds out).  Wouldn't Dobby have known 
and been able to hint to Harry?  He wouldn't be banned from telling 
Harry by the Malfoys because they could care less.  The only other 
problem I see is one of repetition in that Harry already owns 
Kreacher and that's a good storyline.  

There was a theory floating around for awhile that Petunia and Lily 
had a House Elf for a relative somewhere in the distant past and 
that accounted for her unnatural cleanliness and also the Lily's and 
Harry's green eyes <g>.  Still love that one, it's fun and might 
explain how Harry can do wandless magic.  Maybe Petunia only 
inherited the cleaning gene and that explains why she was still a 
Muggle and not magical? Hee, I love far-out theories like this b/c 
really so many of JKR's *are* kinda wild in retrospect, it's just 
once you are used to them being part of the story you don't notice 
so much.

So hey, I could see this one Beatrice!

Jen R.  










From mcdumbledore at juno.com  Fri Nov 17 16:02:12 2006
From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:02:12 -0000
Subject: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejkjcb+9ha7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejkme4+9soa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161625

> This may explain Dumbledore's comment at the end of OotP, that 
> he has watched Harry "more closely than he [Harry] can possibly 
> imagine."
> 
> Okay, I am steeling myself to be flamed.  

I like your theory!  It's great to see someone adventuring 'into the 
thickets of wildest guesswork', rather than bickering about literary 
style and various minutiae!  

That said, I'm not sure I can completely buy into it.  It's certainly 
possible...  Hermione's contempt for the institution of house elf 
service is hardly universal in the wizarding world, even among "good" 
wizards.  So I don't think that one could make the argument that nice 
wizards wouldn't have house elves.  And, the gold did have to come 
from somewhere, so I suppose it's possible that the Potters are 'old 
money.'  (Actually, now that I've said that, do I remember JKR saying 
at some point that they are?  That may negate what I am about to say 
next...)  

Putting on my British hat for a moment, though, the name "Potter" 
makes me wonder if James' family was actually middle class.  The 
class structure, after all, is more rigid in Britain, with less 
movement up and down.  A family with the name Potter (at least prior 
to the Information Age, and the books are set in the '90s, just prior 
to the real explosion... and of course, the WW wouldn't really be 
affected by technology, anyway) seems more likely to be middle class 
by history.  Of course, at any point along the line, some very smart 
Potter could have made a fortune... I've seen it suggested (probably 
here) that they may have pioneered some sort of really excellent 
cauldron design.  But, given JKR's conscious choice of Potter as 
Harry's surname, it seems somewhat unlikely that James' parents 
were 'old money' in the same sense that, for example, the Malfoys 
are.  And old money families seem to be the ones that have house 
elves.

I've also always wondered if James and Lily were actually rich, or if 
they just seem that way to Harry.  After all, most working adults 
have lots and lots of money in the eyes of children.  When you are 
11, $50 is a lot of money.  When you are 30 and married, it's 
probably only a very modest percentage of your monthly income.  (And, 
one would think that wizards would have more discretionary income 
than the rest of us, given their ability to transfigure things that 
they need.)  I don't think that there is enough evidence from adult 
wizards regarding the size of Harry's bank account to say whether it 
is actually huge, or if it is just a lot more money than the average 
child has.  Could go either way.

But anyway, yes, I like your theory!  And I will cheer for you if it 
turns out to be right :)

Becca





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 16:17:40 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:17:40 -0000
Subject: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of possession (Was: JKR and the boys)
In-Reply-To: <869459.5606.qm@web33214.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ejknb4+v3sq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161626

Carol earlier:

<snip> <As for Sirius Black's body coming back through the Veil,
that's part of my hypothesis that non-Horcrux! Harry will defeat
Voldemort through the power of possession (one of the powers that he
acquired at Godric's Hollow but doesn't know about yet). The idea is
that the pain caused by Harry's possessing him (Love and all that)
would drive Possessed!LV through the Veil, leaving Harry's body
outside. LV would have to stay there as Sirius does, being dead but
not murdered, but the spare soul inside him (Harry's) would not have
to stay there.  After Harry spoke, using Voldemort's voice, to reveal
his presence, Dead!Sirius would lend Soul!Harry his body so that Harry
could return through the Veil.  Harry would then reenter his own body,
and Black's body would be available for burial (he would not return
from the dead, nor would Harry, who was only possessing Voldemort and
not dead).
> 
> Okay, it's rather far-fetched and gruesome, but I like it better
than Horcrux!Harry because it would allow Harry to live and to destroy
Voldemort without committing murder and using Voldemort's own powers
against him. <snip>
 
>   
Melanie's replied:  

> Gosh that is just depressing to me.  To me the idea of Sirius's soul
hanging out with a live Voldemort just makes me want to cringe.  
>    
> I still say the most likely outcome of the books is Harry going to
"heaven" which in my mind is behind the veil and finally meeting his
parents and of course having Sirius introduce them.  I just think that
is the sweetest and most sincere way to end the books.  I can't
imagine Harry ever being happy after all of this and going on to live
this normal life with Ginny.  IT's just strange to me.  


Carol responds:

Sorry! I didn't mean to depress anybody, nor did I mean to imply that
Sirius Black's soul would "hang out" with Voldemort's after death. But
it's pretty clear that in JKR's Potterverse, the souls of the dead,
good or evil, do go "beyond the Veil," and even though JKR is a
Christian, her books don't seem to follow traditional Christian
metaphysics with regard to heaven and hell. Whether Voldemort will be
punished after death, or even have a complete soul once the parts
reassemble after his death, we don't know. We do know that Sirius
Black is dead and won't return, but I think it would be comforting to
Harry (and Lupin) if they could at least give his body a decent burial
and have a memorial service for him, however belated. And Harry would
also get his chance to see and speak to his beloved dead without
having to remain with them. That, to me, would be much better than
having him actually die. I don't expect him to be, Frodolike, so
wounded by his experiences that he can no longer live in Middle Earth,
erm, I mean the WW.

At any rate, *I* think Harry!Horcrux is depressing (not to mention
full of plot difficulties and inconsistencies that I've discussed in
numerous posts). As for having the hero and the villain simply kill
each other without the Harry!Horcrux complication, that the easy way
out for an author. Much easier to kill a hero off than figure out how
to make him overcome a villain more powerful and vastly more
knowledgeable than himself. That would be choosing what's easy over
what's right, IMO. Nor do I think, despite a somewhat misleading
response to an interview question about killing Harry off to prevent
unauthorized sequels (as if she could quell the flood of fanfic that
would result from such an unsatisfactory ending) that JKR has any such
intention.

Rather than having Harry die (and destroying her own future readership
because children won't want to read the books if they know that the
hero will end up dead), I expect (and hope) that JKR will reward her
hero for his triumph and recompense him for his sufferings by giving
him a normal "happily ever after until the end of his days" kind of
life, allowing him to be "just Harry" instead of the Chosen One for a
change. Sure, he'll be a celebrity for awhile, but celebrity cools
down after awhile, and with no more Voldemort, maybe he can just
finish Hogwarts, become an Auror (there won't be any shortage of Dark
wizards even if all the DEs are caught and killed or imprisoned, evil
being a commodity that doesn't run out), and eventually marry Ginny
("Well, if you must").

I also heartily dislike the idea of Harry murdering anyone or using an
Unforgiveable Curse (gotta stop trying to throw those Crucios,
Harry!). Now granted, possession could count as "the arts of the
enemy" (to borrow Tolkien's phrase), but I'm guessing that, like
Parseltongue, it's a power that Harry acquired at Godric's Hollow, and
why not use it to hoist Voldemort with his own petard? It would also
fit with the idea that Love is Harry's primary weapon. Voldemort could
not endure to be possessed by someone who loves the WW and his friends
enough to seemingly sacrifice himself by, in essence, forcing
Voldemort to go beyond the Veil.

My solution enables Harry to fulfill the mythical hero's journey into
the Underworld (a myth that has been enacted on some level in most of
the books: the third-floor corridor that leads to a passage below the
castle in SS/PS, the Chamber of Secrets, the battle in the DoM which
takes place deep underground, the cave in HBP) without actually dying.
 It enables him to fulfill the Prophecy without committing murder. It
eliminates all the problems inherent in Harry!Horcrux, chiefly in that
Harry doesn't have to die because he's a Horcrux yet somehow live
because he alone has to kill Voldemort. It seems to me that
Harry!Horcruxers want to have their cake and eat it, too.

I'm merely proposing an alternate solution that I find emotionally
satisfying and consistent both with the heroic quest as a genre and
with the Prophecy and other elements of the plot so far.

Carol, who would find Dead!Harry almost as depressing as Dead!Snape





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov 17 16:32:18 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:32:18 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejj9io+ngvr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejko6i+bk84@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161627


> Betsy Hp:
> Ah the love thing.  I'm still unclear about what this is exactly.  
> Harry certainly isn't an above average loving person.  His mother 
> provided him a physical shield of some sort which is great, but 
> still just a tool.  And Harry won't think of joining Voldemort 
> because Voldemort killed his parents.  Which isn't magical at all.
> 
> So I'm still not seeing an active magic that actually shapes the 
> user any more than any tool will. 
> 


Pippin:
Lily gave Harry more than a physical shield, at least, I don't think
we're supposed to imagine that if she had stumbled into Voldemort's
AK by accident instead of throwing herself in front of Harry with
the intention of sacrificing her life, it would have had the same effect.

There is a bond between intention and outcome in magic that
doesn't exist in the real world -- a cake recipe doesn't care
whether you are a true Gryffindor  but the Sorting Hat does. This
element of intent seems to be more necessary to some spells
than to others. JKR says you have to shut down your compassion
to be a Death Eater, and it may be that this is literal:  in 
order to do the darkest spells, your compassion must be
shut down.

That would mean that Harry will probably never be able to
do the Unforgivables, as Snape said "You haven't got the
nerve or the ability--", and that the AK curse could not have
been used compassionately to kill Dumbledore.

I suppose the Ministry/Hogwarts definition of Dark Magic is
simply any spell which is used to cause harm and hasn't been
Ministry/Hogwarts approved. We do get hints of debate  at the 
Ministry/faculty level over what should be approved and what 
shouldn't. We know that Crouch's decision to authorize the
use of the Unforgivables against DE's was controversial,
that Dumbledore objected to teaching about horcruxes, and
that magic which is considered Dark at Hogwarts is 
rumored to be taught at Durmstrang.

We can imagine what sort of questions are asked...
Is it harmful, can it be used compassionately, does it exploit
the dead (society's most helpless members)? It's
inevitably a political process as well as an ethical one --
the worst way of reaching a group decision except 
for all the others. Politics have to have a place because
ethical issues aren't clear cut, even in the wizarding world.

Take Grindylows. They're water demons, so they probably
wouldn't exist if humans weren't afraid of drowning, but
to the merpeople, who don't need to fear drowning, they're
pets.


Pippin





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 16:21:52 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:21:52 -0000
Subject: Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
In-Reply-To: <ejkme4+9soa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejknj1+j3jq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161628

Becca:
> I've also always wondered if James and Lily were actually rich, or 
if 
> they just seem that way to Harry.  After all, most working adults 
> have lots and lots of money in the eyes of children.  When you are 
> 11, $50 is a lot of money.  When you are 30 and married, it's 
> probably only a very modest percentage of your monthly income.  
(And, 
> one would think that wizards would have more discretionary income 
> than the rest of us, given their ability to transfigure things that 
> they need.)  I don't think that there is enough evidence from adult 
> wizards regarding the size of Harry's bank account to say whether 
it 
> is actually huge, or if it is just a lot more money than the 
average 
> child has.  Could go either way.

zgirnius:
Actually, we do know that the Potters were wealthy (though, it could 
have been 'new' money, money is money!) It came up in an interview 
(http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm)

> America Online chat transcript, AOL.com, 19 October 2000:
> Q: What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive? 

> A: Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to 
> find out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so 
> he didn't need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about 
> both Harry's parents later. 

zgirnius:
Also, James' ownership of an invisibility cloak as a kid is an 
indication of his family's wealth. They are supposed to be very rare.





From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Nov 17 17:09:04 2006
From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:09:04 -0000
Subject: Herodias Malfoy (was Re: Old predictions for book 6 and 7 post)
In-Reply-To: <ejgnv2+u8k8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejkqbg+ukl6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161630

Hi All,

While we're hash over old predictions, I am pleased with my thoughts 
about Dumbledore as John the Baptist: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124593
I'm certainly wide of the mark, but there is something in this 
passage that makes me think about Snape's unbreakable vow to Narcissa:

"But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced 
before them, and pleased Herod. Whereupon he promised with an oath to 
give her whatsoever she would ask. And she, being before instructed 
of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. 
And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them 
which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. And he 
sent, and beheaded John in the prison." (Matthew 14:6-10)

The match isn't perfect, Salome's involvement was very different to 
Malfoy's, but there is something there.

Cheers,

Dumbledad.






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Nov 17 17:27:47 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:27:47 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejioro+t1nb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejkrej+rchb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161631


> Betsy Hp:
> So it's good I'm not asking her for that. <g>  We don't know 
> Hermione's visiting Hagrid in PoA at the very moment she visits 
> him.  But we do find out about it because it's important to 
> establish what Hermione (a main character) is doing while being 
> shunned by Ron and Harry (two other main characters).
> 
> The idea that Hermione is *also* hanging out with Ginny, 
> establishing a close friendship, and that JKR does not, can not, and 
> should not, share that with us is...  well, it's confusing.  How can 
> you argue that Hermione and Ginny were hanging out together when 
> canon doesn't show it happening?
> 
Pippin:
Because canon shows us Hermione and Ginny being giggly 
together at the beginning of PoA and making their 
appearance together at the beginning of GoF. It's never
exactly made clear what Hermione is doing at the Weasleys, or
how long she's been there, Harry just takes her presence for 
granted. His two best friends are there, how nice. But whether 
Hermione was invited as Harry's friend or Ron's or someone 
else's wasn't made clear.

Betsy HP
> If it was *supposed* to have happened and JKR just didn't get around 
> to covering it, then the story got away from her and she's playing 
> catch up.  Which is bad writing.

Pippin:
I think a lot of people  are thinking the H/G ship story was supposed to
be 'shy, friendless Ginny blossoms into the girl who will win Harry's
heart' and JKR forgot to write it. But that's not the story I see at 
all. Shy, friendless Ginny  never existed. She was a myth which
JKR  encouraged the reader to invent, (with a little help from 
Tom Riddle) but which all the time she intended to  show was, well, 
mythical. There are all these little touches here and there that would
make the myth untenable if you took them seriously,
but nothing so obvious that it couldn't be overlooked or dismissed as
bad writing --well, JKR needed Hermione to be at the world cup,
so that's why she was at the Weasleys, for example. 

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> So Hermione is unable to have any female friendships on page because 
> that would pull the focus off the story?  But she *is* allowed to 
> hang around Hagrid a lot.  I really don't get this.


Pippin:
She's allowed to hang around Hagrid being miserable.  But Ginny isn't
allowed to hang around Hermione being happy except for a few brief
scenes in each book, because JKR wanted to keep mythical Ginny alive
in our imaginations until she was good and ready to kill her off.


> Betsy Hp:
> It *is* a stretch, IMO, to take a girl with absolutely no interest 
> in hair, clothes, and makeup and have her show up looking as sleek 
> and sophisticated as, well, a 35 year old (thanks, Magpie!).  

Pippin:
Maybe Ginny helped! But I think that Hermione was never as geeky
as she seemed to be, just as Ginny was never really so shy. Hermione
was just dreadfully insecure and trying to impress everyone with how
smart she was. On the night of the Yule ball, she was dreadfully 
insecure and trying to impress everyone with how pretty she was.

 I don't really see her as *so* socially successful, though.

I don't think she did anything to land Viktor, I think he was taken 
with her because she was so different from the girls who were always
throwing himself in his path and gushing over Quidditch. He'd probably
never even realized there were girls who weren't like that. 

> Betsy Hp:
> Hee! I'm still at a point that I don't like not liking the main 
> characters anymore.  And I'm still hopeful that this a darkness JKR 
> wrote on purpose.  That she'll come sailing into the bar with book 7 
> and prove that our love is still true.  That the good guys are still 
> admirable and likable.  That the Potter books will stand the test of 
> time.  (It's getting late, but I'm not leaving.  They'll have to 
> throw my carcass out. <g>)
> 

Pippin:
Yeah, I wish they could have stayed the lovable teenyboppers 
from GoF for a few more years, too. So did Dumbledore. But
Voldemort took that away from them. You know, this realization is
the first thing that's ever made me really hate him...

Pippin





From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 17 17:54:59 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:54:59 -0000
Subject: Torture (was: Sectumsempra)
In-Reply-To: <ejheja+3cfj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejkt1j+jh9s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161632

a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:

> Pettigrew had been tortured routinely 
> during GOF and always bustled about
> doing his chores as soon as the 
> curse was lifted. 

I'm sure Voldemort had been torturing Peter for years in various ways,
buy I can only recall one time (perhaps twice?) he used the mighty The
Crucatius Curse. Then too I always thought Voldemort probably pulled
his punches a bit not wanting to permanently incapacitate one of his
followers.

> Cedric evinced the mildest of surprises
> when Harry relieved him of the curse and
> resumed his chase without further ado.

Cedric's curse came from Victor Krum, and he probably wasn't much
better at it than Harry was the first time he tried the Crucatius Curse.

Eggplant 







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 17:51:51 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:51:51 -0000
Subject: Dark Magic and Snape / Dark Creatures
In-Reply-To: <ejj0ht+le31@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejksrn+ovho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161633

Carol:
> (Granted, Aunt Marge deserves it, but I'm not talking about what the
victim deserves. I'm talking about Obliviate and what it can
accomplish, as well as the intention of the Obliviators, who clearly
are not Dark wizards.)
> 
> a_svirn:
> How about the Aurors who used the unforgivables with the permission
> of Crouch Sr?
>
Carol again:
That's a real problem for me in the books because, IMO, those curses
are clearly Dark. Crouch Sr. fell into the temptation of using the
enemy's weapons to fight the enemy and in so doing, become little
better than they were. In the end, those weapons come back to punish
him, and he's first Imperio'd and than AK'd by his own son, with an
interim of near-insanity between them. There has to be some better way
to fight the Enemy than to use curses designed to murder, torture, or
dominate (which, according to Dumbledore, is what the Death Eaters
mostly do). We know that Mad-Eye Moody only killed when he had to. We
don't know that he used the AK when he did it, and I doubt that he
ever resorted to Imperio or Crucio. It's hard to say what Rufus
Scrimgeour would do, but I think he would also be corrupted by those
curses if he used them and suffer the consequences. The Crouches, IMO,
are intended to illustrate what happens to seemingly decent or
well-intentioned people (a boy who got twelve OWLs and his ministry
official father) when they let ambition or revenge or any other motive
tempt them to use the Unforgiveables and yield to that temptation. To
me, it's like the One Ring in LOTR. You use those evil weapons at your
peril.

a_svirn:
> > > We've been told how Quirrel came to be corrupted. He "opened his
> > soul to Lord Voldemort". Which means that he *meant* to be
corrupted as much as Voldemort did. <snip>
> >
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > Exactly. He *chose* to fall into evil, to be seduced by the Dark
> Arts he was supposed to be fighting.
> 
> a_svirn:
> If he had a choice in the matter it wasn't really a seduction. I
> always thought phrases like "he chose to be seduced" are supposed to
> be ironic.

Carol:
See your own post elsewhere in this thread, complete with quotes. He
was a willing victim who let Voldemort into his heart and mind.

As you said yourself in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161606:

> Dumbledore did say:

 > "Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul
with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason."

> And before that Voldemort himself:

> "See what I have become?" the face said. "Mere shadow and vapor ...
I have form only when I can share another's body... but there have
always been those *willing* [emphasis mine ? a_svirn] to let me into
their hearts and minds...."

> So here we have it: a man full of hatred, freed and ambition, eager
to share his soul with Voldemort. Not a pretty picture.

Carol again:

What can I say? A willing victim who allowed himself to be seduced and
then possessed. I don't know why you're arguing with me when I agree
with you on this point.

Carol earlier:
> Think of Saruman in LOTR, who "studied too deeply the arts of the
enemy." He was tempted to *practice* the  very arts that he studied,
in his case creating evil creatures and trying to create a Ring of Power.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Quirrel was tempted by *power*. Arts of any kind were just means to
> achieve it. Or, rather, were meant to be. What he actually achieved
> was abject slavery.

Carol again:
Saruman was also tempted by power. The "arts of the enemy" were his
means to that end, just as they were Sauron's means in the first
place. So ambition, greed, the lust for immortality, whatever the
motive is, the person seduced by the Dark Arts is seduced because they
seem to be the best or easiest way of achieving that end. Quirrell's
failure to achieve his goal has nothing to do with it. Voldemort, even
in Vapor form, was wilier and more powerful than he was. That does not
make the Dark Arts any less Dark, or any less tempting to those who
are willing to corrupt themselves through their use to achieve some end. 

Which takes us to Snape, who seems to have studied them out of
intellectual curiosity, went so far as to invent Sectumsempra and to
become a Death Eater, but then apparently felt remorse, (re)joined the
other side, and either invented or discovered a countercurse to
Sectumsempra. His knowledge of the Dark Arts makes him the best DADA
teacher (IMO) that we've seen in the HP books. Assuming DDM!Snape, how
did he manage not to be seduced by the Dark Arts he studied so deeply?
IMO, it's because he didn't want power or immortality, just
recognition for his talents. Maybe he only spied and made potions and
invented a few spells but didn't cast any Unforgiveables before
Godric's Hollow, or for that matter, before the tower incident.
Otherwise, it seems to me that he would have fallen as Quirrell did,
seduced by the desire to learn his subject more thoroughly (which I
suppose could count as a form of ambition but seems to me more like
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, or even more like Mary
Shelley's Frankenstein, playing God with forbidden knowledge). But JKR
has said that Snape wouldn't wear a turban, meaning, IMO, that he
would not have allowed Voldemort inside his head. How does Snape have
the strength to resist the lure of the Dark Arts, to fight them and
not practice them, despite his knowledge? (Of course, this question is
only for people who believe in DDM!Snape. The answer for anyone else
would be "he doesn't.")
 
> a_svirn:
<snip> A good deal of the twins merchandise is "used exclusively to
> harm others". So how come it's not dark? Just because they come from
> a good family and sell their goods at Diagon Alley instead of
> Knockturn Alley? That's strikes me as unfair to say the least. <snip>

Carol:
I'm no fan of the Twins and I certainly don't approve of what they did
to a helpless Muggle, bully or no, with the Ton-Tongue Toffee. Nor do
I think it's right for them to make money by selling merchandise that
will be used to play so-called practical jokes on gullible victims. I
suppose the only reason their merchandise isn't considered Dark (or at
least no Darker than a Leg-Locker Curse) is that it does no permanent
harm (at least when used on fellow wizards) and doesn't usually
require the intervention of an adult wizard to "sort it out." It's no
worse than the Zonko's products, which students buy willingly, though
the Zonko's products are also used to play pranks on each other. I
suppose the toughness of wizard kids, who play Quidditch with
equipment capable of killing a Muggle, make poisons (and antidotes) in
fourth-year Potions, and study potentially lethal beasts in COMC is
some excuse. Making those products apparently doesn't corrupt the
Twins' soul, nor are Canary Creams and the like intended to kill as
was the cursed opal necklace and the still Darker ring Horcrux.

I don't approve of the Twins' products, nor of jinxing and hexing
fellow students in the hallways. but those bits of magic appear to be
mildly dark rather than Dark, to use Steve's distinction. They are
easily reversed and provide no lasting damage and are intended to
amuse or annoy or inconvenience rather than to kill, torture,
mutilate, or dominate.
> 
> > Carol:
> > Is a spell or object sinister? Is it intended solely to harm or to
promote some unnatural aim such as immortality?
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, that would be my vote. But this leaves out things like the
unforgivables.
>
Carol:
No, it doesn't. They fit under "sinister" and "intended solely to
harm." An AK can't be used for any other purpose but to kill and
there's no countercurse. A Crucio can't be used for any other purpose
than to torture. An Imperius Curse, even if it's only used to make
students hop around the room on one leg, violates the will and the
mind and subjects one person to the will of another, essentially
making one person the other's slave for as long as the spell lasts.
And, IMO, those curses corrupt the user, which is why I keep bringing
up the Crouches as evidence that the curses are as harmful to the
caster as to the victim.

Carol, still worried about the affects of the AK on Snape and not
wanting Harry to use one for the same reason





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Fri Nov 17 17:55:24 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:55:24 -0600
Subject: Time turner theory
References: <ejknj1+j3jq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <020801c70a71$8f15a0d0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161634

Hi all,
  I have been thinking..  I think I read that all the time turners were smashed in the MOM brawl..
  But... here is a thought..  Hermoine had one at one point, so what is to say that there isn't one out there that someone else had at the time of the fight..  That would leave one for HP to use in the last book.
  Now..  Here is what I am thinking.. 

 JKR said that she "is not telling" when asked if HP will time travel again..  So, this brings me to think that it is possible for Harry to go back in time to make certain things happen.  Or to take certain things that he will need in the future battle with LV.  
  I don't think it has been established how far back one can go, but what if Harry went back in time and explained to the past DD what was happening in the future.  DD would be able to make changes that would affect the future and current HP situation with LV.  
  HP could get things like the locket, or the cup, or even the ring..  Lots of things could change and the end of the book could lead to Harry living happily ever after with his parents and Sirius and DD all alive and it was all as if nothing ever happened.. <grin>
  Anyway, just fantasy thinking..
  Lana

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




From rapid_white_wolf at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Nov 17 17:24:35 2006
From: rapid_white_wolf at yahoo.co.uk (rapid_white_wolf)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:24:35 -0000
Subject: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejkjcb+9ha7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejkr8j+2pfp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161635

Beatrice Wrote

>Suppose that DD indicates in his letter to
> Petunia that there is a house elf who will enter into the service
>of the family, if Petunia desires it. As Harry's Guardian
> Petunia will command the house elf until Harry reaches the age of
> majority (17, although Petunia thinks it is 18 like Dudley as we see
> in HBP).


How did Petunia react to Kreacher?  IIRC correctly Vernon showed
surprise, but I don't recall if Petunia did.  If she had not showen
surprise that might back up your theory, as she would have been use to
house elves.

One problem I can see with your theory is that why would Petunia
inherit the house elf, instead of Harry.  We know Harry can inherit
house elves, as shown by Kreacher.

White_Wolf






From coverton at netscape.com  Fri Nov 17 16:36:44 2006
From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:36:44 -0000
Subject: Anyone wondering why Harry didn't show the Half Blood Prince book to Lupin?
Message-ID: <ejkoes+uuvk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161636

Hey group I'm back with a post. Anyone wondering why Harry didn't show
the HBP book to Lupin? I mean he Harry was wondering about it and Lupin
might have been able to tell him who wrote it. Just putting a topic out
there. Your fellow member, Corey








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 19:04:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:04:56 -0000
Subject: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejkjcb+9ha7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejl14o+u3d5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161637

Beatrice wrote:
<snip> 
> Suppose that DD indicates in his letter to Petunia that there is a
house elf who will enter into the service of the family, if Petunia
desires it. As Harry's Guardian Petunia will command the house elf
until Harry reaches the age of majority (17, although Petunia thinks
it is 18 like Dudley as we see in HBP). Although Petunia hates magic,
she sees the opportunity: she can have the perfect house that she
desires with very little work. 

<snip>  There are multiple references to how clean the house is,
perhaps Petunia has a different kind of mother's little helper.  She
orders the elf to never reveal his / herself to Vernon, Dudley, or
anyone, especially Harry, but there is a small problem.  This will
only work until Harry is of age, when he will fully come into his
estate and the elf as part of that estate. So this elf has secretly
been caring for the Dursley's (hating every moment I am sure). This is
why Petunia seems so startled to hear that Harry is of age at 17 - "uh
oh, I will lose my slave." <snip>

> Okay, I am steeling myself to be flamed.  

Carol responds:
Don't worry. We don't flame on this list. Well, occasionally the
discussions get a bit heated, but generally we're very civilized in
our disagreements.

While I agree that we're supposed to wonder why Petunia is so
concerned about Harry's coming of age at seventeen rather than
eighteen and that it has something to do with the letter, I think she
has a much more pressing concern than the loss of a house-elf, the
loss of the protection from Voldemort et al. that exists as long as
she allows Harry to call her house his home. (We see in SS/PS and
especially in OoP that she knows more about the WW than Vernon does. I
think she has some idea that Harry is the key to defeating the Dark
wizard who killed her sister and her husband.)

I don't think, first, that Dumbledore, who believes that house-elves
should be treated humanely, could or would compel a house-elf to serve
as a slave to a Muggle. (I'm not even sure that a house-elf would work
for a Squib if one were the last heir of a wizarding family.) Your
hypothetical house-elf belonged to the Potters, not the Muggle
Evanses. He would have no obligation to work for the sister of James
Potter's wife. His obligation would be to Harry, who would not be
doing chores for Petunia if he owned a house-elf. (The house-elf would
never allow it, nor would he allow either Dumbledore or Petunia to
override his obligations to his true master.)

In any case, it seems clear that Petunia does her own cleaning and
cooking (unless she's forcing Harry to do it. It's she who creates the
"masterpiece of a pudding" in Cos, and in HBP, she's wearing rubber
gloves and a housecoat over her nightdress because she's "halfway
through her usual pre-bedtime wipedown of all the kitchen surfaces"
(HBP Am. ed. 46). She even attempts to dye Harry's school uniform in
the kitchen sink in SS/PS before he gets his Hogwarts letter. It's not
likely that she'd perform such an odious chore herself if she had a
house-elf.

I've wondered if Petunia has OCD (obsessive/compulsive disorder) or at
least attempts to compensate for her absence of magical ability with
an excess of cleanliness. (Maybe she even subconsciously feels that
her sister's "freakishness" has stained the family name.) Whatever the
reason for her behavior, it seems that Petunia herself is responsible
for the "unnatural cleanliness" of her home. No doubt it keeps her
busy and makes her feel indispensable to Vernon (whose sole virtue is
that he loves his wife).

Carol, who thinks that the "something more" to Petunia is what she
knows and can tell Harry about his parents, especially Lily





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 19:07:12 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:07:12 -0000
Subject: Snapes Behaviour and Legimens
In-Reply-To: <ejkeob+ceem@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejl190+5ltq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161638


Tinktonks:

> What intrigues me is that in an interview with Alan Rickman (just
the best guy to play Snape or what) in a film magazine that was so
long ago I cant remember properly, it said that JK Rowling told him
> something about Snapes back story that would help him play the role
> and understand the man.
> 
> I have fun hypothesizing what that could be.
> 
> Any clues?


Sydney:

Funnily enough I came across very recently an interview with Rickman
in a french film magazine from 2005-- the very charming site "Why
Snape" put up a translation here: 
http://whysnape.tripod.com/rickmanfrench.htm .. 

Choice excerpts of interest, the idiosyncratic translation is the site
owners:

Q: We gradually discover what Snape went through in the past. It seems
he didn't have it easy as a teenager...

-[Alan] He wasn't very sociable either.  Snape never had friends. Lily
Potter really tried to be nice with him, but Snape couldn't support
her pity.  And with James Potter, his best mate Sirius Black and their
partner in crime Lupin spending their time ridiculing him, he shut
himself in even more.  Snape's life is much more complex than it
seems.  He was a member of the Death Eaters and then became a turncoat
to join Dumbledore' side. But his past keeps clinging onto him,  so
coupled with his demeanor few trust him.

Q:  He appears to know Igor Karkaroff well when he comes to Hogwarts
for the Triwizard Tournament.

-[Alan] It's true that these two know each other well. But I cannot
talk too much about their relationship to those who have not read the
book. We shouldn't kill the suspense. And then Snape has so many
secrets because he knows a lot a people. And not only nice people of
course. 

Q: Did some fans address you with loathsome remarks?

-[Alan] In fact, very little did.  What is splendid is that people in
general adore Snape. He is sarcastic, stubborn, etc, etc. But he is
also fascinating. I have a lot of fun impersonating him, I take
immense pleasure in playing someone so ambiguous. We never know what
to expect nor do we know what he really thinks. I don't even know if
Dumbledore knows him that well. Only JK Rowling holds the answer!


That's about it... he does say it's sad not enough people celebrate
Snape's birthday! :D .. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the bit
about Lily's pity and him not having friends came from his meeting
with Rowling.  

-- Sydney





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 19:17:35 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 19:17:35 -0000
Subject: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejkr8j+2pfp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejl1sg+8vok@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161639

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rapid_white_wolf" 
<rapid_white_wolf at ...> wrote:
>
> Beatrice Wrote
> 
> >Suppose that DD indicates in his letter to
> > Petunia that there is a house elf who will enter into the service
> >of the family, if Petunia desires it. As Harry's Guardian
> > Petunia will command the house elf until Harry reaches the age of
> > majority (17, although Petunia thinks it is 18 like Dudley as we 
see
> > in HBP).
> 
> 
> How did Petunia react to Kreacher?  IIRC correctly Vernon showed
> surprise, but I don't recall if Petunia did.  If she had not showen
> surprise that might back up your theory, as she would have been use 
to
> house elves.
> 
> One problem I can see with your theory is that why would Petunia
> inherit the house elf, instead of Harry.  We know Harry can inherit
> house elves, as shown by Kreacher.
> 
> White_Wolf

Beatrice:  All it says in HBP is that "Aunt Petunia let out a hair-
raising shriek; nothing this filthy had entered her house in living 
memory" (51). Although "Uncle Vernon bellowed, 'What the hell is 
that?" (51).  
My only thought about why Harry didn't inherit the elf directly is 
that the Potter's will stipulated that his "guardian" would have 
control of the estate as Harry was young.  Sirius's will would 
unlikely have any stipulation of the kind as Harry is atleast close 
to being of age.
>






From chawesome100 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 17:46:09 2006
From: chawesome100 at yahoo.com (chawesome100)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 17:46:09 -0000
Subject: Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
In-Reply-To: <ejknj1+j3jq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejksh1+5afr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161640

Becca:
> I've also always wondered if James and Lily were actually rich,
> or if they just seem that way to Harry.  After all, most working
> adults have lots and lots of money in the eyes of children.  When
> you are 11, $50 is a lot of money.  When you are 30 and married,
> it's probably only a very modest percentage of your monthly income.


Hello to all this is my first post and its going to be quite a
simple answer to this question.  We can assume that the amount of money in Harry's account is quite a bit as we can compare it to another family's account; the Weasleys.  They are, if I remember correctly, very surprised to see the amount of money in Harry's vault whan they go with him. Harry tries to shield the amount with his body. J.K even says that their was "a small fortune hidden underneath London..." We, from this and other quote from various characters in the book that make reference to it (aka Hagrid book 1) can say that while Harry might not be 'rich' is
certaintly well off.

chawesome100




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Nov 17 20:31:20 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:31:20 -0000
Subject: Anyone wondering why Harry didn't show the Half Blood Prince book to Lupin?
In-Reply-To: <ejkoes+uuvk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejl66o+el68@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161641

Corey:
> Hey group I'm back with a post. Anyone wondering why Harry didn't 
show the HBP book to Lupin? I mean he Harry was wondering about it and 
Lupin might have been able to tell him who wrote it. Just putting a 
topic out there.

Ceridwen:
Hi, Corey!  The first thing that came to my mind was that Harry had 
left his books, even his Potions book, at school for the holidays.

But, reading back, he asked Lupin as an afterthought to another 
conversation.  When Harry goes to bed, he checks the published date as 
Lupin suggested, finds that it was before the Marauder era, and, 
disappointed, throws the book back in his trunk.  No connection to his 
father, Sirius, or Remus.  (HBP US Hardcover, pgs 335-337)

Ceridwen.





From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 19:39:01 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 11:39:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejl14o+u3d5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061117193901.91840.qmail@web56505.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161642

Carol:
   
  I don't think, first, that Dumbledore, who believes that house-elves
should be treated humanely, could or would compel a house-elf to serve
as a slave to a Muggle. (I'm not even sure that a house-elf would work
for a Squib if one were the last heir of a wizarding family.) Your
hypothetical house-elf belonged to the Potters, not the Muggle
Evanses. He would have no obligation to work for the sister of James
Potter's wife. His obligation would be to Harry, who would not be
doing chores for Petunia if he owned a house-elf. (The house-elf would
never allow it, nor would he allow either Dumbledore or Petunia to
override his obligations to his true master.)

Dantzel responds:
   
  I must say that I thought Beatrice's  theory was absolutely brilliant. I can see your argument, Carol, but keep in mind the behavior of house elves. We know that the Potters were good and kind- therefore, if they had house elves, no doubt they were very kind and their elves would have worshipped them, much as Dobby does Harry. 
   
  Couldn't it stand to reason, therefore, that the 'Potter!Elf' would keep himself hidden from Harry if that's what he thought was best for Harry at the time? We do know that Dumbledore is good with house elves and they respect him.
   
  So... I see it as possible. Quite possible.
   
  Dantzel, who now wants Harry to have inherited a house elf.

 




From bercygirl2 at aol.com  Fri Nov 17 20:27:36 2006
From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:27:36 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
Message-ID: <ejl5vo+353d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161643

All the debate about whether Snape knew what Narcissa was going to ask
him to do, whether the third request caught him off guard,
etc.....it's all moot. It doesn't matter what Narcissa requested of
him, or if Snape knew through Legilimency what she was up to, is
irrelevant.
The Vow was invalid.
JKR specifically tells us that Snape and Narcissa "grasped right hands"
(HBP p. 36) and makes sure we notice that Snape's hand twitches.
That twitch is not random - it is there so we look carefully at this
scene. Think of all the debate this scene has caused, with one side
saying it proves that Snape is really Voldemort's right-hand man, and
others claiming it proves that Snape is Dumbledore's right-hand man.
Snape isn't ANYONE'S right-hand man.
He is left-handed. Go back and re-read all the books and notice how
the words "left" and "opposite side" are constantly juxtaposed with
Snape's name.
The Vow was not made with his wand hand.
Ergo, it was never made at all.


bercygirl2




From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 20:13:45 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 12:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
In-Reply-To: <ejksh1+5afr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <593769.32098.qm@web56509.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161644

chawesome100
We can assume that the amount of money in Harry's account is quite a bit as we can compare it to another family's account; the Weasleys. They are, if I remember correctly, very surprised to see the amount of money in Harry's vault whan they go with him. Harry tries to shield the amount with his body. J.K even says that their was "a small fortune hidden underneath London..." We, from this and other quote from various characters in the book that make reference to it (aka Hagrid book 1) can say that while Harry might not be 'rich' is 
certaintly well off. 

   
  Dantzel replies:
   
  I never assumed Harry was extremely rich, but we are told by Hagrid as well in the first book that Harry would have plenty of money 'at least until you're out of school', I believe he said. Considering that most of us cannot live off of our savings for at least 7 years, it is fairly safe to assume that they're well off.
   
  Besides, even if they WEREN'T, Harry is now, considering that we KNOW the Blacks were wealthy and Harry just inherited all of their gold with Sirius's passing.
   
  Dantzel




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 17 23:50:50 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:50:50 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejlgka+48ui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejlhsq+irbg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161646

bercygirl2 wrote:
>
> All the debate about whether Snape knew what Narcissa was going to
ask him to do, whether the third request caught him off guard,
> etc.....it's all moot. It doesn't matter what Narcissa requested of
> him, or if Snape knew through Legilimency what she was up to, is
> irrelevant.
> The Vow was invalid.
> JKR specifically tells us that Snape and Narcissa "grasped right
hands" (HBP p. 36) and makes sure we notice that Snape's hand twitches.
> That twitch is not random - it is there so we look carefully at this
> scene. Think of all the debate this scene has caused, with one side
> saying it proves that Snape is really Voldemort's right-hand man,
and others claiming it proves that Snape is Dumbledore's right-hand man.
> Snape isn't ANYONE'S right-hand man.
> He is left-handed. Go back and re-read all the books and notice how
> the words "left" and "opposite side" are constantly juxtaposed with
> Snape's name.
> The Vow was not made with his wand hand.
> Ergo, it was never made at all.


Carol responds:
Aren't you taking your point for granted here (not to mention nixing a
topic that many of the rest of us find fruitful and intriguing)?

Even if the words "left" and "opposite side" (for which you haven't
provided the context) do indicate that Snape is left-handed, where is
the evidence that a vow in the WW must be taken with the wand hand?

In the RW, the custom is to shake right hands regardless of which hand
you write (or fight) with. When you take an oath in court, you raise
your right hand regardless of whether you're right or left-handed.

Not only was the right hand assumed to be the weapon hand, the left
hand was considered "sinister" or "gauche." the "right" hand is the
"correct" hand, at least as far as these customs are concerned. (No
offense to anyone who's been discriminated against for being
left-handed. At least teachers have stopped forcing lefties to write
right-handed!)

I'd need more evidence that Snape is left-handed and any evidence at
all before I considered this idea to have anything like the weight you
assign to it. (Also, it's not quite clear what this argument has to do
with Snape's being anyone's right-hand man. I think he's DD's but
appears to be Voldemort's. Are you suggesting that being left-handed
makes him OFH! (Out For Himself?)

Carol, who thinks that the twitch indicates Snape's realization that
he's trapped, perhaps irretrievably, by the UV (which I also see as
the manifestation of the DADA curse and/or the instrument through
which it operates)








From mcdumbledore at juno.com  Sat Nov 18 01:08:15 2006
From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:08:15 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejl5vo+353d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejlmdv+c5a8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161647

> The Vow was not made with his wand hand.
> Ergo, it was never made at all.

I really like this idea!  I'm curious, though, what your opinion is 
regarding why Snape killed Dumbledore, if there was no Unbreakable 
Vow.  Do you think he did it simply to carry the double agent 
deception on?  I think, Unbreakable Vow or not, that that's probably 
the case.  The first time I read the scene on top of the Astronomy 
tower, I thought right away:  "Dumbledore doesn't plead.  The only 
thing that could scare him to the point of pleading is the thought of 
the Order losing their inside man.  He's pleading for Snape to carry 
out their plan, not for Snape to spare him."  (Reminiscent of Obi Wan 
willingly choosing to die.)  Then I began to wonder about whether 
Snape had said "Avada Kevadra" out loud but silently cast a different 
spell, allowing Dumbledore to come back (a la Gandalf) in the 7th 
book.  JKR has shot that down, of course.

Anyway, I think your theory, if true, would add an extra sprig of 
tragedy to the bowl, since Snape could have chosen not to kill.  I'm 
not, however, necessarily saying that Snape shouldn't have killed.  
This very well could be an Obi Wan "If you strike me down I shall 
become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" kind of 
situation.  I'm reserving judgement on that until Book 7.

Becca





From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 01:10:25 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 01:10:25 -0000
Subject: JKR and Emotional Arcs (was:Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejit96+82kk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejlmi1+rmmf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161648


> Betsy Hp:

> I wonder if that's why I suffered from a bit of an HBP drop?  I was 
> sooo excited about HBP, and as I mentioned before, I was thrilled 
> with what happened with the Slytherins (the Malfoys, the train 
> compartment, Snape).  But as I thought about the main characters, I 
> felt more and more let down.  I found I didn't really care about 
> them all that much anymore.  In many ways, I just stopped liking 
> them.  Which isn't the best way to feel about a book, IMO.

Sydney:  

I have to chime in and say my reaction is very similar.  The first
time I read HBP I read it so fast I didn't really register much of
emotional reaction.  I remember being a little disappointed in the
romances, which I was really looking forward to but seemed to come out
a little generic and sit-comy.  On the second read I was so impressed
with the plotting of the Slytherin stuff that I tended to skim over a
lot of the main character's scenes, which didn't strike me as odd
until this moment!

Now someone's lent me the audiobook and I'm having to listen to
everything as it comes, no skipping.  And I gotta say... I yield to no
one in admiring JKR's plots but I'm a bit unsure of where she's going
with some aspects of the four kids in the center.  Particularily
Ginny-- I'm only on Chapter 9 and pretty much every line she gets,
she's putting someone down, hexing them, or sneering at someone
offscreen.  It's hard to see why all these boys keep being so
desperate to be with her seeing as she seems to having not much but
contempt for them!  I suppose the idea is that she's this Spunky
Spitfire but the only way JKR seems to find to express this is by
having her be... well, a bit of a cow, really.  She gets one positive
thing with Luna-- but then again, her 'niceness' is expressed by her
'telling people off', as Luna says, for calling her 'Loony', which,
uh, Ginny herself did in OoP.  I wish Luna could have had a story to
tell about Ginny being nice that involved, I dunno, having a laugh or
finding her books or something.  

I'm hoping Ginny's just going through the 15-year-old CAPSLOCK thing
Harry did except she's goes for mean rather than shouty, and she'll
grow out of it.  I do remember not liking Harry much in OoP but being
impressed at the uncompromising portait of a typical 15-year old
no-one-understands-me door-slammer.  I think this is true of how JKR
normally characterises people-- you can like or dislike them depending
on whether you like or dislike that kind of person.  The odd thing
with Ginny is that I'm feeling a bit slippery about how I, as an
audience member, am supposed to feel about her.  I mean, I feel that
JKR didn't much care if I liked Harry or not in OoP, she was going to
be honest to what he was going through.  But I get more of a feeling
that I'm supposed to like and admire Ginny and root for her in a more
uncomplicated way, and that ain't happening.  Is the negativity and
arrogance an accidental effect of cummulative scenes that JKR didn't
intend?

Probably there's some sort of alchemical angle (I'm 100% sold on JKR
using a lot of alchemy to structure the books), because there is a
huge amount of fire imagery used with Ginny and her hair and her
temper and her 'hard and blazing' look.  So again, maybe there will be
a chemical reaction thingie and she and Harry will temper each other,
or something.  I just hope I don't have to skim their scenes in Book
VII like I feel like doing in HBP.

-- Sydney





From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sat Nov 18 02:32:57 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:32:57 -0000
Subject: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejkjcb+9ha7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejlrcp+jpk6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161649




Beatrice:

I have a theory. Admittedly, it is a wild theory. So, if you will 
indulge me, let us leave "the firm foundations of fact and [journey] 
together through the murky marshes of memory into the thickets of 
wildest guesswork" (HBP, 197).

A Theory: What if the Potters had a house elf?

<Snip>

What if there is literally MORE to her than meets the eye: It is the 
secret to her immaculate house.

<Snip>

Okay, I am steeling myself to be flamed.

Snow:

Ah a person who thinks `out of the box'
I love it! 

This is a fascinating suggestion although I think that Harry confirms 
that Dobby is the Malfoy families' elf. 

Now, that is not to say that Dobby was not first `employed' by the 
Potters
 this is like a backwards Kreacher type scenario. 

Harry inherited Kreacher but Kreacher's heart was with Bella, 
likewise, the Malfoy's may have inherited Dobby but his heart was 
with the Potters. 

It is definitely a possibility and actually a very good reason for 
Dobby to have done what he did for Harry.  This could be the reason 
Dobby went outside of the house elf dictatorship and helped Harry. 

As far as tying this into Petunia and her ultimate cleanliness, could 
be... but I think that Lily had a little devilishness in her (similar 
to Hermione) and charmed her sister with a bit of an impulsive 
disorder to teach her lazy sister a lesson. 

Keep up with the coffee compulsion Beatrice
I think it does wonders 
for your complexion!

Snow 






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Nov 18 02:27:58 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:27:58 -0000
Subject: Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
In-Reply-To: <ejksh1+5afr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejlr3e+kklj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161650

chawesome100 wrote:

> Hello to all this is my first post and its going to be quite a
> simple answer to this question.  

Abergoat writes:

Welcome to the forum! A fun idea people have had is that Harry is the
last descendant of the inventor of the Golden Snitch. JKR's charity
books say that the snitch was invented in Godric's Hollow some 600
years ago. Add to this that James 'nicks' snitches, toys with them,
doodles them on his exams and we are left to wonder why a Quidditch
Chaser spends so much time obsessing over a snitch...

JKR says James parents will be mentioned in book seven but are not
critical to the story...I wonder if the information about them will be
regarding their ancestry. And the possible acquisition of a sword? I
don't think Harry's the heir of Godric Gryffindor, but that doesn't
mean his family couldn't have (had) the sword...and it nicely explains
what Voldemort had planned to use for the horcrux that night at
Godric's Hollow.

Abergoat






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Nov 18 03:10:37 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:10:37 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejl5vo+353d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejltjd+lh2i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161651

 "bercygirl2" <bercygirl2 at ...> wrote:

> He is left-handed. Go back and re-read all the books and notice how
> the words "left" and "opposite side" are constantly juxtaposed with
> Snape's name.
> The Vow was not made with his wand hand.
> Ergo, it was never made at all.
> 

Potioncat:
Now, this is the first new thing I've send about Snape since HBP came 
out. Can you give us some Book/chapter quotes for this?

I agree with Carol, that even if he was left handed, it wouldn't negate 
a vow...that is, since none of know how it works.





From bercygirl2 at aol.com  Sat Nov 18 02:57:40 2006
From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 02:57:40 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejlmdv+c5a8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejlsr4+nhlv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161652

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "twitterpatedbabykoala"
<mcdumbledore at ...> wrote:
>> I really like this idea!  I'm curious, though, what your opinion is
> regarding why Snape killed Dumbledore, if there was no Unbreakable
> Vow.  Do you think he did it simply to carry the double agent
> deception on?

I couldn't tell you if Snape actually killed Dumbledore or not,
although I do have a theory....  KR didn't tell us which hand Snape
used when he performed the "Avada Kedavra" on the tower. But I suspect
it was his left. :)

-Donna







From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Nov 18 03:18:23 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 20:18:23 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
References: <ejgdai+mk2k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <02c401c70ac0$43cf82e0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161653

> Jim Ferer said:
> I never understood the "Voldemort chose Harry [to kill]."  I can't
> think of any reason at all why Voldemort wouldn't kill both boys that
> fit the prophecy, and the Potters was the house he went to first.  Why
> wouldn't Voldemort, having successfully killed Harry, move on to the
> Longbottom's house?  It could have been as simple a matter as he found
> the Potters first. I call it the King Herod solution to the prophecy
> problem. By losing his body we never found out what Voldemort would
> have done that night.

Frankly, this view is the simplest and most reasonable. All other theories, 
imho, spin too much "what ifs" that stem from ones own personal preferences 
of which characters, introduced later in the story, were good, bad, in love 
with someone else, and so forth, and I don't think any of that plays at all 
into JKR's simple introduction into the story. She started to write this 
story with Harry's parents being dead, having been murdered, according to 
interviews, and then worked out all other relationships and the rest of the 
story from there. I don't think there is a major deep plot point behind 
Voldemort picking Harry first, but I think once he heard the prophecy, he 
intended to kill both. I certainly would have if I were playing the role of 
Voldemort. I wouldn't have taken any chances that I could be wrong. I think 
he was only prevented from going after Neville (again) by the fact that he 
lost his power to do so. We know Neville's parents were harmed too, so we 
know that he indeed was intending very real harm to both families, and in 
fact, if he had tortured the Longbottoms to get at Neville, then we know 
that he failed twice. Not killing Harry would have been his second defeat, 
for his first one would have been not getting information from the 
Longbottoms on where Neville was hidden. It's just that Harry is given 
credit for sapping life out of Voldemort, reducing him to Vapormort, and the 
Longbottoms aren't for their success in protecting Neville, since they 
suffered the loss of their minds in the process.

Shelley 






From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sat Nov 18 05:52:31 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:52:31 -0600
Subject: Why Harry and not Neville
References: <ejgdai+mk2k@eGroups.com> <02c401c70ac0$43cf82e0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <004f01c70ad5$bcc027d0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161654

Here are my thoughts on this..  

I have read alot of posts about why LV chose Harry over Neville..  How do we even know that LV knew about Neville?  Isn't it possible that he only knew of Harry?  
or...
  Could it be that LV was more concerned about the Potters beating him 3 times and just didn't think of the Longbottoms. Maybe something stuck with him about James or Lily defeating him in a significant way that really ticked him off..

  Here is another off hand thought...  Who says that Neville isn't "marked" by LV?  Seems to me that the loss of his parents in even a mental capacity would mark the heck out of him.  Just because it wasn't at the hand of LV doesn't mean he wasn't behind it.  Maybe being marked doesn't have to mean physically like a scar, but mentally instead.  Harry could be doing all the footwork for Neville.  Wouldn't that be a smack in the face ending..

  Anyway, just some thoughts I hadn't seen in the archives yet..  Haven't been thru them all yet, but working on it.. LOL
  Lana

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




From scarah at gmail.com  Sat Nov 18 11:33:56 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 03:33:56 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of possession (Was: JKR and the boys)
In-Reply-To: <ejkph0+qe8i@eGroups.com>
References: <20061116234053.45474.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com>
	 <ejkph0+qe8i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611180333q55e11cbr31c71be82b2a45b2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161655

Melanie:  Gosh that is just depressing to me.  To me the idea of
Sirius's soul hanging out with a live Voldemort just makes me want to
cringe.

I still say the most likely outcome of the books is Harry going to
"heaven" which in my mind is behind the veil and finally meeting his
parents and of course having Sirius introduce them.  I just think that
is the sweetest and most sincere way to end the books.  I can't
imagine Harry ever being happy after all of this and going on to live
this normal life with Ginny.  IT's just strange to me.

Sarah:
I totally agree with you, but for some reason I happen to suspect we
might be in the minority on this list.  :)

I'm willing to bet a fair number of e-bucks that no remnants of
Voldemort's soul will ever make it behind the veil.  As Sir Nicholas
tells us, the veil is for souls that want to go there.  Not that I'm
proposing Voldemort will be a ghost, I think that each and every piece
of his soul will be completely destroyed and not go anywhere except
non-existence.  Snape might be a ghost, though.  :)

Carol:
At any rate, *I* think Harry!Horcrux is depressing (not to mention
full of plot difficulties and inconsistencies that I've discussed in
numerous posts).

Sarah:
What's inconsistent?   Dumbledore says that Voldemort stuck a piece of
himself inside Harry (and I don't think he was talking about the
swimsuit area).  Dumbledore has established that he has a high level
of denial and procrastination when it comes to information regarding
Harry (the end of OOTP), so it's easy enough to think he may have
talked himself out of this.  If Nagini isn't a herring (placed there
to get us thinking about living beings) I'll be very shocked.

Carol:
Rather than having Harry die (and destroying her own future readership
because children won't want to read the books if they know that the
hero will end up dead)

Sarah:
Yes, I hear circulation is way down on the New Testament now that
everyone knows the ending.  :)  Seriously, I hear this argument all
the time and I don't get it.  When I was a kid I would be more likely
to read something if I found out everyone dies.  I loved Charlotte's
Web, the Little Mermaid, all manner of gruesome Grimm tales, The Girl
Who Trod on a Loaf, everything like that.  Kids like Harry Potter
already, and already there are many gruesome deaths.  I don't know
where these legion of soft children are that you're speaking for.

The guy looked in a magical mirror that shows you whatever you want
when he was eleven.  He basically saw the afterlife.  Each time he has
faced death, he has welcomed it.  Especially in OOTP where he was all
"Sweet, I'll get to be with Sirius again!"  Give him his heart's
desire.

Sarah



From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sat Nov 18 13:58:10 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:58:10 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejlmdv+c5a8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejn3hi+fu81@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161656

Becca:
> I'm not, however, necessarily saying that Snape shouldn't have 
> killed.  This very well could be an Obi Wan "If you strike me down
> I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" kind 
> of situation.  I'm reserving judgement on that until Book 7.

Jen:  I've wondered about this alot since HBP--what could have been 
gained by Dumbledore dying?  If he was willingly sacrificed, there's 
always the possibility an ancient magic was activated since that 
seems to be an undercurrent of the entire series starting with 
Lily's sacrifice.  Then when Voldemort used Harry's blood in the 
rebirthing potion, *something* changed--ancient magic at work there 
or merely a mistake on Voldemort's part?  Maybe that's too much 
ancient magic floating around!

Dumbledore is the master of contingency planning, I imagine he would 
know of a way to help Harry even in death (besides ensuring human 
protection).  And there's a pattern of Voldemort's seemingly biggest 
triumphs becoming his downfall because of a 'mistake', something 
overlooked.  He will think Dumbledore being killed was one of his 
biggest coups and I'd really like to see it be part of his defeat.

Jen R.





From bercygirl2 at aol.com  Sat Nov 18 05:57:55 2006
From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 05:57:55 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejltjd+lh2i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejm7d3+5h1i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161657

 
> Potioncat:
> Now, this is the first new thing I've send about Snape since HBP 
came 
> out. Can you give us some Book/chapter quotes for this?

Sure, but there's a ton of them, so I'll only mention the references 
in Sorceror's Stone here. (hardcover American edition)

P. 140
"Cheer up," said Ron. "Snape's always taking points off Fred and 
George. Can I come and meet Hagrid with you?"
The next paragraph starts, "At five to three they left the castle."

P. 174
"They crept along the next corridor after Snape's fading footsteps."
In the next sentence, Ron points "at the end of a passage to the 
left."
(Throughout ALL the books, nobody ever does anything to Snape's 
right. It's always the left.)

P. 178
"It was as if Snape had started handing out sweets."
The next paragraph is:
"Hermione left."

P. 182
"Perhaps Snape had left the book in there?"

P. 183
"Harry left, before Snape could take any more points from Gryffindor."

P. 190
"Snape was in the middle of the stands opposite them."

P. 195
"When they had left the dungeons at the end of Potions."

P. 197
"..and they left Hagrid looking disgruntled
"
In the next paragraph-
"Because how else were they going to find out what Snape was trying 
to steal?"

P. 198
"Harry left the library."
Next paragraph- "They couldn't risk Snape hearing what they were up 
to."

P. 207
"Snape replied, "The Restricted Section?"
Upon which Harry notices that "a door stood ajar to his left"

P. 217
"Snape's sudden, sinister desire to be a Quidditch referee."
(sinister means left)

P. 224
"Snape spat bitterly on the ground."
Next paragraph-"Harry left the locker room."

P. 246
"Snape had just left the room."

P. 275
"Looks like a harp," said Ron. "Snape must have left it there."

P. 283
"Do you want to stop Snape or not?"
In the next paragraph-"Harry moved three spaces to the left."

There's a really interesting sentence about Karkaroff on page 278, in 
GoF, during the scene where Karkaroff and Madame Maxime argue with 
Dumbledore about Harry becoming the fourth Triwizard champion.(And 
Snape happens to be present) "His hands gave him away, they had 
balled themselves into fists."

There is another bit in GoF that ties into the left-hand bits. On 
page 459,Harry goes to the prefects' bathroom to work out the clue in 
the egg. Outside the bathroom is the statue of Boris the 
Bewildered, "a lost-looking wizard with his gloves on the wrong 
hands." 

I'm positive that Snape's hands gave him away during the Unbreakable 
Vow. :)

I don't have PoA handy right now, so I can't cite a page number. When 
Harry runs away from Privet Drive, he stops the Knight Bus by 
sticking out his wand hand and this is referenced twice by Stan 
Shunpike. The implication he makes is that sticking out the other 
hand would not have made the bus stop, only the wand hand would do it.
If only the wand hand would cause the bus to stop, I'm certain only 
the wand hand would count for something as important as the Vow.

"Wand hand" is referenced multiple times in HBP as well....

-Donna










From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Nov 18 06:42:14 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 23:42:14 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
References: <ejkjcb+9ha7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <038701c70adc$af39c470$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161658

Beatrice:
I have a theory.  Admittedly, it is a wild theory.  So, if you will
indulge me, let us leave "the firm foundations of fact and [journey]
together through the murky marshes of memory into the thickets of
wildest guesswork" (HBP, 197).

A Theory:  What if the Potters had a house elf? <snip>
What if there is literally MORE to her than meets the eye: It is the
secret to her immaculate house. <snip>
So, back to my theory.  Suppose that DD indicates in his letter to
Petunia that there is a house elf who will enter into the service of
the family, if Petunia desires it.

Shelley enters:
But, we see Petunia cleaning constantly. She's the type of woman who 
wouldn't trust a house elf to do her work for her. She's a perfectionist 
when it comes to her home- a compulsive sort. I think for your theory to be 
plausible, she would have to be a little "less" diligent, and yet have her 
home perfectly spotless anyway.

Boy, what I wouldn't do for a house elf.

Shelley







From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Nov 18 07:12:15 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:12:15 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
References: <ejl5vo+353d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <03e001c70ae0$e09dab90$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161659

bercygirl2 said:
> All the debate about whether Snape knew what Narcissa was going to ask
> him to do, whether the third request caught him off guard,
> etc.....it's all moot. It doesn't matter what Narcissa requested of
> him, or if Snape knew through Legilimency what she was up to, is
> irrelevant.
> The Vow was invalid.
> JKR specifically tells us that Snape and Narcissa "grasped right hands"
> (HBP p. 36) and makes sure we notice that Snape's hand twitches.
> That twitch is not random - it is there so we look carefully at this
> scene. Think of all the debate this scene has caused, with one side
> saying it proves that Snape is really Voldemort's right-hand man, and
> others claiming it proves that Snape is Dumbledore's right-hand man.
> Snape isn't ANYONE'S right-hand man.
> He is left-handed. Go back and re-read all the books and notice how
> the words "left" and "opposite side" are constantly juxtaposed with
> Snape's name.
> The Vow was not made with his wand hand.
> Ergo, it was never made at all.


So, if one wizard is right handed, and the other is left handed, how do they 
make this vow?  You are saying it would be impossible? Seems to me, it's 
much like a handshake- it matters little if you do it right handed or left- 
it's still a hand shake, and the intention is realized by all who see it or 
experience it. I doubt very much that the wand can only work if you use your 
dominant hand, and that holding it with your off hand in time of need 
somehow dispels all that ability that you possess as a wizard, so I think 
your theory doesn't hold up. If we need Cannon to support this, wasn't there 
scenes in the MOM where Neville held his wand in his off hand when he was 
injured? I don't have my book in front of me, but it seems to me there is at 
least one scene where a wizard is forced to use their off hand due to 
injury.

Plus, why do we see the light snakes around the two hands, "sealing the 
vow", if it wasn't a legitimate vow? Nah, it was real all right. Otherwise, 
JKR would have given us some reference before now to help us realize a fake.

Shelley 






From tinku_787 at yahoo.co.in  Sat Nov 18 12:10:28 2006
From: tinku_787 at yahoo.co.in (prashant soni)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:40:28 +0530 (IST)
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
Message-ID: <20061118121028.1965.qmail@web7706.mail.in.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161660

twitterpatedbabykoala <mcdumbledore at juno.com>:
> The Vow was not made with his wand hand.
> Ergo, it was never made at all.

I really like this idea! I'm curious, though, what your opinion is 
regarding why Snape killed Dumbledore, if there was no Unbreakable 
Vow. Do you think he did it simply to carry the double agent 
deception on? I think, Unbreakable Vow or not, that that's probably 
the case. The first time I read the scene on top of the Astronomy 
tower, I thought right away: "Dumbledore doesn't plead. The only 
thing that could scare him to the point of pleading is the thought of 
the Order losing their inside man. He's pleading for Snape to carry 
out their plan, not for Snape to spare him." (Reminiscent of Obi Wan 
willingly choosing to die.) Then I began to wonder about whether 
Snape had said "Avada Kevadra" out loud but silently cast a different 
spell, allowing Dumbledore to come back (a la Gandalf) in the 7th 
book. JKR has shot that down, of course.

Anyway, I think your theory, if true, would add an extra sprig of 
tragedy to the bowl, since Snape could have chosen not to kill. I'm 
not, however, necessarily saying that Snape shouldn't have killed. 
This very well could be an Obi Wan "If you strike me down I shall 
become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" kind of 
situation. I'm reserving judgement on that until Book 7.

Becca





		
__________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Answers: Share what you know. Learn something new
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/

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





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 14:49:19 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 14:49:19 -0000
Subject: Why was Lily given a chance to survive?
In-Reply-To: <02c401c70ac0$43cf82e0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ejn6hf+6vb9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161661

Shelley:
> Frankly, this view is the simplest and most reasonable. 

zgirnius:

I agree, though I think that there may be reasons yet to be revealed 
that would point to the fact that Voldemort chose the right boy-that 
there were factors already in play which led to Voldemort's fateful 
decision to give Lily a choice. Rowling has indicated that Alice 
Longbottom might not have been given the opportunity.

Shelley:
> We know Neville's parents were harmed too, so we 
> know that he indeed was intending very real harm to both families, 
and in 
> fact, if he had tortured the Longbottoms to get at Neville, then we 
know 
> that he failed twice. Not killing Harry would have been his second 
defeat, 
> for his first one would have been not getting information from the 
> Longbottoms on where Neville was hidden. 

zgirnius:
The Longbottoms were not tortured by Voldemort, and the information 
the torturers were after was not Neville's location. This incident 
occured after Voldemort became Vapormort. Bellatrix Lestrange and 
other diehards, for some reason, believed the Longbottoms might know 
how to find *Voldemort*. They were after this information in order to 
bring him back.







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 15:00:30 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 15:00:30 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejm7d3+5h1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejn76e+avo4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161662

Donna:
> If only the wand hand would cause the bus to stop, I'm certain only 
> the wand hand would count for something as important as the Vow.
> 
> "Wand hand" is referenced multiple times in HBP as well....
> 

zgirnius:
Harry's wand was in his hand, though. I assume that if he just stuck 
his hand out, even his right hand (wand hand, assuming Harry is a 
rightie, I can't recall whether this is established), nothing would 
happen either.

The thing with the Vow is, the person holding the wand and making the 
magic work is the Bonder, Bellatrix in our case. In other precedents, 
neither hand of Harry's put his name in the Goblet, and yet he was 
bound by the magic to compete in the Triwizard Tournament.

Of course, as others have pointed out, we do not know this level of 
detail of how the Vow works, so this *could* be right.

Addressing your other point about Snape being a leftie-are there any 
cases where language of this type is used to describe actual 
movements by Snape which suggest his handedness? I checked the 
Duelling scene (no joy) because it seemed a place where such a detail 
might come up in describing the two adversaries.

Because as you point out, 'sinister' derives from left, so if Rowling 
has indeed deliberately used all this 'sinister' language around 
Snape deliberately, it could be for the purpose of making him seem, 
well, sinister...







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 16:45:11 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 16:45:11 -0000
Subject: Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
In-Reply-To: <593769.32098.qm@web56509.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ejndan+tvl4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161663

---  Dantzel Withers <shmantzel at ...> wrote:
>
> chawesome100
> We can assume that the amount of money in Harry's 
> account is quite a bit as we can compare it to another
> family's account; the Weasleys. ... J.K even says that
> their was "a small fortune hidden underneath London..."
> ... while Harry might not be 'rich' is certaintly well 
> off. 
> 
>    
> Dantzel replies:
>    
> I never assumed Harry was extremely rich, but we are 
> told by Hagrid as well in the first book that Harry 
> would have plenty of money 'at least until you're out 
> of school', I believe he said. Considering that most 
> of us cannot live off of our savings for at least 7 
> years, it is fairly safe to assume that they're well 
> off.
>    
> Besides, even if they WEREN'T, Harry is now, considering
> that we KNOW the Blacks were wealthy and Harry just 
> inherited all of their gold with Sirius's passing.
>    
> Dantzel

bboyminn:

Don't really have much to add other than to agree with
the conclusions reached here, that Harry is 'well off'
but not necessarily '/rich/-rich'. I will however add a
couple of details for your consideration.

- Harry is very conservative with his money, other than
an ice cream cone for Ron and Hermione and the Omnoculars
at the Quidditch World Cup, we don't see Harry spending
his money like it was lottery winnings. He is certainly
tempted as when the New Firebolt comes out, but he 
resists that temptation, and thinks about his future. He
is not so foolish a child as to think his small fortune
is an inexhaustable supply of money. He basically takes
money for school supplies and a bit for 'pocket money'
to buy tea and snacks occassionally. Note that at the 
end of the year, Harry still seems to have a bit of
his pocket money still in his pocket.

Also, Harry doesn't have any real expenses; no rent, 
utilities, food, mortgage, auto insurance, etc.... Being 
a kid, he lacks the many necessary expenses that make 
life hard for most adults.

- Oddly the Potter's wealth seems to be all in /cash/.
One would assume that even a modest upper-middle class
family would have a family home and probably some land.
But, so far, there has been no indication that Harry has
these things. There is no indication that there is a 
Potter ancestral home lurking about in the background.

Also, note that no house means no House-Elves lurking 
about in the background.

I suspect, as a means of explanation, that James Potter
sold off all his tangible assest (house, land, business
holding, etc...) and converted them to cash. That way if
the bad guys happened to win, he could just take the money
and run. He could move to France, Holland, or Germany 
while he lived comfortably and worked toward mounting a
resistance against the occupying force of Dark Wizards.

If he had had land, house, business, etc..., they would 
have surely all been lost when Voldemort took over. 

I can't say for sure that happened but it is a reasonable
backstory to explain why the Potter wealth is all in cash.

- "This is, in the main, fairly straight forward," 
Dumbledore went on. "You add a reasonable amount of gold
to your account at Gringotts, and you inherit all of 
Sirius's personal possession. The only slightly 
problematic part of the legacy --". (HBP, Am Ed, PB, Pg
49)

"...a reasonable amount of gold..."; is Dumbledore just
being modest? Is he intentionally understating that 
matter of the Black family 'fortune'? Not all old money
families are truly wealthy. There are many of England'a 
nobility who have substantial assests, a large castle for
example, but really have little cash and little income.
Remember the upkeep and the taxes on a castle are
astronomical. The heating bill alone would bankrupt 
most of us. (Naturally, getting a job is out of the
question for England's great nobility.)

Also, note that the Black parents have been dead for a 
few years, that means they still have some basic expenses
but no means of generating income. They don't seem to 
hold any landed estates, so that rules out that as a 
source of income. That means their fortune is probably
shrinking rather than growing.

So again, I ponder, is the Black family fortune in any way
a fortune, or is it just a 'reasonable amount of gold'? 
Is Dumbledore being literal or just modest in his speech?

- Lastly being 11 years old and finding you had a huge pile
of gold, could any of us resist spending it like if was
lottery money? I think Harry shows great restraint. Far 
more restraint than I could.

Keep in mind though that Harry has always been poor, and
I think he would appreciate the money, and not want to 
squander it.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 17:27:11 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 17:27:11 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejm7d3+5h1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejnfpf+8pdt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161664

Potioncat wrote:
> > Now, this is the first new thing I've send about Snape since HBP 
> came out. Can you give us some Book/chapter quotes for this?
> 
> Sure, but there's a ton of them, so I'll only mention the references 
> in Sorceror's Stone here. (hardcover American edition)
> 
Donna supplied this quotation:
> P. 140
> "Cheer up," said Ron. "Snape's always taking points off Fred and 
> George. Can I come and meet Hagrid with you?"
> The next paragraph starts, "At five to three they left the castle."

Carol responds:
This reference, and others like it, simply refer to people leaving.
IMO, it's coincidence that the past tense form of "leave" is a homonym
of "left" indicating a direction or side of the body. I'm quite sure
that "left" in this sense appears in scenes unrelated to Snape, just
as "exit stage right" or "exit stage left" appears in plays when a
character has to leave the scene, with no relationship to the
handedness or a particular character.
> 
Donna:
> P. 174
> "They crept along the next corridor after Snape's fading footsteps."
> In the next sentence, Ron points "at the end of a passage to the 
> left."
> (Throughout ALL the books, nobody ever does anything to Snape's 
> right. It's always the left.) <snip references to leaving>

> P. 207
> "Snape replied, "The Restricted Section?"
> Upon which Harry notices that "a door stood ajar to his left" <snip>

> P. 283
> "Do you want to stop Snape or not?"
> In the next paragraph-"Harry moved three spaces to the left."

Carol responds:
Okay, here we do have references to "left" as a direction, which might
or might not be significant. More like these three from other books
(in which Snape is not the suspected villain), please?

Donna: 
> P. 217
> "Snape's sudden, sinister desire to be a Quidditch referee."
> (sinister means left) <snip more references to leaving>

Carol responds:
Yes, I know. See upthread. However, "sinister" also means "singularly
evil or productive of evil," "presaging ill fortune or trouble," and
"accompanied by or leading to disaster." In this instance, the
intended meaning is clearly the first, which reflects Harry's (and
therefore the narrator's) not necessarily accurate perception of
Snape, though the other two definitions could be implied if we think
ahead to HBP. I don't think we need to go so far back as to consider
the etymology of "sinister" here, however applicable etymology may be
for spells and other terms that JKR has invented for the WW. (Note the
alliteration here, however--all those s's add to the sinister effect
of Snape's name, not because he's the villain but because, in SS/PS,
we're supposed to think he is.) 

Donna: 
> There's a really interesting sentence about Karkaroff on page 278,
in GoF, during the scene where Karkaroff and Madame Maxime argue with 
> Dumbledore about Harry becoming the fourth Triwizard champion.(And 
> Snape happens to be present) "His hands gave him away, they had 
> balled themselves into fists." <snip>

Carol:
Rather like Snape's twitch in HBP and the other one related to Lucius
Malfoy in GoF? But these scenes have to do with revealed emotions, not
handedness. And any references to the left arms of these two
characters relate to the Dark Mark (as do the references to Draco's
left arm in HBP).

Donna:
> I'm positive that Snape's hands gave him away during the Unbreakable 
> Vow. :)

Carol:
I'm positive that the twitch gave away his fear that the UV would take
a direction he didn't want it to take. Nothing to do with handedness.
And why would he twitch if the vow were invalid?

Donna: 
> I don't have PoA handy right now, so I can't cite a page number.
When Harry runs away from Privet Drive, he stops the Knight Bus by 
> sticking out his wand hand and this is referenced twice by Stan 
> Shunpike. The implication he makes is that sticking out the other 
> hand would not have made the bus stop, only the wand hand would do
it. If only the wand hand would cause the bus to stop, I'm certain
only the wand hand would count for something as important as the Vow.
> 
> "Wand hand" is referenced multiple times in HBP as well....

Carol:
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. But still, we have the custom of
vows involving the right hand (the "nonsinister," "correct" hand) and
no references that I know of to Snape's wand hand hand. Harry,
however, is right-handed.

Carol, who is being paged and can't continue





From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Nov 18 18:04:03 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:04:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
References: <20061118121028.1965.qmail@web7706.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <005701c70b3b$ef4019c0$0b78400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161665

Becca:
> Anyway, I think your theory, if true, would add an extra sprig of
> tragedy to the bowl, since Snape could have chosen not to kill. I'm
> not, however, necessarily saying that Snape shouldn't have killed.
> This very well could be an Obi Wan "If you strike me down I shall
> become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" kind of
> situation. I'm reserving judgement on that until Book 7.

Magpie:
Interestingly, I thought the opposite--far from adding more tragedy to the 
bowl it makes a lot of HBP pointless.  Why all the focus on the UV if it's 
fake?  Why introduce something so cool to cause more trouble for the 
characters and then say oh, it was just a psych out?

After all, it's not like the UV means Snape couldn't choose not to kill.  He 
could have chosen to die himself. Or he could have simply chosen not to make 
the Vow at all. With the UV you get the drama of Snape making his choice and 
the drama of his not being able to back out without dire consequences. 
Without the UV we get just Snape deciding to kill Dumbledore at the end when 
Dumbledore says "please."  Still a big choice, but the stakes are lower.

-m 





From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 18:27:11 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:27:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejlrcp+jpk6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <761231.54009.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161666

Snow:  

This is a fascinating suggestion although I think that Harry confirms 
 that Dobby is the Malfoy families' elf. 

Dantzel replies:

I don't think that Beatrice was suggesting that Dobby belongs to Harry. I think she was suggesting that it was another house elf that we don't yet know of, especially since it is, theoretically, staying out of sight from anyone but Petunia at the Dursley's home.

Dantzel
 
 




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Nov 18 19:03:21 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 19:03:21 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejnfpf+8pdt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejnldp+mhg8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161667

 
> Donna: 
> > P. 217
> > "Snape's sudden, sinister desire to be a Quidditch referee."
> > (sinister means left) <snip more references to leaving>
> 
> Carol responds:
> Yes, I know. See upthread. However, "sinister" also 
means "singularly
> evil or productive of evil," "presaging ill fortune or trouble," and
> "accompanied by or leading to disaster." 

Potioncat:
Well, you've certainly done your homework! Quite impressive. 

I'm with Carol here, I think "left" as past tense of leave is no more 
significant than "said" in dialogue. It's just a transition word.

It would be interesting to see if "right" as a direction is used when 
other characters are involved, or if JKR just tends to place things 
to the left most of the time.

This reminds me of PoA--the word grim pops up a lot. I'm not sure how 
much of it was JKR's own little joke. People speak grimly, look grim, 
or see grims. I think Sirius evens gives a grim bark of laughter. 
(OK, I may be embellishing with the last example.)

On a similar note...one of the book jackets has Harry holding his 
wand in his left hand. (Or was it DD using his left hand?) and in the 
MTMNBN, LV is left handed. I do think that as often as JKR brings 
attention to Snape's hands, that she could come out and say he was 
left handed if it was important.

Still, this was good work.







From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sat Nov 18 19:57:26 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 13:57:26 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow/Harry possible scenerios
References: <20061118121028.1965.qmail@web7706.mail.in.yahoo.com> <005701c70b3b$ef4019c0$0b78400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <00ee01c70b4b$c54e8a60$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161668

Becca:
> Anyway, I think your theory, if true, would add an extra sprig of
> tragedy to the bowl, since Snape could have chosen not to kill. I'm
> not, however, necessarily saying that Snape shouldn't have killed.
> This very well could be an Obi Wan "If you strike me down I shall
> become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" kind of
> situation. I'm reserving judgement on that until Book 7.


Lana writes:
  While I find it interesting you point this out since my 16 year old DD did as well..
  I find it hard to believe that the vow was not made.  With the sealing of the bonder, it makes it real no matter what hand you use.  If it wasn't real, the visual bond would not have been seen.  JKR surely wouldn't have been so descriptive if it were a hoax.  I am sure that they all know what the Vow is and how it works.  Bellatrix (sp?) surely would have noticed if something wasn't right.  She was already wary of SS and watching his every move I am sure.
  As to the "Obi Wan" theory.. I fully agree.  I am sure that there is more to DD dying than just being gone.  It is very and likely possible that DD will not be back as human form (JKR has confirmed that he is indeed dead), but I have no doubt that he knew what was coming and has prepared much for Harrys benefit.   
   There is always the chance that DD created a "diary" without the soul much like LV did.  Or he could have already taken most of the important memories he had and put them in the penseive (sp?) for Harrys use.  There is also the thought that DD could have transferred some of himself into the Harry on the tower without Harry knowing.  If LV could have his powers transferred in the backfire curse, it is possible for one to intentionally do it.  It is early in the grief process and Harry quite possibly doesn't realize the transfer yet.
  Then again, it is also possible that Harry will have been pushed over the edge by the death of DD that he will realize the full extent of the powers and knowledge he gained from LV.  With all that LV has taken from Harry in the quest for power surely will rattle Harrys cage enough to eventually push the limit.  Or possibly one of his friends will die and that will be the push needed..  

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




From drcarole71 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 20:19:12 2006
From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 20:19:12 -0000
Subject: Dumblecrux
Message-ID: <ejnps0+deh6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161669

Sorry if this has already been discussed
What if the green liquid Dumbledore drank in HBP was a horcrux?  Then 
his request "Severus, please" could mean
"Sever us, please."  In other words, "Please separate my soul from 
Voldemort's by killing me"





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sat Nov 18 19:59:06 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 12:59:06 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
References: <ejnldp+mhg8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006001c70b4c$0f3a7da0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161670

> Potioncat:
>
> Well, you've certainly done your homework! Quite impressive.
>
> I'm with Carol here, I think "left" as past tense of leave is no more
> significant than "said" in dialogue. It's just a transition word.
>
> It would be interesting to see if "right" as a direction is used when
> other characters are involved, or if JKR just tends to place things
> to the left most of the time.


This line of thought would only be productive if the word "left" appears to 
be used far more than "right" appears. One would have to look at the 
passages and count them up. Otherwise, it's just a "left" theory, and 
suddenly you notice the passages saying "left" far more than the passages 
that say "right". It's a subconscious thing, but may not add up to a 
disproportionate use of the word "left" over the whole series. Rowling said 
in one interview (or was it on her web page?) that the fans are far more 
observant about where the classrooms are than she has been, and that even 
some of them have moved (shifted floors) between books. Even if she has a 
tendency to use the word "left" subconsciously more than she uses "right", 
that should be evenly distributed all over the books, and not necessarily in 
any of the passages relating to just one character in the book. I would be 
more impressed if a word count was involved in this conjecture.

And, as already mentioned, you cannot look at passages that say someone 
moved left, or something that was located on the left, and connect them in 
any way to Snape's wand hand, as the two are entirely unrelated.

Shelley 






From darksworld at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 21:34:35 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:34:35 -0000
Subject: DD's death and Harry (WAS:Re: Snape didn't make etc.)
In-Reply-To: <00ee01c70b4b$c54e8a60$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ejnu9b+ileu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161671

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> wrote:
<snip>   There is always the chance that DD created a "diary" without 
the soul much like LV did.  Or he could have already taken most of the 
important memories he had and put them in the penseive (sp?) for 
Harrys use.  There is also the thought that DD could have transferred 
some of himself into the Harry on the tower without Harry knowing.  If 
LV could have his powers transferred in the backfire curse, it is 
possible for one to intentionally do it.  It is early in the grief 
process and Harry quite possibly doesn't realize the transfer yet.
>   Then again, it is also possible that Harry will have been pushed 
over the edge by the death of DD that he will realize the full extent 
of the powers and knowledge he gained from LV.  With all that LV has 
taken from Harry in the quest for power surely will rattle Harrys cage 
enough to eventually push the limit.  Or possibly one of his friends 
will die and that will be the push needed..  

Charles:

I can see the transfer of power, somewhat. What I think is more 
likely, however, is that since DD petrified Harry on the tower to 
protect him, we once again have someone choosing death for Harry's 
safety. What I think may have happened, assuming DDM!Snape (ouch, this 
hurts for an ESE!Snaper), is that Snape immediately tells DD of the 
vow and it's possible repercussions, intending to die rather than 
carry out the murder of DD. DD, on the other hand being "somewhat more 
clever" sees the opportunity to extend to Harry protection much like 
Lily did. JKR has told us that Aberforth will figure into book 7, so 
what if this means that Harry cannot be harmed while Aberforth is 
around (where DD's blood is...)

Charles, who wants it to be something else because he doesn't believe 
in DDM!Snape.





From catlady at wicca.net  Sat Nov 18 23:21:08 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 23:21:08 -0000
Subject: Fidelius/Alpha/Karkaroff/Wizards&Muggles&Food/Rickman/InvisiCloak/DARK MAGIC
Message-ID: <ejo4h4+rk7f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161672

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161462>:

<< (Yes, it's possible that he could have seen a note written to
Dumbledore by PP in a disguised hand, but that's a pretty far-fetched
explanation for his knowledge, and JKR would have to find some
roundabout way to bring it into the plot. And why would PP have told
anybody [except LV] when the whole idea was to keep the Potters'
whereabouts secret?) >>

I think James and Lily would want their location to be known to some
people whom they trusted absolutely -- Sirius and probably Dumbledore
and maybe Hagrid, as well as PP -- so that these people could visit
and, well, bring them groceries.

Ceridwen wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161521>:

<< It's very possible that Neville, Seamus and Dean have fought it out
amongst themselves for the Not The Boy Who Lived Alpha Male of their
dorm, but Harry, and Ron, who rode shotgun for Harry since SS/PS, are
not involved. >>

It seems to me that Neville is depicted as not wanting to be Alpha, as
wanting not to be Alpha. *waves at Potioncat's
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161525>*

Nikkalmati wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161540>:

<< Why was [Karkaroff] caught and killed by the DEs in England a year
later? Couldn't he have gone back to Durmstrang? >>

At Durmstrang, he would be the opposite of hidden. Being a
high-profile target is okay if you are surrounded by invulnerable
protections (as Dumbledore thought he was at Hogwarts). But if
Durmstrang is really such a hotbed of Dark Magic, it probably contains
Dark Wizards allied with LV who are INSIDE Durmstrang's protections. 

Stacey wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161593>:

<< I did a search through the archives for any discussion on this but
couldn't find it. I was wondering if anyone had thought about what
Wizards/ Witches said about their professions when asked by nosy
nieghbors. Although Arthur Weasley works in a department dealing with
Muggle artifacts, he displays very little knowledge of them and one
could imagine he would have a hard time lying his way through an
answer. >>

Some listie once said that Arthur could tell his drinking buddies at
the Muggle pub that he was a minor civil servant with a job too boring
to speak of, and they would believe him without further question.

<< Memory charms? Are they and their houses as "invisible" to Muggles
as the Leaky Cauldron is? >>

No. Is it GoF where Harry and the Weasleys go from The Burrow to
King's Cross in three Muggle taxis? Anyway, Molly walked down to the
village to use the phone in the post office to make a taxi
appointment, but the taxis drove to The Burrow with no wizard
accompanying them. (Why didn't Molly Apparate to the village?)

Here's something that I accidentally found today that I posted in
2003: I imagine that there are some old, old villages where the folk
from the old, old Muggle families 'have always known' that the folk
from the old wizarding families are wizards. I imagine there are some
wizarding folk who associate with their Muggle neighbors while
preserving wizarding secrecy ... the So-and-sos live over there;
they're nice people but kind of weird, they're (artists, or hippies,
or members of a religious cult that rejects technology) so they grow
their own organic food and wear funny clothes and home-school their
kids, but they ALWAYS have the BEST milk and eggs for sale at the
farmers' market, and their kids are great soccer players ...

<< And (admittedly a silly question) how do wizards/witches do their
grocery shopping? I can't imagine they grow/raise all they need >> 

Oh, yes, I've wondered that myself. Are there wizard farms (other than
Agatha Timms's eel farm) and wizard greengrocers and wizard millers
and bakers and wizard butchers and slaughterhouses? There could be
wizard greengrocers who buy their goods from Muggle farmers or from
middlemen at the Central Market (is that Covent Garden for London?) or
even from Muggle greengrocers. If the food starts in the Muggle world
and is diverted to the wizarding economy, do the wizards have opinions
about organic food, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, genetically
modified organisms? If wizards farm and if they've ever heard of
'organic', they would consider their farms entirely organic, as they
would use magic instead of chemicals or genetic engineering or
internal-combustion machines. 

On another tentacle, how much can Transfiguration do? Steve bboyminn
has spoken of Florean Fortescue needing to buy sugar, cocoa, out of
season fruit, and other ingredients for making his ice cream, but I've
always thought it would be more magical if he can just Transfigure a
pail of cream into a gourmet flavored custard, and then freeze it with
a Charm. Hey, how about a pail of dirt? Do animals need to be raised
and slaughtered for all that meat they eat at Hogwarts, or can grain
be Transfigured into steaks and so on? 

<< and going all the way to Diagon Alley for weekly trips would seem
laborious. I'm not sure there's an answer, just wondering if others
have wondered about the more mundane aspects of the WW. >>

It doesn't matter how far the wizard greengrocer's shop is from the
wizard's home: when you can Apparate, or when you're connected to the
Floo Network, 200 miles and two blocks are the same distance away from
you.

rapid_white_wolf wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161600>:

<< Perhaps they have a home shopping service, what would be the wizard
equivalent of the internet ;) >>

Oh, there were grocery stores that delivered before there was an
Internet. A customer could phone in an order -- before the telephone
was invented, a customer could send a servant or child with a note. A
customer could come in person to shop and then have her purchases
delivered later that day. A customer could have a standing order every
week. A wizard customer could send an owl.

I've wondered if wizarding delivery service would be by broomstick,
Floo, Apparation, or some other method of travel. By large owl?

Tinktonks wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161623>:

<< What intrigues me is that in an interview with Alan Rickman (just
the best guy to play Snape or what) in a film magazine that was so
long ago I cant remember properly, it said that JK Rowling told him
something about Snape's back story that would help him play the role
and understand the man. I have fun hypothesizing what that could be.
Any clues? >>

IIRC that was before GoF was published, so it may simply have been
that Snape was a former Death Eater with the Dark Mark on his arm.
Altho' if she told him that Snape was a former Death Eater, it would
make sense for her to tell him if Snape was still a Death Eater at
heart or loyal to Dumbledore.

zgirnius wrote in
<>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161628:

<< Also, James' ownership of an invisibility cloak as a kid is an
indication of his family's wealth. They are supposed to be very rare. >>

Someone floated a theory that Aurors have Invisibility Cloaks, either
issued to then when they finish training, or that they are required to
buy. Moody has one Invisibility Cloak as a former Auror; I believe
Moody's "spare" Cloak to be the one that he was wrapped inside the
box, therefore Barty Sr's, who may very well have been an Auror before
being promoted to head of Department of Magical Law Enforcement. The
other Invisibility Cloak in canon is the one that Harry inherited from
James, and James had inherited it also -- perhaps one of James' recent
ancestors was an Auror, too.

DARK MAGIC

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161513>:

<< What if "Unforgiveable" means something more than a lifetime
sentence to Azkaban (which would hardly serve as a deterrent after a
person has cast one Unforgiveable). >>

You're assuming that law enforcement (DMLE) will always be able to get
evidence of that first Unforgiveable. Maybe the only way to get
evidence other than witness testimony is the Prior Incantato spell,
and maybe Prior Incantato can retrieve only the most recent spell cast
by that wand (not the same as the Prior Incantatem effect). So there
would be a narrow window to collect evidence, only between the most
recent Unforgiveable and the next tap on a teapot to make the water
boil or such. 

Marion Ros wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161563>:

<< Isn't Dark Arts/Magic defined not what it does to other people but
what it does to the one who uses it? Perhaps it's addictive.
Seductive. It changes you. It's like a drug. >>

Years ago, some listie suggested that what makes magic Dark is neither
intention or results, but method; that Dark Magic is the older method,
in which the wizard channels the magic power through his/her own body,
later superseded by Light Magic, in which the wizard channels the
magic power through a wand. 

This is a reply to your post because part of the suggestion is that
what makes the old method Dark is that it erodes the wizard from the
inside, gradually taking away his/her ethics, empathy, sanity, and
finally humanity, even animality ... he suggested that the Dark Wizard
might end by turning into a twisted tree.

And that wizards might use the Dark technique the first time because
it is more powerful magic, but continue and continue because it is
addictive.

Betsy Hp wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161605>:

<< The weight is on the wizard, not on the magic. There is no
"forbidden" knowledge in JKR's world. >>

Except Horcruxes.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161633>:

<< We know that Mad-Eye Moody only killed when he had to. We don't
know that he used the AK when he did it, and I doubt that he ever
resorted to Imperio or Crucio. >>

I agree. But is it really more ethical to kill (in self-defense) a
criminal (who is resisting arrest) with a bullet or Accio'ing
something to suffocate him, then to cast Imperius on him and order him
to surrender peaceably and come along?






From nerdie55 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 07:40:22 2006
From: nerdie55 at yahoo.com (nerdie55)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 07:40:22 -0000
Subject: Usage of the word Squib in the mid-18th century by Oliver Goldsmith
In-Reply-To: <4558CEFF.000013.02840@JUSTME>
Message-ID: <ejmdd6+fjdb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161673

Debi:
> I belive JK chose the word 'Squib' because in the magical world non
> magic people born to magical family's would be considered
> insignificant, in fact pureblood's look down on Muggles so they
> would consider a Squib even worse than a Muggle. And it seems that
> the magical folk use the word Squib with distaste, as a negative,
> and the Squibs themselves seem almost ashamed of it


Dobby Cat, that makes sense, especially because the meaning according
to the 18th century dictionary is an insignificant somebody and it is
probable that wizards used the word for a long time, say before the
18th century.JKR gave this more thought than I believed initially.

nerdie55




From kat7555 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 18 21:43:10 2006
From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:43:10 -0000
Subject: Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
In-Reply-To: <ejndan+tvl4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejnupe+amv8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161674

I think Harry has a few good reasons for hiding his wealth. I'm
sure Petunia and Vernon would try to steal it from him if they knew
about it. He doesn't want money to become an issue between himself
and his friends. We know that the Weasleys aren't rich and I'm not
sure about the Grangers.

We know Harry has inheirited Kreacher from Sirius but I'm sure Harry
doesn't want him thanks to his role in Sirius' death. Could Dobby
leave Hogwarts to work for Harry? I think Dobby would love to do so
since Harry freed him from the Malfoys.

kat7555





From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Sun Nov 19 00:18:00 2006
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 00:18:00 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <006001c70b4c$0f3a7da0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ejo7ro+nf4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161675

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" 
<k12listmomma at ...> wrote:
>
> > Potioncat:
> >
> > Well, you've certainly done your homework! Quite impressive.
> >
> > I'm with Carol here, I think "left" as past tense of leave is no 
more
> > significant than "said" in dialogue. It's just a transition word.
> >
> > It would be interesting to see if "right" as a direction is used 
when
> > other characters are involved, or if JKR just tends to place 
things
> > to the left most of the time.
> 
> 
> This line of thought would only be productive if the word "left" 
appears to 
> be used far more than "right" appears. One would have to look at 
the 
> passages and count them up. Otherwise, it's just a "left" theory, 
and 
> suddenly you notice the passages saying "left" far more than the 
passages 
> that say "right". 


Having some time to kill, I just did a word search through Order of 
the Phoenix for the words "right" and "left" - I'm only citing 
instances in which left and right are plainly used as directions ? 
I'm not counting such usages as "Oliver Wood left Hogwarts", 
or  "Could Dobby be following him right at this very moment?"

The results are as follows:


Character Right/Left

Harry Potter 37/30 
Mundungus Fletcher 0/4
Nymphadora Tonks 0/1
Emmaline Vance 1/1
Bellatrix Lestrange 1/4
Arthur Weasley 2/4
MOM fireplaces 1/1
MOM security guard 0/1
Wizengamot 0/1
Fudge 7/2
Ron 3/3
Luna 0/1
Trelawney 0/1
Harry, Ron & Hermione 0/1
Hagrid 0/2
St. Mungo receptionist 1/1
A witch with a satsuma jammed up her left nostril ? 0/1
St. Mungo second floor 1/0
Snape 0/1
Hermione ? 1/2
Fred & George's broomsticks ? 0/1
Grawp ? 0/1
Bradley (Ravenclaw Chaser) 1/1
Dumbledore's Army ? 0/1
Thestral ? 0/1
Rodolphus Lestrange ? 0/1
Group of unnamed Death Eaters 1/2 
Neville 2/1
Dudley Dursley 2/0
The Advance Squad 1/0
Andromeda Black 1/0
Hogwarts Students 1/0
Cho 1/0
Dumbledore & Harry 1/0
Lupin 1/0
Parvati 1/0
Hermione 1/0
Kreacher 1/0
Malfoy, Crabbe & Goyle 1/0
Ron, Ginny & Luna 1/0

Harry is character most often mentioned with respect to both his left 
and right side - Snape is only mentioned once in OOP with either 
directionality:

"'Dumbledore is an extremely powerful wizard,' Snape muttered. 'While 
he may feel secure enough to use the name
 the rest of us
' He rubbed 
his left forearm, apparently unconsciously, on the spot where Harry 
knew the Dark Mark was burned into his skin."

So based on OOP at least, it does not seem that JKR is making any 
kind of concerted effort to identify Snape with the sinister/left.

   - CMC (author of A Vast LEPHT-Wing Conspiracy)

http://home.att.net/~coriolan/musical/LEPHT-Wing.htm 





From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Nov 19 02:28:57 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 02:28:57 -0000
Subject: Harry's happy death  (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <3202590611180333q55e11cbr31c71be82b2a45b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ejofh9+dbes@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161676


> 
> Sarah:
> Yes, I hear circulation is way down on the New Testament now that
> everyone knows the ending.  :)  Seriously, I hear this argument all
> the time and I don't get it.  When I was a kid I would be more 
likely
> to read something if I found out everyone dies.  I loved Charlotte's
> Web, the Little Mermaid, all manner of gruesome Grimm tales, The 
Girl
> Who Trod on a Loaf, everything like that.  Kids like Harry Potter
> already, and already there are many gruesome deaths.  I don't know
> where these legion of soft children are that you're speaking for.

Julie:
Fairy tales are one thing, children's books are another. And
Charlotte's Web is not a valid analogy, since Charlotte is 
basically Dumbledore to Wilbur's Harry. Charlotte is the 
adult mentor, Wilbur the hero youth as it were. It's Charlotte
who taught and Wilbur who learned how to live. Charlotte died
because it was her time, because she had already lived a full
and meaningful life, NOT because she suddenly wanted to die.
The same with Dumbledore. 

Sarah wrote:
> The guy looked in a magical mirror that shows you whatever you want
> when he was eleven.  He basically saw the afterlife.  Each time he 
has
> faced death, he has welcomed it.  Especially in OOTP where he was 
all
> "Sweet, I'll get to be with Sirius again!"  Give him his heart's
> desire.
> 
> Sarah
>

Julie:
Wow. So JKR's message is if a teenager sees death/afterlife as
preferable to life, we should applaud that sentiment and even
rejoice when he is given (or chooses) his heart's desire. If
it's too hard to live, boys and girls, embrace death because
you'll get to see all your previously departed loved ones.
No need to work on improving your unhappy life when you can
just end it and get on with your reward. 

I realize that isn't exactly what you mean, and most teenagers
don't go through the trials Harry has, but many do lose parents
and friends, do feel depression and a desire to give up on life
in hopes of going to a better place. So why shouldn't they just
end it? Even if this isn't the message JKR intended, it's one
could be easily interpreted from this type of ending.

Not to mention, it rather ruins Harry's character. Yes, he 
embraced death in OotP when it seemed imminent. But if Harry
deliberately--and joyfully--sacrifices himself to take out
Voldemort, without making every effort to get Voldemort and
survive (which is a human instinct in all of us), do you really
think his parents, Sirius, Dumbledore et al, will embrace his
presence in the afterlife? Here they all gave up their lives
at different times just so Harry could LIVE, and he doesn't
hold onto that life with everything he has in him? And sorry,
Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Lupin, the Weasleys who love him like
family, etc, but he really doesn't miss you, he's busy with 
his reward and really, you were just holding him back!

Okay, I admit I hate, hate, HATE the idea of Harry merrily
dancing his way into the afterlife, and I hate even more
the concept of those who died to keep him alive cheering
his presence there. I firmly believe they'd want Harry to
live, and to truly LIVE, without the constant threat of 
death and destruction hanging over his head. That would be
*their* greatest desire, what they'd see in the mirror--for 
Harry to have a regular life (something else Harry has also
wished for, except when Voldemort is torturing him nearly
to death). And don't they know better than some mercurial
teenager? ;-) 

Besides, if Harry still doesn't understand the value of 
his own life by Book 7 and won't save himself, then I know 
Snape will do it for him, teaching Harry a final life lesson 
in the process--and paying back that pesky life debt to James
in full! (You heard it here first.)

Julie, 99% convinced Harry will live, but if he doesn't, sure
he won't go be allowed to go quietly into that good night.





From elfundeb at gmail.com  Sun Nov 19 02:56:54 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 21:56:54 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snake Lore
In-Reply-To: <001f01c70941$13c1ca20$6601a8c0@happy5274c44ef>
References: <001f01c70941$13c1ca20$6601a8c0@happy5274c44ef>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0611181856hcba3609g4a5784ca955d0166@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161677

Pam wrote (quoting from Bullfinch's Mythology):

>   I would like to humbly share this with you and see if anyone thinks
> there's
> some major clues here:
>
> "There is an old saying tht everything has its enemy--and the (basilisk)
> quailed before the weasel. The basilisk might look daggers; the weasel
> cared not, but advanced boldly to the conflict. When bitten, the weasel
> retired for a moment to eat some rue, which was the only plant the
> basilisk
> could not wither, returned with renewed strength and soundness to the
> charge, and never left the enemy till he was stretched dead on the plain."
>
> And,
>
> "The basilisk was some use after death....its carcass was suspended in the
> temple...and in private houses, as a sovereign remedy against spiders."
>

Debbie:
This is good stuff, isn't it?

Pam:
>
>   I am not sure if this means anything, but surely JKR is aware of this
> text,
> because we've seen some of it already in CoS, but if the theory that
> Nagini
> is making Voldemort come back more snake-like than human holds, backed up
> by
> JKR's 2002 comments, then we have set ups for mirrors, battles, a plant
> that
> the basilisk can't kill, eaten by a Weasel for strength, and who survives
> the battle.
>

Debbie:
I first connected this to HP back in 2002 (no connection to JKR's comments,
which I've never heard before) and concluded that the Weasleys (who I
thought were named for the weasel) would have a substantial role in
Voldemort's defeat.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38397

I had concluded that Arthur's survival of the snake attack against him in
OOP vindicated this line of thinking.  Rue has long been considered a
magical antidote, and I'd always assumed that was the remedy Healer
Smethwyck had found that finally cured the snake's wounds.

Pam wrote:

>   And finally, there is a passage in Bullfinch's that describes
> the death of the basilisk: "...a certain holy man, going to a fountain in
> the desert, suddenly beheld a basilisk. He immediately raised his eyes to
> heaven, and with a pious appeal to the Deity laid the monster dead at his
> feet."
>

Debbie:
Harry, with his purity of heart, will surely play the part of the holy man
in the desert.  And for those who think Harry will die, there is an
additional legend in Bullfinch's that if a basilisk was killed "by a spear
from on horseback the power of the poison conducted through the weapon
killed not only the rider, but the horse also."  This legend suggests that
Harry isn't simply going to try to kill Voldemort.

 Ceridwen wrote:
And, I would also say that Harry would be 'the weasel' here, not one
of the Weasleys. The weasel doesn't care about the basilisk's deadly
stare or poisonous fangs, but goes straight into the fray. When he
needs to regroup, he takes rue and immediately returns to the fight.
Rue is an herb, but the verb 'to rue' means to regret. Harry has
regrets in the different books, but he gets over them and returns to
fight. The weasel defeats the basilisk, it is Harry's prophesied
destiny to either defeat LV or be defeated by him. In other words,
it is his unique job in the WW to defeat LV, no one else's. So the
weasel would have to be Harry if the basilisk is LV. In my opinion,
of course.

Debbie:
Bullfinch's describes several different basilisk legends, as the basilisk is
not a single creature like a minotaur, for example.  The old man killing the
basilisk is a different legend applicable to a different basilisk than the
weasel tales.  Also, the weasel legend states only that the weasel will not
rest until the basilisk is dead, not that the weasel will kill the
basilisk.  If one considers the 'weasel' to be symbolized by the Weasley
family as a whole, I think it's fair to state that they will collectively
not rest until Voldemort is vanquished.  They have taken the rue and they
are ready to return to the fight.

When the dust has settled, I think we'll find Voldemort vanquished by 'holy
man' (whose purity of heart allows him to appeal to Fawkes, a symbol of the
deity) with the assistance of 'weasel' Ron (who has proven himself brave and
willing to sacrifice, so that he might be considered to have "advanced
boldly to the conflict") and Hermione (who has already used the mirror trick
mentioned in Bullfinch's in self-defense); thus, the three of them embody
all three legends that Bullfinch's (and Pam) mentions.

Any ideas on where the fountain in the desert might be?

Debbie


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




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 19 04:05:38 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 04:05:38 -0000
Subject: Snake Lore
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0611181856hcba3609g4a5784ca955d0166@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ejol6i+2f4t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161678

Debbie:
> When the dust has settled, I think we'll find Voldemort vanquished
> by 'holy man' (whose purity of heart allows him to appeal to Fawkes,
> a symbol of the deity) with the assistance of 'weasel' Ron (who has 
> proven himself brave and willing to sacrifice, so that he might be 
> considered to have "advanced boldly to the conflict") and Hermione 
> (who has already used the mirror trick mentioned in Bullfinch's in
> self-defense); thus, the three of them embody all three legends that 
> Bullfinch's (and Pam) mentions.

>Any ideas on where the fountain in the desert might be?


Jen: This is fascinating. I think the fountain in the desert would be 
the Room of Love.  Dumbledore described the room as containing a 
force 'at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human 
intelligence, than the forces of nature."  Love to the parched soul is 
like water to the parched man in the desert.  And what could be more 
terrible than discovering the longed-for water is a mirage or that 
love is an illusion? 

I can't think of another possibility from the places Harry has been 
and JKR said pretty clearly he'd visited everywhere he needed to in 
order to complete the story.  I think the Veil Room was more important 
for the end of OOTP, although I could see Harry and Voldemort starting 
there and ending up in the Room of Love. 

Jen, hoping Pam has a good holiday in spite of the hard times. :-)





From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca  Sun Nov 19 05:54:53 2006
From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 05:54:53 -0000
Subject: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <egkb22+igf4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejorjd+3a06@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161679

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alig1528" <alig1528 at ...> wrote:
>
> Everyone probably already knows this, but the release date of
> the seventh book is 07/07/07. So many things came into my mind
> when I heard that. First, and most obvious, it is the 7th book.
> Second, Voldemort made 7 horcruxes. Also, Voldemort said that
> 7 is the most powerful magical number. Harry was born in July,
> the 7th month of the year. There are 7 players on a quidditch
> team. JK Rowling definitely planned this date for the reasons
> I have stated and probably countless others. Has anyone found
> more sevens?
> 
> alig1528
>

Shaunie:

There are 7 secret passages into Hogwarts:

"There are seven in all. Now, Filch knows about these four-" he 
pointed them out, "-but we're sure we're the only ones who know 
about /these/."

...another obvious one: 7 years of magical education before graduation 
(from Hogwarts, at least)






From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca  Sun Nov 19 06:20:05 2006
From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (Shaunette Reid)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 06:20:05 -0000
Subject: Request  (Harry live or die?).
In-Reply-To: <egebiv+2uff@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejot2l+ctnu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161680

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" 
<eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
> 
> > [There are far worse fates in life
> > than a noble heroic death.] 
> 
> Like Harry growing old, developing a pot belly,male pattern 
baldness,
> and boring children to death by repeating stories from his youth 
they
> have all heard a thousand times before, and with nothing to look
> forward to but bowling with Ron on Thursdays. Better to go out in a
> blaze of glory. The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as
> long, and Harry's flame is bright indeed. Harry will live fast, die
> young and leave a good looking corpse.
> 
>  Eggplant
>

I dunno, Dumbledore was one bright flame, and yet, he was certainly 
old! No pot belly, no baldness, not a boring bone in his body! 
Harry doesn't need to die young to have a terrific legacy. 
I think that, seeing as going out in a "blaze of glory" was 
Dumbledore's thing, Harry (or rather, Harry's story) will have a 
very different end from that of the White Bumblebee.

-Shaunie, who is still hundreds of posts behind in her reading...  






From scarah at gmail.com  Sun Nov 19 06:37:59 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2006 22:37:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <ejofh9+dbes@eGroups.com>
References: <3202590611180333q55e11cbr31c71be82b2a45b2@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ejofh9+dbes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611182237t11513ac9n529bdf6ff6a487c6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161681

Julie:
> Fairy tales are one thing, children's books are another.

Sarah:
Are they?  What is the distinction?  Harry Potter even has fairies in it.

Julie:
> Charlotte's Web is not a valid analogy, since Charlotte is
> basically Dumbledore to Wilbur's Harry.

Sarah:
Conceded, but I was rambling off a list of some things I enjoyed as a
child that contain character death and bad things happening to people
(or farm animals/arachnids).  My point was that the genre of
children's literature does not dictate perfect, blissful, fluffy
endings.

Julie:
> Wow. So JKR's message is if a teenager sees death/afterlife as
> preferable to life, we should applaud that sentiment and even
> rejoice when he is given (or chooses) his heart's desire. If
> it's too hard to live, boys and girls, embrace death because
> you'll get to see all your previously departed loved ones.
> No need to work on improving your unhappy life when you can
> just end it and get on with your reward.

Sarah:
I never figured Harry for a suicide risk, I think he will go down
fighting.  In the examples we have so far of him accepting his
imminent death, this is always the case.

Do you think his life is unhappy?  I don't.  Perhaps it was before age
11, but in the years since then he's grown to be vibrant, motivated,
clever, accomplished and surrounded by successful relationships.  More
than a lot of people get to do in 80 years.

Julie:
> So why shouldn't they just
> end it? Even if this isn't the message JKR intended, it's one
> could be easily interpreted from this type of ending.

Sarah:
But by "ending it," do they have the option to save the entire world
the way that Harry will be doing if he is fatally wounded during his
mission of utmost importance?

Julie:
> Not to mention, it rather ruins Harry's character. Yes, he
> embraced death in OotP when it seemed imminent. But if Harry
> deliberately--and joyfully--sacrifices himself to take out
> Voldemort, without making every effort to get Voldemort and
> survive (which is a human instinct in all of us), do you really
> think his parents, Sirius, Dumbledore et al, will embrace his
> presence in the afterlife?

Sarah:
A few points here.  I don't know about "joyfully."  "Acceptingly"
perhaps.  The way he was in OotP, or in GoF when he wanted to die
facing the enemy like his father, or in CoS when he tries to put his
affairs in order to the best of his ability in the time he has left.

Of course he will make his best effort to both defeat Voldemort and
survive.  Both simply may not be possible, and if he must choose...
(not that he may get a choice at all).

(More on the glorious dead below...)

Julie:
> Here they all gave up their lives
> at different times just so Harry could LIVE, and he doesn't
> hold onto that life with everything he has in him?

Sarah:
Dumbledore did not give up his life to save Harry.  Dumbledore gave up
his life to advance his strategy to destroy Voldemort.  A death that
is worthy of the hero Dumbledore is surely worthy of the hero Harry.

I'm sure Sirius wasn't thinking "I'd like to die today" but he went
down fighting evil, which Dumbledore says he would have wanted.  I
think Harry would rather die with his boots on, as well.

And now, Harry's parents.  Consider the way the first war ended.  If
it weren't for the Horcruxes, the first Voldemort war would have been
the only Voldemort war, and we'd be reading "Lily Potter and the..."
I believe this, the first thing in the series, is one of the most
powerful motifs and must be mirrored at the end in some way for
symmetry.

Julie:
> And sorry,
> Ron, Hermione, Ginny, Lupin, the Weasleys who love him like
> family, etc, but he really doesn't miss you, he's busy with
> his reward and really, you were just holding him back!

Sarah:
But who's to say any of them won't be toast as well by that point?
It's a war, people gotta die.

Julie:
> Okay, I admit I hate, hate, HATE the idea of Harry merrily
> dancing his way into the afterlife, and I hate even more
> the concept of those who died to keep him alive cheering
> his presence there.

Sarah:
Again, I don't know about "merrily dancing."  But I do think that
Harry will be successful in his endeavor, and he'll be welcomed as a
hero wherever he goes, including behind the veil.  If the other dead
people wanted him to live longer, there's not much they can do about
it is there?  I think they'll be happy to be reunited with him whether
he's 18 or 80.

Julie:
> I firmly believe they'd want Harry to
> live, and to truly LIVE, without the constant threat of
> death and destruction hanging over his head.

Sarah:
This may be where we differ.  I think Harry is living now.  I think
he's got a lot on his mind, but I don't think his life is some
oppressive burden.  I think he already gets a lot of enjoyment from
his relationships and adventures and successes.  If he survives the
war, he wants to be an Auror.  Being an Auror is not exactly sitting
on the porch drinking lemonade.  His dreams are to fight evil and have
drama and battles and conflict.  So, he won't be missing out on too
much if he goes taking out the darkest wizard in a hundred years.

Julie:
> Besides, if Harry still doesn't understand the value of
> his own life by Book 7 and won't save himself, then I know
> Snape will do it for him, teaching Harry a final life lesson
> in the process--and paying back that pesky life debt to James
> in full! (You heard it here first.)

Sarah:
Heh.  I actually believe Snape will be the one to (inadvertently)
deliver the mortal wound to Harry.  He'll be trying to help at the
time, though.

Sarah



From Aixoise at snet.net  Sun Nov 19 12:53:48 2006
From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 07:53:48 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <ejorjd+3a06@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b801c70bd9$c1a281d0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161682

"alig1528" <alig1528 at ...> wrote:
>
> Everyone probably already knows this, but the release date of
> the seventh book is 07/07/07.  <snip>

Stacey responds:

I've always hoped for a 07/07/07 release date but do we "know" that for
sure?  It's not on JK's site (that I've seen) nor on Dark Mark or Mugglenet.
As far as I can tell, it's still rumored.

Still hopeful though,

Stacey



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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Nov 19 13:20:01 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:20:01 -0000
Subject: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <ejorjd+3a06@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejplm1+ppic@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161683

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaunette Reid" <strawberryshaunie at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alig1528" <alig1528@> wrote:
> >
> > Everyone probably already knows this, but the release date of
> > the seventh book is 07/07/07. So many things came into my mind
> > when I heard that. First, and most obvious, it is the 7th book.
> > Second, Voldemort made 7 horcruxes. Also, Voldemort said that
> > 7 is the most powerful magical number. Harry was born in July,
> > the 7th month of the year. There are 7 players on a quidditch
> > team. JK Rowling definitely planned this date for the reasons
> > I have stated and probably countless others. Has anyone found
> > more sevens?
> > 
> > alig1528
> >
> 
> Shaunie:
> 
> There are 7 secret passages into Hogwarts:
> 
> "There are seven in all. Now, Filch knows about these four-" he 
> pointed them out, "-but we're sure we're the only ones who know 
> about /these/."
> 
> ...another obvious one: 7 years of magical education before graduation 
> (from Hogwarts, at least)


Geoff:
This topic surfaced last in the middle of October with alig528's post quoted above. At 
least a  couple of us replied at that time and I commented that, to my knowledge, there 
had been NO official statement about Book 7 appearing on 07/07/07; the only firm 
forward date seems to be that of the HP5 film which is scheduled for 13/07/07.

Perhaps, of I am wrong, someone can point me to such an announcement.

I also think that some members are trying to make sevens out of everything. Taking the 
education comment above, in any UK secondary school which has stayed with the 
"traditional" transfer at 11+ and therefore has a First Year (Year 7) upwards, anyone 
staying until the end of Sixth Form before they leave will complete seven years of senior 
schooling. So what do we deduce from that?






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 19 14:40:22 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:40:22 -0000
Subject: Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <3202590611182237t11513ac9n529bdf6ff6a487c6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ejpqcm+6elt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161684

> Julie:
> > I firmly believe they'd want Harry to
> > live, and to truly LIVE, without the constant threat of
> > death and destruction hanging over his head.
> 
> Sarah:
> This may be where we differ.  I think Harry is living now.  I think
> he's got a lot on his mind, but I don't think his life is some
> oppressive burden.  I think he already gets a lot of enjoyment from
> his relationships and adventures and successes.  If he survives the
> war, he wants to be an Auror.  Being an Auror is not exactly 
sitting
> on the porch drinking lemonade.  His dreams are to fight evil and 
have
> drama and battles and conflict.  So, he won't be missing out on too
> much if he goes taking out the darkest wizard in a hundred years.
>

Alla:

I am snipping the whole discussion since I am in complete agreement 
with Julie, but wanted to add something about Harry is living now. I 
believe that JKR also thinks that Harry is not truly living now, and 
if Prophecy indeed relates to Harry, then neither can live while the 
other survives may support this.

If one has the burden to save the world and himself from the maniac, 
I do not think he has the lugury to live fully, to enjoy life, etc.

He could not even enjoy relationship with Ginny, he broke up with 
her in his mind, because that would be putting her in danger. If 
sixteen year old has to think that his girlfriend can be killed if 
they continue their relationship, how is that can be called truly 
living the life?

At least not in my opinion.

Oh, and I am also betting that if Harry survives, he would not be an 
Auror, I believe he would feel that he had enough dark wizards 
hunting.

Again IMO.


Alla, who believes and want to see Harry survive and live long happy 
life besides the pages of the book, whether we see it or not. :)





From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 19 17:09:57 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:09:57 -0000
Subject: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <ejplm1+ppic@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejq355+glk2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161685

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaunette Reid" 
<strawberryshaunie@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alig1528" <alig1528@> 
wrote:
> > >
> > > Everyone probably already knows this, but the release date of
> > > the seventh book is 07/07/07. So many things came into my mind
> > > when I heard that. First, and most obvious, it is the 7th book.
> > > Second, Voldemort made 7 horcruxes. Also, Voldemort said that
> > > 7 is the most powerful magical number. Harry was born in July,
> > > the 7th month of the year. There are 7 players on a quidditch
> > > team. JK Rowling definitely planned this date for the reasons
> > > I have stated and probably countless others. Has anyone found
> > > more sevens?
> > > 
> > > alig1528
> > >
> > 
> > Shaunie:
> > 
> > There are 7 secret passages into Hogwarts:
> > 
> > "There are seven in all. Now, Filch knows about these four-" he 
> > pointed them out, "-but we're sure we're the only ones who know 
> > about /these/."
> > 
> > ...another obvious one: 7 years of magical education before 
graduation 
> > (from Hogwarts, at least)
> 
Beatrice:
There are seven obstacles protecting the philosopher's stone in PS/SS 
(Fluffy, the devil's snare, the troll, the chess game, the flying 
keys, the logical potions, and the mirror.)
>






From kennclark at btinternet.com  Sun Nov 19 17:34:02 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:34:02 -0000
Subject: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <ejplm1+ppic@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejq4ia+g848@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161686

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>So what do we deduce from that?>

Ken says:  
Well, perhaps that we have been introduced to the location of a 
horcrux and the object it is within in every book?

Kenneth Clark






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 19 17:58:15 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:58:15 -0000
Subject: Potter family wealth - On the Nature of Elves
In-Reply-To: <ejnupe+amv8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejq5vn+tj6a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161687

---  "kat7555" <kat7555 at ...> wrote:
>
> I think Harry has a few good reasons for hiding his 
> wealth. ...Petunia and Vernon would try to steal it 
> .... He doesn't want money to become an issue between 
> himself and his friends. We know that the Weasleys 
> aren't rich and I'm not sure about the Grangers.
> 
> We know Harry has inheirited Kreacher from Sirius but 
> I'm sure Harry doesn't want him thanks to his role in 
> Sirius' death. Could Dobby leave Hogwarts to work for 
> Harry? I think Dobby would love to do so ...
> 
> kat7555
>

bboyminn:

All Harry has to do is ask, and I'm sure Dobby would 
jump at the chance. Further I predict that is exactly
what will happen. Let's face it, Kreacher is a pretty
much worthless house-elf; he doesn't clean and who 
would want that filthy unstable creature cooking for
them. 

So, once again, I predict that Dobby will join Harry 
at 12 Grimmauld Place, and help take care of things,
inclucing Harry.

At the moment I'm debating whether Dobby will just
show up and volunteer, or whether Harry will have 
to go to him and ask him. Either way it seems like
a natural progression of the story. 

Further, I have already predicted that the Dursley will
be staying at Grimmauld Place, and though Petunia might
be willing to do a little cleaning, Vernon and Dudley
expect to be waited on hand and foot. Plus they will
favor having frequent and sumptuous meals. Under those
circumstance, it would be convenient for Harry to have 
a real functioning house-elf around.

More predictions-

I predict Kreacher's death, sometimes I suspect by his
own hand, though I'm not willing to predict that aspect
of it. Kreacher is very old and generally useless, so I
don't see him long for this world. Actually, I had
previously assumed he would already be dead; can't get
them all right though.

Here is a prediction that is related but generally way off
the subject, none the less, I take this opportunity to
make it. I have always suspected that one of the aspects
of the house-elves subjugation was that they aren't able
to use their magic without specific permission from their
owner. Now, I'm not predicting magic - yes or no. But
permission is given for each specific spell an elf might
need to do his (or her) job; YES to cleaning and cooking
spells, but NO to offfensive and defensive spells; as an
example. 

That is one of the aspects the inhibits the Elves ability
to join in the fight against Voldemort. Consider the 
defense of Hogwarts. There are over 100 magically powerful
Elves there. That is like having a private army ready to 
be marshalled to defend the castle at a seconds notice. 
If only some one will reailize it and give the Elves 
permission to us any and all magic at their disposal and 
to use it at will in the defense of the castle and all 
its inhabitance.

I predict Harry, probably though Hermione or Dobby, will 
discover this, and realize its potential. Harry with 
McGonnagall will give the Hogwart's Elves this blanket 
open unresticted permission to use their magic, and at 
some point, having done so, will turn the tide of battle 
in favor of the good guys.

You heard it here first.

Steve/bboyminn





From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 19 18:06:48 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 19 Nov 2006 18:06:48 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/19/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1163959608.16.83545.m27@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161688


Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 19, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


Set up birthday reminders
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
 www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20061119/30d899f8/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 19 18:44:52 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:44:52 -0000
Subject: Fidelius/Priori Incantatem/Unforgiveables
In-Reply-To: <ejo4h4+rk7f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejq8n4+q1hs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161689

Carol earlier:
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161462>:
> 
> << (Yes, it's possible that he could have seen a note written to
> Dumbledore by PP in a disguised hand, but that's a pretty
far-fetched explanation for his knowledge, and JKR would have to find
some roundabout way to bring it into the plot. And why would PP have
told anybody [except LV] when the whole idea was to keep the Potters'
> whereabouts secret?) >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> I think James and Lily would want their location to be known to some
> people whom they trusted absolutely -- Sirius and probably
Dumbledore and maybe Hagrid, as well as PP -- so that these people
could visit and, well, bring them groceries. <big snip>

Carol again:
The Potters had only one week to live after they made Peter the SK.
Even if they wanted to tell Dumbledore (I can't see them wanting
Hagrid to know), they'd have to arrange for Peter to tell him, and he
in turn would have to figure out a way to do so without revealing his
identity. Polyjuice potion takes a month to brew, not to mention
having to collect one of the ingredients at the full moon, IIRC, and
an owl with a message could easily be intercepted. We know that DD
didn't know who the SK was (he thought it was Sirius Black). I take
that to mean he didn't know the Secret, either, and found it out only
when the Charm was broken. Otherwise, I don't see how he could have
known that the Potters were in danger or dead and Harry was alive. (to
repeat my own view very briefly, I think he had originally provided
the Potters their hiding place in Godric's Hollow, "forgot" the
location once the Fidelius Charm was placed on PP, and woke up
remembering it again when the Charm was broken. At the same time,
Snape woke up feeling pain in his Dark Mark, watched it disappear, and
ran to DD. Putting two and two together, they figured out what
happened, possibly with the aid of DD's instruments. With the charm
broken, DD could tell Hagrid that the hiding place had been in
Godric's Hollow and send him there to rescue Harry, with the
instruction not to turn him over to anyone else. (DD would anticipate
Sirius Black going there to claim the baby as his godfather and
definitely wouldn't want the supposed traitor to have him.)


Carol rsrlier:
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161513>:
> 
> << What if "Unforgiveable" means something more than a lifetime
> sentence to Azkaban (which would hardly serve as a deterrent after a
> person has cast one Unforgiveable). >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> You're assuming that law enforcement (DMLE) will always be able to
get evidence of that first Unforgiveable. 

Carol again:
Actually, no, I'm not. I'm only saying that the person who has cast an
Unforgiveable knowing that he has sentenced himself to Azkaban if he's
caught (either caught in the act or caught using Priori Incantatem on
his wand) will not hesitate to cast a second or third Unforgiveable.
Once you've cast one, you are in danger of a life sentence, so there's
nothing to deter you from taking the same chance again. (I did it once
and didn't get caught, and all I need is one to send me to Askaban, so
why not cast as many as I like until they catch me? Rather like an
American murderer who's shot one victim, knows he's up against a death
sentence if caught, so has nothing to deter him from killing again.)
Also, it appears that for certain personality types, certain
Unforgiveables are addictive. Bella *enjoys* casting Crucios, which is
why she's so good at it. Mulciber, the Imperius specialist, apparently
enjoyed controlling people, making them commit evil deeds as if they
were his puppets. I'm simply saying that once you've gotten past
whatever scruples or inhibitions that deter you from casting that
first Unforgiveable, fear of a life sentence to Askaban isn't going to
keep you from casting another one. If it did, there would be a lot
fewer Death Eaters, or at least the DEs would fling around a lot fewer
AKs and Crucios.

Catlady:
Maybe the only way to get evidence other than witness testimony is the
Prior Incantato spell, and maybe Prior Incantato can retrieve only the
most recent spell cast by that wand (not the same as the Prior
Incantatem effect). So there would be a narrow window to collect
evidence, only between the most recent Unforgiveable and the next tap
on a teapot to make the water boil or such. 

Carol again:
I don't think so. I think Prior Incantato gives you the last spell
cast and Priori Incantatem gives you all the spells a wand has cast,
up to the point where the judge or Auror casts Finite Incantatem to
stop the spell. Granted, that spell would have its limitations. I
think it can only been used once, and a savvy DE might use it on his
own wand if that's the case, or use someone else's wand or a spare
wand when he plans to commit a crime. But the MoM does monitor for
illegal spells; otherwise, they wouldn't have known about the murder
of the Riddles (and arrested Morfin, finding the evidence on his wand
because Tom Riddle had used it). But they wouldn't have been able to
trace Harry's failed Crucio in the MoM, even if it registered. They
would just know that someone had cast or tried to cast one (and the
one Bella cast on Neville would also have registered). I imagine that
the wands of all the arrested wizards were confiscated and tested. If
so, they must have found at least two Imperios on Lucius Malfoy's, in
which case, he won't be getting off on the charges of breaking and
entering the DoM any time soon.
 
Carol earlier:
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161633>:
> 
> << We know that Mad-Eye Moody only killed when he had to. We don't
> know that he used the AK when he did it, and I doubt that he ever
> resorted to Imperio or Crucio. >>
> 
Catlady:
> I agree. But is it really more ethical to kill (in self-defense) a
> criminal (who is resisting arrest) with a bullet or Accio'ing
> something to suffocate him, then to cast Imperius on him and order
him to surrender peaceably and come along?
>
Carol:
I suppose it's a matter of opinion (situational ethics). But if you're
an Auror, or a policeman, you know before you choose the career that
it will occasionally be necessary to kill someone who would otherwise
kill you. It would never (IMO) be ethical to compel him by violating
his mind and will, an option not available to RL policemen in any
case. (Stunning, however, is an option available to both, and I wonder
why Mad-Eye didn't choose it. Maybe Rosier was exceedingly good at
anticapting and deflecting spells, rather like Snape in HBP.)

At least Evan Rosier had the choice to fight and die in Voldemort's
service, which is better than forcing him to yield by violating his
mind. But Moody's reasons for killing him may have been more
practical, given that Imperius was authorized. Maybe Rosier could
resist the Imperius Curse. I prefer to think that Moody chose not to
use it because it was the weapon of the enemy, and I still think that
the use of Unforgiveables, even for a good cause, corrodes the soul
and leads to the temptation to use them again and again (witness
Bella, Barty Jr., and the DEs in Hogwarts in HBP).

Carol, wondering where the wizards who escaped from Azkaban got wands,
considering that their old ones must have been confiscated and
possibly broken when they were sent to Azkaban the first time





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 19 18:58:00 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:58:00 -0000
Subject: Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
In-Reply-To: <ejnupe+amv8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejq9fo+as5o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161690

kat7555 wrote:
>
> I think Harry has a few good reasons for hiding his wealth. I'm
> sure Petunia and Vernon would try to steal it from him if they knew
> about it. He doesn't want money to become an issue between himself
> and his friends. We know that the Weasleys aren't rich and I'm not
> sure about the Grangers.
<snip>

Carol responds:
Although Uncle Vernon seems interested in Harry's wealth ("He's
inherited a house?"), I don't see how the Dursleys would have any
right to Harry's property, especially since it would be covered by the
inheritance laws of the WW. Surely, it would be held in trust for
Harry rather than going to Harry's mother's sister and her husband
(especially given that they're Muggles).

As for the Grangers, I don't know how wealthy dentists are in the UK,
but in the US, they make good money. Certainly, the Grangers are
wealthy enough to buy Hermione very nice dress robes and to vacation
in France and go skiing in Switzerland, IIRC. I'd say they're
definitely well off.

And Harry, though you didn't mention him, can shrug off a
thousand-galleon prize (which I can understand his not wanting for
other reasons) saying that he doesn't need it. That's five thousand
pounds he gave away to the Twins without a second thought. So I'd say
Harry's "small fortune" is pretty extensive.

Carol, wishing she had that kind of money to give away





From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Sun Nov 19 18:19:43 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:19:43 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snake Lore
References: <001f01c70941$13c1ca20$6601a8c0@happy5274c44ef> <80f25c3a0611181856hcba3609g4a5784ca955d0166@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d901c70c07$494806f0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161691

> Debbie:
> And for those who think Harry will die, there is an
> additional legend in Bullfinch's that if a basilisk was killed "by a spear
> from on horseback the power of the poison conducted through the weapon
> killed not only the rider, but the horse also."  This legend suggests that
> Harry isn't simply going to try to kill Voldemort.


It seems to be that she already made use of this part with the real 
Basilisk- Harry, when plunging the Gryffindor sword into the Basilisk, was 
also poisoned at the same time by the fang. The poison was deadly and it 
would have killed him, if it were not for the presence of Fawkes. My son 
also points out that the "horse" is the diary, which the poisoned fang also 
destroyed. The diary is the thing that brought him to that spot (indirectly- 
leading him to Hagrid, which lead him to the spiders, then to the forest 
with Aragog, then to the knowledge of the girl killed, and then to the 
bathroom where she died, and to the entrance of the chamber).

Looking back, if JKR has already said that we have seen every location, then 
places like the Slytherin common room become more important. Rereading the 
early books, Harry's first mishap into Burgin and Burks shows us the 
vanishing cabinet, the Hand of Glory, the cursed necklace, and more that are 
important later. Just another reason to keep rereading the early books.

Shelley 






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 19 19:47:04 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:47:04 -0000
Subject: Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <3202590611182237t11513ac9n529bdf6ff6a487c6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ejqcbo+qudl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161692


Sarah wrote:
> I never figured Harry for a suicide risk, I think he will go down
> fighting.  In the examples we have so far of him accepting his
> imminent death, this is always the case.
> 
> Do you think his life is unhappy?  I don't.  Perhaps it was before
age 11, but in the years since then he's grown to be vibrant,
motivated, clever, accomplished and surrounded by successful
relationships.  More than a lot of people get to do in 80 years.

Carol responds:
Harry has moments when he's happy, mostly during Quidditch games and
during his brief relationship with Ginny in HBP (or so JKR tells us
rather than showing us). But his expressed desire is to be "just
Harry" and get rid of his celebrity status and the burdens of being
first the Boy who Lived and now the Chosen One. See his flare-up at
Ron when he hits him in the forehead to give him the scar he
supposedly wants. He'd trade lives with Ron in a second. 


> Sarah:
> A few points here.  I don't know about "joyfully."  "Acceptingly"
> perhaps.  The way he was in OotP, or in GoF when he wanted to die
> facing the enemy like his father, or in CoS when he tries to put his
> affairs in order to the best of his ability in the time he has left.
> 
> Of course he will make his best effort to both defeat Voldemort and
> survive.  Both simply may not be possible, and if he must choose...
> (not that he may get a choice at all).

Carol responds:
Certainly, he'll need to accept the possibility of death. He's already
done so. And he'll demonstrate the willingness to sacrifice himself as
his mother did, bringing the book full circle. But that doesn't mean
he has to die in the process. He's Harry, not Lily. The Boy who Lived,
the one who can defeat Voldemort. You may want him to die heroically,
but James did that. I'd much rather that he survived, and I'd be
willing to bet that more than half the adult fans and the vast
majority of child fans feel the same way.

> Sarah:
> Dumbledore did not give up his life to save Harry.  Dumbledore gave up
> his life to advance his strategy to destroy Voldemort.  A death that
> is worthy of the hero Dumbledore is surely worthy of the hero Harry.

Carol:
Actually, Dumbledore's death is rather pointless unless Harry triumphs
(though he was also, IMO, dying to save Draco and Snape). And Harry's
death would be pointless, period. It's his victory that counts. A
"worthy" death is better than a dishonorable death, but life, for most
of us, including Harry, is better than both.
> 
Sarah:
> I'm sure Sirius wasn't thinking "I'd like to die today" but he went
> down fighting evil, which Dumbledore says he would have wanted.  I
> think Harry would rather die with his boots on, as well.

Carol:
It's Hagrid who says that Sirius would have wanted to die fighting,
and Harry responds by saying that Sirius didn't want to die at all.
And look at the life *he* was living, trapped in his parents' horrible
house with Kreacher for company. Harry has a lot more than that to
live for, including his friends and Ginny and his ambition to be an
Auror. Once Harry is free of the burden of his destiny, he can be what
he wants to be, an ordinary wizard, especially if the death of
Voldemort takes away those unnatural powers (Parseltongue and whatever
else he inherited: I'm sure that possession, a power peculiar to
Voldemort in the HP books, is one of the powers transferred to Harry
and that he'll use it in Book 7).

Sarah:
> And now, Harry's parents.  Consider the way the first war ended.  If
> it weren't for the Horcruxes, the first Voldemort war would have
been  the only Voldemort war, and we'd be reading "Lily Potter and
the..." I believe this, the first thing in the series, is one of the
most powerful motifs and must be mirrored at the end in some way for
> symmetry.

Carol
As I said, we'll see the symmetry in Harry's willingness to sacrifice
himself. No need for Harry to die, too, to satisfy that particular
structural need.

> Sarah:
> But who's to say any of them won't be toast as well by that point?
> It's a war, people gotta die.

Carol:
People will certainly die, but if we want a bloodbath, we can watch
horror movies or play video games. A few deaths will move the reader
to tears. A bloodbath will leave the reader numb. I suspect that we'll
lose Hagrid and the Weasley Twins, along with a few people who are
mostly names and some baddies, such as Bella or Lucius. That's
sufficient, thank you. Tragedy becomes travesty if you push it too far.
> 
> Sarah:
> Again, I don't know about "merrily dancing."  But I do think that
> Harry will be successful in his endeavor, and he'll be welcomed as a
> hero wherever he goes, including behind the veil.  If the other dead
> people wanted him to live longer, there's not much they can do about
> it is there?  I think they'll be happy to be reunited with him
whether he's 18 or 80.

Carol:
As I said, I expect him to enter the Veil and come out again,
Orpheuslike. But he'll leave Eurydice, I mean Sirius, behind (or bring
his body out for burial, as foreshadowed with Cedric).

> Sarah:
<snip> I think Harry is living now.  I think he's got a lot on his
mind, but I don't think his life is some oppressive burden.  I think
he already gets a lot of enjoyment from his relationships and
adventures and successes.

Carol:
If he's living now, then the Prophecy has it all wrong: "Neither can
live while the other survives." As I understand it, Voldemort isn't
living because he's lost his humanity and most of his soul. Harry
isn't living because to the WW, the important thing about him is his
past and his scar, and now he's the Chosen One. In order to be a real
boy, I mean a normal young wizard, he has to get rid of that scar (or
at least the powers inside it and the connection to Voldemort) and the
burden of his destiny.

Sarah:
  If he survives the war, he wants to be an Auror.  Being an Auror is
not exactly sitting on the porch drinking lemonade.  His dreams are to
fight evil and have  drama and battles and conflict.  So, he won't be
missing out on too much if he goes taking out the darkest wizard in a
hundred years.

Carol:
Taking out Voldemort will make fighting other Dark wizards seem easy,
and he can do it using the usual methods, not the special powers that
make him Voldemort's nemesis. He and Ron will finally be on equal
terms. I think they'd both like that.

> Sarah:
> Heh.  I actually believe Snape will be the one to (inadvertently)
> deliver the mortal wound to Harry.  He'll be trying to help at the
> time, though.

Carol:

Oh, aagh. The last thing I want is for Snape to accidentally kill
Harry. He's already killed Dumbledore. That's enough of a burden for
him to carry. I'd much prefer for them to finally reach some sort of
understanding and for Harry to realize that he needs Snape's help at
some point in order to defeat Voldemort. IMO, Harry needs to forgive
him if he's going to use Love as a weapon against Voldemort (no, I
don't want him to forgive Voldemort!). Harry needs to love the WW
enough to be willing to die for it, but he has to overcome hatred and
the desire for revenge first. As for Snape, I want him to be redeemed,
if necessary a Boromir-style death, but preferably a chance to live
and use his talents for the good of the WW.

Carol, who understands that different readers have different
preferences, but definitely dosn't share yours





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 19 20:02:03 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:02:03 -0000
Subject: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <ejq4ia+g848@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejqd7r+nt3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161693

Geoff wrote:
> >So what do we deduce from that?> [Hogwarts has seven years just
like UK schools]
> 
> Ken says:  
> Well, perhaps that we have been introduced to the location of a 
> horcrux and the object it is within in every book?

Carol says:
An interesting idea if we count the first "Horcrux" we're introduced
to as Voldemort himself. (There are seven soul bits but only six
Horcruxes, assuming that they've all been created.} So SS/PS
introduces Voldemort, CoS gives us a Hogwarts Horcrux, GoF introduces
Nagini, but HBP introduces two locations, the Gaunt hovel and the
cave. That leaves three locations for the other four books. A good
thought, but it doesn't quite work out (unless we don't get any new
locations in Book 7).

So what other locations do we associate with Voldemort? I very much
doubt that there's a Horcrux at Godric's Hollow, which he would
associate with his defeat, and I can't think of any new Voldie
locations introduced in OoP. (The locket Horcrux will be probably be
in 12 GP, not a location associated with Voldie, who hid it or had
Bella hide it in the cave.) And the Riddle House, introduced in GoF,
probably hides Nagini.

Carol, not sure if she's contributed anything to the discussion but
pretty sure that Harry has already visited all the Horcrux locations 





From technomad at intergate.com  Sun Nov 19 20:13:20 2006
From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 14:13:20 -0600
Subject: Why Cruciatus?  (A question about Dear Bella)
Message-ID: <006201c70c17$28f8e5d0$d5510043@D6L2G391>

No: HPFGUIDX 161694

I was thinking about the whole "The Lestranges, with or without Barty Crouch 
Jr., tortured the Longbottoms into insanity to try to get the current 
location of Voldemort" scenario, and it occurred to me that Things Are Wrong 
with it.

For starters:  I can assume that the Lestranges (and, possibly, Barty) know 
all three of the Unforgivable Curses.  The Unforgivables are Crucio, Avada 
Kedavra..._and Imperius._  Very few people can fight off the Imperius Curse. 
By Barty's own account, he was kept under it for years by his dear father 
after Daddy snaked him out of Azkaban.  It took him _years_ for the curse to 
wear off (or for Daddy to begin to forget to renew it every so often).

So why, if the Lestranges were just after the current location of their Lord 
and Master, would they go to the risk of using Crucio, when they could just 
Imperius the Longbottoms and be a lot surer of getting the truth out of 
them?  I don't know about _you,_ but if I were being tortured, or even 
seriously threatened with torture, for information, I'd start lying like a 
cheap carpet---"Okay, okay, you big meanies, I'll talk!  Voldemort's 
currently in North Korea!"  And then watch as they ran off to P'yongyang.

If someone was to put me under the Imperius, OTOH, I wouldn't have any 
choice but to tell the truth.  That would remove the risk to my 
interrogators of me making something up to make them lay off me for a while, 
as well as leaving me undamaged.  Imperius, combined with a quick Memory 
Charm, would seem to be far more useful than Cruciatus, even without the 
factor of possibly damaging my mind so badly that I _couldn't_ tell them 
what they wanted to know.

So why did Bella, Rudy and Barty do what they did?  About the only thing I 
can think of is that they were mainly after payback---IOW, my old "Frank 
Longbottom was Judge Dredd On Acid!" theory.  We know that by the end of 
Vold War I, the Ministry was just about as ruthless as the DEs, and used a 
lot of the same tactics.

Comments? 




From MIKEDOVE2001 at YAHOO.COM  Sun Nov 19 18:25:29 2006
From: MIKEDOVE2001 at YAHOO.COM (mikedove2001)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:25:29 -0000
Subject: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <ejq4ia+g848@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejq7ip+nu8v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161695

> Ken says:
> Well, perhaps that we have been introduced to the location of a
> horcrux and the object it is within in every book?

Mike Says:
 Do you mean:
1) Voldemort or ?
2) Book
3) ?
4) Nagini
5) Locket
6) Ring and Cup ?
7) ?
  Mike







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 19 20:44:16 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:44:16 -0000
Subject: Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
In-Reply-To: <ejq9fo+as5o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejqfn0+fcjf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161696

kat7555 wrote:
> > I think Harry has a few good reasons for hiding his wealth. I'm 
sure Petunia and Vernon would try to steal it from him if they knew 
about it.

Carol responds:
> Although Uncle Vernon seems interested in Harry's wealth ("He's
inherited a house?"), I don't see how the Dursleys would have any
right to Harry's property, especially since it would be covered by the
inheritance laws of the WW. Surely, it would be held in trust for
Harry rather than going to Harry's mother's sister and her husband
(especially given that they're Muggles).

Ceridwen:
Wouldn't they have a right to a stipend to support Harry?  Not 
thousands of galleons, but a monthly check from the account, or from 
the WW for one of its own orphaned children?  Something for food, a 
portion of the rent or house payment, and clothing allowance?  They 
did not choose to have a second child, he was put on their doorstep.  
All of their meanness and pettiness aside, since I'm not even going 
to go into their many and varied faults, *any* family who takes in a 
parentless child usually gets something.  Why not them?

Ceridwen.





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sun Nov 19 21:25:14 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:25:14 -0600
Subject: Wandless magic
References: <ejqfn0+fcjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004a01c70c21$33f5a860$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161697

You know.. I was just sitting here pondering while knitting socks, and something came to mind..

When the kids were practising silent spells, Harry seemed to have a hard time.  Doesn't that seem strange that he woud have a hard time since he preformed it at least once in POA when he blew up Aunt Marge?

Seemingly insignificant to me at the time, but didn't he do it earlier in SS or COS when a door slammed shut behind him?

Seems that maybe Harry has more power when his anger emotion is running full steam..

Whatcha think?
Lana

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




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sun Nov 19 21:34:02 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:34:02 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potter family wealth (WAS Re: A journey "into...)
References: <ejqfn0+fcjf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005901c70c22$6ee08de0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161698

 
Ceridwen writes:

<snip> All of their meanness and pettiness aside, since I'm not even going 
to go into their many and varied faults, *any* family who takes in a 
parentless child usually gets something. Why not them?

Lana writes:

This is not always true.  I adopted my cousins daughter thru the state after her rights were removed and we got kinship care ($236.00 a month) for the first year.  Then it was gone.

My mother willingly took the same  cousins newest baby to take care of and she gets nothing.  And will get nothing.  When you willingly take a child, you are agreeing to treat the child like your own as well as financially supporting that child as your own.  Most states just feel you are doing your duty by family.  Family looks after family no matter the burden.

The only time money really comes into play is when there is a special needs issue the state needs to deal with.  Or if there is a need for it financially.  If you are poor or just getting by, then you may be entitled to some goverment help, but if you are well off or at least reasonable comfortable, the state figures you can deal with the extra cost.

Lana__

_ 

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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 19 21:41:24 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 16:41:24 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death /Potter family wealth - On the Nature of Elves
References: <ejofh9+dbes@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008d01c70c23$76d41e30$2380400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161699

 Julie:
> Wow. So JKR's message is if a teenager sees death/afterlife as
> preferable to life, we should applaud that sentiment and even
> rejoice when he is given (or chooses) his heart's desire. If
> it's too hard to live, boys and girls, embrace death because
> you'll get to see all your previously departed loved ones.
> No need to work on improving your unhappy life when you can
> just end it and get on with your reward.

Magpie:
I totally agree with you, but wanted to add one series where the main 
character(s) die without it seemingly being a problem with popularity is 
Narnia. An ending I do find really bizarre, but illustrating Lewis' own view 
of this world as the Shadowlands, with "real life" not starting until after 
death. (There's also books like Bridge to Terebithia, Old Yeller, Sadako and 
the Thousand Paper Cranes--death in general is a big theme for children's 
books, but not always of the main character.)

I don't think Harry's story supports that kind of ending, myself.  The book 
just isn't about death as much as, say, Tolkien's is. I mean, there's a lot 
of death in it, and one of the messages is not to fear death, but it doesn't 
seem to have put in the right foundation for Harry's death to me. Of course, 
if that's how it goes I might change my mind.

Steve:
All Harry has to do is ask, and I'm sure Dobby would jump at the chance. 
Further I predict that is exactly
what will happen. Let's face it, Kreacher is a pretty
much worthless house-elf; he doesn't clean and who
would want that filthy unstable creature cooking for
them.

So, once again, I predict that Dobby will join Harry
at 12 Grimmauld Place, and help take care of things,
inclucing Harry.

I predict Kreacher's death, sometimes I suspect by his own hand, though I'm 
not willing to predict that aspect of it. Kreacher is very old and generally 
useless, so I don't see him long for this world. Actually, I had previously 
assumed he would already be dead; can't get them all right though.

Magpie:
I can't help but be a little amused at your continually calling Kreacher 
useless given how much he affected the plot. Seems to me he's more 
rebellious and often depressed than useless. (Also it keeps making me think 
of the Black ancestor who beheaded house elves when they got too old to 
carry tea trays.) Underestimating Kreacher was a bad thing to do in OotP. He 
seems like he'd be more useful to the Blacks.

Harry himself called Kreacher, not Dobby, to do work for him in HBP--which 
was kind of surprising. I can't get over Harry the slaveowner. Basically 
he's got the choice between Kreacher who is a slave but doesn't act like 
one, and Dobby who isn't an actual slave but acts like one. (And Hermione 
having no problem with Kreacher whatsoever, somehow.)

However, I'm hoping there's no more cleaning to be done at Grimmauld 
Place--I had quite enough of the never-ending housecleaning in OotP and 
would hope Molly had finished by now. (In fact, that housecleaning might get 
them into trouble re: that Slytherin locket.) Harry's a healthy 17-year-old 
boy-it's not like he needs a personal valet or a slave. But then, I'm also 
hoping we don't get the Dursleys at Grimmauld Place since I don't yet see 
the point of it except an extended Ton-Tongue Toffee incident after we 
probably already get Ron and Hermione inviting themselves to stay on Privet 
Drive for the summer. JKR's got a lot of stuff to deal with in Book VII. I 
don't see how teasing the Dursleys gets that done. The only main thing that 
seems important for them to do is reveal whatever it is Petunia knows.

-m 





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 19 21:38:52 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:38:52 -0000
Subject: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <ejqd7r+nt3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejqitc+ohdg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161700

> > Ken says:  
> > Well, perhaps that we have been introduced to the location of a 
> > horcrux and the object it is within in every book?
 
Carol says:
> An interesting idea if we count the first "Horcrux" we're 
> introduced to as Voldemort himself. (There are seven soul bits but
> only six Horcruxes, assuming that they've all been created.} So 
> SS/PS introduces Voldemort, CoS gives us a Hogwarts Horcrux, GoF
> introduces Nagini, but HBP introduces two locations, the Gaunt 
> hovel and the cave. That leaves three locations for the other four 
> books. A good thought, but it doesn't quite work out (unless we
> don't get any new locations in Book 7).

Jen:  A location in each book doesn't work out perfectly, no.  Well, 
except both the locket and the diary were taken over by someone else 
and were out of Voldemort's control, so JKR might count Grimmauld 
Place as the OOTP location (and the diary ended up where it belonged 
so that would count).  POA is the hardest to think of a location.  
Hogsmeade connection? Shrieking Shack?  We don't know of a 
Voldermort connection to these places.  He left his 'friends' at the 
Hog's Head the night he requested a job at Hogwarts, but that was a 
defeat for him.  And it's a public place which isn't his pattern so 
far. 

Carol:
> So what other locations do we associate with Voldemort? I very much
> doubt that there's a Horcrux at Godric's Hollow, which he would
> associate with his defeat, and I can't think of any new Voldie
> locations introduced in OoP. (The locket Horcrux will be probably
> be in 12 GP, not a location associated with Voldie, who hid it or
> had Bella hide it in the cave.) And the Riddle House, introduced 
> in GoF, probably hides Nagini.

Jen: Even if the orphange is still around it's a place Voldemort 
detested.  Borgin & Burkes gave him the opportunity to start 
collecting treasures but the risk is high because Voldemort would 
have had to enchant the Horcrux for people to pass over it and it's 
a public place (not his pattern, again).  The Room of Requirement is 
a possibility, people have suggested the tiara.  St. Mungos doesn't 
seem likely as there's not a connection we know of.  

What about the MOM?  The DOM is not exactly a public place and 
Voldemort would get a thrill out of hiding a Horcrux right under the 
nose of the WW establishment.  Plus he knows how to get into the DOM 
without anyone knowing he's there.  Which room though, and what 
protections are on the Horcrux so no one can discover it?  And if 
the last Horcrux is in the DOM there's even more evidence the final 
showdown will be there as well.

Jen R., wondering how many chapters will be devoted to the grand 
finale. 





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Nov 19 22:56:12 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:56:12 -0000
Subject: Snape and Karkaroff
Message-ID: <ejqnec+n923@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161702

It's interesting reading the earler HP books now, after HBP. I'm 
listening to GoF on CD, and have just heard chapter 23, The Yule 
Ball. Ron and Harry have just walked outside:

>>Snape is speaking,
"...don't see what there is to fuss about, Igor."
"Severus, you cannot pretend this isn't happening!" Karkaroff's voice 
sounded anxious and hushed as though keen not to be overheard. "It's 
been getting clearer and clearer for months. I am becoming seriously 
concerned, I can't deny it--"
"Then flee," said Snape's voice curtly. "Flee--I will make your 
excuses. I, however, am remaining at Hogwarts."<<<

I know we've discussed this before. But reading this situation after 
having read HBP, things seem different. Is this DE!Karkaroff speaking 
to DE!Snape? Is this DD-redeemed!Karkaroff speaking to DDM!Snape. 
Regardless of who Snape is, who is he pretending to be in this scene?

It crossed my mind that Snape, who told Bella he stayed at Hogwarts 
to be of use to LV, may be playing that game with Karkaroff. I wonder 
if Karkaroff was at Drumstrang on LV's orders? Could he have been 
there before he was captured by Moody? 

I always thought that Snape was saying he would stay at Hogwarts near 
DD's protection, as if Karkaroff should do that too. But now I'm not 
so sure. It sounds more like Snape is saying he will stay at his post 
until he hears from LV.

Potioncat, who smiles at Igor Karkaroff because my son says the name 
as, "Icky Cockroach"





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 19 23:13:41 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:13:41 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <03e001c70ae0$e09dab90$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ejqof5+6lfl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161703

Shelley wrote: 
 
> I doubt very much that the wand can only work if you use your 
> dominant hand, and that holding it with your off hand in time of 
> need somehow dispels all that ability that you possess as a 
> wizard, so I think your theory doesn't hold up. If we need Cannon 
> to support this, wasn't there scenes in the MOM where Neville held 
> his  wand in his off hand when he was injured? I don't have my book 
> in front of me, but it seems to me there is at least one scene 
> where a wizard is forced to use their off hand due to injury.


zanooda:

I don't remember this about Neville, but I can give you at least one 
example when magic is done by a wand in an off hand. Remember, when 
DD had to cut his hand so that he and Harry could enter the cave? He 
cut "the forearm of his injured hand" ("The cave", p. 559 US 
hardcover), which is his right(wand) hand. On the next page DD heals 
the wound by "passing the tip of his wand over the deep cut...". To 
heal the wound on his right (wand) hand he only could hold the wand 
in his left (off) hand. Hope it helps.





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Nov 19 23:23:37 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:23:37 -0000
Subject: Sevens.
In-Reply-To: <ejqd7r+nt3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejqp1p+m7k3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161704

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

Geoff:
> > >So what do we deduce from that?>

Carol:
[Hogwarts has seven years just like UK schools]

Ken:
> > Well, perhaps that we have been introduced to the location of a
> > horcrux and the object it is within in every book?

Geoff:
I'm making the point that the school has seven years in its structures 
as have a large percentage of UK schools. To suggest that this fits 
into this "sevens" fixation seems to be grasping at straws to make
information fit the pattern.

You may gather that I am somewhat underwhelmed by the idea. It
seems to be harking back to the alchemical theories which have been
bounced around in the past and, since JKR and I both profess to
be Christians, I harbour grave suspicions about them.





From rovena at softdisk.com  Sun Nov 19 21:52:37 2006
From: rovena at softdisk.com (Rovena)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 15:52:37 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wandless magic
In-Reply-To: <004a01c70c21$33f5a860$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
References: <ejqfn0+fcjf@eGroups.com> <004a01c70c21$33f5a860$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <4560D225.5070706@softdisk.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161705

Lana wrote:

><snip>
>Seems that maybe Harry has more power when his anger emotion is running full steam..
>
>Whatcha think?
>
Rovena writes:
When Harry or anyone is angry they are not plagued by self-doubt.  
Sitting in a class trying to doing something is very different from 
doing something "in the heat of the moment".  Very different level of 
energy.  Same principle of a person doing ordinary feat of strength to 
save another that they normally wouldn't be able to do. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 00:25:51 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:25:51 -0000
Subject: Snape and Karkaroff
In-Reply-To: <ejqnec+n923@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejqsmf+1nsb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161706

Potioncat wrote:
<snip>
> "Then flee," said Snape's voice curtly. "Flee--I will make your 
> excuses. I, however, am remaining at Hogwarts."<<<
> 
> I know we've discussed this before. But reading this situation after 
> having read HBP, things seem different. Is this DE!Karkaroff
speaking to DE!Snape? Is this DD-redeemed!Karkaroff speaking to
DDM!Snape. 
> Regardless of who Snape is, who is he pretending to be in this scene?
> 
> It crossed my mind that Snape, who told Bella he stayed at Hogwarts 
> to be of use to LV, may be playing that game with Karkaroff. I
wonder if Karkaroff was at Drumstrang on LV's orders? Could he have
been there before he was captured by Moody? 
> 
> I always thought that Snape was saying he would stay at Hogwarts
near DD's protection, as if Karkaroff should do that too. But now I'm
not so sure. It sounds more like Snape is saying he will stay at his
post until he hears from LV. <snip>

Carol responds:
I think your first instinct is correct, only I always read it as an
act of courage and loyalty on Snape's part rather than the desire for
DD's protection, whereas Karkaroff is clearly a coward. "Flee, then!
Flee!" to me shows Snape's contempt, and "I will make your excuses" is
just "Don't worry. I'll cover up for you."

Karkaroff is clearly terrified of Voldemort and the DEs he betrayed
(even though only one, Rookwood, actually was arrested because of
him). I doubt very much that he's at Hogwarts on Voldemort's orders;
Dumbledore invited him as part of his attempt to unite the three
schools against Voldemort. Voldemort refers to him in the graveyard
scene (not by name, but who else can he mean?) as a coward who must be
punished (as he certainly is--killed within a year). And Karkaroff
flees the moment he's summoned by the Dark Mark after Harry and Cedric
disappear from the TWT.

So I seriously doubt that Snape is posing as a loyal DE for Karkaroff.
I think that Karkaroff appeals to him for help for the opposite
reason; he knows (as, I think, does Barty Jr.) that Snape is loyal to
Dumbledore. And I think that Barty has mentioned where Snape's
loyalties lie in his communications with LV (the eagle owl, remember?).

Of course, Snape explains it all away after he "returns" to Voldemort,
but I see no reason why he'd pretend to be a loyal DE for Karkaroff's
benefit since Igor is a traitor himself.

Carol, who hopes this is coherent as she's in a hurry





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 01:42:01 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:42:01 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's death and Harry (WAS:Re: Snape didn't make etc.)
Message-ID: <20061120014201.80726.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161707

"Lana" <unicornspride@ ...> wrote:

<snip>   There is always the chance that DD created a "diary" without 

the soul much like LV did.  Or he could have already taken most of the 

important memories he had and put them in the penseive (sp?) for 

Harrys use.  There is also the thought that DD could have transferred 

some of himself into the Harry on the tower without Harry knowing.  If 

LV could have his powers transferred in the backfire curse, it is 

possible for one to intentionally do it.  It is early in the grief 

process and Harry quite possibly doesn't realize the transfer yet.

>   Then again, it is also possible that Harry will have been pushed 

over the edge by the death of DD that he will realize the full extent 

of the powers and knowledge he gained from LV.<snip>



Charles:


<snip> ...Snape immediately tells DD of the 

vow and it's possible repercussions, intending to die rather than 

carry out the murder of DD. DD, on the other hand being "somewhat more 

clever" sees the opportunity to extend to Harry protection much like 

Lily did. JKR has told us that Aberforth will figure into book 7, so 

what if this means that Harry cannot be harmed while Aberforth is 

around (where DD's blood is...)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremiah:

I don't think DD's blood has anything to do with Harry's protection by DD. The "blood" issue has to do with ancient magic that is within each of us... the bond between parent and child and, as demonstrated by Petunia, resides in a family line. It is represented in "blood traitor" and "mudblood" as terms of family heritage.

I feel DD had a lot of magical protections placed on Harry and it's possible that, since some magic does not dissipate when a wizard/witch is dead, there are things that will linger over Harry (besides brooding and his imminent death as fortold by Trelawny. LOL. I love that character). I'm not sure if JKR said Aberforth factors into Book 7 but I have a feeling he will regardless of that lack of info on my part. And I think if there is some message or journal, object or potion (what have you) it will be Aberfoth that brings it forward.




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




From elfundeb at gmail.com  Mon Nov 20 01:40:35 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:40:35 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Cruciatus? (A question about Dear Bella)
In-Reply-To: <006201c70c17$28f8e5d0$d5510043@D6L2G391>
References: <006201c70c17$28f8e5d0$d5510043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0611191740x1848fde3ub8cc4ea20756bf87@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161708

On 11/19/06, Eric Oppen <technomad at intergate.com> wrote:

>   So why, if the Lestranges were just after the current location of their
> Lord
> and Master, would they go to the risk of using Crucio, when they could
> just
> Imperius the Longbottoms and be a lot surer of getting the truth out of
> them? I don't know about _you,_ but if I were being tortured, or even
> seriously threatened with torture, for information, I'd start lying like a
>
> cheap carpet---"Okay, okay, you big meanies, I'll talk! Voldemort's
> currently in North Korea!" And then watch as they ran off to P'yongyang.
>

Debbie:
I'll take the easy question first.  I'll bet Frank is a rotten liar.  When
have we caught Neville in a lie?  He doesn't even try.  Not even when
self-interest would dictate that he conceal the truth, like the password
episode in PoA.  Like father, like son.


Eric Oppen:


>   If someone was to put me under the Imperius, OTOH, I wouldn't have any
> choice but to tell the truth. That would remove the risk to my
> interrogators of me making something up to make them lay off me for a
> while,
> as well as leaving me undamaged. Imperius, combined with a quick Memory
> Charm, would seem to be far more useful than Cruciatus, even without the
> factor of possibly damaging my mind so badly that I _couldn't_ tell them
> what they wanted to know.
>

Debbie:
This is an old argument.  Very old.  Back before the dawn of time the
argument was made, and I objected:

IMO someone can be forced to talk, i.e. words can
be put in the victim's mouth, but I don't think you can point your wand at
someone, say "Imperio" and "tell the truth!" Crouch Jr. states, "I kept him
alive, under the Imperius Curse. I wanted to be able to question him. . . .
I also needed his hair to make the Polyjuice Potion." I read this sentence
to mean that Crouch needed to keep Moody alive and that he used Imperius to
control him and keep him from getting out of the trunk. I don't think this
statement means that Crouch used Imperius to force the truth out of Moody.
Instead, I think Crouch used Ennervate when he wanted to talk to Moody, and
perhaps Veritaserum (he had access to Snape's storeroom) to get truthful
answers when he needed them.>>

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38981

I backpedaled on the Veritaserum part, but I'm still not convinced that
Imperius can be used like truth serum.  I'm hung up on the idea that you can
use Imperius to force someone to do something if you don't know what the
something is.  I suppose one could counter that Barty Jr. Imperius'd Crouch
Sr. and made go about his business as usual.  But he was still a bit wooden
at times, as though there was some uncertainty about what "normal" was
(Percy said he hadn't been himself since the Quidditch World Cup).

Eric Oppen:

>   So why did Bella, Rudy and Barty do what they did? About the only thing
> I
> can think of is that they were mainly after payback---IOW, my old "Frank
> Longbottom was Judge Dredd On Acid!" theory. We know that by the end of
> Vold War I, the Ministry was just about as ruthless as the DEs, and used a
>
> lot of the same tactics.
>

Debbie:
Yep.  I can definitely buy payback as the motive.  And, unless the Pensieve
Four were arrested en route to Albania, frustration at the failure of the
mission to produce the desired information.

Debbie
trying to remember what The Night the Jabberknoll Screamed was all about


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




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 01:56:38 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:56:38 -0000
Subject: Why Cruciatus?  (A question about Dear Bella)
In-Reply-To: <006201c70c17$28f8e5d0$d5510043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <ejr20m+33pj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161709

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" wrote:
> Eric:
> I was thinking about the whole "The Lestranges, with or without 
> Barty Crouch Jr., tortured the Longbottoms into insanity to try   
> toget the current location of Voldemort" scenario, and it occurred 
> to me that Things Are Wrong with it. <snip>

Mike:

I too think there is something wrong with it but for a different 
reason. It starts with Barty Sr's pronouncement at the trial:

"...subjecting him to the Cruciatus Curse, believing him to have 
knowledge of the present whereabouts of your exiled master,..."
(GoF p.595, US)

Dumbledore adds to this perception when telling Harry:

"He and his wife were tortured for information about Voldemort's 
whereabouts after he lost his powers, as you heard." (GoF p.602,US)

But then Dumbledore throws in the caveat:

"The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done 
it. Unfortunately, the Longbottom's evidence was - given their 
condition - none too reliable." (ibid)

This makes it seem that although the Ministry had probably caught 
the right people, they were probably just as likely to be guessing 
as to the perpetrator's motivation for the attack on the 
Longbottoms. Given the DMLE's actions during the Crouch years in 
charge, I question the conclusion they reached, and Dumbledore's 
parroting of the same.

Dumbledore told us prior to this that his informants gave him to 
believe that Voldemort was holed up in Albania. Wormtail seemed to 
go directly there after his escape at the end of PoA, and he had 
spent the last 12 years as Percy's then Ron's rat. How much of a 
secret was Voldemort's whereabouts? I know the Longbottom tortures 
took place more than ten years prior, but the WW doesn't seem to 
have come upon some revelation during the interim as to where 
Voldemort was residing. 

My point is, the whereabouts of Voldemort doesn't seem to be this 
great secret that the Longbottoms would need to be tortured to 
reveal. Nor does it seem reasonable that the Longbottoms would have 
some inside information as to this location.

So, what was the real reason that the Longbottoms were tortured? 
What was the information they were more likely to have? If it was 
all a set up by someone (Lucius Malfoy?) to get the Lestranges out 
of the way, why does the Ministry, and for that matter Dumbledore, 
believe that they were after Voldemort's whereabouts? IMHO, this 
might be a profitable line of questioning to pursue.


> Eric: 
> So why did Bella, Rudy and Barty do what they did?  About the only 
> thing I can think of is that they were mainly after payback---IOW, 
> my old "Frank Longbottom was Judge Dredd On Acid!" theory.  We  
> know that by the end of Vold War I, the Ministry was just about as 
> ruthless as the DEs, and used a lot of the same tactics.

Mike:

Actually, IMO this seems a more likely explanation than the one 
given in canon. (BTW, Eric where can one find your "theory"? Do you 
have a message number? I think I read it once, but can't remember 
where it was.) Revenge can be highly motivating, and it makes more 
sense to me than that hooey about finding Voldemort.






From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Mon Nov 20 02:06:50 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:06:50 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's death and Harry(WAS:Re: Snape didn't make etc.)
References: <20061120014201.80726.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <020b01c70c48$8b01fb50$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161710

>Jeremiah wrote:
>I don't think DD's blood has anything to >do with Harry's protection by DD. <snip>

Lana writes:

I have to agree here.  I don't think the blood protection is there.  However, I do believe that with his death it may have created a stronger protection in a different form.  It goes to the sacrificing DD's life for Harrys.

>Jeremiah wrote:
>And I think if there is some message or >journal, object or potion (what have >you) it will be Aberfoth that brings it >forward.

Lana writes:
I am not sure what part Aberfoth (sp?) will play or what he will bring, but it is definately a possibility.  I think that everything Harry needs is within his immediate grasp though.  
  I am a firm believer that what he needs most is what was transferred to him from LV.  I think that once he has the horcrux situation taken care of, it will be a matter of digging deep in himself for the knowledge of what to do next.

And of course I think that somehow DD and the gang will be there to help him figure it out.

Lana








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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 02:56:03 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:56:03 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
Message-ID: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161711

Okay, first of all many many many thanks to SSSusan for the 
tremendous help with the chapter, to Jen and Betsy and Ceridwen and 
Katy and Chris for taking a look at the questions.  You guys are all 
rock, but SSSusan rocks the most :)

I am putting a little warning here ? summary is LONG, like four 
pages, so please feel free to skip it ? I am putting the quote on 
which I am building a question in every question anyways, but up to 
you of course. Another thing ? for those who decide to read the 
summary, you will find a big chunk of text put in as direct 
quotation and you will also see some smaller quotes in between 
summary of other parts. This was done deliberately for several 
reasons which I am not going into here. I tried to make sure that I 
did not miss putting the quotations in quotations marks anywhere, 
but I may have missed some of them, so if anybody feels the need to 
point to me that I missed quotations mark or misspelled a word, 
please  **do not**. I know, it sounds strange to many list members, 
but again I have my reasons for asking for this favor. Those who 
would never feel a need to do so in the first place, please 
disregard what I just wrote and just enjoy ( if you find the 
questions enjoyable, of course, if not, **then** feel free to throw 
some tomatoes at  me)

Wow, that was rather long ramble. Oh, well. Sorry, guys, as I said, 
I do have my reasons. :)

Here we go.

SUMMARY

Harry is contemplating that people are gossiping about him and Ginny 
dating, but finds himself liking it much more when people are 
gossiping about something that makes him happy.

Ginny, Harry, Ron and Hermione are discussing each other's love life 
or what counts as such in the common room. Ginny informs Harry that 
Romilda Vane wanted to know what tattoo he had on his chest as well 
as her response. Harry questions whether Ginny told Romilda what 
tattoo Ron got. Ginny's response angers Ron and he threatens to 
withdraw his permission to Ginny and Harry dating, Ginny responds by 
calling Ron a filthy hypocrite for going out with Lavender. Harry 
cannot spend too much time with Ginny, since she is studying for her 
OWLS.

One evening Hermione starts talking to Harry about the Half-Blood 
Prince. Harry does not want to talk about it. Hermione refuses to 
drop the conversation and shows Harry the photograph of the girl 
named Eileen Prince, which Hermione found in the library. Hermione 
thinks that Eileen could have been the half blood prince. Harry 
refuses to believe it and Hermione wants to know why. Harry says 
that he can just tell that this is not a girl.
Hermione accuses Harry of not believing a girl could be clever 
enough, and Harry is stung by this, since he has hang around with 
you for five years"
Hermione is determined to keep looking for the half-blood prince and 
the next place she wants to check is old potions awards. Ron thinks 
that Hermione has just never gotten over Harry outperforming her in 
potions. Ron thinks that Prince is a genius. Ron believes that 
because of the prince his life was saved and even though the curse 
that Harry used on Draco was not the greatest, Draco was healed. But 
Harry's conscience is still squirming slightly.

Ron asks Harry about detentions with Snape, which Harry dislikes 
because they take up his time, which could have been spent with 
Ginny. 
Harry is shaken from these bitter reflections by the appearance at 
his side of Jimmy Peakes, who is holding out a scroll of parchment. 
This turns out to be note from Dumbledore, who wants Harry in his 
office as fast as he can be.

Harry runs to Dumbledore along the seventh floor and hears a scream. 
While looking for the source of the scream, he finds Professor 
Trelawney, who was thrown out of the Room of Requirement. Harry 
later learns from Trelawney, that she was trying to hide her bottles 
of sherry in the Room of Requirement, but somebody was already 
there. Trelawney walked in and heard a voice, which she had never 
heard before during her years of using the Room of Requirement. She 
could not identify the voice, but knew the voice was gleefully 
whooping and celebrating. Professor Trelawney eventually remembers 
that it was probably male.

Harry thinks that Trelawney should tell Dumbledore about the voice 
who was celebrating.  Harry also wonders whether Trelawney did not 
see it coming ? being thrown out of the room.

Trelawney says that Dumbledore would prefer less visits from her.

And she pulls a card dramatically from underneath her shawls. 

'- the lightning-struck tower,' she whispered. 'Calamity. Disaster. 
Coming nearer all the time ...' 

Harry tells Trelawney that he has a meeting with Dumbledore and they 
can go in together. Trelawney eventually agrees and starts 
complaining about Firenze not having high opinion about her as seer. 
She asks Harry whether Dumbledore would have allowed her to teach in 
Hogwarts had he not had high opinion of her as Seer.  Trelawney 
recalls to Harry her interview with Dumbledore in the Hogs Head. 
According to Trelawney, Dumbledore came up to question her in her 
room and at first she thought that Dumbledore was ill disposed to 
Divination. She also recalls that she was starting to feel a little 
odd. And now Harry pays attention properly for the first time, for 
he knew what had happened then: Professor Trelawney had made the 
prophecy that had altered the course of his whole life, the prophecy 
about him and Voldemort. 

 "'... but then we were rudely interrupted by Severus Snape!' "

'What?' 

'Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and 
there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was 
waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, although I'm 
afraid that I myself rather thought he had been apprehended 
eavesdropping on my interview with Dumbledore - you see, he himself 
was seeking a job at the time, and no doubt hoped to pick up tips! 
Well, after that, you know, Dumbledore seemed much more dis?posed to 
give me a job, and I could not help thinking, Harry, that it was 
because he appreciated the stark contrast between my own unassuming 
manners and quiet talent, compared to the pushing, thrusting young 
man who was prepared to listen at keyholes - Harry, dear?' 
***
Harry was standing stock-still as waves of shock crashed over him, 
wave after wave, obliterating every?thing except the information that 
had been kept from him for so long... 

It was Snape who had overheard the prophecy. It was Snape who had 
carried the news of the prophecy to Voldemort. Snape and Peter 
Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort hunting after Lily and James 
and their son... "

Harry tells Trelawney to stay there and he runs to the Dumbledore 
office and enters it. Dumbledore tells Harry that, as promised, 
Harry can come with him. Harry asks whether DD found the Horcrux and 
Dumbledore answers in the positive.

"Rage and resentment fought shock and excitement: for several 
moments, Harry could not speak." 

Dumbledore tells Harry that it is natural to be upset and Harry 
tells him that he is not scared. Harry asks which Horcrux it is and 
DD replies that he is not sure, but he thinks that they can rule out 
the snake and it is hidden in the cave, where Tom Riddle once 
terrorized two children from the orphanage. Harry asks how it is 
protected and Dumbledore replies that he does not know, he suspects, 
but he can be wrong. He then warns Harry again that it could be 
dangerous. Harry is adamant that he is coming. Dumbledore asks what 
happened to him and after replying "Nothing", Harry tells Headmaster 
that Snape is what happened to him.

"Dumbledore's expression did not change, but Harry thought his face 
whitened under the bloody tinge cast by the setting sun. For a long 
moment, Dumbledore said nothing. 

'When did you find out about this?' he asked at last. 

'Just now!' said Harry, who was refraining from yelling with 
enormous difficulty. And then, suddenly, he could not stop 
himself. 'AND YOU LET HIM TEACH HERE AND HE TOLD VOLDEMORT TO GO 
AFTER MY MUM AND DAD!' 
***
He wanted to rage and storm at Dumbledore, but he also wanted to go 
with him to try and destroy the Horcrux; he wanted to tell him that 
he was a foolish old man for trusting Snape, but he was terrified 
that Dumbledore would not take him along unless he mastered his 
anger ... 

'Harry,' said Dumbledore quietly. 'Please listen to me.' 
***
'Professor Snape made a terrible -' 

'Don't tell me it was a mistake, sir, he was listening at the door!' 

'Please let me finish.' Dumbledore waited until Harry had nodded 
curtly, then went on. 'Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He 
was still in Lord Voldemort's employ on the night he heard the first 
half of Professor Trelawney's prophecy. Naturally, he hastened to 
tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most 
deeply. But he did not know - he had no possible way of knowing - 
which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onwards, or that the 
parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that 
Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father -' 

Harry let out a yell of mirthless laughter. 

'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, 
Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?' 

'You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he 
realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I 
believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that 
he returned -' 

'But he's a very good Occlumens, isn't he, sir?' said Harry, whose 
voice was shaking with the effort of keeping it steady. 'And isn't 
Voldemort convinced 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.' 

Harry breathed deeply for a few moments in an effort to steady 
himself. It did not work. 

'Well, I don't!' he said, as loudly as before. 'He's up to something 
with Draco Malfoy right now, right under your nose, and you still -' 

'We have discussed this, Harry,' said Dumbledore, and now he sounded 
stern again. 'I have told you my views.' 

'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't even 
considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' 

To what?' asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that 
you suspect them of doing, precisely?' 

'I ... they're up to something!' said Harry and his hands curled 
into fists as he said it. 'Professor Trelawney was just in the Room 
of Requirement, trying to hide her sherry bottles, and she heard 
Malfoy whooping, celebrating! He's trying to mend something 
dangerous in there and if you ask me he's fixed it at last and 
you're about to just walk out of school without -' "


Dumbledore tells Harry that he does not wish to discuss the matter 
any further, that he takes the safety of the students very seriously 
and that when he leaves there are additional protections in place.
Dumbledore asks Harry whether he still wants to come with him 
tonight and Harry answers in the positive. Dumbledore again asks 
whether Harry will obey any order that he will receive, including, 
if necessary, to save himself and leave Dumbledore. Harry after 
hesitation answers the question in the positive. Dumbledore tells 
Harry to go get his Invisibility cloak and meet him in the hall in 
five minutes.

"Harry's mind was oddly clear all of a sudden. He knew what to do." 

Harry grabs the Marauders Map, Felix Felicis and sock from his 
trunk. He gives the sock to Ron and Hermione who are sitting in the 
common room and tells them what is going on. Ron wonders why he 
needs socks and Harry tells him that he will need what in them ? 
Felix felicis. Harry orders them to gather who they can from the DA, 
take the Felix, and watch Snape and Malfoy tonight while he and 
Dumbledore go onto their trip. Harry tells him to share that between 
themselves and Ginny to say good bye to her. Hermione tells Harry to 
take the Felix, but Harry says that he is with Dumbledore.

Dumbledore is waiting for Harry at the Entrance Hall. They walk 
towards the apparition point to the Hogs' Head. Harry tells DD that 
he can apparate, but does not have a license and DD tells him that 
he will assist him again. They come to the Hogs Head and apparate 
from there.

QUESTIONS


1.	"'How can I have hung round with you for five years and not 
think girls are clever?' said Harry, stung by this." What does this 
remark tell you about Harry?

2.	The narrator tells us that the reason why Harry disliked 
Snape's detentions was because they were taking away from his time 
with Ginny. Would have Harry liked them otherwise? 


3.	Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor 
Trelawney?

4.	The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly 
predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your 
opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other 
Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

5.	We have discussed many times Trelawney's version of the 
prophecy, Dumbledore's version of the prophecy, whether they are 
compatible or not, etc., so I am not going there, but there is a 
small detail which I am not sure I remember an answer to 
(speculative answer of course). How did Trelawney know that Snape 
was looking for a job at the time? Alla imagines Snape and 
Trelawney's evening tea conversations.


6.	"Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort 
hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or 
disagree with this quote? Why? 

7.	"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.'" What was 
Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

8.	"'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, 
Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We also 
know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and 
some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry 
loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person to 
die by that criteria, whom would you pick?

9.	"Breathing hard as though he were fighting, Harry turned 
away from Dumbledore, who still had not moved a muscle, and paced up 
and down the study, rubbing his knuckles in his hand and exercising 
every last bit of restraint to prevent himself knocking things over. 
He wanted to rage and storm at Dumbledore, but he also wanted to go 
with him to try and destroy the Horcrux; he wanted to tell him that 
he was a foolish old man for trusting Snape, but he was terrified 
that Dumbledore would not take him along unless he mastered his 
anger ..."

Harry is trying to restrain himself from knocking things over. Is it 
because he has undergone some character development and is trying to 
control his temper, or is he simply afraid that Dumbledore will not 
let him come? Any other ideas?

10.	"'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't 
even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?' 
asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you suspect 
them of doing, precisely?'"  Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this 
question?

11.	 `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?'  Here we 
meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out possible 
socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there 
any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron 
wrapped in sock?


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







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 20 03:06:43 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 03:06:43 -0000
Subject: DD's death and Harry(WAS:Re: Snape didn't make etc.)
In-Reply-To: <020b01c70c48$8b01fb50$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ejr643+7o29@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161712

 
> Lana writes:
> 
> I have to agree here.  I don't think the blood protection is there.  
However, I do believe that with his death it may have created a 
stronger protection in a different form.  It goes to the sacrificing 
DD's life for Harrys.

Potioncat:
Looking closely at the conversation on the tower, I think DD sacrificed 
his life for Draco, not Harry.






From elfundeb at gmail.com  Mon Nov 20 02:07:57 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:07:57 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snake Lore
In-Reply-To: <00d901c70c07$494806f0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
References: <001f01c70941$13c1ca20$6601a8c0@happy5274c44ef>
	 <80f25c3a0611181856hcba3609g4a5784ca955d0166@mail.gmail.com>
	 <00d901c70c07$494806f0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0611191807ra619589gdbb096a481087144@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161713

On 11/19/06, k12listmomma <k12listmomma at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>   It seems to be that she already made use of this part with the real
> Basilisk- Harry, when plunging the Gryffindor sword into the Basilisk, was
>
> also poisoned at the same time by the fang. The poison was deadly and it
> would have killed him, if it were not for the presence of Fawkes. My son
> also points out that the "horse" is the diary, which the poisoned fang
> also
> destroyed. The diary is the thing that brought him to that spot
> (indirectly-
> leading him to Hagrid, which lead him to the spiders, then to the forest
> with Aragog, then to the knowledge of the girl killed, and then to the
> bathroom where she died, and to the entrance of the chamber).
>

Debbie:
I think this is not a true parallel of the Basilisk legend.  If it was, the
poison would have reached Harry through the sword.  The wound Harry received
from the basilisk's fang was separate and independent of the slaying.  Also,
the horse doesn't really parallel the diary, because the diary was an ally
of the basilisk, whereas the horse belonged to the slayer of the basilisk.
I do agree that Fawkes has already acted the part of the deity in the holy
man and the deity legend.  Harry could not have killed the basilisk without
the sword Fawkes brought him, nor would he have survived without Fawkes'
phoenix tears.

Perhaps the events in the Chamber of Secrets foreshadow what will happen in
Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort.  Harry vanquished a piece of
Voldemort (the diary horcrux) in a series of events that read like a
death-and-resurrection scenario.  Although I don't think JKR is writing an
allegory (at least consciously), the parallels to the Christian Easter story
are striking -- descent into hell, then conquering death and rising again.
Harry even uses Fawkes, a standard Christian resurrection symbol, to escape
from the Chamber.  I can't help but think that the final confrontation will
incorporate some of these elements.

As for a location, I'm (finally) warming to the idea of bringing Voldemort
to the Veil Room whereupon Harry will somehow force him to step through the
veil.

Debbie
finishing up before she starts speculating wildly






> .
>
> 
>


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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 03:31:40 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 19:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD's death and Harry(WAS:Re: Snape didn't make etc.)
Message-ID: <20061120033140.63023.qmail@web54514.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161714


> Lana writes:

> 

> I have to agree here.  I don't think the blood protection is there.  

However, I do believe that with his death it may have created a 

stronger protection in a different form.  It goes to the sacrificing 

DD's life for Harrys.



Potioncat:

Looking closely at the conversation on the tower, I think DD sacrificed 

his life for Draco, not Harry.

============================

Jeremiah:

I'm going to agree with Potioncat here. I think there is an element that DD has in which he wants to save all youth from destroying themselves and their souls. I think DD's death on the tower was an act to save himself first and knowing that wasn't going to happen he then wanted Draco to save his soul from bein fractured. The only way is to have someone else do it and that would be Snape. I believe Snape wanted the same thing. His discussions with Draco point to his (Snape's) desire to save him (Draco). I have a feeling that this is part of what Narcissa was getting at at Spinner's End. (Of course, it's also because she doesn't want draco to die.. and thought i'm not a Draco fan I don't think I would want him to die either...)

Ultimately I feel as Lana does: that DD has a great amout of protection over Harry. The scene on the tower may not be the crux of the situation however if there was protection from DD his deat may have either removed it or strengthened it. I think it would become stronger. DD would know what protections to place on Harry.





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




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 20 04:11:06 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 04:11:06 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejr9sr+85pt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161715

*snipping Alla's interesting summary of Chapter 25*

Alla:
1. "'How can I have hung round with you for five years and not
think girls are clever?' said Harry, stung by this." What does this
remark tell you about Harry?

Ceridwen:
This one's harder than it looks!  Harry thinks it's obvious that he 
can't think girls aren't smart.  I think the question tells us more 
about Hermione.

2. The narrator tells us that the reason why Harry disliked
Snape's detentions was because they were taking away from his time
with Ginny. Would have Harry liked them otherwise?

Ceridwen:
Heee, very funny question!  No, Harry would not have liked his 
detentions any better, but he had a single overwhelming reason to 
resent them just then.  At another time, it would have been 
Quidditch, or solving a mystery, or just not having detention.  But 
now, he is involved with Ginny so he resents spending time away from 
her.

3. Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor
Trelawney?

Ceridwen:
Because she nags and complains.

4. The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly
predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your
opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other
Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

Ceridwen:
I had been slowly beginning to wonder if maybe Trelawney wasn't set 
up to look like a fraud, only to be revealed as a true seer in the 
end.  This, and the playing card reading earlier in the book, 
convinced me that she does have a talent, as far as such a capricious 
talent will allow anyone to control it.  I think she actually stifles 
the ability with her airy talk and blatantly false predictions.  I 
wouldn't be surprised if Harry *did* have twelve kids and became 
Minister of Magic someday, just because Trelawney blurted that one 
out.

5. We have discussed many times Trelawney's version of the
prophecy, Dumbledore's version of the prophecy, whether they are
compatible or not, etc., so I am not going there, but there is a
small detail which I am not sure I remember an answer to
(speculative answer of course). How did Trelawney know that Snape
was looking for a job at the time? Alla imagines Snape and
Trelawney's evening tea conversations.

Ceridwen:
Oh, so many possibilities, including those evening tea 
conversations!  For one, Trelawney actively pretends to be a seer who 
knows everything.  So she may just be guessing here and fooling 
herself that she 'sees into his intentions'.  She was there for a 
job, why else would Snape be there?

For another, maybe they did talk.  They might have met downstairs at 
the Hog's Head and started talking about why they were there and 
alone (if they were not with other friends).  We know that Snape was 
told to get a job at Hogwarts, he may have already been given this 
assignment by LV.  Or, he may have simply echoed what Trelawney said 
so she wouldn't question his being there without meeting friends.

Or, she may have thought back to that incident once he did get a job 
at Hogwarts, and assume that he had been trying all that time.  Or, 
Dumbledore might have guessed to her once Snape had been thrown out 
that this was why Snape was there.  Or, as you said, they may have 
had evening teas, up in her tower, with the incense drifting through 
the room, with her making bogus predictions to impress him and him 
thinking that either that censer goes out the window, or he does.

6. "Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort
hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or
disagree with this quote? Why?

Ceridwen:
I agree on one level, and disagree on another.  I don't think Snape 
and Pettigrew actively put their heads together and decided they 
would send LV after the Potters.  They worked independently.  From 
what we know (GoF), DEs don't know everyone else who is a DE so what 
are the chances that these two, a spy already in the Order and so 
under wraps, and a potential spy at Hogwarts, would know each other's 
identities?

On another level, their seperate informations dovetailed together so 
the Potters were killed.  Both sets of information were necessary, so 
in that way, yes, they did 'work together' - their information put 
together sent LV after the Potters.

7. "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.'" What was
Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

Ceridwen:
I think he was weighing whether it would be prudent to tell Harry the 
full reason why he trusts Snape.  He decided against it.

8. "'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed,
Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We also
know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and
some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry
loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person to
die by that criteria, whom would you pick?

Ceridwen:
Lupin.  I don't think Snape has issues with Lupin like he did with 
Sirius and James, but Lupin fits in that Snape isn't thrilled with 
him, and Harry loves him.

9. "Breathing hard as though he were fighting, Harry turned
away from Dumbledore, who still had not moved a muscle, and paced up
and down the study, rubbing his knuckles in his hand and exercising
every last bit of restraint to prevent himself knocking things over.
He wanted to rage and storm at Dumbledore, but he also wanted to go
with him to try and destroy the Horcrux; he wanted to tell him that
he was a foolish old man for trusting Snape, but he was terrified
that Dumbledore would not take him along unless he mastered his
anger ..."

Harry is trying to restrain himself from knocking things over. Is it
because he has undergone some character development and is trying to
control his temper, or is he simply afraid that Dumbledore will not
let him come? Any other ideas?

Ceridwen:
Harry has undergone a year of growing.  I believe this shows that he 
is learning to use his head to think things through instead of acting 
first and regretting it later.  Having a clear reward helps the 
process, but I think he does show more maturity just for thinking it 
through.

10. "'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't
even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?'
asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you suspect
them of doing, precisely?'" Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this
question?

Ceridwen:
Dumbledore was surprised later on that Draco could get the DEs into 
Hogwarts.  Draco was avoiding Snape's questions at Slughorn's 
Christmas party, and indicated that he had been avoiding him all 
year.  Snape doesn't know what Draco is planning to do.  Maybe 
someone closer to Draco's age would have some idea, or have noticed 
some clue that an adult would not have noticed or even been privy 
to.  Harry indicates that he knows where Draco has been, and now, he 
was on the scene when Draco seems to have succeeded.  I think 
Dumbledore honestly wants information.

11. `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?' Here we
meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out possible
socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there
any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron
wrapped in sock?

Ceridwen:
Socks.  Okay, they warm your feet and protect your shoes.  Threadbare 
socks or socks with holes in them or darned places show that you're 
poor.  Some people keep their money in socks because they distrust 
banks: truer in the last century right after the stock market crash 
than now.  A 'sock party' is when someone has done something 
disagreeable to the group, so everyone else in the group puts a bar 
of soap in a sock for each person and hit the miscreant.  People flee 
emergencies in their stocking feet.  Stockings (long socks) are hung 
up at Christmas and filled with presents.  Some socks are trendy, 
with toes knitted in and/or strange stripings.  Sock sizes do not 
match shoe sizes.

Out of those, I would say that Harry is keeping a prized possession 
hidden in a convenient place.  It is not too small or too large, and 
it's protected from prying eyes.





From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Mon Nov 20 04:43:27 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 23:43:27 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: '...He was taking too much for granted'
Message-ID: <d2b.320b0c.32928c6f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161716

>Pippin wrote:

> Any outcome that lets Harry go on believing  
> in the myth of Killer!Snape, even reluctant 
> Killer!Snape,  makes things too easy, IMO. Harry 
> has to realize that it's a myth  (assuming 
> DDM!Snape of course) that he is using to avoid 
>  confronting his own sense of responsibility.

>Abergoat:

I  couldn't agree more, I suspect Harry's actions 
at the end of HBP where he  gets creative with Snape's
relationship with Dumbledore comes down to  guilt.
Deep down Harry realizes that he was responsible
for Dumbledore's  weakened state, even though DD
demanded obedience in the  cave.

Wynnleaf, I agree - I seriously doubt that Harry's
enlightenment  will come from Snape sacrificing himself.
I assume enlightenment will come  gradually, probably
through Hagrid whom I suspect knows Snape (and  Eileen)
VERY well. (I'm taking bets that Eileen gave Hagrid
that flowery  pink umbrella! lol)
 
Nikkalmati
 
Indeed, I have to agree that part of Harry's journey to self-knowledge will  
involve an acceptance of Snape and rejection of hatred.  He needs to get  
beyond his negative emotions in order to defeat LV through Love.  Who else  does 
he hate as much as Snape?  On a practical level Harry has to come to  the point 
that he will accept help from Snape, because he is going to need his  help to 
set up LV for his defeat. (I have always felt that if Snape is really  
working on the side of LV, Harry is a goner).
 
Nikkalmati 




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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 05:17:52 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 21:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
Message-ID: <20061120051752.97820.qmail@web54514.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161717



Alla:

1. "'How can I have hung round with you for five years and not

think girls are clever?' said Harry, stung by this." What does this

remark tell you about Harry?


 


Jeremiah:


Harry is being glib. It?s nothing more than Harry?s
developing sarcasm and a nodd to Hermione for being brilliant.



 

2. The narrator tells us that the reason why Harry disliked

Snape's detentions was because they were taking away from his time

with Ginny. Would have Harry liked them otherwise?


Jeremiah:



Would you? LOL. I think Harry (or anyone for that matter)
would use any current issue to dislike detention with a professor who detests
them.


 

3. Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor

Trelawney?

 Jeremiah:




Two reasons: 1) Yes, she has become incessantly more
annoying (than usual, though I love her) and 2) Her incessant threats to leave
are not useful to DD. She cannot leave or she will be tortured for information
and then possibly killed.


4. The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly

predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your

opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other

Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?


Jeremiah:




Absolutely. The first time she does it I thought, ?Hmm? that?s
funny. She?s right. Harry doesn?t like the drunk lady divining with the cards.?
And then it got freaky. I actually started to reread the series looking at her
predictions. 


 

5. We have discussed many times Trelawney's version of the

prophecy, Dumbledore's version of the prophecy, whether they are

compatible or not, etc., so I am not going there, but there is a

small detail which I am not sure I remember an answer to

(speculative answer of course). How did Trelawney know that Snape

was looking for a job at the time? Alla imagines Snape and

Trelawney's evening tea conversations.


Jeremiah:



Maybe Snape was hired the same year and she ?assumed?
(ass-U-me? ed) that Snape was trying to butt in. 


 

6. "Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort

hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or

disagree with this quote? Why?

 Jeremiah:




I agree and disagree. Voldemort would have chassed down
Lilly and James, Harry being a consequence? possibly, since other students have
lost their parents it is possible that Harry would have been orphaned. So the statement
that includes Harry is where I agree. Voldemort would have nothing to gain by
killing Harry if it weren?t for Snape?s rendition of the prophesy (since he didn?t
hear it all) and Pettigrew revealing the Potter?s location.


 


 7. "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.' " What was

Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?


Jeremiah:



I assume it was a decision on what to say to Harry. How much
should he say to Harry. Of course if you believe SS isn?t DDM!Snape (see, I
learned to use !?s) then it would be a hesitation in weather or not he truly trusts
him. I do not believe this.


 

8. "'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed,

Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We also

know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and

some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry

loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person to

die by that criteria, whom would you pick?


Jeremiah:



Ms. Weasley. It would be absolutely devastating to Harry and
drive him to the edge. (Don?t hate me for saying that. It?s honestly how I
think? and it would rip my heart out).


 

9. "Breathing hard as though he were fighting, Harry turned

away from Dumbledore, who still had not moved a muscle, and paced up

and down the study, rubbing his knuckles in his hand and exercising

every last bit of restraint to prevent himself knocking things over.

He wanted to rage and storm at Dumbledore, but he also wanted to go

with him to try and destroy the Horcrux; he wanted to tell him that

he was a foolish old man for trusting Snape, but he was terrified

that Dumbledore would not take him along unless he mastered his

anger ..."


Harry is trying to restrain himself from knocking things over. Is it

because he has undergone some character development and is trying to

control his temper, or is he simply afraid that Dumbledore will not

let him come? Any other ideas?


Jeremiah:




Well, in OotP he does that. I think that Harry has grown
past such acts of useless violence and it is showing his development. Also? I
wouldn?t take him if he?d destroyed my office? again. 


 

10. "'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't

even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?'

asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you suspect

them of doing, precisely?'" Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this

question?


Jeremiah:



Harry overheard the conversation in the bathroom during Slughorn?s
party. But Harry really doesn?t understand all of it. DD may have wanted to
know what Harry ?might? know, which is nothing. Of course we must also realize
that DD never considered the vanishing cabinet as a means into the castle. He
may have been hoping for a bit of news and Harry had nothing to offer except that
Draco is off the map and possibly in the Room of Requirement. I regard it as DD
wondering what to say because he need?s Harry?s full attention and focus on
retrieving the Horcrux. So, he may have been hiding something from Harry. The
question would be a ruse to deflate Harry?s incessant curiosity.


 


 11. `Thanks,' said
Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?' Here we

meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out possible

socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there

any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron

wrapped in sock?


Jeremiah:



Fabulous. Socks? (and I?m still trying to finish knitting my
first pair. Angora? tan). There?s something very home-y
about socks. Very mundane. But they hide so many magnificent things in their
socks. Sneakoscopes and potions, etc. My guess is that socks represent the ?common?
and we all have them (even if you don?t wear them) and to use them to hid
magical things is a great dichotomy and disparity in value of objects.
Honestly, who would think of looking in someone?s socks to find things? of
course I do now that I?ve read these books. LOL. 


Now, as far as symbolism, Ron gets a pair of socks for
Christmas in SS/PS and tosses them aside. Ron thinks nothing of them and that?s
the ?mundane? and Ron doesn?t even think that Harry has hidden stuff in his
(Harry?s) socks. Also, I think Ron might think for a second that they might be
Magical Invisibility socks or Socks of Invincibility LOL or even Sock of Massive,
Righteous Destruction!!!! Ron?s got a funny way of thinking some times. It wouldn?t
phase me if he thought those things. But as far as having it be ?symbolic? for
Harry to give the potion to Ron hidden in socks? no. It was just faster. And I
think Harry would have thought Ron would have been a bit brighter about
figuring out there was something hidden in them.




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




From scarah at gmail.com  Mon Nov 20 04:27:57 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 20:27:57 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <ejqcbo+qudl@eGroups.com>
References: <3202590611182237t11513ac9n529bdf6ff6a487c6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ejqcbo+qudl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611192027p48675a3cx74ac1f3269369d56@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161718

> Carol responds:
> I'd much rather that he survived, and I'd be
> willing to bet that more than half the adult fans and the vast
> majority of child fans feel the same way.

Sarah:
I know of at least one internet poll that would disagree.  I also
don't believe for a second that violence doesn't interest children.
If anything, I probably find them to be more morbid than adults.

> Carol:
> Actually, Dumbledore's death is rather pointless unless Harry triumphs
> (though he was also, IMO, dying to save Draco and Snape). And Harry's
> death would be pointless, period. It's his victory that counts.

Sarah:
Is there really any doubt about Harry triumphing, though?  I don't
know of anyone who believes that Voldemort will win.  Harry will
either win while simultaneously dying, win and keel over soon after,
or win and survive.

> Carol:
> It's Hagrid who says that Sirius would have wanted to die fighting,
> and Harry responds by saying that Sirius didn't want to die at all.

Sarah:
Oops, yeah.  Dumbledore says almost exactly the rest of the thought
though, about how he wouldn't have wanted to sit at home.

Carol:
> And look at the life *he* was living, trapped in his parents' horrible
> house with Kreacher for company. Harry has a lot more than that to
> live for, including his friends and Ginny and his ambition to be an
> Auror.

Sarah:
What are the odds that his friends and Ginny all make it?

> Sarah:
> > And now, Harry's parents.  Consider the way the first war ended.  If
> > it weren't for the Horcruxes, the first Voldemort war would have
> been  the only Voldemort war, and we'd be reading "Lily Potter and
> the..." I believe this, the first thing in the series, is one of the
> most powerful motifs and must be mirrored at the end in some way for
> > symmetry.
>
> Carol
> As I said, we'll see the symmetry in Harry's willingness to sacrifice
> himself. No need for Harry to die, too, to satisfy that particular
> structural need.

Sarah:
That doesn't carry enough weight, though.  As you also said, he's
already had that willingness this whole time.

> > Sarah:
> > But who's to say any of them won't be toast as well by that point?
> > It's a war, people gotta die.
>
> Carol:
> People will certainly die, but if we want a bloodbath, we can watch
> horror movies or play video games.

Sarah:
Or read Harry Potter.  At one point we tallied up the body count so
far, it's into the dozens.  The last three books have all ended with a
major tragedy.   Applying pattern recognition should tell us
something.

> Carol:
> If he's living now, then the Prophecy has it all wrong: "Neither can
> live while the other survives."

Sarah:
It makes perfect sense to me, I just read it differently than you do.

I think there are two tricks in that sentence.  The first trick is the
word "while."  Everyone automatically interprets "while" to mean "at
the same time as," because that's the most common usage.  But that
isn't the only definition.  "While" can also be a simpler contraction
meaning something closer to "although" or "whereas."  "I like grape
popsicles while Bob prefers cherry."

The second trick is that there are three people in the prophecy.  The
one, the Dark Lord and the other.

So, I think that sentence means "Neither [the one nor the Dark Lord]
can live [past the end of the war or series] [although] the other
survives [past the end of the war or series]."

> Carol:
>
> Oh, aagh. The last thing I want is for Snape to accidentally kill
> Harry. He's already killed Dumbledore. That's enough of a burden for
> him to carry.

Sarah:
Yeah, but if you read my prophecy interpretation above you can see why
I think so.  I'm not really 100% convinced that the other is in fact
Snape, other candidates could include Draco or Pettigrew.  I just
think Snape's the forerunner at this point.

Carol:
 I'd much prefer for them to finally reach some sort of
> understanding and for Harry to realize that he needs Snape's help at
> some point in order to defeat Voldemort.

Sarah:
We're not in disagreement here, I think that's pretty close to how it
would all go down.

Sarah



From sherriola at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 20 06:01:39 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2006 22:01:39 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <3202590611192027p48675a3cx74ac1f3269369d56@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1Gm2Dw-00074G-Kh@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161719

> Carol earlier:
> I'd much rather that he survived, and I'd be willing to bet that more 
> than half the adult fans and the vast majority of child fans feel the 
> same way.

Sarah:
I know of at least one internet poll that would disagree.  I also don't
believe for a second that violence doesn't interest children.
If anything, I probably find them to be more morbid than adults.

Sherry now:

I well remember my childhood reading, and I was an avid reader.  Old Yeller
scarred me for life, to the point where I have never read it again to this
day, and I'm nearly 50.  No, not all children are morbid or enjoy reading
books that are full of death and defeat.  To me, Harry dying is defeat, not
hope.  Even as an adult, I can't read books with deliberately miserable
endings, with no hope of something better in the end.  That doesn't mean I
read only happy endings, but there has to be a point to it with something
positive to redeem the unhappy ending.  Sorry, but the senseless death of a
17-year-old who has never had anything but unhappiness with a madman after
him all his life does not constitute hope and positive in my mind, and I
believe the same for many, many children.  If these books had come out in my
childhood, and a friend told me they read the whole series and Harry died,
I'd never have read them.  In fact, I could easily have given up on the
books after GOF or definitely after OOTP because of the level of darkness
and unhappiness and horror Harry has to go through.  I hang in because I
believe Harry will survive and have the life he's always wanted.  Death
would not be a happy love fest with his family and Sirius.  It would be a
betrayal of all who loved him and stood by him in the world of the living.
It's unthinkable to me that Harry will die.  It would make everything that's
gone before into a sick joke and travesty of all the books seemed to be
about.  Just my opinion, naturally.

Teenage suicide is an epidemic.  Many kids have grown up reading Harry
Potter and found a hero they can like, someone like they are, someone who
struggles and fails and succeeds, who rages, grieves, laughs, hopes.  If he
ends up having to die, it should be seen as the terrible, disgusting event
it would be, for someone so young to die.  Kids shouldn't see death as a way
out or a happy ending.  I would hope with all my heart it would not be seen
as a victory or good thing for him to die.  Yeah, lol, I know, I feel so
strongly about this, that I won't even read the last book if he dies in the
end.



Sarah:
Is there really any doubt about Harry triumphing, though?  I don't know of
anyone who believes that Voldemort will win.  Harry will either win while
simultaneously dying, win and keel over soon after, or win and survive.


Sherry:

I happen to interpret the prophecy literally, that it's Harry or Voldemort
in the end.  If Harry succeeds, then Voldemort is dead and Harry is alive.
I do not believe in any "other" who will ride in on a white horse, save
Harry's butt, off Voldemort and survive to receive all the praise, while
Harry lives happily ever after behind the veil with his family.  It would
negate the entire series, the books all with the name "Harry Potter and the
..."  Either Harry triumphs in the end or not, but it will be Harry's
triumph or failure.  Otherwise, perhaps these books should have had a
different name.

Sherry, confident Harry will survive and joining Geoff in the IWHTL club!




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 06:57:34 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:57:34 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...wealth - ...Nature of Elves)
In-Reply-To: <008d01c70c23$76d41e30$2380400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ejrjku+fsos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161720

---  "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

> Steve:
> ...
> 
> I predict Kreacher's death, sometimes I suspect by his
> own hand, though I'm not willing to predict that aspect
> of it. Kreacher is very old and generally useless, so I
> don't see him long for this world. Actually, I had 
> previously assumed he would already be dead; can't get
> them all right though.
> 
> Magpie:
> I can't help but be a little amused at your continually
> calling Kreacher useless given how much he affected the
> plot. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Oh, Kreacher was a very valuable plot-device, and I don't
think that aspect of his role is over. He still has a 
few stashed trinkets that he needs to reveal. 

It is as a house-elf that I think he is worthless 
regardless of who he is currently working for. If Master
Black (the original, not Sirius) was still alive, I'm 
sure Kreacher would /try/ to do a better job, but I'm not
so sure he would succeed. 

Yes, if Harry is living alone, he doesn't really need a 
house-elf, but if he is running the headquarter for the
Order, and is playing host to the Dursleys, I don't see 
him up to cooking big meals for gangs of people. Nor do I
see Petunia cooking using a fireplace or a magical stove.
Further, I don't see Petunia in a position to be running 
down to the green grocers to pick up supplies.

Dursleys at Grimmauld Place is a prediction of mine based
on my personal desire for come-uppance, and based on my
prediction of a battle at Privet Drive that will drive 
the Dursleys into Harry's protection. But I will agree 
that we can predict a lot of story, but some how we have 
to squeeze it all into one book. THAT is going to be quite
a task even with the leanest of storylines. 

Of course, the point of having the Dursleys at Grimmauld
Place is to give Harry and Petunia a chance to have that
heart-to-heart talk that will reveal all her secrets. 

Further, other than a quick intro, I don't think we need
to dwell on Grimmauld Place. I suspect it will simply be 
the place where Harry resides between far more important 
scenes. So, once the Dursleys are at Grimmauld Place, I
see them having a very small part in the storyline.

So regardless of whether Kreacher is /capable/ of being
a good house-elf, I don't think he is. He isn't keeping
up the Black House, we never see him cook or clean, and 
he isn't faithfully serving his Master, and they can't 
let him go because he knows too much. All in all, as an 
Elf, I say pretty worthless, but I admit as a plot device
he has and does serve well.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn





From greatraven at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 20 06:49:06 2006
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 06:49:06 -0000
Subject: Fidelius/Alpha/Karkaroff/Wizards&Muggles&Food/Rickman/InvisiCloak/DARK MAGIC
In-Reply-To: <ejo4h4+rk7f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejrj52+6206@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161721

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
>> << And (admittedly a silly question) how do wizards/witches do 
their
> grocery shopping? I can't imagine they grow/raise all they need >> 
> 
> Oh, yes, I've wondered that myself. Are there wizard farms (other 
than
> Agatha Timms's eel farm) and wizard greengrocers and wizard millers
> and bakers and wizard butchers and slaughterhouses? There could be
> wizard greengrocers who buy their goods from Muggle farmers or from
> middlemen at the Central Market (is that Covent Garden for 
London?) or
> even from Muggle greengrocers. If the food starts in the Muggle 
world
> and is diverted to the wizarding economy, do the wizards have 
opinions
> about organic food, chemical pesticides and fertilizers, 
genetically
> modified organisms? If wizards farm and if they've ever heard of
> 'organic', they would consider their farms entirely organic, as 
they
> would use magic instead of chemicals or genetic engineering or
> internal-combustion machines. 
> 
> On another tentacle, how much can Transfiguration do? Steve 
bboyminn
> has spoken of Florean Fortescue needing to buy sugar, cocoa, out of
> season fruit, and other ingredients for making his ice cream, but 
I've
> always thought it would be more magical if he can just Transfigure 
a
> pail of cream into a gourmet flavored custard, and then freeze it 
with
> a Charm. Hey, how about a pail of dirt? Do animals need to be 
raised
> and slaughtered for all that meat they eat at Hogwarts, or can 
grain
> be Transfigured into steaks and so on? 
> 
> << and going all the way to Diagon Alley for weekly trips would 
seem
> laborious. I'm not sure there's an answer, just wondering if others
> have wondered about the more mundane aspects of the WW. >>
> 
> It doesn't matter how far the wizard greengrocer's shop is from the
> wizard's home: when you can Apparate, or when you're connected to 
the
> Floo Network, 200 miles and two blocks are the same distance away 
from
> you.
> 
> rapid_white_wolf wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161600>:
> 
> << Perhaps they have a home shopping service, what would be the 
wizard
> equivalent of the internet ;) >>
> 
> Oh, there were grocery stores that delivered before there was an
> Internet. A customer could phone in an order -- before the 
telephone
> was invented, a customer could send a servant or child with a 
note. A
> customer could come in person to shop and then have her purchases
> delivered later that day. A customer could have a standing order 
every
> week. A wizard customer could send an owl.
> 
> I've wondered if wizarding delivery service would be by broomstick,
> Floo, Apparation, or some other method of travel. By large owl?
> 
> Tinktonks wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161623>:
> 
Sue here:

Goodness, what a  variety of subjects for a post! :-) 

The problem about grocery shopping is you'd have to get Muggle 
money. This is certainly available, or they wouldn't be able to take 
Muggle taxis, make phone calls or such. In fact, it's indicated 
early on that there's some sort of exchange at Gringott's, where 
Hermione's parents do a swap for galleons and such. But the wizards 
don't seem to have a clue how to use Muggle money and there would be 
a bit of suspicion, surely, when they go to Muggle stores (would 
there be anyone thinking wizard shoppers were spies?)

Not sure about using Transfiguration for everything. We've seen 
Molly cooking, even if she did use her wand to light the stove and 
stir the sauce.The house elves seem to cook, too. Surely using 
transfiguration for everything would be like eating processed food 
all the time? Maybe magic is tiring?

Hey, maybe there ARE wizard farms, where they can at least grow 
things quickly...?





From scarah at gmail.com  Mon Nov 20 08:53:02 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 00:53:02 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <E1Gm2Dw-00074G-Kh@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
References: <3202590611192027p48675a3cx74ac1f3269369d56@mail.gmail.com>
	 <E1Gm2Dw-00074G-Kh@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <3202590611200053g1bb11a63q26d84607f79c2547@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161722

> Sherry now:
> Even as an adult, I can't read books with deliberately miserable
> endings, with no hope of something better in the end.

Sarah:
But the last three HP books have had pretty deliberately miserable
endings, haven't they?  Of course there will be something better in
the end, but not necessarily for the main character.

*Snip stuff about how Harry dying might hurt feelings and JKR is responsible*

> Sarah:
> Is there really any doubt about Harry triumphing, though?  I don't know of
> anyone who believes that Voldemort will win.  Harry will either win while
> simultaneously dying, win and keel over soon after, or win and survive.
>
>
> Sherry:
>
> I happen to interpret the prophecy literally, that it's Harry or Voldemort
> in the end.

Sarah:
Are you honestly saying there's a possibility that Voldemort will not
be triumphed over in the end?  Is that even a possibility?

I interpret the prophecy literally also, just a little differently
than most people do.

Sherry:
> If Harry succeeds, then Voldemort is dead and Harry is alive.

Sarah:
Let's say there had not been any Horcruxes.  Would you also interpret
Lily's actions as not a success?  Voldemort dead forever and the world
safe?  She failed because she died?

I have a different view of those actions.

Sherry:
> I do not believe in any "other" who will ride in on a white horse, save
> Harry's butt, off Voldemort and survive to receive all the praise, while
> Harry lives happily ever after behind the veil with his family.

Sarah:
You seem to have possibly misinterpreted my reading of the prophecy
(which you have also snipped).  I posted that according to the
prophecy, neither Harry nor Voldemort makes it.  The other does.
Nowhere in the prophecy does it say that the other wants to do this,
or whether it will be an easy thing for the other.  Or a white horse,
either.  Or, saving Harry's butt.  In fact it says that Harry will die
by the hand of the other (according to the way that I read it).  There
is certainly nothing in my reading of the prophecy regarding praise or
living happily ever after.  Just who kills who, who lives and who
dies.  That's it.

Sherry:
> ..."  Either Harry triumphs in the end or not, but it will be Harry's
> triumph or failure.  Otherwise, perhaps these books should have had a
> different name.

Sarah:
Again, I do not believe Harry will not triumph.  Do you think Lily
didn't triumph?  Because I think that she did.

Sarah



From darksworld at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 12:03:50 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:03:50 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejs5j6+kilm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161723

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:

> 
> 1.	"'How can I have hung round with you for five years and not 
> think girls are clever?' said Harry, stung by this." What does this 
> remark tell you about Harry?
> 

Charles:
This remark tells me that Harry still has respect for Hermione and 
her abilities, despite disagreeing with her conclusions. I think the 
remark that he is responding to tells us a great deal more about 
Hermione. It shows that she is desperate to seperate Harry from the 
HBP's potions book, no matter what arguments she has to resort to.

Alla:
> 2.	The narrator tells us that the reason why Harry disliked 
> Snape's detentions was because they were taking away from his time 
> with Ginny. Would have Harry liked them otherwise? 
>
Charles:
I actually read it as that they were worse than ordinary detentions 
because it seperated him from Ginny. Harry *like* a detention with 
Snape? Not in *several* million years! 
> 
Alla:
> 3.	Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor 
> Trelawney?
> 
Charles:
I see three reasons for this. First, she is trying to get him to fire 
Firenze, which DD's loyalty would not allow him to do. Second, she is 
often drunk when we see her in this book, and I don't think he wants 
to smell her cooking sherry. Third and most improtantly, I think 
she's been predicting him *to* death, as well as just predicting his 
death.

Alla: 
> 4.	The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly 
> predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your 
> opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other 
> Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?
> 
Charles:
I've been pretty equivocal about Trelawney's ability. We have seen 
her make real prophecies before, but with a change in persona. We've 
also seen her make countless off the mark prophecies. They say even a 
broken clock is right twice a day. That may or may not be the reason 
that she's right here.
 I don't want to get too much into the religion of it, but in my 
belief system, the Tarot is a very powerful tool for aligning the 
subconscious with the world around it. Entering into a chemically 
altered state before using the Tarot is not generally advisable, 
because the changed functioning of the mind changes the way the 
subconscious interacts with the world. In this case, however, I think 
that one could see the altered state of drink is substituting for the 
altered state of trance, allowing SPT to tap her gift consciously. 

OTOH, I'm not so sure that we're not meant to ignore the fact that 
it's the often wrong Sybill that shows the card and see just the card 
itself as foreshadowing of the events on the AT.

Alla:
> 5.	We have discussed many times Trelawney's version of the 
> prophecy, Dumbledore's version of the prophecy, whether they are 
> compatible or not, etc., so I am not going there, but there is a 
> small detail which I am not sure I remember an answer to 
> (speculative answer of course). How did Trelawney know that Snape 
> was looking for a job at the time? Alla imagines Snape and 
> Trelawney's evening tea conversations.
> 

Charles:
I'm not so sure she knows it for certain. She has a certain way of 
assuming things that tends to be off the mark. I think we're shown 
that with her expectation that as soon as she started teaching again 
Firenze would be booted out the door.

Alla:
> 
> 6.	"Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort 
> hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or 
> disagree with this quote? Why? 

Charles:
No. I think that Snape started the hunt, but Pettigrew didn't start 
Voldemort after the Potters, he just gave them to Voldemort on a 
silver platter.

Alla:
> 
> 7.	"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.'" What was 
> Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?
> 
Charles:
I think he was trying to make up his mind how much to tell Harry. 
There's a lot more to why DD trusts snape than he told Harry that 
night. I think that a good long talk with DD's portrait or a dive 
into the pensieve is in Harry's future for that more than any other 
reason. 

Alla:
> 8.	"'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, 
> Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We 
also 
> know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and 
> some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry 
> loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person 
to 
> die by that criteria, whom would you pick?
> 
Charles:
Hermione or Remus. Most likely Hermione. I think that while he's 
pretty nasty to Remus, Hermione is more likely to be the one Snape 
hates more.

Alla: 
> 9.<snip of quote> Harry is trying to restrain himself from knocking 
things over. Is it 
> because he has undergone some character development and is trying 
to 
> control his temper, or is he simply afraid that Dumbledore will not 
> let him come? Any other ideas?
> 
Charles:
I think there's a little bit of both here. I also think that 
subconsciously, Harry realizes that he has a much better chance at 
convincing DD about Malfoy if he keeps his cool.

Alla:
> 10.	"'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't 
> even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?' 
> asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you suspect 
> them of doing, precisely?'"  Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this 
> question?
>
Charles:
Because DD doesn't have a clue exactly what Draco is up to. I'm 
certain he knows about the plan to kill him- but the details aren't 
there.
 
> 11.	 `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?'  Here we 
> meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out possible 
> socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there 
> any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron 
> wrapped in sock?

To paraphrase Dr. Freud, "Sometimes a sock is just a sock" IOW, I 
don't really think so. I may be wrong, but I'll leave it to those out 
there who theorise about soft footwear. :-)

Charles, who is about to go to bed *really* late, and is now afraid 
he will be dreaming about the metaphysical and metaphorical 
implications of socks.





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Mon Nov 20 13:58:12 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 07:58:12 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Kreacher the Plot Device Elf(was: Potter...wealth - ...Nature of Elves)
References: <ejrjku+fsos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004f01c70cab$eb736e20$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161724

>bboyminn wrote:

>It is as a house-elf that I think he is >worthless 
>regardless of who he is currently >working for. If Master
>Black (the original, not Sirius) was still >alive, I'm 
>sure Kreacher would /try/ to do a better >job, but I'm not
>so sure he would succeed. <snip>

>Of course, the point of having the >Dursleys at Grimmauld
>Place is to give Harry and Petunia a >chance to have that
>heart-to-heart talk that will reveal all >her secrets. <snip>

Lana:

I would love to see the Dursleys have to come to Harry to protection.  Wouldn't that be a gas..  Serves them right.  Not sure it will happen, but I would love to see it happen.  
 They would see the happenings of magic folk, and maybe then Petunia would turn her stubborn fraidy cat routine around and be of some use.  Just imagine how quickly she would have that house in tip top shape.  LOL  I do think at some point Harry will get hte info he needs out of Petunia.  Since we know nothing of her relationship with her sister, there may deep secrets Lily swore her to keep secret until the appropriate time.
  Now, as for Kreacher...  I don't really think he is useless in any manner.  He didn't have to keep the house clean or do anything.  Nobody lived there.  Sirius was in Azkaban with no hope of coming home, so Kreacher had nothing but time to do what he wanted.  Would you clean a house nobody lived in?  Sure not me.. LOL
  As for his being a good plot device, I think he has been great.  I think there is more to come.  I also think he knows alot more after spending time at the Malfoys than we think he does.  And not to mention he has hidden alot of treasures and some of it might be of use.
  Lana
  


  


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




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Mon Nov 20 14:03:10 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:03:10 -0600
Subject: Wizard gardens and food
References: <ejrj52+6206@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005801c70cac$9ccb0ed0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161725

I would assume that they do have farms and such.  Remember Hagrids pumkins??

And don't forget the chickens at the Burrow.  If Molly has chickens, then surely she must have a garden.  

Lana

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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 20 14:24:54 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:24:54 -0000
Subject: Snape and Karkaroff
In-Reply-To: <ejqsmf+1nsb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsdrm+agd0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161726


> 
> Carol responds:
> I think your first instinct is correct, only I always read it as an
> act of courage and loyalty on Snape's part rather than the desire 
for
> DD's protection, whereas Karkaroff is clearly a coward. "Flee, then!
> Flee!" to me shows Snape's contempt, and "I will make your excuses" 
is
> just "Don't worry. I'll cover up for you."

Potioncat:
Well, as a DDM!Snaper, so do I, but I always thought he was 
suggesting DD would offer safety.

Carol:
> 
> Karkaroff is clearly terrified of Voldemort and the DEs he betrayed
> (even though only one, Rookwood, actually was arrested because of
> him). I doubt very much that he's at Hogwarts on Voldemort's orders;
> Dumbledore invited him as part of his attempt to unite the three
> schools against Voldemort. 

Potioncat:
I meant, was it possible Karkaroff was at Durmstrang on LV's orders. 
Did LV want loyal followers placed in schools of Magical Education as 
a way of influencing the next generation? In that case, Snape would 
be implying that he was staying at his post (Hogwarts) as Karkaroff 
should stay at his post; but if Karkaroff should flee, Snape would 
explain.  Before HBP I've always thought Snape would explain to DD 
why Karkaroff left. Come to think of it, he could mean both.

Carol:
> So I seriously doubt that Snape is posing as a loyal DE for 
Karkaroff.
> I think that Karkaroff appeals to him for help for the opposite
> reason; he knows (as, I think, does Barty Jr.) that Snape is loyal 
to
> Dumbledore. And I think that Barty has mentioned where Snape's
> loyalties lie in his communications with LV (the eagle owl, 
remember?).

Potioncat:
I'm not sure what IK thinks about Snape being at Hogwarts. How many 
DEs knew that Snape was placed at Hogwarts by LV? IK outed Snape 
after Snape went to Hogwarts. As far as Barty goes, I think he sees 
Snape as a DE who walked free. Snape's statement, "DD trusts me" does 
not say where his own loyalties lie. He could still make it sound pro-
LV or pro-DD depending on where he was.


>Carol: 
> Of course, Snape explains it all away after he "returns" to 
Voldemort,
> but I see no reason why he'd pretend to be a loyal DE for 
Karkaroff's
> benefit since Igor is a traitor himself.


Potioncat:
A couple of thoughts that developed after I first posted. No matter 
where Snape is, or who he is talking to, he has to play it close. He 
has to be able to easily switch meanings. And this is true whether he 
is DDM!Snape, ESE!Snape or OFH!Snape. It's true whether he's with an 
Order member or a DE.

Karkaroff betrayed his fellow DEs after LV's downfall. Yet he seems 
to be on good terms with Lucius. Draco says he almost went to 
Durmstrang, so whatever he's heard about Karkaroff has been positive 
or neutral, but not negative. Snape would have to think that IK would 
betray anyone to get on LV's good side if the opportunity came up. So 
I don't think he would be openinly and fully DDM with Karkaroff. 
However, he would still be ambiguous, because he has to protect his 
cover.

Another thought I've had---oh my, two in one day!---is that I think 
JKR sees each of the books as individual books. I think we fans tend 
to see it all as a continuing story. Yes, characters move around from 
book to book, but she has a purpose for characters within a book.  I 
think Karkaroff's role was to make Snape look shady. We knew IK had 
been a DE, we find out Snape had been a DE--then we see them having 
mysterious conversations. Snape bacame one of many suspects in the 
Case of who put Harry's name in the Goblet.

Potioncat, who is now picturing Snape singing "The Orange and the 
Green" by the Irish Rovers---"I played the flute or played the harp, 
depending where I was." or, more likely, "And me being strictly 
neurtral, bashed everyone in sight."





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 14:55:40 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:55:40 -0000
Subject: Why Cruciatus?  (A question about Dear Bella)
In-Reply-To: <ejr20m+33pj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsflc+sfb6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161727

Mike wrote:
> 
> I too think there is something wrong with it but for a different 
> reason. It starts with Barty Sr's pronouncement at the trial:
<snip quotes>
> This makes it seem that although the Ministry had probably caught 
> the right people, they were probably just as likely to be guessing 
> as to the perpetrator's motivation for the attack on the 
> Longbottoms. Given the DMLE's actions during the Crouch years in 
> charge, I question the conclusion they reached, and Dumbledore's 
> parroting of the same.
> 
> Dumbledore told us prior to this that his informants gave him to 
> believe that Voldemort was holed up in Albania. Wormtail seemed to 
> go directly there after his escape at the end of PoA, and he had 
> spent the last 12 years as Percy's then Ron's rat. How much of a 
> secret was Voldemort's whereabouts? I know the Longbottom tortures 
> took place more than ten years prior, but the WW doesn't seem to 
> have come upon some revelation during the interim as to where 
> Voldemort was residing. 
> 
> My point is, the whereabouts of Voldemort doesn't seem to be this 
> great secret that the Longbottoms would need to be tortured to 
> reveal. Nor does it seem reasonable that the Longbottoms would have 
> some inside information as to this location.
> 
> So, what was the real reason that the Longbottoms were tortured? 
> What was the information they were more likely to have? If it was 
> all a set up by someone (Lucius Malfoy?) to get the Lestranges out 
> of the way, why does the Ministry, and for that matter Dumbledore, 
> believe that they were after Voldemort's whereabouts? IMHO, this 
> might be a profitable line of questioning to pursue.

<snip> Revenge can be highly motivating, and it makes more 
> sense to me than that hooey about finding Voldemort.
>
Carol responds:
Except that the "hooey" explanation is given by both Bellatrix herself
("We alone tried to find him," "Pensieve chapter of GoF) and Voldemort
("They will be rewarded above all others," graveyard chapter of GoF).
I can find the exact quotes, which are somewhat more detailed, if
necessary to prove my point.

As for the DEs knowing where Voldemort was, you forget that Quirrell
(not a DE) went to Albania to study Dark Creatures and brought
Voldemort back (how, I have yet to figure out since LV wasn't yet
possessing Quirrell--maybe he was possessing Nagini).
Scabbers/Wormtail would have heard at least some of Harry's
conversations with Ron about Quirrell!mort, not to mention whatever
Mr. Weasley said about Voldemort to Mrs. Weasley when Ron was home.
And Wormtail also heard from his fellow rats and other small creatures
about a ghost (IIRC) that possessed and destroyed small animals like
themselves. All he had to do was follow the trail of rumors amid the
rats and snakes. (It seems that Animagi can talk to animals when
they're in animal form--SB can talk to Crookshanks, for example--so I
see no reason why snakes wouldn't be included. Certainly, he talked
with his fellow rats.)

So Quirrell, a victim of the DADA curse, discovered Voldemort
seemingly by accident; Wormtail traced him via rat tales. I don't
think his whereabouts was common knowledge. The WW in general thought
him dead, even some of the DEs other than the loyal Bella and her crew
of lunatics. 

As for Frank Longbottom using tactics comparable to those used by
Crouch Sr., the only evidence for that is Crouch's authorization of
Unforgiveables among Aurors, and we're told that Alastor Moody, not
known for being mild-mannered, never killed unless he had to. There's
no indication that he or any of the other Aurors took advantage of the
authorization to use Unforgiveables on DEs. We don't hear any DEs
expressing desire for revenge except a few in Azkaban, presumably
Bella and her crew, who were arrested after Sirius Black, complaining
against Wormtail. Not a word among any of them, not even the DEs in
the DoM, against Aurors.

We see Bella and Lucius in the DoM tormenting Neville. Lucius, IIRC,
says that Neville's gran is used to losing family members (evidently
the DEs killed her husband, whom Neville saw die, as well as sending
her son and daughter-in-law to St. Mungo's), and Bella happily Crucios
Neville without a word about revenge against his parents. Yes, they
were Order members as well as Aurors (or Frank was an Auror and Alice
was made one for OoP after readers protested the "sexism" of "the
Auror Frank Longbottom and his wife"), but why torture Alice unless
they're trying to get *information* out of Frank and think he'll
reveal it to protect her? If they wanted revenge, wouldn't they just
torture *him*? Or kill them both for being Order members and be done
with it?

Carol, who thinks that Lucius may well have given them a false lead
but believes that they were after information, as at least four
characters have stated, not revenge, which has not even been hinted at
as a motive





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 20 15:03:54 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:03:54 -0000
Subject: Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <E1Gm2Dw-00074G-Kh@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <ejsg4q+a076@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161728

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at ...> wrote:

> Sarah:
> Is there really any doubt about Harry triumphing, though?  I don't know of
> anyone who believes that Voldemort will win.  Harry will either win while
> simultaneously dying, win and keel over soon after, or win and survive.
> 
> 
> Sherry:
> 
> I happen to interpret the prophecy literally, that it's Harry or Voldemort
> in the end.  If Harry succeeds, then Voldemort is dead and Harry is alive.
> I do not believe in any "other" who will ride in on a white horse, save
> Harry's butt, off Voldemort and survive to receive all the praise, while
> Harry lives happily ever after behind the veil with his family.  It would
> negate the entire series, the books all with the name "Harry Potter and the
> ..."  Either Harry triumphs in the end or not, but it will be Harry's
> triumph or failure.  Otherwise, perhaps these books should have had a
> different name.
> 
> Sherry, confident Harry will survive and joining Geoff in the IWHTL club!

Geoff:
I'm glad there's at least a second member of the club!

One of the reasons I read fiction like LOTR or the Narnia books or the HP 
books is that I want to get away from the real world. I very rarely read 
fiction set in the modern, everyday world because I can turn on the six 
o'clock news and get it for real ? if that's what I really want.

I have a hankering for happy endings ? or at least satisfactory ones. I am 
happy to accept that there will be cliff-hanging moments along the way 
and there will be the loss of some characters but I always want good to 
prevail. 

Some recent posts have referred to other well-known books. A recent 
post cited the end of C.S.Lewis' "The Last Battle", the last of the Narnia 
books where most of the characters end up with Aslan in one of the 
most interesting descriptions of heaven I have ever read. But, almost 
all the chief characters arrive there together, with the exception of 
Susan who "is no longer a friend of Narnia". Although throughout the 
books, the various characters have been threatened by enemies, the 
threat has never seems as ominous and present as that faced by Harry 
and the fact that the Pevensies have been propelled into heaven via an 
off-stage train crash seems distant and I didn't feel a sense of loss 
because the reader is "there" with Peter, Edmund and Lucy, with 
Diggory and Polly, with Eustace and Jill. Except for Susan, nobody we 
have adventured with is left behind.

Again, in LOTR, I have never seen Frodo as dying but going quietly off 
to seek fulfilment by accepting Arwen's gift of life over the sea ? to be 
followed later by Sam. Although all the members of the Fellowship have 
been in great danger, only Boromir has died and he is not the most 
high-profile member of the group. Good has prevailed and Frodo, 
although physically and emotionally marked by his experiences, has 
fulfilled his quest with a bit of unintentional help from Gollum.

The world of Narnia is a parallel world with limited entrance. Middle-Earth 
is Earth but in a far distant time period where the culture and lifestyle is 
markedly different to ours. But Harry is different because we can identify 
with him so much more closely. He moves in and out of our world and 
streets. we have schools and playground bullies; trains and real world 
shops. His real world is one we know and live in ourselves even though 
it rubs shoulders with an imaginary and magical parallel world. So, for 
that reason, Harry is like one of the young people in my church or one 
of the guys I used to teach.

Here in the UK, we have had a recent spate of killings involving teenagers 
and the news reports bring home to us the sense of loss and tragedy that 
affects the parents, the friends, the schools and the communities involved. 
As a Christian, I accept that we live in a fallen world where what should 
happen doesn't always happen but I want to people today to see beyond 
the gloom and doom to things which will uplift them ? rather as Sam sees 
the stars briefly through a gap in the clouds in Mordor and realises that 
evil is transient. To many young readers and to adults in their second 
childhood (or stuck in their first like me!) the thought of Harry emerging 
victoriously from a confrontation with Voldemort is an exciting ideal to 
hold in anticipation of the appearance of Book 7 and the end of the Age 
of Finger-Nail Biting.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 20 15:28:27 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:28:27 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...wealth - ...Nature of Elves)
In-Reply-To: <ejrjku+fsos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejshir+ip16@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161729

> > Magpie:
> > I can't help but be a little amused at your continually
> > calling Kreacher useless given how much he affected the
> > plot. ...
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Oh, Kreacher was a very valuable plot-device, and I don't
> think that aspect of his role is over. He still has a 
> few stashed trinkets that he needs to reveal. 
> 
> It is as a house-elf that I think he is worthless 
> regardless of who he is currently working for. If Master
> Black (the original, not Sirius) was still alive, I'm 
> sure Kreacher would /try/ to do a better job, but I'm not
> so sure he would succeed. 

Magpie:
That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with--what makes Kreacher so 
worthless as a house-elf?  Because he's too old to work well and is 
stubborn about helping the people he must help? Isn't that kind of a 
harsh view of house-elves?  In HBP Kreacher had one job to do and 
seemed to actually do it fine--though he did his best to work 
against Harry by giving him as little information about Malfoy as he 
could (which spoke to his mind working). So to me he came across as 
a character no less useless than Dobby, just working for other 
people. He did a *great job* in OotP from the pov of the people he 
was actually loyal to, I thought.

Steve: 
> Yes, if Harry is living alone, he doesn't really need a 
> house-elf, but if he is running the headquarter for the
> Order, and is playing host to the Dursleys, I don't see 
> him up to cooking big meals for gangs of people. Nor do I
> see Petunia cooking using a fireplace or a magical stove.
> Further, I don't see Petunia in a position to be running 
> down to the green grocers to pick up supplies.

Magpie:
I don't really see Harry running the Order or the Order's hotel in 
Book VII. If there's anyone staying at Grimmauld Place presumably 
the same person would do the cooking as always--Molly.  And at this 
point the Dursleys as house guests is just an idea for what might 
happen in Book VII so we can't count on it yet, but if they are 
there I would still assume Molly and the other adults would be 
cooking for them.

Steve:
> So regardless of whether Kreacher is /capable/ of being
> a good house-elf, I don't think he is. He isn't keeping
> up the Black House, we never see him cook or clean, and 
> he isn't faithfully serving his Master, and they can't 
> let him go because he knows too much. All in all, as an 
> Elf, I say pretty worthless, but I admit as a plot device
> he has and does serve well.

Magpie:
But is that all the worth of a house elf?  I just have a hard time 
applying the word "worthless" to someone because they're unable to 
cook and clean-if indeed Kreacher actually is completely unable to 
do any kind of task. His mind is still intact (the "crazy old house 
elf" was a rather convenient label for the Order). Looking at the 
elves at Hogwarts it seems like Winky is shown as being even less 
competent than Kreacher but I'd hate to just judge her as worthless 
as a house-elf. Based on what what I've seen I actually could 
imagine Kreacher being useful even in the regular house-elf ways 
(cooking and cleaning) if he went to work for one of the Blacks. so 
yes, I guess if you define house-elf strictly as the luxuries 
they're supposed to provide wizards with he's worthless to Harry. If 
you define house-elf as the sentient race to which Kreacher happens 
to belong I think he's got a lot of worth.  He's my favorite of all 
the ones we've met easily.:-)

-m





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 20 15:36:36 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:36:36 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsi24+q5iv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161730

Thanks, Alla!  I love some of your questions so much I'm skipping 
right to them. :-)

QUESTIONS
> 3.	Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor 
> Trelawney?

Jen:  My first thought was DD *knows* doom is coming and doesn't 
need Trelawney to spell it out for him.  He doesn't know precisely 
when or how but knows Voldemort has finally arranged all his chess 
pieces in such a way Dumbledore cannot find a strategy to defeat 
him.  Plus his obsessive focus on the Horcruxes at the expense of 
other things that year led him to overlook important information 
right under his nose (from Harry and Trelawney).  I wonder if he 
thought about Trelawney when he was on the tower?

 
> 4.	The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly 
> predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your 
> opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other 
> Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

Jen:  Hard to say, exactly.  Maybe because I believe there are 
people with such a gift in real life Trelawney was never been a 
completely comic figure to me.  Conversely she's never been shown to 
have predictive powers other than acting as a channel for the 
prophecies.  At the very least she might have better potential as a 
card reader than reading tea leaves or looking into the crystal 
ball!   Charles may be on to something about the sherry releasing 
her inner Seer just as the trance state allowed her to channel the 
prophecies <g>.
 
> 5.	We have discussed many times Trelawney's version of the 
> prophecy, Dumbledore's version of the prophecy, whether they are 
> compatible or not, etc., so I am not going there, but there is a 
> small detail which I am not sure I remember an answer to 
> (speculative answer of course). How did Trelawney know that Snape 
> was looking for a job at the time? Alla imagines Snape and 
> Trelawney's evening tea conversations.

Jen: My guess is Ceridwen nailed this one, they were talking at the 
Hog's Head at some point before the interview and Snape was trying 
to get information.  I don't know *why* he would think a job 
interview could yield something important enough to eavesdrop on.  
Maybe Voldemort just wanted any information he could get regarding 
Dumbledore.  Or he wanted Snape to find out if Dumbledore had 
already hired a Potions prof and when Trelawney didn't know the 
answer, Snape thought the job interview might give him some 
information. 
 
> 6.	"Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort 
> hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or 
> disagree with this quote? Why? 

Jen: Both of them played a role in Godric's Hollow, one indirect and 
one direct. Snape did influence the events that happened even if he 
was putting an unknown child in harm's way.  I'm not sure this 
speculation would add anything to the story, but I've wondered if 
Voldemort attempted to kill James and Lily when Lily was pregnant or 
was GH the only time?  All the prophecy says is that a baby will be 
born to those who 'thrice defied him' so defiance during pregnancy 
would count.  And the prophecy indicates the child wasn't born yet, 
that he 'approaches' and 'will be born'. OTOH, Dumbledore is vague 
about the timing, he said he heard the prophecy '16 years ago' and 
Harry was born 'nearly 16 years ago' so maybe the prophecy had been 
cooking for awhile inside Trelawney and Harry was already born that 
night.

> 8.	"'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, 
> Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We
> also know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead 
> and some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and 
> Harry loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next 
> person to die by that criteria, whom would you pick?

Jen:  I *really* think the tables will be turned in the last book 
and they will lose someone both of them care about to different 
degrees, i.e., Hagrid *sniff*.  Or Harry might learn how many losses 
Snape has endured if Voldemort killed his parents and that was part 
of his turning to Dumbledore.  A last speculation is Snape will be 
the one to lose someone he loves, if Madam Pince is Eileen, and both 
with understand the other's situation better. 

> 11.	 `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?'  Here we 
> meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out
> possible socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So,
> is there any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix 
> felicis to Ron wrapped in sock?

Jen: JKR is messing with us!!  No, actually I have a prediction 
here.  The socks are mainly symbolic for comfort but I think all 
this hiding of stuff in socks also foreshadows Dobby's knitted 
Snitch socks helping Harry in some way <g>.  The least of his 
brothers....

Jen R.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 20 15:50:11 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:50:11 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsirk+jgrn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161731

> QUESTIONS
> 
> 
> 1.	"'How can I have hung round with you for five years and not 
> think girls are clever?' said Harry, stung by this." What does 
this 
> remark tell you about Harry?

Magpie:
I think it says more about his friend than about him. What it says 
about him should have already been obvious--he knows girls can be 
really clever. Hermione's accusation is silly and self-serving. It's 
*she* who has her own agenda for the prince and wants to be right 
about something, so unfairly accuses Harry of being sexist and 
dismisses his own correct instincts about the gender of 
his "friend." To do that she accuses her own friend of something 
pretty big that he's never done. She might as well have said Harry 
didn't think a Muggleborn could be clever enough.
> 
> 2.	The narrator tells us that the reason why Harry disliked 
> Snape's detentions was because they were taking away from his time 
> with Ginny. Would have Harry liked them otherwise? 

Magpie:
No. He's never liked them for any reason. He doesn't think he's a 
cheat, doesn't like reading about the Marauders, hates spending time 
with Snape, has got the Quidditch team angry with him. But the 
narrator's got a shot here to remind us that Ginny makes Harry 
happy, and so much the better to do it through Snape ruining it.

> 3.	Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor 
> Trelawney?

Magpie:
She's become more unstable and needy throughout the year. He 
probably tried to be patient at first and now sees no point, 
especially since he's getting busier.
 
> 4.	The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly 
> predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your 
> opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other 
> Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

Magpie:
Trelawney's always been a true seer about the most important things, 
and in this book it seemed clear that because she had hit such a low 
point and no one was listening she'd have to be telling the future 
right. She wasn't putting on a show, and she didn't think the cards 
could be right--so of course they would be.
 
> 5.	We have discussed many times Trelawney's version of the 
> prophecy, Dumbledore's version of the prophecy, whether they are 
> compatible or not, etc., so I am not going there, but there is a 
> small detail which I am not sure I remember an answer to 
> (speculative answer of course). How did Trelawney know that Snape 
> was looking for a job at the time? Alla imagines Snape and 
> Trelawney's evening tea conversations.

Magpie:
I guess whatever Trelawney remembers of Snape included him saying he 
was looking for a job. Either Snape said it (if she remembers seeing 
him) or Dumbledore maybe explains an interruption that way.  What's 
probably more important is just that we know he said he was looking 
for a job or was looking for a job (on Voldemort's orders?).


> 6.	"Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort 
> hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or 
> disagree with this quote? Why? 

Magpie:
Snape sent Voldemort hunting, but then took action to prevent the 
prey being found. Peter came in when they were already being hunted, 
and pointed out their hiding place.
 
> 7.	"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.'" What was 
> Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

Magpie:
I think he was making up his mind about whether to tell Harry why he 
trusted Snape, and decided to just tell him his conclusion instead 
of revealing things or trying to explain why he thinks the way he 
does. Perhaps that's a combination of not revealing Snape's private 
business, not saying something he's sure Harry should hear and 
thinking that just hearing about it won't be convincing enough.
 
> 8.	"'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, 
> Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We 
also 
> know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and 
> some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry 
> loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person 
to 
> die by that criteria, whom would you pick?

Magpie:
I would have said Hagrid, but Snape doesn't seem to hate him. I 
can't actually think of too many people left that Harry actually 
loves and Snape actually hates. Despite how nasty he can be to kids, 
he only really seems to hate Harry. Lupin's the only person left 
from the last generation and despite the wishes of a lot of fans, 
Harry just really doesn't seem that close to him.

> 9.	"Breathing hard as though he were fighting, Harry turned 
> away from Dumbledore, who still had not moved a muscle, and paced 
up 
> and down the study, rubbing his knuckles in his hand and 
exercising 
> every last bit of restraint to prevent himself knocking things 
over. 
> He wanted to rage and storm at Dumbledore, but he also wanted to 
go 
> with him to try and destroy the Horcrux; he wanted to tell him 
that 
> he was a foolish old man for trusting Snape, but he was terrified 
> that Dumbledore would not take him along unless he mastered his 
> anger ..."
> 
> Harry is trying to restrain himself from knocking things over. Is 
it 
> because he has undergone some character development and is trying 
to 
> control his temper, or is he simply afraid that Dumbledore will 
not 
> let him come? Any other ideas?

Magpie:
I think Harry's shown this type of restraint before. With his 
upbringing especially he'd know what not to say to get what he 
wanted taken away.
 
> 10.	"'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't 
> even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?' 
> asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you 
suspect 
> them of doing, precisely?'"  Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this 
> question?

Magpie:
I like to think Dumbledore's being a little arrogant here. He knows 
Harry can't actually answer the question, but is also referencing 
the powerlessness of Malfoy (since he knows-thinks he knows-that 
Snape won't be helping Draco at all).  Dumbledore knows the task is 
to kill him, which can't be done if he's left the castle, and he 
really doesn't see anything Malfoy could do that would be a danger. 
He uses Harry's ignorance about the big picture to shut him up and 
it works.

> 
> 11.	 `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?'  Here we 
> meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out 
possible 
> socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there 
> any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron 
> wrapped in sock?

Magpie:
I didn't think there was any, myself.

-m





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 20 16:03:53 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:03:53 -0000
Subject: DD's death and Harry(WAS:Re: Snape didn't make etc.)
In-Reply-To: <020b01c70c48$8b01fb50$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ejsjl9+5bqf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161732

> Lana writes:
> I have to agree here.  I don't think the blood protection is there.
> However, I do believe that with his death it may have created a 
> stronger protection in a different form.  It goes to the
> sacrificing DD's life for Harrys.

Jen:  While I agree with Potioncat that Dumbledore actually 
sacrificed his life for Draco, something Harry could never conceive 
of and something he will understand in the end,  I'm with you that 
Dumbledore's death was not the end of his protection of Harry.  I 
think he had all year to plan for this contingency and he understood 
ancient magic more thoroughly than anyone else.

There's something important about the tower being the inverse of the 
graveyard scene. They are symmetrical but in opposition if I'm 
explaining that correctly.  There's a birth and a death, there are 
servants who attend the ritual and cause the action of birth or 
death and imo, both are unwilling in different ways: Peter out of 
fear and Snape out of loyalty.  The hero is bound and forced to 
watch the events take place and then there's a chase scene at the 
end and both involve Harry in opposite ways: In one Harry is being 
pursued and others are attempting to kill him and in the other Harry 
is pursuing and his curses are being deflected.  

Here's something I said in another post:  The idea that Voldemort's 
rebirth and Dumbledore's death could be grounded in their opposing 
magical beliefs of dark magic and ancient magic is very appealing. 
It would be the conclusion of a long struggle between them over love 
magic vs. Voldemort's magic. I would love to see Dumbledore's 
sacrifice in death override Voldemort's violent resurrection in some 
way, showing that love magic is more powerful.

Jen





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 16:30:23 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:30:23 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsl6v+52bl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161733

<snip Alla's detailed summary, which makes the quotes nice and accessible>
> 
> 1.	"'How can I have hung round with you for five years and not 
> think girls are clever?' said Harry, stung by this." What does this 
> remark tell you about Harry?

Carol responds:
I agree with Ceridwen that the little incident tells us more about
Hermione than Harry. She should know better than to imply that Harry
doesn't think girls (or at least this particular girl) are clever. He
said so as early as SS/PS. (BTW, I agree with Hermione that Harry
shouldn't be taking credit for the HBP's ideas, but her motive comes
across as jealousy, as if she thinks that the HBP has taken her place
as Harry's intellectual advisor.)
 
> 2.	The narrator tells us that the reason why Harry disliked 
> Snape's detentions was because they were taking away from his time 
> with Ginny. Would have Harry liked them otherwise? 

Carol:
Well, obviously not. Snape was punishing Harry, among other motives,
and he didn't want them to be pleasant, any more than sorting rotten
Flobberworms from good ones was pleasant. He also needed a task that
would take a good long time (till the end of the year at least), be
boring, and provide an occasional sting as Harry encountered
detentions involving his father and godfather. Any other motives Snape
had, such as keeping Harry away from Draco, would be of no concern to
Harry, who would have felt put upon and resentful for missing
Quidditch or just being kept in on a Saturday morning if he didn't
have time away from Ginny to resent. And he might have felt much the
same way even if the detentions had been administered by McGonagall.
Harry has yet to learn anything from a detention, IMO--unless you
count learning about the Forbidden Forest and its denizens as a lesson
McGonagall didn't intend. But when have detentions ever deterred Harry
from breaking rules or made him feel sorrier or guiltier about what
he's done? It seems to me that he's forgotten why he's there and made
it all Snape's fault again in his own mind.
> 
> 
> 3.	Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor 
> Trelawney?

Carol:
Primarily because she won't take no for an answer. He's hired "the
nag" to take half her classes and he can't go back on that
arrangement, nor can he fire Trelawney or tell her what danger she's
in. I'm sure he wishes that she'd just go away. And it's
possible--this idea just struck me"--that she's pulled out the
Lightning-Struck-Tower card and flourished it at Dumbledore, too. Does
he already know that disaster is coming (UV, DADA curse, Draco's
project), and does the card actually persuade him to speed things up?
> 
> 4.	The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly 
> predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your 
> opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other 
> Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

Carol:
Actually, I've felt all along that she's not quite as much of a fraud
as McGonagall and Hermione think. She may have made only two real
Prophecies in the sense of going into a trance, but she saw what
looked like a Grim (actually a dog Animagus) in the tea leaves, and
she can read the cards. I think she mainly needs more confidence, more
respect, less flim-flam, and a lot less cooking sherry. We'll see her
make a third real prediction in Book 7 or I'll--well, no I won't. But
I expect to see a bit more of her. She's not descended from Cassandra
Trelawney for nothing. (The mythical Cassandra's predictions weren't
believed but came true anyway. A hint here?)
> 
> 5.	We have discussed many times Trelawney's version of the 
> prophecy, Dumbledore's version of the prophecy, whether they are 
> compatible or not, etc., so I am not going there, but there is a 
> small detail which I am not sure I remember an answer to 
> (speculative answer of course). How did Trelawney know that Snape 
> was looking for a job at the time? <snip>

Carol:
I don't think she *knew* any such thing. She knew that he had recently
left Hogwarts, a little more than two years before, and she knew that
he got a job at Hogwarts almost two years later). She needs a reason
for him to be listening at keyholes and that's the one that occurs to
her. But we've seen in many cases (e.g., Hagrid, Ron, Hermione, Sirius
Black, Harry himself) that the explanations characters provide in good
faith are often incomplete or just plain wrong.

As I've said before, Trelawney did not start teaching at the beginning
of the school year. I think the interview took place on Halloween, but
it could have been any time between late fall and early spring. It was
not, however, the usual time for job interviews, and it's unlikely
that young Snape would have been listening in for that reason. She
simply supplied it as an explanation that made sense to her. (She did
not, of course, know that he was a DE at the time. Which, BTW, raises
the question of whether LV was paying him for his services, such as
potion making--and spying, if he was assigned to do so.)
> 
> 
> 6.	"Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort 
> hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or 
> disagree with this quote? Why? 

Carol:
You know the answer before I give it. Of course not. This is Harry
jumping to conclusions, thinking the worst of Snape, assuming that
Snape knew PP was the Secret Keeper and plotted with him to kill his
parents. We know from PoA that Snape had no such knowledge and from DD
that he had no such intention. Harry, like Trelwaney, is interpreting
incidents in ways that make sense to him, but we readers have enough
information to know that he's wrong. Snape did not send Voldemort
after the Potters. Harry had not been born yet (I think he was barely
conceived) and as DD points out, Snape had no way of knowing how
Voldemort would interpret the Prophecy or who it referred to. So,
obviously. our narrator, reflecting Harry's biases and preconceptions,
is not reliable here.
> 
> 7.	"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.'" What was 
> Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

Carol:
Whether to tell Harry why he trusts Snape. It may or may not have to
do with Lily, but IMO DD was protecting Snape, who has to appear to be
a loyal DE at this point. We still don't know why he trusts Snape, but
I believe it to be an excellent reason, and I'm sure we'll be whown
that Dumbledore was not "a foolish old man," as Harry thinks and Draco
actually says. (Or Draco says "stupid," but it's the same wrong-headed
idea.) Dumbledore has told Harry "everything" concerning himself, his
family, Riddle/Voldemort, and Horcruxes, but he can't tell him
everything about Snape, not even the "thrilling tale" of the ring
Horcrux and Snape's role in saving him.
> 
> 8.	"'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, 
> Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We also 
> know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and 
> some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry 
> loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person to 
> die by that criteria, whom would you pick?

Carol:
Hm. This is a loaded question, assuming ESE! or OFH!Snape, and I think
Harry is wrong--not about Snape hating James but about his role in the
Potters' death, which I'm quite sure he attempted to prevent by going
to Dumbledore and perhaps by trying to warn James directly and being
spurned. But, to turn the question in a DDM! direction, the person
Snape hates most, IMO, is Voldemort, and we will certainly see
Voldemort dead or destroyed by the end of the book, probably with
Snape's help. If, say, Lupin (whom Snape dislikes but doesn't
virulently hate, IMO) dies, it won't be because of Snape. Just my
view, but I don't really think this is a fair question, and I can't
think of anyone else except Harry whom Snape really hates (dislikes is
another matter). Certainly not Neville or Hermione, and he doesn't
want Harry to die because Harry, much as Snape hates the idea, is the
Chosen One, whose life he has saved or attempted to save on at least
three occasions.)

> 
> 9.	<snip quote> 
> Harry is trying to restrain himself from knocking things over. Is it 
> because he has undergone some character development and is trying to 
> control his temper, or is he simply afraid that Dumbledore will not 
> let him come? Any other ideas?

Carol:
Well, at least he's not smashing DD's possessions to relieve his
feelings, so he's showing self-control (as he also does with his
jealous urges to hit Dean elsewhere in the book). So I think he's
learned his lesson, at least with regard to Dumbledore (if not with
snape later in the book), but I agree that wanting to go to the cave
with DD is a powerful motivation. He cares what DD thinks of him and
he also very much wants to go on the Horcrux hunt even if he doesn't
trust DD's judgment regarding Snape.
> 
> 10.	"'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't 
> even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?' 
> asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you suspect 
> them of doing, precisely?'"  Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this 
> question?

Carol:
Good question. I think that DD know full well that Draco is trying to
kill him and knows that he's up to something in the RoR, but I wonder
why he would ask Harry. Maybe he wants to use Legilimency to find out
how much Harry knows, which turns out to be less than DD knows. Unlike
DD, he doesn't know that the "job" is killing DD and he (wrongly, IMO)
thinks that Snape is trying to help Draco do what LV wants. Neither of
them knows specifically about the Vanishing Cabinet, but clearly DD is
anticipating some sort of break-in or he wouldn't have the Order
members stationed there. I suppose he's asking what Harry knows in
case Harry is aware that Draco intends to kill DD, in which case DD is
going to have to offer some sort of explanation for leaving that
evening. Since Harry doesn't know what Draco is up to, he's spared the
explanation. And, of course, he doesn't want to say too much about
Snape. DD is erring on the side of caution, but perhaps he knows by
now that there's no way to save himself, or he's more concerned about
saving Draco and snape than saving himself. He can't anticipate the
exact circumstances on the tower, but he certainly anticipates danger
to himself based on the orders he gives to Harry. (There's so much JKR
is withholding from us. It's agony!)
> 
> 11.	 `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?'  Here we 
> meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out possible 
> socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there 
> any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron 
> wrapped in sock?

Carol:
I think she's just remembering that Harry uses socks to cushion
breakable objects and Sneakoscopes. They're useful for that purpose
and it provides a touch of humor for Harry to hand Ron socks at this
crucial moent. Yes, I know that everyone from Dobby to DD to
Fake!Moody refers to socks, and we even have Harry receiving a pair of
Uncle Vernon's old socks as a Christmas present, but I don't see any
plot significance. Maybe JKR is remembering getting socks for
Christmas when she wanted toys, or a later Christmas when she would
very much have appreciated a pair of warm socks but didn't receive
them. It has to be a personal thing, not important to the plot as far
as I can see.

What I want to know (and I know it's been discussed before, but I
haven't heard an answer I can ablsolutely accept) is why DD sent Harry
to get his Invisibility Cloak after telling him to keep it with him at
all times.

Carol, thanking Alla for the interesting discussion and really hoping
that JKR answers our questions about Snape, DD, and even Trelawney in
Book 7





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 20 17:05:02 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:05:02 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsn7u+1t7u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161734

Potioncat:
Very good summary, Alla and great questions. I'm only answering ones 
that I think I have something to add. Others have already given 
wonderful answers. 
> 
> 
> 3.	Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor 
> Trelawney?
Potioncat:
I think she has been getting very close with her predictions. DD does 
not want to be influenced by Divination. Look what kind of trouble it 
caused once before! Although he doesn't think much of Divination, he 
could still be swayed and he wants to avoid that. Also, with so much 
on his mind, I'm sure he's tired of Trelaney's 'doom and gloom.'

> 
> 4.	The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly 
> predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your 
> opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other 
> Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

Potioncat:
I've thought all along that part of her problem was in 
interpretation. Yeah, she's made some wild off the wall predictions, 
but she's also come very, very close a few times. In fact, I think 
some of her 'wrong' statements during Divination class will turn out 
to have more truth in them than we realized.

> 
> 5.How did Trelawney know that Snape 
> was looking for a job at the time? Alla imagines Snape and 
> Trelawney's evening tea conversations.

Potioncat:
Me too to what Ceridwin said. There are so many possibilities. 

Trelawney could be very wrong about it---Isn't that funny, she can't 
interpret the past any better than she does the future? But I think 
Snape was already seeking a job at at LV's request and I think she 
was correct. 

But, look at this again (Pulling quote from summary):

>>> Well, after that, you know, Dumbledore seemed much more dis?posed 
>to give me a job, and I could not help thinking, Harry, that it was 
> because he appreciated the stark contrast between my own unassuming 
> manners and quiet talent, compared to the pushing, thrusting young 
> man who was prepared to listen at keyholes - Harry, dear?' 

Potioncat continues:
Does she not remember that the "pushing, thrusting young man" will go 
on to become Professor Snape? Oh dear, no good at future, past or 
present, is she? First she says he was waffling, then she says he was 
pushing. Which was it? This memory seems very cloudy.

She brings up the contrast between herself and Snape. Which one is 
the better teacher...oh, never mind, been there, done that ;-)
 
> 
> 7.	"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.'" What was 
> Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

Potioncat:
DDM!Snape-Potioncat thinks DD was considering telling Harry more. 
OMG*he'sESE!Snape-Potioncat thinks there is some sort of magic 
preventing DD from speaking, and that he was trying to overcome that 
magic.(Quick, get JustCarol!)

In a few moments,DD will send Harry for his IC. We've wondered before 
why he did that. Harry was told to keep it with it all the time and 
in fact, he does have it. I wonder if DD used the 5 minutes to put 
aside a memory about Snape for Harry's use. You know, just in case DD 
doesn't make it back. He could have thought Harry would use the time 
to say his own goodbyes, and would not quibble about having the IC 
with him.


> 
> 8.	"'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, 
> Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We 
also 
> know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and 
> some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry 
> loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person 
to 
> die by that criteria, whom would you pick?

Potioncat:
Oh, no...I would never do that! 
> 
> 9.<snip> Harry is trying to restrain himself from knocking things 
>over. Is it  because he has undergone some character development and 
>is trying to control his temper, or is he simply afraid that 
>Dumbledore will not let him come? Any other ideas?

Potioncat:
Yes, to both questions. We will see this sort of effort in book 7 
when he works hard to shut his mouth and close his mind.

> 
> 10.	"'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't 
> even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?' 
> asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you suspect 
> them of doing, precisely?'"  Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this 
> question?

Potioncat:
Harry's answer is: 'I ... they're up to something!' said Harry and 
his hands curled into fists as he said it.

Now, who does that sound like? I think DD and Snape have had very 
similar conversations. In fact, the over-heard conversation between 
Snape and DD may have concerned the safety of the school during DD's 
jaunts.



> 11.	 `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?'  Here we 
> meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out possible 
> socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there 
> any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron 
> wrapped in sock?

Potioncat:
I just don't know what's going to come of socks. Someone has already 
said they represent comfort. I suspect we may never know. Whether in 
this case, Ron's question provided a bit of comedic relief, or if JKR 
was making sure we saw the socks, I couldn't say.

I will, of course, make sure everyone in my family gets socks for 
Christmas.

Potioncat, thanking Alla for a great Discussion.







From caaf at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 20 17:03:25 2006
From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:33:25 +0530
Subject: DD's death and Harry(WAS:Re: Snape didn't make etc.)
Message-ID: <BAY124-DAV2F1C65AABC18AFA9D219FCAED0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 161735

Cyril here:

>Jeremiah wrote:
>I don't think DD's blood has anything to >do with Harry's protection by DD. <snip>

Lana writes:

I have to agree here. I don't think the blood protection is there. However, I do believe that with his death it may have created a stronger protection in a different form. It goes to the sacrificing DD's life for Harrys.

Cyril here:

DD did not sacrifice his life for Harry. Infact, DD did not sacrifice his life with direct impact of saving anyone else.
When DD was murdered by Snape, he was not directly coming in the way of Snape to kill anyone else.
True, the outcome was because he was trying to save the lives of Snape and Draco, but his action of dying was not a direct input to saving their lives. At best his not dying would have indirectly threatened Snape's live due to the UV, but again that is not the outcome of any direct action by DD, just lack of it.
Lily's sacrifice which was a direct action, because she actively came in the way of LV killing Harry.
While there are probably magical effects of DD's death, it is not apparent that this is in anyway a direct sacrifice to save anyone.

>Jeremiah wrote:
>And I think if there is some message or >journal, object or potion (what have >you) it will be Aberfoth that brings it >forward.

Lana writes:
I am not sure what part Aberfoth (sp?) will play or what he will bring, but it is definately a possibility. I think that everything Harry needs is within his immediate grasp though. 
I am a firm believer that what he needs most is what was transferred to him from LV. I think that once he has the horcrux situation taken care of, it will be a matter of digging deep in himself for the knowledge of what to do next.


Cyril here:

While the powers transferred by LV to HP are important in his fight to overcome LV, I do not believe that they will be the critical ones. The wording of the prophecy, IIRC, is that "he will have power that the Dark Lord knows not" or something like that.
The way I interpret this is two-fold:
a) Harry has some powers, and LV does not know that he has those powers
b) Harry has powers which LV does not know of - that is he does not have knowledge of the powers itself.

It is the second interpretation that I feel is more relevant - because it was the power of Love that saved Harry, and it is this power that LV "knows not". Even DD repeatedly says that it is Love that will enable Harry to defeat LV, not other powers.

Just my thoughts.

Cyril, still wondering how JKR is going to use Harry Love to defeat LV, but sure that it is this power that will be the critical one.

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




From jajaredor at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 17:07:45 2006
From: jajaredor at yahoo.com (jajaredor)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:07:45 -0000
Subject: Hello / Portkey
In-Reply-To: <ehbd5p+11dp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsnd1+566u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161736

> > Alick:
<SNIP>
> > The portkey in GoF that took Harry and Cedric to LV also took
Harry
> > back: how did it work? If young Crouch set it up he surely
wouldn't
> > arrange a return journey; and I thought portkeys were time-
specific,
> > you couldn't just touch one and be off.
> >
> > The portkeys at the world cup appear to be time-specific and one-
way
> > use, so how did this one example work as a return and at any
time?
>
>

Hello,

I was cleaning up my mailbox and run across this spot. Anyways,
planned by Voldemort or not to return Harry to Hogwarts after he has
been slayed by him, Harry couldn't have known when the portkey-cup
was going to be activated seeing as portkeys are supposedly time
triggered. Maybe it is not a portkey or maybe it is, just that Moody
did a bit of modification? Just like Hermione has been doing to the
other spell/charm to suit her needs.

I wish it could have been explained to us a bit more.

Thanks,
Jade






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 17:19:09 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:19:09 -0000
Subject: Wizards and Muggles and Food
In-Reply-To: <ejrj52+6206@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejso2d+q9jc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161737

Sue wrote:
> 
> Goodness, what a  variety of subjects for a post! :-) 
> 
> The problem about grocery shopping is you'd have to get Muggle 
> money. This is certainly available, or they wouldn't be able to take 
> Muggle taxis, make phone calls or such. In fact, it's indicated 
> early on that there's some sort of exchange at Gringott's, where 
> Hermione's parents do a swap for galleons and such. But the wizards 
> don't seem to have a clue how to use Muggle money and there would be 
> a bit of suspicion, surely, when they go to Muggle stores (would 
> there be anyone thinking wizard shoppers were spies?)

Carol responds:
I think Catlady was suggesting that witches and wizards shop by using
owls to place their orders and then have them delivered, perhaps by
Floo network, which makes more sense to me than carrying them by broom
or apparating, and it would take more than a few owls to carry a
week's groceries for a family the size of the Weasleys. No need for
Muggle money. The store just sends the bill to Gringotts and they
debit your account. Of course, the Weasleys have to supplement any
orders to the Wizard grocery store with food they've grown themselves
and conjured sauce.
> 
Sue:
> Not sure about using Transfiguration for everything. We've seen 
> Molly cooking, even if she did use her wand to light the stove and 
> stir the sauce.The house elves seem to cook, too. Surely using 
> transfiguration for everything would be like eating processed food 
> all the time? Maybe magic is tiring?

Carol:
I don't think conjured food has any nutritional value, only the taste
and appearance of real food. It probably disappears after being eaten
just as Leprechaun's gold disappears within twenty-four hours.
Essentially, it's an illusion. Otherwise, witches and wizards wouldn't
need to work and the Weasleys wouldn't be poor or the Malfoys rich.
Sirius Black could simply have stolen a wand and conjured the food he
needed rather than living on rats or the food Harry got from the
house-elves. Magic in the HP books has its limits, and I think
conjured food is one of them.
> 
Sue:
> Hey, maybe there ARE wizard farms, where they can at least grow 
> things quickly...?
>
Carol:
Well, some poor witch bet (and lost) her eel farm that Bulgaria would
win the QWC. If the WW has eel farms, it probably has farms to grow
produce as well. I'm pretty sure that the Malfoys don't grow their own
vegetables and more than they raise their own pigs.

Carol, thinking that JKR deliberately leaves such details to the
imagination of the reader






From bercygirl2 at aol.com  Mon Nov 20 08:54:33 2006
From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 08:54:33 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejqof5+6lfl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejrqg9+t389@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161738

zanooda:
  I can give you at least one
> example when magic is done by a wand in an off hand. Remember, when
> DD had to cut his hand so that he and Harry could enter the cave? He
> cut "the forearm of his injured hand" ("The cave", p. 559 US
> hardcover), which is his right(wand) hand. On the next page DD heals
> the wound by "passing the tip of his wand over the deep cut...". To
> heal the wound on his right (wand) hand he only could hold the wand
> in his left (off) hand. Hope it helps.
>

Donna:
Hmm, good catch but perhaps Dumbledore is ambidextrous?
There are other exapmles of people injuring their wand arm and not
being able to use the other arm. (Harry, after his Bludger injury in
CoS, and Draco, after being attacked by Buckbaek in PoA)

In PoA, Stan Shunpike reinforces the idea that only the wand arm would
stop the Knight Bus twice.
On page 33: "Just stick out your wand hand, step on board, and we can
take you anywhere you want to go."
On page 35: "Stuck out your wand 'and, dincha?"

I still maintain that Snape is left-handed and that is has
significance regarding the Vow.

For those who asked, here's the list I've made of Snape mentions
coupled with "left" or "other side" or "opposite", which I find much
too numerous to be a coincidence. :)

(Note: all page references from hardcover American editions)

SS

P. 140
"Cheer up," said Ron. "Snape's always taking points off Fred and
George. Can I come and meet Hagrid with you?"
  At five to three they left the castle.

P. 174
They crept along the next corridor after Snape's fading footsteps.

Ron pointed- at the end of a passage to the left

P. 178
It was as if Snape had started handing out sweets.
Hermione left.

P. 182
"Perhaps Snape had left the book in there?"

P. 183
"Harry left, before Snape could take any more points from Gryffindor."

P. 190
"Snape was in the middle of the stands opposite them."

P. 195
"When they had left the dungeons at the end of Potions."

P. 197
"..and they left Hagrid looking disgruntled

because how else were they going to find out what Snape was trying to
steal?"

P. 198
"Harry left the library.
They couldn't risk Snape hearing what they were up to."

P. 207
Snape replied, "The Restricted Section?"
A door stood ajar to his left.

P. 217
"Snape's sudden sinister desire to be a Quidditch referee."

P. 224
"Snape spat bitterly on the ground.
Harry left the locker room."

P. 246
"Snape had just left the room."

P. 275
"Looks like a harp," said Ron. "Snape must have left it there."

P. 283
"Do you want to stop Snape or not?"
Harry moved three spaces to the left.

CoS

P. 78
"Maybe he's left"

P. 145
"Kind of the opposite of Muggle-born wizards."
"We'd better get to bed before Snape comes along and tries to frame us
for something else."

P. 190
"If Snape had been looking at him like that he'd have been running as
fast as he could in the other direction."

P. 193
"We'll be sending what's left of Finch-Fletchley up to the hospital
wing in a matchbox."

P. 266
"Until the Potions lesson about two weeks after Dumbledore and Hagrid
had left"

PoA
P. 126
"On the other side of the table, Malfoy looked up, listening closely."
(During Potions, Snape has just walked past)

P. 128
"Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand."

P. 132
"Snape's lip curled, but he left, closing the door with a snap."

P. 166
"Dumbledore left the hall, walking quickly and quietly. Snape stood
for a moment, watching the headmaster with a look of deep resentment
on his face."

P.170
(Snape is speaking here)
"Professor Lupin had not left any record of the topics you have
covered so far-"

P. 172
(Snape is speaking here)
"Weasley, stay behind we need to arrange your detention.
  Harry and Hermione left the room."

P. 289
"Harry didn't dare look at Snape as they left his office."

P. 360
(Snape is speaking)
"Pleased enough to give you a little kiss, I daresay
"
  What little color there was in Black's face left it."

P. 386
(Snape is speaking)
"On the other hand, their interference might have permitted Black to
escape."

P. 417
(Harry just saw Snape)
"They tore into a deserted classroom to their left."

P. 419
"He must have Disapparated, Severus. We should have left somebody in
the room with him."

P. 420
"That will do Severus," said Dumbledore quietly. This door has been
locked since I left the ward ten minutes ago."


GoF

P. 175
"On Professor Sinistra's other side was the sallow-faced, hook-nosed,
greasy-haired Potions master, Snape.
On Snape's other side was an empty seat."


P. 300
"On the other side of the dungeon, Malfoy turned his back on Snape."

P. 374
"She turned left at the bottom of the staircase and hurried toward a
door
..
A gloomy underground passage like the one that led to Snape's dungeon"

P. 399
"We're the only ones left, who haven't got anyone-"
"He told me after Potions."

P. 466
On the map Snape's office is in "the bottom left-hand corner"


P. 467
"He (Snape) turned and set off in the opposite direction."

P. 474
"Snape swept downstairs
Harry was left staring
."

P 680
"Both (Snape and McGonagall) turned at once and left the office"


OoP

P. 232
"On Harry's left, Hermione sat up a little straighter"

P. 233
"called Snape with ten minutes left to go"

P. 234
"The contents of Harry's potion vanished; he was left standing
foolishly beside a empty cauldron."

P. 363
"You will find your mixtures as you left them last lesson"

P. 536
"But Mr. Weasley led him off to the left." (During Occlumency lesson
with Snape)

P. 538
"Harry left without another word"

P. 636
"There had been too much going on since Dumbledore left" (Snape is
present)

P. 644
"He was as deeply immersed in the OWL paper as ever, which left Harry
free to sit down"

P. 660
"Compared to what he usually had to endure from Snape in the way of
taunts and snide remarks, he found the new approach something of an
improvement and was pleased to find that when left well alone, he was
able to concoct an Invigoration Draught quite easily."

P.716
"With Snape absent from the proceedings.."
Next paragraph starts "Only four exams left"

P 743
"Draco- fetch Professor Snape."
  Malfoy stowed Harry's wand inside his robes and left the room

P 746
"Snape had been his very last hope."
"Very well
.I am left with no alternative."

HBP

P 178
"He (Snape) set off again around the other side."

P 192
"He only followed different instructions to ours." (Ron discussing the
HBP's book) Then Ginny speaks in "A voice close by Harry's left ear."

P 239
"Something Snape had been quick to comment on in every D.A.D.A. class.
On the other hand
."

P 321
"They left, Snape leading the way."

P 324
"He heard Malfoy's footsteps on the other side of the door." (Snape is
with Malfoy)

P 326
"Fred reckons his left buttock has never been the same since."
(Harry and Ron are discussing Snape)

P 332
"It's left me for a spell." (Harry and Remus are discussing Snape)

P. 379
"Neither Ron nor Hermione wished him luck as they left, both looked
rather annoyed. At last Harry and Slughorn were the onlt two left in
the room."

P 385
"With her left leg still standing five feet away from where she had
started."
"The Heads of House converged on her." (including Snape)

P 450
"The three of them were now the only ones left in the common room,
Seamus having just gone up to bed cursing Snape and his essay."

P 457
" Where he still had to finish his conclusion on Snape's dementor
essay; and Harry for the corridor on the seventh floor and the strecth
of wall opposite the tapestry of Barnabas the Barmy.

P 460
(Snape) "A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the
imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth."

P 527
"One by one, Snape extracted Harry's books and examined them. Finally,
the only book left was the Potions book."

P 528
"Ten o'clock," whispered Snape.
Next paragraph is: "And he left the bathroom without another word."

P 530
(After the argument about the HBP's Potions book)
"Hermione and Ginny were now sitting with their arms folded, glaring
in opposite directions."

P 545
"And there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was
waffling about having come the wrong way down the stairs."














From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 20 17:53:37 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:53:37 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejrqg9+t389@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsq31+vfdv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161739

 "bercygirl2"  wrote:


> 
> For those who asked, here's the list I've made of Snape mentions
> coupled with "left" or "other side" or "opposite", which I find much
> too numerous to be a coincidence. :)> 
> PoA
> 
> P. 128
> "Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand."

Potioncat:
So, that tells me he is right handed. Look at the entire quote.


"Snape pikced up Trevor the toad in his left hand and dipped a small 
spoon into Neville's potion, which was now green. He trickled a few 
drops down Trevor's throat."

Then:
"...Trevor the tadpole was wriggling in Snape's palm"..."Snape, 
looking sour, pulled a small bottle from the pocket of his robe, 
poured a few drops on top of Trevor,..."

So, he picks up Trevor with his left hand, and administers the 
potions with his right. Which is just I did this weekend with my 
daughter's kitten. The wee beastie didn't turn into a tadpole, but 
her sneezing has subsided.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 17:49:46 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:49:46 -0000
Subject: Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <3202590611200053g1bb11a63q26d84607f79c2547@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ejsprq+pthv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161740

Sarah:
> Let's say there had not been any Horcruxes.  Would you also
interpret Lily's actions as not a success?  Voldemort dead forever and
the world safe?  She failed because she died?
> 
> I have a different view of those actions.

Carol responds:
I know you're addressing Sherry, but I agree with her here, as I
indicated upthread, so I'll take the liberty of answering (speaking
for myself, not Sherry).

Lily was not attempting to destroy Voldemort or she would have
attempted to fight him as James did, and her sacrifice would not have
provided the ancient magic needed to save Harrry. Her goal was purely
and simply to save her son and if necessary to die in his place. She
had no idea that the SK would rebound on Voldemort and cause his
fragmented soul to leave his body. So her action or sacrifice
succeeded beyond her expectations. She's a martyr, IMO, not a hero.
Yes, Harry owes his life to her, and for that reason, the WW also owes
her a debt. But we don't even know whether she knew that her son was
destined to fight Voldemort, and it really didn't make any difference
to her. She sacrificed her life, trading it for her son's ("Kill me,
not Harry!") and refusing to "step aside" not because of the Prophecy
but because, like Narcissa and Molly and Mrs. Crouch and Alice
Longbottom, she loved her child. Almost any mother would have refused
to step aside. 

What makes Lily's sacrifice unique, IMO, is the offer to exchange her
life for his, a bargain that Voldemort implicitly agreed to and then
violated (back to binding magical contracts again). Otherwise, her
sacrifice would be no different from that of any other mother who
attempted to protect her child, an action that can't be unique in the
WW any more than it is in the RW.

Harry, too, will be willing to sacrifice his life, but he won't go
down without fighting. He can't do what Lily did, offering his life
for another, because he has to fight Voldemort himself. He won't be a
martyr like Lily; he'sll be a hero like James. But unlike James, he'll
have what's left of the blood protection and the powers given him,
unwittingly, by Voldemort himself.

So, no. Lily didn't die for nothing. She died to save Harry. It's
possible that Harry will die to save the WW, but it would be more
rewarding to Harry, to his surviving friends, and to many readers if
he lives.

BTW, I'm aware that many children, especially boys, like the
gratuitous violence of video games, but blowing up nameless people (or
feeding guests to the Tyrannosaurus in Zoo Tycoon) is different from
living through seven books with a hero you can identify with and
having him die. I wonder, in fact, how many children (ten and under)
will have the fortitude to read Book 7 after JKR killed off Dumbledore
in Book 6. I'll bet some will ask their parents whether Harry dies,
and if he does, they won't want to read it.

As for me, it will take a really good death scene and satisfactory
fates for the other characters I care about to get me to reread a book
in which Harry dies. Yes, there will be deaths, and some of them will
be what JKR labels "favorite characters" (most likely her own
favorites and those she thinks he child readers like best), but I
don't think they'll be Harry or Ron or Hermione--or even Ginny, whom
I'd like a lot better if she didn't hex everyone who crosses her, just
like the young James.

Carol, who'd be satisfied if the deaths were limited to Voldemort,
Bellatrix, and Grawp, but doesn't think the death count will be quite
that small







From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 18:15:57 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:15:57 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejsn7u+1t7u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsrct+knfl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161741


Great Questions!  I am only answering a few as I only have a little 
time and others have given some great answers alread.


QUESTIONS


2. The narrator tells us that the reason why Harry disliked
Snape's detentions was because they were taking away from his time
with Ginny. Would have Harry liked them otherwise?

Beatrice:
I actually say this in a different way.  True, that Harry would never 
enjoy detention with Snape, but I thought Harry actually felt that he 
deserved detention in this instance.  Which I think is a sign of two 
things.  First, that Harry is maturing.  He no longer feels that he 
can justify all of his rule breaking.  Second, and most importantly, 
that he truly regrets inflicting harm on Malfoy.  This in my opinion 
is one of the most important things about Harry and really indicates 
how he is different from LV and the Death Eaters.  Although, he and 
Malfoy detest each other, Harry would never purposely cause bodily 
harm to him or anyone if he could help it.  He might defend himself, 
but he would never use his feelings to justify a horrible act.

I also think about this incident with Harry and Malfoy and what it 
might imply about James and Snape, or, more precisely, just about 
Snape.  The animosity between Harry and Malfoy has often been 
compared to the dynamic between Snape and James. I think that we can 
possibly see two parallels here.  1.  This is why James could not let 
Snape come to harm when they were at Hogwarts, because he is an 
essentially good person.  And 2.  This is why Snape may be so 
conflicted / repentant about his role in the deaths of Lily and 
James.  Or if you believe in DDM!Snape, why Dumbledore thinks that 
Snape is so contrite. 


4. The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly
predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your
opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other
Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

Beatrice: 
At first, yes, but then no.  This is the ultimate problem 
with "fortune telling" but in real life and in HP; fortune telling is 
not precise and it can be interpreted in multiple ways.  Even, 
Trelawney thinks that her prediction is flawed and questions it.  
Also, I am reminded of the old saying, "even a broken clock is right 
twice a day."  LOL. .. I just read Charles's response.  Oh well, 
cheers!

6. "Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort
hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or
disagree with this quote? Why?

Beatrice:
It is an interesting quote.  This is Harry's thoughts, or at least 
the narrator through Harry's mind?  I think that this is Harry's way 
of trying (still) to make sense of the death of his parents.   He is 
looking to place blame.  While his conclusions are not necessarily 
incorrect (particularly as they apply to Peter), is this the most 
productive way to view these past events?  Could Snape possibly have 
predicted the events that would follow his revelation to Voldemort?  
This certainly supports Dumbledore's view of Snape.  Okay, Snape is a 
git, but would he really advocate the murder of a 15 month old 
child?  

7. "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.'" What was
Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

Beatrice: 
I thought at this moment that Dumbledore was once again struggling 
against the instinct to reveal some information that has been 
withheld from Harry.  I think that Dumbledore chooses to simply state 
his confidence in Snape rather than revealing something else
the 
answer of "what?" I will leave to the individual.

8. "'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed,
Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We also
know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and
some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry
loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person to
die by that criteria, whom would you pick?

Beatrice:
This is tough.  I know that someone answered Ginny, but I don't see 
that Snape hates her exactly.  Perhaps, Lupin, Hermione or Ron.


10. "'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't
even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?'
asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you suspect
them of doing, precisely?'" Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this
question?

Beatrice:
I think that Dumbledore says this to point out two things.  1.  That 
Harry's information / suspicions are woefully incomplete.  Harry has 
allowed these nagging suspicions to get in the way of things that 
MUST be done too often.  (eg. Getting the memory from Sluggy).  This 
is to remind Harry that he must keep focused on his goal and forget 
about things over which he has no control.  2. Although this is along 
the same lines, Harry has to give himself permission to focus on the 
larger task and ignore the things that he has little or no control 
over.  Harry has to give up the idea that he can "save" everyone and 
just focus on what he can do.   

11. `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?' Here we
meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out possible
socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there
any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron
wrapped in sock?

Beatrice:
Well, it is true that Freud said "a cigar is just a cigar."  But, at 
the time he was talking about his own addiction to them when one 
pointed out the implications of his "oral fixation."  Freud had an 
annoying habit of refusing to apply his own theories to himself. That 
being said, I do think that socks are very significant in these texts.

Urggggg! I have to go
perhaps a socks thread later..






From babyblueblot at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Nov 20 14:21:10 2006
From: babyblueblot at yahoo.co.uk (babyblueblot)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:21:10 -0000
Subject: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <e63572+fags@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejsdkm+pf2s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161742

Tonks_opqw
> Let us begin by looking again at the case of RAB.
> As we discovered from the evidence presented by the translators it
> does appear that RAB stands for Regulus Alphard Black. (or is it
> Regulus Arcturus Black???)

I'm really sorry to reopen such an old thread, but I just wanted a
chance to put my own twopenneth worth in, and I've been away for a
while.

I don't want to discount anyone else's theories, it's all about what
we think of the characters as we understand them, and everybody gets
diferrent things from these books, I think that's what's so special
about them. So therefore, I can only say what I believe is more
likely from my understanding of the texts.

Much as I can anticipate Lord Voldemort's dislike of what I am about
to say, I think it would do everyone well to remember that, although
Voldemort does seem to be the perfect vilian, he is in fact, only
human, and therefore imperfect.

We know that Regulus decided to leave the Death Eaters, and I find
it perfectly plausible that he may have caught Voldemort trying to
create a horcrux, and that's what prompted him to jump ship.

> This leads one to wonder how a man so young, graduating from a
> school where the Dark Arts  were not taught, would even know what
> a Horcrux was, let alone how to destroy one.  Harry only knows
> because DD told him.  And Tom learned about them from Slughorn,
> but not how to make one and presumably would not have been told
> how to destroy one either.

I do take exception to this; we know from cannon that no special
knowledge is necesary to destroy a horcrux; Harry did so in his
second year at the age of 12. (Riddle's diary). I believe that
specialist knowledge is only necesary to locate the horcruxes, and
Regulus may well have stumbled upon insider information as to one's
location.

> 2.  Came we come up with a plausible answer as to how the
> Slytherin locket would get in the Black family home when Sirius
> and Alphard are both burned off of the family tree?

I think this supports my theory, Regulus was the only one who still
had access to the Black family home.

> One thing that might work against this idea is that the note
> left in the locket said "to the Dark Lord".  I think only DE refer
> to LV as `the Dark Lord'.  So I am not sure where this leaves us.
> Unless Uncle Alphard was also a DE, but I don't think that he was.

We know Regulus was a death eater, no-one else from the Black family
is mentioned as becoming one, he came from one of the oldest
wizarding families and thefore was one of the few true pure bloods
that Voldemort emmulated, and perhaps Voldie may have been a little
lax when it came to these people and security. just some ideas.

Baby blue






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 18:52:26 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:52:26 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...wealth - ...Nature of Elves)
In-Reply-To: <ejshir+ip16@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejstha+93ne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161744

---  "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Magpie:
> > > I can't help but be a little amused at your 
> > > continually calling Kreacher useless given how much
> > > he affected the plot. ...
> > > 
> > 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > Oh, Kreacher was a very valuable plot-device, and I
> > don't think that aspect of his role is over. He still
> > has a few stashed trinkets that he needs to reveal. 
> > 
> > It is as a house-elf that I think he is worthless 
> > regardless of who he is currently working for. ...
> 
> Magpie:
> That's exactly what I'm disagreeing with--what makes 
> Kreacher so worthless as a house-elf?  Because he's 
> too old to work well and is stubborn about helping the
> people he must help? Isn't that kind of a 
> harsh view of house-elves?  ...
> 

bboyminn:

You actually touch on the heart of the matter near the
end of your post. I will make a few (hopefully) brief 
comments and then jump to that crucial part.

At to the above, because he can't and won't work is 
precisely why he is a bad house-elf. If you hire a maid
to take care of your house, and she is ill-tempered,
slightly mad (nutty), spends her time eating you food
drinking your drink and watching TV, and is generally
uncooperative and irascible, then I would say that 
she is certainly a worthless House-Maid.

Kreacher does nothing to earn his keep. Regardless of
whether any one is currently residing at Grimmauld Place
or not, it is Kreachers JOB to maintain the house and 
the possessions contained there in. He has let the house
go to virtual ruin, and that doesn't indicate much
actual loyalty to his original Masters. 


> Steve: 
> > Yes, if Harry is living alone, he doesn't really need a 
> > house-elf, but if he is running the headquarter for the
> > Order, and is playing host to the Dursleys, I don't see 
> > him up to cooking big meals for gangs of people....
> 
> Magpie:
> I don't really see Harry running the Order or the 
> Order's hotel in Book VII. If there's anyone staying at
> Grimmauld Place presumably the same person would do the 
> cooking as always--Molly.  ...
> 

bboyminn:

I don't think it is a matter of people /staying/ at
Grimmauld Place. It is a matter of people stopping off 
there on business and staying for lunch or dinner. We
see precisely this happening in the last two books. 
People are in and out of headquarters all the time, and
common courtesy implies that a reasonable amount of 
hospitality be extended to them.

Harry may or may not become the Head of the Order. 
Personally, I think he will be the defacto behind the
scenes guiding force, though I think officially Moody
will be designated as 'Head'. Without Dumbledore to 
give their purpose and guide their actions, I think the
Order will be somewhat lost.

Right now the only person with a true purpose toward
bringing down Voldemort is Harry, so the Order will 
gravitate toward assisting Harry. Harry needs training
and he needs information. Certainly Moody can guide the
more mundane tasks of the Order, but who else but Harry
to guide the broader more general task and purpose of the
Order?

Now some will certainly object saying that Harry can't
or won't reveal his secrets to anyone, but he doesn't 
have to. Dumbledore certainly  guided the Order and he
kept plenty of secrets. It is all based on a 'need to 
know' basis. Harry only need tell people what they need
to know to accomplish one small task. They don't need
to necessarily know the larger objective. That is very
common in both business and the Military. Rank and file
'soldiers' simply don't need to know.

Bill can teach Harry curse breaking without knowing 
specifically at that time why Harry thinks he need to 
know curse breaking. Moody can teach him Offensive and
Defensive Spell without knowing why, though the reason
in this case is pretty obvious. Lupin can help hone 
Harry's Legilimency and Occlumency skill, plus his 
non-verbal spell casting skills. Again, they only need
to know the immediate task, not the long term objective.

So, yes, I very much do see many from the Order being
at Grimmauld Place at meal time. 

Also, as to Molly's presence, certainly being an Order
member she will be there a lot, but I think one of the
reasons why Harry stays at Grimmauld Place rather than
the Burrow, is to get away from Molly. She tends to
Mother Harry and that is certainly going to be 
restrictive given what Harry has to do. He needs to act
independantly, and he can do that at the Black House.

> Steve:
> > So regardless of whether Kreacher is /capable/ of 
> > beinga good house-elf, I don't think he is. He isn't
> > keeping up the Black House, we never see him cook or
> > clean, and he isn't faithfully serving his Master, 
> > and they can't let him go because he knows too much. 
> > All in all, as an Elf, I say pretty worthless, ...
> 
> Magpie:
> But is that all the worth of a house elf?  I just have 
> a hard time applying the word "worthless" to someone 
> because they're unable to cook and clean-... His mind is
> still intact ... if you define house-elf strictly as the
> luxuries they're supposed to provide ... he's worthless
> to Harry. If you define house-elf as the sentient race 
> to which Kreacher happens to belong I think he's got a 
> lot of worth.  ...
> -m
>


bboyminn:

Now we are at the heart of it. We are using different
definitions of House-Elf. Kreacher is worthless at his
job; simple as that. True everyone has /some/ worth.
Contract murderers are worth while to someone, but they 
are not worth while to society as a whole. From a 
spiritual sense, even the very worst of us has some
spiritual worth, but at the same time very little 
practical worth. That is Kreacher, we may be able to 
assign some philisophical or abstact spiritual worth
to him, but in a practical sense, he is beyond worthless
and is actually dangerous to the people who count.

Keep in mind that it is house-elves who have set the 
standard for service, loyalty, and fealty. Kreacher 
provides none of those things, he falls far short of
the common standards for house-elves, and in that
sense, he is both worthless and dangerous. But again,
as a plot device, he is incredably valuable.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 19:18:32 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:18:32 -0000
Subject: Wizard gardens and food
In-Reply-To: <005801c70cac$9ccb0ed0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ejsv28+3sg9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161745

---  "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> wrote:
>
> I would assume that they do have farms and such. 
> Remember Hagrids pumkins??
> 
> And don't forget the chickens at the Burrow. If Molly
> has chickens, then surely she must have a garden.  
> 
> Lana

bboyminn:

I don't see any reason why their wouldn't be wizard
farmers, or for that matter butchers, bakers, and 
candle stick makers, as well as all other manner of
business.

Yes, certianly gardens would be important; English
gardens are legend. But beyond gardens, certainly
out and out farmers. They would simply use magical
means to accomplish their tasks; planting, harvesting,
magically encouraging plants to grow, and discouraging
bugs and other pests from bothering their crops.

I mean their is a magical ice cream shop, there are
magical cafes and pubs. They must get their food from
somewhere. They must have some source of Ale, wine, and
spirits. They need glasses, cutlery, plates, fixtures, 
tables and chairs, food ingredients, etc.... It all has
to come from somewhere.

I envision magical import/export companies. Certainly 
all the many and varied potion ingredients are not 
native to Britian or even Europe. The main ingerdients
for invisibility cloaks and for Fizzing Whizbies come
from Australia.

Beyond international import/export, I suspect there 
are businesses that facilitate the transfer of goods
between the muggle and wizard world, and between various
aspects of the wizard world. For example, many of the
finest object in the wizard world seem to be Goblin
made. They seem to be exceptionally skilled craftsmen. 
Some one has to contract the building of those items, 
someone has to broker the finished goods to retailers.

As far as Muggle to wizard, and wizard to muggle 
transfer of goods; things coming from the muggle world
would be common items. Things transferred from the
wizard world to the muggle world would be more limited
in quantity and most certainly NON-magical items.

I have speculated the muggle-borns or muggle-married
wizards or witches would be in an ideal position to
facilitate the transfer of common muggle items into 
the wizard world. For example, a muggle-born or 
muggle-married person may prefer to run a green grocers
shop. That creates the perfect opportunity to 'smuggle'
some of their goods into the wizard world. I really don't
think there would be a problem with the tax man or other
authorities since the green grocers shop is the perfect 
cover for the extra business and extra profit they obtain.
It would just look like the person had a very small but
successful shop.

Certainly there are all manner of businesses within the
wizard world. Some one had to make Molly's magical cook
stove, someone had to make the cook pots. Certianly there
are magical cabinet makers, silversmiths, glass blowers,
potters, watch makers, and jewelery makers, and every 
other craft related vocation you can think of.

I just seems normal to me.

Steve/bboyminn






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 19:40:20 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:40:20 -0000
Subject: Wizards and Muggles and Food
In-Reply-To: <ejso2d+q9jc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejt0b4+e7no@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161746

--- "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> Carol:
> ... I'm pretty sure that the Malfoys don't grow their 
> own vegetables and more than they raise their own pigs.
> 
> Carol, thinking that JKR deliberately leaves such details
> to the imagination of the reader
>

bboyminn:

Given the Malfoy's wealth and social status, I would assume
they have a 'landed estate'. That is they have a very large
plot of land to go with their Manor House in Wiltshire. One
of the prime sources of income for the noble gentry is rent
on land they own. Typically tenant farmers farm the land 
for the owner, and the two share the resulting profits. 
Usually the tenant does all the work and the landlord gets
most of the profit. 

So, in this sense, certainly the Malfoys don't raise veggies
and cattle/pigs, but reasonably they do have those things
raised for them, and sell the surplus to shops in Diagon 
Alley. 

Keep in mind that Prince Charles is basically a farmer. 
When Prince Harry so indiscretely wore a Nazi uniform to
a fancy dress party, his punishment was to clean out the
pig pens. 

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 20 19:47:18 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:47:18 -0000
Subject: Hello / Portkey
In-Reply-To: <ejsnd1+566u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejt0o6+amh1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161747

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jajaredor" <jajaredor at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Alick:
> <SNIP>
> > > The portkey in GoF that took Harry and Cedric to LV also took
> Harry
> > > back: how did it work? If young Crouch set it up he surely
> wouldn't
> > > arrange a return journey; and I thought portkeys were time-
> specific,
> > > you couldn't just touch one and be off.
> > >
> > > The portkeys at the world cup appear to be time-specific and one-
> way
> > > use, so how did this one example work as a return and at any
> time?

Jade:
> Hello,
> 
> I was cleaning up my mailbox and run across this spot. Anyways,
> planned by Voldemort or not to return Harry to Hogwarts after he has
> been slayed by him, Harry couldn't have known when the portkey-cup
> was going to be activated seeing as portkeys are supposedly time
> triggered. Maybe it is not a portkey or maybe it is, just that Moody
> did a bit of modification? Just like Hermione has been doing to the
> other spell/charm to suit her needs.
> 
> I wish it could have been explained to us a bit more.

Geoff:
This has been discussed previously; I haven't had time to try to find 
posts as it was a long time ago. One theory which was advanced (not 
mine by the way)was that the TWT Cup-Portkey was set up at 
Dumbledore's bidding to return the winnig candidate to the start and 
that Moody modified it to go via the graveyard, the intent being that 
Voldemort would then return Harry's body that way to tell the world 
what had happened.





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 20 20:00:41 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:00:41 -0000
Subject: Wizards and Muggles and Food
In-Reply-To: <ejt0b4+e7no@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejt1h9+4lik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161748

 
> bboyminn:
 
> 
> So, in this sense, certainly the Malfoys don't raise veggies
> and cattle/pigs, but reasonably they do have those things
> raised for them, and sell the surplus to shops in Diagon 
> Alley. 

Potioncat:
It isn't canon, but I've always thought the Crabbes and Goyles were 
such characters...that is, had some role on the manor grounds. I can 
picture the two wives gathering eggs and making butter. Ok...my view 
of British farm life is based on the series of books "All Things 
Bright and Beautiful" etc, but you get the idea.

(My own family were tennet farmers in the US south. My father 
actually plowed behind an old mule and my grandmother churned butter 
that she sold.)

> BBoy:
> Keep in mind that Prince Charles is basically a farmer. 
> When Prince Harry so indiscretely wore a Nazi uniform to
> a fancy dress party, his punishment was to clean out the
> pig pens.

Potioncat:
Seriously? How cool......without magic? Is Charles related to Severus?





From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 20 20:00:06 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:00:06 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejsq31+vfdv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F340CEE1879FD9C4AAB5E55DDED0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 161749


>  "bercygirl2"  wrote:
> > For those who asked, here's the list I've made of Snape mentions
> > coupled with "left" or "other side" or "opposite", which I find much
> > too numerous to be a coincidence. :)>
> > PoA
> >
> > P. 128
> > "Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand."
>
>Potioncat:
>So, that tells me he is right handed. Look at the entire quote.
>
>
>"Snape pikced up Trevor the toad in his left hand and dipped a small
>spoon into Neville's potion, which was now green. He trickled a few
>drops down Trevor's throat."
>
>Then:
>"...Trevor the tadpole was wriggling in Snape's palm"..."Snape,
>looking sour, pulled a small bottle from the pocket of his robe,
>poured a few drops on top of Trevor,..."
>
>So, he picks up Trevor with his left hand, and administers the
>potions with his right. Which is just I did this weekend with my
>daughter's kitten. The wee beastie didn't turn into a tadpole, but
>her sneezing has subsided.

wynnleaf
I'd say that's conclusive.  Snape's right-handed.  If JKR wanted him to be 
left-handed, she'd need him to hold Trevor with his right hand and 
administer the drops with his left.
Thanks for checking that out Potioncat.  I think you've put the left-hand 
Snape idea to rest.

wynnleaf

_________________________________________________________________
Get free, personalized commercial-free online radio with MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 19:54:30 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:54:30 -0000
Subject: Hello / Portkey
In-Reply-To: <20061020190138.1618.qmail@web27013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ejt15m+gqcn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161750

---  alick leslie <alick_leslie at ...> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
> 
> ...
> 
> I have a query related to GoF ... 
> 
> The portkey in GoF that took Harry and Cedric to LV 
> also took Harry back: how did it work? If young Crouch
> set it up he surely wouldn't arrange a return journey;
> and I thought portkeys were time-specific, you couldn't
> just touch one and be off. 
> 
> The portkeys at the world cup appear to be time-specific
> and one-way use, so how did this one example work as a 
>return and at any time?
> 
> Alick
>


bboyminn:

If you look at all the Portkeys used in the series, you
will see a variety of mean of activating them. Yes, the
Portkey the took everyone to the World Cup was keyed to
'time of day and date'. But we see other Portkeys that
do not follow this model.

The following methods of activation have been seen at 
some point in series-

- specific time of day and date.

- touch activated. In a sense this is time of day and
date but the time is NOW.

- time activated by intent. Similar to touch activated
but the time is, as an illustration, on the count of
three. In this case, when the creator of the Portkey
counts to three, it is his intent that activates it.

- any others I may have forgotten????

As to the specific Portkey in the Tri-Wizards Tournement,
we have theories. First, the Cup is clearly 'touch'
activated. Second, some of us have assumed that the Cup 
was /always/ a Portkey. Since it brough Harry back 
outside the Maze, we assume that it was always intended
to bring the winner back outside the Maze to end that
task, and allow him to be declared the winner. In a 
sense, that is how you would know who the winner was, he
was the person that arrived outside the maze in front 
of the judges holding the Cup.

Now, Moody added a new destination on top of the original
destination. So last on-first off, Moody's destination
was activated first and took Harry to the graveyard. But
the original destination still remained on the Cup. When
Harry touched it the second time, he was taken back 
outside the Maze when he would have, under normal
circumstances, have been instantly declared the winner.

Some dispute this theory, but it is a reasonable path
of logic that make reasonable sense. Other thinks 
that Voldemort had two destination programmed into the
key so that he could send Harry dead body back to 
Dumbledore, which would have been both a disgrace to
Dumbledore and the Ministry, and a declaration of war. 
It would have been an omen to Dumbledore that Dark Days
were now upon him. 

That is a fair summary of our previous discussion. Though
I don't think we have discussed this in a long time.

Hope that helps.

Steve/bboyminn





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 20:15:33 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:15:33 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejrqg9+t389@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejt2d5+39f4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161751

Donna:
<snip>
> I still maintain that Snape is left-handed and that is has
> significance regarding the Vow. <big snip>

> P. 128
> "Snape picked up Trevor the toad in his left hand." <big snip>

Carol responds:
This quotation is the only one that actually relates to Snape's
handedness. While at first glance it seems to support your view that
Snape is left-handed, it actually provides evidence that he isn't.
snape is picking up trevor in his left hand in order to pour drops on
his head with his right, which is what a right-handed person would do,
just as a right-handed person generally holds a phone receiver in his
left hand so that he can dial with his right.

The only other reference to Snape's left hand or arm that I can recall
is when he grasps his left arm, the one we later learn has the Dark
Mark, with his right hand as if it hurts him in GoF.

All other references that I can recall to Snape's hands relate to his
long fingers, a trait that seems to be associated in the HP books with
magical power.

Carol, ignoring references to leaving, etc., as not relevant to the
argument








From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Mon Nov 20 19:17:58 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:17:58 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizard gardens and food
References: <ejrj52+6206@eGroups.com> <005801c70cac$9ccb0ed0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <017501c70cd8$96fc12c0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161753

> Lana posted:
>I would assume that they do have farms and such.  Remember Hagrids 
>pumpkins??
> And don't forget the chickens at the Burrow.  If Molly has chickens, then 
> surely she must have a garden.


Shelley responds:
Not necessarily! For me, I guess this gets to the definition of a garden. In 
the States, a garden means rows of vegetables. In Europe, a garden is often 
a place of well cared for plants and shrubbery, a resting place or 
get-a-away outdoors, often with a walk and a bench, and maybe a fountain, 
depending on the wealth of the family involved and the size of the garden. 
While I believe that Hagrid did keep a garden in the first sense (we do see 
pumpkins, but not for eating- they were for display at the Halloween Feast, 
and cabbages), I don't think Molly did. I think for her yard, despite the 
chickens, that when the boys went "de-gnoming" the garden, that if it had 
vegetables in it, Rowling would have had Molly yelling "I don't want those 
gnomes eating my cabbages" or some such. Instead the process is described as 
pulling gnomes out from under the bushes. Not one vegetable is mentioned, 
perhaps an oversight on the part of Rowling? But I don't think so, for I 
don't think she had in mind a vegetable garden. She had in mind an English 
garden for that house.

The Harry Potter Lexicon says this about the Weasley garden: "The garden 
outside the Burrow had gnarled trees lining the walls, plenty of weeds and 
overgrown grass, a large pond, and lots of gnomes. (CS3). When the entire 
family is home during the summer holidays and Harry and Hermione are staying 
as well, there are simply too many people for the small kitchen so the they 
eat a delicious dinner in the garden. (GF5)"    Sounds like an English 
garden description to me. Nobody serves their guests in the middle of a 
vegetable garden. Since Rowling never describes a vegetable garden at the 
Weasleys, we can't assume she has one.

Chickens just run the yard, eating bugs. They don't need a confined place at 
all, except to roost at night for protection. None of our birds were ever 
penned up. It is possible to raise birds without planting a field. Even in 
the years that we let our corn field rest, we still raised our ducks, 
chickens, turkeys, geese, and guinea fowl. The corn field required a tractor 
and plow, and a conscience effort year to year to till the soil and to plant 
it; by contrast, the birds were practically self-perpetuating from year to 
year. LOL (Fond memories of spring in the air- you knew it was coming when 
the ducks were chasing one another around the yard. We would find duck or 
geese eggs in the snow!) Birds are really easy to raise, and require very 
little daily care, while a vegetable garden requires great care. Not only do 
you have to know what to plant, you have to know how to weed, what 
fertilizers to use, what pesticides or anti-pest products to use, and Molly 
just doesn't seem THAT sort. (She consults Lockhart's book for the gnomes, 
for instance.) Farming is really a different skill than raising a few 
chickens. Much more difficult.

Shelley 






From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 20 20:32:32 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:32:32 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...wealth - ...Nature of Elves)
In-Reply-To: <ejstha+93ne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejt3d0+86pe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161754

Steve:
> Keep in mind that it is house-elves who have set the 
> standard for service, loyalty, and fealty. Kreacher 
> provides none of those things, he falls far short of
> the common standards for house-elves, and in that
> sense, he is both worthless and dangerous. 

Magpie:
But so do Dobby and Winky who, like Kreacher, prefer to choose whom 
they wish to serve. Dobby ran away from the Malfoys and actively 
worked against them. Winky sits in the Hogwarts kitchens and drinks. 
Kreacher has been just as good an example of service, loyalty and 
fealty to the family he considers his true owners.  You have in this 
post decided that his letting the house go is a sign of disloyalty, 
but I don't think the state of the Black house is ever connected to 
Kreacher being disloyal in the text. Actually, I connected it more 
to Winky's slovenliness that is a sign of her despair at losing her 
family. If given to Narcissa, for instance, I see no reason that 
Kreacher couldn't become a productive house-elf. 

At the height of the Black family power he might have been Mrs. 
Black's personal elf with a team of elves cleaning the house. To me 
it seems like Kreacher's fairly standard for a house-elf in that he 
is tremendously loyal but has his own ideas about who he's loyal or 
not to, just as all the other house elves we've seen. None of them 
are as subservient as they seem on the surface. It's one of the odd 
things about house-elves that I don't know if JKR planned or not, 
that she introduces them with Dobby who's basically just another 
character whose loyalty to Harry is kind of for laughs. But since 
then it seems like most house-elves have a strong emotional bond to 
their masters. It becomes more clear just how different Dobby is, 
and why they can't understand him.

Of course, this brings up the question of what happens when they're 
too old to do anything. The Blacks seemed to honor the elves by 
beheading them and mounting them on the wall, but what happens at 
Hogwarts? Is there a retirement wing? Do they get lighter and 
lighter tasks until they drop dead?

-m





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Mon Nov 20 22:22:36 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:22:36 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejt9rc+o35v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161755

Thanks for the great questions, Alla! Most of my opinions have 
already been covered so I'll just answer one.
> QUESTIONS

> 4.	The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly 
> predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your 
> opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other 
> Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

Pippin:
If Trelawney is really drawing the same card over and over again,
then something other than chance must be at work, although
we can't say for sure that it is Trelawney's predictive powers. 

Pippin





From rlaw186 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 22:26:01 2006
From: rlaw186 at yahoo.com (rlaw186)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:26:01 -0000
Subject: Dudley Demented
Message-ID: <ejta1p+ofha@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161756

In the OOTP, Dudley was also attacked by dementors. When Harry told
him to close his mouth, he actually listened. There are rumors flying
around that Dudley is a wizard himself. Could it be possible since
magic do run in families. For example, the Creevey Brothers(I know
their dad is a milkman but what about the mom?)

rlaw.






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 20 22:54:09 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:54:09 -0000
Subject: Snape Telling the Prophecy (Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard)
In-Reply-To: <ejsrct+knfl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejtbmh+5uou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161757

Beatrice:
<snip>
> While his [Harry's] conclusions are not necessarily incorrect
> (particularly as they apply to Peter), is this the most productive
> way to view these past events?  Could Snape possibly have 
> predicted the events that would follow his revelation to 
> Voldemort?  This certainly supports Dumbledore's view of Snape.  
> Okay, Snape is a git, but would he really advocate the murder of a
> 15 month old child?  

Jen: He doesn't seem the type to advocate the murder of a baby but 
he's not exactly using his head or thinking about anyone else, 
either!  No, Snape's *hoping* he's going to get something out of 
passing on this info, incur some favor with the Dark Lord just like 
the rest of those DE lackeys.  He's about on par with Peter and 
Lucius in the morality deparment there.

The best case scenario for Snape's judgement is what Sirius said 
about Regulus, "he got in so far, then panicked about what he was 
being asked to do and tried to back out." (chap. 6, OOTP) Or like 
the Blacks, Snape didn't realize what Voldemort was prepared to do 
to seize power, i.e. target babies. 

But if Dumbledore's explanation is correct, it's not looking so good 
for Snape.  Notice he doesn't say Snape had no idea Voldemort would 
actually target a baby, he says Snape had no idea *which* baby would 
be the target---Dumbledore, what are you thinking?!?  Taking a page 
from Alla's book, I wanted to slap him!  You can almost forgive 
Snape for being 20-something and an idiot, but 150 and that's your 
answer????  I just hope this was one of those instances JKR was 
referring to when she said Dumbledore could be too detached because 
he sure comes off that way to me, grumble.  Another emotional 
mistake with Harry, Dumbledore doesn't really understand why Harry 
is so furious or why he has the *right* to be so furious.  

Jen R., who doesn't blame Harry one bit for blowing up over this 
revelation but does think he will have to move on past anger and 
resentment.





From nancy.hannah at mac.com  Mon Nov 20 22:05:49 2006
From: nancy.hannah at mac.com (Nancy)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 22:05:49 -0000
Subject: Harry & Voldemort as One? (was:Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the power of posses
In-Reply-To: <ejsg4q+a076@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejt8rt+lduf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161758

> >>Sarah:
>> Is there really any doubt about Harry triumphing, though?  I don't know of anyone who believes that Voldemort will win. << <snip>

> >>Sherry:
>> I happen to interpret the prophecy literally, that it's Harry or Voldemort in the end.  If Harry succeeds, then Voldemort is dead and Harry is alive. << <snip>

Nancy:
This is very interesting.  I am  reliving HBP on tape and have rewatched the first 4 movies (ok, I am short on time and multitasking). I feel the books are leading to the dual of the century between Harry and Voldemort, but I am not sure they are 2 different beings totally.

Perhaps, Volde is part of Harry, all the bad parts, and Harry is the undeveloped and innocent? In many instances, Dumbledore points out that Harry made the "choice", as in when he asked the sorting hat if he was put in the wrong house.  Or the fact LV and HP both carry
the tail feather of Phoenix in their wands. They have so many similarities in background, it is like one life is playing out side by side.

Just some ramblings and unformed thoughts, I am dwelling on.

Dumbledore is the conscience?

Mumbles to self some more.

Nancy






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 23:32:25 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:32:25 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...wealth - ...Nature of Elves)
In-Reply-To: <ejt3d0+86pe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejtdu9+d6md@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161760

> >>Steve:
> > Keep in mind that it is house-elves who have set the 
> > standard for service, loyalty, and fealty. Kreacher 
> > provides none of those things, he falls far short of
> > the common standards for house-elves, and in that
> > sense, he is both worthless and dangerous. 

> >>Magpie:
> But so do Dobby and Winky who, like Kreacher, prefer to choose    
> whom they wish to serve. Dobby ran away from the Malfoys and      
> actively worked against them. Winky sits in the Hogwarts kitchens 
> and drinks.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that we've yet to see a 
worthless house-elf.  I'll also say that we've yet to see a house-
elf that *isn't* dangerous.  I'll *also* say that we have seen that 
for house-elves, loyalty is strictly in the eye of the beholder.  
And they're the beholder.

Winky, I'm betting, still considers herself Mr. Crouch's house-elf.  
Her loyalty has never wavered. Kreacher considers himself Mrs. 
Black's house-elf, and he's been loyal to her even after her death. 
Dobby is odd in that he's not loyal to his assigned wizard (Lucius), 
but he's certainly shown himself loyal to his chosen wizard 
(Harry).   

And all three elves have shown themselves capable of great feats in 
order to serve and protect those they love.  (And it does seem that 
for house-elves, love and loyalty go hand in hand.)

But here's the thing, magic contract or no, you cannot *force* a 
house-elf's loyalty.  Winky does not consider herself a Hogwarts' 
house-elf; Kreacher doesn't consider himself Harry's house-elf; 
Dobby didn't consider himself Lucius's house-elf.  And all three do 
(or did) their best to *not* serve those they don't (or didn't) want 
to serve, cleverly working their way around the magical contract's 
compulsions.
 
> >>Magpie:
> None of them are as subservient as they seem on the surface. It's 
> one of the odd things about house-elves that I don't know if JKR  
> planned or not, that she introduces them with Dobby who's         
> basically just another character whose loyalty to Harry is kind of 
> for laughs. But since then it seems like most house-elves have a   
> strong emotional bond to their masters. It becomes more clear just 
> how different Dobby is, and why they can't understand him.

Betsy Hp:
Do we ever learn how Dobby became Lucius's house-elf?  Because if 
you compare CoS Dobby to HBP Kreacher, those two seem an awful lot 
alike.  Could Dobby have been willed over to the Malfoy's against 
his personal wishes as Kreacher was with Harry?

(I'm suddenly wondering if Kreacher will start popping into Draco's 
bedroom, speaking ill of his master and then running into walls. <g>)

> >>Magpie:
> Of course, this brings up the question of what happens when       
> they're too old to do anything. The Blacks seemed to honor the     
> elves by beheading them and mounting them on the wall, but what    
> happens at Hogwarts? Is there a retirement wing? Do they get      
> lighter and lighter tasks until they drop dead?

Betsy Hp:
>From what we've seen of House-elves, they'd hate to not work if 
they're working for someone they love. So I'm betting on the 
work 'til they die option.  But I'm also pretty certain that's what 
makes them happy, and also that with their magic it's not as 
physically draining as house work is for us non-magical beasts.  So 
it's probably not as horrifying as it sounds.

Betsy Hp (who'd love a house-elf, but only one who loves me.  The 
other kind are too damn scary! <g>)





From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 23:30:01 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:30:01 -0000
Subject: Wizard gardens and food
In-Reply-To: <017501c70cd8$96fc12c0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ejtdpp+hii3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161761

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" 
<k12listmomma at ...> wrote:

<SNIP>

> Not one vegetable is mentioned, perhaps an oversight on the part of 
> Rowling? But I don't think so, for I don't think she had in mind a 
> vegetable garden. She had in mind an English  garden for that house.


zanooda:

Weasleys' garden seems a mixed kind. Flowerbeds are mentioned quite 
often, yes, but Molly grows some vegetables there as well. In HBP, 
when Harry spends Christmas at the Burrow, the twins put a garden 
gnome on top of the tree instead of an angel. JKR says that the gnome 
was caught after he "had bitten Fred on the ankle as he pulled up 
carrots for Christmas dinner" ("A very frosty Christmas", HBP, p.330 
US hardcover).
 
I think it's a great help for a family like the Weasleys to have 
their own potatos, cabbages and such, including probably those 
parsnips someone threw at Percy at Christmas dinner:-).

I suppose the Weasleys also grow some fruit, because they own an 
orchard not far from their house. 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 23:43:33 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:43:33 -0000
Subject: Snape Telling the Prophecy (Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard)
In-Reply-To: <ejtd5h+f3kd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejtej5+k59q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161762

> Jen:
<SNIP>
> But if Dumbledore's explanation is correct, it's not looking so
good
> for Snape. Notice he doesn't say Snape had no idea Voldemort would
> actually target a baby, he says Snape had no idea *which* baby
would
> be the target---Dumbledore, what are you thinking?!? Taking a page
> from Alla's book, I wanted to slap him! You can almost forgive
> Snape for being 20-something and an idiot, but 150 and that's your
> answer???? I just hope this was one of those instances JKR was
> referring to when she said Dumbledore could be too detached because
> he sure comes off that way to me, grumble. Another emotional
> mistake with Harry, Dumbledore doesn't really understand why Harry
> is so furious or why he has the *right* to be so furious.

Alla:

LOLOLOL. I love what you just said and agree with it, obviously,
let's slap him together.

But my problem was not even only this idiotic explanation ( Duh,
Dumbledore that makes it so much better that Snape was giving out
unknown baby according to you), but the fact that Dumbledore seemed
to brush away Harry's anger on the person who played a part in making
Harry's life what that is ( and nobody can convince me that Snape is
not complicit in it, I can totally see that he may have felt remorse
afterwards, yes, I do not see it now, but I find it plausible, but
his fault in starting all that is right there, IMO).

I wished, I so wished that Dumbledore would have simply told Harry -
yes, you have an absolute right to be angry at professor Snape, he
did what he did, and **then** proceeded to defend Severus dear, if he
wanted to do it, but without acknowledging Harry's right to be
angry...

Ugh, slap Dumbledore time :)


> Jen R., who doesn't blame Harry one bit for blowing up over this
> revelation but does think he will have to move on past anger and
> resentment.
>

Alla:

Oh, absolutely, no matter how I feel about it - this is clear that
this is where story is going IMO.

But Harry moving on to forgiveness, which I do think JKR can write
well is soo different from dismissing what Snape did IMO.

ETA:

Speaking about Dumbledore's emotional mistakes, I just had a thought. 
I mean I am sure it is not a novel thought, but anyways.

Dumbledore says in OOP that one of his mistakes is to forget what it 
means to be young, etc.

What if one of the implications of that, which he does not spell out 
is to forget that death of the loved one can be extremely painful 
experience for the young person.

I mean, Dumbledore is 150 something, he lost loved ones, I would 
speculate many many times, it is quite possible that he would grow 
quite detached, no?

I mean, how much time had passed since he lost his parents? I would 
speculate a lot. How could he fully empathise with sixteen year old, 
who still feels that wound, IMO?

How could he fully empathise with Harry who lost a father/brother 
figure in Sirius? After all, Dumbledore just probably does not 
remember what it feels like, etc.

Alla, rambling one.







From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 20 23:33:21 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:33:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dudley Demented
Message-ID: <20061120233322.67851.qmail@web54514.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161763

rlaw.

In the OOTP, Dudley was also attacked by dementors. When Harry told 
him to close his mouth, he actually listened. There are rumors flying 
around that Dudley is a wizard himself. Could it be possible since 
magic do run in families. For example, the Creevey Brothers(I know 
their dad is a milkman but what about the mom?)
===================================================

Jeremiah:
As far as the Creevey brothers, I'm not sure about their mother.

Where Dudley is concerned: JKR is quoted as having said when asked: "Is there more to Dudley than meets the eye?"

JKR: No. [Laughter]. What you see is what you get. I am happy to say that he is definitely a character without much back story. He is just Dudley. The next book, Half Blood Prince, is the least that you see of the Dursleys. You see them quite briefly. You see them a bit more in the final book, but you don?t get a lot of Dudley in book six?very few lines. I am sorry if there are Dudley fans out there, but I think you need to look at your priorities if it is Dudley that you are looking forward to. [Laughter]."

It seems that there isn't much to the character as far as Magic. He's a Muggle. Plus, if her were a wizard he would have exhibited some tendecies by this time. He's 17 already. I think that's long enough to wait for a sign. Plus, closeing one's mouth because you are commanded to does not make one a wizard (or witch.. sorry ladies... I'm being forgetful).

Plus, what would Dudley be able to do as far as help? If he is a wizard he is completely untrained. Possibly untrainable in my opinion.

But that's just what I think...

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




From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Tue Nov 21 01:05:21 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 18:05:21 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard gardens and food
References: <ejtdpp+hii3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006d01c70d09$1e235fd0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161764

Shelley wrote:
>> Not one vegetable is mentioned, perhaps an oversight on the part of
>> Rowling? But I don't think so, for I don't think she had in mind a
>> vegetable garden. She had in mind an English  garden for that house.
>
>
> zanooda:
> Weasleys' garden seems a mixed kind. Flowerbeds are mentioned quite
> often, yes, but Molly grows some vegetables there as well. In HBP,
> when Harry spends Christmas at the Burrow, the twins put a garden
> gnome on top of the tree instead of an angel. JKR says that the gnome
> was caught after he "had bitten Fred on the ankle as he pulled up
> carrots for Christmas dinner" ("A very frosty Christmas", HBP, p.330
> US hardcover).


Yes, I agree that a vegetable garden would be very beneficial for the 
Weasley family, just that it's not mentioned as being right near the house. 
The vegetables are probably grown in a field nearby, next to the fruit 
trees, but not in their immediate yard, as the English garden is described 
to be where they had dinner. Which them brings up the question of just how 
big is the Weasley property? For all the talk of them being poor, you can't 
be too poor if you own land that feeds you.

Shelley 






From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Nov 21 02:24:10 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:24:10 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejto0a+t13b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161765

Great summary and questions, Alla! As usual, I'm reading and posting
too late to add much to answers already given, but while I was reading
your summary something leapt out at me that I hadn't noticed before
in this quote by Trelawney:

> 
> 'Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and 
> there was that rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was 
> waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, although 
I'm 
> afraid that I myself rather thought he had been apprehended 
> eavesdropping on my interview with Dumbledore - you see, he himself 
> was seeking a job at the time, and no doubt hoped to pick up tips! 
> Well, after that, you know, Dumbledore seemed much more dis?posed to 
> give me a job, and I could not help thinking, Harry, that it was 
> because he appreciated the stark contrast between my own unassuming 
> manners and quiet talent, compared to the pushing, thrusting young 
> man who was prepared to listen at keyholes - Harry, dear?' 
>

What leapt out at me is the last sentence. It appears Dumbledore
wasn't taking Trelawney too seriously as teacher material until
she spoke the prophecy *and* Snape was caught eavesdropping. 
Suddenly Dumbledore offers her a job at Hogwarts. We know in part
it is to protect her, but this recall by Trelawney (assuming it
is accurate) suggests two things.

1. That Dumbledore believes Snape will take the prophecy back
to Voldemort, which will put Trelawney's life in danger as
Voldemort would want to get his hands on her and force her
to recount the prophecy in full. I.e., Dumbledore knows or
suspects strongly that Snape is a DE.

2. That Dumbledore didn't bring Trelawney into the interview
*expecting* to hire her. I.e., Dumbledore didn't arrange the
whole scenario in advance (and Snape wasn't already on 
Dumbledore's side at this point), because if it was set up
so Trelawney would spill the prophecy and Snape would take
it back to Voldemort intentionally to put into motion Harry
being marked as the savior of the WW (as some fans have 
suggested) then why wouldn't Dumbledore be acting as if he
is going to hire her from the beginning? Why does he need 
to use subterfuge on Trelawney who, aside from her unbidden
spurts of prophesying, is about as perceptive as a rock?
He doesn't, from my POV.

What this all means to me is that Snape *was* on Voldy's
side at that time, and not already a spy for Dumbledore. 
And that Dumbledore didn't expect the prophecy, but once it
was uttered by Trelawney he recognized it as genuine, then
devised his plans from THAT point.

It also means that Dumbledore *let* Snape take the prophecy
back to Voldemort. Maybe it was because Dumbledore simply
didn't have solid proof that Snape was a DE, even though he
certainly would have suspected it strongly, so he stayed 
within the "letter of the law" (much as it seemed he did
with Draco) and let Snape leave without using an obliviate
or other memory-erasing spell on him. (One has to wonder 
though why he didn't just look at Snape's arm.) Or he
couldn't prove Snape hadn't actually taken a wrong turn,
as he claimed, or that Snape had actually heard anything
(without invading his mind with Legilimens anyway), so
again he stuck with "innocent until proven guilty."

Or it could be because Dumbledore is a great believer in
letting people making their own choices for good or bad, 
even a DE such as Snape, and he didn't foresee Voldemort 
taking the prophecy so seriously, nor getting so far at 
stopping the prophecy in its tracks. Again, much like the
Draco situation where Dumbledore assumed there was no way
Draco could get DEs into Hogwarts, he assumed there was
no way the Secret Keeper would betray the Potters. 

Or maybe Dumbledore *did* foresee Voldemort's belief in the
prophecy being his downfall, and let Snape set the events in
motion, even though he knew it would mean the loss of good
people, because in the end it would mean the salvation of 
the WW. While I don't like this puppetmaster!Dumbledore,
anything is possible. 

Again, the only thing that seems certain out of this scene
is that Snape wasn't DDM at the time. His change of heart
came later (or, if one believes in ESE or OFH, he still 
hasn't had a change of heart). 

Julie  
  





From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Nov 21 02:32:29 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:32:29 -0000
Subject: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <ejsdkm+pf2s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejtoft+7go3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161766


Baby blue wrote:

> I think this supports my theory, Regulus was the only one who still
> had access to the Black family home.

Abergoat writes: 

Ah, but there is the nice little hint (clue?) that Herbert Burke
married a Black and had two sons and a daughter. Caractacus Burke may
be one of those sons. So the other son or daughter might be our RAB
and would have access to Kreacher (Sirius tells us Kreacher SHOULD
obey Tonks but doesn't perhaps because her mother was removed from the
tapestry. If RAB died in the cave, Kreacher may have taken the locket
back home.

The beauty of a Burke is they would have access to the story of Merope
and might know to look at the Orphanage. They also may have been a
'boss' of Tom Riddle and hence the use of the R.A.B. which denotes
equality of not superiority - as in 'I don't need to tell you my name,
you know who I am'. I cannot see a Death Eater ever being known to
Voldemort as R.A.B., they seem to be called by their last names. 

> We know Regulus was a death eater, no-one else from the Black family
> is mentioned as becoming one, he came from one of the oldest
> wizarding families and thefore was one of the few true pure bloods
> that Voldemort emmulated, and perhaps Voldie may have been a little
> lax when it came to these people and security. just some ideas.

The Burkes on the tapestry are still part of the Black Family. I agree
that a Burke might be a bit obscure though. Some people speculate that
R.A.B. my be the three middle initials of Aberforth Dumbledore (his
brother has three so Aberforth probably does too).  Aberforth may have
gone by his middle names so as not to be known as Albus's brother. 
This doesn't put the locket in Grimmauld Place...but for all we know
the locket never was at Grimmauld Place. It might be in the
lake...which is why something reacted to Harry's 'accio horcrux' 

Perhaps you are right and RAB is Regulus, but I think there are other
possibilities.

Abergoat







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Nov 21 02:37:34 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 02:37:34 -0000
Subject: '...He was taking too much for granted'
In-Reply-To: <d2b.320b0c.32928c6f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ejtope+qrf2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161767


Nikkalmati wrote:
 
> Indeed, I have to agree that part of Harry's journey to
self-knowledge will  
> involve an acceptance of Snape and rejection of hatred.  He needs to
get  
> beyond his negative emotions in order to defeat LV through Love. 
Who else  does 
> he hate as much as Snape?  On a practical level Harry has to come to
 the point 
> that he will accept help from Snape, because he is going to need his
 help to 
> set up LV for his defeat. (I have always felt that if Snape is really  
> working on the side of LV, Harry is a goner).

Abergoat adds:

Isn't it fascinating that Voldemort picks a boy Harry hates to kill
Dumbledore? That NO ONE else it to do it on that tower? And that Snape
thinks he is meant to do it in the end? I don't believe much Snape
said at Spinner's End, but I believe this because it seems feasible
Voldemort wants Harry to be blinded with hatred for Snape or Draco.
Why tell Narcissa Draco's task unless Voldemort WANTED her to run to
Snape for help? I suspect Voldemort manipulated everything.

Abergoat





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 21 03:29:37 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 03:29:37 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejto0a+t13b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejtrr1+aq5h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161768

 "julie" <juli17 at ...> wrote:

> 
> It also means that Dumbledore *let* Snape take the prophecy
> back to Voldemort. 


Potioncat:
Although I have proposed that either Snape was already DDM, or that 
Snape was at the Hogshead because he wanted to switch sides and was 
hoping to talk to DD. It is as likely that he was simply a DE. He 
could have been at the right place at the right time, or he could 
have been there on orders.

There are two points I'd like to make.

One is that DD knew the entire prophecy and knew what it would mean 
and still let Snape go. No, he didn't know who it was about. (I'm 
100% certain the interview is in October.)But he knew what it would 
mean. Either that, or he thought LV would interpret it differently, 
or react differently.

The second is that Snape only heard part of the prophecy and that 
does not specify a child not yet born, or even a child. It specifies 
a person whose parents defied LV 3 times and who was born in July. It 
could have been someone Snape's age.

So, DD knew what might happen, yet let things play out. No one seems 
upset about this. I still think Snape did not expect a set of new 
parents and their child to be targets, I think he expected a powerful 
wizard to be identified.

Another thought, although perhaps we would have already been told, 
what if Snape was following Trelawney? LV took the prophecy to heart, 
what if he had been expecting one? Snape may even have been assigned 
to get a job at Hogwarts, not to watch DD, but to listen out for more 
predictions from Trelawney.
 
>Julie: 
> Again, the only thing that seems certain out of this scene
> is that Snape wasn't DDM at the time. His change of heart
> came later (or, if one believes in ESE or OFH, he still 
> hasn't had a change of heart). 


Potioncat:
I'm coming over to this way of thinking, more and more. That the 
future DDM!Snape was a full DE at the time. The one thing that makes 
me hesitate is that DD does not say, a DE heard the prophecy, he 
says, someone in LV's employ.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 03:49:48 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 03:49:48 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejtrr1+aq5h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejtt0s+pfjg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161769

> 
> Potioncat:
<SNIP>
> There are two points I'd like to make.
> 
> One is that DD knew the entire prophecy and knew what it would 
mean 
> and still let Snape go. No, he didn't know who it was about. (I'm 
> 100% certain the interview is in October.)But he knew what it 
would 
> mean. Either that, or he thought LV would interpret it 
differently, 
> or react differently.
> 
> The second is that Snape only heard part of the prophecy and that 
> does not specify a child not yet born, or even a child. It 
specifies 
> a person whose parents defied LV 3 times and who was born in July. 
It 
> could have been someone Snape's age.
> 
> So, DD knew what might happen, yet let things play out. No one 
seems 
> upset about this. I still think Snape did not expect a set of new 
> parents and their child to be targets, I think he expected a 
powerful 
> wizard to be identified.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Erm... I am not sure we can say with certainty that Dumbledore let 
Snape go. I think it is just as likely that it just **happened** 
that Dumbledore let Snape go - meaning that he lost his moment, one 
second, only one second when Dumbledore contemplates what to do, 
whether to stun Snape or not,whether to do anything to him, etc.

If Dumbledore , say decides to stun Snape, it is too late, Snape is 
gone.

Is anything in canon contradicts this speculative scenario?

Unless of course you argue high and mighty DD, who never ever makes 
mistakes and always catches his enemy.

But say you are right and Dumbledore willfully and deliberately let 
Snape take the Prophecy to Voldemort.

Please believe me when I say so, I will be **very** upset with this 
Dumbledore, in my mind he would be no better than Voldemort and I 
will hope that whatever higher power in existance in Potterverse 
will make Dumbledore pay for what he did.

**This** Dumbledore and Snape will surely be worth each other in my 
mind then, but yes, I do keep my hope that Dumbledore did not just 
let Snape leave, but it is just happened.

I do not want to hate Dumbledore. :(

JMO,

Alla



 
>





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 21 04:17:27 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:17:27 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejtt0s+pfjg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejtukn+jt42@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161770

 
> Alla:
> 
> Erm... I am not sure we can say with certainty that Dumbledore let 
> Snape go. I think it is just as likely that it just **happened** 
> that Dumbledore let Snape go - meaning that he lost his moment, one 
> second, only one second when Dumbledore contemplates what to do, 
> whether to stun Snape or not,whether to do anything to him, etc.

Potioncat:
Indecisive!DD loses Snape, so to speak? Oh, no, I like that DD even 
less.

>Alla: 
> Unless of course you argue high and mighty DD, who never ever makes 
> mistakes and always catches his enemy.

Potioncat:
Snape manages to get away from DD and AD. Once he's gone, what can 
they do? Now, that would make for an even more interesting return by 
Snape. 


> Alla
> But say you are right and Dumbledore willfully and deliberately let 
> Snape take the Prophecy to Voldemort.
> 
> Please believe me when I say so, I will be **very** upset with this 
> Dumbledore, in my mind he would be no better than Voldemort and I 
> will hope that whatever higher power in existance in Potterverse 
> will make Dumbledore pay for what he did.

Potioncat:
Well, he left in risk a couple who were already at risk; a couple who 
were defying LV and would most likely continue so after the birth of 
their child. It isn't clear if DD knew Snape was a DE at that moment. 
He may have found out much later.


>Alla: 
> **This** Dumbledore and Snape will surely be worth each other in my 
> mind then, but yes, I do keep my hope that Dumbledore did not just 
> let Snape leave, but it is just happened.


Potioncat: 
This is part of the reason I've thought Snape was already on DD's 
side. In this case, LV finds out, but DD knows exactly what he's 
being told and will find out exactly what he plans to do.

I waffle on this one though. I do like my new idea that Snape was 
following Trelawney on LV's orders and that's why he was there.







From elfundeb at gmail.com  Tue Nov 21 04:18:26 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:18:26 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Cruciatus? (A question about Dear Bella)
In-Reply-To: <ejr20m+33pj@eGroups.com>
References: <006201c70c17$28f8e5d0$d5510043@D6L2G391> <ejr20m+33pj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0611202018s16531cd8h24daf2767425cf58@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161771

>
>   Mike:
>
> I too think there is something wrong with it but for a different
> reason. It starts with Barty Sr's pronouncement at the trial:
>
> "...subjecting him to the Cruciatus Curse, believing him to have
> knowledge of the present whereabouts of your exiled master,..."
> (GoF p.595, US)
>
> Dumbledore adds to this perception when telling Harry:
>
> "He and his wife were tortured for information about Voldemort's
> whereabouts after he lost his powers, as you heard." (GoF p.602,US)
>

   But then Dumbledore throws in the caveat:
>
> "The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done
> it. Unfortunately, the Longbottom's evidence was - given their
> condition - none too reliable." (ibid)
>
> This makes it seem that although the Ministry had probably caught
> the right people, they were probably just as likely to be guessing
> as to the perpetrator's motivation for the attack on the
> Longbottoms. Given the DMLE's actions during the Crouch years in
> charge, I question the conclusion they reached, and Dumbledore's
> parroting of the same.
>

 Debbie:
But Bellatrix is only too willing to confess their objective.  "We alone
were faithful!  We alone tried to find him!"  I don't think the DMLE had to
make up this part of the story.  The primary issue relates to Barty Crouch
Jr's involvement.  There's a school of thought that he was framed to
discredit his father, as revenge against his crusade against the DEs.

Mike:

>   Dumbledore told us prior to this that his informants gave him to
> believe that Voldemort was holed up in Albania. Wormtail seemed to
> go directly there after his escape at the end of PoA, and he had
> spent the last 12 years as Percy's then Ron's rat. How much of a
> secret was Voldemort's whereabouts? I know the Longbottom tortures
> took place more than ten years prior, but the WW doesn't seem to
> have come upon some revelation during the interim as to where
> Voldemort was residing.
>
> My point is, the whereabouts of Voldemort doesn't seem to be this
> great secret that the Longbottoms would need to be tortured to
> reveal. Nor does it seem reasonable that the Longbottoms would have
> some inside information as to this location.
>

Debbie:
Voldemort's whereabouts became a subject of rumor in the years after
Godric's Hollow.  Dumbledore probably doesn't mention what his sources are
telling him to a lot of people, but people at Hogwarts can probably get this
information.  (Pettigrew knew because he used to hang out with Ron, who
hangs out with Harry, who was informed by Dumbledore.)  But the Longbottom
torture took place not long after Voldemort disappeared.  As long as
sufficient numbers of suspected DEs remained at large, Dumbledore would have
kept any intelligence he had very close to the vest.

My surmise is that it was Frank Longbottom who was sent out after
Voldemort's vaporization to determine what had become of him, and that he
had discovered Vapormort hiding out in Albania or wherever.  The Lestranges
(or whoever sent them to be framed, because faithful DEs were troublesome to
those who were trying to slither out of Azkaban-type trouble) only knew that
Longbottom had been away and had returned.  The Lestranges dragged Crouch Jr
along with them because he knew the Longbottoms and would get them unforced
entry into the Longbottom home.

   Mike:
>
> Actually, IMO this seems a more likely explanation than the one
> given in canon. (BTW, Eric where can one find your "theory"? Do you
> have a message number? I think I read it once, but can't remember
> where it was.) Revenge can be highly motivating, and it makes more
> sense to me than that hooey about finding Voldemort.
>

Judge Dredd on Acid is here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/33885

Debbie
who's celebrating an anniversary of sorts tonight, having joined HPFGU
exactly five (!) years ago today


>
>
>


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




From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 04:06:37 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 20:06:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <ejtoft+7go3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <23281.93032.qm@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161772

Abergoat:
          <snip>
The Burkes on the tapestry are still part of the Black Family. I agree
that a Burke might be a bit obscure though. Some people speculate that
R.A.B. my be the three middle initials of Aberforth Dumbledore (his
brother has three so Aberforth probably does too). Aberforth may have
gone by his middle names so as not to be known as Albus's brother. 
This doesn't put the locket in Grimmauld Place...but for all we know
the locket never was at Grimmauld Place. It might be in the
lake...which is why something reacted to Harry's 'accio horcrux' 

Perhaps you are right and RAB is Regulus, but I think there are other
possibilities.
</snip>
   
  Dantzel:
  Dear Abergoat, why would JKR mention the heavy locket that no one could open if it wasn't like an enormous clue? I mean, yeah *maybe* it was a red herring, as is JKR answering that interview question of Regulus being with RAB with, "That would be an excellent guess." (that didn't sound quite right but I have a headache tonight) However, I've just got this gut feeling that there is a lot of importance to both the heavy locket and Regulus


     
     


  .

 
         

 




From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 10:42:19 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:42:19 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...wealth - ...Nature of Elves)
In-Reply-To: <ejtdu9+d6md@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejul6b+10s0n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161773

> Betsy Hp:
> 
> (I'm suddenly wondering if Kreacher will start popping into Draco's 
> bedroom, speaking ill of his master and then running into walls. <g>)

Finwitch:
 
I agree with your theory about house-elf loyalty - however, unlike
Lucius Malfoy, Harry has been thoughtful enough to *forbid* Kreacher
to contact Draco in any way. Bella OTOH - whom Kreacher claims to wish
to serve...

But Kreacher doesn't run into walls etc. on self-punishment for
'speaking ill of the master' - no. Otherwise he would have done that
with Sirius already. And I think there's NOTHING Sirius could have
done to truly gain Kreacher.

But yes. If House-elves don't have their will observed, they CAN be
real threat&Annoyance. Blast it, Kreacher manipulated Sirius to get
angry so he'd say: "Get out" or "go away" so he could visit
Narcissa... I hope Harry's smarter and send Kreacher on duty instead.
You know, like Dumbledore suggested - to work at Hogwarts with other
elves. No open commands - you send an untrusted elf out of your sight,
you'd better give them a destination and task or they'll do as they
please.

Finwitch





From finwitch at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 11:13:53 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 11:13:53 -0000
Subject: Snape Telling the Prophecy (Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard)
In-Reply-To: <ejtbmh+5uou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejun1h+5uos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161774

> 
> Jen:  The best case scenario for Snape's judgement is what Sirius
said > about Regulus, "he got in so far, then panicked about what he
was being asked to do and tried to back out." (chap. 6, OOTP) Or like 
> the Blacks, Snape didn't realize what Voldemort was prepared to do 
> to seize power, i.e. target babies. 
> 
> But if Dumbledore's explanation is correct, it's not looking so good 
> for Snape.  Notice he doesn't say Snape had no idea Voldemort would 
> actually target a baby, he says Snape had no idea *which* baby would 
> be the target---Dumbledore, what are you thinking?!?

Finwitch:

Indeed. Not good for Snape, is it - I mean, he *knew* Voldemort would
target a *baby* and yet he chose to tell him of the prophecy. Yes, I
agree - Harry had every right to blow up. And his reason to turn is on
*which* baby Voldemort attacked, a baby Snape apparently doesn't even
LIKE, of a father Snape HATES?

As for Dumbledore trusting Severus Snape -- I'd say he simply *chose*
to do so - in the hope the regret was real and because distrust was
Voldemort's weapon. (Biblical - one turned is valued more than 99 who
don't have to turn).

No wonder Dumbledore never told anyone (except Harry, of late) why he
trusted Snape. Hearing that story secondhand just wouldn't be
believable to anyone else. I suppose the experience firsthand was
indeed different. I also think that Dumbledore made a mistake in
trying to explain it to Harry in words instead of showing him (in a
pensieve), with commentary why he then chose to believe and trust
Severus Snape. Well, unless the pensieve would show something he
*absolutely* had to keep in secret for the sake of privacy and trust?
Well, I hope Aberforth has that memory bottled somewhere...

Finwitch





From bercygirl2 at aol.com  Tue Nov 21 07:19:57 2006
From: bercygirl2 at aol.com (bercygirl2)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:19:57 -0000
Subject: Gryffindor and Slytherin colors
Message-ID: <eju9at+e4iu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161775

Somthing has been nagging at the back of my brain about these two 
houses' colors. Gryffindor's colors are gold and red, Slytherin's are 
silver and green.
But in HBP we are told that the locket and ring that were Salazar 
Slytherin's are gold, not silver, as we'd expect his heirlooms to be. 
And in CoS, Gryffindor's sword is silver.
Does anyone have any theories about this?






From zuhm at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 08:47:34 2006
From: zuhm at yahoo.com (zuhm)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:47:34 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter's grandparents? Are they alive or mentioned in the books?
Message-ID: <ejuef6+q9nt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161776

Curious about Harry Potter's grandparents.  Wondering if they are
ever mentioned in the books and are they alive?

zuhm.






From scarah at gmail.com  Tue Nov 21 13:45:56 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 05:45:56 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter's grandparents? Are they alive or mentioned in the books?
In-Reply-To: <ejuef6+q9nt@eGroups.com>
References: <ejuef6+q9nt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611210545i3d6e9469ib03cd359c8cf7ad2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161777

zuhm:
> Curious about Harry Potter's grandparents.  Wondering if they are
> ever mentioned in the books and are they alive?

Sarah:
They are mentioned in the books.  Lily's parents were proud to have a
witch in the family, which Petunia says in PS.  James' parents took
Sirius in when he left home, and Sirius talks about them in OotP.

They are not alive.  From the World Book Day chat in 2004:

"Rita: What happend to Harry's grandparents? Will we ever learn about them?
JK Rowling replies -> They're all dead and not particularly important
to the story, although you will find out a little bit more."

Sarah



From chnc1024 at bellsouth.net  Tue Nov 21 13:59:47 2006
From: chnc1024 at bellsouth.net (Chancie)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 07:59:47 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter's grandparents? Are they alive or mentioned in the books?
References: <ejuef6+q9nt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000a01c70d75$4e520000$0201a8c0@your4dacd0ea75>

No: HPFGUIDX 161778


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: zuhm 
  To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 2:47 AM
  Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter's grandparents? Are they alive or mentioned in the books?


  Curious about Harry Potter's grandparents. Wondering if they are
  ever mentioned in the books and are they alive?

  zuhm

  .


  **********************************************************
  Chancie:


  According to JKR, all of Harry's grandparents are dead.
  You can veiw the quote here:

  http://www.accio-quote.org/themes/potters.htm

  Hope that helps!

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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 21 14:22:13 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:22:13 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts House-elves (wasRe: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...
In-Reply-To: <ejul6b+10s0n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejv22l+tlj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161779

 
> Finwitch:
>  
> I agree with your theory about house-elf loyalty - however, unlike
> Lucius Malfoy, Harry has been thoughtful enough to *forbid* Kreacher
> to contact Draco in any way. Bella OTOH - whom Kreacher claims to wish
> to serve...


Potioncat:
All Harry had to do was say "Kreacher" out loud and Kreacher came. It 
even worked at the Dursleys. So why did DD send Snape to fetch Winky?  

It doesn't look as if DD did or said anything that Snape or McG 
shouldn't hear. She went after the Animagus Black and Snape was also 
sent for Veritaserum.(GoF)

Ideas?





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 15:55:48 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:55:48 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts House-elves (wasRe: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...
In-Reply-To: <ejv22l+tlj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejv7i4+sf2q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161780

Potioncat:
> All Harry had to do was say "Kreacher" out loud and Kreacher came.
It even worked at the Dursleys. So why did DD send Snape to fetch Winky?  
> 
> It doesn't look as if DD did or said anything that Snape or McG 
> shouldn't hear. She went after the Animagus Black and Snape was also 
> sent for Veritaserum.(GoF)
> 
> Ideas?
>
Carol responds:
I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but Winky is a freed (or, in
her view, fired) house-elf who is employed by Dumbledore (or Hogwarts
in general) but doesn't regard him as her master. She doesn't do any
work, spends her days drinking butterbeer or sleeping it off, and
still regards Mr. Crouch as her master. Why would she obey Dumbledore
if he called, even if she can hear him? Besides, Snape has to get the
Veritaserum anyway. Why not send him to get Winky on the way back? And
better to send McGonagall to fetch the black dog than send Snape to do
a task he'll resent when he discovers who the dog is.

IMO, DD is sending them both to do useful and necessary tasks while
the Polyjuice Potion wears off. Otherwise, they'd just be standing
around waiting and Barty's story couldn't be as easily confirmed.
(Note that McGonagall's task isn't really essential to this process,
but I suppose DD wants Sirius Black to be involved in some way and to
provide emotional support for Harry.)

Carol, sorry to be confused but not sure of the point you're making





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Nov 21 16:01:10 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:01:10 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejto0a+t13b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejv7s6+1mch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161781

Julie:
> 
> What leapt out at me is the last sentence. It appears Dumbledore
> wasn't taking Trelawney too seriously as teacher material until
> she spoke the prophecy *and* Snape was caught eavesdropping. 
> Suddenly Dumbledore offers her a job at Hogwarts. We know in part
> it is to protect her, but this recall by Trelawney (assuming it
> is accurate) suggests two things.
> 
> 1. That Dumbledore believes Snape will take the prophecy back
> to Voldemort, which will put Trelawney's life in danger as
> Voldemort would want to get his hands on her and force her
> to recount the prophecy in full. I.e., Dumbledore knows or
> suspects strongly that Snape is a DE.


Pippin:

No, no, no. In the first place, Dumbledore knows that True Seers 
are rare, so even if Sybill's prophecy had had nothing to do with 
Voldemort, her ability would put her in harm's way should it
be revealed, that night or in the future.

You're also forgetting what Dumbledore knows: that
the Hogshead is a place where it is *never* (emphasis mine)
safe to assume that you haven't been overheard. Now when
Dumbledore tells Harry this, he says he learned it to his 
cost that night, but in fact he was already  familiar with
the place as we learned in HBP. So even if he hadn't caught
an eavesdropper, Dumbledore would have had to assume that
news of the prophecy would reach Voldemort. Nor, having
caught an eavesdropper, could he be sure it was the only
one. 

He also did not have to have specific information about
Snape to fear that he would be in contact with Death Eaters,
since the other thing Dumbledore knows is that no one can
tell who is working for Voldemort and who isn't. Even
if Snape himself is  innocent, anyone he tells might
be a DE and bring the news to Voldemort.

Memory charming Snape might be worse than useless. We
know that Voldemort can detect and break memory charms
(no one could have told him that Bertha's memory had been 
altered) so memory-charming Snape might only have 
helped convince Voldemort to take the prophecy 
seriously, and put a possibly innocent man at risk of having
his mind destroyed as Bertha's was.

What we can't tell at this point is whether Dumbledore
knew at the time that only part of the prophecy had been 
overheard. If he assumed that all of it would reach the
Dark Lord, then he would have expected Voldemort to 
show more caution for fear of marking his equal. If
so, and if it was Snape's defection that put the Order
on alert that Voldemort intended to take action sooner
rather than later, then Snape deserves credit for securing
Harry  the 15 months he had with his mum and dad.

Pippin





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Tue Nov 21 16:00:48 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:00:48 -0600
Subject: Magic late in life
References: <eilshe+3qkl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <016301c70d86$3655a630$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161782

JKR has said, "There is a character who does manage, in desperate circumstances, to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare..."

    I am wondering if this doesn't pertain to Filtch.. I had thought that maybe it woud be Dudley, but JKR also said that Dudley is "just Dudley" so she killed that thought.  
    Then I thought of Petunia..  We know we will find out more and that it isn't a squib issue.  Has JKR ever stated that Petunia was definately not magical?
   Perhaps it will be Uncle Vernon?  
  Any thoughts?
 Lana


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




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 21 16:44:06 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:44:06 -0000
Subject: Gryffindor and Slytherin colors
In-Reply-To: <eju9at+e4iu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvacm+mkqb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161783

bercygirl:
>
> Somthing has been nagging at the back of my brain about these two 
> houses' colors. Gryffindor's colors are gold and red, Slytherin's are 
> silver and green.
> But in HBP we are told that the locket and ring that were Salazar 
> Slytherin's are gold, not silver, as we'd expect his heirlooms to be. 
> And in CoS, Gryffindor's sword is silver.
> Does anyone have any theories about this?

Ceridwen:
Gold is costly, and shows wealth.  It is often used in jewelry.  But, 
gold is a soft metal, unsuitable for swords.  The color has nothing to 
do with the use of the actual metals, in my opinion.  Slytherin's 
sword, if he had one, would have been of a silver color, too (probably 
iron), while Gryffindor would have had pieces of gold jewelry.

Ceridwen.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 17:06:36 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:06:36 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejto0a+t13b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvbms+v4ug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161784

Julie wrote:
<snip>
> 
> It appears Dumbledore wasn't taking Trelawney too seriously as
teacher material until she spoke the prophecy *and* Snape was caught
eavesdropping. Suddenly Dumbledore offers her a job at Hogwarts. We
know in part it is to protect her, but this recall by Trelawney
(assuming it is accurate) suggests two things.
> 
> 1. That Dumbledore believes Snape will take the prophecy back
> to Voldemort, which will put Trelawney's life in danger as
> Voldemort would want to get his hands on her and force her
> to recount the prophecy in full. I.e., Dumbledore knows or
> suspects strongly that Snape is a DE.
> 
> 2. That Dumbledore didn't bring Trelawney into the interview
> *expecting* to hire her. I.e., Dumbledore didn't arrange the
> whole scenario in advance (and Snape wasn't already on 
> Dumbledore's side at this point), because if it was set up
> so Trelawney would spill the prophecy and Snape would take
> it back to Voldemort intentionally to put into motion Harry
> being marked as the savior of the WW (as some fans have 
> suggested) then why wouldn't Dumbledore be acting as if he
> is going to hire her from the beginning? Why does he need 
> to use subterfuge on Trelawney who, aside from her unbidden
> spurts of prophesying, is about as perceptive as a rock?
> He doesn't, from my POV.
> 
> What this all means to me is that Snape *was* on Voldy's
> side at that time, and not already a spy for Dumbledore. 
> And that Dumbledore didn't expect the prophecy, but once it
> was uttered by Trelawney he recognized it as genuine, then
> devised his plans from THAT point.
> 
> It also means that Dumbledore *let* Snape take the prophecy
> back to Voldemort. Maybe it was because Dumbledore simply
> didn't have solid proof that Snape was a DE, even though he
> certainly would have suspected it strongly, so he stayed 
> within the "letter of the law" (much as it seemed he did
> with Draco) and let Snape leave without using an obliviate
> or other memory-erasing spell on him. (One has to wonder 
> though why he didn't just look at Snape's arm.) Or he
> couldn't prove Snape hadn't actually taken a wrong turn,
> as he claimed, or that Snape had actually heard anything
> (without invading his mind with Legilimens anyway), so
> again he stuck with "innocent until proven guilty."

Carol responds:
I agree with you that the evidence does suggest these conclusions. The
only part that still troubles me is the discrepancy between Trelaawney
seeing Snape after her Prophecy is completed and DD saying earlier
that the eavesdropper was *thrown out of the Hog's Head halfway
through the Prophecy.* It does not compute. (Also, I doubt Trelawney's
explanation that young Snape was seeking a job at Hogwarts at the
wrong time of year, almost two years before he was actually hired. We
see the unreliability of part of her explanation: DD certainly didn't
hire her for her unassuming manners in contrast to Snape's pushiness.
Even if he were applying, it wouldn't be for the Divination position.)
But, yes, it does seem that Snape was really a DE and DD was afraid
for Sybill's safety, whcih could only mean that he expected Snape to
report the Prophecy to Voldemort and reveal the Seer's identity.

As to why DD didn't look at Snape's arm, I'm not sure that the Dark
Mark was widely known to exist among anyone other than the DEs, who
used it to identify each other, according to Snape in GoF. Otherwise,
all that Crouch Sr. would have to do to determine the DE status of
anyone caught before Voldemort's fall would be to examine the person's
left arm. It doesn't appear that he did so.

But why would DD let Snape take the partial Prophecy back to
Voldemort? I can think of only two reasons. Either he believed that
the part of the Prophecy Snape heard didn't clearly relate to a child
and he expected Voldemort to wait until the Chosen One showed himself
as an adult wizard (Harry's view of the logical thing for LV to do) or
he wanted Voldemort to act to thwart the Prophecy in order to empower
the child who would ultimately defeat him. Much as I hate to say it,
the second seems more likely.

DD, of course, would know that it referred to a child but he could not
know which child considering that Harry was not yet born and IMO had
just been conceived (I think the Prophecy took place on Halloween),
but DD might have had some ideas regarding the identity of the
prospective parents (surely Order members or Aurors if they had defied
or would defy the Dark Lord thrice). Possibly, he intended to keep any
eye on any couples who fit this description and warn them of their danger.

The only way I can justify this thinking is that if the Prophecy was
not activated and the Chosen One empowered, Voldemort could not be
defeated. (DD, it appears, does believe in Prophecies despite his
apparent skepticism. I think he believed that this one had to be
activated despite the risk to the nameless parents of the unknown
child; otherwise, the WW was condemned to permanent darkness under the
reign of the immortal Voldemort. Not a happy choice, no better than
snape's choice on the tower, but IMO a choice of the lesser evil over
the greater one. He could certainly warn the couple of their danger
and take measures to protect them once he learned their
identity--nothing in the Prophecy states that the parents had to be
killed--but he also had to give the child a chance to defeat Voldemort
if this idea is correct.

Julie: 
> Or it could be because Dumbledore is a great believer in
> letting people making their own choices for good or bad, 
> even a DE such as Snape, and he didn't foresee Voldemort 
> taking the prophecy so seriously, nor getting so far at 
> stopping the prophecy in its tracks. Again, much like the
> Draco situation where Dumbledore assumed there was no way
> Draco could get DEs into Hogwarts, he assumed there was
> no way the Secret Keeper would betray the Potters. 

Carol:
What Secret Keeper? Dumbldore didn't even suggest the idea until Harry
was more than a year old, and PP was only Secret Keeper for about a
week before he betrayed the Potters. We're talking about a time when
neither Dumbledore nor Snape nor Voldemort nor anyone else could
possibly know which wizard child or children would be born at the end
of July, some nine months away by my calculations and certainly some
time in the future based on both the Prophecy and the weather (a cold,
wet night, suggesting late fall through early spring). We also have
Trelawney's statement that she'd been teaching for *almost* sixteen
years at a time when Harry is fifteen, suggesting that the Prophecy
coincides roughly with his conception. Maybe he did think he could
stop the Prophecy in its tracks by letting Voldemort hear part of it,
but the SK plan was definitely not in place and would not be until
Harry was almost fifteen months old.
> 
Julie:
> Or maybe Dumbledore *did* foresee Voldemort's belief in the
> prophecy being his downfall, and let Snape set the events in
> motion, even though he knew it would mean the loss of good
> people, because in the end it would mean the salvation of 
> the WW. While I don't like this puppetmaster!Dumbledore,
> anything is possible. 

Carol:
If allowing the Chosen One to acquire powers from Voldemort is the
only way that Voldemort can be defeated, wouldn't this be his only
option? After that, he could discover the identity of the couple and
try to help them, try to prepare them for the inevitable confrontation
and help them somehow survive it. Maybe if he'd been Secret Keeper, he
could have managed that? It doesn't appear, though, that James and
Lily knew the Prophecy. Otherwise, James wouldn't have told Lily to
take Harry and run. Or maybe their child's safety was more important
to them than his role as the future savior of the WW and they were
just trying to keep him out of Voldemort's hands in case the Prophecy
was wrong or he was the wrong child.

As for Snape, I don't think he realized the full implications until he
knew both the identity of the child and what Voldemort intended to do
(kill the child and probably the parents, who would presumably fight
to protect him--no on anticipated Lily's unarmed sacrifice and its
consequences). At that point, it appears that he went to Dumbledore
with what could not have been a mere fabricated story of remorse. LV
would not have wanted Snape to reveal his plans. It must have been a
real change of heart for young DE Snape, who realized, as DD says,
that he made a terrible mistake. Yes, he hated James, but he didn't
hate Lily or their innocent child, and the fact that he knew these
people made it real to him as it would not have been if they were mere
anonymous victims who had to die for the Dark Lord's reign to be
permanent. (Of course, there may have been other factors motivating
Snape's change of sides, including Regulus Black's death, but the
knowledge of LV's plan to go after the Potters gave him a reason and a
motivation for his change of sides. That it took place some months
before Godric's Hollow is clear from his spying for DD at great
personal risk before applying to teach at Hogwarts when Harry was a
year old. I think it must have been soon after Harry's birth, which
explains Snape's slip of "sixteen years of information on Dumbledore'
when he'd only been teaching for fifteen.

What Snape was doing in the Hog's Head in the first place, I have no
idea. It certainly wasn't getting tips for job interviews. But I think
his motivations are fairly straightforward, both in reporting the
partial Prophecy and in regretting that revelation. Dumbledore's are
another matter, and I'm not entirely happy with the conclusions I've
drawn about him.

Julie: 
> Again, the only thing that seems certain out of this scene
> is that Snape wasn't DDM at the time. His change of heart
> came later (or, if one believes in ESE or OFH, he still 
> hasn't had a change of heart). 

Carol:
I agree that the change of heart came later, soon after Harry's birth
when he knew how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy (Harry Potter is
the One Who Can Defeat the Dark Lord) and what LV intended to do about
it (kill the Potter child). I don't for a moment think that Dumbledore
was wrong about Snape's remorse or that he was wrong to trust him
throughout the books. But his own role in helping to bring about the
Prophecy could explain his hesitation in revealing his reasons for
trusting Snape.

It also occurs to me that DD may have wanted to keep the Potters,
especially Harry, safe until Harry was old enough to know the Prophecy
and confront Voldemort on his own rather than having LV attack him as
an infant. That would explain his belated suggestion of the Fidelius
Charm and his offer to make himself Secret Keeper. Or maybe, he, too,
was having second thoughts about the wisdom of revealing the partial
Prophecy to Voldemort?

Carol, wondering if the greater good of empowering Harry to defeat
Voldemort and temporarily disembodying LV could have been accomplished
without the Potters' deaths






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 18:42:15 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:42:15 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejt3d0+86pe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvha7+550a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161785

---  "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve:
> > Keep in mind that it is house-elves who have set the 
> > standard for service, loyalty, and fealty. Kreacher 
> > provides none of those things, he falls far short of
> > the common standards for house-elves, and in that
> > sense, he is both worthless and dangerous. 
> 
> Magpie:
> But so do Dobby and Winky who, like Kreacher, prefer 
> to choose whom they wish to serve. Dobby ran away from
> the Malfoys and actively worked against them. Winky 
> sits in the Hogwarts kitchens and drinks. Kreacher has
> been just as good an example of service, loyalty and 
> fealty to the family he considers his true owners.  
>

bboyminn:

Almost, but no cigar. There is no indication that Dobby 
is or was ever less than a hard working dutiful 
house-elf. At Hogwarts, Dobby even does work that the
other Elves have refused to do; specifically cleaning up
Griffindor Common Room when it is filled with hiden 
clothes. So, Dobby is certainly a hard worker. 

Dobby's actions 'against' the Malfoy's is similar to 
Kreacher betrayal of Sirius, but there is a difference.
Dobby acted to save someone and did so in a way the 
wasn't really detrimental to his master. Note that I 
said 'in a way' not detrimental. It certainly did 
attempt to foul Malfoy's plan, but did not attempt or 
intend to cause direct harm to the Malfoys.

Kreacher on the other hand would seem to have known 
quite well that /harm/ would come as a result of his
actions. Dobby operated within the limits of himself
as a house-elf. Kreacher on the other hand acted in
clear and malicious betrayal of his master. Again, the 
action of the two elves in this one instance are
similar, but I see Kreacher's betrayal as greater and
more vicious. 

As to Winky, as others have pointed out, she still 
considers herself Crouch's house-elf as all her prior
family had been. I further think she believes that 
her absents from the family contributed to Barty's 
death. So, she has both guilt and shame hanging over
her and heavily weighting her down. That is indeed
a heavy wieght to carry.

Though, I have no doubt that Winky has the capability
of being a fine house-elf if she could get herself into
a situation where she felt like she was part of the 
family again. Maybe when she and Dobby come to work for
Harry, she will be happy again.

Kreacher on the other hand, I believe, is too far 'round
the bend to ever be a fully functional house-elf. True
under better circumstances he may be able to find some
family who would take him in and tolerate him until he
finally died, but I think his level of service would be
marginal at best.

I think Kreacher would truly try to be a good elf, if 
for example he worked for Narcissa or Belatrix, but I
honestly don't think he is capable of succeeding. Like
I said, he is mentally and phyically too far around the
bend.

For the record, Dobby did not 'run away from the Malfoys'.
He simply left within the confines and context of his
service. As I have already admitted, in much the same way
that Kreacher did. But regardless of either leaving within
the technical confines of their servitude, Kreachers 
action, in my opinion, were whole more vicious.

> Magpie:
> ... If given to Narcissa, for instance, I see no reason
> that Kreacher couldn't become a productive house-elf. 
> 

bboyminn:

Just to re-emphasize this point, I think under the best 
of circumstances Kreacher service would be marginally 
acceptable at best. Though that is more a cause for pity 
than hate.

Just as Winky at the moment can't control her actions,
neither can Kreacher. Kreacher state of being is a 
warped result of time and circumstances, but again while
he is to be pitied, he is not to be forgiven.

> Magpie:
>
> ... To me it seems like Kreacher's fairly standard for
> a house-elf in that he is tremendously loyal but has 
> his own ideas about who he's loyal or not to, just as 
> all the other house elves we've seen. None of them are
> as subservient as they seem on the surface. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Oddly, on this point we agree. The elves when pushed are
a force to be reckoned with. That is part of the reason
why I introduced the idea that Elves can only use the
specific magic that their Masters have allowed them to 
use. In a sense, it is a way the Wizards keep Elves 
under control. They see what magically power and 
independant creatures Elves are capable of being, and 
they don't want to introduce any excuse for the power
and independance to be used against them. 

I proposed that Harry would discover this fact, and would
give the Hogwarts House-Elves free and unfettered rein of
their magical powers and the free will to independantly 
decide to use that magical power, and then the Hogwarts
Elves truly will be a force to be reckoned with.


> Magpie:
>
> Of course, this brings up the question of what happens 
> when they're too old to do anything. The Blacks seemed
> to honor the elves by beheading them and mounting them
> on the wall, but what happens at Hogwarts? Is there a 
> retirement wing? Do they get lighter and lighter tasks
> until they drop dead?
> 
> -m
>

bboyminn:

I've often wondered the same thing. Though I suspect, to 
some extent, that is one of the questions we aren't 
suppose to ask. I have often pictured Harry, through a
long complicated series of events, opening a rest home
for House-Elves, where the old elves spend their time
cataloging the magic, herbology, lore, history, and other
apects of house-elf existance.

Further, I have always wondered if Elves can read and
write. In the Old South it was actually against the law
to teach slaves to read and write. I sort of have the
same sense about Elves, and once again through a long
complicated series of events, I have picture Harry
opening a school to teach Elves to read and write, and
do basic arithmatic. Of course, this all occurs in the
future far beyond the scope of the existing series. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 19:01:15 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:01:15 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvha7+550a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvidr+mi7j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161786

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> There is no indication that Dobby is or was ever less than a hard 
> working dutiful house-elf.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The Malfoys would strongly disagree.  Dobby undercut Lucius's plans 
and reported directly to their enemy (as per Dobby's view of 
Harry).  You can't get less "dutiful" than that.

> >>bboyminn:
> Dobby's actions 'against' the Malfoy's is similar to 
> Kreacher betrayal of Sirius, but there is a difference.
> Dobby acted to save someone and did so in a way the 
> wasn't really detrimental to his master. Note that I 
> said 'in a way' not detrimental. It certainly did 
> attempt to foul Malfoy's plan, but did not attempt or 
> intend to cause direct harm to the Malfoys.
> <snip>
> Again, the action of the two elves in this one instance are
> similar, but I see Kreacher's betrayal as greater and
> more vicious.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Again, it's all in the eye of the beholder here.  Of course you 
don't see the Malfoys as being harmed. You disagree with their 
philosophies and goals (I assume <g>) so if they're foiled, no real 
harm or foul.

But for all Dobby knew, his betrayal could have lead to Lucius being 
Kissed.  (Willingly and knowlingly releasing a magical beast on the 
WW's children is not something I think the MoM would have taken 
lightly.)
 
> >>bboyminn:
> Kreacher on the other hand, I believe, is too far 'round
> the bend to ever be a fully functional house-elf. True
> under better circumstances he may be able to find some
> family who would take him in and tolerate him until he
> finally died, but I think his level of service would be
> marginal at best.
> <snip>

Betsy HP:
Based on Kreacher's actions in HBP and his services to Narcissa, I 
think you're completely wrong.  Kreacher is fine.  He's just 
suffering under a Master he despises as much as Dobby despised the 
Malfoys.

Give Kreacher to Draco and I'm betting he'd be as loyal and hard 
working as Dobby is for Harry.

Betsy Hp (who thinks it's a mistake to link house-elves to human 
slaves but has to run and so can't say more than that. <g>)





From maria8162001 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 12:29:39 2006
From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:29:39 -0000
Subject: Wizard gardens and food
In-Reply-To: <006d01c70d09$1e235fd0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ejurfj+u7k9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161787

Shelley:
> Yes, I agree that a vegetable garden would be very beneficial for
the
> Weasley family, just that it's not mentioned as being right near
the house.
> The vegetables are probably grown in a field nearby, next to the
fruit
> trees, but not in their immediate yard, as the English garden is
described
> to be where they had dinner. Which them brings up the question of
just how
> big is the Weasley property? For all the talk of them being poor,
you can't
> be too poor if you own land that feeds you.
>
>

maria8162001 here:

I agree with Shelly that one cannot be poor if one owns a land that
feeds them. But people(wizarding world or Muggle, real or fiction)
someone's status according to their financial means. The Weasley may
not be that poor but in terms of financial means they are poor to
some people standards, since financially they cannot afford to buy
other luxury or neccessary things that their 7 children need  all at
once. If the Weasley have only 2 or 3 maximum 4 children then they
would not be considered poor by their peers. They were only
considered poor because of their financial means but hey, they can
eat so much they want, so for me they are not that poor as others
thought they are.
Cheers.

maria8162001






From babyblueblot at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Nov 21 18:01:49 2006
From: babyblueblot at yahoo.co.uk (babyblueblot)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:01:49 -0000
Subject: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <016301c70d86$3655a630$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ejveud+li24@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161788

 "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> wrote:
>
> JKR has said, "There is a character who does manage, in desperate
circumstances, to do magic quite late in life, but that is very
rare..."
 Has JKR ever stated that Petunia was definately not magical?
>    Perhaps it will be Uncle Vernon?

I've always wondered who was the older sister. We know that JKR has
said that Petunia is not a squib, although apparently this is a good
guess, and we also know that all magical children are sent a letter
for hogwarts, but not all choose to go. we have evidence from
voldemort that JKR obviously feels that whatever we dislike most in
ourselves is what we most vehemently denigrate in others, I wonder
if she got a letter, is magical, but chose not to go. Don't forget,
JKR has said that Dumbledore's letter to Petunia 'Remember my
last'in OOTP is not the first letter he's sent her. I'm sure there's
been much speculation as to the content of these previous letters,
but what if it was THE Hogwarts letter?
Baby blue






From babyblueblot at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Nov 21 13:33:23 2006
From: babyblueblot at yahoo.co.uk (babyblueblot)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:33:23 -0000
Subject: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <ejtoft+7go3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejuv73+f0i5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161789

 Abergoat wrote:
 If RAB died in the cave, Kreacher may have taken the locket
> back home.

Definitely a possiblity, and quite an interesting one; the thing I've
always liked so much about this site has been the little flights of
fancy we all go into about behind the scenes events, they really do
make me rub my hands together ( in quite a sad, gleeful way for a
woman my age) and get all excited about the next book (may it come
soon).

>I cannot see a Death Eater ever being known to
> Voldemort as R.A.B., they seem to be called by their last names.

I've been thinking about this. Why would someone sign their name as
just their initials? If they want to preserve their annonymity, why
sign it at all? If this is not the case. Why not sign with either
their first or last name? I may well be clutching at straws, but as
you say, Voldie calls all his death eaters by thier family names
(please note, he probably considers these names as a badge of honour),
and perhaps an ex-death eater or anyone else who knew him, and took
issue with his ideologies, and wanted to give equal emphasis to all of
their names?

> The Burkes on the tapestry are still part of the Black Family. I
agree
> that a Burke might be a bit obscure though.

Obscure, yes. Possible, also yes. Since I have been away away for some
time and my twins now keep me busy, I am not so up on my cannon as I
used to be. Apart from Mundungus Fletcher, can anyone find examples of
characters outside the school who were once only heard of in passing,
but were later brought into major events?

babyblueblot





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 19:22:23 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:22:23 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvidr+mi7j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvjlf+m8q3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161790

> > >>bboyminn:
> > <snip>
> > There is no indication that Dobby is or was ever less than a hard 
> > working dutiful house-elf.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> The Malfoys would strongly disagree.  Dobby undercut Lucius's plans 
> and reported directly to their enemy (as per Dobby's view of 
> Harry).  You can't get less "dutiful" than that.

Alla:

I completely agree, Betsy :) Dobby betrayed his masters, it is quite 
clear to me. To keep it from being complete me too ( hopefully), it 
is the same to me as Snape betraying Voldemort ( if he truly 
deflected, of course) - there is no way around it IMO that Snape 
betrayed his master and probably caused a  great harm to his master 
and his comrades. Now, if Snape deflection was genuine, I fully agree 
and empathise with the reasons of why he did, but it is called 
betrayal, just as I unquestionably call Dobby's actions betrayal, 
even if I cheer him up for doing it.


> Betsy Hp:
> Again, it's all in the eye of the beholder here.  Of course you 
> don't see the Malfoys as being harmed. You disagree with their 
> philosophies and goals (I assume <g>) so if they're foiled, no real 
> harm or foul.
> 
> But for all Dobby knew, his betrayal could have lead to Lucius 
being 
> Kissed.  (Willingly and knowlingly releasing a magical beast on the 
> WW's children is not something I think the MoM would have taken 
> lightly.)

Alla:

Not speaking for Steve, but totally - if the member of the gang that 
tortures and murders gets betrayed, I am not crying for him at all.

  
> Betsy Hp (who thinks it's a mistake to link house-elves to human 
> slaves but has to run and so can't say more than that. <g>)
>

Alla:

I guess I disagree here in a sense that IMO JKR was pretty clear in 
interviews that house-elves is a metaphor for slavery. 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 19:33:18 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:33:18 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvha7+550a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvk9u+dfrp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161791

bboyminn wrote:
> <snip>

> Dobby's actions 'against' the Malfoy's is similar to 
> Kreacher betrayal of Sirius, but there is a difference.
> Dobby acted to save someone and did so in a way the 
> wasn't really detrimental to his master. Note that I 
> said 'in a way' not detrimental. It certainly did 
> attempt to foul Malfoy's plan, but did not attempt or 
> intend to cause direct harm to the Malfoys.
> 
> Kreacher on the other hand would seem to have known 
> quite well that /harm/ would come as a result of his
> actions. Dobby operated within the limits of himself
> as a house-elf. Kreacher on the other hand acted in
> clear and malicious betrayal of his master. Again, the 
> action of the two elves in this one instance are
> similar, but I see Kreacher's betrayal as greater and
> more vicious. <snip>

Carol responds:
But Kreacher wasn't betraying his master. He was revealing information
about *Harry* to the Malfoys and therefore to Voldemort. The
information that Harry cared about Sirius Black enough to attempt to
rescue him was used to lure *Harry* to the DoM. Neither Black nor the
other Order members was supposed to be there. Kreacher lies to Harry
saying that "Master won't return from the Ministry," but Master is
actually upstairs tending the injured Buckbeak. Granted, those actions
aren't exactly a mark of loyalty and obedience to Black, but he's not
being betrayed. If he had stayed in 12 GP as intended, he would have
survived. It's Harry who was supposed to die (after taking down the
Prophecy orb and giving it to Lucius Malfoy) as a result of the plot.

bboymin:
> Kreacher on the other hand, I believe, is too far 'round
> the bend to ever be a fully functional house-elf. True
> under better circumstances he may be able to find some
> family who would take him in and tolerate him until he
> finally died, but I think his level of service would be
> marginal at best. <snip>

Carol:
Do we know that? He certainly still has his magic and can Apparate or
whatever it's called with house-elves. I don't see why he couldn't
magically cook or clean if he chose to. He doesn't seem to be at the
point where he'd need to be beheaded for inability to work if he were
working for the Blacks. Granted, he mutters to himself, but he's aware
of what's going on around him, even to the extent of knowing that
Hermione is a "Mudblood" (how does he know that?) and that Lupin is a
werewolf. He also mutters about "traitors"--not "blood traitors," just
"traitors. I wonder if he means Snape.

However, I don't think that Kreacher will prove useful as a house
servant. I think he's going to prove invaluable as a source of
information about Regulus Black and the locket Horcrux.

bboymin: 
> Further, I have always wondered if Elves can read and
> write. In the Old South it was actually against the law
> to teach slaves to read and write. I sort of have the
> same sense about Elves, and once again through a long
> complicated series of events, I have picture Harry
> opening a school to teach Elves to read and write, and
> do basic arithmatic. Of course, this all occurs in the
> future far beyond the scope of the existing series. 

Carol:
Kreacher knows that Tonks's mother has been burned off the tapestry.
that suggests but admittedly doesn't prove that he can read. And
wouldn't house-elves have prepared the magical menus that Dumbledore
and the others ordered from at the Yule Ball? And Dobby must have some
basic concept of arithmetic if he uses Wizarding money to buy clothes.
He can certainly count.

Carol, wishing that Harry would order Kreacher to wear a clean tea
towel and wash or replace that loincloth







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 21 19:34:36 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:34:36 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts House-elves (wasRe: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...
In-Reply-To: <ejv7i4+sf2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvkcc+1cgl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161792


> Carol responds:
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but Winky is a freed (or, 
in
> her view, fired) house-elf who is employed by Dumbledore (or 
Hogwarts
> in general) but doesn't regard him as her master. She doesn't do any
> work, spends her days drinking butterbeer or sleeping it off, and
> still regards Mr. Crouch as her master.

Potioncat:
Well, it just seems odd that someone would go get a house-elf. I 
suppose DD could have been showing gracious manners, or perhaps Winky 
simply wouldn't have come. I don't think she doesn't do any work at 
all. She's ashamed of having been put out, but isn't so low as to ask 
for wages.

On the other hand, the image of her peering out from behind Snape's 
legs is the one cute Snape moment we're shown.


Carol:

> 
> IMO, DD is sending them both to do useful and necessary tasks while
> the Polyjuice Potion wears off. Otherwise, they'd just be standing
> around waiting and Barty's story couldn't be as easily confirmed.
> (Note that McGonagall's task isn't really essential to this process,
> but I suppose DD wants Sirius Black to be involved in some way and 
to provide emotional support for Harry.)

Potioncat:
Yes, Snape would have to go get the potion, and it was good of DD to 
have Black brought into the castle. So there was reason to send the 
professors for those tasks.

It's just, in the hospital, if I need a housekeeper I pick up the 
phone and call the housekeeping office. I don't send a nurse to get 
one. So it isn't clear to me why DD sent Snape when there was another 
way of communicating to the house-elves. Besides, wouldn't it have 
been easier for Winky to Floo to Crouch's office rather than trotting 
along after Snape's long legs?







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 19:58:38 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 19:58:38 -0000
Subject: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <ejtoft+7go3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvlpe+4p0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161794

Abergoat wrote: 
> 
> Ah, but there is the nice little hint (clue?) that Herbert Burke
> married a Black and had two sons and a daughter. Caractacus Burke
may be one of those sons. So the other son or daughter might be our
RAB and would have access to Kreacher (Sirius tells us Kreacher SHOULD
> obey Tonks but doesn't perhaps because her mother was removed from
the tapestry. If RAB died in the cave, Kreacher may have taken the
locket back home.

Carol:
Or Regulus may have taken it home himself, intending to destroy it
later if he could, and discovered that he couldn't open it. He didn't
have time to do much else. Why complicate matters by having an RAB for
whom we haven't been given a clue in the books themselves, and what's
the point of repeatedly introducing Regulus if he isn't RAB? As for
dying in the cave, he could easily have ordered Kreacher to drink the
potion, which explains Kreacher's mental state (still capable of
fanatical loyalty and plotting but muttering to himself under the
apparent delusion that he can't be heard).

Abergoat: 
> The beauty of a Burke is they would have access to the story of
Merope and might know to look at the Orphanage. They also may have
been a 'boss' of Tom Riddle and hence the use of the R.A.B. which
denotes equality of not superiority - as in 'I don't need to tell you
my name, you know who I am'. I cannot see a Death Eater ever being
known to Voldemort as R.A.B., they seem to be called by their last names. 

Carol responds:
Karkaroff and Snape are on first-name terms, as are Snape and Lucius
Malfoy (as evidenced by Snape referring to Malfoy as Lucius in
Spinner's End). Voldemort himself addresses Lucius Malfoy as "Lucius,
my slippery friend" and Bellatrix, IIRC, as Bella. It seems that some
DEs are closer to Voldemort than others, and he addresses some but not
all by their first names. (Note that in the case of Rodolphus and
Rabastan Lestrange, it would be necessary to do so to distinguish them
as Malfoy does in the DoM.) But I'm quite sure that LV knows not only
the first names of all his DEs but everything about them from their
middle initials and birthdates to their marital status and the names
and ages of their children. 

Abergoat:
<snip>
> Perhaps you are right and RAB is Regulus, but I think there are
other possibilities.

Carol:
Maybe, but the number of storylines that require a resolution is so
large already that I think JKR will opt for simplicity, a known
character who has been introduced in two different books as opposed to
an unknown whose link to the Blacks exists only in the fragment of the
Black family tree published in the Lexicon. Sirius's brother has been
placed in the books for a reason, and the transliterations of RAB in
the translated versions of HBP suggests strongly that he's RAB. 

Carol, hoping for a link between Snape and RAB/Regulus in Book 7






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 20:02:39 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:02:39 -0000
Subject: Wizard gardens and food
In-Reply-To: <017501c70cd8$96fc12c0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ejvm0v+gtaf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161796

---  "k12listmomma" <k12listmomma at ...> wrote:
>
> > Lana posted:
> > I would assume that they do have farms and such.  
> > Remember Hagrids pumpkins?? And don't forget the 
> > chickens at the Burrow.  If Molly has chickens, then 
> > surely she must have a garden.
> 
> 
> Shelley responds:
> Not necessarily! For me, I guess this gets to the 
> definition of a garden. In the States, a garden means 
> rows of vegetables. In Europe, a garden is often a place
> of well cared for plants and shrubbery, a resting place 
> or get-a-away outdoors, often with a walk and a bench, 
> ... While I believe that Hagrid did keep a garden in the
>  first sense ..., I don't think Molly did. 

bboyminn:

One slight flaw in your interpretation. To an Englishman
a /garden/ is a place where you grow /things/ and those
/things/ include grass. In the USA, we have flower 
gardens, vegetable gardens, and our 'yard'. It is in
our yard that we grow our grass, but an Englishman
doesn't make that distinction. He grows grass on his lawn
and that makes his lawn part of his 'garden'. Then Molly
and the gang had dinner outside in the 'garden' it simply
means they were in the back yard. 

However, with the reference to carrots being grown in the
gardens at the Burronw, we can fairly assume that Molly 
also grows vegetables.

As to the Hogwarts garden (vegetable that is), the 
references to what Hagrid grows are references to his
/personal/ garden, not the schools garden. We see many
examples in many books of the kids walking through the
large vegetable patches an their way to and from outdoor
places. So, the school certainly has it's own vegetable
garden independant of Hagrid's personal garden, and I
propose also separate from Madame Sprout's herb gardens. 

My central point is that when an Englishman says 'garden'
it can mean any one of several things including simply
his yard or lawn. 


Now responding to maria8162001:

> > Shelly:
> < Which them brings up the question of just how big is 
> > the Weasley property? For all the talk of them being 
> > poor, you can't be too poor if you own land that 
> > feeds you.
> 

> maria8162001 here:
> 
> I agree with Shelly that one cannot be poor if one owns
> a land that feeds them. But people ... someone's status
> according to their financial means. The Weasley may
> not be that poor but in terms of financial means they 
> are poor to some people standards, since financially 
> they cannot afford to buy other luxury or neccessary 
> things that their 7 children need all at once.
> ...

bboyminn:

For a moment, ponder suburbs and consider why houses there
are so much cheaper than houses in the city? Reason: 
because it is far cheaper to take corn fields and convert
them to houses than it is to by land inside the city limits
and build houses there.

The Weasleys land is just that /land/. It is undeveloped
agricultural land that sell for FAR FAR less that 
developed land in a city or village of any size. The 
Weasley's land seems to conside of undeveloped land which
means it has never been converted into fields. Most 
likely when it was used by the farmer, it was 
pasture/grazing land. 

There seem to be a few small out-buildings that are 
hardly  more that small sheds. The main house itself 
seems to be an old chicken coup or small hog barn that 
has been converted to a house and magically expanded on
by the Weasleys.

My main point is that you can by acres of this type of
land for the price of a small cottage in a village, town,
or city. In fact, in a large city, the price of acres of 
country land would likely just barely buy you a small 
apartment flat.

So, the Weasley's certainly made the wizest choice in the
application of their money. They have acres of land for 
their wild kids to roam and play, and they are 
sufficiently out of sight of prying muggle eyes that they
can live freely and openly without worry of detection. 
They can also live self-suffiently, but at the same time
do have the luxury of having a village near by (within
walking distance) in the event that some unforeseen need
arises.

Also, keep in mind that land price and real estate prices
tend to go up over time. The Weasley's land today is worth
far more than it was when they bought it 50 years ago 
(rough speculation). I suspect they made arrangements to
buy this undeveloped land from the muggle farmer. Unless
he cleared it and planted on it, it was probably of little
use to him. 

As a side note; I'm under the impression that logging or 
general cutting of trees is restricted in England. The 
British seem well aware that they have decimated their 
once vast forests over the course of their long history, 
and are now making an effort to stem that tide. Last I 
read, the government was determine to increase their 
wooded land by 20%.

My point is that if the government is protecting wooded 
areas, then the farmer could not clear the land, and if
the land wasn't cleared, it would have limited capacity
to generate revenue for him. I'm sure he, or more likely
his grandfather, saw cash in hand as better than 
restricted land.

Given how long I suspect the Weasleys have owned the land,
it is likely long paid for. Though it could have accounted
for some very lean years in the beginning, and that would
have certainly encourage an industrious woman like Molly
to start doing a little small scale farming of her own;
vegetable and herb gardens, and chickens.

Conclusion, the Weasleys most certainly do have a 
vegetable garden, as well as flower gardens and a grass 
'garden'. 

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboymninn






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 21 20:14:12 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:14:12 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvha7+550a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvmmk+2gdn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161797

> bboyminn:
> 
> Almost, but no cigar. There is no indication that Dobby 
> is or was ever less than a hard working dutiful 
> house-elf. At Hogwarts, Dobby even does work that the
> other Elves have refused to do; specifically cleaning up
> Griffindor Common Room when it is filled with hiden 
> clothes. So, Dobby is certainly a hard worker. 

Magpie:
Looks like a cigar to me. Dobby's not hard-working or dutiful to the 
Malfoys when he actively works against them. When he cleans up the 
Common Room he's actively working against the house-elves. They're 
trying to make a point and he's shutting up their protest. So hard-
working, sure, but to his personal interests. The other elves aren't 
less hard-working, they're reacting to Hermione's insult, which she 
doesn't know about thanks to Dobby. I wasn't saying Dobby was lazy, 
but that he wasn't dutiful or loyal to his Malfoy masters. And he 
doesn't always work with the house elves either.

bboyminn:
> 
> Dobby's actions 'against' the Malfoy's is similar to 
> Kreacher betrayal of Sirius, but there is a difference.
> Dobby acted to save someone and did so in a way the 
> wasn't really detrimental to his master. Note that I 
> said 'in a way' not detrimental. It certainly did 
> attempt to foul Malfoy's plan, but did not attempt or 
> intend to cause direct harm to the Malfoys.

Magpie:
It seems like you're just excusing Dobby because you already agree 
with him, and using his actions as the model of a good elf (which I 
guess is why you're putting 'against' in quotes when it seems like 
the right word to me). How is Dobby passing information to Harry so 
potentially less damaging to Lucius in itself than Kreacher's 
information about Harry is to Sirius? Obviously I get the more 
sinister nature of Kreacher's actions in the plot, but if you're 
just looking at it from the pov of being loyal to your family and 
the results of the actions Dobby's actions could have had worse 
results for Lucius and Kreacher's actions might not have led to any 
harm to Sirius. There was, after all, a bit of randomness to Sirius' 
death. So I don't think we can just assume that Kreacher knew his 
actions would harm any 'people who matter' (which to his pov means 
loyal Blacks) any more than Dobby. Kreacher wanting to cause harm to 
Sirius wouldn't make him worthless as a house elf no matter who the 
master is, it would make him the enemy of Sirius and his allies.

bboyminn:
> 
> As to Winky, as others have pointed out, she still 
> considers herself Crouch's house-elf as all her prior
> family had been. I further think she believes that 
> her absents from the family contributed to Barty's 
> death. So, she has both guilt and shame hanging over
> her and heavily weighting her down. That is indeed
> a heavy wieght to carry.
> 
> Though, I have no doubt that Winky has the capability
> of being a fine house-elf if she could get herself into
> a situation where she felt like she was part of the 
> family again. Maybe when she and Dobby come to work for
> Harry, she will be happy again.

Magpie:
It seems like you're just explaining Winky's attitude in a more 
positive way and assuming a lot of things you're not assuming about 
Kreacher, who also has reason to be weighed down when we meet him. 
There's nothing to suggest Winky would ever come and work for Harry, 
or that Harry is hiring any house elves, or that Winky would become 
happy working for Harry where she isn't happy working at Hogwarts. 
Kreacher himself has already surpassed GoF!Winky's state in HBP.

bboyminn:> 
> Kreacher on the other hand, I believe, is too far 'round
> the bend to ever be a fully functional house-elf. True
> under better circumstances he may be able to find some
> family who would take him in and tolerate him until he
> finally died, but I think his level of service would be
> marginal at best.
> I think Kreacher would truly try to be a good elf, if 
> for example he worked for Narcissa or Belatrix, but I
> honestly don't think he is capable of succeeding. Like
> I said, he is mentally and phyically too far around the
> bend.

Magpie:
Why exactly would you think that, given his actions? He provided 
service to the Blacks in OotP on his own initiative, and provided a 
service to Harry in HBP, while also trying to protect Draco due to 
his true loyalty to the Blacks. Doesn't sound round the bend to me 
at all. He's described as old in OotP, but I can't think of too many 
scenes where he seemed so physically limited in HBP. And even if he 
was, you suggest that Harry ought to be opening a house elf 
retirement home where they catalog things, which would suggest you 
don't consider old house elves worthless.

bboyminn:
> 
> Just to re-emphasize this point, I think under the best 
> of circumstances Kreacher service would be marginally 
> acceptable at best. Though that is more a cause for pity 
> than hate.
> 
> Just as Winky at the moment can't control her actions,
> neither can Kreacher. Kreacher state of being is a 
> warped result of time and circumstances, but again while
> he is to be pitied, he is not to be forgiven.

Magpie:
Kreacher himself says he loves the Blacks and his old mistress.  I'm 
disturbed at the way that's easily dismissed as just mental damage 
that he can't control. Kreacher seems to be controlling his actions 
very clearly to me, and being guided by his own affections and 
loyalty. He just doesn't like any of the people who've moved into 
the Black's house, and that wasn't going to change if they gave him 
cake while they cleaned the house of memories of the people he was 
loyal to himself. However Kreacher came to feel the way he does, 
this is how he feels, and his actions are consistent with that.

> Betsy Hp (who thinks it's a mistake to link house-elves to human
> slaves but has to run and so can't say more than that. <g>)
>

Alla:

I guess I disagree here in a sense that IMO JKR was pretty clear in
interviews that house-elves is a metaphor for slavery.

Magpie:
But what's the metaphor? Human slaves don't have a culture where 
they're offended at freedom, and enjoy slavery and consider it an 
honor, or look down on freed slaves, or feel personally guilty and 
want to be punished when they disobey their masters.

-m







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 20:24:24 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:24:24 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejv7s6+1mch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvn9o+ftk4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161798

Pippin:
<SNIP>
> What we can't tell at this point is whether Dumbledore
> knew at the time that only part of the prophecy had been 
> overheard. If he assumed that all of it would reach the
> Dark Lord, then he would have expected Voldemort to 
> show more caution for fear of marking his equal. If
> so, and if it was Snape's defection that put the Order
> on alert that Voldemort intended to take action sooner
> rather than later, then Snape deserves credit for securing
> Harry  the 15 months he had with his mum and dad.

Alla:

Does Snape also deserves a credit to contributing to the fact that 
Harry **only** had fifteen months with his mom and dad?

Or he only should be acknowledged for having felt remorse (which if  
I may  remind you we  **never** heard from Snape mouth yet, not once, 
but okay, let's say he did indeed felt it )?

I keep telling herself that Harry forgiving Snape is inevitable in 
order not to be too disappointed in the ending, but I am still hoping 
that would be something of "I forgive you, but I never forget what 
you did), NOT something of "let's pretend it never happened" And of 
course forgiveness to me implies guilt.

JMO,

Alla






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 20:44:15 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:44:15 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvmmk+2gdn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvoev+vbrk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161799

> Alla:
> 
> I guess I disagree here in a sense that IMO JKR was pretty clear in
> interviews that house-elves is a metaphor for slavery.
> 
> Magpie:
> But what's the metaphor? Human slaves don't have a culture where 
> they're offended at freedom, and enjoy slavery and consider it an 
> honor, or look down on freed slaves, or feel personally guilty and 
> want to be punished when they disobey their masters.
> 
a_svirn:
Yes, they do. It's actually quite a common thing. Uncle's Tom Cabin 
and Gone with the Wind may be different as night and day in their 
description of and attitude to slavery, but they both feature slaves 
who are affectionate and faithful to their "families" and for whom 
parting with those families means (or would mean) the worst of all 
disasters. Firs, a man-servant (and an ex-serf) from "The Cherry 
Orchard" actually refers to the emancipation of Russian serfs as 
to "The Disaster". And that's just the most famous examples off the 
top of my head. 






From kmrhapsody at gmail.com  Tue Nov 21 04:15:43 2006
From: kmrhapsody at gmail.com (kmrhapsody)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 04:15:43 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <006001c70b4c$0f3a7da0$c0affea9@MOBILE>
Message-ID: <ejtuhf+dia6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161800

Potioncat:
> > I'm with Carol here, I think "left" as past tense of leave is no
> > more significant than "said" in dialogue. It's just a transition
> > word.
> >
> > It would be interesting to see if "right" as a direction is used
> > when other characters are involved, or if JKR just tends to
> > place things to the left most of the time.

Shelley:
> This line of thought would only be productive if the word "left"
> appears to be used far more than "right" appears. One would have
> to look at the passages and count them up. Otherwise, it's just
> a "left" theory, and suddenly you notice the passages saying
> "left" far more than the passages that say "right". It's a
> subconscious thing, but may not add up to a disproportionate use
> of the word "left" over the whole series.
<snip>
> And, as already mentioned, you cannot look at passages that say
> someone moved left, or something that was located on the left, and
> connect them in any way to Snape's wand hand, as the two are
> entirely unrelated.



It reminds me of the conversations with Chris Carter, the creator of
the X-Files television series. He was always blown away at the
theories that fan would come up with to explain everything from
apartment or hotel numbers to the amount of times that Agent Mulder
would eat sunflower seeds and its significance to the plot.

I think the left/opposite theory is very interesting, but perhaps too
much work to incorporate into an already richly detailed body of work.  Rowling is certainly mensa material, but my head hurts just imagining the kind of writer's block that kind of deliberate writing mightproduce.....

Still a newbie,

K.






From shravya_ivyhall at yahoo.co.in  Tue Nov 21 10:43:36 2006
From: shravya_ivyhall at yahoo.co.in (shravya_ivyhall)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:43:36 -0000
Subject: Harry's exile?
Message-ID: <ejul8o+8s94@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161801

HP fans out there!

In the "Half B.P.," after the death of DD, Harry contemplates whether to stay in the school or to go out and form a team against LV.  What do you think of that? Will he really do that?

shravya_ivyhall







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 21:02:36 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:02:36 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvk9u+dfrp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvphc+qhcq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161802

---  "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> bboymin:
> > Kreacher on the other hand, I believe, is too far 
> > 'round the bend to ever be a fully functional 
> > house-elf. ... but I think his level of service 
> > would be marginal at best. <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> Do we know that? He certainly still has his magic and
> can Apparate .... I don't see why he couldn't magically
> cook or clean if he chose to. He doesn't seem to be at
> the point where he'd needs to be beheaded for inability 
> to work if he were working for the Blacks. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Keep in mind that I didn't say 'non-functional' as a 
house-elf, I said 'marginally' functional. Kreacher is 
clearly very old, his body is bend, his hair (was little
their is) is gray, and most importantly he is quite mad.
Are those really the qualification you look for in a 
servant?

Yes, Kreacher could probably cook, but would you want to 
eat that food? Yes, he could probably go about the house
in efforts that modeled cleaning, but how much cleaner
would things actually be and how much time would it take
him? He would probably spend all his time hobbling 
around and muttering to himself.

Now, in the right environment, on a large farm, they 
might be able to find tasks for Kreacher that don't 
involve a lot of human contact, but even then I see
far more incoherent muttering that actual applied
labor.

Again, his efforts may rise to the level of maginally
acceptable, but I really don't see them rising above
that. He body is old, bent, and weak, and his mind just 
barely grips reality. That was fine when he was 
stumbling about the house alone, but his actions when
engaging humans show that his mind is clearly 
questionable. Is he really the mad elf you want serving
tea to your guest????


> bboymin: 
> > Further, I have always wondered if Elves can read and
> > write. In the Old South it was actually against the 
> > law to teach slaves to read and write. I sort of have
> > the same sense about Elves, and once again through a
> > long complicated series of events, I have picture 
> > Harry opening a school to teach Elves ...
> 
> Carol:
> Kreacher knows that Tonks's mother has been burned off
> the tapestry. That suggests but admittedly doesn't prove
> that he can read. And wouldn't house-elves have prepared
> the magical menus that Dumbledore and the others ordered
> from at the Yule Ball? And Dobby must have some basic 
> concept of arithmetic if he uses Wizarding money to buy 
> clothes. He can certainly count.
> 


bboyminn:

Speaking with no proof what so ever, Kreacher many have 
deduced what happened based on accumulated hearsay. In
other words, he heard Mrs. Black say what she was going
to do then saw her do it, and reached a reasonable 
conclusion that didn't involve actually reading anything.

Also, I don't think it is absolute. Despite it generally
being against the law, some slaves were very educated. 
Some even undertook business activities on behalf of 
their master. So, I think logically some elves would have
some degree of ability at reading and writing, but overal
I speculate that teaching them to read and write was not
a priority for their masters. Their jobs were to cook,
clean, and engage in general labor, and therefore had no
need to read. 

As a side note: I did not compare Elves to Slaves which I
also believe in an inaccurate and unfair comparison. I 
compared one aspect of Elves to one specific aspect of 
slaves, and I do think that was an accurate and fair 
comparason for purposed of illustrating my point.

As to the menus, it is possible that Dumbledore or
McGonagall made the first one, and the elves magically
duplicated them without knowing or understanding what 
they said. Note that the orders are placed verbally.

As to the money, as I read your post, I was reminded
of the time I spend in Germany. I was really quite 
young and pathetic at the time. When ever we went to 
a bar, pub, restaurant, or club and it came time to
pay, the wait-person would say 'blah-blah blah-blah'
and I would reach into my pocket take out a hand full
of money and hold it out, and just trust them to be
honest about taking the right amount. Other times
when it involved paper money, I would ask them to 
right it down. Though they use commas in all the
wrong places and always use those funny looking sevens,
but we got by, and I assume Dobby gets by in a similar
fashion, simply depending on the kindness and honesty 
of strangers. Though, I think people knowing he worked
for Dumbledore helped enforce their honesty.


> Carol, wishing that Harry would order Kreacher to wear
> a clean tea towel and wash or replace that loincloth
>

bboyminn:

OH ABSOLUTELY... that is one of many reasons why I don't
think Kreacher could be a /normally/ functional House-
Elf. How can he take care of a house when he doesn't 
even take care of himself? Really, can you see that filthy
creature serving tea and cooking food, and would you really
want to drink that tea or eat the food??? NOT ME!

I confess Kreacher would be better under the influence of 
a Master he liked and other house-elves, but I just don't 
think, even at his best, he would ever be good enough. Again,
marginal at best.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn





From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 20:35:51 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:35:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <ejveud+li24@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <18318.63610.qm@web56509.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161803

babyblueblot wrote:          
Don't forget, JKR has said that Dumbledore's letter to Petunia 'Remember my last'in OOTP is not the first letter he's sent her. I'm sure there's been much speculation as to the content of these previous letters, but what if it was THE Hogwarts letter?

   
Dantzel replies:
Yes, but a Hogwarts letter telling her she is magical would have happened about 25 years ago. We know that at LEAST her last letter from Dumbledore was the letter that was left with Baby!Harry on the Dursleys' doorstep, about 15 (?) years ago, which is about 10 years more recent than one inviting Petunia to Hogwarts. 
  




From dougsamu at golden.net  Tue Nov 21 20:52:45 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:52:45 -0500
Subject: That diary.....
Message-ID: <D46164BA-37D5-45D6-B30D-6A9A2145C039@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161804

Is it possible that Tom Riddle, so full of himself, built the diary  
as a magical artifact solely to release the monster at another time,  
but knowing that the artifact would need not only memory, but some  
intelligence and will, managed somehow to instill it with a bit of  
soul? He had a few spare bits floating around. I suggest here that it  
wasn't intended, perhaps, as a horcrux at all... but 'acccidentally'  
became one because the enchantment required a future will and  
intelligence to direct the consequent action.

Riddle might then have realized what he had done - created a horcrux  
- and then sought out information from Slughorn on creating others. (?)


No one, no one is here. We stand in the Atlantic. We become panoramic.
          __________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>__________




From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 21 22:06:20 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:06:20 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvoev+vbrk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvt8s+c6o5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161805

> > Magpie:
> > But what's the metaphor? Human slaves don't have a culture where 
> > they're offended at freedom, and enjoy slavery and consider it 
an 
> > honor, or look down on freed slaves, or feel personally guilty 
and 
> > want to be punished when they disobey their masters.
> > 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, they do. It's actually quite a common thing. Uncle's Tom 
Cabin 
> and Gone with the Wind may be different as night and day in their 
> description of and attitude to slavery, but they both feature 
slaves 
> who are affectionate and faithful to their "families" and for whom 
> parting with those families means (or would mean) the worst of all 
> disasters. Firs, a man-servant (and an ex-serf) from "The Cherry 
> Orchard" actually refers to the emancipation of Russian serfs as 
> to "The Disaster". And that's just the most famous examples off 
the 
> top of my head.

Magpie:
So again my question is, what's the metaphor? Because this just 
doesn't seem to cover the entire slave experience to me. For 
instance, I believe it was quite common for people to say and 
perhaps believe, regarding slavery in America, that it was the 
natural, correct, happy state for black people--are the house elves 
the living embodiment of that (false) sentiment as truth? Because it 
is, imo, part of human nature that some people will take to a slave-
like existance(that doesn't just apply to literal slaves), but it's 
not the total experience of all people born or sold or captured into 
slavery. Slaves being human beings, there have also always been 
those capable of seeing their captivity as wrong, and trying to 
rebel or escape. Claims that human slaves were fundamentally 
different from other humans is false. But house elves are literally 
a different race from humans. So what's the analogy saying about the 
actual humans, who would presumably be the point of the analogy? And 
how does that analogy comment on JKR's modern Western civilization? 
I mean, Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by an abolitionist who wanted 
to show slavery as a cruel system that divided families--this was 
while it was going on in her country. GWTW was more concerned with 
the lives of the slaveowners than the slaves. What's Rowling writing 
about with her brownie-esque creatures?

Basically I guess what I'm saying is...it seems kind of weird to me 
to say that the house elves are supposed to be an analogy to real 
life slaves, because real life slaves all loved their masters, and 
would have been devestated to leave them, and they were just loyal 
and affectionate with nothing to hold against them. Isn't that kind 
of a sunny view of slavery? And was it the norm for a slave 
separated from his/her master to fall into despair the way it 
actually does seem to be the norm for house elves? Didn't plenty of 
slaves actively seek freedom? I see the connection that it's owning 
a sentient being either way, so many of the same morals apply, but 
just have a problem going beyond that.

-m





From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 20:42:04 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 12:42:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <ejuv73+f0i5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <468763.77923.qm@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161806

babyblueblot: 
<snip> Apart from Mundungus Fletcher, can anyone find examples of 
characters outside the school who were once only heard of in passing, 
but were later brought into major events? </snip>


Dantzel: 
   
1. Sirius Black (Book 1 and finally seen in Book 3)
2. I think Cornelius Fudge (I think mentioned in Book 1 but doesn't appear until later)
3. Rufus Scrimgeour (book 5 and finally seen in book 6)
4. The Lovegoods (mentioned in book 4 but Luna is introduced to us in book 5)
5. I'm sure there's more but I'm supposed to be working!! ack!
   




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 22:24:14 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:24:14 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvt8s+c6o5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ejvuae+ljus@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161807

> Magpie:
> So again my question is, what's the metaphor? Because this just 
> doesn't seem to cover the entire slave experience to me. 
<BIG SNIP>

> Basically I guess what I'm saying is...it seems kind of weird to me 
> to say that the house elves are supposed to be an analogy to real 
> life slaves, because real life slaves all loved their masters, and 
> would have been devestated to leave them, and they were just loyal 
> and affectionate with nothing to hold against them. Isn't that kind 
> of a sunny view of slavery? And was it the norm for a slave 
> separated from his/her master to fall into despair the way it 
> actually does seem to be the norm for house elves? Didn't plenty of 
> slaves actively seek freedom? I see the connection that it's owning 
> a sentient being either way, so many of the same morals apply, but 
> just have a problem going beyond that.


Alla:

Actually, I am not quite sure how exactly the metaphor works - all 
that I am quite sure of that it does in JKR's mind :)

But to expand on what a_svirn said and on your response. I think that 
it is not supposed to work as global metaphor, if it makes sense, but 
if some slaves were indeed looled into not seeing that freedom is 
better, then metaphor is valid IMO.

It does not mean that many slaves did not actively seek freedom, it 
means IMO that when JKR portrayed house elves, she thought of those 
who did not ( maybe, just speculating of course), those who had to be 
shown it, if it makes sense.

But if JKR did not flat out said that, I would not be as sure, you 
know?





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 22:26:50 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:26:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RAB revisited
Message-ID: <20061121222650.50995.qmail@web54515.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161808

babyblueblot: 
<snip> Apart from Mundungus Fletcher, can anyone find examples of 
characters outside the school who were once only heard of in passing, 
but were later brought into major events? </snip>

Dantzel: 

1. Sirius Black (Book 1 and finally seen in Book 3)
2. I think Cornelius Fudge (I think mentioned in Book 1 but doesn't appear until later)
3. Rufus Scrimgeour (book 5 and finally seen in book 6)
4. The Lovegoods (mentioned in book 4 but Luna is introduced to us in book 5)
5. I'm sure there's more but I'm supposed to be working!! ack!
===================

Jeremiah:

There are quite a lot, actually, even Ron's dad is talked about on the train and then comes into the picture. To make an off-shoot note, I ws doing a character breakdown over the summer and became overwhelmed because in PS/SS I had around 150 characters listed by the time Harry went to Hogwarts. Nearly all of them have either appeared or are still spoken of in the books.

Dedilus Diggle, Madame Pomfrey, and many, many more.

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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 22:42:45 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 14:42:45 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
Message-ID: <20061121224245.60914.qmail@web54508.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161809

> Magpie:
> So again my question is, what's the metaphor? Because this just 
> doesn't seem to cover the entire slave experience to me. 
<BIG SNIP>

> Basically I guess what I'm saying is...it seems kind of weird to me 
> to say that the house elves are supposed to be an analogy to real 
> life slaves, because real life slaves all loved their masters, and 
> would have been devestated to leave them, and they were just loyal 
> and affectionate with nothing to hold against them. Isn't that kind 
> of a sunny view of slavery? And was it the norm for a slave 
> separated from his/her master to fall into despair the way it 
> actually does seem to be the norm for house elves? Didn't plenty of 
> slaves actively seek freedom? I see the connection that it's owning 
> a sentient being either way, so many of the same morals apply, but 
> just have a problem going beyond that.

Alla:

Actually, I am not quite sure how exactly the metaphor works - all 
that I am quite sure of that it does in JKR's mind :)

But to expand on what a_svirn said and on your response. I think that 
it is not supposed to work as global metaphor, if it makes sense, but 
if some slaves were indeed looled into not seeing that freedom is 
better, then metaphor is valid IMO.

It does not mean that many slaves did not actively seek freedom, it 
means IMO that when JKR portrayed house elves, she thought of those 
who did not ( maybe, just speculating of course), those who had to be 
shown it, if it makes sense.

But if JKR did not flat out said that, I would not be as sure, you 
know?
=====================================================

Jeremiah:

I think it's more than that. There is a feelin gof obligation towards an employer, sometimes, that makes an employee stay and serve. In the USA we have Wallmart and they thrive on individuals who have low self-esteem who can me pushed around (not saying they are all that way, but there is a trend in that company, in particular... plus, it's just an example. There are hundreds of others). So, when employees are moved to unionize they are reluctant at first because this would mean hurting/betraying their beloved, abusive corporation.

I think that's the parallel. Also, it is a metaphore for all abused people who have been denyed rights and they feel they don't deserve them which gets translated into "I don't even want and/or need freedom!" Opression is a theme in HP and it takes many shapes and forms. 

And that's my 2 cents.

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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 21 22:59:44 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:59:44 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvuae+ljus@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek00d0+933u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161810

> Alla:
> 
> Actually, I am not quite sure how exactly the metaphor works - all 
> that I am quite sure of that it does in JKR's mind :)
> 
> But to expand on what a_svirn said and on your response. I think 
that 
> it is not supposed to work as global metaphor, if it makes sense, 
but 
> if some slaves were indeed looled into not seeing that freedom is 
> better, then metaphor is valid IMO.
> 
> It does not mean that many slaves did not actively seek freedom, 
it 
> means IMO that when JKR portrayed house elves, she thought of 
those 
> who did not ( maybe, just speculating of course), those who had to 
be 
> shown it, if it makes sense.
> 
> But if JKR did not flat out said that, I would not be as sure, you 
> know?

Magpie:
I know I've read the line where JKR says it's slavery, but I 
honestly thought she was just agreeing with Hermione's view that 
owning sentient beings is slavery and therefore wrong. I didn't 
think I was supposed to be looking to house elf behavior to learn 
about human slaves. I think if people generally thought that JKR 
would honestly be getting a lot more questions about them. Uncle 
Tom's Cabin isn't today praised for the stereotypes it introduced--
and Rowling's house elves are robbed of what I thought was one of 
the main motivations of Stowe's slaves, their love of family. 

If the house elves are all supposed to be screwed in the head 
(certainly not just Kreacher) then we'll have to see that and make 
of it whatever we do when we read it. I can't say Dobby stands out 
to me as an elf for others to aspire to, except for his wanting 
freedom, and he doesn't strike me as saying anything very meaningful 
about slavery either. That's why I've always interpreted that line 
of Rowling's to be only about owning other sentient beings, which is 
why she can play around with making the sentient beings fantasical 
ones who actually are born to serve.  

-m





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 23:00:19 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:00:19 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvt8s+c6o5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek00e3+ofhb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161811

> Magpie:
 
> Basically I guess what I'm saying is...it seems kind of weird to me 
> to say that the house elves are supposed to be an analogy to real 
> life slaves, because real life slaves all loved their masters, and 
> would have been devestated to leave them, and they were just loyal 
> and affectionate with nothing to hold against them. Isn't that kind 
> of a sunny view of slavery? 

a_svirn:
Put like that it does sound weird. Although definitely not a "sunny 
view on slavery". I mean, the worst thing that can happen to anybody 
is to become mentally twisted like that. 

Personally I think it's not that by elves Rowling meant human slaves, 
I believe that by their *enslavement* she meant to show the ultimate 
temptation and corruption of power. And that, in turn, shares 
recognisable characteristics with human slavery. In other words it's 
not humans who are the point of the analogy, but slavery as a 
phenomenon. Like human slaves elves aren't really "by nature" slaves, 
but, as Dumbledore said, they are what wizards made them (human 
slaves are what other humans make them). That's the point of the 
whole thing ? they aren't slaves by nature, no one is (and *that* 
would be not only a pointless analogy, but also ethically dubious 
one), but they have been brought up to regard themselves as slaves 
(to say nothing of enchantments that bind them to their masters). 

As Betsy keeps saying magic is power, and indeed it is. Everyone 
seems to bow to power ? even the good guys are far from being 
impervious to the temptation. Dumbledore's authority is based on the 
fact that he is the most powerful wizard, as for his social and 
political views and agendas, most of the phoenixes can't even be sure 
what they are, since he is not one to explain himself to mere 
mortals. And easily two ugliest ways of misusing power in the WW ? 
death eating (as a political movement) and the elf enslavement share 
lots of characteristics in common. Self-abasement of death eaters and 
self abasement of elves, the sick devotion to the Lord and Master 
etc. 











From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 23:04:05 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:04:05 -0000
Subject: That diary.....
In-Reply-To: <D46164BA-37D5-45D6-B30D-6A9A2145C039@golden.net>
Message-ID: <ek00l6+3f1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161812

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, doug rogers <dougsamu at ...> wrote:
>
> Is it possible that Tom Riddle, so full of himself, built the diary  
> as a magical artifact solely to release the monster at another time,  
> but knowing that the artifact would need not only memory, but some  
> intelligence and will, managed somehow to instill it with a bit of  
> soul? He had a few spare bits floating around. I suggest here that it  
> wasn't intended, perhaps, as a horcrux at all... but 'acccidentally'  
> became one because the enchantment required a future will and  
> intelligence to direct the consequent action.
> 
> Riddle might then have realized what he had done - created a horcrux  
> - and then sought out information from Slughorn on creating others. (?)

Carol responds:
That makes sense to me, especially since the original purpose of the
diary was clearly to release the Basilisk. Maybe a soul bit was
attached to the memory(ies) because Myrtle's death counts as a murder?
Not a perfect explanation, but I don't see why he asked Slughorn about
Horcruxes if he was certain he had already created one. Maybe the soul
bit was placed in the diary accidentally but not permanently *encased*
there and consequently not a true Horcrux. I keep coming back to the
idea that the diary was *already* important to Tom Riddle, proof that
he was the Heir of Slytherin, *before* he made it a Horcrux. Also, I
really don't think he knew enough about Horcruxes to create one at
sixteen, despite having placed the *memory* of his sixteen-year-old
self in the diary, or he wouldn't have asked Slughorn about them. (Can
you make more than one is just not an important enough question to go
to all that trouble for.) The instructions for making one would not
have been available at Hogwarts, even in the restricted section, and
we know he didn't get them from Slughorn. 

Carol, interrupted by a phone call and not sure what else she was
going to say







From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Tue Nov 21 23:06:01 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:06:01 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic late in life
References: <18318.63610.qm@web56509.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <04d301c70dc1$9d3899d0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161813




  babyblueblot wrote: 
  Don't forget, JKR has said that Dumbledore's letter to Petunia 'Remember my last'in OOTP is not the first letter he's sent her. I'm sure there's been much speculation as to the content of these previous letters, but what if it was THE Hogwarts letter?

  Dantzel wrote:
  Yes, but a Hogwarts letter telling her she is magical would have happened about 25 years ago. We know that at LEAST her last letter from Dumbledore was the letter that was left with Baby!Harry on the Dursleys' doorstep, about 15 (?) years ago, which is about 10 years more recent than one inviting Petunia to Hogwarts. 

  Lana Writes:

  But there is absolutely nothing that I have seen so far that remotely says that she has ever gotten anything from DD.  A Hogwarts letter would not constitute being from him.  I would be from the "School"

    Lana


   

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




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 23:23:54 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:23:54 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvt8s+c6o5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek01qa+qa10@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161814

> >> Magpie:
> > But what's the metaphor? Human slaves don't have a culture where 
> > they're offended at freedom, and enjoy slavery and consider it 
> > an honor, or look down on freed slaves, or feel personally       
> > guilty and want to be punished when they disobey their masters.

> >>a_svirn:
> > Yes, they do. It's actually quite a common thing. Uncle's Tom 
> > Cabin and Gone with the Wind may be different as night and day   
> > in their description of and attitude to slavery, but they both   
> > feature slaves who are affectionate and faithful to             
> > their "families" and for whom parting with those families means 
> > (or would mean) the worst of all disasters. 
> > <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But you can't use Gone with the Wind as an accurate portrayal of the 
attitude of American slaves.  It was written in the 1930's and 
looked back at the South with sepia colored glasses.  And Uncle 
Tom's Cabin, even while giving us "affectionate and faithful" 
slaves, was written expressly to fight *against* slavery.  So it 
wasn't trying to suggest that ending slavery would be cruel to the 
slaves.

But on the flip side, JKR is taking an odd tactic of having only 
Dobby actually express a certain level of unhappiness with the state 
of house-elves.  She's not hinted at a previous house-elf 
rebellion.  No other house-elf has jumped on Dobby's bandwagon.  In 
fact, there's an impression that Dobby would be thrilled to be owned 
by Harry.  And Harry doesn't seem all that bothered to be Kreacher's 
owner, for that matter.

> >>Magpie:
> Basically I guess what I'm saying is...it seems kind of weird to   
> me to say that the house elves are supposed to be an analogy to   
> real life slaves, because real life slaves all loved their        
> masters, and would have been devestated to leave them, and they   
> were just loyal and affectionate with nothing to hold against     
> them. Isn't that kind of a sunny view of slavery? And was it the   
> norm for a slave separated from his/her master to fall into       
> despair the way it actually does seem to be the norm for house    
> elves? Didn't plenty of slaves actively seek freedom? I see the    
> connection that it's owning a sentient being either way, so many   
> of the same morals apply, but just have a problem going beyond    
> that.

Betsy Hp:
For me, I think the analogy goes about as far as the "Lupin equals 
an AIDs patient" analogy goes.  There's definitely some cross over, 
but it's not written as a total parallel.  Honestly, I'm not sure 
where JKR is going to take the house-elf thing.  With one book left 
to go I'm not sure she can squeeze in a freedom for house-elves sub-
plot.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> So, I think logically some elves would have some degree of ability 
> at reading and writing, but overal I speculate that teaching them 
> to read and write was not a priority for their masters. Their jobs 
> were to cook, clean, and engage in general labor, and therefore   
> had no need to read.
> As a side note: I did not compare Elves to Slaves which I also    
> believe in an inaccurate and unfair comparison. I compared one    
> aspect of Elves to one specific aspect of slaves, and I do think   
> that was an accurate and fair comparason for purposed of          
> illustrating my point.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I would have delved a bit further into my issue with this particular 
comparison earlier, but I really did need to run.  I have the time 
now though, so...

American slaves were not taught to read for one main reason: it 
ruined them as slaves.  Teaching a slave how to read was seen as 
undermining the system.  In fact in "Narrative of the Life of 
Frederick Douglass, An American Slave" Frederick Douglass talks 
about that law and agrees with it (with the full cynicism you can 
imagine).  He agrees that learning to read and write made it 
impossible for him to ever be content with the life of a slave.

House-elves don't require that sort of management or manipulation.  
Not from what we've seen.  We've also seen that a house-elf's magic 
is very different from a wizard's.  So I seriously doubt a wizard 
needs to teach (or is even *able* to teach) a house-elf how to do 
their jobs. (Beyond the, we like lunch at 12:15, fresh flowers 
should go in the yellow room, etc. sort of directions.)  Which means 
that house-elves probably teach each other.

I don't know if house-elves are literate or not.  Dobby understood 
what letters were and that keeping Harry's from him would hurt him 
in some way.  Which does suggest a certain understanding of what 
writing is, IMO.  But if house-elves can't read, I don't think it's 
because of anything wizards may or may not have done.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> Again, his [Kreacher's] efforts may rise to the level of maginally
> acceptable, but I really don't see them rising above that. He body 
> is old, bent, and weak, and his mind just barely grips reality.   
> That was fine when he was stumbling about the house alone, but his 
> actions when engaging humans show that his mind is clearly
> questionable. Is he really the mad elf you want serving tea to     
> your guest????
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But since Kreacher didn't *want* to serve tea to any of Sirius's 
guests, I think there was a method to his "madness".  Also, I think 
it's important to remember that a house-elf uses *magic* to do much 
of their work.  So what's drudgery to you or me is a snap (literally 
<g>) to a house-elf.  (Though it wouldn't surprise me if we find out 
that Kreacher stooped and stumbled a bit more than need be to add to 
his "I can't do nothing about nothing, I'm just a craaazzzy house-
elf" routine.)

> >>Jeremiah:
> <snip>
> In the USA we have Wallmart and they thrive on individuals who    
> have low self-esteem who can me pushed around (not saying they are 
> all that way, but there is a trend in that company, in            
> particular... plus, it's just an example. There are hundreds of
> others). So, when employees are moved to unionize they are        
> reluctant at first because this would mean hurting/betraying their 
> beloved, abusive corporation.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oy!  Let's not pick on Walmart, now.  If you live in a rural area 
Walmart can be just about the best thing out there.  That goes for 
both supplies and job opportunities. None of the Walmart employees I 
know have low self-esteem.  Plus, while unions can be good, they 
ain't all that.  Our area is going through some hard times now 
because of a not all that well thought out strike.

Betsy Hp (realizing Jeremiah was just making a point, but too 
dependent on her Walmart to let this one slide by <g>.  Seriously. 
Very small town, big city girl -- if not for the new Super-Walmart 
coming in I couldn't have made my coconut chicken anymore. A divorce 
might have occurred. <bg>)  





From carla.mcculley at comcast.net  Tue Nov 21 23:01:37 2006
From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:01:37 -0000
Subject: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <016301c70d86$3655a630$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ek00gh+t9e6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161815

> >>Lana:
>> JKR has said, "There is a character who does manage, in desperate
circumstances, to do magic quite late in life, but that is very
rare..."
>> I am wondering if this doesn't pertain to Filtch..
>> <snip>
>> Perhaps it will be Uncle Vernon?
>> Any thoughts?

Carla:
Be very careful!!  I brought up the very same thing about Vernon on
just a "wouldn't it be funny" basis and a member of the "Book
Gestapo" jumped all over me, quoting chapter after chapter and
frightening everyone away from even dicussing it.  ;)

Actually I think it will be either Filch or Mrs. Figg.  I just
thought it would  be funny to see Vernon become what he hates most.
But let me re-inerate for anyone who may be reading...I know that's
not going to happen....it would just be FUNNY.

Carla






From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 23:34:10 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:34:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: That diary.....
Message-ID: <20061121233410.38425.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161816

> doug rogers :
> Riddle might then have realized what he had done - created a horcrux 
> - and then sought out information from Slughorn on creating others. (?)

Carol responds:
That makes sense to me, especially since the original purpose of the
diary was clearly to release the Basilisk. Maybe a soul bit was
attached to the memory(ies) because Myrtle's death counts as a murder?
Not a perfect explanation, but I don't see why he asked Slughorn about
Horcruxes if he was certain he had already created one. 
==============================
Jeremiah:

I don't know. I think that from my own reading of the text, that the Horcrux is deliberately created. I think this because a portion of the soul is extracted into another "object" and if you can just kill things and "woops I made a Horcrux" then where is Snape's from Dumbledore's murder?

Also, I since I feel that a Horcrux is deliberately created, then this rules out 2 things for me... 1) Harry is an "accidental Horcrux" (but I could be wrong... I'm wrong a lot). And 2) the Basilisk/Myrtle scenario was a deliberate murder if the Diary was created at that time. However, the Diary was not designed specifically to release the Basilisk but was created to do any number of things.

This also raises a question. If Myrtle's death was what created the Horcrux then that means the "Horcrx-maker" does not have to kill anyone to make the horcrux and must fracture their soul by other means/murders. Who would Tom Riddle have murdered before Myrtle to fracture his soul? This, we do not know. I only know that he used to frighten other children and terrorize them.

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




From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 21 23:43:23 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:43:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
Message-ID: <20061121234323.72724.qmail@web54507.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161817

Betsy Hp (realizing Jeremiah was just making a point, but too 
dependent on her Walmart to let this one slide by <g>. Seriously. 
Very small town, big city girl -- if not for the new Super-Walmart 
coming in I couldn't have made my coconut chicken anymore. A divorce 
might have occurred. <bg>) 

Jeremiah:

No offence. I knew I may ruffel a few feathers... And as you mention, you understood that I was spaeking in generalities..  :) 'cause you're smart like that. 
And I do have a tendancy to hop on my Zepplin of Arrogance and fly around. LOL

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




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 21 23:38:23 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:38:23 -0000
Subject: Letters from Dumbledore to Petunia (Re: Magic late in life)
In-Reply-To: <04d301c70dc1$9d3899d0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ek02lf+109lt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161818

Lana Writes:
> But there is absolutely nothing that I have seen so far that
> remotely says that she has ever gotten anything from DD.  A 
> Hogwarts letter would not constitute being from him.  I would be 
> from the "School"

Jen: I'm pretty sure people are referring to this comment by JKR on 
her website:

FAQ: What did Dumbledore's Howler to Aunt Petunia mean? ('Remember 
my last'?)

JKR:  Dumbledore is referring to his last letter, which means, of 
course, the letter he left upon the Dursleys' doorstep when Harry 
was one year old. But why then (you may well ask) did he not just 
say 'remember my letter?' Why did he say my last letter? Why, 
obviously because there were letters before that


(Next day addition)
P.S. It has been suggested that I am wrong in saying that 
Dumbledore's last letter was the one he left on the doorstep with 
baby Harry, and that he has sent a letter since then concerning 
Harry's illegal flight to school. However, both Dumbledore and I 
differentiate between letters sent to the Dursleys as a couple, and 
messages directed to Petunia ALONE. And that's my final word on the 
subject - though I doubt it will be yours :)
*******************************************************

Jen again: So there were letters to Petunia prior to the letter left 
with Harry on the doorstep.  Likely Dumbledore was warning Petunia 
about Voldemort during the time he was after James and Lily.  
Voldemort targets families to get to his prey and Dumbledore 
suspected there was a spy close to the Potters feeding information 
to LV.  Which would also explain why Petunia was so fearful in OOTP 
when Harry mentioned Voldemort had returned, because she *knew* what 
that meant and why there was reason to fear him.

Jen R. very curious about those other letters and hoping Harry at 
least reads the one Dumbledore left on the doorstep.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 01:03:08 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:03:08 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf  -  Madness, Magic, and Honor
In-Reply-To: <ek01qa+qa10@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek07kc+ot0k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161819

---  "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

> > >>bboyminn:
> > <snip>
> > Again, his [Kreacher's] efforts may rise to the level
> > of maginally acceptable, but I really don't see them
> > rising above that. He body is old, bent, and weak, 
> > and his mind just barely grips reality.   
> > ...
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But since Kreacher didn't *want* to serve tea to any
> of Sirius's guests, I think there was a method to his
> "madness". 

bboyminn:

No, I think there is just madness, but that's just my
opinion.

Keep in mind that what Kreacher thought of Sirius didn't
change that fact that Sirius was the one true last 
decendant heir to the Black Estate. Yes, there are 
peripheral Blacks lurking about, mostly female, and 
mostly members of other branches of the Black Family 
tree. But being female, while Blacks by birth, they are
now bound to the House of the husbands. Narcissa is now
a member of the House of Malfoy. That's quite different
than Sirius. I emphasize again that Sirius was the last
direct-line hier, and I have to believe that carries 
some weight even if Sirius was disowned.

Now I can understand Kreacher reluctance and resistance
to serving Harry. In this case, he is bound by the
commitments of his ancestors and Sirius's will. But 
regardless of Sirius's status in the family, he is the 
last true Black, and I believe Kreacher would and should
honor that. 

He would and should but he's mad as a hatter.

> Betsy Hp:
> Also, I think it's important to remember that a house-elf
> uses *magic* to do much of their work.  So what's 
> drudgery to you or me is a snap ... to a house-elf.  ...

bboyminn:

This ties back to my theory that house-elves can only us
the magic that wizards have specifically allowed them to 
use. For example, when Harry visits Dobby in the kitchens,
a group of house-elves struggle to physically carry a tea
tray over to Harry and Dobby. The elves can transport tons
of food up through the kitchen ceiling to the House tables
above, but they can't do it across the kitchen? 

Why didn't the levitate it? Why didn't they transport it? 
Why, because they didn't have specific permission to do 
so, though it is clear they certainly have the ability to
do so. 

This also happens when the Elves have a big bundle of 
food for Harry to give to Sirius. A group of Elves 
struggle to physically carry the heavy bundle over to 
Harry. Again...why? 

Much like the lack of education, this limit on the use 
of magic is one of the ways wizards keep Elves subjugated.
Personally, I'm not sure I buy all the 'enslavement' talk
regarding house-elves. For those who have been around a
while, I have repeatedly speculated that it is Elfin
Honor that holds Elves to wizards. Elves would rather
die that break their solumn oath of loyalty to their
masters, and their Elfin decendants hold just as firmly
to the honorable oath of their ancestor. It is a matter 
of Elvin pride. Though Wizards come to the deal with far
less honor and loyalty. Their honor and loyalty only 
extends as far as it suit them. 

Can't prove that, but I think it fits.

Steve/bboyminn





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 22 01:58:41 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 01:58:41 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's  Disappearance --Theory
Message-ID: <ek0ash+pk5d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161820

All this talk of Trelawney made me wonder again where she was from 
the time Harry saw her outside the Room of Requirement through the 
end of the year.  The easy answer is she was in her tower drinking 
sherry and never knew what happened, but that's not very exciting 
<g>.  Practically everyone Harry has ever met in the WW was at the 
funeral--including all the professors Harry has had for classes--yet 
Trelawney isn't even mentioned! 

If Trelawney knew one of her predictions was SO right down to the 
last Tarot card, she'd be all over it to avenge her public 
humilation and to demand Firenze's firing as the second Divination 
teacher.  I can just see her at the funeral praising her own Seer 
abilites far and wide, dabbing her eyes behind those overly large 
glasses while intimating that if *only* Dumbledore had listened to 
her he might still be alive...

She's also not mentioned being around the night of the DE attack 
even though her tower is near the seventh floor & the Room of 
Requirement, where not once but *twice* there were loud noises in 
the hallway.

Now backtracking to the beginning of the year, Voldemort of the 
great and convoluted plans finds out from Draco there's a way into 
Hogwarts and he sets Draco not only the task of fixing the Vanishing 
Cabinent, but killing Dumbledore on the side (or vice-versa), 
something no one thinks is possible.  The UV ensues to save Draco 
and the events begin to unfold.

Yet behind all this overt drama which distracts Dumbledore, Snape, 
and the Order, there's one crucial piece of the puzzle still eluding 
Voldemort:  How to kill Harry Potter?  Getting Dumbledore out of the 
way will remove Harry's biggest defender but the full contents of 
the Prophecy is the tantalizing key to LV's survival in his mind.  
He spent an entire year setting up the circumstances to obtain the 
prophecy, failed, and then decided to drop it?  No, that doesn't fit 
his obsession with immortality above all else.

Voldemort learned from his mistakes in GOF and especially in OOTP 
that having one plan Dumbledore is alerted to early on and which he 
attempts to figure out or thwart leads to disaster, that he needs to 
plan for a goal behind the goal, killing two birds with one stone.  
So he devises another plan behind the smoke and mirrors of killing 
Dumbledore and this one is even more important to him & likely 
behind some of death threats he hurls at Draco.

Voldemort probably doesn't know if Trelawney can regurgitate the 
prophecy but she's also his only shot.  So while DE's were filing 
into Hogwarts from the Vanishing Cabinent behind the cover of 
Peruvian powder, one lone DE was making her way to the North Tower, 
a place she remembers from her days as a student at Hogwarts.  This 
abduction may have even been Bella's idea, a proposal she thinks of 
while working with Draco, an attempt to redeem herself in the Dark 
Lord's eyes.  So with all the confusion in the halls & on the 
grounds along with the shouts about the Dark Mark in the sky, no one 
hears Trelawney's muffled screams as she's taken back through the 
Vanishing Cabinent and delivered to Voldemort.
  
Jen, who wants this to be true if only to read what transpired 
between Bellatrix and Trelawney <g>.





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 02:22:39 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:22:39 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf  -  Madness, Magic, and Honor
In-Reply-To: <ek07kc+ot0k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek0c9f+tfpf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161821

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But since Kreacher didn't *want* to serve tea to any
> > of Sirius's guests, I think there was a method to his
> > "madness". 

> >>bboyminn:
> No, I think there is just madness, but that's just my
> opinion.
> Keep in mind that what Kreacher thought of Sirius didn't
> change that fact that Sirius was the one true last 
> decendant heir to the Black Estate.
> <snip>
> But regardless of Sirius's status in the family, he is the 
> last true Black, and I believe Kreacher would and should
> honor that. 
> He would and should but he's mad as a hatter.

Betsy Hp:
First of all, that would mean that Dobby is similarly mad.  But 
second of all, *Sirius* didn't hold his position as the last of the 
Blacks with any sort of honor.  JKR says that the Order waged a war 
against the Black House.  Sirius aided and abetted that war, leaving 
Kreacher to defend the family home on his own.

Kreacher doesn't betray Sirius.  Sirius betrays him and the entire 
House of Black.  The female line is the only avenue left for 
Kreacher and, with a great deal of cunning, he takes it.  I have a 
hard time seeing Kreacher as helplessly mad since he sets and 
achieves his own goals.  Harry has to think and plan when he's 
dealing with Kreacher.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Also, I think it's important to remember that a house-elf
> > uses *magic* to do much of their work.  So what's 
> > drudgery to you or me is a snap ... to a house-elf.  ...

> >>bboyminn:
> This ties back to my theory that house-elves can only us
> the magic that wizards have specifically allowed them to 
> use.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hey!  I had a joke in there!  Why'd you cut out my joke?  ::tear of 
hurt feelings slides down my cheek::  <eg>

It's an interesting theory.  I'm not sure I buy it, myself. (Surely 
Lucius wouldn't have allowed Dobby to use magic against him.) But 
even if it were so, normal, every day, run of the mill housework is 
done by magic.  So house-elves aren't on their hands and knees 
scrubbing the floor, for example.

Betsy Hp





From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 22 02:32:19 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:32:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvmmk+2gdn@eGroups.com>
References: <ejvmmk+2gdn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4563B6B3.3000304@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161822

sistermagpie wrote:
> Looks like a cigar to me. Dobby's not hard-working or dutiful to the 
> Malfoys when he actively works against them. When he cleans up the 
> Common Room he's actively working against the house-elves. They're 
> trying to make a point and he's shutting up their protest. So hard-
> working, sure, but to his personal interests. The other elves aren't 
> less hard-working, they're reacting to Hermione's insult, which she 
> doesn't know about thanks to Dobby. I wasn't saying Dobby was lazy, 
> but that he wasn't dutiful or loyal to his Malfoy masters. And he 
> doesn't always work with the house elves either.

Bart:
I haven't been around in a while, and I would be surprised if nobody has 
brought this up yet, but, after all, Dobbie is insane. The fact that he 
seems to be moving from house elf psychology to human psychology does 
not change the fact that it is a highly alien one.

Kreacher is bound to obey Sirius (and Harry), but he is loyal to the 
Black family, which Sirius abandoned, and Harry isn't even a part of.

	Bart



From kking0731 at gmail.com  Wed Nov 22 02:44:02 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 02:44:02 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek0dhi+nhhp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161823





CHAP DISC, HBP 25, The Seer Overheard  

>Alla's summary snipped<

QUESTIONS

1. "'How can I have hung round with you for five years and not 
think girls are clever?' said Harry, stung by this." What does this 
remark tell you about Harry?

Snow:

It sounded as though Hermione cut Harry to the quick with that 
statement. Harry has never given any cause for such a retort from 
Hermione...or has he?  Sometimes the only way in which to get a point 
across is to shock a person and I think this was Hermione's shock to 
Harry that he was being very closed minded in what she was attempting 
to tell him. 

Harry didn't listen very well to Hermione when she tried to convince 
Harry that Sirius being held captive in the Ministry would be absurd 
for so many good reasons and yet
 Harry didn't listen to Hermione in 
that instance either. 

This is just another example of Harry's downfalls; Harry acting rash, 
Harry thinking he knows better, Harry acting alone despite anyone 
else's suggestions. 

Everyone tries to teach Harry, from Hermione in this instance to 
McGonnagel over the Umbridge incident and foremost Snape attempting 
to teach Harry. 

2. The narrator tells us that the reason why Harry disliked 
Snape's detentions was because they were taking away from his time 
with Ginny. Would have Harry liked them otherwise? 

Snow:

I actually thought the detentions were set as a deterrent from 
Harry's obsession of following Draco (on his free days) and getting 
anymore involved in an already complicated situation that Dumbledore 
and Snape were acting on; they didn't need Harry's reckless 
involvement.  

Secondly, I think the detentions were set specifically to include 
Harry's recognition of just who James and Sirius were in their 
youngest of years. (When you act rashly there are consequences to 
your actions) This is a silent endeavor to force Harry to see himself 
and his actions in similar comparison to those Harry regards in such 
high esteem. 

James did change while he was still at school and learned how to 
choose his fights and to conceal his more reckless behavior, 
otherwise Lily would have never gone out with James. James would 
never have grown to the person who saved Snape from werewolf Lupin if 
he hadn't mastered his hatred to Snape over the right and wrong 
spectrum. 

3. Why does Dumbledore want fewer visits from professor 
Trelawney?

Snow:

Dumbledore can't afford to have Trelawney come out of her heavenly 
cave and alert anyone of her findings less they believe her. Not 
everyone is as unconvinced of her prophecies as Dumbledore. Trelawney 
is becoming a nuisance and a liability in this respect but since 
Dumbledore can't allow her dismissal, the best he can offer is 
refusal, which may keep her safely sulking in her private tower even 
at the cost of being ignored. 

4. The card that Trelawney pulls and reads to Harry correctly 
predicts what will happen soon. Did that cause you to change your 
opinion of Trelawney's prediction powers, card reading and other 
Seer abilities for the better? If not, why not?

Snow:

I've always felt very lonely in my Trelawney-is-for-real vessel. 
Trelawney has made more than most of her predictions accurately 
(which I have written about several times since OOP). The one I am 
most interested in is her very first prediction, which was to Neville 
asking him whether his Gram was well, that has never come to any 
light. 

As to the direct question, I would have to say that this has only 
reinforced what I had already felt about Trelawney's predictions, 
which is that she does make accurate predictions but does not always 
interpret them correctly. 

Isn't that what prophesies and predictions are about
interpretations!


5. We have discussed many times Trelawney's version of the 
prophecy, Dumbledore's version of the prophecy, whether they are 
compatible or not, etc., so I am not going there, but there is a 
small detail which I am not sure I remember an answer to 
(speculative answer of course). How did Trelawney know that Snape 
was looking for a job at the time? Alla imagines Snape and 
Trelawney's evening tea conversations.

Snow:

Although the situation that occurred at the door has been discussed 
intensely over how Snape could have only heard part of the prophecy, 
I thought I should chime in 'here' with a realistic reason how this 
could have happened. It's very quick and to the point: Muffliato! 

Halfway through the prophecy, Snape is detected listening at the door 
but the barman issued a Muffliato spell so that Snape could not hear 
the end portion. 

As to the question at hand all I have to say is how old is Snape 
during this process? Would Dumbledore have considered Snape as a 
prospective Professor at his age, at best 20 (not much older than the 
young Tom Riddle who asked the previous professor for a teaching 
position)?  

6. "Snape and Peter Pettigrew together had sent Voldemort 
hunting after Lily and James and their son ..." Do you agree or 
disagree with this quote? Why? 

Snow:

Snape and Wormtail were never together
at least not till Spinner's 
End! 


7. "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.'" What was 
Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

Snow:

When has Dumbledore pondered any question to this degree? 

When someone is asked a direct question that cannot be answered 
evasively, I would expect a hesitation such as this. 

Dumbledore couldn't answer in full so he bowed out with what he knows 
to be true
Snape can be trusted
with his life
and...even more so with 
his death!

8. "'He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, 
Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up dead?'" We also 
know so far that people whom Harry loves tend to end up dead and 
some of the names on the list of people whom Snape hates and Harry 
loves tend to be the same. If you were to predict the next person to 
die by that criteria, whom would you pick?

Snow:

Why couldn't this be reversed? Someone Harry hates and Snape loves! 
Draco would be easy prey in this definition. 

9. "Breathing hard as though he were fighting, Harry turned 
away from Dumbledore, who still had not moved a muscle, and paced up 
and down the study, rubbing his knuckles in his hand and exercising 
every last bit of restraint to prevent himself knocking things over. 
He wanted to rage and storm at Dumbledore, but he also wanted to go 
with him to try and destroy the Horcrux; he wanted to tell him that 
he was a foolish old man for trusting Snape, but he was terrified 
that Dumbledore would not take him along unless he mastered his 
anger ..."

Harry is trying to restrain himself from knocking things over. Is it 
because he has undergone some character development and is trying to 
control his temper, or is he simply afraid that Dumbledore will not 
let him come? Any other ideas?

Snow:

This is where we see Harry's `teachings' come to light. Harry finally 
has restrained from acting impulsively and this is a big one since 
Harry has to overcome his hatred for what he thinks Snape has done 
(prophecy wise) but he succeeds in refraining from his obvious 
wanting outburst.  Harry Can Be Taught!

10. "'You're leaving the school tonight and I'll bet you haven't 
even considered that Snape and Malfoy might decide to -' To what?' 
asked Dumbledore, his eyebrows raised. 'What is it that you suspect 
them of doing, precisely?'" Why is Dumbledore asking Harry this 
question?

Snow:

Dumbledore appears to be more than a bit superior here in his 
answering and questioning. I believe Dumbledore's next reply sums up 
the fact that he is well aware of the students welfare and that he 
would not allow their well being to be jeopardized...as well as 
Draco's. 

I think Dumbledore felt a bit insulted by this accusation since 
Dumbledore is viewing this matter from an upper hand, more 
knowledgeable than Harry, and allowed Harry to show his ignorance on 
the matter. 


11. `Thanks,' said Ron. 'Er - why do I need socks?' Here we 
meet socks again. In fact, we have attempted to figure out possible 
socks symbolism in the books for quite some time now. So, is there 
any possible symbolic reason why Harry gives Felix felicis to Ron 
wrapped in sock?

Snow:

Those `darn' sock's! 

Cant wait for the explanation
and I'm certain there will be one!






From shmantzel at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 02:25:19 2006
From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (Dantzel Withers)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 18:25:19 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <04d301c70dc1$9d3899d0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <20061122022519.4964.qmail@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161824


Lana wrote:                                   
 But there is absolutely nothing that I have seen so far that remotely says that she has ever gotten anything from DD.  A Hogwarts letter would not constitute being from him.  I would be from the "School"
 
 
Dantzel replies:
I completely agree Lana. I was going off of her theory of getting a letter from a wizard in general but forgot to put that in. <g>
I was also thinking about something JKR said about Petunia, which I THOUGHT was that she was not a squib, so I was like, "There you are, she's not magical" until I realized that could go both ways: either being magical and never touching it or having not an ounce of magic in her veins.

So now that I've 'self-doubted' myself into a corner, can someone remind me if JKR specified if she had *any* magic at all???


         



 




From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 22 02:45:44 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 21:45:44 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejvoev+vbrk@eGroups.com>
References: <ejvoev+vbrk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4563B9D8.8050808@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161825

a_svirn wrote:
> Yes, they do. It's actually quite a common thing. Uncle's Tom Cabin 
> and Gone with the Wind may be different as night and day in their 
> description of and attitude to slavery, but they both feature slaves 
> who are affectionate and faithful to their "families" and for whom 
> parting with those families means (or would mean) the worst of all 
> disasters. 

Bart:
	Have you read UNCLE TOM'S CABIN? If not, you can at Project Gutenberg 
for free; you may find out that it's a very different story than is 
commonly thought: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/203 (hint: Uncle Tom's 
only true loyalty is to Jesus).

	Bart




From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 22 02:28:50 2006
From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:28:50 -0600
Subject: Gryffindor and Slytherin colors
Message-ID: <4563B5E2.4060808@hotmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161826

Ummm... wouldn't just the hilt of Godric's sword be gold? The blade
of a sword, magical or otherwise wouldn't be gold or gold colored;
because it would have to be hard, not malleable, which gold isn't. It would
also have to be effective against different sorts of magical creatures;
which gold isn't.. Iron and steel in mythologies are usually proof 
against fairy folk, if not other beings.

Hestia Lurkwell

is this better?






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 22 04:47:27 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:47:27 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trelawney's Disappearance --Theory
In-Reply-To: <ek0ash+pk5d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F28299047D660DFBA254896DDE30@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 161827

Jen
>All this talk of Trelawney made me wonder again where she was from
>the time Harry saw her outside the Room of Requirement through the
>end of the year.  The easy answer is she was in her tower drinking
>sherry and never knew what happened, but that's not very exciting
><g>.  Practically everyone Harry has ever met in the WW was at the
>funeral--including all the professors Harry has had for classes--yet
>Trelawney isn't even mentioned!
>
>If Trelawney knew one of her predictions was SO right down to the
>last Tarot card, she'd be all over it to avenge her public
>humilation and to demand Firenze's firing as the second Divination
>teacher.  I can just see her at the funeral praising her own Seer
>abilites far and wide, dabbing her eyes behind those overly large
>glasses while intimating that if *only* Dumbledore had listened to
>her he might still be alive...
>
>She's also not mentioned being around the night of the DE attack
>even though her tower is near the seventh floor & the Room of
>Requirement, where not once but *twice* there were loud noises in
>the hallway.

wynnleaf
I was just thinking about this theory today and wondering if HPforGrownups 
ever discussed this one.  It's been a long debate on the Lexicon forum.

Why would Voldemort want the prophecy so intensely and then give up looking 
for it in HBP?

And what about Cissy and Bella's comments?  What had Voldemort and others 
tried and failed to do?  Kill Dumbledore?  or get the prophecy?  We *know* 
they'ed tried and failed to get the prophecy.  Snape may have not known what 
they were referring to, and so his comments about thinking Voldemort meant 
for him to do it don't necessarily discredit the notion that Voldmort was 
really trying to get the prophecy.

And Dumbledore said several times in OOTP and HBP that Trelawney had to stay 
in Hogwarts to be safe.  Are those just throwaway lines?  They make no 
difference?  Or are we supposed to pay as little attention to that as Harry, 
and be surprised to find Trelawney gone in Book 7?

Was Draco's primary task to kill Dumbledore?  Or did he start making 
attempts on Dumbledore's life because his real task wasn't turning out very 
well and he was hoping to placate Voldemort with these other attempts?  
Draco was quite cocky on the train for a kid who's supposedly assigned to 
kill the most powerful wizard that even Voldemort is afraid of.  But suppose 
Draco's task was really to get DE's into the castle and effect the 
kidnapping of Trelawney?

Or -- even if Draco was origianlly assigned to kill DD -- what if Voldemort 
(who perhaps didn't think Draco could kill DD anyway), was really searching 
for a way to get his DE's into the castle and get to Trelawney?

Trelawney wasn't mentioned as being at the funeral, even though she got a 
lot of pages in the book.  Nobody missed her, but that wouldn't be 
surprising.  They'd all assume she was up in her rooms drinking sherry.

One might think that if the target of the DE's was Trelawney, why did Draco 
get rid of her in the RoR?  Well, he might have been startled and not known 
it was her.  Or he might have just not been ready.  After all, the DE's had 
not yet arrived.

I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this theory.

wynnleaf

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping has everything on your holiday list. Get expert picks by style, 
age, and price. Try it! 
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8000,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200601&tcode=wlmtagline




From juli17 at aol.com  Wed Nov 22 05:19:39 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:19:39 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's Disappearance --Theory
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F28299047D660DFBA254896DDE30@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ek0mlb+vb6d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161828

wynnleaf wrote:
> 
> Trelawney wasn't mentioned as being at the funeral, even though she 
got a 
> lot of pages in the book.  Nobody missed her, but that wouldn't be 
> surprising.  They'd all assume she was up in her rooms drinking 
sherry.
> 
> One might think that if the target of the DE's was Trelawney, why 
did Draco 
> get rid of her in the RoR?  Well, he might have been startled and 
not known 
> it was her.  Or he might have just not been ready.  After all, the 
DE's had 
> not yet arrived.
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this theory.
> 
> wynnleaf
> 

Julie:
I can't help thinking that if it was JKR's intention to make
Trelawney's lack of appearance late in the book something
significant, then she would have dropped us a clue or two, 
even if it was something vague. Someone could have mentioned
Trelawney not being at the funeral and speculated that she
was holed up in her tower room drinking sherry. 

I know that's not any kind of concrete evidence, but right
now I can't see a reason for Trelawney's disappearance
not to be noted until Book 7. HBP is a cliff-hanger more
or less, so why not throw this bit into the mix at the end,
add it to the many questions we're pondering while waiting
anxiously for the final chapter of the saga, if it is 
indeed something pertinent to the story?

Julie 





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 06:11:28 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:11:28 -0000
Subject: Voldemort in Hiding (was: Why Cruciatus? )
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0611202018s16531cd8h24daf2767425cf58@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ek0pmg+eu99@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161829

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote:
> >
> > Mike previously:
> >
> > But then Dumbledore throws in the caveat:
> >
> > "The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had 
> > done it. Unfortunately, the Longbottom's evidence was - given 
> > their condition - none too reliable." (ibid)
> 
> Debbie:
> But Bellatrix is only too willing to confess their objective.  "We 
> alone were faithful!  We alone tried to find him!"  I don't think 
> the DMLE had to make up this part of the story.  The primary issue 
> relates to Barty Crouch Jr's involvement.  There's a school of 
> thought that he was framed to discredit his father, as revenge 
> against his crusade against the DEs.

Mike:

OK, between Debbie and Carol, you've convinced me. Though I still 
don't get why the Longbottoms were Bella and Co. object of the 
search, I'll accept your speculation (lower down the post) as good 
as any. Permit me one last question/consternation (coming up).

> > Mike previously:
> > Dumbledore told us prior to this that his informants gave him to
> > believe that Voldemort was holed up in Albania. Wormtail seemed 
> > to go directly there after his escape at the end of PoA, and he 
> > had spent the last 12 years as Percy's then Ron's rat. How much 
> > of a secret was Voldemort's whereabouts? <snipping me> 
> 
> Debbie:
> Voldemort's whereabouts became a subject of rumor in the years 
> after Godric's Hollow.  Dumbledore probably doesn't mention what 
> his sources are telling him to a lot of people, <snip>

Mike:
Yeah, DD does secret information a long time, often too long. This 
explanation does make sense.

> Debbie cont:
> ...but people at Hogwarts can probably get this information.
> (Pettigrew knew because he used to hang out with Ron, who
> hangs out with Harry, who was informed by Dumbledore.) <snip>

Mike:
Actually, I prefer your previous assertion that DD wouldn't be 
revealing this information to anyone, if it really is a secret. But 
then we have to question whether it is a secret.

Where do we learn that Voldemort is holed up in Albania? I scanned 
PS/SS and didn't find any reference to Albania. In the wrap up scene 
of CoS, Dumbledore reveals that his sources tell him Voldemort is in 
the "forests of Albania" (in front of Harry, Ron, Ginny, Arthur, 
Molly, McGonnagall, and a dazed Lockhart). We hear nothing of 
Albania again until GoF and Bertha getting lost there. Quite 
frankly, I don't see Harry and Ron discussing Voldy's location again 
for Pettigrew to overhear it.

DD throws out this reference (in CoS) rather casually for it to be a 
secret. You see my dilemma here? Voldy's location doesn't seem to be 
some big secret, given the way DD reveals what his sources have told 
him in such a casual, conversational manner. Add to that the dubious 
chance that Scabbers/Pettigrew got wind of it sometime between the 
end of CoS and his flight from justice in PoA.

So maybe Bella and Co. did try to get Voldy's location from the 
Longbottoms. But I'm having a hard time squaring that with the way 
his location doesn't seem to be any secret, granted, some years 
later. It just feels wrong, and I'm sorry that I can't explain it 
any better than that. <huge shrug>



> Debbie:
> My surmise is that it was Frank Longbottom who was sent out after
> Voldemort's vaporization to determine what had become of him, and 
> that he had discovered Vapormort hiding out in Albania or 
> wherever.  The Lestranges (or whoever sent them to be framed, 
> because faithful DEs were troublesome to those who were trying to 
> slither out of Azkaban-type trouble) only knew that Longbottom had 
> been away and had returned.  The Lestranges dragged Crouch Jr
> along with them because he knew the Longbottoms and would get them 
> unforced entry into the Longbottom home.

Mike:
I like this speculation. It has a reasonableness (is that a word?) 
about it, without being too complicated. Just the way JKR writes 'em.

 
> Debbie
> who's celebrating an anniversary of sorts tonight, having joined 
> HPFGU exactly five (!) years ago today

Mike, congratulating Debbie. I think this is about my five month 
anniversary. :D





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 22 06:40:29 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 06:40:29 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's Disappearance --Theory
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F28299047D660DFBA254896DDE30@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ek0rct+pkt0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161830

wynnleaf
> I was just thinking about this theory today and wondering if 
> HPforGrownups ever discussed this one.  It's been a long debate on
> the Lexicon forum.

Jen:  This has been up for discussion periodically since HBP but I 
wouldn't say it's *popular* <g>.  One reason is because people 
speculated about Luna's abscence at the end of OOTP and nothing came 
of it.  Or like Julie said, why no hints?  My thought on that is 
probably the old "if the last two books are two parts of a whole 
then...,"  meaning no hints don't necessarily rule it out because 
there could be more to come.

wynnleaf:
> And what about Cissy and Bella's comments?  What had Voldemort and
> others tried and failed to do?  Kill Dumbledore?  or get the
> prophecy?  We *know* they'ed tried and failed to get the 
> prophecy.  Snape may have not known what they were referring to,
> and so his comments about thinking Voldemort meant for him to do
> it don't necessarily discredit the notion that Voldmort was really
> trying to get the prophecy.

Jen:  This is a new twist.  I'm trying to think how this would work 
with the tower.  It would mean Dumbledore didn't have to die--ouch,  
that would be hard to take.  Because by that point Draco would have 
suceeded with his task, getting the DE's in, and Snape wouldn't have 
had to kill Dumbledore to carry out the Vow.  Right?  I'm still 
thinking the UV was about killing Dumbledore and the cabinent was 
supposed to be the means.  That doesn't preclude LV having a second 
plan for the cabinent, though.

wynnleaf:
> And Dumbledore said several times in OOTP and HBP that Trelawney
> had to stay in Hogwarts to be safe.  Are those just throwaway 
> lines?  They make no difference?  Or are we supposed to pay as
> little attention to that as Harry, and be surprised to find
> Trelawney gone in Book 7?

Jen: Oh well, you know what I think but it's worth saying anyway:  
Her safety was spotlighted from the beginning to the point that 
Dumbledore strongly suggested (read, commanded) she stay when 
Umbridge tried to kick her out. DD knows Voldemort wants to get his 
hands on her and learn the prophecy but he can't while Trelawney is 
at Hogwarts under Dumbledore's protection.  That doesn't mean LV 
gave up on eventually kidnapping Trelawney.


wynnleaf: 
> Was Draco's primary task to kill Dumbledore?  Or did he start 
> making attempts on Dumbledore's life because his real task wasn't
> turning out very well and he was hoping to placate Voldemort with
> these other attempts?  Draco was quite cocky on the train for a
> kid who's supposedly assigned to kill the most powerful wizard
> that even Voldemort is afraid of.  But suppose Draco's task was
> really to get DE's into the castle and effect the kidnapping of
> Trelawney?

Jen: I'm thinking Draco approached Voldemort with the idea about the 
Vanishing Cabinents thinking he would merely be the conduit to get 
the DE's into Hogwarts.  He feels good about his job on the train, 
cocky, thinks he's got no worries.  Then at some point not long 
after, Voldemort lays the other half of the task on him:  Draco will 
be expected to kill Dumbledore when the DE's get in through the 
Vanishing Cabinent.  Then when the cabinent isn't going well, Draco 
does start making attempts like you said.  

(Narcissa and Bella knew before Draco and that's why Narcissa went 
to Snape, hoping to get protection for Draco *before* Voldemort hit 
Draco with the second part of his job.) 

wynnleaf: 
> Or -- even if Draco was origianlly assigned to kill DD -- what if
> Voldemort (who perhaps didn't think Draco could kill DD anyway),
> was really searching for a way to get his DE's into the castle and
> get to Trelawney?

Jen:  Well, this was my premise a little farther down my post that 
Voldemort had his overt plan and covert plan working, and the one 
most important to him was the covert one, i.e., getting Trelawney 
and the prophecy.

wynnleaf:
> One might think that if the target of the DE's was Trelawney, why
> did Draco get rid of her in the RoR?  Well, he might have been 
> startled and not known it was her.  Or he might have just not been
> ready.  After all, the DE's had not yet arrived.

Jen:  This is why I don't think Draco was aware of the covert plan 
Voldemort was cooking up.  As long as *one* DE knew what to do once 
they were in the castle--grab Trelawney and escape before the 
Vanishing Cabinent was disabled--then no one else need know about 
the kidnapping.  One idea I'm not sold on but could be possible is 
that Bella or whichever DE seized Trelawney was ordered to disable 
the Cabinent so no one could return, not even DE's.  Voldemort 
doesn't have that many DE's to lose though, so that idea is iffy and 
not necessary for the rest to work. 

Jen R., looking forward to other speculation as well.





From tareprachi at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 05:11:03 2006
From: tareprachi at yahoo.com (pforparvati)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 05:11:03 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts House-elves (wasRe: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ejv7i4+sf2q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek0m57+ur06@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161831

> Potioncat:
> > All Harry had to do was say "Kreacher" out loud and Kreacher came.
> It even worked at the Dursleys. So why did DD send Snape to fetch 
Winky?  
<snip>


PforParvati:
Hi..I have one doubt here. How did Dumbledore know in advance that 
Winky would be needed there? I mean Dumbledore realised that it was a 
fake Moody. But how did he relate it to Crouch & Winky before 
polyjuice potion wearing off.

PforParvati, Confused...








From shravya_ivyhall at yahoo.co.in  Tue Nov 21 10:34:07 2006
From: shravya_ivyhall at yahoo.co.in (Shravya Gudimella)
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:34:07 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: Dudley Demented
In-Reply-To: <20061120233322.67851.qmail@web54514.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <655564.46743.qm@web7710.mail.in.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161832

rlaw:
> In the OOTP, Dudley was also attacked by dementors. When Harry
> told him to close his mouth, he actually listened. There are
> rumors flying around that Dudley is a wizard himself. Could it be
> possible since magic do run in families. For example, the Creevey
> Brothers(I know their dad is a milkman but what about the mom?)


I do agree that Dudley is related to witches.  But does that in any way prove that he is a wizard? If he is a wizard it is too late for him to blow out his cover.

If he is a wizard, why didn't he join in Hogwarts?  Because his name was not listed in the book of 1st year students.

Think of it guys-is it of any help to Harry?  If you convince yourself that he is a wizard, he is totally untrained.

shravya




From greatraven at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 22 07:20:50 2006
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 07:20:50 -0000
Subject: That diary.....
In-Reply-To: <20061121233410.38425.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ek0toi+c2bv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161833

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, J <tidblgr72 at ...> wrote:
>
> > doug rogers :
> > Riddle might then have realized what he had done - created a 
horcrux 
> > - and then sought out information from Slughorn on creating 
others. (?)
> 
> Carol responds:
> That makes sense to me, especially since the original purpose of the
> diary was clearly to release the Basilisk. Maybe a soul bit was
> attached to the memory(ies) because Myrtle's death counts as a 
murder?
> Not a perfect explanation, but I don't see why he asked Slughorn 
about
> Horcruxes if he was certain he had already created one. 
> ==============================
> Jeremiah:
> 
> I don't know. I think that from my own reading of the text, that 
the Horcrux is deliberately created. I think this because a portion 
of the soul is extracted into another "object" and if you can just 
kill things and "woops I made a Horcrux" then where is Snape's from 
Dumbledore's murder?
> 
> Also, I since I feel that a Horcrux is deliberately created, then 
this rules out 2 things for me... 1) Harry is an "accidental Horcrux" 
(but I could be wrong... I'm wrong a lot). And 2) the Basilisk/Myrtle 
scenario was a deliberate murder if the Diary was created at that 
time. However, the Diary was not designed specifically to release the 
Basilisk but was created to do any number of things.
> 
> This also raises a question. If Myrtle's death was what created the 
Horcrux then that means the "Horcrx-maker" does not have to kill 
anyone to make the horcrux and must fracture their soul by other 
means/murders. Who would Tom Riddle have murdered before Myrtle to 
fracture his soul? This, we do not know. I only know that he used to 
frighten other children and terrorize them.
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sue here:

Re Myrtle's death, while it certainly could have been used to make a 
Horcrux, remember that she just happened to be there in the toilet at 
the time and if Tom knew what he was doing, he would have planned it 
out very carefully in advance, perhaps luring some First Year into a 
quiet spot and letting go. I suspect that the "diary horcrux" was a 
later bright idea by JKR rather than planned out from the beginning. 
Otherwise, it would have been easy enough to have had Tom luring 
Myrtle somewhere, she has shown herself the type to get crushes on  
boys who have wandered into her area... ;-)
>






From inyia at yahoo.es  Wed Nov 22 07:20:25 2006
From: inyia at yahoo.es (inyia)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:20:25 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <020801c70a71$8f15a0d0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <mailman.146.1576215649.17272.hpforgrownups@archive.hpfgu.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 161834

Lana wrote:
I think I read that all the time turners were smashed in the MOM brawl..  But... here is a thought.. Hermoine had one at one point, so what is to say that there isn't one out there that someone else had at the time of the fight.. <snip>

JKR said that she "is not telling" when asked if HP will time travel again..  So, this brings me to think that it is possible for Harry to go back in time to make certain things happen. Or to take certain things that he will need in the future battle with LV. 
<snip> ...what if Harry went back in time and explained to the past DD what was happening in the future. DD would be able to make changes that would affect the future and current HP situation with LV. HP could get things like the locket, or the cup, or even the ring.. Lots of things could change and the end of the book could lead to Harry living happily ever after with his parents and Sirius and DD all alive and it was all as if nothing ever happened.. <snip>


inyia:
Great idea but it's well known that travelling in time in the Harry Potter books doesn't affect the future.

We know that they saved Sirius and Buckbeak but Buckbeak wasn't killed the first time either.
 
On the other hand it would be like the dream theory (all in his head), a little disappointing, don't you think?


inyia




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Wed Nov 22 14:09:22 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 08:09:22 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time turner theory
References: <200611221207.kAMC7q6s028120@mx1.centurytel.net>
Message-ID: <00ff01c70e3f$cf710e90$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161835

inyia wrote:
Great idea but it's well known that travelling in time in the Harry Potter books doesn't affect the future.

We know that they saved Sirius and Buckbeak but Buckbeak wasn't killed the first time either.

On the other hand it would be like the dream theory (all in his head), a little disappointing, don't you think?

Lana Writes:

But.. Had the kids not gone back in time, Buckbeak would have died.  Hermoine even saw herself, so we KNOW that this is why he didn't die.  They had already taken him.

I must have missed something..  How is it well known that going back will not change the future or affect it?  Freeing Beaky and Sirius is changing the future isn't it?

Lana





 

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




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 22 14:19:27 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:19:27 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts House-elves (wasRe: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ek0m57+ur06@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek1m9f+pto2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161836


> PforParvati:
> Hi..I have one doubt here. How did Dumbledore know in advance that 
> Winky would be needed there? I mean Dumbledore realised that it was a 
> fake Moody. But how did he relate it to Crouch & Winky before 
> polyjuice potion wearing off.

Pippin:
Sirius is probably the missing link here. He knew that Harry had seen
Bartemius Crouch on the Map, burgling Snape's office. We also know
that Sirius was in contact with Dumbledore (quoting from memory,
"You are not Sirius's only correspondent.") 

Pippin





From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 22 14:45:57 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:45:57 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ejvn9o+ftk4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek1nr5+9mk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161837


> Alla:
> 
> Does Snape also deserves a credit to contributing to the fact that 
> Harry **only** had fifteen months with his mom and dad?
> 

Pippin:

Let's not forget that there's an official mystery, stated by Hagrid
in Book One,  concerning why Voldemort didn't go after James 
and Lily before. After all, they'd defied him three times. What
was protecting them? The fact that one of their closest friends
was a Voldemort agent, and killing them would have dried up
a prime source of information for the Dark Lord? Don't you
think they might have told that close friend about the prophecy
in any case?

We've also been told that it's not safe to assume that one isn't
being overheard in the Hogs Head. Why did the prophetic
power manifest itself at that point? Just by chance? Does
Sybill utter prophecies in the shower or to her sherry bottles,
all unheard? Is the prophecy voice a broadcast that can be
picked up by any True Seer, or perhaps detected by centaurs?

Or did the prophetic power perchance select its hearers? Should
the label on the prohecy have read '& S.S.' ? And being prophetic, 
wouldn't the power also know what Snape was likely to 
do with the information? And of the remorse he would then feel
over doing so?

If that look of being a dog trapped in a burning house had nothing
to do with Snape's remorse over James, I'll eat my keyboard.
 Of course Snape is guilty for having told Voldemort about
the prophecy -- it would undermine his repentance and redemption
if he really had nothing to repent of. But does Harry need to
remind Snape that he'll never forget what he did? Why?

Pippin





From scarah at gmail.com  Wed Nov 22 15:03:43 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 07:03:43 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <00ff01c70e3f$cf710e90$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
References: <200611221207.kAMC7q6s028120@mx1.centurytel.net>
	 <00ff01c70e3f$cf710e90$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <3202590611220703y5aacc909k588b25ea31e1b225@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161838

 Lana Writes:
>
> But.. Had the kids not gone back in time, Buckbeak would have died.  Hermoine even saw herself, so we KNOW that this is why he didn't die.  They had already taken him.

Sarah:
Uh oh, this argument again.  :)

Hermione saw herself?  I think that the trio heard both Harry and
Hermione under the cloak, but they didn't know who it was at the time.
 Harry also saw himself cast the Patronus Charm, and likewise didn't
realize who it was.

Forget Back to the Future, and watch Bill and Ted instead.  :)

Both Harrys and both Hermiones were both always there, in both
continuums that we saw them live through.  There's really only one
continuum, but there's two Harrys and two Hermiones for part of it.

Buckbeak never died.  The first Harry and Hermione thought that he
did, but they were hearing MacNair swing his axe into the fence, the
same way he did it the second time.  Because the second Harry and
Hermione were already there, stealing Buckbeak.

I know there will be people who disagree with this interpretation, but
I think it's borne out by them hearing their own footsteps in the
corridor, and especially Harry seeing himself.  He was there both
run-throughs.

This also explains why they can't do something like, for example,
travel back and save Sirius from the veil.  If they had done it, they
would have seen themselves do it.

A lot of people seem to have problems with the way JK has chosen to
use time travel, but I find it to be sort of elegant and avoid most of
the common paradoxes.  I had to read PoA a couple of times before I
realized it, though.

Sarah



From dougsamu at golden.net  Wed Nov 22 15:41:53 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:41:53 -0500
Subject: That diary.....
Message-ID: <C03F8B28-7431-4EF4-BD49-4648AE3C69CD@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161839

Jeremiah:

I don't know. I think that from my own reading of the text, that the  
Horcrux is deliberately created. I think this because a portion of  
the soul is extracted into another "object" and if you can just kill  
things and "woops I made a Horcrux" then where is Snape's from  
Dumbledore's murder?

doug:

  That is not what I'm proposing. I propose that Tom Riddle perhaps  
placed a bit of soul in the diary as a means of giving it  
intelligence, only then to discover what he had actually done.

  Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong!
__________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>________




From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 22 16:03:57 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:03:57 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf  -  Madness, Magic, and Honor
In-Reply-To: <ek07kc+ot0k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek1sdd+firl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161840


> bboyminn:
> 
> No, I think there is just madness, but that's just my
> opinion.
> 
> Keep in mind that what Kreacher thought of Sirius didn't
> change that fact that Sirius was the one true last 
> decendant heir to the Black Estate. Yes, there are 
> peripheral Blacks lurking about, mostly female, and 
> mostly members of other branches of the Black Family 
> tree. But being female, while Blacks by birth, they are
> now bound to the House of the husbands. Narcissa is now
> a member of the House of Malfoy. That's quite different
> than Sirius. I emphasize again that Sirius was the last
> direct-line hier, and I have to believe that carries 
> some weight even if Sirius was disowned.
> 
> Now I can understand Kreacher reluctance and resistance
> to serving Harry. In this case, he is bound by the
> commitments of his ancestors and Sirius's will. But 
> regardless of Sirius's status in the family, he is the 
> last true Black, and I believe Kreacher would and should
> honor that. 
> 
> He would and should but he's mad as a hatter.

Magpie:
I don't understand how you're relating that to madness. We've seen 
that House-elves have their own opinions about things.  Kreacher was 
Mrs. Black's elf first and foremost. Sirius broke her heart. He 
brought people into the house that the mistress Kreacher considers 
his own would hate. Why is it madness for him to have continued to 
share the opinions and carry out the wishes of the mistress he loved 
instead of changing them just because Sirius is technically the heir 
even though he was blasted off the tapestry? And why isn't Dobby 
then mad for not going along with Lucius' opinions on Harry? Why 
isn't it madness for the House Elves at Hogwarts to not clean up 
Gryffindor Tower when they're insulted? Or Winky to continue to 
worry over Mr. Crouch after he fires her? It seems like Dobby is 
considered crazy by other House Elves because he wants freedom, not 
because he has ideas about which masters are proper to serve. 

Kreacher seems to just have the same view of the Black line that his 
mistress does, and also the same views on Purebloods.  It seems like 
you're assuming several things about sane House-elf behavior that we 
don't know, like that a sane elf would honor Sirius as the heir even 
if the mistress of his heart would not, which he knows because he 
lived through the whole break up.  You're also assuming that 
Narcissa is now the House of Malfoy completely and not Black because 
she is married which I don't think is supported in canon. If that 
was the rule why would Dumbledore think Bellatrix could have 
inherited? Kreacher himself seems to consider both Narcissa and 
Bellatrix Blacks. He even recognizes Draco as being related to his 
mistress.

Betsy Hp:
But since Kreacher didn't *want* to serve tea to any of Sirius's
guests, I think there was a method to his "madness". Also, I think
it's important to remember that a house-elf uses *magic* to do much
of their work. So what's drudgery to you or me is a snap (literally
<g>) to a house-elf. (Though it wouldn't surprise me if we find out
that Kreacher stooped and stumbled a bit more than need be to add to
his "I can't do nothing about nothing, I'm just a craaazzzy house-
elf" routine.)

Magpie:
Kreacher's muttering routine always seemed plenty useful to him to 
me. People who spend a lot of time alone can become more used to 
talking to themselves. It's insanity when you're talking to voices 
in your head, but talking to yourself in general isn't a mark of 
insanity (I hope!). I wouldn't be so sure Kreacher is, as I know it 
was said somewhere earlier, under the impression people can't here 
him when he talks to himself. A lot of the things he says are 
intentionally passive-aggressive and insulting. He didn't mutter 
anything about things he wanted to keep quiet about. He does seem 
highly eccentric to me, but I wouldn't consider him insane. He 
doesn't seem to lack a grip on reality to me, especially after the 
way he was able to jump right into HBP and start being himself at 
Hogwarts.

-m







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 16:12:02 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:12:02 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ek01qa+qa10@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek1ssi+9b3a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161841

Betsy Hp wrote:
<snip> JKR is taking an odd tactic of having only 
> Dobby actually express a certain level of unhappiness with the state 
> of house-elves.  She's not hinted at a previous house-elf 
> rebellion.  No other house-elf has jumped on Dobby's bandwagon.  In 
> fact, there's an impression that Dobby would be thrilled to be owned 
> by Harry.  And Harry doesn't seem all that bothered to be Kreacher's 
> owner, for that matter.

> For me, I think the analogy goes about as far as the "Lupin equals 
> an AIDs patient" analogy goes.  There's definitely some cross over, 
> but it's not written as a total parallel.  Honestly, I'm not sure 
> where JKR is going to take the house-elf thing.  With one book left 
> to go I'm not sure she can squeeze in a freedom for house-elves sub-
> plot. <snip>

Carol responds:
Sorry to take your remarks out of context here, but I agree with
Magpie that House-Elf slavery, which in most cases is voluntary
servitude despite the binding magical contracts, doesn't really
parallel human slavery, pre-Civil War American or otherwise.

But you make an interesting point here: we know of no previous
House-Elf rebellion. Professor Binns's History of Magic class is full
of Goblin wars and rebellions (except for one war with the Giants,
you'd think that nothing else happened in the history of the WW) but
not a single incident of house-elf rebellion. It's one thing for the
Wizards to take House-Elf servitude for granted, not even mentioning
it in "Hogwarts: A History" because it's just (for them) a fact of
life, but the House-Elves seem to take it for granted, too, and even
to want it. You're right that Dobby would be thrilled to be owned by
Harry, IMO; he's voluntarily accepted Harry as his master. And when
Dumbledore offers him payment and days off, Dobby talks him into
paying him *less* money with *fewer* days off because, although he
likes being paid, he likes work better. Clearly, working, specifically
cooking and cleaning for humans and other domestic responsibilities,
is ingrained into a house-elf's nature, along with keeping the
family's secrets, a big responsibility. This view of life and work is
not indoctrination or enforced domination. Even a freed Elf wants to
work for a human master, preferably one to whom he can show fanatical
loyalty.

>From Winky's point of view, freedom is a disgrace, equivalent to being
fired. In fact, that's exactly what happened to her: enforced freedom.
She's lost her inherited place in WW society. Her mother and
grandmother belonged to the Crouches, happily serving them, and they
would be ashamed of her for losing her place as Mr. Crouch's trusted
servant. It's odd that at first she seems willing to look for work
along with Dobby but takes to drinking butterbeer *after* she starts
working at Hogwarts. Maybe seeing the happy Hogwarts House-Elves
(pardon the alliteration), she misses her old life and especially her
master more deeply.(?)

Freedom is not necessarily a wonderful thing in and of itself, even
for humans. It's not much use unless you have money, too. (Just ask
Sirius Black in GoF, though granted, he's a fugitive, too.) Freedom
for unemployed humans or House-Elves brings with it the burden of
finding a job and supporting themselves, something House-Elves aren't
trained to do. They can't even look in the Daily Prophet for jobs.
House-Elves are supposed to work without pay for the people whose
property the House-Elves are part of. There aren't any want ads
offering employment to House-Elves, nor can they do any other job than
housework (or perhaps child care), such as mining or smithing or
working at Gringotts. The Goblins have a monopoly on those trades or
jobs, even if a House-Elf wanted to learn them. 

Really, I can't see the House-Elves in general wanting freedom unless
they also have job training and opportunities to work in other fields,
and would most of them want it even them? It seems to be in their
nature to be domestic servants. Except for Kreacher, who is an anomaly
in many ways, they like cooking and cleaning, and they're
exceptionally good at it. Most of them wouldn't choose to, say, write
for the Daily Prophet or work in a shop even if they had the
opportunity. Like most of us, they like what they're good at, and
they're good at what they like. It's human, erm, House-Elf nature.

So I think Hermione is wrong to want to free the House-Elves, and I
don't think that any program of indoctrination is going to turn most
of them into Dobbys. What's needed, IMO, is some sort of code
regulating the treatment of House-Elves, guaranteeing them safe and
comfortable working conditions, outlawing abuse, and providing
optional holidays for House-Elves who want them, along with some form
of retirement for those who are too old to work. A rehabilitation and
placement program for Elves who've been given clothes would be good as
well. Humane treatment, yes. Freedom, no. At least, I think that's the
House-Elves' perspective.

Carol, not at all bothered by Harry's owning House-Elves as long as he
treats them fairly (just how that applies to Kreacher beyond ordering
him to keep himself clean is anybody's guess)





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 16:12:04 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:12:04 -0000
Subject: Trelawney's interview (was Re: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ek1nr5+9mk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek1ssk+ohav@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161842

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Does Snape also deserves a credit to contributing to the fact 
that 
> > Harry **only** had fifteen months with his mom and dad?
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> Let's not forget that there's an official mystery, stated by Hagrid
> in Book One,  concerning why Voldemort didn't go after James 
> and Lily before. After all, they'd defied him three times. What
> was protecting them? The fact that one of their closest friends
> was a Voldemort agent, and killing them would have dried up
> a prime source of information for the Dark Lord? Don't you
> think they might have told that close friend about the prophecy
> in any case?

Alla:

Might have told? Of course they might have told or they might have 
not. In fact, that is not even clear IMO whether Dumbledore bothered 
to inform them about the prophecy in the first place, no?
After all Dumbledore loves keeping cards close to his chest, no?

What happened though - Snape was the one who did and he should be 
held responsible for that IMO.


Pippin: 
> We've also been told that it's not safe to assume that one isn't
> being overheard in the Hogs Head.

Alla:

Indeed, but not necessarily by DE, no?


Pippin:
 Why did the prophetic
> power manifest itself at that point? Just by chance?

Alla:

Sure it is a possibility IMO. I mean JKR does not leave much to a 
chance, but do we know that prophetic power itself works in a certain 
way?

Pippin:
 Does
> Sybill utter prophecies in the shower or to her sherry bottles,
> all unheard? Is the prophecy voice a broadcast that can be
> picked up by any True Seer, or perhaps detected by centaurs?

Alla:

Well, showing cards is not as dramatic as prophecy, but Sybil does it 
almost without audience, no?


Pippin: 
> Or did the prophetic power perchance select its hearers? Should
> the label on the prohecy have read '& S.S.' ? And being prophetic, 
> wouldn't the power also know what Snape was likely to 
> do with the information? And of the remorse he would then feel
> over doing so?

Alla:

That is certainly a possibility, but rather bold assumption to make 
that this is the only possibility IMO. Unless under prophetic power 
picking up the listeners we mean JKR :), then sure, hehe.


Pippin:
> If that look of being a dog trapped in a burning house had nothing
> to do with Snape's remorse over James, I'll eat my keyboard.

Alla:

Mmmmm, be careful Pippin. You can count on me reminding you to turn 
yourself in the Hobbit already when the book 7 is out :), if you 
insist, I can remind you of eating your keyboard as well ;) Yummy.


Pippin:
>  Of course Snape is guilty for having told Voldemort about
> the prophecy -- it would undermine his repentance and redemption
> if he really had nothing to repent of.

Alla:

Good, that is all I am looking for :) As I said, it really does not 
matter how I feel about Snape remorse. The thing is I **can** see it 
as plausible, etc, as long as he indeed did something very bad and 
not something that could be dismissed as pure misunderstanding.

Pippin: 
But does Harry need to
> remind Snape that he'll never forget what he did? Why?

Alla:

You can put it in other words, if you wish. The idea is that the 
original deed is not dismissed as pure nothing as I said. I suppose 
as long as I hear from Snape's mouth that he felt remorse that could 
be enough depending on how it is written.





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Wed Nov 22 16:22:05 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:22:05 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time turner theory
References: <200611221207.kAMC7q6s028120@mx1.centurytel.net><00ff01c70e3f$cf710e90$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> <3202590611220703y5aacc909k588b25ea31e1b225@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <016801c70e52$598935a0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161843




  Lana Wrote:
  >
  > But.. Had the kids not gone back in time, Buckbeak >would have died. Hermoine even saw herself, so we >KNOW that this is why he didn't die. They had already >taken him.

  >Sarah wrote:
  >Uh oh, this argument again. :)
  >Hermione saw herself? I think that the trio heard both >Harry and
  >Hermione under the cloak, but they didn't know who it >was at the time.
  >Harry also saw himself cast the Patronus Charm, and >likewise didn't
  >realize who it was.

  Lana writes:

  I understand exactly what you are saying.  What **I** am saying is that "it" (meaning any event that causes another to evolve into an action) has to have happened a first time in order for it to continue repeating itself. A ball will not bounce until someone bounces it first... 

     At some point, there had to be a "first" trio that changed the original death.  Buckbeak had to have died at some point or there would have been no need for them to "save" him.  There had to have been a "first" Sirius that was "kissed" or there would have been no need to go and save him either.

  When I stated that she saw herself, I was referring to the second Hermoine, not the first.  The first was unsure of what she may have heard or seen because she wasn't meant to know.  The second Hermoine KNEW what she was seeing.  

  >Sarah wrote:
  >Buckbeak never died. The first Harry and Hermione >thought that he
  >did, but they were hearing MacNair swing his axe into >the fence, the
  >same way he did it the second time. Because the second >Harry and
  >Hermione were already there, stealing Buckbeak.



  Lana writes:

  This goes back to the..  It had to have happened at some point or there would have been no need to "save" him.


  >Sarah wrote:
  >I know there will be people who disagree with this >interpretation, but
  >I think it's borne out by them hearing their own >footsteps in the
  >corridor, and especially Harry seeing himself. He was >there both
  >run-throughs.

  Lana writes:

  I disagree with your intrepretaion only because it does't take into consideration that there has to be a beginning event in order for you to go back and modify it.  Not because of what you say above.  If Beaky didn't die, then why would you need to save him?  If Sirius wasn't captured and "kissed", then why would they need to go back and help him escape?  Your theory doesn't make sense to me at all.

  >Sarah wrote:

  >This also explains why they can't do something like, for >example,
  >travel back and save Sirius from the veil. If they had >done it, they
  >would have seen themselves do it.

  Lana Writes:

  Technically, they could if it was a first event.  It has not been done before, so therefore you wouldn't see anything because Sirius indeed goes thru the veil.  But if they start the event of going back to chance things this time, then from there out you would notice the "saving" because they would have gone back and done it.

  Hence repeating the saving..  But like I said.  I strongly believe that you have to have a starting event to change or there is no point in going back.



  Recent Activity
    a..  138New Members
    b..  15New Photos
    c..  2New Links
  Visit Your Group 
  SPONSORED LINKS
    a.. Harry potter half-blood prince 
    b.. Half-blood prince 
    c.. Harry potter 
    d.. Harry potter birthday party 
    e.. Harry potter collectible 
  Yahoo! News
  Get it all here

  Breaking news to

  entertainment news

  Yahoo! TV
  "The 9"

  Daily count down

  of top Web finds.

  Y! GeoCities
  Free Blogging

  Share your views

  with the world.
  . 
   

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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 16:40:39 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:40:39 -0000
Subject: That diary.....
In-Reply-To: <20061121233410.38425.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ek1ui7+ctpv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161844

doug rogers :
> > Riddle might then have realized what he had done - created a
horcrux - and then sought out information from Slughorn on creating
others. (?)
> 
Carol earlier:
> That makes sense to me, especially since the original purpose of the
> diary was clearly to release the Basilisk. Maybe a soul bit was
> attached to the memory(ies) because Myrtle's death counts as a
murder? Not a perfect explanation, but I don't see why he asked
Slughorn about Horcruxes if he was certain he had already created one.
<snipped by Jeremiah: Go upthread for the rest>
 

Jeremiah responded:
> 
> I don't know. I think that from my own reading of the text, that the
Horcrux is deliberately created. I think this because a portion of the
soul is extracted into another "object" and if you can just kill
things and "woops I made a Horcrux" then where is Snape's from
Dumbledore's murder?
> 
> Also, I since I feel that a Horcrux is deliberately created, then
this rules out 2 things for me... 1) Harry is an "accidental Horcrux"
(but I could be wrong... I'm wrong a lot). And 2) the Basilisk/Myrtle
scenario was a deliberate murder if the Diary was created at that
time. However, the Diary was not designed specifically to release the
Basilisk but was created to do any number of things.
> 
> This also raises a question. If Myrtle's death was what created the
Horcrux then that means the "Horcrx-maker" does not have to kill
anyone to make the horcrux and must fracture their soul by other
means/murders. Who would Tom Riddle have murdered before Myrtle to
fracture his soul? This, we do not know. I only know that he used to
frighten other children and terrorize them.

Carol:
Well, no. That wasn't quite what I meant. I absolutely agree that
there's no such thing as an accidental Horcrux and I've repeatedly
argued against the Harry!Horcrux hypothesis. 

I'm just considering the possibility that a soul bit got into the
diary accidentally along with the memory but that it *wasn't yet a
Horcrux* because Tom didn't know the spell to create one. I feel
strongly that the diary was a powerful magical object created
specifically to release the Basilisk, proving that Tom Riddle was the
Heir of Slytherin, before he knew how to create a Horcrux. I'm trying
to figure out how the diary could be interactive without yet being a
Horcrux.

Using the soul bit from Myrtle's murder, accidentally or on purpose,
does not mean that the soul can be split without committing murder.
IMO, Tom murdered Myrtle by releasing the Basilisk on her, just as
Diary!Tom would have murdered Harry by releasing the Basilisk on him.
Murder is murder, whether you use a Basilisk or a wand or a gun. I'm
not suggesting that he murdered anyone before Myrtle. she's important
because she's his first Myrtle and because she's proof that he, the
Heir of Slytherin, can control the Basilisk. Heavy stuff if you're Tom
Riddle.

To repeat an important point, I agree with you that there's no such
thing as an accidental Horcrux. Whether or not the diary contained a
soul bit that came out along with the memory because young Tom had
already committed a murder (and I'm only considering that as a
possibility, not arguing that it happened), *the diary was not a
Horcrux until Tom cast that spell,* which I don't think he could have
done until some time after he talked to Slughorn in his sixth year and
probably not until after he'd left Hogwarts since, as I said in the
portion of my post that you snipped, it's unlikely that he could find
directions for creating a Horcrux at Hogwarts and he didn't get them
from Slughorn. Possibilities for where he learned the incantation and
the exact procedure for encasing a Horcrux include a visit to
Grindelwald, whom I take to be the other Horcrux-maker known to both
DD and LV, or books he bought in Knockturn Alley while he was working
at Borgin and Burke's.

Carol, who is *not* arguing for accidental Horcruxes, only that the
diary was a powerful magical object, intended to be interactive,
before it was a Horcrux





From jnferr at gmail.com  Wed Nov 22 16:46:45 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:46:45 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <016801c70e52$598935a0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
References: <200611221207.kAMC7q6s028120@mx1.centurytel.net>
	 <00ff01c70e3f$cf710e90$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
	 <3202590611220703y5aacc909k588b25ea31e1b225@mail.gmail.com>
	 <016801c70e52$598935a0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611220846w1ded0294r399fe77e6867730@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161845

>
> Lana writes:
>
> I disagree with your intrepretaion only because it does't take into
> consideration that there has to be a beginning event in order for you to go
> back and modify it.  Not because of what you say above.  If Beaky didn't
> die, then why would you need to save him?  If Sirius wasn't captured and
> "kissed", then why would they need to go back and help him escape?  Your
> theory doesn't make sense to me at all.
>
> montims:


But he would have died, or been Kissed, if they had not gone back.  It did
not happen because they DID go back.  Sarah's explanation makes perfect
sense to me...


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




From babyblueblot at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Nov 22 14:52:58 2006
From: babyblueblot at yahoo.co.uk (babyblueblot)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:52:58 -0000
Subject: Letters from Dumbledore to Petunia / Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <ek02lf+109lt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek1o8a+mci7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161846

I'm really glad that my post has generated some interest, and I'm even more glad that I get to harp on about this a bit more; this, I think, is going to be my pet theory before the book is released.

Thank you, everybody who's posted canon relating to this topic, my
only internet access is at my future parents in law's house, where I
don't have ready access to my books, nor do I have the time to sift
through interviews. So, a big thanks.

What we know (thanks jen)

> JKR:   Why did he say my last letter? Why,
> obviously because there were letters before that

>

I don't expect everone to agree with me (in fact, I'd rather people
didn't) but can someone just get excited along with me about the
ramifications if it were true?

We only have one book left, I can't see it being of encyclopedic
proportions, and I'm  pretty sure that JKR has said the following
things (I'm sure you'll let me know if I'm mistaken);

1)Petunia is not a  squib, but this is a good guess.

2)There's more to Petunia than meets the eye

3)There is someone who manages to do magic later on in life

> Jen again: So there were letters to Petunia prior to the letter
> left with Harry on the doorstep.  Likely Dumbledore was warning
> Petunia about Voldemort during the time he was after James and
> Lily.

This is, of course, a distinct possibility. Probably just as likely as my theory, but somehow it doesn't get me as excited. Says a lot about me, I think, that I'm mose excited by the idea of missed
opportunities than by a secret bond with a sister she was obviously at odds with ( an old story to me).

> Jen R. very curious about those other letters and hoping Harry at
> least reads the one Dumbledore left on the doorstep.
>
 Wouldn't that be good though. Imagine how on earth you would write a letter like that? "I'm sorry you're an orphan, your parents were
killed by a powerful evil sourceror. Don't worry though, you got
you're own back, it seems you've killed him. At ther age of one."
(Please don't jump on my back, that was not written for accuracy, but for a small attempt at comedy value.)How scary would that be though?

Lana wrote:
> But there is absolutely nothing that I have seen so far that
> remotely says that she has ever gotten anything from DD. A
> Hogwarts letter would not constitute being from him. I would be
> from the "School"

And here I come undone. I've just gone and filched my sister-in-law's copy of philosopher's stone, and the letter to Harry is written by McGonagall. So, with lack of any supporting data, I will retire from this debate. But be assured, if I turn out to be right when the book's released, I will be the first back on here to say I told you so. (unlikely, I know, but a girl can always hope.)

Baby blue






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 22 17:35:18 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:35:18 -0000
Subject: Letters from Dumbledore to Petunia / Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <ek1o8a+mci7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek21om+2vc2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161847

> Jen: So there were letters to Petunia prior to the letter left
> with Harry on the doorstep.  Likely Dumbledore was warning Petunia 
> about Voldemort during the time he was after James and Lily.

Baby blue: 
> This is, of course, a distinct possibility. Probably just as
> likely as my theory, but somehow it doesn't get me as excited.
> Says a lot about me, I think, that I'm mose excited by the idea of
> missed opportunities than by a secret bond with a sister she was
> obviously at odds with ( an old story to me).

Jen:  Yeah, I know what you mean, it's a little ho hum and pretty 
easy to extrapolate from the text that Dumbledore had reason to 
contact Petunia during the First War.  The more exciting part for me 
is *how* Dumbledore surmised that, why would he think Voldemort even 
knew about Petunia?  This is where 'that awful boy' could come in if 
indeed Petunia was referring to someone other than James.  Maybe 
that awful boy was Snape passing on information about Lily's 
relatives being targeted. 

I wasn't sure what you meant about a secret bond, that Petunia and 
Lily did like each other at one time?  If that's what you meant I 
don't think that has to be the case, it's enough that Petunia knows 
more about the magical world than she's letting on without there 
needing to be a great friendship in the past.

Baby blue:
> Wouldn't that be good though. Imagine how on earth you would write
> a letter like that? "I'm sorry you're an orphan, your parents were
> killed by a powerful evil sourceror. Don't worry though, you got
> you're own back, it seems you've killed him. At ther age of one."
> (Please don't jump on my back, that was not written for accuracy,
> but for a small attempt at comedy value.)How scary would that be
> though?

Jen: Hehe!  Whatever it was I'm sure Petunia had a hissy fit once 
she assured the neighbors everything was fine and went inside. ;-) I 
wonder if there was a part of that letter only for Harry, bewitched 
for Harry's eyes or a letter to him tucked inside Petunia's letter?  
Dumbledore didn't seem concerned in OOTP that Harry hadn't read the 
letter before so I'm thinking it was mainly written to Petunia.  Now 
that Dumbledore is gone though, it would be poignant if there was a 
special message in there.  Whatever, I'm almost 100% certain Harry 
will read it since JKR loves writing letters and this is the ONE.

Baby blue:
> And here I come undone. I've just gone and filched my sister-in-
> law's copy of philosopher's stone, and the letter to Harry is 
> written by McGonagall. So, with lack of any supporting data, I
> will retire from this debate. But be assured, if I turn out to be
> right when the book's released, I will be the first back on here
> to say I told you so. (unlikely, I know, but a girl can always
> hope.)

Jen:  No, no wait!  Here's where the fun begins, this is where the 
speculation starts:  Petunia was the younger sister lets say, so 
with Lily already at Hogwarts and Petunia refusing her letter, 
Dumbledore himself felt he needed to make a last attempt. He saw 
such promise in Lily and hated to see her sister refuse her 
destiny. :-)  I'm sure you can come up with a better idea, lol.

Jen R.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 17:42:35 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:42:35 -0000
Subject: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard
In-Reply-To: <ek0dhi+nhhp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek226b+70p5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161848

Snow wrote:
<snip>
> I actually thought the detentions were set as a deterrent from 
> Harry's obsession of following Draco (on his free days) and getting 
> anymore involved in an already complicated situation that Dumbledore 
> and Snape were acting on; they didn't need Harry's reckless 
> involvement.  <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree. This is what I was trying to get at in my question about
Snape's detention in the Sectumsempra chapter discussion, which for
some reason isn't linked to the responses (Carol shakes her fist at
Yahoo!mort):

"11. <snip> Are the Saturday detentions primarily intended to punish
Harry by tormenting him with his father's indiscretions or does this
tactic disguise Snape's real purpose for keeping Harry in his custody
every Saturday until the end of term?"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161107?l=1

Snow: 
> James did change while he was still at school and learned how to 
> choose his fights and to conceal his more reckless behavior, 
> otherwise Lily would have never gone out with James. James would 
> never have grown to the person who saved Snape from werewolf Lupin
if he hadn't mastered his hatred to Snape over the right and wrong 
> spectrum. <snip>

Carol responds:
I'm not so sure. I always thought that the so-called Prank occurred
early in their sixth year, only a few months after the Pensieve
incident. I don't think it shows that James had already mastered his
hatred of Severus; I think it *taught* him to do so. (IMO, he was
motivated by the desire to keep Sirius from being expelled and Remus
from killing a classmate or turning him into a werewolf rather than
any concern for Severus per se. But, like the adult Snape, he could
hate someone without wanting him dead.) I think the incident (and the
desire to go out with Lily) motivated James to control his hexing of
people (other than Severus) who annoyed him rather than the other way
around. (Just my opinion; I also think that Severus could take care of
himself when he wasn't taken unawares, two against one, which made
hexing him more fun than, say, enlarging the head of a kid who
couldn't fight back.)

> Snow:
<snip>
 
> I've always felt very lonely in my Trelawney-is-for-real vessel. 
> Trelawney has made more than most of her predictions accurately 
> (which I have written about several times since OOP). <snip> 
> As to the direct question, I would have to say that this has only 
> reinforced what I had already felt about Trelawney's predictions, 
> which is that she does make accurate predictions but does not always 
> interpret them correctly. <snip>

Carol responds:
You're not alone. I agree that Trelawney sees things in the tea leaves
and the crystal ball that HRH and even Dumbledore can't see; she just
interprets them incorrectly (the "Grim" that turns out to be an
Animagus, for example). Of course, she's also simply a fraud on
occasion, e.g., the self-fulfilling prophecy about Neville breaking
teacups or the prediction that students will get the flu, but "one of
our number will leave us at Easter" is hard to explain in those terms
and the Lightning-Struck Tower is even harder.

> Snow:
> 
> Although the situation that occurred at the door has been discussed 
> intensely over how Snape could have only heard part of the prophecy, 
> I thought I should chime in 'here' with a realistic reason how this 
> could have happened. It's very quick and to the point: Muffliato! 
> 
> Halfway through the prophecy, Snape is detected listening at the
door but the barman issued a Muffliato spell so that Snape could not
hear the end portion. 

Carol responds:
How would the barman (Aberforth) know Snape's own spell? He hasn't
been hanging around the schoolyard for the last five years. And if he
cast it, even silently, Snape would know the counterspell. The best
explanation we have so far is a "commotion" outside the door that
would prevent Snape from hearing the second half of the Prophecy, but
that still doesn't fit with "thrown out halfway through the Prophecy."
The versions aren't consistent, period.
> 
Snow:
> As to the question at hand all I have to say is how old is Snape 
> during this process? Would Dumbledore have considered Snape as a 
> prospective Professor at his age, at best 20 (not much older than
the young Tom Riddle who asked the previous professor for a teaching 
> position)?  

Carol:
If I'm correct that it happened on Halloween 1979 (Harry's approximate
conception date and JKR's favorite day for significant events) and
Snape was born in 1959 (consistent with his being "35 or 36" in GoF,
which occurs in 1994-95), he would have been twenty years old--as you
say, probably too young to be hired as a teacher. But as I keep
saying, Trelawney's interview did not occur at the usual time (July or
August). It was a "cold, wet night" and she was hired somewhat late in
the school year ("*almost*" sixteen years" before her inspection by
Trelawney in OoP compared with a straight "fourteen years" for Snape).
At the time of Trelawney's interview, the DADA position would already
have been filled for the year and the Potions position would still be
held by Slughorn. And I can't see Severus Snape, multi-talented though
he is, applying for the Divination position (though it's possible that
Trelawney thought that's what he was doing based on the fact that he
was hired to teach Potions almost two years later).
 
> Snow:
> 
> Snape and Wormtail were never together
at least not till Spinner's 
> End! 

Carol:
Agreed!

Snow: 
> Those `darn' sock's! 

Carol:
Groan! JKR loves puns. She'd probably appreciate that one.

Carol, happy to find herself agreeing with Snow on so many answers





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 22 17:56:08 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:56:08 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ek01qa+qa10@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek22vo+rkea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161849

Betsy hp:
> But on the flip side, JKR is taking an odd tactic of having only 
> Dobby actually express a certain level of unhappiness with the state
> of house-elves.  She's not hinted at a previous house-elf
> rebellion.  No other house-elf has jumped on Dobby's bandwagon.  In
> fact, there's an impression that Dobby would be thrilled to be owned
> by Harry.  And Harry doesn't seem all that bothered to be Kreacher's 
> owner, for that matter.

Jen:  Seeing as I can't add much to the geo-political, literary, 
sociological, etc. areas <g>, I'll offer a little magical thought.  
I've always wondered how exactly the House elves were enchanted and if 
their love of work was part of the whole bewitchment thing?  I mean, 
if you're going to enchant a being to serve a master and do all the 
dirty work, it seems like you'd enchant them to *like* it, too, or at 
least not see any other options. 

If so, then maybe Dobby's better sense of freedom is due to his 
fighting the enchantment a little bit with the Malfoys and then by 
getting socks.  And Winky didn't fight at all, but since she was fired 
she hasn't exactly been pulling her weight in the Hogwarts kitchen!  
Both might have broken through some of the magical bonds around them 
in different ways which lead them to act differently than the rest of 
the elves.

I'm a dreamer though, hoping the enchantment is lifted and knowing 
there's simply not enough space in the last book to go there. Sigh.

Jen R.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 18:00:32 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:00:32 -0000
Subject: Sword of Gryffindor and Gryffindor colors (Was: Gryffindor and Slytherin colors)
In-Reply-To: <4563B5E2.4060808@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <ek2380+i1k6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161850

Hestia Lurkwell wrote:
> Ummm... wouldn't just the hilt of Godric's sword be gold? The blade
> of a sword, magical or otherwise wouldn't be gold or gold colored;
> because it would have to be hard, not malleable, which gold isn't.
It would also have to be effective against different sorts of magical
creatures; which gold isn't.. Iron and steel in mythologies are
usually proof against fairy folk, if not other beings.

Carol responds:
I think you're right that only the hilt would be gold. it's also
encrusted with rubies, making it scarlet and gold like Fawkes (the
Gryffindor colors).

I presume that the rubies have magical properties in themselves (Snape
would know what they are!), in addition to whatever enchantments were
placed on the sword, probably including protection or Love. I'm not
sure which properties JKR would have in mind, maybe something like these:

"The red Ruby is an ancient love stone of love and endurance. Its
focus on the heart encourages romantic love, and promotes the ideal
relationship. The ruby also releases disorientated or trapped love,
and protects heart from suffering. This gemstone promotes the
attainment of love objectives including health, happiness, wealth, and
spiritual knowledge. The ruby can enhance dreams and attract great
wealth."

http://www.romantic-lyrics.com/magical-gemstones.shtml

I'm not sure about the dreams and wealth, but if Love is Harry's
weapon, a sword encrusted with a gemstone associated with love might
be a big help to him (aside from its associations with Godric
Gryffindor and its probable efficacy against Nagini, given that it
already killed the Basilisk).

Carol, wondering if anyone knows of a better site enumerating the
magical properties of rubies as they might relate to the Sword of
Gryffindor





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 18:32:55 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:32:55 -0000
Subject: How did DD know that Fake!Moody was Barty Jr.? (Was: Hogwarts House-elves )
In-Reply-To: <ek1m9f+pto2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek254n+gn0i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161851

PforParvati wrote:

> > Hi..I have one doubt here. How did Dumbledore know in advance that
Winky would be needed there? I mean Dumbledore realised that it was a
fake Moody. But how did he relate it to Crouch & Winky before 
polyjuice potion wearing off.
> 
Pippin responded:
> Sirius is probably the missing link here. He knew that Harry had
seen Bartemius Crouch on the Map, burgling Snape's office. We also
know that Sirius was in contact with Dumbledore (quoting from memory,
> "You are not Sirius's only correspondent.") 

Carol adds:
Also, Dumbledore had been studying memories related to the various
people who could have put Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire,
including Barty Crouch Sr. He would also be thinking about Barty Sr.'s
disappearance, and he would know from Snape that Polyjuice ingredients
had been stolen from his supplies. So when Fake!Moody disobeyed him
and ran off with Harry, everything would come together in his mind. He
would know who the Death Eater impersonating Moody had to be, even
though Barty Jr. was presumed dead. And if, as Pippin suggests, DD
knew from SB that Bartemius Crouch had been burgling Snape's office,
that would mean that Bartemius Crouch was the impersonator. But it
couldn't be Barty Sr., who was dead, and who had been seen in the same
place at the same time as Fake!Moody, ergo it had to be Barty Jr.

Here's a link to an old post of mine on the topic if you're interested:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/123284

Carol, wondering how Harry can consider the possibility that DD is "a
foolish old man" (HBP) after a deduction of this magnitude





From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 22 19:11:45 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 14:11:45 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf  -  Madness,
 Magic, and Honor
Message-ID: <3746937.1164222705617.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161852

Magpie:
>And why isn't Dobby 
>then mad for not going along with Lucius' opinions on Harry? Why 
>isn't it madness for the House Elves at Hogwarts to not clean up 
>Gryffindor Tower when they're insulted? Or Winky to continue to 
>worry over Mr. Crouch after he fires her? It seems like Dobby is 
>considered crazy by other House Elves because he wants freedom, not 
>because he has ideas about which masters are proper to serve. 

Bart: 
Dobbie is definitely insane by house elf standards. They have a different psychology than humans. Now, JKR hints that they were a manufactured race, and it is hard wired into them, and it could also be argued that Dobby is an evolutionary step for house elves; of course, survival of the fittest does NOT mean survival of the best. 

Now, let's take a look at house elf psychology. Their motivating factor is to follow the orders of their masters/mistresses. They are magically bound to do so, as well. Their pleasure/pain centers are probably geared for it (not that JKR necessarily thought it through this far), so that it is so painful for them to even think of disloyalty that they have to deliver pain to themselves (kind of like when an itch is so bad that you scratch it until it is bleeding) to overcome the bad feeling. The problems with Winkie and Kreacher is when their masters are at odds with each other; they tend to be geared towards the master to whom they have been attached to the longest. I (and. apparently, so does  Dumbledore) am certain that, had Sirius not resented Kreacher so much (and there was the additional problem of Mrs. Black's portrait still being around), and had used more patience, Kreacher could have been brought around. 

Now, if a house-elf is fired, their entire motivating factor is removed; they would generally go into a funk. To take a salary for what they do is several magnitudes worse than prostitution for humans. So, the clothing Hermoine leaves behind are more than an insult to the house elves; it is like leaving hidden poison needles. Dobby was more than able to see a higher good; he had managed to overcome instincts that should have been hard-wired into him. From house elf standards, he is as insane as, for example, a human who steals babies from hospitals because s/he thinks that s/he can give them a better home. 

Bart



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 19:16:05 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:16:05 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves
In-Reply-To: <ek1ssi+9b3a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek27lm+eg69@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161853

--- "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Betsy Hp wrote:
> > <snip>JKR is taking an odd tactic of having only 
> > Dobby actually express a certain level of unhappiness
> > with the state of house-elves.  ...  No other 
> > house-elf has jumped on Dobby's bandwagon. In  fact,
> >  there's an impression that Dobby would be thrilled 
> > to be owned by Harry.  And Harry doesn't seem all 
> > that bothered to be Kreacher's owner, for that 
> > matter.
> 
> > ...  Honestly, I'm not sure  where JKR is going to
> > take the house-elf thing.  With one book left to go
> > I'm not sure she can squeeze in a freedom for 
> > house-elves sub-plot. <snip>
> 

bboyminn:

First a couple of brief comment to Betsy. I think Harry 
IS very much bothered by owning Kreacher. First, by the
idea of owning a 'slave' at all, then by the idea of
specifically owning a mad traitorous trecherous Elf like
Kreacher. But what can he do??? I think he did the only
thing he reasonable could which was put Kreacher at 
Hogwarts where he is essentially warehoused and out of
the way.

As to where JKR is going with the House-Elf sub-plot I
have many ideas, each as farfetched and unlikely as
the next.

There is my theory, as mentioned twice in as many days,
that Elvin magic is limited by their master's permission.
Once Harry discovers this and gives free unfettered rein
to all Elfin magic at Hogwarts, the Elves could play a
huge part in my equally speculative 'Battle of Hogwarts'.
Though to some extent, we have already had an attack on
Hogwarts, are we likely to have another one? 

As I said, each speculation as unlikely as the next.


> Carol responds:
> ... I agree with Magpie that House-Elf slavery, which
> ... is voluntary servitude ..., doesn't really parallel
> human slavery, pre-Civil War American or otherwise.
> 

bboyminn:

The forbidden 'DITTO'. House-elf servitude is very 
complex and, especially given how little of Elf/Human
history we have, is very difficult to get a handle on.
The best we can do is draw parallels to small aspects of
it. But I don't think there is anything in human history
that is truly analogous to it on a broad scale.

> Carol :
>
> But you make an interesting point here: we know of no
> previous House-Elf rebellion. ...It's one thing for 
> the Wizards to take House-Elf servitude for granted, 
> ... but the House-Elves seem to take it for granted, 
> too, and even to want it. You're right that Dobby would
> be thrilled to be owned by Harry, IMO; he's voluntarily
> accepted Harry as his master. ...Clearly, working, 
> specifically [working for humans in]... domestic 
> responsibilities, is ingrained into a house-elf's 
> nature, .... This view of life and work is not 
> indoctrination or enforced domination. Even a freed Elf
> wants to work for a human master, ...
> 

bboyminn:

Hope I didn't trim you statement down too much. I think
your statements are right on the money, and this genuine
desire to serve is precisely why 'human slavery' is a 
bad analogy. Human slaves could be fooled into thinking
their life was great, and in a very rare cases life was
probably pretty good. But I think it is truly in the 
nature of elves to serve others. That's not 
indoctrination, or illusion, or delusion, it truly is at
the core of their being. 

Think of the mythology of this type of creature; brownies,
etc.... In a small sense these creatures are pranksters.
They thought it great fun and a great laugh to imagine 
the tailor or shoemaker coming down in the morning and 
finding all the fabulous products sitting there waiting
for them. If the tailor or the shoemaker acknowledged the
Elves by offerring 'pay' of some type, it spoiled the 
joke and the elves left.

Again the above statement isn't absolute, it just servers
to illustrate that the motivations of this type of 
creature are far far different than slaves.

> Carol :
>
> ...
> 
> Freedom is not necessarily a wonderful thing ... They
> can't even look in the Daily Prophet for jobs.
> ...
> 

bboyminn:

Note, there is the House-Elf Relocation Office at the
Ministry of Magic. But I doubt that it provides the Elves
with much choice. They just go to the house of the next
wizard who comes along with a need. To some extent that
creates forced loyalty. Originally, they were tied to
the House of their ancestors and had good reason to 
maintain fierce loyalty to both their own Masters and to
their ancestor. But when simply assigned to a house at 
random, their loyalty is merely a by-product of their 
nature, but is not heart felt.

I believe in the beginning, house-elves were very much
like Brownies. Their work was voluntary. Wizard however
knowing a good thing when they saw it, twisted their
relationship with Elves, manipulating the Elfin honor,
pride, and loyalty into the enslavement we have today.

> Carol:
> ...
>
> So I think Hermione is wrong to want to free the 
> House-Elves, and I don't think that any program of 
> indoctrination is going to turn most of them into 
> Dobbys. What's needed, IMO, is some sort of code
> regulating the treatment of House-Elves,.... Humane 
> treatment, yes. Freedom, no. At least, I think that's
> the House-Elves' perspective.
> 

bboyminn:

Absolutely, it is not House-Elves that are 'broken' and
therefore House-Elves do not need to be fixed. It is 
wizard who are 'broken', and they need a huge attitude
adjustment with regard to Elves. I speculated that at
some point, beyond the series, that Hermione would get
the idea to truly equate House-Elves with Slavery and
make a strong case for it. That puts the wizard world
in a precarious position; they either have to admit 
that Elves are free self-determining creatures, or that
they are slaves held against their will. 

The wizard world may be a bit behind the times, but I
speculated that none of them would openly admit to 
holding slaves, and that reluctance to endorse slavery
would force them to admit that Elves were free and
served by their own choice. That little twist of 
semantics would open the door to fair and honorable
treatment of Elves by wizards. Bright girl that 
Hermione.

Even if this is just my own fan-fic fantasy, I think
it helps illustrate the nature of the relationship
between elves and humans. I genuinely think that the
current system of 'enslavement' has been brought about
by centuries of wizards manipulating the good nature of
Elves. 


> Carol, 
> not at all bothered by Harry's owning House-Elves as
> long as he treats them fairly (just how that applies 
> to Kreacher beyond ordering him to keep himself clean
> is anybody's guess)
>

bboyminn:

Given Hermione's influence and Harry's clear friendship 
with Dobby, I don't think Harry would allow himself to
own Dobby or any other Elf who came into his service 
freely, not in the truest sense. I think he would find 
some honorable way to bind them freely together to their
mutual benefit. I think he would find some way to go back
to the original relationship between Elves and humans in 
which Elves, in a sense, served in the spirit of fun, and
they chose when and if they would leave.

I know I haven't said much more that 'me too', but I hope
I have at least done so in a way that moves the subject
forward.

Steve/bboyminn





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 19:28:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 19:28:56 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611220846w1ded0294r399fe77e6867730@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ek28do+6le0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161854

Lana wrote:
> >
> > I disagree with your intrepretaion only because it does't take
into consideration that there has to be a beginning event in order for
you to go back and modify it.  Not because of what you say above.  If
Beaky didn't die, then why would you need to save him?  If Sirius
wasn't captured and "kissed", then why would they need to go back and
help him escape?  Your theory doesn't make sense to me at all.
> >
montims:
 
> But he would have died, or been Kissed, if they had not gone back. 
It did not happen because they DID go back.  Sarah's explanation makes
perfect sense to me...

Carol adds:

Exactly. Going back in time doesn't change what happened a
hypothetical first time. There is no first time. It just prevents what
would have happened had they not gone back. HRH think they're hearing
Macnair killing Buckbeak but they're actually hearing Macnair's axe
hitting the fence because Buckbeak has been rescued by
TimeTurned!Harry and Hermione. Harry thinks he's seeing his father
casting a Patronus, but he's actually seeing his Time!Turned self. ("I
knew I could do it because I'd already done it.") There is no
hypothetical "first time" that was changed. There's only the one time
that they lived through when Harry and Hermione were in two places at
once, as DD slyly informs Snape 9in the form of a rhetorical question
whose significance Fudge won't understand).

JKR uses the unreliable narrator, interpreting events from Harry's
perspective, to make the reader think that Buckbeak died, but he
didn't, nor did Sirius Black have his soul sucked. Those events were
*prevented*, not changed, by Harry and Hermione from the future.
Events can't be changed using a Time turner or Harry could prevent his
parents' deaths or save Sirius from Bellatrix and the Veil.
Voldemort's resurrection could also be undone if Harry could just grab
a Time Turner from the MoM and go back to events fo the previous year.
But Time!Turned Harry wasn't there when those events happened, so he
couldn't prevent them from happening. You can't bring back the dead;
you can't undo what's already happened. Not even in the HP books.

Carol, hoping we've seen the last of the Time Turners and that time
travel in Book 7 is restricted to memories placed in a Pensieve





From inyia at yahoo.es  Wed Nov 22 19:01:22 2006
From: inyia at yahoo.es (inyia)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:01:22 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <00ff01c70e3f$cf710e90$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <mailman.147.1576215649.17272.hpforgrownups@archive.hpfgu.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 161855

Lana Writes:

But.. Had the kids not gone back in time, Buckbeak would have died. Hermoine even saw herself, so we KNOW that this is why he didn't die. They had already taken him.

I must have missed something.. How is it well known that going back will not change the future or affect it? Freeing Beaky and Sirius is changing the future isn't it?



Inyia:
--> The point is that we did not see Buckbeak DIE in the first time, and we only suppose what had happened. But everybody sees Sirius fall into the veil so, if we go back in time, we would alter the space time continuum.

If we go back in time and save Dumbledore, the same thing happens.

The only valid point in order of time travelling is, for instance, to inform Dumbledore that Snape would kill him and by that way Dumbledore assures that Harry finds something he would find useful sometime in the future or something like that. But not altering the past because JKR's time travel doesn't work this way.

Inyia

 




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Wed Nov 22 20:16:33 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:16:33 -0800
Subject: Snape's Last Confidant?  (was: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Seer Overheard)
In-Reply-To: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
References: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <733742029.20061122121633@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161856

(Note: This post assumes DDM!Snape.)

Sunday, November 19, 2006, 6:56:03 PM, dumbledore11214 wrote:

d> 7. "Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though 
d> he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he 
d> said, 'I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely.'" What was 
d> Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

Dave:
I think he's *very* tempted to tell Harry the *real* reason
he trusts Snape, but he doesn't *dare* tell Harry or indeed
*anyone* why Snape is truly DDM, because the danger is too
great that LV could then get the truth out of them via Legimancy.

But I stand by my theory that there must be *one* living person who
knows the truth (and is therefore currently putting on a
Cannes Film Festival-worthy acting performance), or else Snape is
now useless as a spy.  In spite of the arguments already raised
against the idea, I still think it's Hermione -- Who else could
conceivably master Occlumancy as well as Snape has?  (Unless Jo is
planning an ironic twist by bestowing masterful Occlumancy talent
on Mr. Rubeus "I shouldn'ta said that" Hagrid.)

-- 
Dave




From Koinonia2 at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 22 20:18:40 2006
From: Koinonia2 at hotmail.com (koinonia02)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:18:40 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
Message-ID: <ek2bb1+p6vb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161857

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "inyia" Message #161855 wrote:

> Inyia:
 
>The only valid point in order of time travelling is, for instance, 
>to inform Dumbledore that Snape would kill him and by that way 
>Dumbledore assures that Harry finds something he would find useful 
>sometime in the future or something like that. But not altering the 
>past because JKR's time travel doesn't work this way.


"K":

According to JKR, time travel *can* alter the past. I'm not a big 
fan of time travel but it is hard to dismiss Hermione's comments in 
PoA.

---------------

'Hermione,' said Harry suddenly, 'what if we-we just run in there,
and grab Pettigrew-'

'No!' said Hermione in a terrified whisper. 'Don't you understand?
We're breaking one of the most important wizarding laws! Nobody's
supposed to change time, nobody! You heard Dumbledore, if we're seen-
PoA/Ch 21/Pgs 291-291/UK

---------------

'There must be something that happened around now he wants us to
change,' he said slowly.
PoA/Ch 21/Pg 290/UK

---------------

'...There's nothing we can do! We came back to help Sirius. We're
not supposed to be doing anything else!'
PoA/Ch 21/pg 298/UK

---------------

'Hermione!' said Harry suddenly. 'We've got to move!'

'We mustn't, I keep telling you-'

'Not to interfere! But Lupin's going to run into the Forest, right
at us!'
PoA/Ch 21/pg 299/UK

---------------

'I think I'd better go outside again, you know,' said Harry
slowly. 'I can't see what's going on - we won't know when it's time-'

Hermione looked up. Her expression was suspicious.

'I'm not going to try and interfere,' said Harry quickly.
PoA/Ch 21/pg 299/UK

---------------

...but it has happened:

'Exactly! You wouldn't understand, you might even attack yourself!
Don't you see? Professor McGonagall told me what awful things have
happened when wizards have meddled with time...loads of them ended
up killing their past or future selves by mistake!'
PoA/Ch 21/pg 292/UK








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 20:33:06 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:33:06 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <016801c70e52$598935a0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ek2c62+u4fq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161858

---  "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> wrote:

> Lana Wrote:
> >
> > But.. Had the kids not gone back in time, Buckbeak
> > would have died. Hermoine even saw herself, so we 
> > KNOW that this is why he didn't die. They had already
> > taken him.
> 
> >Sarah wrote:
> >Uh oh, this argument again. :)
> >Hermione saw herself? I think that the trio heard both
> >Harry and Hermione under the cloak, but they didn't 
> >know who it was at the time.
> > 
> >Harry also saw himself cast the Patronus Charm, and 
> >likewise didn'trealize who it was.
> 
>   Lana writes:
> 
>   I understand exactly what you are saying.  What **I**
> am saying is that "it" ... has to have happened a first
> time in order for it to continue repeating itself. A 
> ball will not bounce until someone bounces it first... 
> 
> At some point, there had to be a "first" trio that 
> changed the original death.  Buckbeak had to have died
> at some point or there would have been no need for them
> to "save" him.  ...
> 
> This goes back to the...  It had to have happened at 
> some point or there would have been no need to "save"
> him. ...
> 

bboyminn:

You are free to keep thinking that, but I guarantee you
that that line of thought will bring you nothing but
headaches. It creates impossible to resolve time-loops
and paradoxes. Time travel already creates massive
paradoxes, our goal is to minimize them not complicate
them.

It is not so much that you can't go back in time and
change things as it is that you SHOULDN'T.

TT!Harry and TT!Hermione (TT!=Time Traveling) did not
alter history, the created it. History in this incidence
never changes, only our knowledge of that history is 
is altered.

Why did Harry and Hermione time travel if Buckbeak and
Sirius had already been saved? Why? Because at that
point in time, they do not know that either had been
saved. They act on the knowledge they have, and it is
only after they have time traveled that they understand
history as it truly unfolded. 

Time, events, and history are not changed here only our
knowledge of the hows, whys, and details is altered. 

To literally change history is a very dangerous thing
because it forces the entire universe to shift to a new
previously non-existant timeline. "Back to the Future"
and "The Butterfly Effect" are good examples. Small
seemingly insignificant events are changed in the past
that over time create huge massive changes to the present
and future. In the case of Marty McFly, he simply keeps 
changing the past until he finds a future he can live 
with. Yet, he gives no consideration to the emensely 
negative effects his preferrred future has on other
people. 

So, once again, TT!Harry and TT!Hermione didn't alter
history, they created it. They created the one and
only history that ever existed. 

Harry can't save Sirius because he didn't. It is a
documented fact of history that Sirius went behind
the Veil, and changing that could have mammoth
consequences in the future.

Now again, I remind you that our preception of history
is not alway accurate. Example, Harry and Hermione 
time travel back to save Sirius and Buckbeak because
their preception of history was inaccurate. They had
assumed Buckbeak was dead, but were not at that time
aware that they had travel back and saved him. It
is not history, but our knowledge and preception of
history that changes.

Keep in mind, that through all this, Harry and Hermione
experience linear time. Three hours of life plus three
hours of time travel to them are six continuous hours.
To the rest of the universe, it is three continuous 
hours.

I believe if Harry or one of the other characters time
travels it will either be to gather information that
can be used in the present, or it will be to create
history as it already exists.

As an illustration, Harry may travel back to the top of
the Tower, and just as Snape casts the AK, Harry will 
cast a spell to throw Dumbledore over the precipice and
float him gently to the ground. Snape's Killing Curse 
simply hits thin air. From that point on, Dumbledore
will cooperate in the deception of his death to lure
Voldemort out into the open.

That doesn't change history. There is no first history
were Dumbledore died and second history where he lived.
There is only one history that we the observers have
a distorted view of, and once all the information is
made available to us, we will understand history for 
what it was.

Now, if Dumbledore truly died that night, then there is
no changing it, or it would be immensely unwise to try 
to change it. 

In the example above and in the Sirius/Buckbeak incident
we have falsely assumed history that characters base their 
decisions on, and later we have the true knowledge of
history as it actually occurred.

In the case of Sirius's death, he can't be saved because
he wasn't saved. Several people including Harry saw him
go through the Veil, and there is no 'trick of the light',
smoke and mirrors, or mispreception of history that can 
alter that.

In Dumbledore's case, he most likely is dead, but we can't
be certain that that isn't our misinterpretation of 
history. There is room for Dumbledore to be covertly 
saved. There are enough inconsistencies in that event that
an alternate more accurate interpretation of history is
possible. Though very very unlikely.

So, wise time travelers do their best to be merely 
observers, if they do anything, it must be to create 
history as it is or will be known to exist. They can't 
or shouldn't meddle through time spawning endless new 
timelines, the long term consequences of which can never
be fully understood until it is much too late.

You are certainly free to continue to believe that time
happens twice, but I tell you that this way lies madness,
or at least a good headache. I really believe that the
path of least resistance is to accept that time only 
happens once. 

But again, you are free to hold to your theory.

Steve/bboyminn





From sweety12783 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 21:49:24 2006
From: sweety12783 at yahoo.com (Nina Baker)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:49:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <ejtuhf+dia6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061122214924.37929.qmail@web84001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161859

Hello,
   
  I have theory that is not so far-fetched. I don't think that 
was Snape that took the Unbreakable Vow. I think that was 
Dumbledore (under Polyjuice) pretending to be Snape.  Polyjuice 
has been proven to be a good way of spying on the enemy. If 
Dumbledore took that vow, then the night he was killed makes 
more sense. He pleaded for Snape to kill him not because he 
wanted to just save Draco and Harry, he was also trying to 
save Snape. 
   
  If Severus did not kill Dumbledore, Dumbledore would have 
died and the simple fact that Shape did not die would have 
made the death eaters, especially Narcissa and Bellatrix very 
suspicious. If could have cost him his cover and his life. 
   
  But since Snape agreed (in the argument he had with 
Dumbledore) to do kill him if the siutation arises, he agreed 
to play along and continue his work for the Order.
   
  Just some thoughts. Tell me what you think.
   
  sweety12783
   
   
   







From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov 22 21:54:01 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:54:01 -0500
Subject: Harry's exile?
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAgodQbeY5i0itNotBojo5GQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161860

shravya_ivyhall:
"In the "Half B.P.," after the death of DD, Harry contemplates 
whether to stay in the school or to go out and form a team 
against LV. What do you think of that? Will he really do that?"

BAW:
I think that he will return to Hogwarts.   First, Harry has a 
great deal to learn before he is ready to go against Voldemort.  
Second, Hogwarts is such a repository of magical knowledge--both 
in the library and in the persons of the faculty--that Harry 
would be a fool not to go back.

However, I do not think that he will go back as a regular NEWTS 
student.  He will be designated as a 'special', taking intensive 
individual lessons from the various teachers on the skills he 
particularly needs, with periodic excursions to Horcrux-hunt and 
for other preparatory missions.

BAW










From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov 22 21:49:26 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:49:26 -0500
Subject: Wizard gardens and food
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAHTmBBdnzGU+NATTono+nTQEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161861

Shelley:
"big is the Weasley property? For all the talk of them being 
poor, you can't be too poor if you own land that feeds you."

BAW:
Have you ever heard the expression "land poor"?  It basically 
means that the family has a lot of land (usually inherited), 
but very little actual cash.  Often the land is not of such a 
nature as to be readily sellable, either.  The Weasleys could 
be in that position.  Perhaps the land is even entailed, which
means that it cannot be sold, but is only held in trust for the 
next heir (usually in the male line, although depending on how 
the original grant was phrased it may pass in the female line 
in default of a direct male heir.)  

BAW









From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 22 22:27:49 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:27:49 -0000
Subject: That diary.....
In-Reply-To: <ek1ui7+ctpv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek2it5+jgde@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161862

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

 > To repeat an important point, I agree with you that there's no such
> thing as an accidental Horcrux. Whether or not the diary contained a
> soul bit that came out along with the memory because young Tom had
> already committed a murder (and I'm only considering that as a
> possibility, not arguing that it happened), *the diary was not a
> Horcrux until Tom cast that spell,* which I don't think he could have
> done until some time after he talked to Slughorn in his sixth year and
> probably not until after he'd left Hogwarts since, as I said in the
> portion of my post that you snipped, it's unlikely that he could find
> directions for creating a Horcrux at Hogwarts and he didn't get them
> from Slughorn. Possibilities for where he learned the incantation and
> the exact procedure for encasing a Horcrux include a visit to
> Grindelwald, whom I take to be the other Horcrux-maker known to both
> DD and LV, or books he bought in Knockturn Alley while he was working
> at Borgin and Burke's.
> 
> Carol, who is *not* arguing for accidental Horcruxes, only that the
> diary was a powerful magical object, intended to be interactive,
> before it was a Horcrux

Geoff:
I think I tend to agree with you. Since Myrtle's murder was in Tom's Fifth 
Year and he was asking Slughorn about Horcruxes in the Lower Sixth, 
I am inclined to think that he found out the spells required to convert 
the diary into an object to hold his preserved memories and, as such, 
it was a very different animal to a Horcrux at the beginning.

After all, in his conversation with Harry, the following occurs:
'"Are you a ghost?" said Harry uncertainly.
"A memory," said Riddle quietly. "Preserved in a diary for fifty years."'

(COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.227 UK edition)

Slughorn also makes it clear that creating a Horcrux is a definite 
premeditated act.

'"But how do you do it?"
"By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. 
Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux 
would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn 
portion -"
"Encase? But how- ?"
"Therer is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" said Slughorn...'
(HBP "Horcruxes" p.465 UK edition)

By killing Myrtle, Riddle had created a tear in his soul - but not a 
Horcrux. It would seem that, by the time he approached Slughorn, 
he had heard something about Horcruxes but obviously had only 
skimpy information.

Based on that, I put my money firmly on the side of the argument 
that there is no such thing as an accidental Horcrux. It does lend 
credence to the theory that a Horcrux can be created later to act 
as a receptacle for a soul piece. I wonder however whether there is 
some sort of time limit so that a Horcrux cannot be created for a 
murder long past and the soul piece gets left floating around so 
that Voldemort could not do something like making Harry a Horcrux
after he regained his body.

But, there again, my whole view of Harry not being a Horcux is, if 
Voldemort had at some point made him into one, why would he
then persistently try to kill Harry which would bring about the 
destruction of a section of his own soul?

Geoff
Sticking to my "Harry is a Noncrux and will live" theories





From sweety12783 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 21:34:46 2006
From: sweety12783 at yahoo.com (Nina Baker)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 13:34:46 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <ek2c62+u4fq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061122213446.93579.qmail@web84013.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161863

I think that Harry will go back in time but for different reasons. 
What if Harry goes back in time and destroys the Hocruxes before 
his family is attacked? Harry would change the course of history. 
Not only will LV die completely that night, he would save the 
lives of Dumbledore, Sirius, Cedric, and many others. He could 
even guarantee that Wormtail does not get away with those murders 
he committed. Everything would end with Harry surrounded by the 
people he loves. He may not have to go to the Dursleys since 
Sirius would be willing to care for him.
   
  Dumbledore has given him a lot of information. But one of the 
problems with searching for information about LV's earlier life 
(during the time when he was creating the Hocruxes) is that most 
of the people who may have known some small details have either 
died or are missing. If Harry would go back in time he might be 
able to gather more clues to the location to the other Hocruxes. 
   
  Also Harry may even be able to get more information as to why 
Snape turned or even see Snape's life changing event. Either way 
Harry will be better off going back in time. As for the time-
turners being destroyed, I would not be suprised if Dumbledore 
owns a time-turner and in his will he gives Harry the time-turner. 
(Dumbledore's office is full of rare magical objects one could be 
a time-turner). 
   
  Tell me what you think.
   
  sweety12783
   
   
   








From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 22:35:24 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:35:24 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ek1ssi+9b3a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek2jbc+eqb0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161864

Betsy Hp:
But you can't use Gone with the Wind as an accurate portrayal of the
attitude of American slaves. It was written in the 1930's and
looked back at the South with sepia colored glasses. And Uncle
Tom's Cabin, even while giving us "affectionate and faithful"
slaves, was written expressly to fight *against* slavery. So it
wasn't trying to suggest that ending slavery would be cruel to the
slaves.

a_svirn:
But that's exactly what I am saying, Betsy. If Beecher Stowe wrote 
about defiant and rebellious slaves, eager to free themselves from 
the white man's yoke, we could dismiss Scarlett's "mammy" as a sort 
of anomaly, or even wishful thinking on Mitchell's part. But thing is 
the picture they both paint is remarkably similar. The only 
difference is that one is looking at it misty-eyed, while other is 
genuinely appalled. So I'd say it's a good bet that "mammy" was very 
much the norm. 

Carol:
<Snip> I agree with
Magpie that House-Elf slavery, which in most cases is voluntary
servitude despite the binding magical contracts, doesn't really
parallel human slavery, pre-Civil War American or otherwise.

a_svirn:
How come it's "voluntary" servitude, when we were told quite 
distinctly that it's *enslavement* enforced by certain charms? 
Moreover, two out of three elves we've seen so far rendered their 
services most *in*voluntary. As far as I can see the only voluntary 
slaves in the WW are death eaters. 

Carol:
But you make an interesting point here: we know of no previous
House-Elf rebellion.

a_svirn:
Well, if it comes to that, was there a great slave rebellion in pre-
Civil War America? (And the Civil War wasn't exactly a *rebellion*, 
since it wasn't initiated by slaves.) Or in the British colonies? Or 
anywhere else, for that matter? The only example I can think of right 
now is the *Servile* War of Spartacus in Ancient Rom. But then, 
Spartacus and his comrades gladiators were men born free (and some of 
them even quite high-born), trained in combat and captured in 
battles. They knew what it's like to be free and didn't have any 
emotional bonds with their masters (unless we can count hatred). 
Hereditary slavery is different. And house-elves slavery is of a 
hereditary sort. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 22:54:09 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 22:54:09 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ek1ssi+9b3a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek2keh+t8np@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161865

> Carol, not at all bothered by Harry's owning House-Elves as long as he
> treats them fairly (just how that applies to Kreacher beyond ordering
> him to keep himself clean is anybody's guess)

a_svirn:
That reminds me of my favorite line from Bernard Shaw, when a young 
gentleman asks his valet's advice on correct way of breaking with his 
fianc?e. The valet says, "There is no correct way of jilting, Sir. It 
is incorrect in itself". Same here. You can't treat a slave fairly, 
because ownership of a slave is unfair in itself. 





From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 22 23:04:22 2006
From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 15:04:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  Harry's exile?
Message-ID: <20061122230422.88739.qmail@web54514.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161866

shravya_ivyhall:
"In the "Half B.P.," after the death of DD, Harry contemplates 
whether to stay in the school or to go out and form a team 
against LV. What do you think of that? Will he really do that?"

BAW:
I think that he will return to Hogwarts. First, Harry has a 
great deal to learn before he is ready to go against Voldemort. 
Second, Hogwarts is such a repository of magical knowledge--both 
in the library and in the persons of the faculty--that Harry 
would be a fool not to go back.

However, I do not think that he will go back as a regular NEWTS 
student. He will be designated as a 'special', taking intensive 
individual lessons from the various teachers on the skills he 
particularly needs, with periodic excursions to Horcrux-hunt and 
for other preparatory missions.
===================================================

Jeremiah:

I think Harry really meant what he said. Harry is the kind of guy who does what he says. I'm sure we can all find instances when he doesn't do what he says, but on the whole, when Harry makes up his mind... he goes for it. Hermione, however... I think it will be hard for her to convince her family that dropping out of school is a good idea. I see her staying at Hogwarts and meeting Harry in Hogsmead for regular visits and updates from the library research. Ron, well, Ron's going to have to go the way of Percy in his mother and father's eyes if he joins Harry and skips out of school. (But as a side-bar... I think if McGonogal is Head Mistress and everyone live, she'll let then come back and finish a year late). So, Ron... I'm just not sure what he's going to do. I think he'll join Harry but it's very tricky. Maybe Harry goes it alone for a large portion of the book and the other two join up later?

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




From bawilson at citynet.net  Wed Nov 22 23:05:03 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:05:03 -0500
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAWUkmx+g4a0S/sB9wDhnKkgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 161867

"bboyminn:

Hope I didn't trim you statement down too much. I think
your statements are right on the money, and this genuine
desire to serve is precisely why 'human slavery' is a 
bad analogy. Human slaves could be fooled into thinking
their life was great, and in a very rare cases life was
probably pretty good. But I think it is truly in the 
nature of elves to serve others. That's not 
indoctrination, or illusion, or delusion, it truly is at
the core of their being. 

Think of the mythology of this type of creature; brownies,
etc.... In a small sense these creatures are pranksters.
They thought it great fun and a great laugh to imagine 
the tailor or shoemaker coming down in the morning and 
finding all the fabulous products sitting there waiting
for them. If the tailor or the shoemaker acknowledged the
Elves by offerring 'pay' of some type, it spoiled the 
joke and the elves left.

Again the above statement isn't absolute, it just servers
to illustrate that the motivations of this type of 
creature are far far different than slaves."

That is exactly Hermione's problem.  Being Muggleborn, she hasn't been brought
up knowing that there are sentient nonhumans around.  She thinks that
house-elves are just small humans who talk funny; she doesn't realize that they
are a separate species. (She makes a similar error with the centaurs, btw.)
Trying to impose her human (and Muggle human at that) mores on nonhumans betrays
an intellectual myopia.
Of course, Ron, having been raised in the Wizardling world, has a complementary
blind spot.  He takes house-elf servitude for granted.  He may not like it when
he hears of individual cases of elf abuse, but he can't see that the whole
system is flawed.

BAW



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





From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 22 23:30:06 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:30:06 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
References: <ek2jbc+eqb0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007801c70e8e$25599040$c4b4400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161869

 a_svirn:
> But that's exactly what I am saying, Betsy. If Beecher Stowe wrote
> about defiant and rebellious slaves, eager to free themselves from
> the white man's yoke, we could dismiss Scarlett's "mammy" as a sort
> of anomaly, or even wishful thinking on Mitchell's part. But thing is
> the picture they both paint is remarkably similar. The only
> difference is that one is looking at it misty-eyed, while other is
> genuinely appalled. So I'd say it's a good bet that "mammy" was very
> much the norm.

Magpie:
Or Mammy was a familiar narcissistic projection of the white owners who saw 
what they want to see--and since white people were usually the ones doing 
the writing that's what we saw. If a black slave is ordered to take care of 
the children, they would naturally see her as a warm, mother figure and not 
think beyond that. If a person has been raised to care for another person 
they certainly might feel affection for them. And people are complicated. 
Placed in a situation where one of you is in the owning family and the other 
is a slave, you still might find things to like in each other within that 
framework.

But so could the person being cared for come to see the situation as being 
about affection in ways it isn't, especially if they don't want to justify 
it. Unless an owner made an effort to find out about a slave outside the 
services they performed for them, they would have little idea what they were 
like as a person. A stereotype can be common and still be wrong. Stowe's 
characters react to things based on the Christian principles she wanted to 
show. She herself had never been to a plantation, iirc.

I mean, a rebellious slave was punished, so there were reasons that you 
might more see more subservient behavior. For instance, in Roots Kunta Kinte 
doesn't accept his slavery at all. But when his family is threatened and he 
sees no other way to save them he falls to his knees and plays the part of 
the fawning slave. I can't imagine it wasn't common knowledge amongst slaves 
how to play that part to flatter whites if they had to do that. Alex Haley 
didn't personally experience slavery any more than Stowe or Mitchell did, of 
course, but he was writing based on his family's oral history, just as I 
think Mitchell partly was. His slaves come out very differently than 
Mitchell's do. They would never have turned out an offer of freedom. Freedom 
was the goal. Frederick Douglass, iirc, describes his dawning childhood 
realization that he is a slave as a sad one, and says the "Old Master" was 
never spoken of with affection.

> a_svirn:
> Well, if it comes to that, was there a great slave rebellion in pre-
> Civil War America? (And the Civil War wasn't exactly a *rebellion*,
> since it wasn't initiated by slaves.) Or in the British colonies? Or
> anywhere else, for that matter?

Magpie:
There were slave rebellions.  There were also runaways and the Underground 
Railroad etc.--I believe slaves commonly sheltered runaways in their own 
quarters to help them get away and helped in other ways. And there were 
individual examples of slaves acting out against masters--sometimes 
violently.

-m 





From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Nov 23 02:36:09 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:36:09 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves
In-Reply-To: <ek27lm+eg69@eGroups.com>
References: <ek1ssi+9b3a@eGroups.com> <ek27lm+eg69@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611221836s3a1f8a1ar13b8693c118afab@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161870

>
> > Carol responds:
> > ... I agree with Magpie that House-Elf slavery, which
> > ... is voluntary servitude ..., doesn't really parallel
> > human slavery, pre-Civil War American or otherwise.
> >
>
> bboyminn:
>
> The forbidden 'DITTO'. House-elf servitude is very
> complex and, especially given how little of Elf/Human
> history we have, is very difficult to get a handle on.
> The best we can do is draw parallels to small aspects of
> it. But I don't think there is anything in human history
> that is truly analogous to it on a broad scale.


montims:

I've said it before, so apologies for being boring, but I still think it is
comparable to Apartheid in South Africa, except for the fact that the
"black" South Africans were very much in the majority.  Maybe Dobby will
become the Mandela icon that swings majority opinion towards liberation...


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




From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Nov 23 04:25:05 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:25:05 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Last Confidant?
In-Reply-To: <733742029.20061122121633@mindspring.com>
References: <ejr5g3+l9ve@eGroups.com> <733742029.20061122121633@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <456522A1.2080408@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161871

Dave Hardenbrook wrote:
> But I stand by my theory that there must be *one* living person who
> knows the truth (and is therefore currently putting on a
> Cannes Film Festival-worthy acting performance), or else Snape is
> now useless as a spy.  In spite of the arguments already raised
> against the idea, I still think it's Hermione -- Who else could
> conceivably master Occlumancy as well as Snape has?  (Unless Jo is
> planning an ironic twist by bestowing masterful Occlumancy talent
> on Mr. Rubeus "I shouldn'ta said that" Hagrid.)

Bart:
There are a number of characters who have both strong wills and 
maturity; Mr. & Mrs. Weasley, Lupin, the Auror brigade, just to name a few.

	Bart





From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Nov 23 04:27:45 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:27:45 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <ek2bb1+p6vb@eGroups.com>
References: <ek2bb1+p6vb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <45652341.3050508@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161872

koinonia02 wrote:
> According to JKR, time travel *can* alter the past. I'm not a big 
> fan of time travel but it is hard to dismiss Hermione's comments in 
> PoA.

Bart:
	Here's the basic "out" for the time travel paradox. You can change the 
past, as long as you do nothing that will change your own past (notably, 
the fact that you went into the past to do what you did). This can be 
very tricky, of course.

	Bart



From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 23 04:56:37 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 04:56:37 -0000
Subject: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <20061122022519.4964.qmail@web56513.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ek39m5+jb39@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161873

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dantzel Withers wrote:

> Dantzel replies:
> <snip>
> I was also thinking about something JKR said about Petunia, which 
> I THOUGHT was that she was not a squib, so I was like, "There you 
> are, she's not magical" until I realized that could go both ways: 
> either being magical and never touching it or having not an ounce 
> of magic in her veins.
> 
> So now that I've 'self-doubted' myself into a corner, can someone 
remind me if JKR specified if she had *any* magic at all???

Mike:
This is JKR from the Edinburgh Book Festival interview, 15 Aug 2004:
_________________________________________________________________
Is Aunt Petunia a Squib?

Good question. No, she is not, but?[Laughter]. No, she is not a 
Squib. She is a Muggle, but?[Laughter]. You will have to read the 
other books. You might have got the impression that there is a 
little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye, and you will 
find out what it is. She is not a squib, although that is a very 
good guess.
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80
_________________________________________________________________

I would like to add here that Ron explained that a squib is one 
without magical abilities born from witch and wizard parents. Lily's 
and therefore Petunia's parents were Muggles, so she can't be a 
squib. And JKR clearly states that Petunia is a Muggle.

So, whatever the "a little bit more to Aunt Petunia" is, it's not a 
magical ability late in life.

Carla:
Be very careful!! I brought up the very same thing about Vernon on
just a "wouldn't it be funny" basis and a member of the "Book
Gestapo" jumped all over me, quoting chapter after chapter and
frightening everyone away from even dicussing it. ;)

Mike:
Yeah, humorousless bunch of S.O.B.s, aren't we? BTW, did you get 
your "Book Gestapo Stomped Here" bumper sticker? If not, we can have 
somebody forward it to you. Please avail yourself of the 
contribution form that is included in your packet. For a 
contribution of $50 you can get a compilation of their most poignant 
articles criticizing authors for lack of "canon references". For a 
$125 contribution you get their best-selling book "World Domination 
through Grammar". And for a $250 contribution you get their latest 
Book on CD of "Famous Plagiarizers and How They Put One Over", with 
additional footage of their most recent Pun Book burning. Act now, 
as supplies are limited.

Mike, wondering where he put his "Book Gestapos Spel Better, Come 
sit a Spel, We'll think up new Spels, (or it will Spel Trouble)" 
pamphlet 







From scarah at gmail.com  Thu Nov 23 04:57:04 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 20:57:04 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <20061122213446.93579.qmail@web84013.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <ek2c62+u4fq@eGroups.com>
	 <20061122213446.93579.qmail@web84013.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611222057q4338a979qb70012f4d481c43@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161874

bboyminn:
You are certainly free to continue to believe that time
happens twice, but I tell you that this way lies madness,
or at least a good headache. I really believe that the
path of least resistance is to accept that time only
happens once.

Sarah:
I agree.  Life is simpler if one stops worrying about multiple
alternate layered realities and learns to love the Bill and Ted school
of time travel.  Bill and Ted visited themselves in the Circle K
parking lot, which only happened once, because there is only one
reality.  Just like Harry visited himself to drive off the Dementors.
If there had been a first reality where that didn't happen, then Harry
would surely have experienced it.  But he didn't.  He experienced that
three hours two times, and the same events happened the same way both
times, even if he interpreted them differently.

And by that token:

sweety12783:
What if Harry goes back in time and destroys the Hocruxes before
his family is attacked? Harry would change the course of history.
Not only will LV die completely that night, he would save the
lives of Dumbledore, Sirius, Cedric, and many others.

Sarah:
It's been well established in interviews that one thing magic can't do
is bring back the dead.  (Except as Inferi, which isn't quite the
same.  :) )  The Time-Turner is magic, therefore it can't bring back
the dead.  This is why the belief in a "first reality" scenario where
Buckbeak actually died breaks our understanding of the Potterverse,
and opens up possibilities like this where every dead person ever
isn't beyond hope of being brought back.

If Harry is ever going to do something like this, his future self
would have already done it in his past.  He would have grown up with
parents.  Since he didn't, an attempt to do so would either fail (most
likely) or I don't know, explode the universe or something (less
likely).

I hope this is making sense.
Sarah



From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Thu Nov 23 05:46:34 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 23:46:34 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic late in life
References: <ek39m5+jb39@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002c01c70ec2$bc535290$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161875

>Carla wrote:
>Be very careful!! I brought up the very same thing about Vernon on
>just a "wouldn't it be funny" basis and a member of the "Book
>Gestapo" jumped all over me, quoting chapter after chapter and
>frightening everyone away from even dicussing it. ;)


Lana writes:
   Yes, I did catch that Carla.  I have just been put in my place very efficiently on a different topic.  With no canon to support the other side I might add.  My opinion had canon to support it, but since it is not a popular belief, it was shot down quite forcefully.
    Don't take it personally.  You are entitled to view the books in any way that is comfortable for you.  If you do not agree to something, then keep with your theory.  You never know..  Anything is possible.  JKR has left so many things unanswered to this point that the REAL truth is only speculation.  
  My opinion is that is very well could be Vernon.  I think it would be a blast.  He is sooo forceful that magic doesn't exist.  Nobody gets that upset unless they are covering it up.
Sounds to me that Vernon is trying to convince himself that magic doesn't exist when he full well knows it does. referring to SS/PS here.
  I also think it would be a blast if it were Filtch..  That would be a gas considering he couldn't get the quick spell course to work for him.. LOL
  I am not so sure I think it would be Mrs. Figg.  She just seems to old to have new tricks.  I don't know..  It just seems strange to me for her to all the sudden have ability at this point.
  Now, I still think there is something more to Petunia.  It is possible that she is considered to be a muggle because she hasn't "accepted' her magic ability.  Or maybe for some unknown reason the magic is just delayed in her and nobody knows it.  We have muggles that are slow developing, so why would it not be possible in the WW.   Seems to me in JKR's world anything is possible.  The creative writer she is.. I am sure she could turn it into a fantastic story.
  I don't think it will be Dudley.  I guess I just don't know his character very well, but I am not fond of that character.  He just rubs me the wrong way.  I don't really think about him to much.  Maybe there is a reason for that too..  Never know what strings JKR will pull.  We do know that we will deal with them (Petunia, Vernon and Dudley) a bit more in this last book.
  It could also be someone that we have only heard mentioned once in the whole series to date.  Maybe she will bring one of them in at the beginning of the book for a new storyline.
  Anyway, those are just my thoughts.  I actually like not knowing what will happen.  I like being able to make up little storylines in my head and see how I could make them all play out.  I have to say that all of them play out very well so far.  I have run into glitches, but can playthose out to with enough creativity and thought.
  So... if you like your theory and thoughts, stick with them.  That is what makes them yours and perfect for you.
  None of my theories have changed even after reading what others write unless they have specific canon to disprove my thoughts completely.  Not half cocked canon, but complete canon.
 Lana

>Mike wrote:
>Yeah, humorousless bunch of S.O.B.s, aren't we? BTW, did you get 
>your "Book Gestapo Stomped Here" bumper sticker?

Lana writes:
I want my sticker.. LOL  please!!


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




From tareprachi at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 23 05:24:48 2006
From: tareprachi at yahoo.com (pforparvati)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 05:24:48 -0000
Subject: How did DD know that Fake!Moody was Barty Jr.? (Was: Hogwarts House-elves
In-Reply-To: <ek1m9f+pto2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek3bb0+gfb5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161876

> > PforParvati:
<snip>
> > How did Dumbledore know in advance that Winky would be needed
there?
<snip>

> Pippin:
> Sirius is probably the missing link here. He knew that Harry had
seen
> Bartemius Crouch on the Map, burgling Snape's office. We also know
> that Sirius was in contact with Dumbledore (quoting from memory,
> "You are not Sirius's only correspondent.")
>
> Pippin

PforParvati now:
  I agree with you that Sirius must have told Dumbledore about Harry
had seen Barty Crouch on the Map, burgling Snape's office. But it
looks funny that Dumbledore knows about this incident still he
doesn't know about the map.

Here are the quotes from the interrogation of Crouch Jr.

"....I used the map I had taken from Harry Potter.  The map that had
almost ruined everything."
"Map?"  said Dumbledore quickly.  "What map is this?"

It looks like Dumbledore doesn't know about the map. He should have
known at least the existence of such map. Sirius must have told him
that. [ or did Lupin handed it back to Harry without telling
Dumbledore  about it in PoA..?]

Ok..I am combining two separate incidences here. But Dumbledore's
question `What map is this' is really confusing or rather the
word `quickly' is making it more confusing. If Dumbledore was aware
of the map, would he had asked the question that quickly
or is he
pretending he doesn't know about it in front of Snape and McGonagall
since it was out of discipline to allow such map.

PforParvati, becoming confused more and more








From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Thu Nov 23 07:02:46 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:02:46 -0000
Subject: Snape's Last Confidant?
In-Reply-To: <456522A1.2080408@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <ek3h2m+t0mt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161877

Dave Hardenbrook wrote:
> But I stand by my theory that there must be *one* living person who
> knows the truth (and is therefore currently putting on a Cannes 
> Film Festival-worthy acting performance), or else Snape is now 
> useless as a spy.  In spite of the arguments already raised 
> against the idea, I still think it's Hermione -- Who else could 
> conceivably master Occlumancy as well as Snape has?  (Unless Jo is 
> planning an ironic twist by bestowing masterful Occlumancy talent
> on Mr. Rubeus "I shouldn'ta said that" Hagrid.)
 
> Bart:
> There are a number of characters who have both strong wills and 
> maturity; Mr. & Mrs. Weasley, Lupin, the Auror brigade, just to 
> name a few.

Jen:  He's not exactly a confidante but there's that little guy who 
sees everything and 'likes Professor Dumbledore very much...and is 
proud to keep his secrets and our silence for him.'(GOF, chap 21) 

Dobby gets around the castle and I'll bet he's one Dumbledore trusts 
to work in his office.  He knows *something*, there must be a secret 
he is keeping for Dumbledore to say that and now with Dumbledore 
dead Dobby can tell Harry everything that might help defeat 
Voldemort.  He basically told Harry as much in HBP, 'Dobby is a free 
house-elf and he can obey anyone he likes and Dobby will do whatever 
Harry Potter wants him to do!'  

And the biggest thing:  Harry will believe Dobby in a way he 
wouldn't a human because he has shown himself incapable of lying.  
Dobby won't come right out and spill the beans but like in COS he'll 
start laying the clues out.  Maybe the first thing he'll do is 
retrieve the potions book for Harry and insist he needs it and then 
slowly reveal what he knows about Snape.

Voldemort wouldn't think to target Dobby so he doesn't even need 
Occlumency; the value of flying under the radar.  And Harry is safe 
from Voldemort attempting Legilimency on him for the near future it 
looks like.

Jen R., Dobby fan ;-)






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 23 07:32:07 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 07:32:07 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <20061122213446.93579.qmail@web84013.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ek3ipn+o3g5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161878

---  Nina Baker <sweety12783 at ...> wrote:
>
>I think that Harry will go back in time but for different
> reasons. What if Harry goes back in time and destroys 
> the Hocruxes before his family is attacked? Harry would
> change the course of history. .... Everything would end
> with Harry surrounded by the people he loves. ...
>    
>   Tell me what you think.
>    
>   sweety12783

bboyminn:

I'm very reluctant to respond because I don't want to 
dampen you enthusiasm, but there are some potential
flaws in you idea.

On one hand, by going back and finding existing Horcruxes
where they are hidden, Harry is not really altering
human history. The Horcruxes are intangible artifacts that
are hidden away some where, and they themselves don't 
effect history at all.

But, if the Horcruxes are gone at the time Voldemort
originally attacks Harry and the rest of the Potter
family, then Harry would still have lived, Lily and James
would have still died, and Voldemort would be totally
and completely dead too. But we know that Voldemort did
not die, so we can know that Harry did not destroy the
Horcruxes.

The next problem is that we have only seen backwards 
time travel. That doesn't mean forward time travel 
doesn't exist, but we haven't seen it and we haven't
heard any references to it. Our available information
implies that forward time travel doesn't exist.

Note when Harry and Hermione go back in time, the only 
way to move forward, is to live through the time equal 
to which they move back. That is, they move forward 
through natural time until they reach the point where
they went back. At that point, the current selves 
disappear, and their time travel selves arrive to take
their place.

That was easy enough when they only when back a few hours,
but what happens when they go back a few years? The only 
way to get back to the present is to relive those few
years until the past catches up with the present. Harry
would have to go back over 15 years to find the Horcruxes
and prevent Voldemort continued existance after Voldemort
kills his parents and tries to kill him. That means Harry
spends over 15 years in the past waiting for time to 
catch up with his present. Seems like a long time to 
hang around doing nothing.

At one point people speculated that Dumbledore was really
Ron who time traveled back from the future, and to 
disguise his continued existance in the past, he adopted
the Dumbledore persona and continued to live in the wizard 
world for over 100 years waiting for the past to catch
up with the present. Seem like a pointless theory now that
Dumbledore is dead.

So, while there are some interesting aspects to your 
theory, in practicality, it doesn't solve that much since
Voldemort still attacks the Potter, but does so not 
knowing he doesn't have his Horcrux protection. James 
and Lily still die, Voldemort truly dies, and Harry 
continues to live. That is still a better life than he 
is having though.

Still, when you make massive changes to the past, you 
can't simply look at the consequences from a narrow 
perspective. By alterning the past, you spawn a new 
alternate timeline, and your one change in the past can
cause many many changes in the future. Much like 'The 
Butterfly Effect' and 'Back to the Future', the future
you return to is completely altered in every way, not 
just change with regard to yourself.

So, I'm going to stick with the idea that IF someone
time travels, it will be for a short span of time, and
it will simply be to gather information that can be used
in the present. Though it might be to help create a
history as it is already known to exist.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 23 10:43:35 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:43:35 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <007801c70e8e$25599040$c4b4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ek3u0n+jgto@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161879

> Magpie:
> Or Mammy was a familiar narcissistic projection of the white owners
who saw 
> what they want to see--and since white people were usually the ones
doing 
> the writing that's what we saw. If a black slave is ordered to take
care of 
> the children, they would naturally see her as a warm, mother figure
and not 
> think beyond that. If a person has been raised to care for another
person 
> they certainly might feel affection for them. And people are
complicated. 
> Placed in a situation where one of you is in the owning family and
the other 
> is a slave, you still might find things to like in each other within
that 
> framework.
> 
> But so could the person being cared for come to see the situation as
being 
> about affection in ways it isn't, especially if they don't want to
justify 
> it. Unless an owner made an effort to find out about a slave outside
the 
> services they performed for them, they would have little idea what
they were 
> like as a person. A stereotype can be common and still be wrong.
Stowe's 
> characters react to things based on the Christian principles she
wanted to 
> show. She herself had never been to a plantation, iirc.
> 
> I mean, a rebellious slave was punished, so there were reasons that you 
> might more see more subservient behavior. For instance, in Roots
Kunta Kinte 
> doesn't accept his slavery at all. But when his family is threatened
and he 
> sees no other way to save them he falls to his knees and plays the
part of 
> the fawning slave. I can't imagine it wasn't common knowledge
amongst slaves 
> how to play that part to flatter whites if they had to do that. Alex
Haley 
> didn't personally experience slavery any more than Stowe or Mitchell
did, of 
> course, but he was writing based on his family's oral history, just
as I 
> think Mitchell partly was. His slaves come out very differently than 
> Mitchell's do. They would never have turned out an offer of freedom.
Freedom 
> was the goal. Frederick Douglass, iirc, describes his dawning childhood 
> realization that he is a slave as a sad one, and says the "Old
Master" was 
> never spoken of with affection.

a_svirn:
Well, of course it's a narcissistic projection. Every work of fiction
is a narcissistic projection of sorts, and the same, unfortunately,
can be said of a great many sociological and anthropological studies.
This does not, however, means that Beecher Stowe or even Mitchell made
the whole thing up. Emotional bonds between slaves and masters are
indeed known to exist, just like the fear of freedom is a well known
(and absolutely the worst) effect of slavery. Of course not every
slave's spirit can be crushed and not everyone was mentally crippled.
Still, even "rebellious slaves" often rebelled against cruel masters,
rather than against slavery per se. Take another literary example ?
Jim from "Huckleberry Finn" was happy enough to be a slave. He only
objected strongly to being sold and parted with his beloved family and
kind mistress. Hence rebellion. That's practically Kreacher's story. 

> Magpie:
> There were slave rebellions.  There were also runaways and the
Underground 
> Railroad etc.--I believe slaves commonly sheltered runaways in their
own 
> quarters to help them get away and helped in other ways. And there were 
> individual examples of slaves acting out against masters--sometimes 
> violently.

a_svirn:
I don't know about "etc", but the Underground Railroad is a well known
phenomenon. But then, there is an equivalent in the WW, isn't there?
Any elf who fell foul of his or her master can be sure to find a
shelter at Hogwarts. 





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 23 13:21:59 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 13:21:59 -0000
Subject: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <002c01c70ec2$bc535290$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ek479n+gviv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161880

Carla:
> >Be very careful!! I brought up the very same thing about Vernon on 
just a "wouldn't it be funny" basis and a member of the "Book 
Gestapo" jumped all over me, quoting chapter after chapter and 
frightening everyone away from even dicussing it. ;)

Lana:
> Don't take it personally. You are entitled to view the books in any 
way that is comfortable for you. If you do not agree to something, 
then keep with your theory. You never know.. Anything is possible. 
JKR has left so many things unanswered to this point that the REAL 
truth is only speculation.  My opinion is that is very well could be 
Vernon. I think it would be a blast. He is sooo forceful that magic 
doesn't exist. Nobody gets that upset unless they are covering it up.

Ceridwen:
I think it would be funny if it was Vernon who did the magic late in 
life.  After all his bluster, how could he look himself in the mirror 
when he shaved?  *g*  More likely, how will he excuse it to Petunia 
and Dudley, and of course Harry, who would have to be there and 
witness it, or we wouldn't know?  Now, that would be a scene I'd want 
to read!

Filch is definitely a possibility.  He had that Kwickspell Course 
(sp?) that didn't work.  Maybe he did learn something from it but 
didn't have the catalyst to awaken the magic within.  Since a lot of 
fans think there will be a battle at Hogwarts, this will place Filch 
right in the line of fire, and might be the thing he needs to set the 
magic to work.

Mrs Figg is also a possibility, and a sentimental favorite for some 
fans.  Since many fans believe there will be a battle at Privet Drive 
on Harry's seventeenth birthday, she will be in place, and might, as 
in the Filch scenario above, get the boost she needs to perform magic.

JKR has shot down the idea of Dudley being the one.  What we see is 
what we get from him.  I think there was more to the shut-down of 
Petunia doing it than the interview Mike mentioned, but I'm not 
positive.

This is a subject where I like speculation, but have no favorite 
contender in the ring.  I'm happy to wait for book 7 and find out 
that way.

Ceridwen.





From vama_30595 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 23 11:06:46 2006
From: vama_30595 at yahoo.com (vama_30595)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:06:46 -0000
Subject: A journey "into the thickets of wildest guesswork."
In-Reply-To: <ejkr8j+2pfp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek3vc6+dtpf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161881

White_Wolf:
> One problem I can see with your theory is that why would Petunia
> inherit the house elf, instead of Harry.  We know Harry can inherit
> house elves, as shown by Kreacher.
>
>

vama replies:

I dont think that Petunia would inherit a house-elf. But even if she
wants to  then she would be able to because Harry can inherit house-
elves(Dobby, Kreacher- because of Sirius.)
Still I think it seems less likely for Petunia to have a house-elf
though her house is extremely neat and clean.Anyway.....






From vama_30595 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 23 11:00:51 2006
From: vama_30595 at yahoo.com (vama_30595)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:00:51 -0000
Subject: Ronald Weasley
Message-ID: <ek3v13+nht0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161882

I don't know whether it is true or not but I read it somewhere that Ron
was going to be on LV. I mean if he joins him then LV would know
everything because Harry used to tell him much more than Hermione.
I just want to know what you think about it...

vama





From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Nov 23 15:33:54 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:33:54 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups]How much does Dumbledore know?
In-Reply-To: <ek3bb0+gfb5@eGroups.com>
References: <ek3bb0+gfb5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4565BF62.3040104@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161883

pforparvati wrote:
> "....I used the map I had taken from Harry Potter.  The map that had 
> almost ruined everything."
> "Map?"  said Dumbledore quickly.  "What map is this?"
> 
> It looks like Dumbledore doesn't know about the map. He should have 
> known at least the existence of such map. Sirius must have told him 
> that. [ or did Lupin handed it back to Harry without telling 
> Dumbledore  about it in PoA..?]

Bart:
	I am certain that Dumbledore knew about the map. I am also certain that 
he knew that Fred & George had a copy. Dumbledore is clearly interested 
in the students reaching their potential, and he recognizes that not 
everybody reacts to the same kind of learning. As I have mentioned 
before, there don't seem to be classes in artificing (the closest is 
Potions, and possibly charms), but Fred and George have managed to 
become top-quality artificers (note that even the Ministry of Magic have 
bought some of their inventions).

	But, for a number of reasons, and as his name certainly implies 
Dumbledore does not talk about what he knows, unless the listeners have 
a need to know. It was, for example, clear that he could see through 
Harry's Invisibility Cloak, but  didn't tell Harry he actually knew 
until it was necessary to do so, and he certainly never let Professor 
Snape, a man he clearly trusted, know about it.

	Bart



From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Thu Nov 23 16:07:09 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 10:07:09 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic late in life
References: <ek479n+gviv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008a01c70f19$6e3c67c0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161884






  Lana:
  > Don't take it personally. You are entitled to view the books in any 
  way that is comfortable for you. If you do not agree to something, 
  then keep with your theory. You never know.. Anything is possible. 
  JKR has left so many things unanswered to this point that the REAL 
  truth is only speculation. My opinion is that is very well could be 
  Vernon. I think it would be a blast. He is sooo forceful that magic 
  doesn't exist. Nobody gets that upset unless they are covering it up.

  Ceridwen:
  I think it would be funny if it was Vernon who did the magic late in 
  life. After all his bluster, how could he look himself in the mirror 
  when he shaved? *g* More likely, how will he excuse it to Petunia 
  and Dudley, and of course Harry, who would have to be there and 
  witness it, or we wouldn't know? Now, that would be a scene I'd want 
  to read!

  Filch is definitely a possibility. He had that Kwickspell Course 
  (sp?) that didn't work. Maybe he did learn something from it but 
  didn't have the catalyst to awaken the magic within. Since a lot of 
  fans think there will be a battle at Hogwarts, this will place Filch 
  right in the line of fire, and might be the thing he needs to set the 
  magic to work.

  Mrs Figg is also a possibility, and a sentimental favorite for some 
  fans. Since many fans believe there will be a battle at Privet Drive 
  on Harry's seventeenth birthday, she will be in place, and might, as 
  in the Filch scenario above, get the boost she needs to perform magic.

  JKR has shot down the idea of Dudley being the one. What we see is 
  what we get from him. I think there was more to the shut-down of 
  Petunia doing it than the interview Mike mentioned, but I'm not 
  positive.

  This is a subject where I like speculation, but have no favorite 
  contender in the ring. I'm happy to wait for book 7 and find out 
  that way.

  Lana writes:

  Wouldn't it be a gas if ...in Vernons terrified rage he accientally gave Petunia a pig snout or something.. <rolling with humor at that thought>

  Ohhhh would she be mad at him.. LOL





   

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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov 23 16:37:03 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:37:03 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
References: <ek3u0n+jgto@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003201c70f1d$9e3c2b00$5c72400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161885

a_svirn:
Well, of course it's a narcissistic projection. Every work of fiction
is a narcissistic projection of sorts, and the same, unfortunately,
can be said of a great many sociological and anthropological studies.
This does not, however, means that Beecher Stowe or even Mitchell made
the whole thing up. Emotional bonds between slaves and masters are
indeed known to exist, just like the fear of freedom is a well known
(and absolutely the worst) effect of slavery. Of course not every
slave's spirit can be crushed and not everyone was mentally crippled.
Still, even "rebellious slaves" often rebelled against cruel masters,
rather than against slavery per se. Take another literary example -
Jim from "Huckleberry Finn" was happy enough to be a slave. He only
objected strongly to being sold and parted with his beloved family and
kind mistress. Hence rebellion. That's practically Kreacher's story.

Magpie:
Sure, they were all basing their characters on something--but the question 
is why would JK Rowling be using that particular view of slaves in her books 
today? She's supposed to be a 21st century author, one of whose themes is 
that Wizards viewing other species as inferior is wrong. So why would she 
feel she needed a race based on 19th century slave stereotypes?

> Magpie:
> There were slave rebellions.  There were also runaways and the
Underground
> Railroad etc.--I believe slaves commonly sheltered runaways in their
own
> quarters to help them get away and helped in other ways. And there were
> individual examples of slaves acting out against masters--sometimes
> violently.

a_svirn:
I don't know about "etc", but the Underground Railroad is a well known
phenomenon. But then, there is an equivalent in the WW, isn't there?
Any elf who fell foul of his or her master can be sure to find a
shelter at Hogwarts.

Magpie:
That's not an equivalent, it's one place that keeps a lot of elves. An 
equivalent would be elves running away to *freedom* because they wanted to 
be free and helped along in secret by other elves and sympathetic non-elves.

-m







From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov 23 16:40:37 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:40:37 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic late in life
References: <ek39m5+jb39@eGroups.com> <002c01c70ec2$bc535290$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <003301c70f1e$1b890ab0$5c72400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161886

> >Carla wrote:
>>Be very careful!! I brought up the very same thing about Vernon on
>>just a "wouldn't it be funny" basis and a member of the "Book
>>Gestapo" jumped all over me, quoting chapter after chapter and
>>frightening everyone away from even dicussing it. ;)
>
>
> Lana writes:
>   Yes, I did catch that Carla.  I have just been put in my place very 
> efficiently on a different topic.  With no canon to support the other side 
> I might add.  My opinion had canon to support it, but since it is not a 
> popular belief, it was shot down quite forcefully.

Magpie;
Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but since it's now coming up, I didn't 
think Carla was shot down by a book gestapo. I, too, assumed that she was 
suggesting that Vernon really was magic, since generally this list is about 
analyzing the books--I'm not sure what anyone is supposed to reply to a 
"wouldn't it be funny if..." except "yes, that would be funny," since it's 
not talking about the books. I thought Carol (I think it was Carol) was 
simply replying to it as such with canon reasons she didn't think it would 
happen and I don't really think it's fair to suggest she was bullying or 
shutting down discussion. Seemed to me she was entering into the discussion 
seriously, along the lines she's used to talking on the list.

Lana:
>    Don't take it personally.  You are entitled to view the books in any 
> way that is comfortable for you.  If you do not agree to something, then 
> keep with your theory.  You never know..  Anything is possible.  JKR has 
> left so many things unanswered to this point that the REAL truth is only 
> speculation.
>  My opinion is that is very well could be Vernon.  I think it would be a 
> blast.  He is sooo forceful that magic doesn't exist.  Nobody gets that 
> upset unless they are covering it up.

Magpie:
Just to give the other perspective, I very much appreciate the focus on 
canon on this list. "Wouldn't it be a gas" doesn't interest me as much. If 
all opinions are equal because we're snowflakes and anything's possible 
there's not much to discuss. I've definitely dug my heels in on some issues 
if I think canon supports me and others don't agree, and it's not because I 
don't respect other peoples' opinions, it's because I'm here to talk about 
what I think is actually in the books. I'd hate to think that when I'm 
presenting why I think something doesn't work I'm thought of as being rude. 
If someone disagrees with an idea without convincing canon, usually people 
just keep presenting it.

Lana:
> Sounds to me that Vernon is trying to convince himself that magic doesn't 
> exist when he full well knows it does. referring to SS/PS here.

Magpie:
Vernon could know something of magic from Petunia. I think the text makes it 
clear that he is indeed ignoring magic things that are happening in front of 
him--but also that Muggles do that in general. I admit I think the Muggle 
vs. Wizard premise is one of the foundations of the books that would be 
threatened if Vernon could just do magic.

Lana:
>  I also think it would be a blast if it were Filtch..  That would be a gas 
> considering he couldn't get the quick spell course to work for him.. LOL

Magpie:
My vote goes for Filch. He and Figg are the two Squibs, but Filch wants it 
more. I'm hoping it's Filch, that is, but in general I assume it would have 
to be a Squib.

Lana:
>  Now, I still think there is something more to Petunia.  It is possible 
> that she is considered to be a muggle because she hasn't "accepted' her 
> magic ability.  Or maybe for some unknown reason the magic is just delayed 
> in her and nobody knows it.  We have muggles that are slow developing, so 
> why would it not be possible in the WW.   Seems to me in JKR's world 
> anything is possible.  The creative writer she is.. I am sure she could 
> turn it into a fantastic story.

Magpie:
Not to get all book gestapo, but what about JKR's saying "she is a Muggle" 
is unclear? She's said she doesn't lie in interviews, and saying that 
Petunia is a Muggle when she's really a witch who hasn't accepted her magic 
sounds like a lie to me.

There are a lot of limits to what's possible in JKR's world--particularly 
it's limited to what JKR herself is going to do, and why would she be 
contradicting herself to make Petunia a witch? She's giving a hint by saying 
there's more to her but she's a Muggle, so if we're trying to speculate 
what's going to happen, why not use that hint as it was presented? And if 
it's not speculation and just "wouldn't it be a gas" we're not talking about 
the books, we're using the books as a jumping off point for fanfic 
scenarios--which is fine, but a different thing.

-m 





From jamess at climaxgroup.com  Thu Nov 23 12:36:22 2006
From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 12:36:22 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time turner theory
Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39CD3@mimas>

No: HPFGUIDX 161887

Sarah:
It's been well established in interviews that one thing magic can't do
is bring back the dead. (Except as Inferi, which isn't quite the
same. :) ) The Time-Turner is magic, therefore it can't bring back
the dead. This is why the belief in a "first reality" scenario where
Buckbeak actually died breaks our understanding of the Potterverse,
and opens up possibilities like this where every dead person ever
isn't beyond hope of being brought back.

If Harry is ever going to do something like this, his future self
would have already done it in his past. He would have grown up with
parents. Since he didn't, an attempt to do so would either fail (most
likely) or I don't know, explode the universe or something (less
likely).

James:

I think a lot of discussion of what might/can happen during time travel is
redundant with regard to the books.  There is no single agreed theory on how
potential paradox is handled by the universe but we simply don't need to
worry about that. Unlike the laws of physics, in the HP world there is an
absolute and her name is JKR. 

Sarah makes an excellent case on the Buckbeak issue. To understand this you
just need to realize that it's not necessary for the death to have ever been
real, just for the people involved to believe it was real. When we see the
"execution" the second time round we see things to explain everything the
trio experienced that gave them that impression but we now understand it
better. JKR may have been assuming an unchanged time line, or she may have
been writing a changed time line in which the reader's perception is
unchanged. 

We are told that terrible things happen to anyone who tries to change the
past. I conclude from this that it's either impossible in JKR's world or in
some way paradoxical catastrophic, so I see no scope for harry going back in
time to mess with the past. I could easily see (but I'm not expecting) some
time travel to gain a new understanding of events. I could even see someone
else trying to time travel with the resultant terrible things happening to
them (maybe Voldemort or Wormtail making a last ditch attempt at changing
the past).




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Thu Nov 23 17:06:11 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 11:06:11 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ronald Weasley
References: <ek3v13+nht0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <012e01c70f21$ad464730$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161888

Vama wrote:
I don't know whether it is true or not but I read it somewhere that Ron 
was going to be on LV. I mean if he joins him then LV would know 
everything because Harry used to tell him much more than Hermione.
I just want to know what you think about it...

Lana writes:
 It is always possible considering how touchy Ron is.  It would add a horrific twist to the story, but not sure if it wouldn't be to catastrophic.
  I can see LV using Ron with the Imperius, but i honestly don't think he would flop sides.  First, he is to close to Hermoine.  She would never fip sides.  He is way to protective of Ginny to risk her being hurt. And to be honest, he seems like a horrible MaMas boy to ever do such a thing to his parents.
  That aside...  I really consider Ron to be a younger "Sirius" with Harry being "James".  Way to close.  Even though we did see a bit of nasty in Ron in GoF.
  Hugs,  Lana


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




From tenorone2000 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 23 18:21:00 2006
From: tenorone2000 at yahoo.com (Rashi)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:21:00 -0000
Subject: Ronald Weasley
In-Reply-To: <ek3v13+nht0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek4oqc+opm2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161889

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vama_30595" <vama_30595 at ...>
wrote:
>
> I don't know whether it is true or not but I read it somewhere
that Ron
> was going to be on LV. I mean if he joins him then LV would know
> everything because Harry used to tell him much more than Hermione.
> I just want to know what you think about it...
>
>

Hi Vama:

Interesting topic as I read about this rumour somewhere as well. It
would make sense in a way, as we saw in the Goblet of Fire how Ron,
as much as he loves Harry, is very jealous of him. He is sick and
tired of being "Harry's friend, the poor, redheaded boy". Yet,at any
rate, although it would give a very exciting and interesting twist
to this saga, we all know that as Ron matures, Ron will start a
romance with Hermione. Hermione is way too dedicated and too devoted
to Harry Potter than to ever dare to have an intimate relationship
with someone alligned with 'you know who'.

Rashi






From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 23 19:45:25 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:45:25 -0000
Subject: Ronald Weasley
In-Reply-To: <012e01c70f21$ad464730$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ek4tol+97tu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161890

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> wrote:
>
> Vama wrote:
> I don't know whether it is true or not but I read it somewhere that 
Ron 
> was going to be on LV. I mean if he joins him then LV would know 
> everything because Harry used to tell him much more than Hermione.
> I just want to know what you think about it...
> 
Beatrice:
This is an interesting idea, but I think that it is unlikely, because 
Ron has simply stood by Harry's side too many times.  He is a rare and 
loyal friend.  Actually, I suspect that more damage will be done to 
these three by Scabbers/Pettigrew, who knows a great deal about the 
trio.  Think about all the conversations he was privy to over the 
first three books.





From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Nov 23 22:42:52 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 22:42:52 -0000
Subject: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <ejuv73+f0i5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek585c+aik0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161891

Babybluedot wrote:

> I've been thinking about this. Why would someone sign their name as
> just their initials? If they want to preserve their annonymity, why
> sign it at all? If this is not the case. Why not sign with either
> their first or last name? 

Abergoat writes:

Twins, bet they don't give you much time! 

I agree, the use of initials needs to be explained...and a former
employer is a good answer. Dog Lady (Agnes) of St Mungo's is another
one of my favorite topics and someone suggested that Agnes might be
the A in RAB. I ran with this idea by thinking, 'what if Agnes goes by
her middle name and is R. Agnes Burke', daughter of Belvina Black and
Herbert Burke and sister to Caractacus Burke, founder of Burke and
Borgin? Or even Caractacus's wife? If so, she would definitely view
herself as above Tom Riddle and if she wrote out his paychecks with a
note signed RAB then she could expect he would know her...

And she can use Kreacher, and she is likely to know Merope's story and
guess about the orphanage. And I have no doubt the Burke's had an idea
who stole H. Smith's locket. Doesn't she even suggest that Burke will
want to buy it back when she is gone?

babybluedot wrote:

> Apart from Mundungus Fletcher, can anyone find examples of
> characters outside the school who were once only heard of inpassing,
> but were later brought into major events?

A few more were 'werewolves' mentioned in book 2 and 'Arabella Figg'
mentioned by Dumbledore in book 4 (prior to the bombshell she was a
Squib in book 5). Then there are the countless 'items' foreshadowed
VERY early (love potions, bezoars, vanishing cabinet, necklace, hand
of glory, two-way mirror (yet to play a role), etc.)

Abergoat





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 00:54:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:54:22 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups]How much does Dumbledore know?
In-Reply-To: <4565BF62.3040104@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <ek5fru+t5is@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161892

Bart wrote:
<snip>
> 	But, for a number of reasons, and as his name certainly implies
Dumbledore does not talk about what he knows, unless the listeners
have a need to know. It was, for example, clear that he could see
through Harry's Invisibility Cloak, but  didn't tell Harry he actually
knew until it was necessary to do so, and he certainly never let
Professor Snape, a man he clearly trusted, know about it.
> 
> 	Bart
>
Carol responds:
Are you sure about that? Snape found the Invisibility Cloak outside
the Whomping Willow in PoA and knew that it was Harry's. How would he
know about it unless DD told him? Granted, he may have known about
James having it during their school days, but that wouldn't
necessarily mean he would know that Harry has it now unless DD shared
that information with him. He may have known (or suspected) that Harry
had it as early as SS/PS, when he knows that a student (almost
certainly Harry since so few kids are staying at school over
Christmas) is in the restricted section of the library. (I have the
movie version of the scene in my mind, though, so I could be mistaken
on this point.)

Carol, curious as to what you mean by "as his name certainly implies"





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 01:29:39 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:29:39 -0000
Subject: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <003301c70f1e$1b890ab0$5c72400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ek5hu3+alqq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161893

Carla wrote:
> >>Be very careful!! I brought up the very same thing about Vernon on
just a "wouldn't it be funny" basis and a member of the "Book Gestapo"
jumped all over me, quoting chapter after chapter and frightening
everyone away from even dicussing it. ;)
> >
> >
> > Lana writes:
> >   Yes, I did catch that Carla.  I have just been put in my place
very efficiently on a different topic.  With no canon to support the
other side I might add.  My opinion had canon to support it, but since
it is not a popular belief, it was shot down quite forcefully.
> 
> Magpie;
> Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but since it's now coming up,
I didn't think Carla was shot down by a book gestapo. I, too, assumed
that she was suggesting that Vernon really was magic, since generally
this list is about analyzing the books--I'm not sure what anyone is
supposed to reply to a "wouldn't it be funny if..." except "yes, that
would be funny," since it's not talking about the books. I thought
Carol (I think it was Carol) was simply replying to it as such with
canon reasons she didn't think it would happen and I don't really
think it's fair to suggest she was bullying or shutting down
discussion. Seemed to me she was entering into the discussion
seriously, along the lines she's used to talking on the list.

> Just to give the other perspective, I very much appreciate the focus
on canon on this list. "Wouldn't it be a gas" doesn't interest me as
much. If all opinions are equal because we're snowflakes and
anything's possible there's not much to discuss. I've definitely dug
my heels in on some issues if I think canon supports me and others
don't agree, and it's not because I don't respect other peoples'
opinions, it's because I'm here to talk about what I think is actually
in the books. I'd hate to think that when I'm presenting why I think
something doesn't work I'm thought of as being rude. If someone
disagrees with an idea without convincing canon, usually people just
keep presenting it.

Carol responds:
Thanks, Magpie. You're right. I didn't intend to shut down discussion
and was merely presenting canon to demonstrate the unlikelihood of
what I took to be a seriously presented speculation about Uncle
Vernon. (It's very hard to tell when someone is joking in writing,
BTW. If I'd known it was just intended as a humorous aside, I wouldn't
have bothered to present counterarguments. Usually poeple like having
responses to their posts, even if the responder disagrees. At least he
or she read it and took it seriously enough to use up one of his or
her five posts on it.) A canon-based counterargument is not bullying.
It's encouraging, not discouraging, discussion. At any rate, that was
my intention.

Magpie:
> Vernon could know something of magic from Petunia. I think the text
makes it clear that he is indeed ignoring magic things that are
happening in front of him--but also that Muggles do that in general. I
admit I think the Muggle vs. Wizard premise is one of the foundations
of the books that would be threatened if Vernon could just do magic.

Carol responds:
Good point. Also, if he could do accidental magic, which usually
occurs when someone is angry or frightened, he'd have done it by now.
He would never pick up a wand, nor does he know any spells, but even
if he did, JKR has made it clear in interviews that Muggles can't do
magic. They can't even make a potion using magical ingredients because
a potion requires a wand for stirring, and a wand is nothing more than
a stick of wood in their hands. I can cite the interview if necessary. 
> 
> Lana:
> >  I also think it would be a blast if it were Filtch..  That would
be a gas  considering he couldn't get the quick spell course to work
for him.. LOL
> 
> Magpie:
> My vote goes for Filch. He and Figg are the two Squibs, but Filch
wants it more. I'm hoping it's Filch, that is, but in general I assume
it would have to be a Squib.

Carol responds:
Filch is certainly a possibility since he had magical parents, knows
what a wand is for, and no doubt knows the incantation for a number of
spells. The same is true for Figgy. Since Filch tried and failed to
learn elementary magic from the QwikSpell course, I think Figgy is
slightly more likely to be able to perform it, and as member of the
Order, is more likely than Filch to have contact with Harry during
Book 7. I also prefer Figgy to Filch because she's such a feisty
character (as opposed to spiteful and envious, like Filch, who has
manacles in his office and would have loved to whip the Weasley
Twins). Not that I expect my personal preference to sway anybody who
prefers a different character. :-) Also, Filch and Figgy genuinely
qualify as being "late in life," whereas Petunia and Vernon are
middle-aged. I know that some people read "late in life" as "late in
developing magic," but the phrases really aren't equivalent. Just use
"late in life" in another context and most people will think you mean
at age sixty or later.
 
> Magpie:
> Not to get all book gestapo, but what about JKR's saying "she is a
Muggle" is unclear? She's said she doesn't lie in interviews, and
saying that Petunia is a Muggle when she's really a witch who hasn't
accepted her magic sounds like a lie to me.

Carol:
Not to mention that in every book, the Dursleys are referred to as
Muggles ("not a drop of magical blood in their veins," as the narrator
says somewhere--I think GoF but pleas correct me if I'm wrong.) Yes,
the narrator is sometimes unreliable, but in all six books? And, as
you say, JKR has confirmed the truth of this particular statement in
interviews.

When JKR says that "there's more to Petunia than meets the eye," I
think it has to do with her knowledge of the WW, in particular her
knowledge of the content of Dumbledore's letter(s). I'm betting that
Harry will find out information about his parents, particularly Lily,
or about Godric's Hollow, from her. I've had the feeling since chapter
one of SS/PS that she's keeping secrets from Vernon. IMO, her hatred
of the WW is at least as strong as his, but it's based on a more
detailed understanding than his simple fear of abnormality and what
the neighbors will think.

Carol, trying to further discussion on the topic, not suppress it
(counter-canon is welcome!)






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 01:40:04 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:40:04 -0000
Subject: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <ek585c+aik0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek5ihk+b802@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161894

> babybluedot wrote:
> 
> > Apart from Mundungus Fletcher, can anyone find examples of
characters outside the school who were once only heard of inpassing,
but were later brought into major events?
> 
Abergoat responded
> A few more were 'werewolves' mentioned in book 2 and 'Arabella Figg'
> mentioned by Dumbledore in book 4 (prior to the bombshell she was a
> Squib in book 5). Then there are the countless 'items' foreshadowed
> VERY early (love potions, bezoars, vanishing cabinet, necklace, hand
> of glory, two-way mirror (yet to play a role), etc.)
> 
> Abergoat
>
Carol notes:
If it matters, Mrs. Figg has been mentioned in every book since SS/PS
though we didn't know her first name or that she was one of the "old
crowd" till GoF. Perhaps a better example is Bode, identified as an
Unspeakable at the QWC and then Imperio'd and murdered by a potted
plant in OoP.

Carol, agreeing that the two-way mirror will play a role in Book 7,
maybe as a way of communicating with Ginny, who remains at Hogwarts(?)





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 02:05:45 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 02:05:45 -0000
Subject: Ronald Weasley
In-Reply-To: <ek4oqc+opm2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek5k1p+nb4e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161895

Vama
> > I don't know whether it is true or not but I read it somewhere
> that Ron
> > was going to be on LV. <snip>


Rashi:
<snip>
> Interesting topic as I read about this rumour somewhere as well. It
> would make sense in a way, as we saw in the Goblet of Fire how Ron,
> as much as he loves Harry, is very jealous of him. He is sick and
> tired of being "Harry's friend, the poor, redheaded boy". Yet,at 
any
> rate, although it would give a very exciting and interesting twist
> to this saga, we all know that as Ron matures, Ron will start a
> romance with Hermione. Hermione is way too dedicated and too 
devoted
> to Harry Potter than to ever dare to have an intimate relationship
> with someone alligned with 'you know who'.

Alla:

I would not have replied at all, since this is the speculative type 
of argument and eventually of one says yes, another says no, and 
both possibilities are equal interpretation IMO( I mean, obviously 
they are not equal for me, since not in my wildest dream I can see 
Ron joining Voldemort, but we are not at the end of the journey yet, 
so of course I cannot say with 100% certainty that Ron will not 
join).

In any event the reason I am responding is the sentence about 
Hermione. Are you arguing in effect that the only reason Ron will 
not join is because of Hermione? Blinks.

Does his own devotion to Harry not counts at all? Is this fight in 
GoF crosses out Ron willing to die for Harry in book 1, book 3, book 
5?

I mean, yes, Ron has issues, Ron works on them, Ron matures as you 
said. What else is in the books that may lead us to believe that Ron 
will become DE?

Yeah, he may have been feeling gealous of Harry. That happens, but 
he came back running the moment he realised that Harry's life is 
truly in danger. By the way, him being jealous is not the only 
possibility, he may have also feeling betrayed ( look up wonderful 
post by Dicentra - it is in the recommended pre OOP posts database 
and called chronology of the rift - I think).

I do not justify Ron, he hurt Harry and badly. But that happens 
between best friends, between fourteen year olds best friends.

I just think that it is stretching big time to use this fight as 
indication that Ron will become Death Eater.

Of course, JKR can still do it, but I  find it unlikely.

Of course just my opinion,

Alla





From scarah at gmail.com  Fri Nov 24 05:50:34 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:50:34 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <003201c70f1d$9e3c2b00$5c72400c@Spot>
References: <ek3u0n+jgto@eGroups.com> <003201c70f1d$9e3c2b00$5c72400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <3202590611232150k126e2a11ue51c762ad84d1ab7@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161896

Sarah:

I agree that house elves are not directly analogous with historical
slavery in the U. S.  (I would add that the U. S. doesn't have a
monopoly on historical slavery, anyway.)  It reminds me of discussions
where people try to draw direct parallels between the characters in
the MWPP generation and the characters in the trio's generation.  The
peg will just never quite fit all the way in the hole.  In some ways
Harry is the obvious James, but in other ways Ron is the James and
Harry is the Sirius.  And I really hate to make Neville the Peter.

Here's what I think is the simplest way to wrap up the SPEW storyline.
 In year 7, set it up so that there's a headmaster the elves really
don't like.  He/she has to be worse than Umbridge, at least from the
elves' point of view.  If they really get enough, they'll be ready to
take all those hats and scarves (which had too much time devoted to
them to not really be anything other than filler/comic relief).  Then
they can do anything they want, like fight in a war for example.
Their heroics on the battleground could be more of a catalyst for
social change than anything Hermione could do singlehandedly.

Sarah



From k12listmomma at comcast.net  Fri Nov 24 08:35:42 2006
From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:35:42 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf (was: Potter...wealth - ...Nature of Elves)
References: <ejstha+93ne@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <008c01c70fa3$879bf7a0$c0affea9@MOBILE>

No: HPFGUIDX 161897

I just had a thought about Kreacher's odd behavior. Consider his past. He 
served in a house that was given to Sirius, and then Sirius went to prison. 
We don't know what kind of relationship they had before the prison event, 
but all during the time that Sirius was in prison, Kreacher was alone. Sort 
of. Who did he have to talk to? Only that batty picture of Sirius's mom. 
Now, we have seen Enchanted things "go wrong" before. Usually one of the 
Weasley enchanted creations that the spells start to fade off of, so that 
they don't act quite like they should. (The twins cast an enlargement charm 
on the Quibbler Magazine cover, so that Harry's huge face says "The Ministry 
are morons" and "Eat dung, Umbridge". Eventually, it starts spitting out 
only single works, like "dung". (OOTP, Chapter 26) Even Luna's lion hat 
starts to wear down (OOTF, Chapter 19).

So, what if this dear old portrait of "mum" is starting to "go bad", or it's 
spell is wearing off, so that she doesn't hold an intelligent conversation 
anymore- all she can do is yell and scream certain phrases? Now poor 
Kreacher, all he has for company is the distorted vision of his old master 
that he loved-- and he isn't going to dare suggest that she's flawed, even 
if the enchantment on that portrait is flawed or old or going bad or losing 
it's power. So he starts to see that sort of insanity, if that woman were 
real, as normal. And, pleasing that portrait becomes his "only" means of 
serving his family. That batty old portrait cares nothing for the dust, or 
the doxies in the curtains, as she only sees her hallway. Thus Kreacher 
isn't really negligent, although he would be if he had real people living in 
that house all that time- people who would be using every room. Kreacher 
would be worthless if he was put into a normal situation, and indeed once he 
is suddenly thrown back into a world of serving LOTS of people who all 
expect normal elf behavior from him. It would take a while to reform 
Kreacher, since it took a while for Kreacher to become a little nutters.

DD seems to say something to that effect, that if Sirius had taken the time 
with him, that even Kreacher wasn't beyond redemption. Instead, Sirius 
didn't want to reform a reminder of his family's Dark heritage, and thus 
doesn't see Kreacher as an individual who has feelings. Hermione, for all 
her elf-rights mantra, still doesn't see Kreacher for who he is- and that it 
will take more than just a few words of kindness to set him right.

Shelley 





From mathias_forseti at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 04:21:14 2006
From: mathias_forseti at yahoo.com (mathias_forseti)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 04:21:14 -0000
Subject: Some thoughts and questions
Message-ID: <ek5rvq+5hba@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161898

Here are some thoughts, well, mostly questions I have.  Hope I am not
double tapping anything.

Where will the "great battle" be?
 o 12 Grimmwauld Place
 o Hogwarts (where Voldemort wanted to always be)
 o Godric's Hollow (where this story started)
 o Wherever the last Horcrux is at
 o Some random place
 o Dept of Mysteries / Ministry of Magic

Do you think Neville will battle with Bellatrix?  Is he the main
character that dies?  Does Bellatrix go after Neville's grandmother?

What role does Grawp play in the final book?  Will the Hogwarts house
elves play an important role?

"mathias_forseti"



~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Your friendly neighborhood list elf inserts a request:
When replying, please specify the topic(s) in the subject line.
Thanks!




From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 10:38:45 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:38:45 +1300 (NZDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ronald Weasley
In-Reply-To: <ek3v13+nht0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061124103845.69885.qmail@web38301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161899


--- vama_30595 <vama_30595 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't know whether it is true or not but I read it
> somewhere that Ron
> was going to be on LV. I mean if he joins him then
> LV would know
> everything because Harry used to tell him much more
> than Hermione.
> I just want to know what you think about it...

>Lana writes:
>It is always possible considering how touchy Ron is.
>It would add a horrific twist to the story, but not
>sure if it wouldn't be to catastrophic.
>I can see LV using Ron with the Imperius, but i
>honestly don't think he would flop sides. First, he
>is to close to Hermoine. She would never fip sides.
>He is way to protective of Ginny to risk her being
>hurt. And to be honest, he seems like a horrible
>MaMas boy to ever do such a thing to his parents.

Cassy:
Interesting theory. Somehow I never heard it before. I
agree that Ron will not flip side willingly, but I 
believe Imperius is not the only option. If Ron had to
choose between lives of Ginny, or Mione, or his
parents, taken hostage by LV, and Harry whom would he
chose? Would he betray Harry to save others he loves
or sacrifies them?

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 



From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 10:44:53 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:44:53 +1300 (NZDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Where will the "great battle" be (was: Some thoughts and questions)
In-Reply-To: <ek5rvq+5hba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061124104453.39836.qmail@web38314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161900


--- mathias_forseti <mathias_forseti at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Where will the "great battle" be?
>  o 12 Grimmwauld Place
>  o Hogwarts (where Voldemort wanted to always be)
>  o Godric's Hollow (where this story started)
>  o Wherever the last Horcrux is at
>  o Some random place
>  o Dept of Mysteries / Ministry of Magic


Cassy:

I think placing the great last battle (and we bound to
have it, otherwise the ending woulds be anticlimatic)
to Godric's Hollow will be a nice touch, making a
complete circle with everything ending where it
started. And perhaps in epilog we will see some sort
of memorial of two dearths of Voldemort being built
there. 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 



From darksworld at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 13:07:37 2006
From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:07:37 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (long-ish) (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <003201c70f1d$9e3c2b00$5c72400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ek6qqp+nsej@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161901

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
 
> Magpie:
> Sure, they were all basing their characters on something--but the 
question 
> is why would JK Rowling be using that particular view of slaves in 
her books 
> today? She's supposed to be a 21st century author, one of whose 
themes is 
> that Wizards viewing other species as inferior is wrong. So why 
would she 
> feel she needed a race based on 19th century slave stereotypes?

Charles:

I'm not so sure that she based the house elves themselves on those 
stereotypes. I think she rather built the view that *Harry* sees from 
the WW on those stereotypes. The elves are certainly not like human 
slaves, nor is their slavery exactly paralell.

And now for my take on the whole elf slavery issue:
I've seen several folks say that the house elves cannot be 
representative of human slavery because the circumstances are not 
exactly the same.I really don't think so. I think that the only 
paralell necessary for it to serve as a representative of human 
slavery is that sentient beings are owned by other sentient beings. 
But whether it is or is not representative of human slavery, there 
*must* be differences because not only are the house elves a 
different species, those who enslave them have magic to enforce their 
obedience.

*If* the house elves are really as against freedom as we have seen, 
(a *big* if in my opinion) I think the question we should ask is if 
it is because of the enchantments that wizards seem to have placed 
upon the entire species? I see this as a great possibility. We've 
only seen two elves rebel against their masters- Dobby and Kreacher. 
I grant that there may have been other cases, but I propose that it 
takes a house elf with extraordinary magic to break through the 
enchantment at all. With those who do, it takes a major effort on 
their part. Dobby was made to punish himself by the Malfoys often, 
and we see Dobby still struggle with the enchantment even after being 
freed. Kreacher, on the other hand has shown no desire to punish 
himself for speaking ill of his masters. Kreacher cannot seem to 
direct these comments directly at Harry or Sirius, instead muttering 
them. Whether a case of being cooped up too long with an insane 
portrait in #12 causing him to mutter his thoughts, or a way for him 
to rebel without actually backtalking his master directly, this can 
be seen as a break with the enchantment. The opposite case is Winky, 
who remains fiercely loyal to Crouch even after he sends her packing. 
She cannot speak ill of him, even though he has cast her aside. 

Another possibility I see for the house elves "fear of freedom" (for 
lack of a better term at the moment)is tradition. While human slavery 
has existed in human cultures for longer than anyone who loves our 
species would really care to admit, it has not been as continuous for 
one group of people as it has presumably been for house elves. If I 
understand the situation correctly, house elves have been serving 
human wizards for over a thousand years, since before the founding of 
Hogwarts. That would seen to me to be a tradition that is pretty 
tough to break with. For many hundreds of years, they have known 
nothing but the slavery that is their lot now. Although we don't see 
elf reproduction, we can assume it happens. Elves would therefore be 
raised from birth to believe that their place is to serve humans. In 
human societies, tradition is a very strong compulsion and very hard 
to break with. Look at how recently the subservience of women was 
called into question and rejected in western societies-many of which 
actually were matriarchal before the spreading of Christianity. There 
are still people even now who are trying to put women "back in their 
place," even though enlightened people would be happy to see that 
barbarism disappear forever. Indeed, to look at something a good deal 
less important, yet nonetheless ingrained as tradition, look at 
clothing. For thousands of years, men wore skirtlike garments in most 
cultures. Trousers are a fairly recent invention. But some people 
will go absolutely nuts at the sight of a man in a Kilt, skirt or 
caftan, calling them perverted, evil crossdressers- when just 400 
years ago trousers as we know them didn't even exist. So after a 
thousand years or more of elves serving humans as slaves, never 
taking payment, what will be thought of a boat rocker who wants a 
galleon or two for his work? What will be thought of a person who 
wants to take numerous elves away from the only life they've ever 
known?

That being said, slavery is wrong, in human or house elf. That the 
elves *seem* to enjoy their servitude and fear the challenging of the 
way of life they were raised to believe in does not make that  
servitude proper. As I said earlier, there are backwards people who 
want women to go back to what they call their "proper place" and be 
submissive to men again. The road to freedom for western women was a 
long row to hoe, and the pioneers who first set out on it were 
treated by their sisters as mad or evil. That still did not make the 
way women were treated at the time right. I'm hoping that in the 
epilogue to book seven that JKR has spoken of, we find out that the 
house elves do eventually win their freedom and shake off the 
opression of wizards. 

On a whole different train of thought that just crashed into my sleep 
deprived head- what if the house elves turned out to be all descended 
from a particular (wizard) family that fell afoul of a very powerful 
(dark) wizard? I'm not seriously suggesting that that will come 
around, it just popped into my head as I was getting done with this 
post. 

Charles, who had to weigh in on this topic at some point.

P.S.- If any of this doesn't make sense, I blame it on a combination 
of two days insomnia combined with cold medication.





From qistinaharis at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 05:24:58 2006
From: qistinaharis at yahoo.com (tina)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 05:24:58 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <016801c70e52$598935a0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ek5vna+k04l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161902

Lana:
"If Beaky didn't die, then
why would you need to save him?"


I totally agree with Sarah.

Buckbeak didn't die indeed but they thought he died when they heard
the axe which is actually the axe against the fence. That is all that
they need to go back and 'save' buckbeak. Therefore, it doesn't change
anything coz Buckbeak never did die.

It's just like a circle, it has no beginning and no end. Not like a
straight line where you start and things go on and on. Not like that.

Everything happens, has to happen. Thus, making things the way they
are and why when you time-travel you must never change anything.

Tina





From bartl at sprynet.com  Fri Nov 24 13:05:19 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:05:19 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups]How much does Dumbledore know?
In-Reply-To: <ek5fru+t5is@eGroups.com>
References: <ek5fru+t5is@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4566EE0F.4080809@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161903

justcarol67 wrote:
> Carol, curious as to what you mean by "as his name certainly implies"

Bart:
	With a name like Dumbledore, do you think he would speak unless it was 
necessary? Otherwise, he would be Talksfartoomuchforhisowngoodledore.

	Bart



From antonia31h at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 09:15:32 2006
From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:15:32 -0000
Subject: Lily Evans Potter
Message-ID: <ek6d7k+n7so@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161904

Hi
I'm new to this community and this is my first post here. Hope I'm not
making a fool of myself with my speculations but I just felt I needed
to say this somewhere. First I have to begin by saying that I am a
huge Severus Snape fan and even if his behaviour is not a good one I
can't help loving him. Anyway my post is about Lily, Harry's mother
and although this might sound crazy but I think she's alive somehow. I
mean she is such an important character, we hear mentions of her in
the books so that these lead me to the conclusion that she is not dead
after all. And when JKR said that in book seven we will find out
something crucial about Lily well I just went for the idea that she is
not dead. I know this might sound ridiculous but...
Does anybody else thought of it?

antonia






From bartl at sprynet.com  Fri Nov 24 13:59:11 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:59:11 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (long-ish) (Was:
 Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ek6qqp+nsej@eGroups.com>
References: <ek6qqp+nsej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4566FAAF.3080609@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161905

Magpie:
>> Sure, they were all basing their characters on something--but the 
>> question is why would JK Rowling be using that particular view of 
 >> slaves in her books today? She's supposed to be a 21st century
 >> author, one of whose themes is that Wizards viewing other species
 >> as inferior is wrong. So why would she feel she needed a race
 >> based on 19th century slave stereotypes?

Charles:
> I'm not so sure that she based the house elves themselves on those 
> stereotypes. I think she rather built the view that *Harry* sees from 
> the WW on those stereotypes. The elves are certainly not like human 
> slaves, nor is their slavery exactly paralell.

Bart:
	Well, if you're looking for 21st century equivalents, especially from a 
British point of view, consider the position of women under Sharia Law. 
Time and time again, we have women go in front of TV cameras saying that 
they WANT rules like being forced to wear burkhas, not being allowed 
outside without a male relative or husband to be in charge, not allowed 
to speak to others without permission from their husband, father, 
brothers, or sons, etc. There is a movement to allow Islamic people in 
many European countries, including Great Britain, live under Sharia law. 
Those who say this is wrong are called unsophisticated or fascists or 
cultural bigots.

	Sound familiar?

	Bart



From captainspizzo at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 14:40:02 2006
From: captainspizzo at yahoo.com (Chris Tredennick)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:40:02 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ebt532+63pf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek7082+idj8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161906

> Which Dumbledore died at top of the tower? Everyone
> thinks Aberforth is the barman at the Hogs Head. What
> if Albus and Aberforth are twins? JKR says look at
> Dumbledore`s family and says Dumbledore is dead but
> does not use a forname so using this thought which died?
>
> Raymond.


She states in an interview that "the hero has to go on alone".  To me
that sounds like he (Albus) is really dead.
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2006/0801-radiocity-pressconf.html

Another interesting thought, we know that Mundungus was banned from
the Hog's Head, and that the barman (Aberforth) has a good memory.
However, we see the two of them in Hogsmead, possibly doing business.
 Why is Aberforth dealing with 'Dung?

Chris






From captainspizzo at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 15:38:49 2006
From: captainspizzo at yahoo.com (Chris Tredennick)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:38:49 -0000
Subject: Why does DD trust Snape? (Re: Snapes Behaviour and Legimens)
In-Reply-To: <ejl190+5ltq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek73m9+ar87@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161907

> Sydney:
<snip>
> http://whysnape.tripod.com/rickmanfrench.htm ..

> Q: We gradually discover what Snape went through in the past. It seems
> he didn't have it easy as a teenager...
>
> -[Alan] He wasn't very sociable either.  Snape never had friends. Lily
> Potter really tried to be nice with him, but Snape couldn't support
> her pity.  And with James Potter, his best mate Sirius Black and their
> partner in crime Lupin spending their time ridiculing him, he shut
> himself in even more.  Snape's life is much more complex than it
> seems.  He was a member of the Death Eaters and then became a turncoat
> to join Dumbledore' side. But his past keeps clinging onto him,  so
> coupled with his demeanor few trust him.

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but I have searched for
a recent thread on Snape's loyalty and haven't found one so I'd like
to start a fresh discussion using some bits of information from the
aforementioned interview.
I have been working on a theory regarding the reason DD trusts Snape
"completely".  I believe it has something to do with love,
specifically love Snape has/had for Lily.  The theory is such: Lily
was one of the only people trying to be nice to Snape.  He accepted
this companion at first.  His attachment grew into a love for her.
Maybe he told her he loved her maybe not, but eventually he decided
that his love would never be returned and so began to show animosity
toward her.  Later, when he tells LV the prophecy and finds that LV
means to kill the Potters, he intercedes on Lily's behalf (he still
loves her).  When she dies, Snape is exceptionally remorseful and
approaches DD to redeem himself.  DD is convinced of Snapes affection
for Lily and for this reason chooses to believe Snape is DDM.
I use two main arguments for this theory:
1) DD is a wizard well-versed in the magic of love.  It would be easy
for such a wizard to find the true nature of Snape's feelings.  LV
despises love; it would be easy for an accomplished Legilimens (Snape)
to disguise his feelings (love) from LV who underestimates its power.

2) Snape's Worst Memory.  It struck me as odd that Snape's worst
memory would be him being picked on by James/Sirius.  Didn't that
happen all the time?  Why was this one the worst?  I think it is
because this time Snape lashes aggressively at Lily when she tries to
help him.  Possibly ending what little 'friendship' they had.

Also, a number of small items hint at this theory:
- Lily and Snape were both excellent at potions.  It is likely they
were in the same classes and possibly studied/worked together.
- Lily "needn't have died," it is presumed that only a loyal Death
Eater could have convinced LV not to kill Lily.  Snape was certainly
in the 'inner circle.'
- Snape continues to save/help Harry when he outwardly shows
animosity.  It is possible that this is because of his life-debt to
James, his act for DD, and possibly because he sees Lily sometimes
when he looks at Harry.

I would appreciate feedback on this theory.  Happy Thanksgiving to
those in the US!

Chris




From kernsac at earthlink.net  Fri Nov 24 16:43:25 2006
From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 08:43:25 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily Evans Potter
References: <ek6d7k+n7so@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <037201c70fe7$aa8c9370$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354>

No: HPFGUIDX 161908

Antonia said:  Anyway my post is about Lily, Harry's mother
and although this might sound crazy but I think she's alive somehow.

Peggy now:  I'd wondered vaguely if Lily could be alive somewhere, somehow, 
but dismissed that thought, because if she hadn't died to save Harry, he 
wouldn't have had the protection he has had, and he would have been dead a 
long time ago himself.

Peggy 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 18:21:19 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:21:19 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <3202590611232150k126e2a11ue51c762ad84d1ab7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ek7d6v+45sl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161909

Sarah wrote:
<snip>
> Here's what I think is the simplest way to wrap up the SPEW storyline.
>  In year 7, set it up so that there's a headmaster the elves really
> don't like.  He/she has to be worse than Umbridge, at least from the
> elves' point of view.  If they really get enough, they'll be ready to
> take all those hats and scarves (which had too much time devoted to
> them to not really be anything other than filler/comic relief).  Then
> they can do anything they want, like fight in a war for example.
> Their heroics on the battleground could be more of a catalyst for
> social change than anything Hermione could do singlehandedly.

Carol responds:
I don't think that the hats and scarves are still lying around for the
taking (Dobby has them all), and there were never enough to free all
the house-elves, anyway. Nor do I think, based on the ending of HBP,
that Hermione will be in Hogwarts in Book 7 to knit and distribute
more hats and scarves. It seems clear that both she and Ron will
remain with Harry. 

I think and hope that McGonagall, surely the most qualified person
even in the eyes of the now-chastened Ministry, will be promoted from
interim headmistress to permanent headmistress. She, of course, would
be kind to the house-elves (unless she has a sadistic streak we
haven't seen--sternness is not sadism). I do think that the
house-elves will play a small but important role in Book 7 (JKR has
already written at least one scene involving them), but I think they
would fight for Hogwarts out of loyalty to their home, the dead
headmaster, and the current headmistress. The last thing on their
minds, IMO, will be freedom. They like their jobs and, if Dobby is to
be trusted as a source of information, they recall terrible times, if
not for themselves then for their relatives, when Voldemort was
powerful. So, yes, they'll probably fight, and we'll see what they're
capable of (either Harry will be there or JKR will change the pov),
but I doubt that they'll be free at the time. Loyalty is the defining
characteristic of house-elves, and I'm sure it will be their
motivation in opposing Voldemort.

I think and hope that SPEW is as dead as a doornail, but someone,
perhaps Hermione, will speak up for their right to be treated fairly
and by timeframe of the Epilogue, the Fountain of Magical Brethren
will cease to be a lie. Either that or it will be rebuilt (reforged?),
with the magical beings depicted as equals.

Carol, who still thinks that house-elves were born to serve and like
it that way as long as they're treated justly and fairly





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 18:32:12 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 18:32:12 -0000
Subject: Where will the "great battle" be (was: Some thoughts and questions)
In-Reply-To: <20061124104453.39836.qmail@web38314.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ek7drc+8bnh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161910

Cassy wrote:
> 
> I think placing the great last battle (and we bound to
> have it, otherwise the ending woulds be anticlimatic)
> to Godric's Hollow will be a nice touch, making a
> complete circle with everything ending where it
> started. And perhaps in epilog we will see some sort
> of memorial of two dearths of Voldemort being built
> there. 

Carol responds:
While I agree that a final battle at Godric's Hollow would bring the
book full circle, I don't think it will happen that way simply because
the only way I can think of for Harry to kill a de-Horcruxed Voldemort
without AKing him is to send him through the Veil. JKR has said that
Sirius Black's death served a purpose in the plot other than robbing
Harry of yet another father figure (or "brother" figure and link with
his father). Quite possibly it foreshadowed Voldemort's similar fate
(just as, possibly, Cedric's "take my body back" foreshadowed a
similar request by Sirius Black).

Carol, who thinks that one reason OoP is important in JKR's view is
the motifs and locations it introduced





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 19:10:54 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:10:54 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <ek5vna+k04l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek7g3u+dfpf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161911

Lana:
> "If Beaky didn't die, then
> why would you need to save him?"
> 
Tina responded: 
> I totally agree with Sarah.
> 
> Buckbeak didn't die indeed but they thought he died when they heard
the axe which is actually the axe against the fence. That is all that
they need to go back and 'save' buckbeak. Therefore, it doesn't change
anything coz Buckbeak never did die.
> 
> It's just like a circle, it has no beginning and no end. Not like a
> straight line where you start and things go on and on. Not like that.
> 
> Everything happens, has to happen. Thus, making things the way they
> are and why when you time-travel you must never change anything.

Carol adds:
I also agree with Sarah, having already presented my arguments earlier
in the thread. I just want to add that when Hermione Time!Turned
throughout the year in PoA, she never changed events. There was never
a class she didn't attend and went back to change. She was always in
two, or even three(?), classes at the same time. Note that when she
sleeps through Charms, she doesn't use the Time turner to go back and
undo her mistake. She just runs to Professor Flitwick to apologize.

Hermione warns Harry that they must not be seen, probably because
McGonagall has warned her not to be, but it can't be for the reasons
she gives. How can you kill your past or future self? Your future self
wouldn't kill your past self because you'd know who it was and that
you'd be killing both selves. And unless your future self looks
exactly like you and you think it must be a Polyjuiced DE, why would
you kill it? You'd just think, hey, that person looks a lot like me!
But in Hermione's case, the two selves are just two hours apart and
dressed alike. Normal!Hermione, who uses a Time Turner every day,
would recognize her Time-Turned self and realize that she was about to
use the Time Turner to go back and do something, which would, of
course, spoil the plot but wouldn't do any harm to either self.

I don't think Hermione really understands the operation of the Time
Turner, that they aren't so much saving Buckbeak and SB as preventing
what would have happened if they hadn't gone back. But there is no
alternate past to be undone. They always went back, and IMO,
Dumbledore knows they're out there, so he stalls to give them more
time. I think he realizes as he speaks to them in the hospital wing
that they used the Time Turner to get back there and sends them to
"save" a creature and a man who have already been saved because he's
already sent them. (Cf. "I knew I could cast it because I already
did," badly quoted from memory.

The Time-Turning was always part of those three hours. Harry just
doesn't know that he can be in two places at one time, and Hermione,
who does know perfectly well that such a thing is possible, doesn't
make the connection until DD says "Three turns should do it."

IMO, we haven't read any other in which someone is miraculously
rescued by anyone or anything who could be a Time!Turned Harry. DD
wasn't rescued, so he won't be. The same applies to Cedric, Sirius
Black, and Harry's parents. Time occurs only once for everyone except
the Time-Turned characters, who experience it twice. "No spell can
bring back the dead, Harry"--including the charm that turns hour
glasses into Time Turners.

Even if it were possible to alter time in the Potterverse, and I'm
sure it isn't, having Harry undo even one or two unhappy events would,
IMO, spoil the effect of those events on the story and on his
character development, not to mention that, as DD points out, every
action has unintended consequences. Just as evil deeds like the
attempt to murder Harry can have good consequences, in this case
separating Voldemort from his body and creating his nemesis, good
deeds like preventing Harry's father's friends from becoming murderers
can have bad consequences, in this case the resurrection of Voldemort.
Who knows what consequences changing even one event would have. The
whole series would have to be rewritten.

Carol, who thinks that using a Time-Turner to alter the past would be
tantamount to "it was only a dream," the ultimate copout ending





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 19:14:44 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:14:44 -0000
Subject: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <ek5hu3+alqq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek7gb4+ruak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161912

---  "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> ...substantiall edited....
>
> > Magpie:
> > My vote goes for Filch. He and Figg are the two 
> > Squibs, but Filch wants it more. I'm hoping it's 
> > Filch, that is, but in general I assume it would 
> > have to be a Squib.
> 
> Carol responds:
> Filch is certainly a possibility since he had magical
> parents, knows what a wand is for, and no doubt knows 
> the incantation for a number of spells. The same is 
> true for Figgy. Since Filch tried and failed to learn 
> elementary magic from the QwikSpell course, I think 
> Figgy is slightly more likely to be able to perform it,
> and as member of the Order, is more likely than Filch
> to have contact with Harry during Book 7. I also prefer
> Figgy to Filch because she's such a feisty character ...

bboyminn:

As you all seem to know by now, JKR said this about
Petunia -

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=37

Q: Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies

A: No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic,
 nor will she ever be able to do so.

That seems pretty clear, though I admit Petunia is a
wonderfully likely candidate and certainly the first
person everyone thought of when the subject first came up,
but it seems the idea had been totally and completely shot
down.

A bit of history - JKR was specifically asked if Petunia 
was a Squib. Well, on the surface we can all see what a
flawed question this is. We know Harry's maternal 
grandparents were muggles, that means there is no way
Petunia could be a Squib. And JKR says Petunia is not a
Squib BUT.... That means there is more to the story.

This statement lead to speculation in this group and 
others that JKR answered the question literally so as not
to give way the secret, which we then speculated was - no
Petunia is not a Squib, she is a witch, a muggle-born 
witch. That is the big 'BUT' she spoke of.

JKR tried to squelch the rumor further by stating that 
Petunia was a 'muggle', but was that the absolute truth,
or a play on words? Some of us speculated it might be a
play on words. That truly Petunia is a muggle born of 
muggles which could imply that in the magical sense she
might be a 'muggle-born', in other words, a witch. We 
are good at twists of logic here in this group.

In making the statement quoted above, JKR seems to end
the rumons that it is Petunia who will do magic. Yet,
it doesn't completely end the speculation that Petunia
could be a witch who simply denied that aspect of herself
and refused to go to Hogwarts. The door is still open but
admittedly, just the tiniest of cracks.

Vernon and Dudley have the potential for HUGE humorous
irony if it turns out to be either one of them. But JKR
has said that Dudley is just Dudley and that there 
really isn't anything there other than the obvious.

Vernon seems so unlikely as a person who does magic. At
least there is some foundation for us to speculate on
Petunia, but there is absolutely nothing to even remotely
imply that it could be Vernon. Though, I admit, that 
perhaps this BIG NOTHING in the books is the very clue
we are looking for.

That narrows the likely field down to Mrs. Figg and Mr.
Filch. A agree that Figg is the move favorable character
and is more likely to be around Harry. But considering
how miserable and depressed Filch is, I think I would
feel a definite sympathetic joy if it were him. Mrs.
Figg seems to have carved a very satisfying nitch for
herself in the wizard world. Filch on the other hand 
while he has a nitch in terms of a job, it is a job that
makes him miserable. It is a job that is a constant 
reminder of his own failings. So, again, I think I would
feel some symapathetic joy if it was Filch.

Now to the real question. To determine which of the two is
more likely to produce magic, we must look at another 
seemingly unrelated aspect of the story. To determine if
it is Filch or Figg, we must ask which is MORE likely to 
occur, and attack on Hogwarts or an attack on Privet 
Drive????? Though admitedly some of us think both, but
one remaining book doesn't seem to leave room for both.

So...attack...Hogwarts or Privet Drive. 

The one that is most likely to be attacked, is the one 
the provides the opportunity for our resident Squib to 
be compelled into performing magic. 


> Carol continues:
>
> ... Also, Filch and Figgy genuinely  qualify as being 
> "late in life," whereas Petunia and Vernon are 
> middle-aged. I know that some people read "late in life"
> as "late in developing magic," but the phrases really 
> aren't equivalent. Just use "late in life" in another 
> context and most people will think you mean at age 
> sixty or later.
>  

bboyminn:

Question: Is it 'LATE in life' or is it 'lateR in life'?
LateR in life covers a huge span of time and could 
equally include anyone from Mark Evans to Aunt Petunia 
to Mrs. Figg to some yet to be introduced ancient Squib. 

Though, if the quote is truly 'LATE in life' then I 
agree with Carol that it has to be someone who is well
past middle age. 

In only a years time, we will know the answer - 
Whoo-Hoo! ...or is that Boo Hoo?

Steve/bboyminn




From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 15:14:50 2006
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 07:14:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Ronald Weasley
In-Reply-To: <20061124103845.69885.qmail@web38301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <765741.53921.qm@web33208.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161913

Cassy wrote:Cassy:
Interesting theory. Somehow I never heard it before. I
agree that Ron will not flip side willingly, but I 
believe Imperius is not the only option. If Ron had to
choose between lives of Ginny, or Mione, or his
parents, taken hostage by LV, and Harry whom would he
chose? Would he betray Harry to save others he loves
or sacrifies them?
   
  My, Melanie's reply:  I doubt very seriously he would ever really betray Harry.  However, I do wonder about Molly Weasley, and not her giving up Harry but lets just say she had an opportunity to give info. As where Hermione is...I think she would do it if she was told that her family would then be spared.  
   
   

 




From davep747 at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Nov 24 19:59:29 2006
From: davep747 at yahoo.co.uk (davep747)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:59:29 -0000
Subject: How much does Dumbledore know?
In-Reply-To: <4566EE0F.4080809@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <ek7iv1+n71k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161914

> justcarol67 wrote:
> > Carol, curious as to what you mean by "as his name
> > certainly implies"
>
> Bart:
> With a name like Dumbledore, do you think he would speak
> unless it was necessary? Otherwise, he would be
> Talksfartoomuchforhisowngoodledore.


Let us all remember too...

In the first book DD also tells Harry that "He" meaning DD does
not need an Invisibility Cloak as he appears from no where
watching Harry looking into the Mirror. Therefore, DD could be
many places (classrooms, hallways, all four houses) and not be
seen.

Dave





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Fri Nov 24 20:26:26 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:26:26 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ronald Weasley
References: <765741.53921.qm@web33208.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009b01c71006$d0efe7a0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161915

>Cassy wrote:
>Interesting theory. Somehow I never >heard it before. I
>agree that Ron will not flip side >willingly, but I 
>believe Imperius is not the only option. >If Ron had to
>choose between lives of Ginny, or >Mione, or his
>parents, taken hostage by LV, and Harry >whom would he
>chose? Would he betray Harry to save >others he loves
>or sacrifies them?

>My, Melanie wrote: 
>I doubt very seriously he would ever >really betray Harry. However, I do >wonder about Molly Weasley, and not >her giving up Harry but lets just say she >had an opportunity to give info. As >where Hermione is...I think she would >do it if she was told that her family >would then be spared. 

Lana writes:
Now that is a dang good question..  Molly... Hmmm..
I can't see her giving anyone up, however, for the sake of her family, she might give up info.  To Molly her family is the most important.  Look how she reacted to the boggart.
  I would have to say as a parent, it would be a natural choice to save your children even if it meant someone else would die.
  However...  Most adults would do what they could to protect all involved.  I cannot say that I honestly think she could betray Harry, but I also do not think she would choose him over her own.
  Lana


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 20:49:10 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 20:49:10 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (long-ish) (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ek6qqp+nsej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek7ls6+lg31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161916

Charles wrote:
<snip> 
> 
> Another possibility I see for the house elves "fear of freedom" (for 
> lack of a better term at the moment)is tradition. <snip> If I 
> understand the situation correctly, house elves have been serving 
> human wizards for over a thousand years, since before the founding
of Hogwarts. That would seen to me to be a tradition that is pretty 
> tough to break with. For many hundreds of years, they have known 
> nothing but the slavery that is their lot now.

Carol responds:
I agree with this part of your post. If you're born into servitude and
you're part of a long tradition (your family has "always" served that
family), you feel as if you have a place in the world, a niche where
you belong. Freedom removes that place or niche and forces you to
create a life for yourself. You have to find employment and earn a
living on your own, essentially selling your skills to the highest
bidder. Anyone who's ever been unemployed for any reason knows how
hard that is. How did Dobby and Winky live for that year or so when
they were looking for work? Magic can't create food. Freedom can
indeed be a scary thing unless you have inexhaustible wealth to go
with it. And there's also the matter of rules. If you know the rules,
you know what to do and how to act. House-elves in someone's home know
what's expected of them. In the outside world, there are no such
guidelines, or if there are, they don't know them. It's scary going
out on your own. Ask any teenager who's suddenly forced to earn a
living after having his needs taken care of by mom and dad. Freedom is
not worth much in itself. Yes, you can vote and you have the right to
choose your own line of work, but you have to know how to succeed in a
competitive free world or you'll starve. Much safer, much less scary,
to do the work that your ancestors have traditionally done, to serve
the family that they served, especially if you're treated kindly. You
know your place, you know the rules, you have food and shelter. Why
risk losing all that just to be free? Not that I'm advocating slavery
or opposing democracy. I'm only saying that fear of freedom is
perfectly understandable, especially from a House-Elf's point of view.
Or even a Hobbit's. Imagine how Sam Gamgee would feel if Frodo
suddenly "freed" him. I see his being Frodo's servant as a form of
voluntary servitude, comparable to that of House-Elves before any
spells compelling their obedience were placed on them. Without Mr.
Frodo, he would feel that he had no purpose in life. (Until Frodo
leaves for the Undying Lands, of course.)

Charles wrote:
> Although we don't see elf reproduction, we can assume it happens.
Elves would therefore be raised from birth to believe that their place
is to serve humans.

Carol responds:
True, we don't see House-Elf reproduction, but Winky speaks of her
mother and grandmother, who also worked for the Crouches, and the
heads of Kreacher's ancestors, including his mother, IIRC, line the
walls of 12 GP's hallway. So, yes, it happens. I doubt that House-Elf
marriage is allowed, though. Maybe a House-Elf doesn't even know who
his father is. Notice that House-Elves have only one name, no last
naem identifying them with their fathers. Best not to think about it,
I guess.

Charles wrote:
> In human societies, tradition is a very strong compulsion and very
hard to break with. Look at how recently the subservience of women was
called into question and rejected in western societies-many of which
actually were matriarchal before the spreading of Christianity. <snip>

Carol responds:
Let's not blame patriarchy on Christianity. The Greeks and Romans were
patriarchal, as were the Hebrews. Nor is patriarchy restricted to
Western cultures. Look at the harems of the sultans and, say,
foot-binding in the Orient. Granted, women had more rights in some
cultures than others, say the pre-Christian Celtic tribes, but if I'm
not mistaken, the Welsh continued to allow women more privileges than
the English did even into Anglo-Norman times when both cultures were
Christian. (I'm not an expert on those cultures, so please correct me
if I'm wrong. I'm only saying that patriarchy predates Christianity
and was widespread among non-Christian as well as Christian cultures
by the time we're speaking of, ca. a thousand years ago and beyond.)
If you want a patriarchal culture today, check out fundamentalist Islam.

Carol, responding to various subpoints without being sure of her own
main point




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Nov 24 21:18:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:18:22 -0000
Subject: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <ek7gb4+ruak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek7niu+ism6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161917

Carol earlier:
> >
> > ... Also, Filch and Figgy genuinely  qualify as being "late in
life," whereas Petunia and Vernon are middle-aged. I know that some
people read "late in life" as "late in developing magic," but the
phrases really aren't equivalent. Just use "late in life" in another 
context and most people will think you mean at age sixty or later.
> >  
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Question: Is it 'LATE in life' or is it 'lateR in life'?
> LateR in life covers a huge span of time and could 
> equally include anyone from Mark Evans to Aunt Petunia 
> to Mrs. Figg to some yet to be introduced ancient Squib. 
> 
> Though, if the quote is truly 'LATE in life' then I 
> agree with Carol that it has to be someone who is well
> past middle age. 

Carol again:
Here's the full quote from the 1999 Barnes and Noble interview:

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/0399-barnesandnoble.html

"JKR: In my books, magic almost always shows itself in a person before
age 11; however, there is a character who does manage in desperate
circumstances to do magic quite late in life, but that is very rare in
the world I am writing about."

IMO, people have been misled to the reference to age 11 at the
beginning of the sentence, but "quite late in life" to me suggests old
age, and only Figgy and Filch really qualify there. And "desperate
circumstances" suggests a battle. I vote for an attack on Privet Drive
in which Figgy's courage is rewarded by the temporary ability to
perform magic in an adrenaline rush (as I once lifted a Ford Galaxy
out of a ditch because I was alone in a forest and there was no one to
rescue me), but I can't rule out an attack on Hogwarts in which Filch
proves that his loyalties lie with Hogwarts and gets his one chance to
perform magic. I just think that such an opportunity would be wasted
on him since it would make him resent his normal nonmagic state even more.

Carol, thinking that "quite late in life" combined with JKR's remarks
on Muggles not being able to perform magic under any circumstances
pretty much limits us to those two candidates






From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Nov 24 21:09:26 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 16:09:26 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic late in life
References: <ek7gb4+ruak@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006201c7100c$d7913c20$d68c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161918

Steve:
> JKR tried to squelch the rumor further by stating that
> Petunia was a 'muggle', but was that the absolute truth,
> or a play on words? Some of us speculated it might be a
> play on words. That truly Petunia is a muggle born of
> muggles which could imply that in the magical sense she
> might be a 'muggle-born', in other words, a witch. We
> are good at twists of logic here in this group.
>
> In making the statement quoted above, JKR seems to end
> the rumons that it is Petunia who will do magic. Yet,
> it doesn't completely end the speculation that Petunia
> could be a witch who simply denied that aspect of herself
> and refused to go to Hogwarts. The door is still open but
> admittedly, just the tiniest of cracks.

Magpie:
I have to be honest--I think saying that the door is still open, even with 
the tiniest of cracks--is inaccurate--just as I thought a lot of the 
"cracks" in the door re: shipping questions were inaccurate pre-HBP. Readers 
have kept their foot in the door, but I don't see how "she is a Muggle" is a 
play on words. A Muggleborn witch is a witch. The only time we've heard a 
Muggleborn witch called a Muggle it was a slur on Hermione-I can't imagine 
JKR would use it that way. If she meant to say that Petunia was not a Squib 
because her parents were Muggles but she herself was a witch not using 
magic, I'd think she'd have said, "She's not a Squib, her parents are 
Muggles, but...".

I just don't see how "she is a Muggle" can in any way leave the door open to 
"she is a witch" of any kind. She can be a special Muggle, one that has some 
kind of ties to magic that others don't, but if she's a witch then I think 
Rowling just lied.

-m 





From siskiou at vcem.com  Fri Nov 24 21:14:34 2006
From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:14:34 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ronald Weasley
In-Reply-To: <20061124103845.69885.qmail@web38301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <ek3v13+nht0@eGroups.com>
 <20061124103845.69885.qmail@web38301.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <756409269.20061124131434@vcem.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161919



Hi,

Friday, November 24, 2006, 2:38:45 AM, Cassy wrote:

> I
> agree that Ron will not flip side willingly, but I
> believe Imperius is not the only option. If Ron had to
> choose between lives of Ginny, or Mione, or his
> parents, taken hostage by LV, and Harry whom would he
> chose? Would he betray Harry to save others he loves
> or sacrifies them?

I find these theories interesting, though you
could turn the whole thing around and ask what
*Harry* would do if Ginny were captured and he had
to chose between saving Ron or Hermione or
sacrifice Ginny.

I think both Ron and Harry would do anything in
their power to save everyone or sacrifice
themselves in the process.

And if someone is put into a situation like this,
I would exactly call it "betrayal".
No matter what you do, someone will be hurt or
killed. How can you decide if something like this
happens?

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at vcem.com






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Nov 24 23:33:18 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:33:18 -0000
Subject: RAB revisited
In-Reply-To: <ek5ihk+b802@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek7vfu+6m6c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161920


> Carol notes:
> If it matters, Mrs. Figg has been mentioned in every book since SS/PS
> though we didn't know her first name or that she was one of the "old
> crowd" till GoF. Perhaps a better example is Bode, identified as an
> Unspeakable at the QWC and then Imperio'd and murdered by a potted
> plant in OoP.

Abergoat writes:

I should have been more clear, I wasn't saying she was introduced for
the first time by Dumbledore in GoF, I was noting that her name was
used BY Dumbledore hinting she had a connection to the wizarding world
(along with Harry noting that one of the World Cup tents reminded him
of her house) a book earlier than us finding out she was a Squib.

Prior to OotP (and Dumbledore's mention of her in GoF) Mrs Figg was
just a batty muggle with cats that the Dursley's allowed to care for
Harry...she had no connection to the wizarding world.

Abergoat




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sat Nov 25 03:09:19 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:09:19 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
Message-ID: <ca1.3f356c1.32990ddf@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161921

>Betsy Hp:
>But since Kreacher didn't *want* to serve tea to any  of Sirius's 
guests, I think there was a method to his "madness". Also, I  think 
it's important to remember that a house-elf uses *magic* to do much  
of their work. So what's drudgery to you or me is a snap (literally  
<g>) to a house-elf. (Though it wouldn't surprise me if we find out  
that Kreacher stooped and stumbled a bit more than need be to add to 
his  "I can't do nothing about nothing, I'm just a craaazzzy house-
elf"  routine.)
 
Nikkalmati:
 
I tend to agree with Betsy here that Kreacher is exaggerating his mental  
condition to get away with whatever he wants or doesn't want to do.  I  don't for 
a minute believe that he doesn't realize his mutterings are  overheard.  He 
can't directly call Hermione a Mudblood to her face, but I  am sure he knows 
she hears him say it to himself.
 
Nikkalmati



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




From scarah at gmail.com  Sat Nov 25 03:41:59 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:41:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lily Evans Potter
In-Reply-To: <037201c70fe7$aa8c9370$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354>
References: <ek6d7k+n7so@eGroups.com>
	 <037201c70fe7$aa8c9370$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354>
Message-ID: <3202590611241941y3cde56cay3ac75f7aca1a646d@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161922

Sarah:

It would be nice, wouldn't it?  Unfortunately, there's no lack of
interviews stating pretty emphatically that both Harry's parents are
dead.  In fact, that was part of the first chain of reasoning that
inspired the entire plot.

'JK Rowling: Exactly. From that moment I thought "Why doesn't he know
he's a wizard?" It was as though the story was just there for me to
discover. His parents are dead he needs to find out they're wizards
and on we went from there.'

I know she's tricky sometimes, but she usually gives a hint that she
has to be tricky.  When she states things as given like that, we can
generally go by them.  That's just one, there are lots more discussing
Godric's Hollow, etc.  She's shady about certain details like whether
any other people may have been there, and a few other things, but
never about Lily having died.

If you'd rather not regard the interviews and stick with the story,
how could her shade come out of Voldemort's wand, if she were alive
somewhere?  And why would she ever allow Harry to remain with the
Dursleys?  And how could Dumbledore have such a profoundly messed up
understanding of the protection magic he's always on about?  I know he
says himself that when he messes up it can be bigger than other
people's screw-ups, but that's something that is so basic to all six
of the books.  And there's never been any clue that I'm aware of that
it might not work the way he says it does.

Sarah



From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 03:34:55 2006
From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 03:34:55 -0000
Subject: Vernon Dursley and the Seal of Hogwarts
Message-ID: <ek8dkv+bavc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161923

There has been a lot chat about Vernon Dursley and there is one thing 
I noticed and that was in the movie and the book, Vernon's eyes lit up 
when he saw the wax seal of Hogwarts and he knew what it was. 

My question is how did he know? Did Petunia describe it to him at one 
time or did some one in Vernon's family go to Hogwarts?

dragonkeeper




From scarah at gmail.com  Sat Nov 25 04:12:55 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 20:12:55 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Vernon Dursley and the Seal of Hogwarts
In-Reply-To: <ek8dkv+bavc@eGroups.com>
References: <ek8dkv+bavc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611242012ib14d7f5t281e3a7f6ef47d46@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161924

dragonkeeper:
There has been a lot chat about Vernon Dursley and there is one thing
I noticed and that was in the movie and the book, Vernon's eyes lit up
when he saw the wax seal of Hogwarts and he knew what it was.

Sarah:
In the book, Harry has taken the first letter out of the envelope
before Vernon takes it from him.  Vernon reads the letter itself, and
that's when his face starts changing colors.  He puts the letter back
in the envelope simultaneously while throwing Harry and Dudley out of
the kitchen.  A minute later, Petunia points out the address on the
envelope to Vernon, but they don't appear to regard the seal on the
other side.  As far as I can tell, the only mention of the seal is
when Harry noticed it in the hallway.

Sarah



From scarah at gmail.com  Sat Nov 25 06:24:17 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:24:17 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ek7d6v+45sl@eGroups.com>
References: <3202590611232150k126e2a11ue51c762ad84d1ab7@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ek7d6v+45sl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611242224m1b8d2781gbda7acdb9ca34f37@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161925

> Carol responds:
> I don't think that the hats and scarves are still lying around for the
> taking (Dobby has them all), and there were never enough to free all
> the house-elves, anyway. Nor do I think, based on the ending of HBP,
> that Hermione will be in Hogwarts in Book 7 to knit and distribute
> more hats and scarves. It seems clear that both she and Ron will
> remain with Harry.

Sarah:
I've always thought that all of the trio will end up spending some
significant amount of time at Hogwarts, even if it's not a normal
school year for them and even if they don't plan on it currently.
After all, it's always been the plan that "each of the books would
deal with a year of Harry's life at Hogwarts."

Carol:
> I think and hope that SPEW is as dead as a doornail, but someone,
> perhaps Hermione, will speak up for their right to be treated fairly
> and by timeframe of the Epilogue, the Fountain of Magical Brethren
> will cease to be a lie. Either that or it will be rebuilt (reforged?),
> with the magical beings depicted as equals.

Sarah:
If SPEW is done, then I agree with the rest of your post.  Part of me
would also say good riddance to SPEW.  But why devote so much page
time to a subplot that is never to go anywhere?  I confess that I'll
be a little annoyed if we've all spent so many pages reading about
SPEW if it has no story arc of any discernible shape and just sort of
trails off to be replaced by a house-elf storyline on which SPEW had
no bearing at all.

Sarah



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 09:19:33 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:19:33 -0000
Subject: FWIW: Potter's Cash
Message-ID: <ek91r5+ch52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161926

In a discussion at the Leaky Cauldron people were 
speculating how much money Harry actually has, so I did
some calculations and here is what I came up with.

This has been discussed here resently, so I thought
cross posting this would be acceptable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just my opinion, but I've always gotten the impression 
that the Potters, and now Harry, are 'comfortably well 
off' but they don't quite make it into 'Rich'. Certainly, 
they were comfortably upper middle class or low end rich,
whereas the Malfoys are pleasantly rich, probably middle
to upper rich.

I just don't get the sense that the Potter were even in
the same class as the Malfoys. The Blacks, I think, were
probably in the range of the Potters. Note the Blacks 
have a presumably attached house in the city, Malfoy has
a country estate in Wiltshire. Not that London real 
estate is cheap, but there are rows and rows of houses 
like the Blacks, but I suspect much fewer 'manors' like
the Malfoys.

As a means of guessing Harry's wealth, we can take the 
scene in which Harry first enters his Vault and use that
as a model. Though I don't have access to Movie Galleon 
coins, I used an American quarter, and scaled it up 
slightly.

Nine Cubic Feet of coins (3ft x 3ft x 1ft) is 
approximately 198,288 coins using 5/64 inch as the 
thickness and 1 inch as the diameter. A single one 
Galleon coin is worth 5 British Pounds or about $7 or $8
American dollars (we'll use $8 in this example).

198,288 coins X $8.00 = US$1,586,304

198,288 coins X ?5 = ?991,440

Given that Harry has, what I believe to be, several piles
of Gold of roughly the sample dimensions, we have the 
following examples -

2 piles of gold = US$3,172,608

3 piles of gold = US$4,758,912

4 piles of gold = US$6,435,216

Harry is 17 years old about to turn 18 (we'll use age 18).
That means Harry can expect to live another 122 years. 
Take 3 piles of gold and that averages out to US$39,007 
per year for the rest of his life (unless I miscalculated).

Given inflation, Harry would start off with a managable 
income but over his life it would quickly deteriorate to
near poverty levels.

So, despite having millions of dollar in the bank, and 
given his life expectancy, he has just barely enough 
money to get by. So, in that sense, no, he is not rich.

However, at an interest rate of a mere 6% per year, 
US$4,758,912 would return US$285,537 per year. That would
certainly help and would prevent the deterioration of the
principle amount of capital. I think Harry could live 
quite comfortable off of $285,000 per year. Especially
since he already has a substantial house of his own;
that's one less expense to drain his resources.

So, in that sense, Harry is like his parents and 
grandparents; he is, as I said, 'comfortably well off'. 
Rich by working class standards, but merely comfortable by
upper middle class standards, but not really siginificant 
to the truly rich. All of which seems to fit the story.

As a side note: Keep in mind that all the coins in 
Harry's vault were not Gold Galleons.

To Draco Malfoy US$5,000,000 is near poverty, but to Harry,
who is very conservative, that is a comfortable amount of 
money, and consider that, assuming Harry lives, he will 
probably earn some income from some type of work. That 
sweetens the pot considerably.

As I've said before, I think Fred and George will consider
Harry as a partner in their business based in his initial
investment, and once Harry is ready, he will do quite well
helping run that business.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn

PS: If someone could give me more precise dimensions to 
work with, say using the movie Galleon coins, we could 
refine our estimate further.




From scarrie5 at verizon.net  Sat Nov 25 05:35:07 2006
From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie Menard)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:35:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <20061122214924.37929.qmail@web84001.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20061125053507.53108.qmail@web84209.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161927


Nina Baker <sweety12783 at yahoo.com> wrote:   
Hello,I have theory that is not so far-fetched. I don't think that 
was Snape that took the Unbreakable Vow. I think that was 
Dumbledore (under Polyjuice) pretending to be Snape. 
<SNIP>

Carrie :  A few months ago, I reread Spinner's End (Which I think is a very clever chapter title in a book where a giant spider dies).  I noticed that at the bottom of page 31 in the American hard cover, 'Snape' says:
  "....But through all these years, he has never stopped trusting Severus Snape..."
  IMO, it is worded oddly.  It made me wonder if someone was impersonating Snape.  



         


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




From mcdumbledore at juno.com  Sat Nov 25 15:36:18 2006
From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:36:18 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't make the Unbreakable Vow
In-Reply-To: <20061125053507.53108.qmail@web84209.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ek9nti+gh6g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161928

Carrie:

>   "....But through all these years, he has never stopped trusting 
Severus Snape..."
>   IMO, it is worded oddly.  It made me wonder if someone was 
impersonating Snape.  
> 


Becca:

Now THAT is an interesting thought.  Of course it's been discussed many 
times that Snape and DD could be polyjuicing as one another, but I'd 
never considered that it could be *someone else* impersonating Snape.  
I'm going to have to chew on that one for a while.  Thanks for that  :)




From chawesome100 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 06:20:34 2006
From: chawesome100 at yahoo.com (chawesome100)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:20:34 -0000
Subject: Ronald Weasley
In-Reply-To: <009b01c71006$d0efe7a0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ek8nbi+jvhl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161929

> Lana writes:
> Now that is a dang good question..  Molly... Hmmm..I can't see her
> giving anyone up, however, for the sake of her family, she might
> give up info.  To Molly her family is the most important.  Look how
> she reacted to the boggart.  I would have to say as a parent, it
> would be a natural choice to save your children even if it meant
> someone else would die.  However...  Most adults would do what they
> could to protect all involved.  I cannot say that I honestly think
> she could betray Harry, but I also do not think she would choose him
> over her own.


Lana- Molly reacted to the boggart but you're forgetting something;
how she reacted to the boggart. It also turned into Harry remember.
She considers Harry to BE family and he to some degree considers her
to be a mother. Lets give Molly some credit here, she's much stronger
than we are giving her credit for.

chawesome100 -who is now going to be calling himself HagridsHelper





From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sat Nov 25 17:49:03 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 11:49:03 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ronald Weasley
References: <ek8nbi+jvhl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <011501c710b9$ff204e90$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161930


  > Lana writes:
  > Now that is a dang good question.. Molly... Hmmm..I can't see her
  > giving anyone up, however, for the sake of her family, she might
  > give up info. To Molly her family is the most important. Look how
  > she reacted to the boggart. I would have to say as a parent, it 
  > would be a natural choice to save your children even if it meant
  > someone else would die. However... Most adults would do what they
  > could to protect all involved. I cannot say that I honestly think 
  > she could betray Harry, but I also do not think she would choose him
  > over her own.

  chawesome100 wrote:

  >Molly reacted to the boggart but you're forgetting something; 
  how she reacted to the boggart. It also turned into Harry >remember. 
  She considers Harry to BE family and he to some degree >considers her 
  to be a mother. Lets give Molly some credit here, she's >much stronger 
  >than we are giving her credit for.

  Lana writes:

  Nope..  I wasn't forgetting that she also saw Harry.  I was in no means slamming Molly.  

  Molly is definately my favorite character besides Hagrid. I put Molly on a pedistal.  Look at all she has done.. She does love Harry as her own.  No doubt in my mind.  However, Molly is only human.  If LV had Harry and Ron and was making Molly choose who would die, who do you honestly think she would pick? I am sure she would sacrifice herself, but aside from that..  Do you think she would be capable of sending her own child to his death?  I don't.   It woud be a parents nightmare having to choose any life over another, but...would you choose your childs best friend over your child?  I am not sure any honest parent would.

    I am certainly not giving Molly less credit than she deserves.  That woman would we welcome in my life anytime..She is braver than most think, more intelligent than most think, and certainly more clever than most give her credit for.  But... Not me..  I give that woman more applause than anyone else.  Not to mention she is the most realistic character I can think of.

  Lana




   

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




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 18:07:41 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:07:41 -0000
Subject: FWIW: Potter's Cash (and vault size)
In-Reply-To: <ek91r5+ch52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eka0pd+8imp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161931

Steve wrote:
<snip>
> As a means of guessing Harry's wealth, we can take the 
> scene in which Harry first enters his Vault and use that
> as a model. Though I don't have access to Movie Galleon 
> coins, I used an American quarter, and scaled it up 
> slightly.
> 
> Nine Cubic Feet of coins (3ft x 3ft x 1ft) is 
> approximately 198,288 coins using 5/64 inch as the 
> thickness and 1 inch as the diameter. <snip>


Neri:
The 9 cubic ft heap of gold coins is the part of your calculation that
clashes with my own private image. I somehow pictured the vaults
considerably smaller, not an actual room but a kind of an elevated
crypt in the wall, with a door that doesn't extend all the way down to
ground level. Rather large for a safe, but not enough for several 9
cubic ft heaps. I'm not a native English speaker so maybe I get the
wrong picture here. Probably my image is affected by visits to ancient
burial catacombs, like the one you can see here:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:A-Procession-in-the-Catacomb-of-Callistus.jpg


Note the vaulted holes in the walls. They'd usually be coffin deep or
even less (because ancient sarcophagi only stored the bones after
cremating the dead, so they were typically smaller than a modern coffin). 

Now, canon certainly isn't clear about the size issue. Harry's first
visit reads:  

*************************************************************
SS/PS, Ch. 5:

the cart stopped at last beside a small door in the passage wall,
Hagrid got out and had to lean against the wall to stop his knees
trembling.
Griphook unlocked the door. A lot of green smoke came billowing out,
and as it cleared, Harry gasped. Inside were mounds of gold coins.
Columns of silver. Heaps of little bronze Knuts.
*************************************************************

I can't conclude from here if it is an actual room or a hole in the
wall, and what is the size of the "mounds of gold coins". There's also
the visit to the vaults in CoS:

*************************************************************
CoS, Ch. 4:
Harry enjoyed the breakneck journey down to the Weasleys' vault, but
felt dreadful, far worse than he had in Knockturn Alley, when it was
opened. There was a very small pile of silver Sickles inside, and just
one gold Galleon. Mrs. Weasley felt right into the corners before
sweeping the whole lot into her bag. Harry felt even worse when they
reached his vault. He tried to block the contents from view as he
hastily shoved handfuls of coins into a leather bag.
*************************************************************

Again, nothing clear, but the image of Molly feeling into the corners
and Harry trying to block the view of his fortune make me think of a
vaulted hole in the wall, with its floor about waist height, rather
than an actual room.

Another clue: in PoA, when Harry runs away from the Dursleys and
thinks he's an outcast, he seriously considers emptying his vault and
taking the content with him:

*************************************************************
PoA, Ch. 3:
He looked down at his wand, which he was still clutching in his hand.
If he was already expelled (his heart was. now thumping painfully
fast), a bit more magic couldn't hurt. He had the Invisibility Cloak
he had inherited from his father ? what if he bewitched the trunk to
make it feather-light, tied it to his broomstick, covered himself in
the cloak, and flew to London? Then he could get the rest of his money
out of his vault and
begin his life as an outcast.
*************************************************************

Now, the boy is obviously in stress and isn't thinking very clearly,
but still, I doubt he'd consider even for one second "getting the rest
of his money out of his vault" if it were several cubic ft in gold,
silver and copper filling a room-size space. 


Neri 





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 18:16:30 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:16:30 -0000
Subject: FWIW: Potter's Cash - Revised
In-Reply-To: <ek91r5+ch52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eka19u+81ao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161932

I found some information on the movie coins.

The Dimensions are as follows -

Galleon = 38.60 mm dia. = 1.52 inch
Sickle = 32 mm dia. = 1.26 inch
Knut = 25 mm dia. = 0.98 inch

Using the new Galleon diameter rounded to 1.5" and the
previous assumption of 5/64 inch thick, a 9 cubic foot
(3ft x 3ft x 1ft) pile of gold contains -

88,128 coins

or

US $705,024

UK ?440,640

2 piles of coins = US$ 1,410,048

3 piles of coins = US$ 2,115,072

4 piles of coins = US$ 2,820,096

5 piles of coins = US$ 3,525,120

Take your pick based on Harry description of his
vault as he sees it for the first time. 

SIX percent interest on 3 piles of Gold is 

$126,904/year

No one else seems interested, but I thought it was a fun
excersize in determining just how rich Harry might be.

--- Quote: Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone ---

Griphook unlocked the door. A lot of green smoke came 
billowing out, and as it cleared, Harry gasped. Inside 
were mounds of gold coins. Columns of silver. Heaps of 
little bronze Knuts.

"All yours," smiled Hagrid.

All Harry's -- it was incredible. The Dursleys couldn't 
have known about this or they'd have had it from him 
faster than blinking. How often had they complained how 
much Harry cost them to keep? And all the time there had
been a small fortune belonging to him, buried deep under
London.

Hagrid helped Harry pile some of it into a bag.
- - - End Quote - - - 

'mounds of gold, columns of silver, and heaps of bronze'

So, we need to determine the Volume of 'mounds of gold'.

And, we need to keep in mind that we are averaging gold,
silver, and bronze into 'piles of just gold'. 

In the above example, 3 piles of gold, is actually one
pile that is 3 feet on a side (3ft x 3ft x 3ft)[1 cubic 
yard]. 

Is that a liberal or conservative estimate?

Two cubic yards, or 6 example piles, would be US$4,230,144.

Three cubic yards, or 9 piles, would be US$6,345,216. 

Between 3 and 9 piles of example gold seems about right.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Steve/bboyminn





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 18:43:27 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:43:27 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ca1.3f356c1.32990ddf@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eka2sf+d39l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161933

Nikkalmati wrote:
>  
> I tend to agree with Betsy here that Kreacher is exaggerating his
mental condition to get away with whatever he wants or doesn't want to
do.  I  don't for a minute believe that he doesn't realize his
mutterings are  overheard.  He can't directly call Hermione a Mudblood
to her face, but I  am sure he knows she hears him say it to himself.

Carol responds:

Which leads me to wonder how Kreacher, or the painting of Mrs. Black,
know that Hermione is a Muggleborn. Surely, her blood status isn't a
topic of conversation at 12 GP. Draco says in GoF that the DEs will
know Hermione is a Muggleborn and treat her like they're treating the
Muggles at the QWC. Maybe Draco is lying, maybe not, but Kreacher and
Mrs. Black (the painting) definitely know the status of everyone in
the house, and some who aren't currently there. Of course, not all of
Kreacher's insults relate to blood: "werewolves" refers to Lupin,
"thieves" to Mundungus, and "traitors" (not "blood traitors") quite
possibly to Snape. Some of this information could be obtained by
eavesdropping, but I don't see how Kreacher could learn that Hermione
is a "Mudblood" in that way. Ideas, anybody?

Carol, who agrees tha Kreacher isn't as batty as he seems but thinks
that he may have sustained some mental damage from drinking the
poisoned memory potion in the cave with Regulus




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 19:09:57 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:09:57 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <003201c70f1d$9e3c2b00$5c72400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eka4e5+enbc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161934

> Magpie:
> Sure, they were all basing their characters on something--but the 
question 
> is why would JK Rowling be using that particular view of slaves in 
her books 
> today? She's supposed to be a 21st century author, one of whose 
themes is 
> that Wizards viewing other species as inferior is wrong. So why 
would she 
> feel she needed a race based on 19th century slave stereotypes?

a_svirn:
I don't think we can dismiss it as "something" or some kind of 19th 
century misconception. If you look at the most respectably modern 
studies on slavery you'll see that this sort of thing is considered 
as a crux of the matter, really. Even the titles speak for 
themselves: "Social Death", "Womb of Gold and Iron" just to name the 
most frequently cited. Slavery alienates and dehumanise people, 
reduce them to the sate of an animal and so on. Worse still, it 
makes it impossible for slaves to reproduce socially. It is 
precisely because slavery negates kin all those quasi-kinship 
patterns between slaves and masters emerge. And those twisted 
relationships have been rationalised as "natural" ever since 
Aristotle's "Politics" (or even before). 

So I think it is rather clever of Rowling to give us a perfect 
excuse on a silver platter ? slaves who aren't human. And how eager 
are folks to leap to this excuse! Even Harry went from being 
revolted to being noble and thinking of slave-holding in terms 
of "responsibility" in a blink of an eye. 

> a_svirn:
> I don't know about "etc", but the Underground Railroad is a well 
known
> phenomenon. But then, there is an equivalent in the WW, isn't 
there?
> Any elf who fell foul of his or her master can be sure to find a
> shelter at Hogwarts.
> 
> Magpie:
> That's not an equivalent, it's one place that keeps a lot of 
elves. An 
> equivalent would be elves running away to *freedom* because they 
wanted to 
> be free and helped along in secret by other elves and sympathetic 
non-elves.

a_svirn:
OK, it's not equivalent. Bad choice of words. But neither it's just 
a place with lots of elves hanging around. It is a place where a 
slave who wants to be free ? like Dobby ? can find honest employment 
and encouragement. It is a place where a sacked elf can find a 
shelter, and ? again ? a chance of honest employment. In fact, all 
three elves we've seen so far found a shelter at Hogwarts. For 
Kreacher also wanted to be free after his own peculiar fashion ? he 
wanted to choose his own master. When Kreacher was sent there it was 
a kind of compromise ? Harry (at first) didn't want to own Kreacher 
while Kreacher didn't want to be owned by Harry. Had Harry stuck to 
this agreement it would have been a very good temporary solution. 
Unfortunately, the temptation of having absolute power on someone 
else proved too much for him. "Power tends to corrupt; absolute 
power corrupts absolutely". 




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 19:21:23 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:21:23 -0000
Subject: FWIW: Potter's Cash (and vault size)
In-Reply-To: <eka0pd+8imp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eka53k+kdip@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161935

---  "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
> <snip>
> > As a means of guessing Harry's wealth, we can take the 
> > scene in which Harry first enters his Vault and use that
> > as a model. ...
> >
> > Nine Cubic Feet of coins (3ft x 3ft x 1ft) is 
> > approximately 198,288 coins using 5/64 inch as the 
> > thickness and 1 inch as the diameter. <snip>
> 
> 
> Neri:
> The 9 cubic ft heap of gold coins is the part of your 
> calculation that clashes with my own private image. I
> somehow pictured the vaults considerably smaller, not
> an actual room but a kind of an elevated crypt in the
> wall, with a door that doesn't extend all the way down
> to ground level. Rather large for a safe, but not
> enough for several 9 cubic ft heaps. ...
> 

boyminn: 

Keep in mind that 9 Cu Ft doesn't have to be in a 3 ft by
3 ft x 1 ft configuration. It could be 2ft x 2ft x 2ft 
with a final one cubic foot stacked on top. That is 
certainly a smaller footprint. Even by my revised estimate,
a stack of gold of this size is still US$700,000. That's 
not small change and that would fit into a fair sized 
wall safe.

You do have a point though, what we assume the vault is
is more based on our mental image as we read the story.
Pesonally, I picture something similar to a walk-in
closet; maybe 5 or 6 feet by 5 or 6 feet. (5ft=1.52Meters,
6ft=1.83Meters)

Now certainly, and without a doubt, the Weasley Vault is 
a Wall Safe. I estimate between 1.5ft x 1.5ft and 2ft x
2ft. That may seem large but since she had to sweep her
hand through it to make sure she got all the money, it
would seem to have to be bigger than a cubic foot.
(1.5ft=0.46meter, 2ft=0.61meters)

Note when Hargid goes to the vault with the Stone in it -

--- Quote: Sorcerer's Stone---
"Stand back," said Griphook importantly. He stroked the 
door gently with one of his long fingers and it simply 
melted away.

"If anyone but a Gringotts goblin tried that, they'd be 
sucked through the door and trapped in there," said 
Griphook.

"How often do you check to see if anyone's inside?" Harry
asked.

"About once every ten years," said Griphook with a rather
nasty grin.

Something really extraordinary had to be inside this top
security vault, Harry was sure, and he leaned forward
eagerly, expecting to see fabulous jewels at the very 
least -- but at first he thought it was empty. Then he 
noticed a grubby little package wrapped up in brown paper
lying on the floor. Hagrid picked it up and tucked it 
deep inside his coat. Harry longed to know what it was, 
but knew better than to ask.
- - - end quote - - -

Note, Hagrid picked it up off the /floor/. Generally, one
would not refer to the bottom of a wall safe as 'the 
floor'. That makes me again think this is a walk-in
closet sized room. 

Also, keep in mind that it is unlikely that the Malfoy's
estimated fortune would fit in a wall safe.

> Neri continues:
> ...
> 
> Now, canon certainly isn't clear about the size issue.
> Harry's first visit reads:  
> 
> ***************************************************
> SS/PS, Ch. 5:
> 
the cart stopped at last beside a small door ...
> Griphook unlocked the door. ... Inside were mounds of
> gold coins. Columns of silver. Heaps of little bronze
> Knuts.
> ****************************************************
> 
> I can't conclude from here if it is an actual room or
> a hole in the wall, and what is the size of the "mounds
> of gold coins". 
> ...
> 
> **************************************************
> CoS, Ch. 4:
> ... Harry felt even worse when they reached his vault. 
> He tried to block the contents from view as he
> hastily shoved handfuls of coins into a leather bag.
> *******************************************************
> 
> Again, nothing clear, ... Harry trying to block the 
> view of his fortune make me think of a vaulted hole in
> the wall, with its floor about waist height, rather
> than an actual room.
> 

bboyminn:

Yes, I agree there is an element of implied inconsistency
here, but I don't think it is enough to sway me, or at 
least my mental image. Harry could be implying that he 
tried to block the view from the partly opened door as
he quickly step in and swept some coins into his bag.

I think JKR is the only one that can answer with 
certainty.

Note: as far as I recall, Harry has never had to go back
to his vault. Someone always gets his money for him,
not leaving us much information to go on.

> Neri continues:
:
> Another clue: in PoA, when Harry runs away from the 
> Dursleys and thinks he's an outcast, he seriously 
> considers emptying his vault and taking the content 
> with him:
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, the boy is obviously in stress and isn't thinking
> very clearly, but still, I doubt he'd consider even for
> one second "getting the rest of his money out of his 
> vault" if it were several cubic ft in gold, silver and
> copper filling a room-size space. 
> 
> 
> Neri
>

bboyminn:

Well, I admit I'm trying to force everything to fit my
particular model of Harry's wealth, but I have to say
that I think Harry in this moment is thinking in concept
rather than in practicalities. 

If he is going to be an outlaw, on the run from the law,
then he can't be strolling into Gringott's whenever the
mood strikes him. So, he has two choices abandon the 
money, and perhaps hope for a reprieve that would allow
him access at some later time, or to take all the money
at once and stash it somewhere where he would have access
to it.

In that sense, he is thinking practically, he knows he 
needs access to his money, and doesn't feel he will be
able to do that at Gringott's, so logically he has to
take it out, but I don't think he is thinking practically
in the sense of what is required to haul all that cash 
around and find an alternate SAFE place to put it. 

He is practical in conceiving his plan, but not practical
in the concept of mechanically executing it; he thinks 
about 'what' but hasn't gotten to the 'how' just yet.

Not a real important topic, but still interesting.

Steve/bboyminn




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 19:36:43 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:36:43 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (long-ish) (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ek6qqp+nsej@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eka60b+jlp5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161936

> Charles:
> *If* the house elves are really as against freedom as we have 
seen, 
> (a *big* if in my opinion) I think the question we should ask is 
if 
> it is because of the enchantments that wizards seem to have placed 
> upon the entire species? I see this as a great possibility. We've 
> only seen two elves rebel against their masters- Dobby and 
Kreacher. 

a_svirn:
But then we've seen only three elves at close quarters. That's two 
out of three. And the third one was a *privileged* servant, with a 
very special kind of relationships with her master. 

> Charles:
> I grant that there may have been other cases, but I propose that 
it 
> takes a house elf with extraordinary magic to break through the 
> enchantment at all. With those who do, it takes a major effort on 
> their part. Dobby was made to punish himself by the Malfoys often, 
> and we see Dobby still struggle with the enchantment even after 
being 
> freed. 

a_svirn:
Because though he was *freed* he wasn't freed of the *enchantment*!  

> Charles:
 The opposite case is Winky, 
> who remains fiercely loyal to Crouch even after he sends her 
packing. 
> She cannot speak ill of him, even though he has cast her aside. 

a_svirn:
I don't think it's the enchantment, it's psychology.
 
> Charles:
> Another possibility I see for the house elves "fear of freedom" 
(for 
> lack of a better term at the moment)is tradition. 

a_svirn:
Hear, hear! 

> Charles:
While human slavery 
> has existed in human cultures for longer than anyone who loves our 
> species would really care to admit, it has not been as continuous 
for 
> one group of people as it has presumably been for house elves. 

a_svirn:
Yes, it has. *And* hereditary human slaves weren't all that anxious 
to be free, (provided that their masters weren't too cruel). Only 
first-generation slaves were prone to rebellions, like gladiators in 
Rom. 


> Charles:
> On a whole different train of thought that just crashed into my 
sleep 
> deprived head- what if the house elves turned out to be all 
descended 
> from a particular (wizard) family that fell afoul of a very 
powerful 
> (dark) wizard? I'm not seriously suggesting that that will come 
> around, it just popped into my head as I was getting done with 
this 
> post. 


a_svirn:
I think it's more likely that they are descended from free house-
elves who were enslaved. The brownies the like creatures from 
folklore aren't slaves ? they work for pay, *and* they are usually 
given tiny cloths and footwear in return for their services. That is 
to say, precisely the articles the house-elves are forbidden to 
possess. I think their ancestors were tricked into some 
ghastly "magical contracts" by clever wizards. Whereupon, instead of 
much-coveted cloths and shoes they were forced into wearing tea-
towels, as "a symbol of their enslavement" as Dobby very justly put 
it.  




From theplugs at telus.net  Sat Nov 25 17:27:17 2006
From: theplugs at telus.net (a1sadpuppy)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:27:17 -0000
Subject: Lily Evans Potter
In-Reply-To: <9jsdr3+p7t0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ek9udl+o6js@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161937

In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/23098
jenny from ravenclaw <meboriqua at ...> wrote:
> I've been reading the posts about Harry's eyes and I
> started thinking.
> First, the idea about Lily being a Seer is great.  I've
> been convinced for quite a while that Harry is a Seer
> (and Ron is NOT), and his Seer-ness being inherited
> along with his green eyes is a brilliant idea.  <snip>
>
> On another note, in SS, Ollivander remembers Lily's wand
> and remarks that it was a nice wand for charm work. That
> leads me to believe that it was Lily who cast the Fidelius
> Charm, which also makes her one hell of a witch. I also
> have to wonder if, along with her love for Harry, she
> charmed him. <snip>
>
> Now, as far as what Lily and James were doing that caused
> Voldie to come after them, it is possible that, while they
> were working together to help defeat him, they may not have
> working on the same things.  What I mean by that is perhaps
> only Lily was an Unspeakable or maybe James was and Lily
> was working on a secret charm to use against Voldie.


Hi,

This is my first post here, so please bear with me.

I don't like the idea of Lily working on a charm to defeat
Voldemort, because if it was completed that implies to me
that Harry was used as a weapon and I can't see any parent
wanting to do such a thing.  I wouldn't mind as much if the
trio came upon her notes and found research to a spell that
was not yet completed I suppose.  It could give Hermione a
more concrete role in the defeat of Voldemort, but could
also complicate things on their quest.  If they don't return
to school how much time and opportunity for additional
research would they have?

As far a being a seer goes Harry has shown no sign so far
of possessing any future insight, at least none that I can
recall.  I think it would be a lot to throw on him in the
last book with everything else he's going to have to deal
with.  I can imagine that talent coming to one of his
friends, though.  I like to think that fate might give his
friends some extra tools to help in is quest.  We also
don't know as many details of his friends' activities in
the books, so I think it could be fit in more easily.  It
could also help to re-enforce his need for friends and co-
operation instead of being the solitary hero.

JKR did state in one of her interview that Petunia was not
a squib - "she is not a squib, although that is a very good
guess."  I'm more inclined to believe that one of their
parents came from a magical family.  Perhaps her mother was
a squib.  Didn't Petunia say that her mother "was so proud
to have a witch in the family."

I'd be more inclined to believe that the eyes were a link
to Harry's heritage as we have learned very little about
his family and have been told that we will learn more of
his family in the final book.

Wishing our US neighbours a happy Thanksgiving.

lp





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 19:50:35 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:50:35 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <eka2sf+d39l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eka6qb+irpi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161938

> Carol:
> 
> Which leads me to wonder how Kreacher, or the painting of Mrs. 
Black,
> know that Hermione is a Muggleborn. 

a_svirn:
Maybe because there aren't any Grangers in the "Natural Aristocracy" 
Debrett's and Burke's?

> Carol:
Surely, her blood status isn't a
> topic of conversation at 12 GP. 

a_svirn:
Why not? If anything they should have sent someone to fetch her from 
her muggle home, shouldn't they? Quite possible they discussed the 
proper way of doing so.  

> Carol:
Draco says in GoF that the DEs will
> know Hermione is a Muggleborn and treat her like they're treating 
the
> Muggles at the QWC. Maybe Draco is lying, maybe not, <snip> 

a_svirn:
That would mean that there is indeed such thing as "natural 
aristocracy". I'd say Draco is definitely lying. Taunting, rather.  




From reggosse at gmail.com  Sat Nov 25 17:39:17 2006
From: reggosse at gmail.com (John Apple)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:39:17 -0000
Subject: Potter money
Message-ID: <ek9v45+junu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161939

Steve/bboyminn:
> <snip>  As a means of guessing Harry's wealth, we can
> take the scene in which Harry first enters his Vault
> and use that as a model. <snip>

John:
You can't take the video of Harry's vault as indicating
how much money he has - it is not relevant. Jk said years
ago on her web site that Harry is very wealthy.




From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Nov 25 20:04:08 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:04:08 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter's grandparents? Are they alive or mentioned in the books?
In-Reply-To: <ejuef6+q9nt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eka7jo+2eu3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161940

zuhm wrote:

> Curious about Harry Potter's grandparents.  Wondering if they are
> ever mentioned in the books and are they alive?

Abergoat adds:

Some people think the 'bit more' that we will learn about James
Potter's parents is that one of them descended from the inventor of
the Golden Snitch (the inventor lived in Godric's Hollow when he
invented it per JKR's charity books).  I thought this was a fun idea
because it explains the 'wealth' that James inherited and also his
'nicking' snitches as seen in book 5. James is a chaser not a seeker
so his doodling snitches and playing with them could be a hint at a
family connection.

Abergoat





From rebeccahillary82 at aol.com  Sat Nov 25 17:40:53 2006
From: rebeccahillary82 at aol.com (Rebecca Hillary)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:40:53 -0000
Subject: How much does Dumbledore know?
In-Reply-To: <4566EE0F.4080809@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <ek9v75+9ogo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161941

Bart Lidofsky <bartl at ...> wrote:
>
> With a name like Dumbledore, do you think he would
> speak unless it was necessary? Otherwise, he would
> be Talksfartoomuchforhisowngoodledore.


I'm confused as to what you mean regarding his name. Obviously you are
referring to the 'Dumb' part of it, but Dumbledore is the Old English
word for bumblebee, and was a type of hat worn in the late 1800s. I
really don't think that JKR was suggesting anything in his name
being 'Dumb'ledore. But then with the way that woman's mind works
absolutely anything is possible!

Beci




From carla.mcculley at comcast.net  Sat Nov 25 17:37:30 2006
From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:37:30 -0000
Subject: Weasly Twins - inventions
Message-ID: <ek9v0q+lguj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161942

In the fourth and fifth books a lot is said about the various
inventions of the Weasly twins.  I have a feeling that their
gift for invention will come into play in a big way in the final
battle.  JKR gives so many details about their experiments and
creations (extendable ears - great spying technique).  I think
we will see them invent more than just joke material.  Any
thoughts?  If this has already been covered, I apologize.

Carla




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 20:16:33 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:16:33 -0000
Subject: SPEW (was: Freedom for House-Elves )
In-Reply-To: <3202590611242224m1b8d2781gbda7acdb9ca34f37@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eka8b1+et2v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161943

> Sarah:
> If SPEW is done, then I agree with the rest of your post.  Part of 
me
> would also say good riddance to SPEW.  But why devote so much page
> time to a subplot that is never to go anywhere?  I confess that 
I'll
> be a little annoyed if we've all spent so many pages reading about
> SPEW if it has no story arc of any discernible shape and just sort 
of
> trails off to be replaced by a house-elf storyline on which SPEW 
had
> no bearing at all.

a_svirn:
As for me, I'll be a little annoyed if that SPEW thing is revived in 
the book 7. I am pretty sure that elves story-line will become very 
important, though. The thing with SPEW was that it was all wrong; 
fist, because Hermione was dishonest in her dealing with elves (she 
has the most peculiar dislike for being open and above-board as a 
rule), and second, because her actions were irresponsible to a 
rather remarkable degree. As Carol very justly pointed out freedom 
is of no use to anybody without security. Yet Hermione set 
about "freeing" elves not only without bothering to find out about 
the nature of their bondage, but also without giving a single 
thought about their fate after the "liberation". Either she wasn't 
interested in their well-being at all, or she figured Dumbledore 
would be forced to sort it out somehow. Either way it doesn't do her 
much credit. I think in the book 7 we'll see elves doing their bit 
and being liberated properly. 




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 20:35:58 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:35:58 -0000
Subject: Potter money
In-Reply-To: <ek9v45+junu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eka9fe+8gjp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161944

--- "John Apple" <reggosse at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve/bboyminn:
> > <snip>  As a means of guessing Harry's wealth, we can
> > take the scene in which Harry first enters his Vault
> > and use that as a model. <snip>
> 
> John:
> You can't take the video of Harry's vault as indicating
> how much money he has - it is not relevant. Jk said
> years ago on her web site that Harry is very wealthy.
>

bboyminn:

Well, it seems that I've used a day's worth of post on 
just this one thread, which I acknowledge I started and
further acknowledge to having made most posts in. Sorry
about that.

When I said 'scene' I meant that scene in the books.
Though I admit to using the movie coins as a physical
model for my Galleon coins since it's all I have.

However, I do say that the movie vault has some limited
relevance. It is an indication of how someone interpreted
what is written in the books. They interpreted it as a
walk-in closet sized vault, though I think somewhat larger
than my vision for purposes of visual effect. Again, that
doesn't prove anything, but it does reflect one person's
interpretation. 

Though I will say 'sorry' for creating any confusion 
around my use of the word 'scene'; I did mean the books.

As to whether JKR specifically said Harry is wealthy, I
would like to see a quote so we have the exact words. I
did look on her website, but it wasn't there, so it must
have been in an interview. However, even if she used the
word 'wealthy' I think it is in a context, and it is that
context we are trying to determine.

If you have $100,000 are you wealthy? If you have 
$1,000,000 in the bank NOT drawing interest, are you
wealthy? If you have $5,000,000 to last you the rest of
your long wizard's lifetime, does that make you wealthy?
Hard to say for sure.

If it helps anyone, 1 Cu. Ft. of gold coins is US$78,336.
 
Harry has 'mounds' of gold, if we assume 'mounds' equals
three and a 'mound' equals 1 Cu. Ft., then Harry has 
3 Cu. Ft. of Gold or US$235,008.

Is that the equivalent of 'wealthy', and are we talking 
wealthy in general or just wealthy in the eyes of an
11 year old boy?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Steve/bboyminn




From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Sat Nov 25 20:48:29 2006
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:48:29 -0000
Subject: Where will the "great battle" be (was: Some thoughts and questions)
In-Reply-To: <ek7drc+8bnh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekaa6t+e1db@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161945

Carol:
> the only way I can think of for Harry to kill a de-Horcruxed 
Voldemort
> without AKing him is to send him through the Veil.

MercuryBlue:
If the Horcruxes aren't there anymore, what's keeping Harry from 
decapitating Voldemort with a spell or the Sword of Gryffindor? Or 
strangling him with magic or a length of rope? Or putting a bullet 
or a Reducto through his chest? Or--heck, pick your poison (ooh, 
poison, that works too), there's certainly enough ways to die. Blunt 
force trauma probably won't cut it, given how Hagrid reacted when 
told that the Potters supposedly died in a car crash (that and how 
it's been years since anyone's died in a Quidditch match, when 
taking a ten-inch iron ball to the head is not a terribly uncommon 
occurrence), but there's still umpteen billion ways to kill someone, 
and I can't see why Voldemort would have put in the effort to 
protect himself against as many of them as he could think of. Why 
would he bother with a spell against burning to death and a spell 
against drowning and et cetera and so forth, when the existence of 
his Horcrux(es) meant he couldn't die?

MercuryBlue




From rnbwtgr at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 17:17:57 2006
From: rnbwtgr at yahoo.com (rnbwtgr)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:17:57 -0000
Subject: Ron Weasley
Message-ID: <ek9ts5+hrv4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161946

Vama:
> I don't know whether it is true or not but I read it somewhere
> that Ron was going to be on LV. I mean if he joins him then LV
> would know everything because Harry used to tell him much more
> than Hermione.


>From what I read in book 1, Ron and Harry became friends right
away on the train. Ron didn't want nothing to do with Draco and
his friends.  I haven't read anything about Ron and Voldemort
joining up in the 6th book.  Of course who knows what will happen
in the 7th.

rnbwtgr



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 20:56:39 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:56:39 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <eka4e5+enbc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekaam7+27ug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161947

a_svirn wrote:
<snip>
> So I think it is rather clever of Rowling to give us a perfect 
> excuse on a silver platter ? slaves who aren't human. And how eager 
> are folks to leap to this excuse! Even Harry went from being 
> revolted to being noble and thinking of slave-holding in terms 
> of "responsibility" in a blink of an eye. <snip>

Carol responds:
But what choice does Harry have? He can't set Kreacher free. To do so
would be extremely *irresponsible* and dangerous. He's in a position
similar to that of Petunia when he was placed on her doorstep (except
that he doesn't have to feed and clothe his charge--I've already
expressed my wish that Harry would order him to at least wear a clean
loincloth!). Granted, Kreacher isn't an infant, but he can no more be
set loose to fend for himself than Baby!harry could, however different
the reasons. Under the circumstances, I wouldn't criticize him for
considering Kreacher as his responsibility. If anything, I'd criticize
him for not taking that responsibility seriously enough. Thank
goodness for Dobby, who has become in effect Kreacher's self-appointed
guardian.

Carol, respecting your view that house-elves are still slaves even
though they're not human but still sure that the desire to serve is
ingrained in their nature with or without spells compelling them to
serve a particular master




From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com  Sat Nov 25 20:55:50 2006
From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:55:50 -0000
Subject: Magic late in life
In-Reply-To: <006201c7100c$d7913c20$d68c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ekaakm+cevn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161949

Magpie:
> The only time we've heard a 
> Muggleborn witch called a Muggle it was a slur on Hermione-I can't 
imagine 
> JKR would use it that way.

MercuryBlue:
Seen the sketch of the Black family tree that JKR made? There were 
seven people marked as being burned off the tapestry, as I recall. 
Three were women who were disowned for marrying people the Black 
family didn't approve of. We can ignore Cedrella, whose chosen husband 
was a blood traitor and therefore implied to be a pureblood, and we 
might be able to ignore Isla, who married a Muggle.

But look at Andromeda. The tree tells us she also married a Muggle. 
Andromeda's daughter, however, tells us that Ted Tonks is Muggle-BORN.

MercuryBlue




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 21:16:44 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 21:16:44 -0000
Subject: Great Battles of Book 7
In-Reply-To: <ek5rvq+5hba@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekabrs+mq9b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161950

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mathias_forseti"
<mathias_forseti at ...> wrote:
>
> ...
> 
> Where will the "great battle" be?
>  ...
> 

bboyminn:

Instead of 'Last Great Battles', for a moment, let's
concentrate on likely places for battles in book 7.

Here are the one's that I think are likely -

-Privet Drive: The protections ends when Harry turns 
17, that is the perfect opportunity to attack him.

-The Weasley Wedding: Big gathering of prominent people
from the wizard world, perfect opportunity for a
terrorist attack. 

-Hogwarts: I predict a substantial part of the book 
will be about Voldemort having taken over Hogwarts to
hold the children captive in order to force the 
surrender of the wizard world. Which in turn leads to 
a recue effort, which turns into the historic 'Battle of
Hogwarts'.

-The Veil-Dept of Mysteries: The Veil is just too 
prominent (and creepy) to just be forgotten and set 
aside. The problem is why on earth would anyone be there?
What could bring Voldemort and Harry to that location?
The best I could come up with is Harry needing to throw
the Horcruxes through the Veil to safely destroy them, 
and Voldemort needing to come and attempt to recue the
Horcruxes. Weak, I know, but it's the best I've got.

Other possibilities-

-Godric's Hollow: many people like this one but it
doesn't to much for me. I think Godrics Hollow will
be quickly there and quickly back. I do think Harry
will meet someone there who will give him information
that he needs. Though I don't think he will realize it
at the time.

-12 Grimmauld Place: Again, it just doesn't do it for me.
I do think Harry will have no choice but to set his base
of operations at the Black house. Where else? The Burrow
is too restictive, certainly not the Dursley, and certainly
not Hermione's. I suspect Lupin's house is really his elderly 
mother's house, making that a bad choice. Moody is too 
paranoid to allow his house to be used. So, Harry is stuck
with 12 Grimmauld Place. But I don't think it will be
attacked, can't say why though, it's just a feeling.
 
As to the final battle-

Tough call...

At the moment I'm saying the Veil or Hogwarts. 

Just a thought (and done for the day)

Steve/bboyminn




From bartl at sprynet.com  Sat Nov 25 20:49:43 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:49:43 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wealth in the Potterverse (was FWIW: Potter's
 Cash)
In-Reply-To: <ek91r5+ch52@eGroups.com>
References: <ek91r5+ch52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4568AC67.2050802@sprynet.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161951

Steve wrote:
> Just my opinion, but I've always gotten the impression 
> that the Potters, and now Harry, are 'comfortably well 
> off' but they don't quite make it into 'Rich'. Certainly, 
> they were comfortably upper middle class or low end rich,
> whereas the Malfoys are pleasantly rich, probably middle
> to upper rich.

Bart:
OK, let's just put a few operative definitions in here. First of all, 
just by the basic rules of economics, if you put your money into near 
100% safe investments (where something like a national collapse would be 
required before you lost your money), your investments will generally 
not quite keep pace with inflation. In general, better investments can 
be found by increasing risk; working it properly (diversifying your 
investments so that some going down will lead to others going up) will 
allow strong growth outpacing inflation (as with mutual funds), but 
requires that one spend some time actually paying attention to one's 
investments. Given that, I propose the following definitions:

1) Truly wealthy: The interest on the interest on the capital is enough 
to pay all current expenses, plus generous growth. This means that the 
capital will continue to increase at a rate outpacing inflation, while 
all current expenditures are covered. This also means that several 
future generations will not have to pay much attention to the capital, 
and can live a life of total leisure. Of course, having a good business 
manager in each generation can ensure that the wealth stays put. The 
Blacks and the Malfoys certainly count for this.

2) Currently wealthy: The interest on the interest will pay current 
expenses, but does not allow for growth. The wealth can last without too 
much effort as long as nobody has too many children. I suspect that this 
is the level of wealth that the Potters have (remember, coins do NOT 
keep apace with inflation; if one has a great fortune in coins, then if 
it is not backed up by a much greater fortune in investments, then it 
shows foolishness on the part of the owners). Because of this, I suspect 
that the Potters belong to this category. Note that Harry has already 
made one good investment: Fred & George's. Now, it looks like F&G 
consider the money to have either been a start-up loan, or that Harry is 
a minor and silent partner in the business; Harry probably considered 
the money to be a gift, but certainly would rather accept repayment of 
the loan, or at least free merchandise, rather than make F&G feel 
beholden to him.

3) Wealthy: Can live on the interest from current investments, but if 
one does not keep adding to the capital, real income will shrink with 
inflation.

4) Rich: Has enough money to live well, and probably some investments, 
but needs to work to keep the money coming in, even if the work is just 
managing investments. Fred and George seem to be heading into this 
territory, if they haven't already reached it.

5) Middle Class: Can live comfortably and pay basic expenses. Has to 
work to pay the bills; may have some savings and/or investments, but 
that is more for retirement than current income. Most of the Ministry is 
probably at this level, as well as the Hogwarts teaching staff, as are 
the older Weasley boys (which would explain why they don't kick in money 
to the family).

6) Lower Middle Class: Cannot afford to be out of work for more than a 
short period of time. Not starving, but not much money to pay more than 
basic expenses. Any unexpected expenditure means sacrificing needs. The 
Weasleys, due to their number of children, are between 5&6. One would 
expect Fred & George to start kicking back money to the family, and they 
have, to some extent. However, one can assume that much of their extra 
cash is being converted into investment capital. Certainly, if the 
Weasleys have an emergency, F&G would not hesitate to cover it, as JKR 
has gone out of her way to show that F&G have very strong moral 
principles, albeit not quite the same as society at large. Most squibs 
who can't rely on their families for support probably live at this 
level, too. Filch & Figg come to mind, immediately. Hagrid lives at this 
level, but, now that he's a Professor, is probably socking away money, 
not being quite sure what to do with it (in HPB, it was certainly 
established that he could have a LOT more money if he wanted it; he just 
has no need for it).

7) Poor: Do not have enough money for basic needs. Generally have to 
redefine basic needs in order to survive (such as defining "suitable 
clothing"). Voldemort's family certainly qualifies, as does, probably, 
Dung Fletcher. Squibs who can't find work in the WW and do not have 
experience in the non-WW, as well as low performers in magic probably 
end up here. It is implied that Prof. Trelawny would be here if it 
weren't for Dumbledore.

	Bart




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 22:07:35 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:07:35 -0000
Subject: Luna's silvery eyes ( Was: Lily Evans Potter)
In-Reply-To: <ek9udl+o6js@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekaer7+ls3u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161952

lp wrote:
<snip>
> 
> As far a being a seer goes Harry has shown no sign so far
> of possessing any future insight, at least none that I can
> recall.  I think it would be a lot to throw on him in the
> last book with everything else he's going to have to deal
> with.  I can imagine that talent coming to one of his
> friends, though.  I like to think that fate might give his
> friends some extra tools to help in is quest.  We also
> don't know as many details of his friends' activities in
> the books, so I think it could be fit in more easily.  It
> could also help to re-enforce his need for friends and co-
> operation instead of being the solitary hero.

Carol responds:

Nice first post! My apologies for diverting the topic from Lily, but I
thought this paragraph was more interesting. Since there is such a
thing as a true Prophecy in the Potterverse, including one that
doesn't require the foreknowledge of at least one participant
attempting to thwart it (Trelawney's PoA prophecy), it's quite
possible that Divination is more useful than HRH, McGonagall, and
Dumbledore have given it credit for being. If that's the case, it will
indeed be useful if one of Harry's friends has that gift.

I agree with you that we haven't seen any indication that Harry can
see into the future (and, though Ron and the Twins have occasionally
made correct predictions, I don't think they have any talent for
Divination, either). Hermione, of course, was hopeless at the subject.

Luna, however, is another matter. She's the intuitive type who
wouldn't let the nonrational nature of Divination stand in her way
when Trelawney tells her to "look beyond" the mundane. She believes in
creatures that no one else in the WW (except her equally loony father)
believes in, so it's unlikely that she would question crystal balls
and tea leaves as predictors of the future. We haven't seen her in
Divination class, of course, since she's not in Harry's year (or in
Gryffindor), but Trelawney seems disappointed that Luna isn't in her
class in HBP, indicating that Trelawney, at least, thinks she has an
affinity for the subject. And we know that she heard voices beyond the
Veil, apparently more clearly than Harry did. (Neville, who can also
see Thestrals because he saw his grandfather die, doesn't seem to have
heard them at all, IIRC). Granted, Parvati and Lavender have also
shown at least an interest in the subject, suggesting that they saw
something more than soggy tea leaves and fog, but they're not core DA
members who showed up for the fight in the MoM or when Hermione
summoned them in HBP. So even though Luna will most likely be at
Hogwarts if its's open rather than with Harry for most of the book, I
still see her as the most likely member of Harry's generation to have
the gift of Second Sight.

Everyone keeps talking about Lily's eyes, which IMO have already
played their part via Slughorn's memory. (Okay, I know there's that
quote about a kind of magic that uses the eyes that seems to be tied
in with Lily, but I'm not convinced. We've seen eye magic (Legilimency
and Occlumency), which does not seem to be related to eye color. DD's
are blue, Voldemort's are now red, and Snape's are black. Harry, who
is hopeless at Occlumency and has only a peculiar form of Legilimency
with Voldemort because of the scar link, is the only one with green
eyes. No connection between Lily and eye magic that I can see.)

But Luna's eyes may be important. At any rate, they're peculiar:
protuberant, silvery, and misty. I was reminded when I first read her
description in OoP of Ollivander, who also has misty, silvery eyes
(and seems to be the first Legilimens we encounter, knowing that
Hagrid has kept his wand). 

Mr. Ollivander's eyes are described several times in "Diagon Alley"
(SS/PS, all references to the Scholastic edition): 

"An old man was standing before them, his wide, pale eyes shining like
moons through the gloom of the shop" (82).

"Mr. Ollivander moved closer to Harry. Harry wished he would blink.
Those silvery eyes were a bit creepy" (82).

"Mr. Ollivander came so close that he and Harry were almost nose to
nose. Harry could see himself reflected in those misty eyes"
[Legilimency, anybody?] (83).

Three descriptions in two pages? JKR wants us to remember those eyes.

Compare the descriptions of Luna's eyes in "Luna Lovegood" (OoP,
Scholastic edition):

"The girl beside the window looked up. She had . . . very protuberant
eyes that gave her a permanently surprised look" (185).

"She did not seem to blink as much as normal humans" (185). 

"Luna turned her pale eyes on him instead" (185).

"Luna Lovegood's popping eyes appeared over the top of her upside-down
magazine" (187).

"Her prominent eyes swam with tears as she gasped for breath, staring
at Ron" (190).

"He could see the bat-winged horses reflected in her wide, silvery
eyes" (199).

Six references to Luna's eyes in her introductory chapter alone. I
recall similar descriptions later in OoP and again in HBP but won't
quote them. The protuberant eyes seem to be peculiar to Luna, but note
that both her eyes and Ollivander's are described as "silvery" and
"misty" and that Harry can see himself reflected in both Ollivander's
eyes and Luna's. (Is Luna a natural Legilimens? Or maybe she simply
has an uncanny intuitive understanding of Harry.)

Carol, wondering if anyone else thinks that Luna may be a Seer or
connected with Ollivander and, if not, what's up with those silvery eyes 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 23:06:33 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:06:33 -0000
Subject: Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <ekaa6t+e1db@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekai9p+vuvu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161953

Carol earlier <thoroughly snipped>:
> > the only way I can think of for Harry to kill a de-Horcruxed 
Voldemort without AKing him is to send him through the Veil.
> 
MercuryBlue responded:
> If the Horcruxes aren't there anymore, what's keeping Harry from 
> decapitating Voldemort with a spell or the Sword of Gryffindor? Or 
> strangling him with magic or a length of rope? Or putting a bullet 
> or a Reducto through his chest? Or--heck, pick your poison (ooh, 
> poison, that works too), there's certainly enough ways to die. Blunt 
> force trauma probably won't cut it, given how Hagrid reacted when 
> told that the Potters supposedly died in a car crash (that and how 
> it's been years since anyone's died in a Quidditch match, when 
> taking a ten-inch iron ball to the head is not a terribly uncommon 
> occurrence), but there's still umpteen billion ways to kill someone, 
> and I can't see why Voldemort would have put in the effort to 
> protect himself against as many of them as he could think of. Why 
> would he bother with a spell against burning to death and a spell 
> against drowning and et cetera and so forth, when the existence of 
> his Horcrux(es) meant he couldn't die?
> 
> MercuryBlue
>

Carol responds:
I'm not talking about the mechanics of killing Voldemort. There are
multiple ways of doing so, with AKing being by far the simplest and
cleanest in terms of creating a bloodless corpse. I'm concerned about
*the act of murder*, which I don't want Harry to commit. My concern
about AK in particular is that it's a Dark curse, the weapon of the
enemy, specifically created as a murder weapon. I'm also worried about
its soul-splitting effects. But substituting a more brutal and bloody
form of murder won't avoid that problem. It will just make the murder
messier and more violent, like our Muggle methods.

I know that you'll argue that killing in combat or in self-defense is
not murder, but one of my concerns is the effect on child readers if
Harry murders Voldemort in any of the ways you're talking about. Kids
get enough--more than enough--of that sort of thing in video games,
TV, and movies. I want Harry to rise above that sort of brutality and
violence, to find a way to save the WW that does not sanction violence
for the good guys--not to mention that if Harry's weapon is Love, as
Dumbledore says it is, his method of destroying Voldemort must be
consonant with that weapon, as none of your suggestions is.

I'm also concerned about the psychological effects that the act of
killing, even in self-defense, would create in the mind of a
seventeen-year-old harry. Snape, I think, is suffering the tortures of
the damned after killing Dumbledore, whether he had any choice in the
matter or not. (See the anguish he's in when the narrator compares him
to the dog in the burning house.) Soldiers defending their country
suffer what used to be euphemistically referred to as combat fatigue,
including nightmares decades later and other permanent psychological
damage. I don't want Harry to tarnish his innocence, much less to feel
guilt of any sort for ridding the world of Voldemort, or to suffer any
sort of psychological consequences. 

He himself thinks in OoP that he has to commit murder or be murdered.
I want to see a way out of that dilemma. There's a reason why Mad-Eye
Moody never killed if he didn't have to. I don't want Harry to have
to, or at least I want him to do it in a way that doesn't seem like
murder, that allows both him and Voldemort to see that death is not
the end of everything that LV thinks it is. Only sending him through
the Veil can do that, IMO. (And there's the secondary consideration of
getting Sirius Black's body back. It also provides a way for JKR to
bring in the power of possession, Harry possessing Voldemort rather
than the other way around.)

On another note, I don't think that a spell against burning to death
or antidotes against poisons would be a waste of voldemort's time. He
has the Horcruxes to anchor his soul to earth, but his body, as he
learned to his detriment at Godric's Hollow, is still mortal. If he
were to defeat Harry, he would be wise to take precautions against
disease, old age, poison, and whatever else might destroy his body,
Prophecy or no Prophecy. Immortality without a healthy body is not
much use.

Carol, who thinks that sending Voldemort through the Veil fits the
Love requirement and the Prophecy better than any method we've yet
seen and certainly better than decapitation (which I expect will
happen not to LV but to Nagini)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 23:31:49 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:31:49 -0000
Subject: Great Battles of Book 7
In-Reply-To: <ekabrs+mq9b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekajp5+8a2u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161954

bboyminn wrote:
> 
> Instead of 'Last Great Battles', for a moment, let's
> concentrate on likely places for battles in book 7.
> 
> Here are the one's that I think are likely -
> 
> -Privet Drive: The protections ends when Harry turns 
> 17, that is the perfect opportunity to attack him.
> 
Carol responds:

Yes, I'm banking on this one and hoping for Figgy to show her magical
abilities at last. (I hope she doesn't die in the process.) I'm also
very curious as to what kind of role Snape will play. Assuming tht
he's there, how can he help the good guys without giving himself away?
And how can he avoid doing harm? (Needless to say, I think he's DDM.)

bboyminn:
> -The Weasley Wedding: Big gathering of prominent people
> from the wizard world, perfect opportunity for a
> terrorist attack. <snipping the rest because I agree with it and
have nothing to add that I haven't already said>

Carol:
Here's the one point on which I disagree with you in this post. I
don't think there's going to be a big, fancy wedding. That would be
foolish in the extreme, inviting trouble. If it's held at the
Weasleys, which is apparently quite secluded, Hagrid and Madame Maxime
could attend, minus ze carriage and ze 'orses, along with the Weasleys
(minus Percy), Harry, Hemione, Lupin, Tonks, and a few other Order
members. And Gabrielle as a flower girl, so Fleur's mother would need
(and want) to be there. But that's as many guests and participants as
they really need. 

The only questionable element, IMO, is the man in black to perform the
service. Would they need someone like the man who conducted
Dumbledore's funeral, or can they marry themselves in a Lighter
version of the Unbreakable Vow (let's not take "Till death us do part"
too literally!). At any rate, I think as few people as possible will
be invited, rather like Harry's christening but not so extreme.
(Wonder what became of the minister or whatever the WW equivalent may
be who performed that ceremony?)

Carol, hoping that the Weasley wedding will indeed be a moment of
unblighted happiness before the darkness to come, as Ron predicted





From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 23:41:18 2006
From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:41:18 -0000
Subject: FWIW: Potter's Cash
In-Reply-To: <ek91r5+ch52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekakau+btvq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161955

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> In a discussion at the Leaky Cauldron people were 
> speculating how much money Harry actually has, so I did
> some calculations and here is what I came up with.
<snip>

darkmatter (Richard) here:

Your calculations are interesting, but there are several points that 
should be born in mind, and a few follow.

Firsts, JKR has said that the Potters were quite wealthy, and thus 
so is Harry.  The vault scene is no more than eye-candy for film 
purposes, and should not be considered indicative of his actual 
wealth.

Second, you have not dealt with the fact that gold has an intrinsic 
market value as a metal beyond its value in coinage.  A gold coin of 
the dimensions you describe would be worth upwards of $300, given 
current gold prices.  So, Harry's wealth may be orders of magnitude 
greater than you estimated.

Third, we have no idea whether there is an income stream associated 
with Harry's parents' estate.  While there is money in the vault, we 
should not presume that the wizarding world hasn't figured out the 
finer points of lending, interest income, letters of credit and 
such, despite the apparent predilection for hard currency.  Those 
goblins at Gringott's are doing their accounting "magic" for some 
purpose, and may in fact provide the services of a trust company, 
like estate management.  Thus, what Harry has may be growing, and 
perhaps faster than he is using it, and the contents of the vault 
represent only the cash portion of his portfolio.

Fourth, in the end the fact that JKR herself says she is nearly 
hopeless when it comes to numbers and math should leave us open to 
the idea that the size of Harry's parents' estate isn't really all 
that relevant beyond the fact that its existence leaves Harry free 
from certain worldly concerns, and thus helps avoid unnecessary plot 
distractions.

Richard, who wishes he had as many gold coins as the movie shows in 
Harry's vault, as he would doubtless be able to retire much earlier 
than present circumstances indicate.





From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Nov 25 23:59:46 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:59:46 -0000
Subject: FWIW: Potter's Cash (and vault size)
In-Reply-To: <eka53k+kdip@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekaldi+g2n6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161956

> boyminn:
> Note, Hagrid picked it up off the /floor/. Generally, one
> would not refer to the bottom of a wall safe as 'the 
> floor'. That makes me again think this is a walk-in
> closet sized room. 
> 
> Also, keep in mind that it is unlikely that the Malfoy's
> estimated fortune would fit in a wall safe.

Neri:
I agree that Vault 713 is probably room size (I've always pictured it
like that myself). However, it makes sense that the Potters' vault is
more similar in size to the Weasleys' vault than to Vault 713.
Remember, Vault 713 is a high-security vault, and probably belongs to
Hogwarts, while the Potters' and Weasleys' vaults are both regular
security. As to the Malfoys' vault ? no available data. It may well be
high-security and room-size like 713.  


> bboyminn:
> 
> Well, I admit I'm trying to force everything to fit my
> particular model of Harry's wealth, but I have to say
> that I think Harry in this moment is thinking in concept
> rather than in practicalities.<snip>  
> He is practical in conceiving his plan, but not practical
> in the concept of mechanically executing it; he thinks 
> about 'what' but hasn't gotten to the 'how' just yet.

Neri:
Note that in this paragraph Harry is thinking in very mechanical
terms. He considers putting a spell on his trunk to make it
feather-light, tie it to his broomstick and fly to London with his
Invisibility Cloak on. It seems that in Harry's mental image the
content of his vault would approximately fit into his trunk.

Regarding Harry's wealth, I have to point out that after HBP all
calculations are off anyway, because Harry has also inherited Sirius'
fortune, and we don't have any idea how much that amounts to. Granted,
selling 12 Grimmauld Place might prove a bit difficult, considering no
one but the Order members will ever be able to find it.

BTW, I have a speculation that the locket Horcrux is now either in
Sirius's vault 711 or in Harry's own vault. I estimate that Sirius
raided Kreacher's nest after Christmas in OotP, found the locket, and
since he was preparing his will at that time he decided to leave it to
Harry, so he sent it with Emmeline Vance to put in his vault.
Dumbledore said in HBP that Sirius' money was transferred to Harry's
account in Gringots. The question is: does this mean the content of
711 was moved to Harry's vault, or that 711 is now Harry's? Either
works well with my theory, but I think the first possibility would
make for a better story. It means Bill probably saw the locket in
Harry's vault when he brought Harry his money in HBP, but of course he
had no idea about its importance.


> bboyminn: <in another post>
> I found some information on the movie coins.
> 
> The Dimensions are as follows -
> 
> Galleon = 38.60 mm dia. = 1.52 inch

Neri:
This is highly unlikely, especially with your estimation of 5/64 inch
thick. Do you realize what would be the weight of the thousand
Galleons sack that Fudge gave Harry, and Harry gave the twins, in the
end of GoF? Here's my quick calculation: 

5/64 inch times 2.5 translates to 0.19 cm thick (Americans, please
forgive me that I prefer to work in the metric system). 

Half of a 3.86 cm diameter is a 1.93 cm radius. 

This means that the volume of each Galleon is 0.19*Pi*3.86^2= 2.28
cubic cm.

According to Wikipedia the density of gold is 19.3 gram/cubic cm, so
this would make the weight of each Galleon 2.28*19.3= 44.1 gram.

This would make the 1000 Galleons sack weight 44.1 Kg (I believe
somewhere around 100 lb for you Americans). I hardly see Harry
*lifting* it.

I recommend shaving both diameter and thickness of a Galleon by a
factor of at least two, which would decrease the weight of the sack by
a factor of four to just 11 Kg (about 25 lb), still quite hefty but
manageable.  


Neri





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 26 00:18:19 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:18:19 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <eka6qb+irpi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekamgb+4qfm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161957

Carol:
> > Which leads me to wonder how Kreacher, or the painting of Mrs. 
Black, know that Hermione is a Muggleborn. 

a_svirn:
> Maybe because there aren't any Grangers in the "Natural 
Aristocracy" Debrett's and Burke's?

Ceridwen:
The name Granger is definitely attested to in Wizarding circles.  
(HBP US hardcover, page 185) Slughorn speaking to Hermione:

"Granger?  Granger?  Can you possibly be related to Hector Dagworth-
Granger, who founded the Most Extraordinary Society of Potioneers?"

So there is a Granger in the Wizarding World.  Whether Mr. Dagworth-
Granger is a Pureblood, or whether his family is listed in "Natural 
Aristocracy", is another matter.

Carol:
> > Surely, her blood status isn't a topic of conversation at 12 GP. 

a_svirn:
> Why not? If anything they should have sent someone to fetch her 
from her muggle home, shouldn't they? Quite possible they discussed 
the proper way of doing so.

Ceridwen:
They might have sent someone for her who hadn't been to her house 
before, and warned them to keep a low profile because she lives in a 
Muggle area.  but, the Blacks seem to live in a Muggle area and 
they're Purebloods.

After reading this branch of the discussion, I wonder how someone 
told Kreacher that Hermione was a Muggle-born.  He must have known it 
some way.  One way might be that Sirius told him not to 
say 'Mudblood' because one of the guests would be a Muggle-born.

Ceridwen.




From scarah at gmail.com  Sun Nov 26 00:21:59 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:21:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <ekai9p+vuvu@eGroups.com>
References: <ekaa6t+e1db@eGroups.com> <ekai9p+vuvu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611251621u7edf199fm1d5206000baee047@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161959

Sarah:
Sorry, I'm sure you know what's coming.  :)  I'm kind of allergic to
"Think of the children" as support or debunking of theories.

JKR in 2000:
"The bottom line is, I have to write the story I want to write. I
never wrote them with a focus group of 8-year-olds in mind. I have to
continue telling the story the way I want to tell it. I don't at all
relish the idea of children in tears, and I absolutely don't deny it's
frightening. But it's supposed to be frightening!"

"I cannot write to please other people. I can't. When I finish book 7,
I want to be able to look in the mirror and think, I did it the way I
meant to do it. If I lose readers in the process, I'm not going to
throw a party about it. But I would feel far worse if I knew that I
had allowed myself to write something different. Yet, I do have
parents coming up to me and saying "He's 6 and he loved your book!"
And I've always kind of been, "Well, that's great, but I know what's
coming, and I think 6 is a tiny bit too young." I've always felt
that."

Sarah:
She's already killed some beloved characters, and put still more
through some serious angst.  Allegedly, there were young readers that
sought therapy after reading about Snape killing Dumbledore.  The
point is, she *still* did it.  I totally believe her when she says
she's telling the story she wanted to tell, and it is sad and scary.
The books so far bear this out.  For me personally, the most
disturbing incident was a guy dismembering himself to use the limb as
a potion ingredient, but I like books that evoke a response.  Folks
that don't probably gave up after Cedric, Sirius and Dumbledore died.

Carol:
My concern
about AK in particular is that it's a Dark curse, the weapon of the
enemy, specifically created as a murder weapon.

Sarah:
I don't think that's going to happen either.  Harry has already shown
a remarkable inability for performing the Unforgivable Curses.  (Even
though they are now also a tool in the Auror toolbox.)

Harry already killed Quirrell, didn't he?  It could be argued that
Quirrell self-bubbled by touching Harry, or that it was accidental, or
a side effect, but the bottom line is that Harry laid hands on
Quirrell and Quirell died.  If this didn't divide Harry's soul, then
he should have plenty of options for Voldemort.

Carol:
Soldiers defending their country
suffer what used to be euphemistically referred to as combat fatigue,
including nightmares decades later and other permanent psychological
damage.

Sarah:
Exactly.  In my opinion, the only authorial irresponsibility will be
if Harry lives and this *isn't* shown.  He has to banish Voldemort
from this plane of existence.  It won't be easy.  Whether Harry shoots
Voldemort with an M-16 or gently shoves him through the veil, he's
killing him.  If he skips off into the sunset to marry Ginny without a
care in the world afterward, that is what I will have a problem with.

Sarah



From scarah at gmail.com  Sun Nov 26 00:58:59 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:58:59 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Potter money
In-Reply-To: <eka9fe+8gjp@eGroups.com>
References: <ek9v45+junu@eGroups.com> <eka9fe+8gjp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611251658j128d9247w6e5b8c1f468f424b@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161960

bboyminn:
As to whether JKR specifically said Harry is wealthy, I
would like to see a quote so we have the exact words. I
did look on her website, but it wasn't there, so it must
have been in an interview. However, even if she used the
word 'wealthy' I think it is in a context, and it is that
context we are trying to determine.
[snip]
Is that the equivalent of 'wealthy', and are we talking
wealthy in general or just wealthy in the eyes of an
11 year old boy?

Sarah:
The only one that I recall is this, from a 2000 chat transcript:
"What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive?

Well, I can't go into too much detail, because you're going to find
out in future books. But James inherited plenty of money, so he didn't
need a well-paid profession. You'll find out more about both Harry's
parents later."

That's very contextually different from Harry as an eleven-year-old
having money.  His parents as young and talented potentially
upwardly-mobile professionals didn't need to work, at least in a
"well-paid profession."

As a side note, a lot of people think they were Aurors, and
Aurors-in-training could fit the bill of not "well-paid."  I don't
personally enjoy thinking that, because it seems like they barely had
time to complete their three years of training, have a little parental
leave, then die.  It could also mean they worked full-time for the
Order, which doesn't appear to pay well if at all.  I'd prefer to
think that, personally, just because they could have got more done in
the time they had.  It's also a popular speculation that Lily was an
Unspeakable whose work had something to do with the locked room in the
Department of Mysteries. I'd assume those jobs to be higher on the pay
scale.  Though it's true that the quote says not only didn't "need"
(allowing that they could have had one anyway) but "*he* didn't need,"
allowing that Lily could have had a well-paid profession, not James.
Perhaps he was the stay at home father.  :)

Sarah



From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Nov 26 01:28:49 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:28:49 EST
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
Message-ID: <ce7.2458f6d.329a47d1@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161961

I've been pondering this question lately. What does it mean for Book 7  if
Regulus is alive? Would his being alive further the current plotlines,  i.e.,
tie up any loose ends, explain any conumdrums or resolve any standing
issues--or would his being alive add one more plotline to a book  that is 
already overextended in terms of plotlines.? I put the question that way 
because I can't see JKR introducing any additional characters unless 
those characters contribute almost solely to resolving the current  plotlines
rather than adding new ones. 
 
So, could the presence of Regulus in Book 7 help resolve certain  plotlines
even several plotlines at once, thus allowing those threads of the story  to
weave their way into a final, cohesive whole? Well, let's see...
 
Right now we know that there is another member of the Order we  haven't
really met. We also know that if we assume DDM!Snape, *someone*
will act as a gobetween for Harry and Snape, and as a font of  information
on Snape's character and motivations. I.e., someone must tell Harry  the
REAL reason Dumbledore trusted Snape, which is probably also the 
very reason Snape turned on Voldemort and is determined to take the
Dark Lord down. Perhaps also the reason Snape consistently protects
and teaches (if badly) a boy he so greatly dislikes. It is also likely  that
someone will act as an adult mentor for Harry. Even if he has to go  it
alone, he still needs someone to give him advice, help him shape his
character, and change his motives from revenge--be it against Snape, 
Voldemort, Bellatrix, whoever--to what is good of the WW, i.e.,  release
his hatred so his great weapon, love, can conquer the Dark Lord.
 
There are certainly more threads to be resolved in Book 7, but these
are some central ones, so let me start with them.
 
Member of the Order not really met: The top contender for this one 
seems to be Aberforth. Even though we have met him, including as
himself at Dumbledore's funeral, he's remained very much on the
sidelines. We haven't met him in any "official" sense, not as a  member
of the current Order (remember, he was in the old Order picture at 12
Grimmauld Place). And JKR did say Dumbledore's family avenue of 
speculation. 
 
Still, it's not clear what JKR meant by saying we really met this  person.
"Really" as in "not in his real role (Order member) " or "really" as in  "his
name has been mentioned but haven't seen him in the story yet." It 
could easily be the second, in which case our new top contender may
well be Regulus Black. We haven't met him because we were told he
is dead, killed by Voldemort's forces (though he wasn't important 
enough to be killed by Voldemort himself, according to Sirius). Yet,
Dumbledore told Draco, in the later deleted line from the original  U.S.
version of HBP (deleted because it gave away too much?) "He can't
kill you if you are already dead...We can hide you more completely
than you can imagine."
 
Did Dumbledore hide Regulus Black more completely than we can
imagine? So well that even his own brother believed sincerely that he
was dead?
 
Gobetween for Harry and Snape: (This all assumes Snape is DDM)
We know Harry hates Snape completely (pun intended) and wouldn't
listen to a word out of the ex-Potion Master's mouth, so if Snape is
DDM, how can he share information with the Order, and with Harry,
when no one trusts him? We've speculated that *someone* knows
the truth about Snape, and guesses have included Lupin, Hermione,
Hagrid, McGonagall, and probably others. Yet, with the possible
exception of Hagrid, they all seemed to believe completely that 
Snape killed Dumbledore out of malice and returned to Voldemort.
Someone could be acting, but I can't see how that wouldn't come 
off a bit convoluted in the end. 
 
Otherwise, we also have Dumbledore. He may not be alive, but there
is his portrait in the Headmaster's office, and his Pensieve. Could  the
portrait tell Harry the truth about Snape, and convince Harry to  trust
Snape? Since Harry didn't believe Dumbledore when he was alive, 
why would he believe him after he's dead? As for the Pensieve, yes,
it would be hard for Harry to refute any memories of Dumbledore's
or Snape's that he might see, since the Pensieve shows what did
happen objectively. It could work, but...we've seen this already.  More
than once. We just relived Voldemort's life via the Pensieve in HBP.
It wouldn't be very creative of JKR to base much of Book 7 on  the
same device as Book 6. JKR is known for her twists after all, and
this wouldn't be one.
 
But what if Regulus is alive? Regulus, brother of Sirius, who  went
to Hogwarts during the same period as Snape, a  DE during the
same time as Snape, perhaps friendly with Snape. Regulus, who, 
if he was hidden so well by Dumbledore that his "death" became
fact, probably approached Dumbledore via Snape. And if Snape 
was involved in hiding Regulus, it's certainly possible they've 
remained in some sort of contact over the years. And possible
that they've exchanged personal information, from their Hogwarts
days right through HBP. 
 
Who, besides Dumbledore, is likely to know as much about Snape?
If he's alive, Regulus could be a goldmine of information. And not
just about Snape necessarily. Perhaps about James and Lily. He
was Sirius's brother after all. He could know how Snape felt about
Lily (or any other witch/wizard), why Snape joined Voldemort, why
Snape left Voldemort, why Dumbledore trusted Snape, etc, etc.
He could know what, if anything, Lily and Snape did together, why
Snape feels beholden to protect and teach (if badly) Harry--just the
life debt to James, or something more? And it goes on.
 
I know we don't yet have any proof that Snape and Regulus had
any sort of relationship, but given their co-existence at Hogwarts
and within the DEs, it's certainly valid speculation.
 
Adult Mentor to Harry: Okay, so why does Harry need an adult
mentor? Adults haven't done so well by him to this point. They've
either let him down, or died on him, or both. But Harry is still only
17 (or will be in Book 7). And while Hermione and Ron are there
for him, they are still as young and inexperienced as he is, at life
and at war. It's not absolutely necessary, but it does make sense
that Harry will have an adult he can trust who will mentor him both
about life in general and about fighting and defeating Voldemort.
 
So, who? McGonagall's always been rather distant, and she wouldn't
have much insight to offer in war (AFAWK). The Weasley's are Ron's
parents and by extension treat Harry as an additional child, not as
a colleague or equal. They can offer love and comfort, yes, but as 
mentors they're too set in their previous roles in Harry's life.  Moody
is a bit nuts, as well as not emotionally close to Harry. But, you 
say, there's always Lupin.
 
Ah, Lupin. I want to believe in him. But he's never come  through
for Harry. He's kept his distance for years, sometimes  physically
and always emotionally. He's had plenty of opportunity, and while
it's clear he cares about Harry, it seems to be equally clear at this
point that he's not capable of truly sharing himself with Harry, as 
mentor, father-figure, even friend. (Good luck there, Tonks ;-) And I
just don't see Lupin suddenly shuffling off his self-protective  reserve
in Book 7. In short, I've lost faith in Lupin.
 
But Regulus...he's the brother of Harry's godfather, Sirius. Harry 
would feel an immediate kinship with him. And once Harry  finds
out that Regulus defied Voldemort (RAB, you know), that will
only reinforce Harry's trust in Regulus. Whatever type of  personality
Regulus has, it's likely he's suffered a great deal less emotional
damage from his enforced isolation in hiding than Sirius did from 
his incarceration in Azkaban. And it may be that Regulus was a
less edgy and impetuous person than Sirius from the beginning, 
allowing him to gain some wisdom from his ordeal. All of which
would allow him to be supportive of Harry in a way poor Sirius 
could never really be. 
 
In any case, I would love to see Regulus become Harry's mentor
and friend, a father-figure that Harry can truly rely on as he moves
toward his final confrontation with Voldemort. And as Harry learns
to trust and love Regulus as friend and mentor, that could only
help him learn to accept whatever Snape's true motives and role
in Harry's life has been. 
 
I know there are a few problems with the Regulus is Alive theory.
For me one of them is Sirius rotting away in Azkaban while Regulus
is safely hidden away. Did Regulus know where Sirius was, and did
he believe Sirius was guilty? Why did Dumbledore believe in the "bad"
brother's potential for good and save him, while readily accepting 
the "good" brother's guilt and abandoning him to Azkaban? It's  a
bit hard to accept that one unless we get a good  explanation. 
 
There are probably more problems, and maybe more supporting evidence
for the Regulus is Alive theory. All I can say at this moment is that  I
really like it. It would work on a lot of levels, introducing a new  character
who isn't new, giving us a novel way for Harry to learn what he needs  to
know about Snape, Voldemort, his parents, Godric's Hollow (?), maybe
even tying in the Time-turner. (What if Dumbledore hiding Regulus  more
completely than we can ever know involved sending him to the past??--
well, I don't know if that can work, but it's a thought ;-) Not to  mention
it gives Harry a replacement for Sirius. And it seems more  interesting
to me than a Book 7 of Harry hunting horcruxes one by one and arguing
with Dumbledore's portrait or repeatedly sticking his head in a  Pensieve.
And since I've come to expect "more interesting" from JKR, I'm sticking 
with it for now.
 
Julie, enthusiastic supporter of Regulus is ALIVE
 
 
 
 
 


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




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Nov 26 01:28:47 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:28:47 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Last Confidant?  (was: CHAP DISC, HBP 25,  The Se...
Message-ID: <c26.a2d6ee4.329a47cf@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161962

> 7. "Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though  
d> he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he  
d> said, 'I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely.' said, 'I am 
d> Dumbledore trying to make up his mind about?

>Dave:
>I  think he's *very* tempted to tell Harry the *real* reason
he trusts Snape,  but he doesn't *dare* tell Harry or indeed
*anyone* why Snape is truly DDM,  because the danger is too
great that LV could then get the truth out of them  via Legimancy.

>But I stand by my theory that there must be *one*  living person who
knows the truth (and is therefore currently putting on  a
Cannes Film Festival-worthy acting performance)Cannes Film Festival
now useless as a spy. In spite of the arguments already raised
against  the idea, I still think it's Hermione -- Who else could
conceivably master  Occlumancy as well as Snape has? (Unless Jo is
planning an ironic twist by  bestowing masterful Occlumancy talent
on Mr. Rubeus "I shouldn'ta said that"  Hagrid.)
 
Nikkalmati
 
Interesting speculation.  I may have missed your earlier post ( as in  I 
stand by my theory).  Although you make a significant point that  DDM!Snape would 
need a contact with the Order, a means of communication, I  don't, however, 
think this person necessarily knows Snape is DDM in  HBP.  It is possible that 
this person will read the signs and figure it out  later.  Hermione is a 
possible candidate for solving the puzzle, just as  she solved the logic puzzle in 
SS/PS.  Perhaps, the portrait will inform  McGonagall of the true relationship 
between  DD and SS, and she will be his  point of contact.  Lupin is another 
possibility; after all, he does know SS  pretty well and feels indebted to him 
for preparing the Wolfsbane  potion.  His reaction in the hospital wing to the 
news DD was dead in  HBP also implies that he knows more than he is letting 
on.
 
Maybe, if Draco leaves LV's side, he will be a middleman between SS and the  
Order.  It would be easier for him to convince the Order that he could be a  
valuable spy, because he did not kill DD.
 
Jen R. suggested Dobby.  I think he could play a role too, but the  Order 
would not accept Dobby directly as a source.  He would have to be a  middle man.  
Wouldn't it be ironic if Dobby carried messages between SS and  Harry, 
without Harry knowing who was on the other end?
 
Nikkalmati (seeing so many possibilities)   




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




From kat7555 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 01:16:32 2006
From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:16:32 -0000
Subject: Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <3202590611251621u7edf199fm1d5206000baee047@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekaptg+hr56@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161963

> >>Sarah:
>> <snip>
>> Whether Harry shoots Voldemort with an M-16 or gently shoves him through the veil, he's killing him.  If he skips off into the sunset to marry Ginny without a care in the world afterward, that is what I will have a problem with.<<



Hasn't Harry suffered enough? I can't think of another fictional
character who has endured so much death in his life. Harry knows
that he has to face Voldemort which is a heavy burden to bear. I
doubt he will feel guilty because he views killing Voldemort as
avenging the murder of his parents and so many others. IMO when
Book 7 is over Harry will feel like the weight of the world is off
his shoulders.

KathyK




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 01:50:43 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:50:43 -0000
Subject: SPEW (was: Freedom for House-Elves )
In-Reply-To: <eka8b1+et2v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekartj+a8bb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161964

> a_svirn:
> As for me, I'll be a little annoyed if that SPEW thing is revived in 
> the book 7. I am pretty sure that elves story-line will become very 
> important, though. The thing with SPEW was that it was all wrong; 
<BIG SNIP>
 I think in the book 7 we'll see elves doing their bit 
> and being liberated properly.
>

Alla:

Oh, agreed - to both no more SPEW and to the house elves storyline 
will become important and that they will become liberated properly.

I was hoping to copy JKr Diary's entry from May 10, 2006 on her site, 
but could not find her, so just provide Lexicon link to where it is 
copied.

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/sources/jkr.com/jkr-com-diary.html#6

So we can at least say with certainty that house elves will be 
mentioned in the book and I would wager that they would be mentioned 
more than once too :)

JMO,

Alla, who thinks that the test whether house elves truly want freedom 
or not will be objective when and only when the enchantment is lifted.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 01:58:40 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:58:40 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ce7.2458f6d.329a47d1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ekascg+5ljs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161965

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote:
>
> I've been pondering this question lately. What does it mean for 
Book 7  if
> Regulus is alive? <SNIP of the whole post basically>  
> Julie, enthusiastic supporter of Regulus is ALIVE


Alla:

hehe, so that is my second post where I am using JKR site as my only 
support in round about way. Oh, well.

Yes, Julie, I agree and would love for Regulus to be ALIVE too.

As I mentioned this answer by JKR sort of kept my hope alive, tee 
hee.

"Stubby Boardman is Regulus Black
No, he isn't. Nice idea, though."


Soooooo, the way I read it - Okay, she debunks this theory, but 
where would be the best way to say that nope, sorry guys, Regulus is 
nobody because he is **dead**, get over it, he is dead, dead, dead.

Especially in light of her saying couple years earlier that Regulus 
is dead **these** days, therefore he is pretty quiet.

Why not just say? Still dead, sorry guys, but no cigar.

My guess is that he is not dead and we are getting close enough to 
book 7 and she does not want to lie, so she says nothing.

Speculating obviously, but would love for that to be true.

Alla









From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sun Nov 26 02:24:42 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 20:24:42 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
References: <ekascg+5ljs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <034001c71102$084a6ad0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161966

Not responding to any particular post, but if Regulus was still alive, how could Kreacher be Harrys?  It would seem that if Regulus was alive, then Kreacher wouldn't have ahd to obey Harry right?
  Lana

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




From scarah at gmail.com  Sun Nov 26 02:29:07 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 18:29:07 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <ekaptg+hr56@eGroups.com>
References: <3202590611251621u7edf199fm1d5206000baee047@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ekaptg+hr56@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611251829v41aac04cg41e9ae233347d6fb@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161967

KathyK:
> Hasn't Harry suffered enough?

Sarah:
A question only JK can answer.  And she has, repeatedly, saying that
she plans for him to suffer plenty.  I'm suggesting she's being
truthful.  I'm not the one who plans on making him suffer, she is.
I'm just the messenger, as well as a reader who enjoyed the past
books, even though they are very sad and frightening at times.  I may
come across as bloodthirsty, but I've often cried (at times in public)
while reading the books.  I think that books are supposed to take us
on an emotional journey, and that includes a range of emotions.  If
Harry sat on the porch and drank lemonade for seven years, I don't
think anyone would read these books.

KathyK:
 I can't think of another fictional
> character who has endured so much death in his life.

Sarah:
I don't think we've been reading the same books, because I can think
of an awful lot.

KathyK
> IMO when
> Book 7 is over Harry will feel like the weight of the world is off
> his shoulders.

Sarah:
I hope he doesn't, and don't think he will for the reasons Carol
posted above.  JK has already opened up many complex themes.
Political corruption, interblood and interspecies strife and
misunderstandings, oppression and slavery to name just a few.  Moody's
not the same after years of fighting Death Eaters, Lupin's not the
same after his experiences, Sirius certainly isn't the same after
enduring Azkaban, and I doubt that Dumbledore was the same after
defeating Grindelwald.  Dumbledore wasn't even the same after the
night Sirius died and he had to tell Harry about the prophecy.

If, after all this build-up, the big message JK has in store for us is
"But it's all going to be OK, hurray!" then I confess I will be
disappointed.  There are ways for her to write Harry surviving and
being pretty much all right for the most part that could still include
more serious themes, but plain old happily ever after isn't one of
them.

Sarah



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 02:41:37 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:41:37 -0000
Subject: How happy the ending could be for Harry WAS: Re: Sending Voldie through the Veil
In-Reply-To: <3202590611251829v41aac04cg41e9ae233347d6fb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekaut1+l3v4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161968

Sara:
<SNIP>
> If, after all this build-up, the big message JK has in store for 
us is
> "But it's all going to be OK, hurray!" then I confess I will be
> disappointed.  There are ways for her to write Harry surviving and
> being pretty much all right for the most part that could still 
include
> more serious themes, but plain old happily ever after isn't one of
> them.
> 
>

Alla:

Well, of course there are ways - like Harry being involved in some 
important political causes, etc, on the other hand I completely 
disagree and I am not sure if this is what you are saying, please 
disregard if you are not. I completely disagree that if Harry 
survives, that the only convincing way of existance for him would be 
to become second Frodo. There are different ways of reacting to 
trauma, and yes, I do think that it is possible to write 
convincingly Harry surviving and being Okay and happy for the most 
part - influenced by experiences, grown up,etc, but not necessarily 
broken man.

IMO of course.






From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 26 02:49:57 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:49:57 -0000
Subject: Luna's silvery eyes ( Was: Lily Evans Potter)
In-Reply-To: <ekaer7+ls3u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekavcl+spi6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161969

Carol:
> Six references to Luna's eyes in her introductory chapter alone. I 
> recall similar descriptions later in OoP and again in HBP but won't
> quote them. The protuberant eyes seem to be peculiar to Luna, but
> note that both her eyes and Ollivander's are described 
> as "silvery" and "misty" and that Harry can see himself reflected 
> in both Ollivander's eyes and Luna's. (Is Luna a natural 
> Legilimens? Or maybe she simply has an uncanny intuitive 
> understanding of Harry.)
> 
> Carol, wondering if anyone else thinks that Luna may be a Seer or
> connected with Ollivander and, if not, what's up with those silvery
> eyes

Jen: I agree with most of your theorizing about Luna except for 
drawing a different conclusion.  After hashing out some ideas on a 
thread post-OOTP, I decided that Luna has an intuitive way of 
reading people rather than having predictive powers in the form of a 
traditional WW Seer.  The fact that JKR made her a Ravenclaw 
indicates that the power of Intuition is another form of 
intelligence and Luna is a complement to Hermione's Intellect, Ron's 
Heart and Harry's Soul.  I won't go into all the details because 
here's a link to the thread:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/84043

If you're not interested in the thread (it's long!), briefly it 
started with the question of whether Luna was from a new group of 
magical beings, a group Harry hadn't officially met before.  I 
didn't think she was (and HBP did nothing to advance that idea),  
but I did wonder if Luna and Ollivander were related along the 
maternal side of Luna's family.  They both have an uncanny ability 
to read people, Ollivander with such accuracy he can help a person 
choose a wand; that must require a great amount of intuition when 
you think of how many wands he has in his shop!  He could pull down 
boxes for days and not find the right wand without being able to 
sense something unique in each person.  

HBP didn't alter my opinion that Luna's gift is reading people 
rather than being a traditional Seer.  Her observations about Ron 
saying 'unkind' things or the girls on the train believing Harry 
should sit with 'cooler' people are simply conclusions most people 
could draw and are what Harry refers to as 'a knack for embarassing 
honesty.' (chap. 7).  I read her conversation with Trelawney as 
merely wacky, two slightly eccentric people enjoying a slightly 
eccentric conversation. ;)

I do think Luna and Neville will be back to assist Harry in book 7, 
both offering their unique gifts to the cause.  Perhaps Luna will 
provide some crucial read on Voldemort (or Snape <g>) that
will turn the tide of events, or she alone will remember something 
from the DOM battle to help Harry on his quest.  Harry definitely 
trusts her now and understands she can offer ideas his other friends 
cannot.

Jen





From Coqui1219 at hotmail.com  Sat Nov 25 21:32:02 2006
From: Coqui1219 at hotmail.com (Janette Gomez)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 13:32:02 -0800
Subject: Potter money
In-Reply-To: <ek9v45+junu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY117-DAV33D53262593F58FA5C3C4A5E00@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 161970

> Steve/bboyminn:
>> > <snip>  As a means of guessing Harry's wealth, we can
>> > take the scene in which Harry first enters his Vault
>> > and use that as a model. <snip>

> John:
> You can't take the video of Harry's vault as indicating
> how much money he has - it is not relevant. Jk said years
> ago on her web site that Harry is very wealthy.

Janette:
Just to back you up it was also described in the first book.
"Inside were mounds of gold coins.  Columns of silver.  Heaps of little bronze Knuts"
Granted it doesn't say that it is extraordinary amount, but Harry is always referencing the fact he has a lot of money.
8-)

Janette Teresa G?mez
jgomez8 at san.rr.com
Coqui1219 at hotmail.com
http://www.geocities.com/coqui1219_68/
http://www.myspace.com/coqui1219
http://coqui1219.blogspot.com/



From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Nov 26 03:05:39 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:05:39 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] FWIW: Potter's Cash
Message-ID: <d32.ba6554.329a5e83@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161971

>bboyminn
<snip>
>So, despite having millions of dollar in the bank, and 
given his  life expectancy, he has just barely enough 
money to get by. So, in that  sense, no, he is not rich.

>However, at an interest rate of a mere 6%  per year, 
US$4,758,912 would return US$285,537 per year. That  would
certainly help and would prevent the deterioration of the
principle  amount of capital. I think Harry could live 
quite comfortable off of  $285,000 per year. Especially
since he already has a substantial house of his  own;
that's one less expense to drain his resources.
<snip>
 
Nikkalmati
 
Anyone who has enough money to live off the interest without working IMHO  is 
rich.
I agree the Malfoys are way above Harry in wealth, but one is rich  the other 
is richer.  
I think JKR said in an interview that James didn't have to work for a  
living, so I assume Harry doesn't either; and, as you pointed out, he now has a  
house (presumably free and clear).
 
Nikkalmati (who wishes she had a house without a mortgage and didn't need  to 
work)


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




From Elvishooked at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 26 04:02:49 2006
From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:02:49 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <ek5vna+k04l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekb3l9+bi4v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161972

Tina:
..."Buckbeak didn't die indeed but they thought he died when they heard
the axe which is actually the axe against the fence. That is all that
they need to go back and 'save' buckbeak. Therefore, it doesn't change
anything coz Buckbeak never did die.
It's just like a circle, it has no beginning and no end. Not like a
straight line where you start and things go on and on. Not like that.
Everything happens, has to happen. Thus, making things the way they
are and why when you time-travel you must never change anything."...

Inge:
Once again the TimeTurner discussion is hard to play with :-)

If you can't (must not) change anything during a time-travel, then why 
bother go on a trip at all (unless of course getting information or 
keeping up with 3 classes) ?

It's true that HRH *thought* Buckbeak had actually died - and so they 
did what they could to *change* that incident.
Of course they never really changed anything because things happened 
the way they were supposed to happen, and Buckbeak hadn't died in the 
first place.
Still - the three of them thought he had - and as such they tried to 
change the past and save him.

So - the next time - if ever - Harry goes on a TT-Trip - how is he 
supposed to know what has *really* happened - and how much he can try 
to change ?

Tricky devices, those TT's.....

 





From pam_rosen at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 03:56:21 2006
From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 19:56:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
Message-ID: <20061126035621.76892.qmail@web30801.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161973

Raymond writes:
> Which Dumbledore died at top of the tower? Everyone 
> thinks Aberforth is the barman at the Hogs Head. What 
> if Albus and Aberforth are twins? JKR says look at 
> Dumbledore`s family and says Dumbledore is dead but
> does not use a forname so using this thought which died?

Chris adds:

She states in an interview that "the hero has to go on alone".  To me
that sounds like he (Albus) is really dead.  
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2006/0801-radiocity-pressconf.html

Another interesting thought, we know that Mundungus was banned from
the Hog's Head, and that the barman (Aberforth) has a good memory. 
However, we see the two of them in Hogsmead, possibly doing business.
Why is Aberforth dealing with 'Dung?

And Pam chimes in with a theory of her own:

I am forming a theory as I am finishing up reading GOF to my 8 year old (and dreading going on to 5).  Dumbledore mentions his brother and says he's not sure he can read.  But he turns up in the picture of the original Order of the Phoenix, and he remains in the Wizarding world in a low level job.  Why would Dumbledore "not know" if his brother can read?  I was thinking:  suppose Albus and Aberforth were both great wizards in the Order.  And suppose something happened to Aberforth during the first war that left him with reduced mental capacities (ala the Longbottoms).  He may act bizarrely (maybe a little two bizarrely), but he can hold a job and may possess some information or be the keeper of some important artifact.  That would explain Dumbledore not being sure about his brother's abilities, and it would explain his association with Mundungus.  
...and what if there are more Dumbledores out there in the world? Any thoughts?

Pam








From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 26 04:17:46 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:17:46 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
References: <ce7.2458f6d.329a47d1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00b401c71111$d49a32a0$c666400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161974

Julie:
> But what if Regulus is alive? Regulus, brother of Sirius, who  went
> to Hogwarts during the same period as Snape, a  DE during the
> same time as Snape, perhaps friendly with Snape. Regulus, who,
> if he was hidden so well by Dumbledore that his "death" became
> fact, probably approached Dumbledore via Snape. And if Snape
> was involved in hiding Regulus, it's certainly possible they've
> remained in some sort of contact over the years. And possible
> that they've exchanged personal information, from their Hogwarts
> days right through HBP.

<snip>

> But Regulus...he's the brother of Harry's godfather, Sirius. Harry
> would feel an immediate kinship with him. And once Harry  finds
> out that Regulus defied Voldemort (RAB, you know), that will
> only reinforce Harry's trust in Regulus. Whatever type of  personality
> Regulus has, it's likely he's suffered a great deal less emotional
> damage from his enforced isolation in hiding than Sirius did from
> his incarceration in Azkaban. And it may be that Regulus was a
> less edgy and impetuous person than Sirius from the beginning,
> allowing him to gain some wisdom from his ordeal. All of which
> would allow him to be supportive of Harry in a way poor Sirius
> could never really be.
>
> In any case, I would love to see Regulus become Harry's mentor
> and friend, a father-figure that Harry can truly rely on as he moves
> toward his final confrontation with Voldemort. And as Harry learns
> to trust and love Regulus as friend and mentor, that could only
> help him learn to accept whatever Snape's true motives and role
> in Harry's life has been.


Magpie:
My two problems with this idea--besides that I think JKR meant Regulus was 
dead when she said he was dead these days--is that first, if Dumbledore hid 
Regulus why did he drink a pot full of poison to retrieve the worthless 
locket?  Dumbledore should already have that Horcrux by now if he was 
working with Regulus (I know some believe RAB is someone else, but since 
you're making him RAB here I could just assume it).

Second, in terms of an adult mentor, I think Harry's has/had plenty and 
definitely doesn't need a new one as he reaches adulthood.  Especially in 
this case we would be talking about creating a whole new character to 
replace Sirius, whom Harry was fine without in HBP. I think he's just got 
far too much to wrap up to start having a relationship with a stranger.  He 
had three books to get to know Sirius and still only managed a few scenes 
with him.  And at the moment Harry wouldn't exactly be poised to be close to 
Regulus because he's Sirius' brother since Sirius himself wasn't exactly 
complimentary about him.  Also, I think Regulus' sacifice is a bit blunted 
if we find out he never really died.

-m 





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 26 04:21:21 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:21:21 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ce7.2458f6d.329a47d1@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ekb4o1+8rv5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161976

Julie:
> But what if Regulus is alive? Regulus, brother of Sirius, who  went
> to Hogwarts during the same period as Snape, a  DE during the
> same time as Snape, perhaps friendly with Snape. Regulus, who, 
> if he was hidden so well by Dumbledore that his "death" became
> fact, probably approached Dumbledore via Snape. And if Snape 
> was involved in hiding Regulus, it's certainly possible they've 
> remained in some sort of contact over the years. And possible
> that they've exchanged personal information, from their Hogwarts
> days right through HBP. 

Jen:  I like your theory, you've thought through many issues to 
reach the conclusion.  I'm wondering if Dumbledore was the one to 
hide him, though?  Dumbledore told Harry that Regulus 'predeceased' 
Sirius and therefore left Sirius as the last of the Blacks.  DD 
could have meant that metaphorically, that the Regulus everyone 
thinks of as Regulus is gone, or DD is simply lying to cover up the 
truth (which he told Harry he wouldn't do).  Or Dumbledore might 
believe Regulus is dead and Snape told him otherwise in the course 
of the year if Snape was the one to hide him.  

Another thing, Sirius made no mention if they didn't find Regulus' 
body.  That could have been something easily slipped into the 
conversation with Harry, how upset his mum was that they never had a 
body to bury.  This one could be worked around with transfiguration 
maybe, or polyjuice (harder to pull off with a dead body <g>).  Or 
there was no body (again!) and Sirius didn't get to that part.  

These are just things that occurred to me while reading, all can be 
worked around.  It just seems like JKR missed the perfect 
opportunity to go this route if Stubby Boardman isn't Regulus, a 
character already introduced who looks like Sirius and is posing 
under another name.  Guess he would be the perfect red herring <g>.  

Julie:  
> Who, besides Dumbledore, is likely to know as much about Snape?
> If he's alive, Regulus could be a goldmine of information. And not
> just about Snape necessarily. Perhaps about James and Lily. He
> was Sirius's brother after all. He could know how Snape felt about
> Lily (or any other witch/wizard), why Snape joined Voldemort, why
> Snape left Voldemort, why Dumbledore trusted Snape, etc, etc.
> He could know what, if anything, Lily and Snape did together, why
> Snape feels beholden to protect and teach (if badly) Harry--just
> the life debt to James, or something more? And it goes on.

Jen: Personally I would find this a narrative problem to have a 
barely introduced adult character clearing up many of the major 
mysteries of the series.  It might read perfectly fine if it 
happens, that's just my first reaction.  The end of HBP made it 
sound like the last book will deal primarily with the younger 
generation as they follow Harry on his quest.  Adults and Order 
members will be supportive and assist, but the main focus will be on 
the kids.  Harry is determined to follow Dumbledore's instructions 
to tell NO one about the Horcruxes.  Ooh, but if Regulus already 
*knows* about them.....hmmm.

Now I could see Reegulus fitting into a section of the story, the 
part to tie up Snape's storyline and the locket Horcrux.  That would 
be a really good use of a relatively new character to solve some of 
the mysteries.

Julie: 
> Adult Mentor to Harry: Okay, so why does Harry need an adult
> mentor? Adults haven't done so well by him to this point. They've
> either let him down, or died on him, or both. But Harry is still
> only 17 (or will be in Book 7). And while Hermione and Ron are
> there for him, they are still as young and inexperienced as he is,
> at life and at war. It's not absolutely necessary, but it does 
> make sense that Harry will have an adult he can trust who will 
> mentor him bothabout life in general and about fighting and 
> defeating Voldemort.

Jen:  Regulus could enter the picture without becoming a mentor.  
Bonding with yet another mentor weakens Harry's moment of truth in 
HBP, realising there is no one standing in front of him protecting 
him anymore and he will have to face Voldemort alone, i.e., with no 
more adult protectors.  I think JKR decided 17 would be the age of 
majority in the series because she wanted Harry & Co. to be 
the 'adults' in the last one.  This ties in to what I said above.   
 
Julie:
> And it seems more  interesting to me than a Book 7 of Harry 
> hunting horcruxes one by one and arguing with Dumbledore's 
> portrait or repeatedly sticking his head in a  Pensieve.  And 
> since I've come to expect "more interesting" from JKR, I'm 
> sticking with it for now.

That's the thing really, it's hard sometimes to read a theory on 
here and then imagine it completely within the story because there's 
no supporting story to see how well it fits into yet <g>.  I may 
sound negative about your theory, but really I just see some 
possible holes in continuity is all.  I have no doubt JKR could 
write Regulus into the story realistically and with great 
creativity!  I can't see him having as much of a role as you do, but 
that's just my opinion.

Jen R., applauding Julie for really thinking this one through.




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Sun Nov 26 04:33:10 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:33:10 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time turner theory
References: <ekb3l9+bi4v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c71113$fac67770$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 161977

Okay..  I really am trying to understand this.. LOL..

Aside from the deep issues of looping, single timeline, etc...

Please help me understand this..  Say the kids never went back in time at all.
What would have "saved" Buckbeak from being killed?  We know that they took him and Sirius escaped on him.  But if the kids never went back, then are you saying that Buckbeak still would not have died?

I am bound to get this in my head so that it makes sense to me.  I just can't get past the "everything" has a starting point.  So, please explain it to me like you would a child.  And I don't mean saying "It just is".. LOL 
Thanks,  Lana
 

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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 04:36:54 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 04:36:54 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <00b401c71111$d49a32a0$c666400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ekb5l6+teq8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161978

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Not responding to any particular post, but if Regulus was still
alive, how could Kreacher be Harrys? It would seem that if Regulus
was alive, then Kreacher wouldn't have ahd to obey Harry right?
>

Alla:

Oh, this one is easy enough to get creative with. Say Regulus drank a
Draught of Living death. Maybe the consequences of that is that for
the purpose of magical inheritance the magic feels the person as 
dead,
etc.

Again, speculating.

ETA


> Magpie:
> My two problems with this idea--besides that I think JKR meant 
Regulus was 
> dead when she said he was dead these days--is that first, if 
Dumbledore hid 
> Regulus why did he drink a pot full of poison to retrieve the 
worthless 
> locket?  Dumbledore should already have that Horcrux by now if he 
was 
> working with Regulus (I know some believe RAB is someone else, but 
since 
> you're making him RAB here I could just assume it).

Alla:

I don't think that Regulus being alive necessarily equals Dumbledore 
working with him, you know? :)

And yes, I think these days can mean *dead these days*, but not 
today.


Magpie: 
> Second, in terms of an adult mentor, I think Harry's has/had 
plenty and 
> definitely doesn't need a new one as he reaches adulthood.  <SNIP>


Alla:

On that I agree, JKR worked hard to remove all Harry's mentors, sob.

But I think as a friend,not mentor, Regulus can do. IMO of course.




From random832 at gmail.com  Sun Nov 26 05:29:01 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:29:01 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (long-ish) (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <4566FAAF.3080609@sprynet.com>
References: <ek6qqp+nsej@eGroups.com> <4566FAAF.3080609@sprynet.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50611252129m2b6e575cra0de6073ac6ec731@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161979

> Bart:
>         Well, if you're looking for 21st century equivalents, especially from a
> British point of view, consider the position of women under Sharia Law.
> Time and time again, we have women go in front of TV cameras saying that
> they WANT rules like being forced to wear burkhas,

And if the alternative is to be forced *not* to, and not allowed so
much as a head scarf (as in France, where evidently atheism is the
state religion), who wouldn't?

To keep this vaguely on-topic, what's the alternative for them? We
don't know that House Elves are fully happy with 100% of the present
situation, just that, by and large, they're not buying what Hermione's
selling.



From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 26 04:08:32 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:08:32 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Magic late in life
References: <ekaakm+cevn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b301c71110$8a837b50$c666400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161980

Magpie:
> The only time we've heard a
> Muggleborn witch called a Muggle it was a slur on Hermione-I can't
imagine
> JKR would use it that way.


MercuryBlue:
> But look at Andromeda. The tree tells us she also married a Muggle.
> Andromeda's daughter, however, tells us that Ted Tonks is Muggle-BORN.

Magpie:
But that's the same use of the word, isn't it?  The Blacks consider Ted a 
Muggle because he's Muggleborn--it's a slur.  Just as Draco refers to 
Hermione as a Muggle in GoF and Harry corrects him that Hermione's a witch. 
It seems like a use of the word that implies the person speaking is 
anti-Muggleborn.  I can't imagine JKR mixing up the two words to refer to 
Petunia.

-m





From random832 at gmail.com  Sun Nov 26 05:23:25 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:23:25 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FWIW: Potter's Cash - Revised
In-Reply-To: <eka19u+81ao@eGroups.com>
References: <ek91r5+ch52@eGroups.com> <eka19u+81ao@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50611252123n5ecc92ccw5daa4c33a73ca99b@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161981

On 11/25/06, Steve <bboyminn at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I found some information on the movie coins.
>
> The Dimensions are as follows -
>
> Galleon = 38.60 mm dia. = 1.52 inch
> Sickle = 32 mm dia. = 1.26 inch
> Knut = 25 mm dia. = 0.98 inch
>
> Using the new Galleon diameter rounded to 1.5" and the
> previous assumption of 5/64 inch thick, a 9 cubic foot
> (3ft x 3ft x 1ft) pile of gold contains -

Keep in mind that cylindrical disks do not fill space perfectly.

Incidentally, 38x2mm coin contains 2268 mm2 of gold, which is 44 grams
or 1.414 ounces. The value of that much gold (one galleon) is $900 or
467 pounds.

It would appear that, as far as conversion of muggle money to wizard
money for muggleborn students is concerned, Gringotts is running a
charity.



From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 26 05:03:06 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:03:06 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time turner theory
References: <ekb3l9+bi4v@eGroups.com> <003e01c71113$fac67770$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <00e301c71118$3565a690$c666400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 161982

Lana:
> Okay..  I really am trying to understand this.. LOL..
>
> Aside from the deep issues of looping, single timeline, etc...
>
> Please help me understand this..  Say the kids never went back in time at 
> all.
> What would have "saved" Buckbeak from being killed?  We know that they 
> took him and Sirius escaped on him.  But if the kids never went back, then 
> are you saying that Buckbeak still would not have died?

Magpie:
Just my view, but if the kids hadn't gone back in time something entirely 
different would have happened that we didn't see. The key is to remember 
we're not so much talking about the limits of time travel but the way JKR 
writes time travel.

The way I think of it, if you imagine time as a linear thing, so that Harry 
must do X before he does Y, then it works like this. Harry didn't go back in 
time (Y) until after the execution was scheduled (X).  So it's perfectly 
possible that Buckbeak could have been executed during that time.  However, 
Harry and Hermione then went back in time and interfered.  Once they went 
back in time they were existing in that past moment. So that's what Harry 
saw.

It really comes down to the writing more than anything about Time Travel. 
In Back to the Future, the writers show us the way things are, then Marty 
goes back and changes the past.  Once he changes the past, the future is 
affected.  So when Marty gets back to the present, his parents no longer 
remember the past as it "really" happened.  They remember the past where 
Marty appeared and changed things.  The "original" timeline was completely 
erased.

The same type thing could be happening in HP as well.  If something 
prevented Harry from going back in time Buckbeak would simply not have been 
saved.  He would have died in a totally different memory--no swish thunk, no 
yell from Hagrid at that exact moment.  The way JKR chooses to write her 
story, however, any alternative universe where Buckbeak actually died is 
lost to our heroes memory.  All he remembers is the version where Buckbeak 
was saved.  He was able to see what he hadn't yet done because of the Time 
Travel.

The trouble is, for me, when people use this as a reason why Harry can't 
Time Travel to do anything else, as if it's anything other than a literary 
reason.  For instance, we know Harry doesn't go back in time to stop Sirius 
from being killed.  We know it because Sirius died.  But that doesn't give 
Harry the character a reason he can't use a Time Turner and go back and save 
him. That would be circular logic, suggesting that he can't use the Time 
Turner only because it would change the Timeline, because any time travel 
changes the time line.  What is true is that we know Harry didn't Time 
Travel back to save Sirius, not that he can't.  If you say he can only Time 
Travel when he gets the signal that he did Time Travel (the signal being 
that he sees a version of the present where he's changed things) it's 
totally circular logic: he can't because he didn't, he didn't because he 
can't.   What the rule really is is that the author always writes the time 
travel in advance so the timeline is consistent. She always knows when time 
travel's going to happen and writes it in the first time.  Any alternative 
"before time travel" universes are unremembered by our narrator.

I just made that more complicated, didn't I?  Sorry.

-m 





From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sun Nov 26 06:07:24 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2006 22:07:24 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <ekai9p+vuvu@eGroups.com>
References: <ekaa6t+e1db@eGroups.com> <ekai9p+vuvu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40611252207u74a0708fs8ba17025a839a8bc@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161983

> Carol wrote:
> ...
> I want Harry to rise above ... brutality and
> violence, to find a way to save the WW that does not sanction violence
> for the good guys--not to mention that if Harry's weapon is Love, as
> Dumbledore says it is, his method of destroying Voldemort must be
> consonant with that weapon, as none of your suggestions is.
>
> I'm also concerned about the psychological effects that the act of
> killing, even in self-defense, would create in the mind of a
> seventeen-year-old harry.
> ... I don't want Harry to tarnish his innocence, much less to feel
> guilt of any sort for ridding the world of Voldemort, or to suffer any
> sort of psychological consequences.
>
> He himself thinks in OoP that he has to commit murder or be murdered.
> .... I don't want Harry to have
> to, or at least I want him to do it in a way that doesn't seem like
> murder, that allows both him and Voldemort to see that death is not
> the end of everything that LV thinks it is. Only sending him through
> the Veil can do that, IMO. (And there's the secondary consideration of
> getting Sirius Black's body back. It also provides a way for JKR to
> bring in the power of possession, Harry possessing Voldemort rather
> than the other way around.)
>
>
> Carol, who thinks that sending Voldemort through the Veil fits the
> Love requirement and the Prophecy better than any method we've yet
> seen and certainly better than decapitation (which I expect will
> happen not to LV but to Nagini)


Kemper now:
I like Steve's idea of Harry taking LV beyond the veil where he not only
vanquishes the Dark Lord but rescues the Black Godfather.

However, there's another 'prop' presented in OoP besides the Veil: the room
that is locked at all times.

This room "contains a force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible
that death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature."  This
always locked room holds "the power... [that Harry] possesses in such
quantities and which Voldemort has not at all."

And though I agree with Sarah that JKR has shown us much death and murder, I
like you, do not want to see Harry as killer.  That would be a great
disappointed.

So, here's a supposition... what if Harry gets LV to open the door or to
enter the room of the door?

If LV was surrounded and filled with the power he knows not, would he feel
and be so consumed by guilt and regret that _he_ would open the Veil and
walk beyond it?

Kemper


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




From random832 at gmail.com  Sun Nov 26 05:58:35 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 00:58:35 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FWIW: Potter's Cash (and vault size)
In-Reply-To: <ekaldi+g2n6@eGroups.com>
References: <eka53k+kdip@eGroups.com> <ekaldi+g2n6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50611252158j5618a436i30e26d1b6bb5a555@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161984

steve/bboyminn:
> In that sense, he is thinking practically, he knows he
> needs access to his money, and doesn't feel he will be
> able to do that at Gringott's, so logically he has to
> take it out, but I don't think he is thinking practically
> in the sense of what is required to haul all that cash
> around and find an alternate SAFE place to put it.

Random:
Now, remember, this world has _magic_! there's no particular reason to
think all that cash, or a significant fraction of it [regardless of
how much space it fills normally] can't be kept on his person.

> Neri:
> I agree that Vault 713 is probably room size (I've always pictured it
> like that myself). However, it makes sense that the Potters' vault is
> more similar in size to the Weasleys' vault than to Vault 713.
> Remember, Vault 713 is a high-security vault, and probably belongs to
> Hogwarts, while the Potters' and Weasleys' vaults are both regular
> security. As to the Malfoys' vault ? no available data. It may well be
> high-security and room-size like 713.

Random:
Anything about "the Potters' vault" is not in evidence. I think that,
in part, these factors why so many fanfiction authors envision the
vault that Harry has actually been to as a sort of trust fund rather
than being the whole of the Potter fortune.


> Neri:
> This is highly unlikely, especially with your estimation of 5/64 inch
> thick. Do you realize what would be the weight of the thousand
> Galleons sack

Random:
Again, magic. (I also like the idea that maybe there are coins,
perhaps in other metals (platinum?) that are multiples of a galleon...
but that's not in evidence of course)



From random832 at gmail.com  Sun Nov 26 06:26:48 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 01:26:48 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Potter money
In-Reply-To: <eka9fe+8gjp@eGroups.com>
References: <ek9v45+junu@eGroups.com> <eka9fe+8gjp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50611252226l7360f946t469754e6250765b5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161985

Steve/bboyminn:
> When I said 'scene' I meant that scene in the books.
> Though I admit to using the movie coins as a physical
> model for my Galleon coins since it's all I have.
>
> If it helps anyone, 1 Cu. Ft. of gold coins is US$78,336.

That's only valid if we assume a specific size for a galleon and a
specific exchange rate which is manifestly inconsistent with that
size.

Cylindrical objects pack, ideally, at a volume ratio of
pi/[2*sqrt(3)], or about 90%.

0.9 cu. ft of gold coins of any size would be 16000 ounces, or, at
1991 prices, 3,300,000 pounds (US$5,760,000)

This also tells us that the galleon, being worth 5 pounds, if gold
rather than some other metal is its primary store of value, has to
contain approximately 12 grains of gold. If it's pure gold, that would
make it a fraction of the size of a dime.



From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Nov 26 07:24:01 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 02:24:01 EST
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
Message-ID: <c72.636451f.329a9b11@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161986

 
Lana wrote:
Not responding to any particular post, but if Regulus was still alive,  how 
could Kreacher be Harrys?  It would seem that if Regulus was alive,  then 
Kreacher wouldn't have ahd to obey Harry right?



Julie:
Not necessarily. I don't recall any canon that a house elf somehow  *knows*
whether a wizard is actually alive or dead. If Regulus was announced  dead,
and Kreacher truly *believed* Regulus was dead (whether he saw a body
or not), then Kreacher would now believe he belongs to Harry, IMO. Of 
course, if Regulus resurfaces Kreacher will no doubt immediately, and
happily, switch, er, ownership (though he will find his  happiness short
lived I think). 

Magpie:
My two problems with this idea--besides that I think JKR  meant Regulus was 
dead when she said he was dead these days--is that first,  if Dumbledore hid 
Regulus why did he drink a pot full of poison to retrieve  the worthless 
locket?  Dumbledore should already have that Horcrux by  now if he was 
working with Regulus (I know some believe RAB is someone else,  but since 
you're making him RAB here I could just assume it).
 
Julie:
Regarding JKR saying Regulus was dead these days, *that's* what waved
a red flag in the first place. Who says "He's dead THESE days"? As 
opposed to what? He won't be dead THOSE days? That there will come
a point where "these" days will pass and he will no longer be  dead?
I think JKR used a clever play on words there. And as Alla mentioned,
JKR's response to whether Stubby Boardman is Regulus Black was "No,
he isnt. Nice idea, though." Not "Regulus is dead." In other words,  she's
had a couple of opportunities to say that Regulus is dead PERIOD, as
she's done with Sirius and Dumbledore. Yet she hasn't.
 
About Dumbledore drinking the poison to retrieve a worthless locket,
very good point! I actually meant to bring up this one, but it had  slipped
my mind by the time I got to that point in my lengthy post ;-) It is  a
problem, but it could be worked around. There could be some reason
Regulus never told Dumbledore about getting the locket. (Canon  implies
that Dumbledore didn't know about the horcruxes until just before HBP
began--as I recall?--but Regulus knew exactly what the locket was
if he is RAB, and JKR has all but said he is). Perhaps Regulus  was
magically compelled not to speak of the horcruxes. Or it could be  as
Jen postulates below, that Snape hid Regulus and Dumbledore never 
had any direct contact with him, thus never learned about the locket.
Though Snape might have told him. Hmm.
 
I admit I don't have a completely satisfactory explanation, but I  also
believe JKR could easily provide one that hasn't yet come to  mind!

Magpie:
Second, in terms of an adult mentor, I think Harry's has/had  plenty and 
definitely doesn't need a new one as he reaches adulthood.   Especially in 
this case we would be talking about creating a whole new  character to 
replace Sirius, whom Harry was fine without in HBP. I think  he's just got 
far too much to wrap up to start having a relationship with a  stranger.  He 
had three books to get to know Sirius and still only  managed a few scenes 
with him.  And at the moment Harry wouldn't  exactly be poised to be close to 
Regulus because he's Sirius' brother since  Sirius himself wasn't exactly 
complimentary about him.  Also, I think  Regulus' sacifice is a bit blunted 
if we find out he never really  died.
 
Julie:
You mention Harry had three books to get to know Sirius and only had
a few scenes with him. Harry and Regulus could have as many scenes
together just in the process of finding the other horcruxes and  Regulus
revealing the real Snape. Really, Harry's feelings for Sirius were  based
less on knowing the man than on his deep need for that connection
a godfather represented. As for Sirius not being complimentary about
Regulus, I'm not sure that would strongly affect Harry's opinion.  He's
not one to prejudge individuals--Snape and Draco worked pretty hard
to get on Harry's bad side all on their own. I think the kinship to  Sirius
might weigh equally with Sirius's dismissive words, leaving it pretty
much up to Regulus to set Harry's opinion. 
 
Still, I see your point. I kind of like the idea of Harry having an  adult
to turn to for advice, but that doesn't mean Regulus couldn't fulfill  a
role. Should they both survive through the end of Book 7, I can see
their relationship deepening at that point, rather than during the
(sure to be) frenetic events of Book 7. That would be a nice way to
leave it.  While Harry may not need an adult mentor or  father-figure,
he still deserves someone like that in his life. All young men do,
and young women too.)
 
As for Regulus's sacrifice being a bit blunted if he's not really dead,  I
don't know if I agree. If he was forced to hide out, and suffered for 
turning on Voldemort in ways that we haven't yet learned, then his 
sacrifice might not be blunted. (And one part of his suffering might
be that he couldn't approach his own brother while Sirius was still
alive and mend things with him, because he had to remain "dead.")

Jen:
 I like your theory, you've thought through many issues to 
reach  the conclusion.  I'm wondering if Dumbledore was the one to 
hide him,  though?  Dumbledore told Harry that Regulus 'predeceased' 
Sirius and  therefore left Sirius as the last of the Blacks.  DD 
could have meant  that metaphorically, that the Regulus everyone 
thinks of as Regulus is gone,  or DD is simply lying to cover up the 
truth (which he told Harry he wouldn't  do).  Or Dumbledore might 
believe Regulus is dead and Snape told him  otherwise in the course 
of the year if Snape was the one to hide him.  
 
Julie:
This is an interesting concept. Perhaps Dumbledore had  himself
memory-charmed so he didn't remember Regulus was alive? It's
a thought anyway. But even if Dumbledore did know  Regulus was
alive, I still think he'd let Harry believe that, if it protected  Regulus.
I can't quite get past Dumbledore's "We can hide you more 
completely than you can imagine" jibing with him *not* knowing
about Regulus being hidden. This would be the obvious reference,
though I suppose there could be other hidden Voldemort defectors.


Jen:
Another thing, Sirius made no mention if they didn't find Regulus'  
body.  That could have been something easily slipped into the  
conversation with Harry, how upset his mum was that they never had a  
body to bury.  This one could be worked around with transfiguration  
maybe, or polyjuice (harder to pull off with a dead body <g>).   Or 
there was no body (again!) and Sirius didn't get to that part.  
 
Julie:
True it could have been slipped in. OTOH, Sirius doesn't directly 
mention a body or a funeral either, and I'm not sure he'd even care  
about his mother's state of mind. They'd pretty much severed their 
relationship by then, as I recall. And there's always the possibility
that Snape slipped Regulus some Draught of Living Death, thus
providing an apparently dead body for viewing ;-)


Jen: Personally I would find this a narrative problem to have a  
barely introduced adult character clearing up many of the major  
mysteries of the series.  It might read perfectly fine if it  
happens, that's just my first reaction.  The end of HBP made it  
sound like the last book will deal primarily with the younger 
generation  as they follow Harry on his quest.  Adults and Order 
members will be  supportive and assist, but the main focus will be on 
the kids.  Harry  is determined to follow Dumbledore's instructions 
to tell NO one about the  Horcruxes.  Ooh, but if Regulus already 
*knows* about  them.....hmmm.
 
Julie:
I don't know that Regulus would clear up so many of the major
mysteries, but even if he did, I think it would read better to me
than Harry chatting with Portrait!Dumbledore or repeated delving
into scenes from the past via the Pensieve. We've been that 
route before. And even if Regulus helps clear up a lot, that
doesn't really require major page time. Most of the page time
would still be focused on Harry, Ron, Hermione, and perhaps 
other DA members and students. Regulus can just assist and
be supportive, it's just that his assists might have a good  deal 
more import than say, McGonagall's or Lupin's. 
 
As for Harry telling no one about the Horcruxes, I don't think
that touches on who already knows about them. Snape knows
about them (I'm convinced he does, anyway). Dumbledore 
doesn't want anyone who *doesn't* know to find out, perhaps
because he's not certain of loyalties, not even among those who
belong to the Order. It's not so much about Harry as it is about 
keeping those not in the circle out of the circle. (Which is of
course keeping Harry and everyone else safe, but anyway...)


Jen:
Now I could see Reegulus fitting into a section of the story, the  
part to tie up Snape's storyline and the locket Horcrux.  That would  
be a really good use of a relatively new character to solve some of 
the  mysteries.
 
Julie:
I can see this too. Regulus's scenes don't have to be long and
involved. He doesn't have to be working continually with Harry.
But I believe his scenes could be packed with a great deal of 
substance and relevance (as opposed to say, the neverending 
yet largely irrelevant teenage love-angst crap in HBP). And the
groundwork has been laid ("You can't die if you're already dead."
Snape's unresolved mindset and motives. RAB. And so on...)
It would make sense if that groundwork resolved into one 
straightforward explanation.
 
Julie, believing Book 7 is likely to see many of the plot points
converge with each other, whether Regulus is one of the main 
agents of that convergence or not.
 
 











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




From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Nov 26 08:21:47 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:21:47 -0000
Subject: Ch 25 / Rubies / Slave Rebellion / Aberforth / Wealth of Bl acks / Gold Coins
Message-ID: <ekbiqr+vc30@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161987

Alla summarized Chapter 25 in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161711>:

<< Harry later learns from Trelawney, that she was trying to hide her
bottles of sherry in the Room of Requirement, but somebody was already
there. Trelawney walked in and heard a voice, which she had never
heard before during her years of using the Room of Requirement. >>

With so many people hiding things in that aspect of the Room of
Requirement, I keep wondering why they don't run into each other more
often. And find themselves unable to access that aspect when they
want, because some other aspect of the Room is already in use (e.g. DA
meeting).

<< Harry tells Trelawney to stay there and he runs to the Dumbledore
office and enters it. >>

Every time I read that scene, I fully expect that poor Trelawney will
be bashed on the head while she obediently waits for Harry. So far she
hasn't been...

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161850>:

<< "The red Ruby is an ancient love stone of love and endurance. Its
focus on the heart encourages romantic love, and promotes the ideal
relationship." http://www.romantic-lyrics.com/magical-gemstones.shtml> 
I'm not sure about the dreams and wealth, but if Love is Harry's
weapon, a sword encrusted with a gemstone associated with love might
be a big help to him >>

I suddenly recall that a footnote to "To His Coy Mistress" back in
Freshman Reading and Composition said that rubies symbolize virginity.
Not that I think ol' Godric was a virgin all his life!

a_svirn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161864>:

<< Well, if it comes to that, was there a great slave rebellion in
pre-Civil War America? (snip) Or in the British colonies? Or anywhere
else, for that matter? The only example I can think of right now is
the *Servile* War of Spartacus in Ancient Rome. >>

Haiti.

"Chris Tredennick" wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161906>:

<< Another interesting thought, we know that Mundungus was banned from
the Hog's Head, and that the barman (Aberforth) has a good memory.
However, we see the two of them in Hogsmead, possibly doing business.
Why is Aberforth dealing with 'Dung? >>

Maybe Order business? One of the costs of being Albus's man is being
forced to work with people you can't stand?

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161926>:

<< I just don't get the sense that the Potters were even in the same
class as the Malfoys. The Blacks, I think, were probably in the range
of the Potters. Note the Blacks have a presumably attached house in
the city, Malfoy has a country estate in Wiltshire. >>

I think the Blacks were in the same category as the Malfoys. I think
that Grimmauld Place is what remains of what was once a country
estate, before the city grew to swallow it. Maybe they still own all
of it, in which case their income from rents is beyond my imagination.
I tend to think they sold most of it over the years, to have less to
hide from Muggles. The money from land sales should be invested elsewhere.

Neri wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161956>:

<< This means that the volume of each Galleon is 0.19*Pi*3.86^2= 2.28
cubic cm. According to Wikipedia the density of gold is 19.3
gram/cubic cm, so this would make the weight of each Galleon
2.28*19.3= 44.1 gram. >>

Aren't Muggle gold coins alloyed? Maybe wizarding ones are too.




From myladysw at myladyswardrobe.com  Sun Nov 26 09:40:29 2006
From: myladysw at myladyswardrobe.com (Bess Chilver)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:40:29 -0000
Subject: Great Battles of Book 7
Message-ID: <000001c7113e$ecbea4b0$0200a8c0@MYPOJ4J8EP5FMM>

No: HPFGUIDX 161988

Hi Folks, 
 
I'm Bess (myladyswardrobe)  from the UK and a newbie here and this is my
first post. 
 
Steve (bboyminn) mentioned the various places as possible venues for the
battle, in particular he mentioned:

>>As to the final battle-

>>Tough call...

>>At the moment I'm saying the Veil or Hogwarts.
Bess (myladyswardrobe):-
May I throw in another option for a final battle venue or to be more
precise, the place where Voldemort could be vanquished? 
In Phoenix, (UK edition: Ch 37 - The Lost Prophecy - Pg 743), Dumbledore
says to Harry:
"There is a room in the Department of Mysteries that is kept locked at
all times. It contains a force that is at once more wonderful and more
terrible than death, than human intelligence, than the forces of nature.
It is also, perhaps, the most mysterious of the many subjects for study
that reside there. It is the power held within that room that you
possess in such quantities and which Voldemort has not at all. That
power took you to save Sirius tonight. That power also saved you from
posession by Voldemort, because he could not bear to reside in a body so
full of the force he detests. In the end, it mattered not that you could
not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you."
Perhaps Harry will have to take Voldemort to the locked room? I make no
comment on *how* - except we know that portkeys CAN be made without help
or authorisation from the Ministry - Voldemort did it and so has
Dumbledore so perhaps that could be an option (and rather poetic justice
for Voldemort if Harry managed it!). But if Harry did get Voldemort into
that locked room, then I would say that the power and force in it would
prevent Voldemort from escaping it. I don't think Harry would be harmed
by the room but Voldemort certainly would be! It would also a good way
of vanquishing Voldemort without Harry having to AK him.
I don't buy into the Harry-is-a-Horcrux theory BUT if he is, the Locked
Room should help him destroy his bit of Voldemort's soul without
destroying himself AND take the last bit of Voldemort with him. 
After all, why would JKR drop in this "locked room" that none of the DA
group could get into when at the MoM and then go into a nice interesting
explanation of it if she never uses the room again.
Just my little thought.
Best wishes,
Bess - myladyswardrobe. 
(who is going to crawl back to lurking again if you don't mind!)
 
 
 


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




From chawesome100 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 07:04:54 2006
From: chawesome100 at yahoo.com (chawesome100)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 07:04:54 -0000
Subject: DUMBLEDORES BROTHER
Message-ID: <ekbeam+rode@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161989

   The questions that I have pertains to Dumbledore. Well not exactly
him but his brother. In the sixth book Moody shows Harry a picture of
the original Order. He specifically points out DD's brother. When I
was rereading the book, I realized that there is no mention that his
brother came to the funeral. Isn't it a bit odd that when the whole
wizarding world is mourning the loss of the world's greatest wizard of
all time, that wizards own brother doesn't even show up for the
funeral. In fact the only time we hear about him is from Moody. Is
dd's brother going to play a bigger role in the books? Will he take up
being Harry's advisor now that Dumbledore is gone [don't jump on me if
you're one of the people who believes him to be alive]. Where is he
throughout the happenings of the Order? The order has all of it's
meetings, why hasnt he shown up at one meeting or introduced himself
once to harry? Moody says hes an odd character but does that stop him
from being an active member of the order. Why hasn't anyone tried to
contact him about anything? My list of questions on this topic is
almost never ending.

chawsome100



From mgrantwich at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 16:03:43 2006
From: mgrantwich at yahoo.com (Magda Grantwich)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 08:03:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <20061122213446.93579.qmail@web84013.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <294830.99309.qm@web53113.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161990


--- Nina Baker <sweety12783 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Also Harry may even be able to get more information as to why 
> Snape turned or even see Snape's life changing event. Either way 
> Harry will be better off going back in time. 


Personally I think it would be great to find out that in fact it
wasn't James who saved Snape's life in the tunnel but rather TT!Harry
gone back in time.  Snape would be pretty stressed immediately
afterwards (proximity to werewolves tends to do that to you) but he
would babble some nonsense to Dumbledore about James' eyes turning
green.  Dumbledore would discount it as just temporary craziness.

Then 10-year-old Harry gets to Hogwarts and Dumbledore sees him up
close for the first time and the penny drops with a loud clang (a
coincidence that baby!Harry in PS/SS is sleeping and Dumbledore can't
see his eyes?).  And when Snape sees him he knows that this is the
kid he owes that %$%#^ life-debt to and it doesn't put him in a good
mood.

Think of the fun!  Think of Harry's angst in Book 7 when he finds out
he has to go back and save the man he hates almost more than
Voldemort!  Think of him doing it anyway and learning something from
the whole process - maybe about his mother?  I'm convinced that Snape
went into that tunnel that night thinking he had to protect Lily from
some Marauder prank; I've always thought the claim that Sirius'
telling him how to work the Whomping Willow caused him to just up and
try it a little too pat and glib for belief.  

And it makes no sense that young Snape wouldn't have screamed the
castle down to get everyone expelled afterwards - unless there was
something about his own actions that he didn't want revealed.  Like
he was saving Lily - something he might not want his fellow Slyths,
or James Potter or even Lily herself to know.

Magda


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 16:57:37 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:57:37 -0000
Subject: Potter money
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50611252226l7360f946t469754e6250765b5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekch21+iga3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161991

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve/bboyminn:
> > When I said 'scene' I meant that scene in the books.
> > Though I admit to using the movie coins as a physical
> > model for my Galleon coins since it's all I have.
> >
> > If it helps anyone, 1 Cu. Ft. of gold coins is US$78,336.

> Jordan:
> 
> That's only valid if we assume a specific size for a
> galleon and a specific exchange rate which is manifestly 
> inconsistent with that size.
> 
> Cylindrical objects pack, ideally, at a volume ratio of
> pi/[2*sqrt(3)], or about 90%.
> 
> 0.9 cu. ft of gold coins of any size would be 16000 
> ounces, or, at 1991 prices, 3,300,000 pounds 
> (US$5,760,000)
> 
> This also tells us that the galleon, being worth 5 
> pounds, if gold rather than some other metal is its 
> primary store of value, has to contain approximately 
> 12 grains of gold. If it's pure gold, that would
> make it a fraction of the size of a dime.
>


bboyminn:

You are absolutely right Jordan, but we have to accept
that certain aspects of this simply are never going to
add up. I'm primarily concerned with the 'coin/currency'
value rather than the intrinsic value of the gold itself.

For the record, a common USA quarter ($.25) weighs about
5 grams, a dime ($.10) weigh roughly 2 grams. Twelve
grain, which as you said represents the 1991 value of
gold, is about 0.78 grams. less that 1/4th the weight of
a dime coin. So, the 'gold' aspect is never going to work
out no matter who we twist and turn the plot and the 
values. 

But we do have JKR statement that a Galleon is worth ?5.00,
and that is roughly $9.66 by current values, though I think
as I said, closer to $7 or $8 at the time. (I think that 
war, at the moment, is driving down the value of the 
dollar, making the British Pound seem higher.

So, since the Galleon coins is worth $7 to $9, I would
expect it to be a coin of substantial size. Keeping in
mind the smaller the coins the more coins there are per
Cubic Foot and the higher the value of the cubic foot 
in 'coin' value.

Since the subject of how much money Harry actually has
came up, I though we could arrive at a cash/coin/currency
value based on our impression of the size of his 'pile'
of cash. Based on my estimates he has somewhere between
$250,000 (roughly) and $5,000,000 (roughly). Again,
that is the currency value not the gold value. As you
rightly pointed out, a single cubic foot alone is worth
roughly $5,000,000 in 'gold' value.

So, in conclusion, you are absolutely right, but I honestly
think the 'gold' value will never make sense, the best we
can do is work with the 'coin' value.

Still, great information you provided...thanks.


Steve/bboyminn




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Nov 26 18:21:13 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 26 Nov 2006 18:21:13 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 11/26/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1164565273.190.80668.m32@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161992


Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday November 26, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


Set up birthday reminders
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
 www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20061126/78e33a56/attachment.html>

From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Sun Nov 26 18:28:18 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:28:18 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <c72.636451f.329a9b11@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ekcmc2+fn2d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161993

> Lana wrote:
> Not responding to any particular post, but if Regulus was still 
> alive, how could Kreacher be Harrys?  It would seem that if 
> Regulus was alive, then Kreacher wouldn't have ahd to obey Harry 
> right?
 
> Julie:
> Not necessarily. I don't recall any canon that a house elf 
> somehow  *knows* whether a wizard is actually alive or dead. If
> Regulus was announced  dead, and Kreacher truly *believed* Regulus
> was dead (whether he saw a body or not), then Kreacher would now 
> believe he belongs to Harry, IMO. 

Jen:  If there had been an enchantment on 12 GP like Dumbledore 
mentioned in "Will and Won't"--that the house had to pass to a pure-
blood and closest living relative to Sirius--then the house and 
Kreacher would have automatically passed to Regulus if alive.  Since 
there wasn't such an enchantment, Kreacher doesn't alone disprove 
the theory.  Though come to think of it, that was a risky move on 
Dumbledore's part if he knew Regulus was alive.  Then the house 
wouldn't have passed to Bellatrix and eventually Harry, or more 
likely other Order members, would have started to wonder why Bella 
wasn't wreaking havoc with all the secrets she learned from 
Kreacher.  Not an insurmountable situation for Dumbledore, though 
yet *another* lie to Harry!  I hope if Regulus is alive Dumbledore 
was not the one who hid him since I'll have to deal with all this 
lying he's doing <g>.

> Julie:
<snipping>
> In other words,  she's had a couple of opportunities to say that 
> Regulus is dead PERIOD, as she's done with Sirius and Dumbledore.
> Yet she hasn't.

Jen:  I could see her playing around with the idea of 'dead these 
days' because she knows Regulus will still play a role and therefore 
while he is dead now, he was very much alive when he stole the 
locket Horcrux and left the note.  Meaning it could be another case 
of not shutting down a fan theory because she likes them and knows 
Regulus is not a *complete* dead end (hehe).

Julie:  
> About Dumbledore drinking the poison to retrieve a worthless 
> locket, very good point! I actually meant to bring up this one, 
> but it had slipped my mind by the time I got to that point in my 
> lengthy post ;-) It is  a problem, but it could be worked around.
> There could be some reason Regulus never told Dumbledore about
> getting the locket. 

Jen: This is a good point by Magpie and difficult to get around.  
That would mean Regulus was OK with Voldemort still being alive and 
possibly tracking him down when he could ensure his safety more 
thoroughly by revealing the Horcrux to Dumbledore.  This would sure 
makes Regulus look like the idiot Sirius said he was!  What could he 
gain by holding onto the Horcrux information, did he think if 
Voldemort came after him he could use the Horcrux as bait to stay 
alive?  That doesn't seem like a strategy a DE would try, Regulus 
should know Voldemort would rather AK him and use his onw immense 
skills to find the Horcrux himself rather than dink around with some 
petty former DE.

Julie:
> I can't quite get past Dumbledore's "We can hide you more 
> completely than you can imagine" jibing with him *not* knowing
> about Regulus being hidden. This would be the obvious reference,
> though I suppose there could be other hidden Voldemort defectors.

Jen:  If this comment is foreshadowing, there are only a handful of 
other characters who could fill the role and none would have the 
impact of finding out Regulus is alive.  Susan Bones might be able 
to offer information, but what?  She wouldn't know about the 
Horcruxes.  She could be an asset to the Order with her intellect 
and power (ho hum).  Emmeline Vance strikes me as a more interesting 
contender, she wanted to be part of the Advance Guard in OOTP--why?  
Was she a friend of Lily's and wanted to see her son? If so she 
would have a place in book 7 since we are to learn more about Lily.

I expected there to be more about Caradoc Dearborn after OOTP, he of 
missing body fame according to Moody. I can't see him showing up now 
though, with no mention in HBP.  Who am I missing, any mysterious 
deaths or lost bodies out there <g>?

Julie:
> As for Harry telling no one about the Horcruxes, I don't think
> that touches on who already knows about them. Snape knows
> about them (I'm convinced he does, anyway). Dumbledore 
> doesn't want anyone who *doesn't* know to find out, perhaps
> because he's not certain of loyalties, not even among those who
> belong to the Order. It's not so much about Harry as it is about 
> keeping those not in the circle out of the circle. (Which is of
> course keeping Harry and everyone else safe, but anyway...)

Jen: Ah, see I *don't* think Snape knows about the Horcruxes.  Or I 
don't think Dumbledore told him, he may suspect something dark after 
the ring incident and possibly could have deduced it himself.  I'm 
pretty sure when JKR said Dumbledore had no confidante, no equal, 
that meant there were no adults to whom Dumbledore had told the full 
Prophecy or the Horcrux mystery.  Those pieces of information were 
for Harry alone to know, the one person Dumbledore is certain can 
defeat Voldemort given his unique situation and the friends he has 
around him.  

As an aside, that would probably mean Snape didn't hide Regulus  
unless Regulus chose not to tell him about the Horcrux.  Because 
that would be hard to justify if Snape knew and didn't tell 
Dumbledore, hard to justify DDM, I mean.  Ack, now my head is 
spinning!!!  Too many 'ifs' to sort through.

Jen R.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 18:44:42 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:44:42 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ekcmc2+fn2d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekcnaq+79hf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161994

> Jen:  I could see her playing around with the idea of 'dead these 
> days' because she knows Regulus will still play a role and 
therefore 
> while he is dead now, he was very much alive when he stole the 
> locket Horcrux and left the note.  Meaning it could be another 
case 
> of not shutting down a fan theory because she likes them and knows 
> Regulus is not a *complete* dead end (hehe).

Alla:

Possible, of course, possible, still strange choice of words if you 
ask me.

But now, when we all know about Regulus stant with Horcrux, if he is 
dead, why not just come out and say he is dead indeed in the answer 
about Stubby Boardman?


> Jen: This is a good point by Magpie and difficult to get around.  
> That would mean Regulus was OK with Voldemort still being alive 
and 
> possibly tracking him down when he could ensure his safety more 
> thoroughly by revealing the Horcrux to Dumbledore.  This would 
sure 
> makes Regulus look like the idiot Sirius said he was!  What could 
he 
> gain by holding onto the Horcrux information, did he think if 
> Voldemort came after him he could use the Horcrux as bait to stay 
> alive?  That doesn't seem like a strategy a DE would try, Regulus 
> should know Voldemort would rather AK him and use his own immense 
> skills to find the Horcrux himself rather than dink around with 
some 
> petty former DE.

Alla:

And he was not an idiot? :)

I mean, I come to love Regulus more than several characters we 
supposed to know much better, but he is not an experienced DE, he is 
indeed a kid who got into it without fully realising it and indeed 
panicked, no?

He turned out to be stronger than Sirius thought and decided to defy 
Voldemort (IMO) in sort of Gryffindorish way, but he is not an 
experienced DE, no?

Was he even with them for a year? ( Sorry, am screwy with the 
timeline at the moment)

I  can definitely see Regulus trying to prove something to himself 
that he can defy Voldemort because he can, without Dumbledore's help.

Again, just speculating, but for some reason can see regulus making 
mistake like that.

Alla




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 19:06:32 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:06:32 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekaam7+27ug@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekcojo+771q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161995

> a_svirn wrote:
> <snip>
> > So I think it is rather clever of Rowling to give us a perfect 
> > excuse on a silver platter ? slaves who aren't human. And how 
eager 
> > are folks to leap to this excuse! Even Harry went from being 
> > revolted to being noble and thinking of slave-holding in terms 
> > of "responsibility" in a blink of an eye. <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> But what choice does Harry have? He can't set Kreacher free. To do 
so
> would be extremely *irresponsible* and dangerous. 

a_svirn:
Of course he can't set Kreacher free. I did say that sending 
Kreacher to Hogwarts was a very good temporary solution. Provided, 
that is, that Harry would have stuck to it. He didn't, though. As 
soon as he found himself in a difficulty he used his power over 
Kreacher without much ado. 

> Carol:
He's in a position
> similar to that of Petunia when he was placed on her doorstep 
(except
> that he doesn't have to feed and clothe his charge--I've already
> expressed my wish that Harry would order him to at least wear a 
clean
> loincloth!). Granted, Kreacher isn't an infant, but he can no more 
be
> set loose to fend for himself than Baby!harry could, however 
different
> the reasons. 

a_svirn:
Now, that's a strange thing to say. Kreacher can fend for himself 
very good indeed. It is not the touching anxiety for his well-being 
that stoped Harry (and indeed Dumbledore) from freeing him. The real 
reason was that Kreacher was too dangerous for them to set loose. 
Dumbledore made no bones about that, too. *He* didn't speak of 
responsibility. He just pointed out that Kreacher knew far too much 
and was far too deep in Bella's confidence. That makes him more like 
a prisoner of war, than a defenceless infant. Except that Harry 
would have afforded more courtesy to a Death Eater than to a house-
elf. No Geneva Convention for non-humans.






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 19:10:25 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:10:25 -0000
Subject: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf
In-Reply-To: <ekamgb+4qfm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekcor1+ogel@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161996

> a_svirn:
> > Maybe because there aren't any Grangers in the "Natural 
> Aristocracy" Debrett's and Burke's?
> 
> Ceridwen:
> The name Granger is definitely attested to in Wizarding circles.  
> (HBP US hardcover, page 185) Slughorn speaking to Hermione:
> 
> "Granger?  Granger?  Can you possibly be related to Hector Dagworth-
> Granger, who founded the Most Extraordinary Society of Potioneers?"
> 
a_svirn:
That's right! I forgot that bit. But that's exactly how the issue 
could have been mentioned, by the way. Someone from the order could 
have asked "Granger, Granger
 Any connection to
?" And in front of 
Kreacher.




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 19:42:00 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:42:00 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (long-ish) (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50611252129m2b6e575cra0de6073ac6ec731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekcqm8+ksbk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161997

>random: 
> To keep this vaguely on-topic, what's the alternative for them? We
> don't know that House Elves are fully happy with 100% of the 
present
> situation, just that, by and large, they're not buying what 
Hermione's
> selling.
>
a_svirn:
That's because she doesn't sell anything at all. She only tries to 
trick them into loosing their present position without offering any 
alternative. Besides, Hogwarts elves are probably the most contented 
lot there is. It wouldn't make sense for them to exchange the 
security of Hogwarts for
 basically nothing. 

As to what's the alternative, I think, the answer is pretty clear: 
the alternative to slavery is freedom. Of course, freedom and 
liberty are "the most abused words" and so on, and if their freedom 
would mean being homeless und unemployed they wouldn't be at all 
thrilled. Who would? As a budding politician Hermione should have 
made sure that liberated elves would have had a chance for 
employment and dwelling in what seems to be their natural habitat ? 
human residences. It's not an easy problem to solve, and certainly 
not the least because old habit die hard (on both sides). Probably, 
it should be done gradually. Basically, I'd say that they must have 
a fair choice: if they want to stay with their masters, fine let 
them stay, but if they want to find another master, like Kreacher, 
or a paid employment like Dobby they must have a right to do it. And 
the first requirement for that is to lift whatever enchantments that 
bound them to their masters magically.  





From caaf at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 26 19:24:49 2006
From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:24:49 -0000
Subject: Fidelius revisited (was Fidelity - a Condition)
In-Reply-To: <eiror6+1vom@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekcpm1+3a25@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161998

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jamie.sommers" 

Cyril here.

> 
> Now Jamie Sommers:
> DD and Hagrid and company all knew that the Potters were *going* to
> hide out at Godric's Hollow, but that as soon as the Fidelius Charm
> was in place they all magically forgot the details.  Maybe they would
> all have some vague knowledge that they *used* to know that
> information and that a Fidelius Charm was planned, so they then *knew*
> the Charm was successful when they couldn't remember the details
anymore.
> 
> Then when the Charm was broken (by whatever means), they all suddenly
> remembered where the Potters were hiding - and therefore KNEW that
> something had gone terribly wrong.  This would explain how they all
> knew how to find Harry and how they knew somewhat immediately that
> Harry needed to be found.
> 
> Thoughts?
> Jamie Sommers
>

Cyril here:

This post is not a direct response to Jamie's one above - but as it is
related, I thought it maybe better to keep some of the content here,
for continuity.

There have been many posts on the Fidelity aspect of the Fidelius
Charm - and in most cases, the posts refer to the *forgetting* of the
item that was Fideliused (for lack of another term). As this was the
last post in that thread, (that I could find) it seemed appropriate to
respond to it.

My understanding of the way Fidelius works is that it does not allow
you to find something, because it becomes unplottable - but that does
not imply in any was that it makes you forget anything.

When the Potters were Fideliused, LV did not forget about them. Only,
as they were concealed, he could not find them.

By the same extension of thought - as #12 GP is under the Fidelius, it
does not mean that Bella has magically forgotten about it - just that
she is not able to see it anymore - it is unplottable.

While this does not clearly answer why the charm over the Potters was
apparently broken - I cannot see that the action of suddenly
remembering where they were located was the process of thinking that
the charm was broken.

When the Potters were Fideliused - whoever know that they were at
Godric's Hollow did not forget that information. However, due to the
charm, they would not longer be able to find that Fideliused item
whether it be the Potters themselves, or the house they were staying
in. So DD probably did not need to tell Hagrid where to go. When the
charm broke (and the breach of Fidelity may have been the cause - but
that's not what this post is about), Hagrid was now able to locate the
Potters home easily.

Similarly, only people in the know (by the SK) can locate #12 GP.
Others who knew it, still know about it - but they cannot locate it
anymore.

Cyril, strongly feeling that the Fidelius is not a charm that makes
you forget anything.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 19:56:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:56:13 -0000
Subject: Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <3202590611251621u7edf199fm1d5206000baee047@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekcrgt+at0k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161999

Sarah wrote:
> Sorry, I'm sure you know what's coming.  :)  I'm kind of allergic to
> "Think of the children" as support or debunking of theories.
> <snip quotes>

Carol responds:
I promised to respond onlist, so here goes. JKR may say that she
writes for herself, and without question she's known what was coming,
at least in essentials, since before SS/Ps was written, but
nevertheless, she does care about what her child readers think and
about the characters as role models. She's always telling young girls
not to fall for the "bad boy" and that Draco isn't Tom Felton, for
example. One quote will suffice to make the point:

JKR: I make this hero?-Harry, obviously?-and there he is on the
screen, the perfect Harry, because Dan is very much as I imagine
Harry, but who does every girl under the age of 15 fall in love with?
Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. Girls, stop going for the bad guy. Go for
a nice man in the first place. It took me 35 years to learn that, but
I am giving you that nugget free, right now, at the beginning of your
love lives."

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80

So I don't think we can debunk "Think of the children." It's clear
that JKR does care what her child readers think and what their values
are. (I can provide additional examples if necessary. she makes no
secret of her politics, for example, or her views on how girls should
behave with regard to diet, school, and boys. Since she has said on
her site, "I am sorry if there are Dudley fans out there, but I think
you need to look at your priorities if it is Dudley that you are
looking forward to," I'm pretty sure she doesn't approve of
Dudley-type behavior, either; bullying, watching too much TV,
overeating, and blowing up aliens on his computer, throwing temper
tantrums, breaking his toys, and never opening a book. She expects her
child readers to understand that they shouldn't follow Dudley's
example--or Draco's. Harry, OTOH, is supposed to be flawed but
admirable, a kid like themselves who's also a role model: the good
guy. But I also think that, artistically speaking, a video-game-style
death would be a bad choice and inconsistent with JKR's style. Yes,
there's some violence and a lot of pain, but not blood and gore
everywhere as in cartoons, horror films, and video games. She also
tones down the sexual attraction and the language. Movie!Ron comes a
bit closer than the written characters to the way real teenage boys
act and talk, but only a bit.
>
> Sarah:
> She's already killed some beloved characters, and put still more
> through some serious angst.  Allegedly, there were young readers
that sought therapy after reading about Snape killing Dumbledore.  The
> point is, she *still* did it.  I totally believe her when she says
> she's telling the story she wanted to tell, and it is sad and scary.
> The books so far bear this out.

Carol responds:
I'm not arguing that there won't be any more deaths. We know for sure
that she's added two unplanned deaths (and one reprieve) to the total,
and obviously, people have to die to make a war realistic. but I think
she'll choose those deaths carefully (most of them minor characters
off-page; a chosen few important characters on-page for maximum
effect. I very much doubt that one of them will be Harry, but that's a
topic for another post.) Nor do I doubt that Harry will face Voldemort
alone (though he'll have plenty of help along the way) and destroy him
somehow. What I'm objecting to is a video-game-style murder by Harry.
It has to be something only he can do, which leads me to believe that
he'll possess Voldemort and force him through the Veil. He'll think
that he's dying, too, so it will be self-sacrifice rather than
murder--except that, in my preferred scenario, Harry survives. (See my
previous posts on this topic, some of which can be found upthread.)

Also note that Dumbledore's death is not particularly violent; it's
played in slow motion, with DD floating like a rag doll over the
battlements and only a trickle of blood on DD's face. His eyes are
closed and he looks like he's asleep. (The scene with Harry feeding
him poison is much more disturbing, at least in terms of visual
details and indications of suffering.)

Sarah:
 For me personally, the most disturbing incident was a guy
dismembering himself to use the limb as a potion ingredient, but I
like books that evoke a response.  Folks that don't probably gave up
after Cedric, Sirius and Dumbledore died.

Carol:
We agree here, actually. JKR thought that her description of
Fetal!mort would be disturbing to her readers, maybe even censored by
her editors, but I was much more horrified by Wormtail's slicing off
his hand. Reading that scene still gives me chills. (The film played
that one down or they'd have gotten an R rating for violence,
probably.) As for deaths, I found Cedric's murder upsetting, in part
because of its suddenness and needlessness and in part because he was
a likeable, innocent boy, and his parents' reactions deeply moving,
especially his mother's profound and tearless grief; Sirius Black's
death merely left me wondering what was going on (and sorry for Harry
when I realized what was happening). Dumbledore's murder disturbed me
primarily because I couldn't believe that JKR had made Snape a traitor
to his mentor after all the hints and clues that his loyalties lay
with Dumbledore. It took me awhile (about three days of mental
anguish) to realize that I wasn't deluding myself by hoping that he
could still be DDM. (Until that point, I felt as if *she* had betrayed
*me*!) 

Again, I'm not asking her not to evoke a response, or multiple
responses, including surprise or even shock. Quite the opposite. I
wouldn't be reading and rereading the books, half eagerly
anticipating, half dreading the final book in the series, if the HP
books didn't evoke a variety of emotional responses in me, from
laughter to tears to anger (at Umbridge and Fake!Moody and Bellatrix),
even on multiple rereadings. And, of course, it's fun to see things
that we overlooked on earlier readings and reinterpret them with the
benefit of hindsight, though, IMO, we could be doing ourselves a
disservice to look at Snape that way. There's more to come on him, and
on Petunia and Lupin as well, or I'm deeply mistaken. It's too soon to
pass judgment until all the evidence is in. (IMO.)
>
Carol earlier:
> My concern about AK in particular is that it's a Dark curse, the
weapon of the enemy, specifically created as a murder weapon.
>
Sarah:
> I don't think that's going to happen either.  Harry has already
shown  a remarkable inability for performing the Unforgivable Curses.
 (Even though they are now also a tool in the Auror toolbox.)

Carol:
So we agree again. :-) I just hope Harry learns that lesson, probably
via Snape, before he faces Voldemort. (Re the Aurors, I don't think
they use them that often. Just because Barty Sr. authorized them
doesn't mean that all or even most of the Aurors use them. See my
recent post on Frank Longbottom,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161727

And were the Aurors still authorized to use the Unforgiveable Curses
after Crouch Sr. was shunted sideways into the Department of
International Cooperation when Harry was no more than two years old? I
wonder about Rufus Scrimgeour's methods, especially when Crouch was
head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, but I can't see
Madam Bones, who took Crouch Sr.'s place, authorizing Unforgiveables.
(I wonder who'll take *her* place?)

Sarah:
> Harry already killed Quirrell, didn't he?  It could be argued that
Quirrell self-bubbled by touching Harry, or that it was accidental, or
a side effect, but the bottom line is that Harry laid hands on
Quirrell and Quirell died.  If this didn't divide Harry's soul, then
he should have plenty of options for Voldemort.

Carol:
Erm, no. As I said, offlist, it's only in the film that Harry kills
Quirrell. In SS/PS, Harry falls unconscious before Quirrell dies.
Dumbledore tells Harry that he "arrived just in time to pull Quirrell
off [him]" and that Voldemort "left Quirrell to die" (SS Am. ed. 297
and 298). And in GoF, Voldemort reiterates this version of events when
he tells the DEs that "the servant [Quirrell] died when I left his
body" (Am. ed. 654). Better still, JKR confirms the accuracy of these
statements in her answer to a question on Thestrals in the 2004
Edinburgh Book festival interview: "Someone said that Harry saw
Quirrell die, but that is not true. He was unconscious when Quirrell
died, in Philosopher's Stone. He did not know until he came around
that Quirrell had died when Voldemort left his body." Someone said
that Harry saw Quirrell die, but that is not true. He was unconscious
when Quirrell died, in Philosopher's Stone. He did not know until he
came around that Quirrell had died when Voldemort left his body."

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

So, no, Harry hasn't killed anybody, even in self-defense, and
Quirrell's death had no effect whatever on his soul. (IMO, it was the
DADA curse, in combination with his own character flaws, that killed
Quirrell. See my post, "The DADA jinx and its victims"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961?threaded=1&l=1

if you're interested.)

Carol earlier:
> Soldiers defending their country  suffer what used to be
euphemistically referred to as combat fatigue, including nightmares
decades later and other permanent psychological damage.
>
Sarah:
> Exactly.  In my opinion, the only authorial irresponsibility will be
if Harry lives and this *isn't* shown.  He has to banish Voldemort
from this plane of existence.  It won't be easy.  Whether Harry shoots
Voldemort with an M-16 or gently shoves him through the veil, he's
killing him.  If he skips off into the sunset to marry Ginny without a
care in the world afterward, that is what I will have a problem with.

Carol:
Gently shoving him through the Veil would be like Gretel shoving the
wicked witch into the oven. Sure, the witch is wicked, but that action
always struck me as murder. However, if Harry possesses Voldemort and
Voldemort runs through the Veiled arch to free himself of the agony
inflicted by the power of Harry's self-sacrificial Love invading his
mind, then Harry won't need to kill him. He'll do the job himself.
With the side benefit that a person can't have two souls, or even one
and one seventh souls, and Harry's soul will be superfluous. In my
scenario, the shade of Sirius Black will invite Harry to possess his
body, which is stuck behind the Veil because Sirius, being dead, can't
go back through the Veil. Sirius's soul will remain behind, but Harry
will be able to take Sirius's body outside the Veil, where it will be
available for burial, and he'll be able to reenter his own body and
live. Sorry to reiterate the theory yet again, but I need to make
clear that I'm not talking about Harry committing murder here even
though Voldemort, like Sirius Black before him, will be permanently
and irrevocably dead, reunited, maybe, with the fragments of his soul
from the Horcruxes (IMO, the soul bits have already gone beyond the
Veil and are waiting for the main soul piece), but unable ever to
return. So Harry can "kill" Voldemort without committing an act of
violence of using an Unforgiveable Curse.

I doubt that Harry will suffer remorse for sending Voldemort through
the Veil (if that's what happens) because he will have willingly
chosen to sacrifice himself and by doing so has rid the world of
Voldemort and lived to tell about it. Nevertheless, in my view, he
won't "skip off into the sunset to marry Ginny without a care in the
world." Ugh. They'll still be sixteen and seventeen at the end of the
book, and they'll both have some resting and grieving and healing to
do, especially if any Weasleys or other "favorite characters" die, as
seems likely. Harry will never be the same as he was when he entered
the WW at age eleven--he's already greatly changed--or even as he was
before he fought Voldemort. You can't fight a battle like that and not
end up with battle scars even though they'll probably be invisible. 

By the end of the book, he will have grown up--not by attaining the
magical age of seventeen (as if the Weasley Twins suddenly matured on
their seventeenth birthday) but by figuring things out for himself
without his adult mentors and living up to the expectations placed
upon him by Godric's Hollow and the Prophecy. After the defeat of
Voldemort, he'll be well on his way to acquiring wisdom (even though
he has many years of life to experience before he arrives at a level
of understanding matiching Dumbledore's) and to appreciating
Dumbledore's judgments much more than he does at the end of HBP. There
will be shadows in his past, but heroism, too. And there will be hope
for the future, when he's ready to take up the burdens of ordinary
life again. (I think his celebrity status will fade as the danger of a
Voldemort takeover passes. Gratitude is much more short-lived than
resentment in the WW as in RL.)

Applying Bilbo's chosen ending, "and he lived happily ever after to
the end of his days," to the HP books doesn't mean that Harry's life
will be perfect. Of course it won't be. Life never is, in Harry's
world or Bilbo's or ours. It only means that happiness will finally be
within Harry's reach. He can finally *live* now that Voldemort no
longer *survives*. I hope that "living" means going back to Hogwarts,
along with Harry, Ron, and Ginny for their seventh year. (I predict
Ginny will have completed her sixth year during Book 7, so they'll all
be in the same class. Maybe a chastened Draco will return, too.)
They'll have at least a year of what passes for normal teenage life in
the WW before they need to think about getting jobs or getting
married, but we won't have to read any of that happy stuff in detail.
It will all be conveniently summarized in the Epilogue. I could, of
course, be wrong on all counts, but that's the ending I'm hoping for.
(I also want Snape to use his talents as a researcher for St. Mungo's,
but my hopes for him are unfortunately not so high, but I vastly
prefer community service to Azkaban or death as a punishment/reward
for DDM!Snape.)

Carol, who knows quite well that Harry will suffer intensely in Book 7
but expects JKR to reward him and his (supposedly young) fans by
letting him become "Just Harry" at last






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 20:49:39 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 20:49:39 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <00e301c71118$3565a690$c666400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ekcul3+vac2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162000

Magpie:
> Just my view, but if the kids hadn't gone back in time something
entirely different would have happened that we didn't see. The key is
to remember we're not so much talking about the limits of time travel
but the way JKR writes time travel.
> 
> The way I think of it, if you imagine time as a linear thing, so
that Harry must do X before he does Y, then it works like this. Harry
didn't go back in time (Y) until after the execution was scheduled
(X).  So it's perfectly possible that Buckbeak could have been
executed during that time.  However, Harry and Hermione then went back
in time and interfered.  Once they went back in time they were
existing in that past moment. So that's what Harry saw.
> 
<snip>
> 
> If something prevented Harry from going back in time Buckbeak would
simply not have been saved.  He would have died in a totally different
memory--no swish thunk, no yell from Hagrid at that exact moment.  The
way JKR chooses to write her story, however, any alternative universe
where Buckbeak actually died is lost to our heroes memory.  All he
remembers is the version where Buckbeak was saved.  He was able to see
what he hadn't yet done because of the Time  Travel.

Carol responds:
Agreed so far, except that there is no alternative memory to be
erased. Because the kids *did* go back, that alternate version never
happened. They heard Macnair's axe hitting the fence and *thought* he
was killing buckbeak, but he wasn't. Harry saw himslef saving himself
and Sirius Black and *thought* he was seeing James, but he wasnt. If
Harry and Hermione hadn't gone back in time, Harry would have been
soul-sucked along with SB. so much for the WW and the HP series. So he
did go back in time in the one-and-only timeline, as fara as I can see.
> 
Magpie:
> The trouble is, for me, when people use this as a reason why Harry
can't Time Travel to do anything else, as if it's anything other than
a literary reason.  For instance, we know Harry doesn't go back in
time to stop Sirius from being killed.  We know it because Sirius
died.  But that doesn't give Harry the character a reason he can't use
a Time Turner and go back and save him. That would be circular logic,
suggesting that he can't use the Time Turner only because it would
change the Timeline, because any time travel changes the time line. 
What is true is that we know Harry didn't Time Travel back to save
Sirius, not that he can't.  If you say he can only Time Travel when he
gets the signal that he did Time Travel (the signal being that he sees
a version of the present where he's changed things) it's  totally
circular logic: he can't because he didn't, he didn't because he
can't.   What the rule really is is that the author always writes the
time travel in advance so the timeline is consistent. She always knows
when time travel's going to happen and writes it in the first time. 
Any alternative "before time travel" universes are unremembered by our
narrator.
> 
> I just made that more complicated, didn't I?  Sorry.

Carol responds:
Here's where I disagree. As I said above, there's only one timeline,
and Harry saving Sirius Black doesn't enter into it. JKR has said that
once a person is dead, he's dead, and no magic can bring him back.
that includes Time-Turning. Harry and Hermione could prevent Buckbeak
and Sirius Black from dying/being soul-sucked only because *they had
already done it* under the delusion that they were changing, as
opposed to creating, the past.

Now, of course, it would spoil the story for JKR to go back and change
it--it would have to be rewritten from the point where Harry changed
it--and we'd have an extra book if he saved Sirius Black and no series
at all if he saved his parents. But aside from what it would do to the
plot (JKR has said in an interview that SB had to die for some reason
other than robbing Harry of his mentors, and, of course, Lily had to
die to give Harry the blood protection that caused the curse to
rebound), let's look at the maechanics of Time-Turning.

Hermione's Time-Turner is an hour-glass with a charm on it that allows
her to go back an hour or so at a time. "Three turns should do it,"
says Dumbledore in the scene we're talking about. Three turns takes
her back three hours. But suppose that Harry wanted to go back to save
Sirius Black from Bellatrix and the Veil. He'd have to know exactly
when Black died, not only the number of days in the past but the
number of hours. Let's say that it's two years to the day after
Black's death and Harry wants to go back to roughly an hour before
Black died. Let's say that he's made the proper calculations and it
has to be 365 days times two minus ten hours. Or was one of those
years a Leap Year? (For the sake of our example, let's say that he
checks the calendar and it wasn't.) Okay, that's 730 days times 24
hours or 17,520 hours minus ten or 17,510 turns of the Time Turner to
get back to the time when Harry has to be at the DoM to save Sirius.
How long will it take to turn the Time Turner that many times? (I come
up with 292 minutes or four hours and 52 minutes of turning the hour
glass if each turn takes one second. That's a long time to stand there
spinning an hour glass, and what if he miscounts?) And that's just
going back two years. Going back to Godric's Hollow and saving his
parents, supposing it could be done, would take far more turns and be
far harder to do even if he could manage to arrive at the right time
and manage to save his parents, and would have unimaginable
consequences if he succeeded. You don't mess with time. Maybe Harry
*could* end up killing his past or future self, unimaginable as that
sounds, just by fooling with it.

Magda wrote:

Personally I think it would be great to find out that in fact it
wasn't James who saved Snape's life in the tunnel but rather TT!Harry
gone back in time. <snip>

Think of the fun! Think of Harry's angst in Book 7 when he finds out
he has to go back and save the man he hates almost more than
Voldemort! Think of him doing it anyway and learning something from
the whole process - maybe about his mother? I'm convinced that Snape
went into that tunnel that night thinking he had to protect Lily from
some Marauder prank; I've always thought the claim that Sirius'
telling him how to work the Whomping Willow caused him to just up and
try it a little too pat and glib for belief.

And it makes no sense that young Snape wouldn't have screamed the
castle down to get everyone expelled afterwards - unless there was
something about his own actions that he didn't want revealed. Like
he was saving Lily - something he might not want his fellow Slyths,
or James Potter or even Lily herself to know.

Carol responds:

Much as I like Magda's suggestion that it was Harry who saved the
teenage Severus Snape from werewolf!Lupin, I just don't see how that's
feasible, nor do I see Harry being motivated to save the future Death
Eater/eavesdropper, HBP or no, especially since it was Snape who
killed Dumbledore. If anything, he'd want James to let Severus die, in
which case, the consequences would be much worse. Voldemort would
never have been vaporized and there would be no Prophecy Boy to stop him.

As for Teen!Severus not "scream[ing] the castle down to get everybody
expelled," I think it was a matter of pride. He didn't want *anybody*
(besides Dumbledore and the Marauders) to know that he owed his worst
enemy a life debt or even a debt of gratitude. How humiliating! He
wanted to pay it off as soon as possible, and what happens? That
arrogant James Potter goes and ignores his warnings, given in person
or through Dumbledore, that the would-be murderer Sirius Black is a
spy and a traitor and gets himself killed as a result. Or that's what
Snape would have thought until a certain rat Animagus resurrected
Voldemort and proved him wrong.

I do think you're onto something about Severus's reasons for going
into the tunnel in the first place not being what they seem, though.

Carol, who can't see a feasible way to bring time travel back into the
story (except via bottled memories and the Pensieve as a way of
witnessing the past, not changing it)





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 21:09:13 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:09:13 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <ekcul3+vac2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekcvpp+p3hk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162001

> Carol responds:
> 
> Much as I like Magda's suggestion that it was Harry who saved the
> teenage Severus Snape from werewolf!Lupin, I just don't see how 
that's
> feasible, nor do I see Harry being motivated to save the future 
Death
> Eater/eavesdropper, HBP or no, especially since it was Snape who
> killed Dumbledore. If anything, he'd want James to let Severus 
die, in
> which case, the consequences would be much worse. Voldemort would
> never have been vaporized and there would be no Prophecy Boy to 
stop him.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Well, of course I agree - he would want James to let Snape die( then 
he would at least have **some** chance to grew up with mother and 
father, not with Dursleys. Not a guarantee of course, but a 
possibility if you ask me).

But despite that I can totally see poor Harry gritting his teeth and 
being mature enough and going back to save Snape precisely because 
that would be good for the WW.

Not that I think that Voldemort's dissappearance in any way, shape 
or form justifies the disgusting deed ( in my book of course) that 
Snape committed by telling prophecy to Voldemort, but of course 
unintended good for the wizards and witches came out of it, they got 
the decade of peace.

Too bad that Harry had to pay the highest price for that if you ask 
me.

Alla, who is only getting more disgusted with Snape telling Prophecy 
to Voldemort as the time goes by and hopes that he will pay before 
Harry forgives him. 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 21:30:49 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:30:49 -0000
Subject: FWIW: Potter's Cash (and vault size)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50611252158j5618a436i30e26d1b6bb5a555@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekd129+amrj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162002

Random wrote:
> Now, remember, this world has _magic_! there's no particular reason
to think all that cash, or a significant fraction of it [regardless of
how much space it fills normally] can't be kept on his person. <snip>

Carol responds:
Specifically, there's Reducio, the antithesis of Engorgio. Fake!Moody
uses it as a counterspell to return an enlarged spider to its normal
size before putting it back in the jar, but I see no reason why it
couldn't be used on its own to reduce the size of an object so that it
will fit in a smaller space, such as your pocket. I'm assuming that
this is the spell placed on Muggles' keys to cause them to shrink, but
a Wizard would make sure that the object remained the desired size
until he was ready to restore it to normal. More convenient than
reducing the weight of a trunk full of galleons or dousing it with
Shrinking Potion. If Slughorn can expand his office to make it large
enough for a party or Mr. Weasley can expand the trunk (boot) of the
Flying Ford Anglia to hold six trunks and two cages, I don't see why
it would be impossible or even difficult to reduce the contents of a
vault to a manageable size.
 
Random wrote:
> Again, magic. (I also like the idea that maybe there are coins,
perhaps in other metals (platinum?) that are multiples of a galleon...
but that's not in evidence of course)

Carol:
What about those gigantic coins, exaggeratedly described by the Muggle
Mr. Roberts in GoF as being the size of car tires, IIRC?

Carol, who visualizes the vaults as being large enough to walk into
and wishes she had mounds of gold coins or even silver and bronze
coins (Interest or no interest, Harry's a lot richer than I am!)




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 21:29:46 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:29:46 -0000
Subject: Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <3202590611251621u7edf199fm1d5206000baee047@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekd10a+jjg0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162003

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah <scarah at ...> wrote:
>
> Sarah:
> <snip> I'm kind of allergic to "Think of the children"
> as support or debunking of theories.
> <snipping the JKR quote>
>
> She's already killed some beloved characters, and put still more
> through some serious angst. <snip>
> I totally believe her when she says she's telling the story she 
> wanted to tell, and it is sad and scary. The books so far bear 
> this out. <snip> 

Mike:
Yay Sarah!! I'm with you all the way on this front. JKR has shown no 
inclanation to shy away from the gruesome, the difficult, or 
challenging our Hero(es) with seemingly impossible tasks. What on 
earth makes people believe that she is going to start with book 7? 
Whether you're a Horcrux!Harry believer or not (I am <g>), the idea 
that JKR wouldn't go there because it would be too difficult for 
Harry to solve is, IMO, a ludicrious reason. Any limitation based on 
difficulty for the characters or being too cruel to our heroes does 
not embrace the story (and the interview statements) that JKR has 
put forth.

> Sarah:
> 
> Harry already killed Quirrell, didn't he?  It could be argued that
> Quirrell self-bubbled by touching Harry, or that it was 
> accidental, or a side effect, but the bottom line is that Harry 
> laid hands on Quirrell and Quirell died.  If this didn't divide 
> Harry's soul, then he should have plenty of options for Voldemort.

Mike:
I don't know whether Dumbledore was being gentle with Harry, but 
didn't he present Quirrell's death as the result of Voldemort's long-
term possession and sudden withdrawal? Also, more happened after 
Dumbledore arrived that we didn't see because Harry passed out. I'm 
not sure that we can pin Quirrell's death on Harry, moreover, it 
wouldn't be considered murder, self defence at the worst (that's if 
he really was the *sole* cause of Quirrell's demise).

> 
> Carol:
> Soldiers defending their country suffer what used to be 
> euphemistically referred to as combat fatigue, including 
> nightmares decades later and other permanent psychological
> damage.

Mike:
Actually, combat fatigue was more a result of being constantly shot 
at, shelled, or what have you and from seeing your buddies get 
killed. I'm sure a few soldiers had up close encounters with the 
enemy that haunted them, but more times than not it was the results 
of combat on themselves or their shipmates/fellow soldiers/marines 
that caused the nightmares or gave them psychological damage. 

Relating this to canon, Harry has already suffered this kind of 
damage through Cedric's death (we were told about his nightmares) 
and probably from Sirius' death. After HBP I don't think Harry would 
suffer any emotional, psychological or spiritual damage if he killed 
Voldemort by his *own hand*, any more than a British/US soldier 
would have suffered if he had killed Hitler face-to-face. 

What Harry did in PoA was different. Sirius had supposedly 
*betrayed* his parents not actually killed them (despite all that 
poorly written waffling that JKR had Sirius spew forth). Not that I 
think Harry is going to AK old Voldie, JKR has made it abundantly 
clear that Harry won't be able to. (How was Harry supposedly going 
to kill Sirius in PoA?)

> Sarah:
> Exactly.  In my opinion, the only authorial irresponsibility will 
> be if Harry lives and this *isn't* shown.  He has to banish 
> Voldemort from this plane of existence.  It won't be easy.  
> Whether Harry shoots Voldemort with an M-16 or gently shoves him 
> through the veil, he's killing him.  If he skips off into the 
> sunset to marry Ginny without a care in the world afterward, that 
> is what I will have a problem with.

Mike:
I think your key word is *banish* or as the prophesy put it, 
*vanquish*. I'm not even sure that JKR isn't setting up the 
proposition that Voldemort is no longer human; therefore killing 
Voldemort doesn't constitute killing a fellow human being.

I don't see Harry killing (Note: not murdering) his mortal enemy, 
the person that has caused sooo much grief to the WW, as something 
that would cause him to lose sleep. On the contrary, I think there 
would be an overwhelming feeling of relief. As I said above, Harry 
has already suffered immensely from Voldemort. Nothing that he could 
*do* to Voldemort could be more powerfully emotional than the losses 
he has witnessed *because* of Voldemort. And those *because* of 
Voldemort things are the kind that cause the nightmares, not the 
ridding the world of an evil monster kind of things.

Mike, who is sure that JKR has some unique way of "vanquishing" 
Voldemort in mind.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 22:03:44 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:03:44 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <c72.636451f.329a9b11@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ekd300+cus5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162004

Julie wrote:
> Regarding JKR saying Regulus was dead these days, *that's* what
waved a red flag in the first place. Who says "He's dead THESE days"?
As opposed to what? He won't be dead THOSE days? That there will come
a point where "these" days will pass and he will no longer be dead?
<big snip>

Carol responds:
But JKR didn't say that Regulus was "dead these days." what she
actually said in the 2004 World Day Book Chat, in response to the
question, "Will we be hearing anything from Sirius Black's brother,
Regulus, in future books?" was, "Well, he's dead, so he's pretty quiet
these days.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm

Assuming that he's RAB, she couldn't say that he's out of the books
altogether because his past is important. (I personally think we'll
hear about it from a very reluctant Kreacher, who may also have
information on Snape.) But she does say straight out that he's dead,
which makes him "pretty quiet these days." I think that misremembering
the quote as "dead these days" is leading to misinterpretation.

I could be wrong, of course. Regulus/RAB saying that he knows he's
going to die isn't proof that he's right in his prediction, but as Jen
mentioned, Sirius Black said that his brother had been killed,
presumably by DEs rather than Voldemort himself, and he must have some
basis for that conclusion--but he said nothing about a missing body.
(We've already seen that hand played with Peter Pettigrew and sirius
himself.) If we're going to find someone who disappeared without a
trace, we have Ollivander, Florean Fortescue, and Caradoc Dearborn
from the original Order. I think that if Regulus had disappeared
rather than being known to be dead, his brother or Lupin or Dumbledore
would have said something about it.

Julie wrote:
<snip>
> I can't quite get past Dumbledore's "We can hide you more 
> completely than you can imagine" jibing with him *not* knowing
> about Regulus being hidden. This would be the obvious reference,
> though I suppose there could be other hidden Voldemort defectors. <snip>
> 
Carol responds:
I agree that JKR took out that passage because it revealed too much,
but it could relate to the others I listed who simply disappeared or
perhaps to someone whose death has been faked using the Draught of
Living Death. It's not likely to be Madam Bones, who seems to have
been murdered by Voldemort himself, but how about Emmeline Vance?
Snape claims to have given information that led to her capture and
death, but as a DDm!Snaper, I'd like to find that he was lying on that
one. And who better than snape to brew and administer the Draught of
Living Death to a fellow Order member? If we find Emmeline alive, we
won't need Regulus to testify in Snape's behalf.

Julie:
> As for Harry telling no one about the Horcruxes, I don't think
> that touches on who already knows about them. Snape knows
> about them (I'm convinced he does, anyway). Dumbledore 
> doesn't want anyone who *doesn't* know to find out, perhaps
> because he's not certain of loyalties, not even among those who
> belong to the Order. <snip>

Carol:
Agreed on this point!

Carol, who's not trying to discourage discussion but does think we
should look at what JKR actually said




From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Nov 26 21:29:09 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:29:09 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time turner theory
References: <ekcul3+vac2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009301c711a1$e94616c0$1292400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 162005

 Carol responds:
> Agreed so far, except that there is no alternative memory to be
> erased. Because the kids *did* go back, that alternate version never
> happened. They heard Macnair's axe hitting the fence and *thought* he
> was killing buckbeak, but he wasn't. Harry saw himslef saving himself
> and Sirius Black and *thought* he was seeing James, but he wasnt. If
> Harry and Hermione hadn't gone back in time, Harry would have been
> soul-sucked along with SB. so much for the WW and the HP series. So he
> did go back in time in the one-and-only timeline, as fara as I can see.

Magpie:
Right, in the timeline we're reading there is no alternative.  Harry 
remembers it exactly as it happened, which always included his future self 
appearing when he did.  Had Harry not gone back in time the memory would 
have been different--not just because Buckbeak probably would have died, but 
he wouldn't have heard the exact sounds that he did this time (sounds he 
mistook for Buckbeak being killed, but were really him escaping).

As to whether there was any alternative, I'm just saying another writer 
could have written it that way as many other writers do--JKR could have 
chosen to have Buckbeak die, and then have that past literally changed.  If 
the past was changed the "original" version would have ceased to exist, just 
as it does in Back to the Future (though in that movie the protagonist 
remembers it).  In JKR's book, there is only one version of the timeline, 
which includes Future!Harry acting in the past in all the places he did.  So 
any Time Travel has to fit exactly into the events as we see them the first 
time.

> Carol responds:
> Here's where I disagree. As I said above, there's only one timeline,
> and Harry saving Sirius Black doesn't enter into it. JKR has said that
> once a person is dead, he's dead, and no magic can bring him back.
> that includes Time-Turning. Harry and Hermione could prevent Buckbeak
> and Sirius Black from dying/being soul-sucked only because *they had
> already done it* under the delusion that they were changing, as
> opposed to creating, the past.

Magpie:
Yes, but as far as I can see we're still talking about Harry not being able 
to time travel for literary reasons--the author chose to write the timeline 
a certain way, and once it's written it can't be changed because anything 
Future!Harry would have done to change things would already be there in the 
present.  But how does it work as a real reason for the characters within 
the story?  There has to be some moment when the character can freely decide 
to use the Time Turner, just as Harry and Hermione did in PoA.  Sure there 
was the surprise that he'd actually already seen himself doing what he was 
just deciding to do in that moment, but the Time Turner worked the way it 
always would.  Dumbledore saying Time Travel can't bring back the dead also, 
to me, sounds like just the author throwing in an arbitrary rule.  Time 
Travel can change lots of things; of course it can prevent a death.  A 
future!Harry popping up and pushing Sirius away from the Veil wouldn't be 
bringing back the dead, but it would be preventing a death that would have 
happened otherwise.

It's bringing back the dead because Harry didn't do that and Sirius died. 
But that still seems more to be saying to me that we know Harry *didn't* use 
a Time Turner rather than saying Harry can't use one.

Carol:
> Hermione's Time-Turner is an hour-glass with a charm on it that allows
> her to go back an hour or so at a time. "Three turns should do it,"
> says Dumbledore in the scene we're talking about. Three turns takes
> her back three hours. But suppose that Harry wanted to go back to save
> Sirius Black from Bellatrix and the Veil. He'd have to know exactly
> when Black died, not only the number of days in the past but the
> number of hours. Let's say that it's two years to the day after
> Black's death and Harry wants to go back to roughly an hour before
> Black died. Let's say that he's made the proper calculations and it
> has to be 365 days times two minus ten hours. Or was one of those
> years a Leap Year? (For the sake of our example, let's say that he
> checks the calendar and it wasn't.) Okay, that's 730 days times 24
> hours or 17,520 hours minus ten or 17,510 turns of the Time Turner to
> get back to the time when Harry has to be at the DoM to save Sirius.
> How long will it take to turn the Time Turner that many times? (I come
> up with 292 minutes or four hours and 52 minutes of turning the hour
> glass if each turn takes one second. That's a long time to stand there
> spinning an hour glass, and what if he miscounts?) And that's just
> going back two years. Going back to Godric's Hollow and saving his
> parents, supposing it could be done, would take far more turns and be
> far harder to do even if he could manage to arrive at the right time
> and manage to save his parents, and would have unimaginable
> consequences if he succeeded. You don't mess with time. Maybe Harry
> *could* end up killing his past or future self, unimaginable as that
> sounds, just by fooling with it.

Magpie:
Now these, I agree, are all good, practical reasons for why Harry can't go 
back in time--and I agree with all of them.  Given the way Time Turners work 
I don't think any of these are really possible without dire consequences.  I 
just feel that if we were talking about Harry using a Time Turner right 
after the Battle at the MoM, when Sirius had just died, sure he could have 
used the Time Turner the same way he did with Buckbeak.  It might have had 
dire consequences, of course.  Given the way JKR writes things we know that 
any actions a time traveling Harry would have taken during the battle would 
have already been witnessed by us, if not understood.

So I just tend to say that we know Harry didn't go back in time to prevent 
Sirius death because we'd have seen it if he did--we only get one timeline. 
And the reason he didn't wasn't because you can't bring back the dead (since 
pre-death Sirius isn't dead) but because all the Time Turners were destroyed 
and any other practical reasons there are for not Time Traveling at that 
moment.



> Carol responds:
>
> Much as I like Magda's suggestion that it was Harry who saved the
> teenage Severus Snape from werewolf!Lupin, I just don't see how that's
> feasible, nor do I see Harry being motivated to save the future Death
> Eater/eavesdropper, HBP or no, especially since it was Snape who
> killed Dumbledore. If anything, he'd want James to let Severus die, in
> which case, the consequences would be much worse. Voldemort would
> never have been vaporized and there would be no Prophecy Boy to stop him.

Magpie:
I would also add that it would change Snape's character a lot if he suddenly 
realized the Life Debt he'd been under all those years was false.


-m 





From Elvishooked at hotmail.com  Sun Nov 26 22:26:07 2006
From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:26:07 -0000
Subject: Fidelius Charm / Polyjuiced
Message-ID: <ekd49v+g8b8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162006

Reading book 2 again, I got to wonder about something.

Grimmauld Place 12 as well as Lily/James' hideout at Godrics Hollow 
couldn't be seen or found by anyone who wasn't told the location by the 
Secret Keeper, as we all know.

Now, an example.
Say Harry tells someone - Justin; just to give a name - where to find 
Grimmauld Place.
That wouldn't work for Justin, since Harry is not the Secret Keeper of 
Grimmauld Place.
Now - what if Justin polyjuices himself into Harry and *then* tries to 
locate Grimmauld Place - would that work? For Justin to locate the 
place?

Just wondered.....

Inge




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Nov 26 22:29:18 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 22:29:18 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ek7082+idj8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekd4fu+sbr2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162007

Chris wrote:
> <snip> Another interesting thought, we know that Mundungus was
banned from the Hog's Head, and that the barman (Aberforth) has a good
memory. However, we see the two of them in Hogsmead, possibly doing
business. Why is Aberforth dealing with 'Dung?

Carol belatedly responds:
As catlady says elsewhere, possibly it's Order business? We know that
Mundungus was hanging out in the Hog's Head in disguise in OoP and
that he reported the organizational meeting of the DA to Dumbledore
(as Willy Widdershins, also in disguise, reported it to Umbridge).
Aberforth seems to have acted as Albus's eyes and ears on other
occasions, for example, reporting to his brother the names of
Voldemort's companions and that they called themselves Death Eaters
and, much later, discovering and ostensibly evicting a young
eavesdropper named Severus Snape. (I'm still unsatisfied with any
explanation of the conflicting versions of that story.) 

I think Mundungus and Aberforth are both members of Albus Dumbledore's
extensive spy network, mentioned by Fudge in PoA, which includes
people (e.g., Snape and Lupin), portraits (Phineas Nigellus in
particular), and even possibly ghosts. I also think that the business
of Aberforth kicking Mundungus out of the Hogshead is a cover story.
(Esactly what purpose it serves, I can't guess, but we've seen DD
using cover stories before, notably attributing his injured hand in
HBP to slowed reflexes, and possibly parts of the eavesdropper story.)

Maybe Aberforth is a fence and Mundungus is selling him stolen goods
(conveniently outside the bar Mundungus was ostensibly kicked out of)
as a way to transfer goods from 12 GP into Aberforth's possession?
Since DD reports that Mundungus has "since gone to ground," it's clear
that he knows (or knew) more about the incident than Harry does. It's
possible that Aberforth has the locket Horcrux--without, of course,
knowing what it is.

Carol, who thinks that Albus's remark about not being sure that
Aberforth can read is a Dumbledorean joke that should not be taken any
more seriously than "nitwit, blubber, oddment, tweak" 





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 00:15:23 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:15:23 -0000
Subject: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie through the Veil...)
In-Reply-To: <ekcrgt+at0k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekdamr+ur9t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162008

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> It's clear that JKR does care what her child readers think and what 
> their values are.
> <snip>
> ...I'm pretty sure she doesn't approve of Dudley-type behavior,    
> either; bullying, watching too much TV, overeating, and blowing up 
> aliens on his computer, throwing temper tantrums, breaking his      
> toys, and never opening a book.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm snipping a whole heck of a lot to focus in on this one thing, 
because I found it so amusing when I reread the beginning of PS/SS 
recently.  Dudley isn't a reader, and JKR does invite her readers to 
sneer at that fact with this commentary given when Harry moves into 
Dudley's second room:

"Other shelves were full of books.  They were the only things in the 
room that looked as though they hadn't been touched." [SS scholastic 
paperback p.37-38]

But here's the thing.  *Harry never cracks a book either*!!  For some 
reason that tickled me.  I picture Harry being all "stupid lump never 
reads," while he carefully avoides the crowded bookshelf himself. <bg>

Other than that, I agree with Carol that JKR does do a lot 
of "thinking of the children" especially in her interviews.  Though I 
think the flatness of her female characters (especially those under 
forty) might be a reflection of JKR's views on being a girl.  
(Someone mentioned this a while ago -- but I can't remember who it 
was, sorry.)

Betsy Hp




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 00:16:50 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:16:50 -0000
Subject: Potter Cash: 1,000 Galleons in Time and Space
Message-ID: <ekdapi+r4jf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162009

Since the subject has come up, I've tried to create a
visual approximation of the physical size of 1,000 
Galleons.

For the record, using movie coins as an illustration,
and rounding things off a bit. It is 6inch x 6 inch
x 5inch. Roughly a 4 coin by 4 coin matrix stacked
32 coins high.

Note in an 8x8 matrix or 12"x12", there are 15 layers
of 64 coins per layer, and 40 coins on the 16th layer.

So, roughly, 1,000 galleons stacked up, is 6" x 6"
x 5" block of coins. 

That's no small bundle, but as others have pointed out,
the inside of the money bag could be larger than the 
outside, and the bag could be enchanted so that while
the coins are in the bag, they weigh a fraction of there
'outside the bag' weight.

Just a tid-bit.

Steve/bboyminn




From Elvishooked at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 27 00:41:09 2006
From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:41:09 -0000
Subject: One more on Fidelius
Message-ID: <ekdc75+ngjv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162010

Another question just popped up....

Do you have to be a witch/wizard in order to know the location 
protected by the Fidelius Charm?
Could a Muggle know the location if told by the Secret Keeper?

Hermione's parents somehow got into The Leaky Cauldron (and Im sure 
there's been quite a few explanations as to how *that* happened on 
here; I just forgot what they were) - so I guess maybe Muggles are able 
to know Fidelius Charmed locations....
Why am I asking this? No idea - I just got to wonder if it could mean 
anything at all....

Inge,
who's been away from this group for the longest time, and now that Im 
back, it clearly dawns on me again, why this site is so addictive :-)




From nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br  Mon Nov 27 01:15:44 2006
From: nicolau at mat.puc-rio.br (Nicolau C. Saldanha)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 01:15:44 -0000
Subject: How did levicorpus leak?
Message-ID: <ekde80+3ms4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162011

Sorry if this has been discussed already, but here is my question: how
did levicorpus leak? I mean, young Severus Sanpe invented it, wrote it
down on his potions book and next thing all of Hogwarts knows the
spell but they do not know who invented it! At least, that is what
Lupin tells Harry and I cannot imagine why Lupin would lie about it.
So, I do not believe that Snape showed everybody the new spell he had
just invented during a class or something. Since the spell in
nonverbal, other students could not even had learned it by imitation.
Thus, either Snape told some unknown student X about the spell or X
examined Snape's potions book long before Harry did, and X then passed
Levicorpus on to other students without explaining how he or she had
learned about it.

It is of course perfectly possible that the author does not care about
the identity of X, but I have a theory: X is Lily Evans. This explains
a lot in the "Snape's worst memory" pensieve scene: why Lily
interferes, why Snape is angry at her. It is also possible that
Slughorn is more right than he imagines when he says that Harry is as
talented for potions as his mother was: maybe she learned something
from the very same book.

What do you think?

Nicolau






From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Nov 27 01:48:05 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:48:05 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] How happy the ending could be for Harry WAS: Re: Sending Voldie through the Veil
In-Reply-To: <ekaut1+l3v4@eGroups.com>
References: <3202590611251829v41aac04cg41e9ae233347d6fb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ekaut1+l3v4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611261748j5812790amc76bf1236f3de5a@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162012

Lynda:
Harry just plain living a "normal" life as an adult wizard with meaningful
work of some sort, a family that he cares about and cares about him
whether related to him by blood or not works for me. Isn't that how most
people (and most fictional people too) live their lives?

Lynda


On 11/25/06, dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>   Sara:
> <SNIP>
> > If, after all this build-up, the big message JK has in store for
> us is
> > "But it's all going to be OK, hurray!" then I confess I will be
> > disappointed. There are ways for her to write Harry surviving and
> > being pretty much all right for the most part that could still
> include
> > more serious themes, but plain old happily ever after isn't one of
> > them.
> >
> >
>
> Alla:
>
> Well, of course there are ways - like Harry being involved in some
> important political causes, etc, on the other hand I completely
> disagree and I am not sure if this is what you are saying, please
> disregard if you are not. I completely disagree that if Harry
> survives, that the only convincing way of existance for him would be
> to become second Frodo. There are different ways of reacting to
> trauma, and yes, I do think that it is possible to write
> convincingly Harry surviving and being Okay and happy for the most
> part - influenced by experiences, grown up,etc, but not necessarily
> broken man.
>
> IMO of course.
>
> 
>



-- 
DeColores


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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 27 03:09:37 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:09:37 -0000
Subject: DUMBLEDORES BROTHER
In-Reply-To: <ekbeam+rode@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekdkth+rn5g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162013

 "chawesome100"  wrote:
>
>    The questions that I have pertains to Dumbledore. Well not exactly
> him but his brother. In the sixth book Moody shows Harry a picture of
> the original Order. He specifically points out DD's brother. When I
> was rereading the book, I realized that there is no mention that his
> brother came to the funeral. Isn't it a bit odd that when the whole
> wizarding world is mourning the loss of the world's greatest wizard of
> all time, that wizards own brother doesn't even show up for the
> funeral. In fact the only time we hear about him is from Moody. Is
> dd's brother going to play a bigger role in the books? 

Potioncat:
It's almost a consensus here that the barman at the Hog's Head is 
Aberforth Dumbledore. It's based on his description and what appears to 
be JKR's acknowledgement of his identity in an interview.

Harry doesn't know that, of course. We do and I suppose many others in 
the WW know it as well. As to the funeral, we have this, after a long 
line of names of people Harry recognised, "...and some people whom 
Harry merely knew by sight, such as the barman of the Hog's Head and 
the witch who pushed the trolly on the Hogwarts Express."

Because we only know what Harry knows, we weren't told it was DD's 
brother. No one mentioned it to Harry. But I'm sure most of the other 
members of the funeral knew who he was.







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Nov 27 03:23:35 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:23:35 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie
In-Reply-To: <ekdamr+ur9t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekdlnn+fiqv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162014


> Betsy Hp:
> I'm snipping a whole heck of a lot to focus in on this one thing, 
> because I found it so amusing when I reread the beginning of PS/SS 
> recently.  Dudley isn't a reader, and JKR does invite her readers 
to 
> sneer at that fact with this commentary given when Harry moves into 
> Dudley's second room:


Potioncat:
And I haven't followed this thread, but I'm responding to the part 
you are focusing on.


>Betsy HP:
> But here's the thing.  *Harry never cracks a book either*!!  For 
some 
> reason that tickled me.  I picture Harry being all "stupid lump 
never 
> reads," while he carefully avoides the crowded bookshelf himself. 
<bg>

Potioncat:
I'm not sure if I've simply projected onto Harry. I don't think I can 
quote too much canon here, but I don't think you're entirely correct. 
<g>

For some reason I seem to think Harry had read those books himself. 
Maybe I only think so because I would have. I do recall him wanting 
to do homework, but not able to because the Durleys had locked up his 
books.  He had looked over or read the text books before arriving at 
Hogwarts in year one, because he was angry that Snape had expected 
him to remember specific details. He's read several Quidditch related 
books. I know he isn't the star pupil who does his work right away, 
but he doesn't completely ignore it at school. 

OK, so he doesn't read as much as Hermione or me, but he reads more 
than some teenagers I know. So, if Hermione is at one extreme and 
Dudley on the other, Harry would be somewhere in the middle.

Although, I do like the humor of Harry judging Dudley for a fault he 
has himself--sort the same way Snape judges Harry for their shared 
faults.





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 03:26:03 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:26:03 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ekd300+cus5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekdlsb+10tpm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162015


> Julie wrote:
> > Regarding JKR saying Regulus was dead these days, *that's* what
> waved a red flag in the first place. Who says "He's dead THESE 
days"?
> As opposed to what? He won't be dead THOSE days? That there will 
come
> a point where "these" days will pass and he will no longer be dead?
> <big snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> But JKR didn't say that Regulus was "dead these days." what she
> actually said in the 2004 World Day Book Chat, in response to the
> question, "Will we be hearing anything from Sirius Black's brother,
> Regulus, in future books?" was, "Well, he's dead, so he's pretty 
quiet
> these days.
> 
> http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm
> 
> Assuming that he's RAB, she couldn't say that he's out of the books
> altogether because his past is important. (I personally think we'll
> hear about it from a very reluctant Kreacher, who may also have
> information on Snape.) But she does say straight out that he's 
dead,
> which makes him "pretty quiet these days." I think that 
misremembering
> the quote as "dead these days" is leading to misinterpretation.

Alla:

There are quite a few quotes from the books and the interviews that 
I misremembered or completely forgotten  unfortunately and I usually 
say so right away on list. This one is not one of those. I always 
read *these days** as qualifier for both actions ( dead and quiet- 
these days). Yes, I know it may be misinterpretation, but I am still 
saying that this is a strange answer.

And again, let me ask - why not confirm that he is dead in her 
recent answer about Stubby Boardman, why? Seems like ideal time and 
place to me. We all know by now that Regulus will play a part from 
the past in the Horcruxes quest, no? The secret is sort of out of 
the bag, IMO, so she can feel safe to tell us that Regulus is dead 
and he will be speaking to us from the past only. She does not.


Carol:
> I could be wrong, of course. Regulus/RAB saying that he knows he's
> going to die isn't proof that he's right in his prediction, but as 
Jen
> mentioned, Sirius Black said that his brother had been killed,
> presumably by DEs rather than Voldemort himself, and he must have 
some
> basis for that conclusion--but he said nothing about a missing 
body.
> (We've already seen that hand played with Peter Pettigrew and 
sirius
> himself.)
<SNIP>

Alla:

I did not get an impression personally that Sirius was rather close 
with his brother, so if he did not know, it would not surprise me.

Although I love, love, love Bec's speculation that Regulus is a 
Buckbeak, hehe. Do not find it likely, but would find it quite 
touching meaning that they would get some time to spent together 
before Sirius' death.



 > Carol responds:
> I agree that JKR took out that passage because it revealed too 
much,
> but it could relate to the others I listed who simply disappeared 
or
> perhaps to someone whose death has been faked using the Draught of
> Living Death. It's not likely to be Madam Bones, who seems to have
> been murdered by Voldemort himself, but how about Emmeline Vance?
> Snape claims to have given information that led to her capture and
> death, but as a DDm!Snaper, I'd like to find that he was lying on 
that
> one. And who better than snape to brew and administer the Draught 
of
> Living Death to a fellow Order member? If we find Emmeline alive, 
we
> won't need Regulus to testify in Snape's behalf.

Alla:

Well, of course it can relate to any character which is reported as 
dead or dissappearing, but I am going to hope that if character is 
going to come back from dead or supposedly dead, the character is 
going to be connected to some characters and is going to be somebody 
more interesting, somebody about whom I want to know more and want 
to learn more on its own. NOT just for the purpose of helping Snape 
out.

I understand your preference, but as I said before I came to care a 
great deal about Regulus character and I could care less about 
Emelyne Vance, so I know whom I would love to see alive. Of course 
if Vance is dead that has an added extra bonus for me - namely more 
chances for Snape to stay the murderer I think he is, but one way or 
another ( whether Snape is good or bad), I think we know much more 
about Regulus and he has more potential as a character.

Of course this is all just speculation - Regulus can come back or 
stay dead, Emelyne Vance can come back or stay dead, etc.

It is just I do think that if JKR decided on Regulus' fate, she put 
sufficient clues for this not to look like cheating.


> Carol, who's not trying to discourage discussion but does think we
> should look at what JKR actually said
>

Alla:

Yep, I did. :)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 03:40:46 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:40:46 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie
In-Reply-To: <ekdlnn+fiqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekdmnu+76ea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162016

> >Betsy HP:
> > But here's the thing.  *Harry never cracks a book either*!!  For 
> some 
> > reason that tickled me.  I picture Harry being all "stupid lump 
> never 
> > reads," while he carefully avoides the crowded bookshelf 
himself. 
> <bg> <SNIP>
> 
> Potioncat:
> I'm not sure if I've simply projected onto Harry. I don't think I 
can 
> quote too much canon here, but I don't think you're entirely 
correct. 
> <g>
> 
> For some reason I seem to think Harry had read those books 
himself. 
> Maybe I only think so because I would have. I do recall him 
wanting 
> to do homework, but not able to because the Durleys had locked up 
his 
> books.  He had looked over or read the text books before arriving 
at 
> Hogwarts in year one, because he was angry that Snape had expected 
> him to remember specific details. . 
<SNIP>

Alla:

I will quote some for you dear :)  

"He had looked through his books at the Dursleys', but did Snape 
expect him to remember everything in One Thousand Magical Herbs and 
Fungi?" - ch.8 "The potions master"

Oh, and of course we have that book that Snape confiscates from 
Harry, when he is reading outside ( heee, cannot find that quote).

So, yeah, just wanted to bring you a quote.

I think that Harry read stuff that he is interested in and when he 
is properly motivated. He sure can be motivated better, but just as 
you I am pleased that he does not forget about the books completely 
and definitely if I am to compare him with Dursley, I think that 
Dursley is not erm... quite there.

JMO,

Alla.




From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Nov 27 05:00:56 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 00:00:56 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
References: <ekdlsb+10tpm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <010301c711e1$06959a90$1292400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 162017

 Alla:
>
> There are quite a few quotes from the books and the interviews that
> I misremembered or completely forgotten  unfortunately and I usually
> say so right away on list. This one is not one of those. I always
> read *these days** as qualifier for both actions ( dead and quiet-
> these days). Yes, I know it may be misinterpretation, but I am still
> saying that this is a strange answer.
>
> And again, let me ask - why not confirm that he is dead in her
> recent answer about Stubby Boardman, why? Seems like ideal time and
> place to me. We all know by now that Regulus will play a part from
> the past in the Horcruxes quest, no? The secret is sort of out of
> the bag, IMO, so she can feel safe to tell us that Regulus is dead
> and he will be speaking to us from the past only. She does not.

Magpie:
Does it really sound like she's hiding something there?  It's just that to 
me these things sound totally straightforward both times.  Since Regulus has 
already been introduced as dead in canon, it seems normal to just shoot down 
the Stubby is Regulus theory. It doesn't seem like she also has to say he's 
dead.

In the second quote, it seems like she flat out says he's dead.  I see how 
the "these days" could refer to both his being dead and being quiet, but my 
first instinct is to hear it as saying he's dead and therefore he's quiet 
these days. To me it seems like both a straightforward confirmation that 
he's dead and a slight coyness about not saying that he won't play a part 
from the past.  Most of all it seems to just fit with the way the question 
was posed.  She was asked if we'd be hearing from a dead man, so she made a 
joke about the social calendar of the dead guy. It reminded me of jokes you 
often hear regarding soap opera characters because they come back from the 
dead so often, like, "So what's the biggest difference in your character 
this time around?" "Well, she's not dead anymore."  Or "I thought he was 
dead." "He was."  Only this was in reverse.

-m





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Mon Nov 27 05:44:33 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 05:44:33 -0000
Subject: The Locked Room (Re: Great Battles of Book 7)
In-Reply-To: <000001c7113e$ecbea4b0$0200a8c0@MYPOJ4J8EP5FMM>
Message-ID: <ekdu01+je5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162018

Bess: 
> After all, why would JKR drop in this "locked room" that none of
> the DA group could get into when at the MoM and then go into a
> nice interesting explanation of it if she never uses the room
> again.

Jen:  Hi Bess, welcome!  I'm rearranging your post because I wanted 
to address this part first.  The locked room gets my vote for the 
vanquishment of Voldemort, mainly for the reason you stated above.  
Plus I'd like to add a possible addition: Harry will learn to 
understand the power in that room better when he grows in his 
knowledge of Lily who worked at the DOM in my opinion.  Even if that 
bit isn't true, a locked door full of the power Voldemort knows not? 
That's too compelling to *not* have Voldemort come face to face with 
his doom there.  Love IS his downfall, the thing he's overlooked in 
every instance, his achilles heel, all the cliches you can think of 
<g>.  

The Veil had an important role in OOTP and served its main purpose 
there; I don't see it as the setting for the final battle between 
Harry and Voldemort.  It can be used for many other things including 
the destruction of the Horcruxes on the way to the Room of Love. 

Bess:
> But if Harry did get Voldemort into that locked room, then I would 
> say that the power and force in it would prevent Voldemort from 
> escaping it. I don't think Harry would be harmed by the room but
> Voldemort certainly would be! It would also a good way of 
> vanquishing Voldemort without Harry having to AK him.

Jen: No, I don't think Harry would be harmed by the room either 
since he is full of the power residing there.  He has already faced 
both the wonderful things about love Dumbledore alluded to, such as 
being born to very loving parents and finding friends who love him 
dearly *and* he has faced the 'terrible' side of love, the 
tremendous grief a person feels who has loved and lost.  Voldemort 
has had neither of these experiences, first by circumstance and then 
by choice.  The pain Harry felt being possessed by LV is how I 
imagine Voldemort feeling when he's in the locked room--terrible, 
excruciating pain, so much that he wishes to die??  That would be an 
interesting parallel. 

Another addition:  The gong spell by Dumbledore during his battle 
with Voldemort.  I'm not sure if this will play a role in the final 
battle, I'm thinking it might be how DD defeated Grindelwald, but 
I'm wondering if the power of that spell is a very weak version of 
the power in the room and that's why Dumbledore chose to try it out 
on Voldemort.  

Jen R. liking the Veil and all that but much more interested in 
seeing the locked room this time around.




From scarah at gmail.com  Mon Nov 27 05:43:01 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 21:43:01 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <ekdlsb+10tpm@eGroups.com>
References: <ekd300+cus5@eGroups.com> <ekdlsb+10tpm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611262143y63f7cea8keab769603117e486@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162019

> > Carol responds:
> > But JKR didn't say that Regulus was "dead these days." what she
> > actually said in the 2004 World Day Book Chat, in response to the
> > question, "Will we be hearing anything from Sirius Black's brother,
> > Regulus, in future books?" was, "Well, he's dead, so he's pretty
> quiet
> > these days.

Sarah:
Yeah, I read that as "He is properly dead, but I have to be a little
shady about how quiet he is.  I can't answer that he's totally
incommunicado, because he did leave a handy note.  (Or even if it
wasn't really him I still want everyone to think he could have.)"

This was a while before the Rumors section of the website was updated
with the Stubby Boardman topic, so there was a period in history where
it was still possible that Regulus was both dead and also Stubby
Boardman (since Stubby could have dropped at any time in the
intervening fifteen years), but I guess it's not to be.

Sarah



From snapes_witch at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 06:19:30 2006
From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 06:19:30 -0000
Subject: Time turner theory
In-Reply-To: <ekcul3+vac2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eke01i+pkvr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162020

Carol:
> 
> Much as I like Magda's suggestion that it was Harry who saved the
> teenage Severus Snape from werewolf!Lupin, I just don't see how that's
> feasible, nor do I see Harry being motivated to save the future Death
> Eater/eavesdropper, HBP or no, especially since it was Snape who
> killed Dumbledore. If anything, he'd want James to let Severus die, in
> which case, the consequences would be much worse. Voldemort would
> never have been vaporized and there would be no Prophecy Boy to stop 
> him.
> 

Besides which there's no way for Harry to get, well . . . 'back to the 
future' because the future he came from no longer exists.  Remember in 
PoA, the TTing H&H relive the entire three hours that they TTed so 
Harry would have to stay in the past and relive all those years till he 
arrived at the time he TTed.  

Several years ago I read a rather clever fanfic in which Hermione 
has 'another' one of those time turner accidents winding up in the 
Marauder era (of course); DD is unable to find a way back for her, so 
they invent the character Sybill (Sibyl?) Trelawney. Hermione lives 
this way (in disquise and reclusive) until the date of her TT accident 
and is then able to reveal her true identity because young Hermione is 
gone.  It was one of the few TT fics that was actually finished.  
Mainly because the author kept it short; a one-off IIRC.

Snape's Witch   






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 07:29:44 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:29:44 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ejde2n+jr6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eke458+5jbp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162021

Way back on November 14, Betsy replied to my claim that Hermione and
Ginny must be close friends. Nearly two weeks, one busted DSL line,
and an unexpected trip out of town later, I'm finally responding to
her.  Sorry Betsy, for the ridiculous wait.

>
> >Betsy Hp:
> >  But when it comes to Hermione's big secrets, Ginny doesn't 
> >know.
> 
> > >>Amiable Dorsai:
> > You keep writing things like that.  Why do you think so?
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Hermione doesn't tell Ginny about figuring out Rita Skeeter's 
> secret, capturing her, or her big plan to have Rita write Harry's 
> story up.  Ginny seems to find out about the DA club along with 
> everyone else (after Ron and Harry).  There's nothing to suggest 
> Ginny knew about the contract being hexed.

Amiable Dorsai:
If these are the kind of secrets you're talking about, Hermione isn't
friends with Harry and Ron either.  Hermione keeps her own counsel,
even when she probably shouldn't, on lots of things.  The fact that
this very secretive person treats Ginny as a confidante, at least
where romance is concerned, tells me that there is a more than
ordinary level of trust between the two witches.

As for the DA, Ginny appears to have been one of Hermione's recruiters.  
	
Betsy Hp:
> 
> Ginny wasn't involved at all in Hermione's attempt to save
> Buckbeak, even after Ron and Harry bowed out for a bit.

Amiable Dorsai:  
Too early.  Ginny and Hermione won't have had a chance to spend a lot
of time together until the summer of the Quidditch World Cup.  Their
rather extensive knowledge of each other's lives only becomes apparent
after that.

Betsy Hp: 
> Ginny isn't involved in Hermione's SPEW (wasn't Neville the
>only other person Hermione was able to get involved?). 

Amiable Dorsai:
Harry and Ron did as little as they could manage; apparently, you can
be a friend of Hermione's without being active in SPEW. 

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm not arguing that there's only one way of writing close female 
> friendship.  What I am saying is that I don't see evidence that 
> Hermione and Ginny are *close* female friends.  Whatever the
> manner or means.  In many ways I'd label them "friendly" rather 
> than "friends". 

Amiable Dorsai:
Hmmm.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.  I can't help but
notice this largish anvil of Hermione's trust of Ginny with
information she apparently shares with no one else, though.  

Betsy Hp:
> when it's suggested that Hermione *does* have tons of female 
> friends, I question. 

Amiable Dorsai:
Tons?  I think Ginny's rather more petite than that.

> Betsy Hp:
> Oh no, I think Hermione wants Ron for herself <g>.  But yes, I 
> totally buy Hermoine as a fan of OBHWF.  And I also agree that she's 
> manipulative.  So maybe Hermione is the first H/G shipper.  (And 
> now she has Ginny fulfilling her purpose...) <eg>

Amiable Dorsai:
Or, maybe, she's happy that Ginny has achieved her own purpose.
> 
> > Betsy Hp:
> > And Hermione's attitude during GoF seemed much more
> > "goodness this boy and girl thing is soo silly" than "this is what
> > hopes and dreams are made of!<3!).  
> 
> > >>Amiable Dorsai:
> > You're going to have to fire some more canon at me to get me
> > to accept that--what I recall is a Hermione who took the whole
> > thing very seriously indeed, to the point where she dolled
> > herself up for the first time we ever see, applying herself so
> > assiduously to the task that her two best male friends took a
> > while to recognize her.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
...  And while she did take some time to 
> doll herself up, she was also very careful to point out that this 
> was not her normal behavior.  

Amiable Dorsai:
I am so badly confused: Either it was a big enough deal that she
radically changed her normal behavior for it, or it was no big deal to
her.  How do you manage to have both propositions be true at the same
time?

Amiable Dorsai





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 14:40:32 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 14:40:32 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <010301c711e1$06959a90$1292400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eketd0+8alg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162022

Alla wrote:
> >
> > There are quite a few quotes from the books and the interviews
that I misremembered or completely forgotten  unfortunately and I
usually say so right away on list. This one is not one of those. I
always read *these days** as qualifier for both actions ( dead and
quiet- these days). Yes, I know it may be misinterpretation, but I am
still saying that this is a strange answer.
<snip>
> 
> Magpie:
> Does it really sound like she's hiding something there?  It's just
that to me these things sound totally straightforward both times. <snip>
> 
> In the second quote, it seems like she flat out says he's dead.  I
see how the "these days" could refer to both his being dead and being
quiet, but my first instinct is to hear it as saying he's dead and
therefore he's quiet these days. To me it seems like both a
straightforward confirmation that he's dead and a slight coyness about
not saying that he won't play a part from the past.  Most of all it
seems to just fit with the way the question was posed.  She was asked
if we'd be hearing from a dead man, so she made a joke about the
social calendar of the dead guy. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree with Magpie. To repeat the second quote, which was snipped in
Magpie's post, it's "Well, he's dead, so he's pretty quiet these
days." The main clause, clear and simple, is "he's dead." "So he's
pretty quiet these days" is a subordinate clause, which can be dropped
without substantially altering the meaning of the sentence. "These
days" belongs to the subordinate clause, not to the main clause, IOW
it modifies "he's pretty quiet," not "he's dead." "So" as used here
means "consequently" or "therefore." He's dead; consequently, he's
quiet. And, of course, "so" also belongs to the subordinate clause.
It's the subordinating conjunction.

If anyone can find another definition of "so" that fits this sentence
and consequently alters it to fit Alla's reading, bearing in mind that
the subordinating conjunction modifies the subordinate clause and not
the main clause, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll continue to
accept that straightforward reading.

Carol McGonagall, adjusting her glasses and transforming into a cat now




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 15:02:07 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:02:07 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <010301c711e1$06959a90$1292400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ekeulf+ubug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162023

 
> Magpie:
> Does it really sound like she's hiding something there?  It's just 
that to 
> me these things sound totally straightforward both times.  Since 
Regulus has 
> already been introduced as dead in canon, it seems normal to just 
shoot down 
> the Stubby is Regulus theory. It doesn't seem like she also has to 
say he's 
> dead.

Alla:

You could be right of course :) I just think that it would make sense 
for her to say so.

That can all be just nothing, together with the cutting out of they 
cannot kill you if you are already dead part, etc. It may just be 
that JKR decided that both editions should look the same, it can all 
be insignificant and us looking for clues where it is none to be 
found, OR they can be just clues indeed.

And I totally understand where you are coming from, I do. After all I 
do think that JKR often straightforward in the interviews, but not 
all the time.


Magpie:
> In the second quote, it seems like she flat out says he's dead.  I 
see how 
> the "these days" could refer to both his being dead and being 
quiet, but my 
> first instinct is to hear it as saying he's dead and therefore he's 
quiet 
> these days. To me it seems like both a straightforward confirmation 
that 
> he's dead and a slight coyness about not saying that he won't play 
a part 
> from the past. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, I do read these days as referred to both.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 15:15:30 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:15:30 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekcojo+771q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekevei+61d5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162024

a_svirn earlier:
> > <snip>
> > > Even Harry went from being revolted to being noble and thinking
of slave-holding in terms of "responsibility" in a blink of an eye. <snip>
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > But what choice does Harry have? He can't set Kreacher free. To do
so would be extremely *irresponsible* and dangerous. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Of course he can't set Kreacher free. I did say that sending 
> Kreacher to Hogwarts was a very good temporary solution. Provided, 
> that is, that Harry would have stuck to it. He didn't, though. As 
> soon as he found himself in a difficulty he used his power over 
> Kreacher without much ado. 
> 
Carol again:
If he can't set Kreacher free, how is Kreacher, whom Harry now owns,
*not* Harry's responsibility? How else ought Harry to think of him?
Doesn't an employer have a responsibility to his employees, both to
make sure they have good working conditions and to make sure they do
their work?

If you're saying that Harry *neglected* that responsibility,
conveniently foisting Kreacher off onto Hogwarts, Dumbledore, and
especially Dobby (who took over the task of watching him, either
voluntarily or on Dumbledore's orders), I agree with you. As for
"using his power over Kreacher," I would phrase that as giving
Kreacher a job to do. I'm quite sure he hasn't been helping out in the
kitchen, and I doubt that the other House-Elves would want him to,
filthy and eccentric as he is, with no sense of loyalty or obligation
to Hogwarts or Dumbledore. (Harry didn't say that Kreacher, or Dobby,
couldn't sleep or take a break. That's just how Dobby chose to
interpret the order.) Why, exactly, should Harry not give Kreacher
something to do, as long as Kreacher belongs to him? Isn't it better
than allowing him to plot mischief?


Carol earlier:
> He's in a position similar to that of Petunia when he was placed on
her doorstep <snip Granted, Kreacher isn't an infant, but he can no
more be set loose to fend for himself than Baby!harry could, however 
> different
> > the reasons. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Now, that's a strange thing to say. Kreacher can fend for himself 
> very good indeed. It is not the touching anxiety for his well-being 
> that stoped Harry (and indeed Dumbledore) from freeing him. The real 
> reason was that Kreacher was too dangerous for them to set loose. 
> Dumbledore made no bones about that, too. *He* didn't speak of 
> responsibility. He just pointed out that Kreacher knew far too much 
> and was far too deep in Bella's confidence. That makes him more like 
> a prisoner of war, than a defenceless infant. Except that Harry 
> would have afforded more courtesy to a Death Eater than to a house-
> elf. No Geneva Convention for non-humans.
>
Carol:
I'm not so sure that Kreacher could fend for himself since even a
House-Elf can't conjure food (JKR has said in an interview that
conjured items don't last), but that aside, I've already conceded that
Kreacher is not a helpless infant. I meant that, like Petunia, Harry
has been saddled with an unwanted person or being placed in his care
against his will. Bad as Petunia's job of caring for Harry has been,
she at least met his basic needs and kept him in the house when it was
essential to do so for the blood protection (assuming that it extends
beyond Voldemort to Dementors, etc.). Harry has neglected his
responsiblity to the person placed in his care--slave, POW, employee,
or what have you--he's too dangerous to set free, and willy nilly, he
belongs to Harry. That makes it Harry's responsibility not only to be
sure that he's treated well, but to be sure that he doesn't make trouble. 

The closest analogy I can think of is Gollum in LOTR. Sam hates him
and wants to be rid of him; Frodo insists on trusting him and treating
him decently. In the end, even though Gollum betrays them, Frodo's
trust pays off. Dumbledore says something similar about the way Sirius
Black should have treated Kreacher, with respect and consideration or
something of that sort. Even Black himself said something about
judging a man by the way he treats his inferiors though he failed to
follow his own advice. Harry has yet to learn that lesson.

Carol, who thinks that until Kreacher can safely be set free, he *is*
Harry's responsibility, and Harry needs to take proper care of his
unwanted "property" rather than foisting that responsibility onto others




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 15:17:00 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 15:17:00 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie
In-Reply-To: <ekdlnn+fiqv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekevhc+sjcl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162025

> Potioncat:
> 
> OK, so he doesn't read as much as Hermione or me, but he reads more 
> than some teenagers I know. So, if Hermione is at one extreme and 
> Dudley on the other, Harry would be somewhere in the middle.
> 

a_svirn:
Actually, Hermione only reads the study-related stuff, or 
maybe "culture"-related (to acquaint herself with the WW customs and 
ways). We never see her reading anything for fun. Rowling even made a 
point to show Hermione calling some dusty folio her "bedside reading". 
I can picture Ron or Harry "cracking" a book of fiction more easily 
than Hermione. In fact, I seem to remember how they were browsing some 
wizarding comic book or other. 




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 16:13:32 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:13:32 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekevei+61d5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekf2rc+ecuq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162026

> Carol:
> If he can't set Kreacher free, how is Kreacher, whom Harry now owns,
> *not* Harry's responsibility? How else ought Harry to think of him?
> Doesn't an employer have a responsibility to his employees, both to
> make sure they have good working conditions and to make sure they do
> their work?

a_svirn:
Well, Harry is not exactly an employer, isn't he? Neither an 
employer, concerned for his employee's well-being, nor a caring 
guardian thinking of his ward's happiness. He is a slave-holder. When 
one starts to obscure reality by applying more palatable names for 
it, one is being hypocritical. And Harry definitely shows tendency 
for hypocrisy here. 

> Carol:
> If you're saying that Harry *neglected* that responsibility,
> conveniently foisting Kreacher off onto Hogwarts, Dumbledore, and
> especially Dobby (who took over the task of watching him, either
> voluntarily or on Dumbledore's orders), I agree with you. 

a_svirn:
I am not saying anything of the sort. I did say that it was a 
compromise, and as compromises go not a bad one. 

> Carol:
As for
> "using his power over Kreacher," I would phrase that as giving
> Kreacher a job to do. 

a_svirn:
Well, you can of course phrase it like that, if you choose. I don't 
see how it makes any difference, though. When you give your slave a 
job to do you use your power over him or her. 


> Carol:
 Why, exactly, should Harry not give Kreacher
> something to do, as long as Kreacher belongs to him? 

a_svirn:
Because slavery is an abomination? 

> Carol:
Isn't it better
> than allowing him to plot mischief?

a_svirn:
That problem had already been dealt with, when Kreacher had been sent 
to Hogwarts. It wasn't an ideal solution, but at least, Kreacher 
didn't have to serve Harry directly nor did he have to do anything he 
didn't want. It is one thing to restrict freedom of a dangerous foe, 
quite another to use him as a slave. 

> Carol:
> I'm not so sure that Kreacher could fend for himself since even a
> House-Elf can't conjure food (JKR has said in an interview that
> conjured items don't last), 

a_svirn:
Well, Dobby didn't die from hunger while he was unemployed. And 
Kreacher was practically expelled from the kitchen by Molly, so it 
looks like he fended for himself even while he was a Grimauld Place 
resident. 

> Carol
but that aside, I've already conceded that
> Kreacher is not a helpless infant. I meant that, like Petunia, Harry
> has been saddled with an unwanted person or being placed in his care
> against his will. Bad as Petunia's job of caring for Harry has been,
> she at least met his basic needs and kept him in the house when it 
was
> essential to do so for the blood protection (assuming that it 
extends
> beyond Voldemort to Dementors, etc.). Harry has neglected his
> responsiblity to the person placed in his care--slave, POW, 
employee,
> or what have you--he's too dangerous to set free, and willy nilly, 
he
> belongs to Harry. That makes it Harry's responsibility not only to 
be
> sure that he's treated well, but to be sure that he doesn't make 
trouble. 

a_svirn:
Oh, yes. But that's not his responsibility towards *Kreacher*. That's 
his responsibility towards the Order. His responsibility towards 
Kreacher would have been to set him free. In this case he naturally 
chose the order over Krecher, which is fine with me. What I find 
revolting is that, instead of recognizing the "conflict of interests" 
so to speak, and treating Kreacher with respect, he accepts the 
situation as if it is a natural order of things and if though owning 
a slave is a noble occupation. 




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 16:15:32 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:15:32 -0000
Subject: Potter Cash: 1,000 Galleons in Time and Space
In-Reply-To: <ekdapi+r4jf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekf2v4+r2gg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162027

I am kind of butting into this thread, so sorry if it was discussed 
already, but do we have any idea how does Gringotts work at all? I 
mean, in real life money always works to make more money, but how does 
it work in the WW? We don't hear anything about loans, mortgages, 
venture capitalists and so on. The twins called Harry's contribution "a 
loan", but in fact, it wasn't, and applying for a Gringotts's loan 
didn't seem to be an option. So how do the Goblins manage to stay 
afloat? To quote Antonio "is their gold and silver ewes and rams"? 
a_svirn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 17:16:22 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:16:22 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves ... (Was: Kreacher .. Plot Device...)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50611252129m2b6e575cra0de6073ac6ec731@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekf6h6+oivp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162028

---  "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
> Jordan:
> > ...edited....
> 
> And if the alternative is to be forced *not* to, and 
> not allowed so much as a head scarf (as in France, 
> where evidently atheism is the state religion), who 
> wouldn't?
> 

bboyminn:

On this tangental social issue, I agree with Jordan. Agree
it is wrong to force women to wear burkhas, but it is 
equally wrong to force then NOT to wear them. As to head
scarfs, I was stunned when France and now England tried
to force a law through that would /prevent/ women from
wearing them. 

To the issue of burkhas in England, I can at least 
understand the sentiment. When a 'masked' person
walks into your shop, it's reasonable to wonder if you
are about to be robbed. In western culture, hiding
your face has a very real and very negative implication.

For the record, I personally don't think burkhas have
anything to do with religion, I think they are part of
a social structure that tends to act to suppress women
and keep them as vulnerable and helpless as possible.
So, on this point, it is a social issue, not truly a
religious one.

But the head scarf issue in France seemed totally 
unreasonable to me. The scarf is a mark of modesty, and
I don't think a little more modesty in our culture is
something to be looked down on. Especially, not when a
lot of Junior High girls go to school looking like 
'street walkers'. Overall though, that particular ruling
seemed very unreasonable to me.

For the record, and believe it or not, there is a federal
law in the USA that prevents anyone from wearing a 
'costume' or any type of clothing that conceals the face.
Really, it's true. This law was enacted specifically to 
prevent members of the KKK from hiding behind masks while
the commited crimes or engaged in civil disruption.

Of course, Congress ignored how this law would technically
affect Holloween and even Santa Claus. The law is almost 
never enforced since the KKK began wearing robes with
hoods that exposed their faces. Which is all the law
was intended to do in the first place.

> Jordan continues:
>
> To keep this vaguely on-topic, what's the alternative
> for them? We don't know that House Elves are fully 
> happy with 100% of the present situation, just that,
> by and large, they're not buying what Hermione's
> selling.
>

bboyminn:

Echoing Jordan's comment, it's time to now get back on
topic. What do the Elves want and need? Freedom... maybe,
maybe not.

In my hypothetical fan-ficcy scenerio, previously 
mentioned, were Hermione turns the tide in favor of 
the house-elves by going to the wizarding law making 
body, and making a case that keeping house-elves truly
is slavery. 

The outcome of that encounter was wizard's
legislation that set a minimum standard for keeping a
house-elf and included things like - fair compensation
(fair by Elf standards, still a good deal for wizards,
but keep in mind it is the /minimum/ standard), a
fair standard of treatment of Elves (they can't be
abused or compelled to abuse themselves), fair living
conditions (no more living in a 'nest' under the boiler),
a fair means for airing grievances against their Masters
(which means no retribution for bring a grievance 
forward), and among other things, fair and reasonable
care after a lifetime of service (retirement care and
all that).

Notice the one word that occurs over and over again -
FAIR. As things stand now, I'm convinced that Elves 
serve willingly and eagerly. They truly do love serving
and caring for humans. What they don't love is the ill
treatment of themselves, and the total disregard for 
their welfare.

As to how the real story progresses in the last book, I
don't think we will hear any more about SPEW, or if we 
do, it will be incidentaal, or just in passing. SPEW was 
Hermione's ill-conceived Empire-building Colonial
expression of what she wanted. But as we have all 
commented, Hermione never took the time to study elves
and what they wanted or needed. 

What I conceive them wanting is fair and reasonable
treatment. I speculate that if House-Elves were freed
the way slaves were freed; just a slaves, they would
soon find themselves back in the same situation they
were in before they were freed. They would be back 
doing what they truly like to do, which is serving and
caring for humans. And much like human slaves who were
freed, they would continue to be taken advantage of.

The purpose of 'freedom' is not to stop the elves from
doing the thing that is ingrained in their nature, but
to get wizards to stop taking unfair advantage of that
nature. 

Again, as I said, the Elves are fine, it is the wizards
that need to be fixed.

You heard it here first...again. ;)

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 18:06:04 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 18:06:04 -0000
Subject: Potter Cash: 1,000 Galleons... - Gringotts Bank
In-Reply-To: <ekf2v4+r2gg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekf9ec+bkcp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162029

---  "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> I am kind of butting into this thread, so sorry if it
> was discussed already, but do we have any idea how 
> does Gringotts work at all? I mean, in real life money
> always works to make more money, but how does it work 
> in the WW? We don't hear anything about loans, 
> mortgages, venture capitalists and so on. The twins 
> called Harry's contribution "a loan", but in fact, it
> wasn't, and applying for a Gringotts's loan didn't 
> seem to be an option. So how do the Goblins manage to
> stay afloat? To quote Antonio "is their gold and 
> silver ewes and rams"? 
>
> a_svirn
>

bboyminn:

For Fan-fiction/fantasy purposes, I have given this 
matter some thought.

First, the Goblins are 'treasure hunters', I suspect
both 'for hire' and independant. It is possible that
the Egyptain government hired the best treasure hunters
in the world to seek out treasure on their lands for
a cut of the 'booty'. That is very much how modern 
treasure hunters work. But I also think that Goblins
act independantly, in a sense, like pirates or smugglers.
They seek out and find treasure in various countries,
then quickly smuggle it back to England where they 
slowly sell it off to create a steady flow of income
for the bank and its principle backers/investors. 

Note, I said /slowly/ sell it off. When Harry first 
enters Gringotts, I believe, he sees the Goblins
counting and weighing large gemstones (rubies, emeralds,
etc...). If Gemstones as large as lumps of coal were 
to hit the market, it would be from page news, and 
would likely send the gemstone market in to a crash.
Being wise businessmen, the Goblins would keep their
gemstones primarily in the wizard market, and only let
them leak into the muggle market at a controlled rate
to keep the selling price high. 

In the past, I have speculated that Lucius makes his 
money as a parton and facilitator of business. For
example, he may lend money to the potions ingredient
shop (as they are one of his partons) to purchase
rare and expensive herbs. Lucius would then take
either an interest commision on the sale, or would take
a share of the profits when the herbs are sold.

I see Gringotts working the same way, though with 
considerable interest rates. They provide short term
loans to facilitate business transactions. I also
suspect that they do provide more long term business
and personal loans. My intuition tells me that they
prefer business loans though. If a business fails or
if it simply technically defaults, the Goblins can
swoop in and claim the business. Owning or owning a
controlling interest in, and better managing these 
many defaulted businesses would also provide a revune
stream and a source of investments for the Goblins.

I also suspect that the Goblins are involved in long
term investments, though I haven't quite decided 
whether I will let them dabble in the muggle investment
market or not. I suspect that if you allow the Goblins
access to your vaulted money, they can return a 
substantial interest rate on it. 

To some extent, I am reminded of mean Uncle Ralph in
the book and movie 'Nicholas Nickleby'. Mean Uncle Ralph
made his money by acting as a broker and facilitator to 
invest other people's money in various aspect of business,
which I can only assume involves both long and short term
investments as described above. I modeled how I preceive
Lucius Malfoy making money partly on Uncle Ralph Nickleby.

I have also suspect, that in their role as /facilitators/,
the Goblins act as liaison between the muggle world and
the wizard world. Though I'm sure they use intermediaries;
they don't personally interact with muggles, and of 
course, they do this in the interest of making money.

As an example, when Mr. Weasley bought his land which 
clearly seems to be in a muggle area and would therefore
have originally been muggle land, he engages the goblins,
who in turn sent him to a real estate broker with ties to
the wizard world. That broker acted as an agent to 
negotiate to purchase the muggle land, and the Goblins
acted to convert wizard money to muggle money and get it
transferred into the muggle world. Now any one who has
ever exchanged money in Europe knows that this is not 
done for free. Every exchange bring as commission to the
money changer. Again, another revenue stream for the 
Goblins. Additionally, though I cringe at the imagined
interest rate, the Goblins may have loaned Arthur the
money to buy his land.

Notice also that the Goblins in general are fine 
craftsmen. The finest things we see in the wizard world
are Goblin made. I suspect Goblins quietly give 
preference to Goblin enterprises when it comes to leading,
changing, and facilitating. 

Now the books don't say any of this, but in our previous
discussion of how business in general works in the wizard
world, this seem to be fair supposition.

Speculating and Supposing Steve/bboyminn




From bartl at sprynet.com  Mon Nov 27 18:42:35 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 13:42:35 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the
 Plot Device Elf)
Message-ID: <18123014.1164652955919.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 162030

From: a_svirn <a_svirn at yahoo.com>
>> Carol:
>> If he can't set Kreacher free, how is Kreacher, whom Harry now owns,
>> *not* Harry's responsibility? How else ought Harry to think of him?
>> Doesn't an employer have a responsibility to his employees, both to
>> make sure they have good working conditions and to make sure they do
>> their work?
>
>a_svirn:
>Well, Harry is not exactly an employer, isn't he? Neither an 
>employer, concerned for his employee's well-being, nor a caring 
>guardian thinking of his ward's happiness. He is a slave-holder. When 
>one starts to obscure reality by applying more palatable names for 
>it, one is being hypocritical. And Harry definitely shows tendency 
>for hypocrisy here. 

Bart:
As you implied, one has to look at the entirety of one's choices. Virtually every choice one makes leads to a combination of good and evil. At best, you can make choices which, in the balance, lead towards good. Harry's choices: Take responsibility for Kreacher, and have as a slave someone who destroyed your best bet at having a family, or let Kreacher go free, and significantly increase the chance of the entire world becoming enslaved. One must accept the consequences of one's actions as well as the actions themselves. 

>> Carol:
> Why, exactly, should Harry not give Kreacher
>> something to do, as long as Kreacher belongs to him? 
>
>a_svirn:
>Because slavery is an abomination? 

Bart:
And there are things that are worse.

Bart



From myladysw at myladyswardrobe.com  Mon Nov 27 17:17:47 2006
From: myladysw at myladyswardrobe.com (Bess Chilver)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:17:47 -0000
Subject: The Locked Room (Re: Great Battles of Book 7)
Message-ID: <000001c71247$f9266710$0200a8c0@MYPOJ4J8EP5FMM>

No: HPFGUIDX 162031

Hi Jen,
 
>>Jen: 
>>Hi Bess, welcome! I'm rearranging your post because I wanted 
>>to address this part first.
 
I have absolutely no problem  with rearranging my posts!  Many thanks
for your kind welcome. I was afraid I'd made a bit of a mistake as
someone else managed to come up with exactly what I had thought about
the Locked Room and posted their theory before mine was posted.
 
>>Jen:
>> The locked room gets my vote for the vanquishment of Voldemort,
mainly for the reason you stated above. 
>>Plus I'd like to add a possible addition: Harry will learn to
understand the power in that room better when he grows in his 
>>knowledge of Lily who worked at the DOM in my opinion. Even if that
bit isn't true, a locked door full of the power Voldemort knows not? 
>>That's too compelling to *not* have Voldemort come face to face with
his doom there. Love IS his downfall, the thing he's overlooked in 
>>every instance, his achilles heel, all the cliches you can think of
<g>. 


I think we know too little of Lily's life between school and her death
(and this applies a bit to James too) to do anything other than pure
conjecture.  I do think we will learn a whole lot more about Lily in
book 7 and that will probably be relevant and may well help Harry with
what he has to do.  Would certainly be very nice to learn exactly what
Lily and James did - especially how they thwarted/escaped Voldemort 3
times and WHY! 
 
I think it would be such poetic justice for Voldemort to be vanquished
by the power he so despises.

>>The Veil had an important role in OOTP and served its main purpose
there; I don't see it as the setting for the final battle between 
>>Harry and Voldemort. It can be used for many other things including
the destruction of the Horcruxes on the way to the Room of Love. 
 
Absolutely - I think the only reason we may see The Veil again is to
find out who and what the voices are and why they are there. Luna may
well be important for that. Not sure if the veil could be used to
destroy the horcruxes. It may not be as simple as throwing the object
behind the veil and hoping that the bit of "soul" is then "dead". Again,
I think we don't have enough information in the books as to what is
needed to destroy the horcrux. Sometimes it is relatively easy as per
the Basilisk tooth stabbing the book, but in other cases it can cause
serious injury such as the damage to DD's arm (and one could argue
drinking the potion! I suppose then facing a Basilisk is just as risky
but the actual destruction of the horcrux book was on its own relatively
simple!).
 
Would be poetic justice if Neville could somehow get Bellatrix through
the Veil. I am sure he is destined to "vanquish" her! 
 
>>Jen:
>> No, I don't think Harry would be harmed by the room either since he
is full of the power residing there. He has already faced 
>>both the wonderful things about love Dumbledore alluded to, such as
being born to very loving parents and finding friends who love him 
>>dearly *and* he has faced the 'terrible' side of love, the tremendous
grief a person feels who has loved and lost. Voldemort 
>>has had neither of these experiences, first by circumstance and then
by choice. The pain Harry felt being possessed by LV is how I 
>>imagine Voldemort feeling when he's in the locked room--terrible,
excruciating pain, so much that he wishes to die?? That would be an 
>>interesting parallel. 


Not sure whether Vodemort would actually wish to die - after all his
whole life and existence has been devoted to NOT dying. Its almost the
animal instinct to survive simply because when it really comes down to
it, Voldemort is terrified of death. What will he see/experience if he
went into the Locked Room???
 
What will be very interesting is how Harry would be able to get
Voldemort to the Locked Room.  I don't think the last battle will start
there. Maybe Harry (or rather Hermione as she is probably bright enough
to figure out how to do it) will set up a portkey. This could be rather
ironic if H/Hr can work together to trick Voldemort to touch something
that is actually a portkey and will transport him to the MoM/Locked
Room. Alternatively, perhaps Harry could do precisely what Voldemort did
to him and manage to trick V into going to the MoM in the same way that
V tricked Harry in Phoenix. That too would be rather ironic!
Though in either scenario, would Voldemort appreciate the irony?
Dumbledore probably would do!
 
>>Jen:
>>Another addition: The gong spell by Dumbledore during his battle with
Voldemort. I'm not sure if this will play a role in the final 
>>battle, I'm thinking it might be how DD defeated Grindelwald, but I'm
wondering if the power of that spell is a very weak version of 
>>the power in the room and that's why Dumbledore chose to try it out on
Voldemort. 


I am wondering if the history of Grindelwald and how DD defeated him
will come out in Book 7. I think it could be rather relevant in giving
clues to Harry, Hr and R. 
 
Thanks again for the welcome. Not sure how often I will be posting - I
have a lot of other mailing lists and Livejournal that I look at (from a
historical costuming point of view) plus MAKING costumes which needs to
start about now to be ready for next summer!
 
Best wishes,
 
Bess
(www.myladyswardrobe.com


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




From kennclark at btinternet.com  Mon Nov 27 16:53:53 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:53:53 -0000
Subject: Potter Cash: 1,000 Galleons in Time and Space
In-Reply-To: <ekf2v4+r2gg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekf571+ms7b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162032

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> I am kind of butting into this thread, so sorry if it was discussed
> already, but do we have any idea how does Gringotts work at all? I
> mean, in real life money always works to make more money, but how
does
> it work in the WW? We don't hear anything about loans, mortgages,
> venture capitalists and so on. The twins called Harry's
contribution "a
> loan", but in fact, it wasn't, and applying for a Gringotts's loan
> didn't seem to be an option. So how do the Goblins manage to stay
> afloat? To quote Antonio "is their gold and silver ewes and rams"?
>

Ken says:

Of course there is much bigger question here.  What exactly is the
economy of the magical world?  Money doesn't breed, its a
representation of value.  Once the gold in anyone's vaults is spent
from where is it replaced?  Where does the cash for Mr Weasley's wages
come from?  Fom what industries, investments or whatever does Lucius
Malfoy's wealth derive?

Kenneth Clark





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 19:02:08 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:02:08 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <18123014.1164652955919.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <ekfcng+rld2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162033

> Bart:
> As you implied, one has to look at the entirety of one's choices. 
Virtually every choice one makes leads to a combination of good and 
evil. At best, you can make choices which, in the balance, lead 
towards good. Harry's choices: Take responsibility for Kreacher, and 
have as a slave someone who destroyed your best bet at having a 
family, or let Kreacher go free, and significantly increase the 
chance of the entire world becoming enslaved. One must accept the 
consequences of one's actions as well as the actions themselves. 

a_svirn:
And since when slave-holders have responsibilities to or for their 
slaves? Slavery is a one-sided deal: slaves have all the 
responsibilities, while owners have all the rights. The Harry-
Kreacher situation being no exception. 


> >a_svirn:
> >Because slavery is an abomination? 
> 
> Bart:
> And there are things that are worse.
> 

a_svirn:
If you say so.




From rebeccahillary82 at aol.com  Mon Nov 27 17:10:58 2006
From: rebeccahillary82 at aol.com (Rebecca Hillary)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:10:58 -0000
Subject: Fawkes, Dumbledore, Harry and Gryffindor
Message-ID: <ekf672+a1or@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162034

Fawkes is the phoenix that gave it's feather to Harry's wand.
Harry is always to Dumbledore.
Dumbledore, Fawkes' owner, was in Gryffindor.
Gryffindor's sword was brought to Harry in the sorting hat, by Fawkes.
Harry's parents moved to Godric's Hollow.
Godric founded Gryffindor house.
Gryffindor's house colours are scarlet and gold, the same as Fawkes.

Coincidence? There are no coincidences. This all has to have meaning!

Beci





From rebeccahillary82 at aol.com  Mon Nov 27 16:44:08 2006
From: rebeccahillary82 at aol.com (Rebecca Hillary)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:44:08 -0000
Subject: A couple of little theories!
Message-ID: <ekf4ko+916p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162035

Hiya.

I've only had one post on here, so I'd like to throw out a couple of
theories, which may not be new (it'd take ages to read through
everything on here!), but I'm interested in what everyone else thinks.

First of all, in GoF;c33 Voldemort says that his most faithful
servant has already entered his service, is at Hogwarts and it was
through his efforts that Harry was in the graveyard at all. So it's
Snape? That's what you think reading that. Yet in GoF;c35 Barty
Crouch Jr says that he was the one who did everything. This is under
the influence of the Veritaserum, so it has to be true. Yet Snape is
in the room while Barty takes said truth serum, and it is always
possible that Snape (who is quite capable of casting spells
wordlessly) could have had him under the Imperius curse, couldn't he?
Well, no, because Snape wasn't in the room when 'Moody' told Harry he
was the one who put Harry's name in under a different school, that he
gave him the clues, and turned the cup into a portkey. We also know
that if JKR has to tell us anything really important it is said in
dialogue by Dumbledore or Hermione. Hermione very frequently and very
insistently keeps telling us that 'Dumbledore trusts Snape', as does
Dumbledore himself. So what I see here is incontrovertible proof that
Snape cannot possibly be working for Voldemort, and is therefore not
evil. (And I'm not just saying this as a lifelong fan of Alan
Rickman, because I like him best as baddies!)

Secondly, I have no idea why this hit me the other night while re-
reading GoF, but I was just struck by an amazingly scary thought. We
know that Wormtail owes Harry a life debt, and there are some fans
who would suggest that Snape also does, through his previous life-
deat to James Potter, but we must also remember that through
Voldemort choosing Harry as the child in the prophecy, Harry
inadvertently spared the life of someone else. Someone who, it could
maybe be said, Harry loves. One of his closest friends. The one with
whom he shared a terrible secret for at least a year - Neville
Longbottom. We know that Neville is not the brightest of students,
and he says himself he is little more that a squib. From the way the
prophecy sounds, the child in the prophecy has to die to kill
voldemort. Now we know that Harry has been saved by love before, and
I believe he will be again. Neville, who only ever wants to make his
parents and his gran proud, and will sacrifice himself to save Harry.
Only what I think is that Harry never was 'The Chosen One', and due
to this huge lapse in judgement, Voldemort will kill Neville, and
himself, and the prophecy will be fulfilled.

Hope you like these hypothesese!

Beci




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 19:10:05 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:10:05 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie
In-Reply-To: <ekevhc+sjcl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfd6d+5gqn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162036


> > Potioncat:
> > 
> > OK, so he doesn't read as much as Hermione or me, but he reads 
more 
> > than some teenagers I know. So, if Hermione is at one extreme and 
> > Dudley on the other, Harry would be somewhere in the middle.
> > 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Actually, Hermione only reads the study-related stuff, or 
> maybe "culture"-related (to acquaint herself with the WW customs 
and 
> ways). We never see her reading anything for fun. Rowling even made 
a 
> point to show Hermione calling some dusty folio her "bedside 
reading". 
> I can picture Ron or Harry "cracking" a book of fiction more easily 
> than Hermione. In fact, I seem to remember how they were browsing 
some 
> wizarding comic book or other.
>


Neri:
Heroes and Heroines of fiction books are generally not required to 
demonstrate reading fiction on page, unless the specific work of 
fiction has direct bearing on the plot. It appears that *being* in 
novels excuses you from *reading* them. I mean, just think of any 
favorite fictional heroes of you and try to remember what fiction 
they ever read. Rare exceptions to this rule seem to be romantic 
heroines of good breeding that have to appear refined, and/or 
destitute heroines that dream of achieving renown through becoming 
novelists themselves. Since both Harry and Hermione don't fit into 
these categories, I really don't feel that not reading any fiction on 
page should be counted against them.

Neri 







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 19:04:56 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:04:56 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves ... (Was: Kreacher .. Plot Device...)
In-Reply-To: <ekf6h6+oivp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfcso+nm3k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162037


> bboyminn:
> 
> Echoing Jordan's comment, it's time to now get back on
> topic. What do the Elves want and need? Freedom... maybe,
> maybe not.<HUGE SNIP>
>> What I conceive them wanting is fair and reasonable
> treatment. I speculate that if House-Elves were freed
> the way slaves were freed; just a slaves, they would
> soon find themselves back in the same situation they
> were in before they were freed. They would be back 
> doing what they truly like to do, which is serving and
> caring for humans. And much like human slaves who were
> freed, they would continue to be taken advantage of.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Okay, I am just trying to figure out where you are coming from, so 
basically I just want to know why are you so convinced that elves 
truly like serving humans. Are you just discarding the existance of 
enchantment on them? Do you think it is a lie and house elves are not 
enchanted, which is I guess a reasonable argument to make, but what 
is the basis for thinking that this is a lie?

If we did not know about enchantment, I would be more convinced that 
house elves in general like serving humans if they are treated 
fairly, but don't you think that we canot know yet whether they truly 
like serving till enchantment is lifted ( if it exists of course)

Alla







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 19:17:57 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:17:57 -0000
Subject: Fidelius Charm / Polyjuiced
In-Reply-To: <ekd49v+g8b8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfdl6+bt02@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162038

---  "Inge" <Elvishooked at ...> wrote:
>
> Reading book 2 again, I got to wonder about something.
> 
> Grimmauld Place 12 as well as Lily/James' hideout at 
> Godrics Hollow couldn't be seen or found by anyone who
> wasn't told the location by the Secret Keeper, as we 
> all know.
> 

bboyminn:

Well, I get your point as a preface to your comment below,
but we really don't know that. Some speculate that it was
the Potter's location that was a secret. In which case,
you are right. But others speculate that it was the 
Potter's themselves that were the secret. In which case
the Potter's house could be found, but the Potters 
themselves could never be found in it. We don't actually
know for sure how it worked.

> Inge:
> Now, an example.
> Say Harry tells someone - Justin; just to give a name
> - where to find Grimmauld Place. That wouldn't work for
> Justin, since Harry is not the Secret Keeper of  
> Grimmauld Place.
>

bboyminn:

Just basing this on my interpretation of what we know
about the Secret Keeper Charm, no one but the Secret 
Keeper is able to speak the name of the place. Even if
you can think it, the words get lost on their way to you
mouth. Snape says as much in the 'Spinners End' chapter
of the latest book. He says he is unable to speak the 
name.

So, if that is true, then it is impossible for Harry to 
speak the name of Grimmauld Place to anyone who is not
already in on the secret. By extension, he can't speak
the name to Justin.

> Inge:
> Now - what if Justin polyjuices himself into Harry and
> *then* tries to locate Grimmauld Place - would that 
> work? For Justin to locate the place?
> 
> Just wondered.....
> 
> Inge

bboyminn:

I don't think the magic can be fooled that easily. It 
doesn't matter what anyone looks like when they approach
the house, what matters is who they and what they already
know. Harry already knows the secret, so regardless of
disguise or Polyjuice potion, he knows what he knows. 
Justin, in your example, regardless of what he looks like
still doesn't know the secret, and what he knows carries
more weight than how he looks.

Note that the Map isn't fooled by Polyjuice. It shows who
the person is regardless of how they look. That, the Map,
seems like mild magic compared to the Secret Keeper Charm,
so I can't see the Secret Keeper Charm being fooled.

This brings up something I speculated on before, and just
recently. Using your example, could Harry not tell Justin
about #12 Grimmauld Place, but tell him about Grimmauld 
Square, the small park-like area just outside of Grimmauld
Place. Further could Harry tell Justin to meet him there,
and then escort Justin inside #12 Grimmauld Place?

Some didn't think that was possible, but I can't see any
reason why not. Even if Justin did realize where the 
Black House was, he couldn't tell anyone and he couldn't
find it again by himself. Though, could he, as Harry did,
tell people about Grimmauld Square? I really don't know.

Steve/bboyminn




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 27 19:28:51 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:28:51 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE? (LONG)
In-Reply-To: <eketd0+8alg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfe9j+id1h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162039

Ceridwen:
Just to mention, I think Regulas is dead.  If there was another heir 
to the Black estate, whatever magic was involved in the legal 
documents would have picked up on that, I believe.  The story never 
actually says that the next heir must be a Black unless no Blacks are 
left, but there is implication in Dumbledore's concern that this is 
the case.

I could be wrong.  It would be nice to hear from someone else in the 
Marauders' generation.  And as little brothers will, I'm sure he 
could dish some pretty interesting things about Sirius.  :)

Carol in teaching mode:
> ...main clause, ...subordinate clause ...subordinate clause ...main 
clause ...modifies ..."So" ..."consequently" ..."therefore" ...subordi
nating conjunction modifies the subordinate clause ...

Ceridwen:
Oy, Carol, my English teacher only cares if we use MLA citation 
properly!  I don't think he cares about spelling, useage, 
apostrophes, etc.  I think my brain is busted!  (But, loved it!  
Thanks!)

Ceridwen.




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Mon Nov 27 19:56:17 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:56:17 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekfcng+rld2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfft1+e8s2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162040

a_svirn:
> And since when slave-holders have responsibilities to or for their 
> slaves? Slavery is a one-sided deal: slaves have all the 
> responsibilities, while owners have all the rights. The Harry-
> Kreacher situation being no exception. 

Ceridwen:
I thought it was odd that Harry inherited a slave/house elf, too.  I 
really didn't see JKR going there.

But, the situation exists.  Harry, without asking for it, got 
Kreacher willed to him.  He now has one of two options: give Kreacher 
clothes, or not give him clothes.

If he gives him clothes, Kreacher could, perhaps would, go straight 
to Narcissa or Bellatrix.  The repercussions of this could be far-
reaching, and a disaster for Harry, the Order members, and the WW.  
Kreacher knows too much about Order business and Order methods.  He 
knows who is in the Order.  He could spot Order members who were 
trying to sneak up on his chosen masters, or who were attempting to 
eavesdrop on them.  He knows who does what.  Kreacher's leaving 
Harry's ownership is not a good idea.

If Harry doesn't give Kreacher clothes, he does have a responsibility 
to him.  Kreacher is dependent on his owner for basic needs like 
housing and food.  Whether it is a legal obligation or just a moral 
one, Harry has a duty toward Kreacher as his dependent.

For real life slavery, there were certainly places where it was 
cheaper just to work a slave to death and buy a new one.  The 
Carribean islands where slaves were unloaded and put for sale was one 
place, going back many years to a history course I once took.  But 
the farther from the initial purchase point, as profits were added in 
through each subsequent sale, it became cheaper to properly house and 
feed slaves and see to their other needs.

House elves bring another layer of responsibility to their owners.  
Elves' natures, whether charmed or inborn, mean they want to serve 
wizards and witches.  They fear freedom, from what I get from the 
books.  They wouldn't know how to manage for themselves, particularly 
with some compelling force making them want to work, work, work.  The 
nature of elves, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be an 
employment agency renting them out for catered affairs and temporary 
work - I don't count the relocation office, that seems to just send 
elves to a new master's household - means that the owners are more 
than just owners, they are the responsible parties for all of their 
elves' needs.  If wizards really want to do something constructive 
for the future of elves, they will have to address the fear of 
freedom, and the lack of some sort of employment that will not send 
elves from one place of slavery to another.

I agree with Steve, it isn't the elves that need to be fixed, it's 
the attitude and vision of the Wizarding World.

Ceridwen.




From rebeccahillary82 at aol.com  Mon Nov 27 17:33:38 2006
From: rebeccahillary82 at aol.com (Rebecca Hillary)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:33:38 -0000
Subject: What if Regulus is ALIVE?
In-Reply-To: <ekeulf+ubug@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekf7hi+19na@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162041

Magpie:
> Since Regulus has already been introduced as dead in canon, it seems
> normal to just shoot down the Stubby is Regulus theory.

Funnily enough, due to my refusal to believe that Snape is evil, I'm
more inclined to believe that Regulus is also alive, is not a Death
Eater, but was the 'large, blonde Death Eater' who was following Snape
and Malfoy out of the castle at the end of HBP. Snape and Regulus are
taking Malfoy into hiding and Dumbledore's not dead! And I think that
it was Regulus who got the real horcrux, but not as long ago as we are
being led to believe.

Beci




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 21:20:09 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:20:09 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekfft1+e8s2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfkq9+d5jo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162042

> Ceridwen:
> I thought it was odd that Harry inherited a slave/house elf, too.  
I 
> really didn't see JKR going there.
> 
> But, the situation exists.  Harry, without asking for it, got 
> Kreacher willed to him.  He now has one of two options: give 
Kreacher 
> clothes, or not give him clothes.

a_svirn:
That's not the issue under the discussion. Naturally, Harry can't set 
Kreacher free just yet. But must he use his power over him to force 
him spy for someone he'd rather serve? Must he treat him like a 
slave, rather than like a prisoner?

> Ceridwen:
> If Harry doesn't give Kreacher clothes, he does have a 
responsibility 
> to him.  Kreacher is dependent on his owner for basic needs like 
> housing and food.  Whether it is a legal obligation or just a moral 
> one, Harry has a duty toward Kreacher as his dependent.

a_svirn:
Well, we don't see him fulfilling that moral responsibility. Nor, in 
all honesty, is he called for to fulfill it. House-elves seem to have 
their own ways of finding food. Housing, yes, that's a really 
sensitive issue. But since Harry himself is housed in Hogwarts the 
point is moot. And by the time Harry has his own household (if he 
lives long enough) he'll be able to set Kreacher free. 

> Ceridwen: 
> House elves bring another layer of responsibility to their owners.  
> Elves' natures, whether charmed or inborn, mean they want to serve 
> wizards and witches.  

a_svirn:
That's rather crucial distinction, though. If it is charmed, and we 
know it is ? we've been told so, the fist responsibility of a decent 
wizard is to free them from those charms. 

> Ceridwen: 
They fear freedom, from what I get from the 
> books.  

a_svirn:
So what? Human slaves are also known to fear freedom. That's what 
slavery does to a person ? cripple them mentally. Especially if the 
said person was born in slavery and doesn't know the difference. 

> Ceridwen:
They wouldn't know how to manage for themselves, particularly 
> with some compelling force making them want to work, work, work. 

a_svirn:
Dobby can manage for himself. So does Kreacher. And I didn't notice 
how Kreacher is being compelled to "work, work, work". Rather the 
opposite. In fact, even Winky doesn't seem to be compelled to "work, 
work, work". 

> Ceridwen:
 The 
> nature of elves, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be an 
> employment agency renting them out for catered affairs and 
temporary 
> work - I don't count the relocation office, that seems to just send 
> elves to a new master's household - means that the owners are more 
> than just owners, they are the responsible parties for all of their 
> elves' needs.  

a_svirn:
On the contrary, it means that owners are exactly what they are ? 
owners. They sell and by elves as if they were livestock, or used 
cars. And what's wrong with their nature? They seem to have all the 
emotions humans have. You don't think that Wooster has a right to 
*own* Jeeves just because Jeeves wants to serve Wooster? 

> Ceridwen:
If wizards really want to do something constructive 
> for the future of elves, they will have to address the fear of 
> freedom, and the lack of some sort of employment that will not send 
> elves from one place of slavery to another.

a_svirn:
Which means they have to set them free. How does one address fear of 
freedom? The only way to fight fear, any fear is to offer security. 
If wizards replaced the elves relocation office with the elves social 
well-fair office, I think elves would fear freedom less. 




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 21:51:10 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:51:10 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekfd6d+5gqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfmke+ddgo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162043

Neri wrote:
> Heroes and Heroines of fiction books are generally not required to 
> demonstrate reading fiction on page, unless the specific work of 
> fiction has direct bearing on the plot. It appears that *being* in 
> novels excuses you from *reading* them. I mean, just think of any 
> favorite fictional heroes of you and try to remember what fiction 
> they ever read. Rare exceptions to this rule seem to be romantic 
> heroines of good breeding that have to appear refined, and/or 
> destitute heroines that dream of achieving renown through becoming 
> novelists themselves. Since both Harry and Hermione don't fit into 
> these categories, I really don't feel that not reading any fiction
on page should be counted against them.

Carol responds:
I seem to recall David Copperfield, Jane Eyre, and the four heroines
of "Little Women" all taking great pleasure in reading and/or being
read to. (Jo March also wrote rather trashy, melodramatic novels,
comparable to some of the fanfic we see these days.) Maybe the
behavior of child heroes and heroines has changed since the invention
of television and movies, and especially of computers and video games,
but being in a novel certainly didn't excuse nineteenth-century hereos
and heroines from reading them.

It would be interesting, IMO, to see Harry reading for pleasure before
he entered Hogwarts, but we don't even learn the titles of the books
on Dudley's untouched bookshelves, and once Harry does start reading,
it's only his school books (and books on Quidditch and we can safely
assume that he's read FBAWTFT). He doesn't need fiction; he has the
world of the WW open to him--a fantasy world come true, but by no
means a utopia or a paradise. And he actually takes the HBP's Potions
book to bed with him and views it as a friend, not as a schoolbook, a
remarkable development in itself. 

Hermione reads for information, not entertainment, but she's
incessantly reading. And Ron? A series of comic books: "The Adventures
of Martin Miggs, the Mad Muggle." (Probably he also reads books on
Quidditch, and I seem to recall his studying "Which Broomstick" rather
assiduously when he actually had the prospect of getting a new one.
Granted, that seems to be a catalogue or magazine, but it's still a
forme of reading for pleasure.) Mrs. Weasley reads Lockhart's books
(and actually finds his household hints useful). The books must be
popular since Lockhart, at least until CoS, is a celebrity. And at
Slughorn's party, a celebrated author wants to write Harry's
biography, which also hints at the tastes of the WW reading public
(other than the readers of the Daily Prophet, the Quibbler, and Witch
Weekly, all of which at least some Hogwarts students subscribe to). 

It seems that people in the WW do read (though not much fiction--I
doubt that Snape' vast collection of leather-bound books contains any
novels), and the books (or comic books) they choose to read tell us a
great deal about them. IMO, the absence of works of fiction when
virtually every other kind of book, from cookbooks and how-to books to
books on self-defense and the WW's one sport (and history and spells
and potions and astronomy and magical creatures) is available, reveals
as much about the WW as it does about the characters. Maybe the Muggle
world is their fantasy world, but they know too little about it to
make it worthy of anything more complex than a comic book. (Muggle
studies consists of electrical diagrams and the physics of lifting
heavy objects without a wand. What a tragic misunderstanding that
creates!) Possibly the Quibbler could count as fiction (though it's
not intended to be), and on another level, so could the adventures of
Gilderoy Lockhart. But novels per se don't seem to be available
outside the Muggle world.

Now the question is, would Harry, left alone in his room at the
Dursleys with his spell books locked up, choose to read any of those
Muggle books that Dudley has never touched? If he doesn't, it may not
be because he has no interest in reading. It could simply be that he's
lost touch with, and interest in, the Muggle world, including Muggle
fiction.

Carol, thinking that Luna, if she survives, could write some
delightful fantasy books about heliopaths and blibbering humdingers
for WW children




From ladymela99 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 18:37:07 2006
From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:37:07 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Lily Evans Potter
In-Reply-To: <ek9udl+o6js@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061127183707.4361.qmail@web33207.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162044

lp wrote:
  JKR did state in one of her interview that Petunia was not 
a squib - "she is not a squib, although that is a very good 
guess." I'm more inclined to believe that one of their 
parents came from a magical family. Perhaps her mother was 
a squib. Didn't Petunia say that her mother "was so proud 
to have a witch in the family."

   
Melanie's reply :
   
  She said that but I don't see the parents (especially if they aren't magical themselves even if they came from a magical family) jumping up and down "We have a witch in he family...yay!"  I think that it was merely Petunia's jealousy that sparked her to say such things.  She didn't like the fact that there was something special about Lily.  It made her upset.  She felt that Lily was always the favorite and this just put the nail in the coffin so to speak.
   
   
   

 



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 22:16:19 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:16:19 -0000
Subject: Why does DD trust Snape? (Re: Snapes Behaviour and Legimens)
In-Reply-To: <ek73m9+ar87@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfo3j+7als@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162045

Chris:
 
> I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death, but I have searched 
for
> a recent thread on Snape's loyalty and haven't found one so I'd like
> to start a fresh discussion using some bits of information from the
> aforementioned interview.

zgirnius:
Indeed it has. If you go back to post 132908 and onwards, the very 
first post after the list reopened post-HBP release had SNape in the 
thread title. (One of many, many such posts...)

Not that I object to discussing it again, but you might find it 
interesting to look back at some of 'em.

Chris:
>  When she dies, Snape is exceptionally remorseful and
> approaches DD to redeem himself.  DD is convinced of Snapes 
affection
> for Lily and for this reason chooses to believe Snape is DDM.

zgirnius:
I mostly agree with you, about Snape, Dumbledore, and Lily, except 
for this rather important detail. I think Snape became Dumbledore's 
spy during the first war, well before Voldemort killed the Potters. 
(My ownb guess is about a year before). Dumbledore does not state 
Snape felt remorse over Lily's death, but over *Voldemort's 
interpretation of the prophecy*. In GoF, Dumbledore clearly states 
(in the Pensieve memory of Karkaroff's hearing) his opinion that 
Snape spied on Voldemort "at great personal risk".

I think Snape approached Dumbledore with news of Voldemort's plans to 
kill the Potters before they were dead, in an attempt (ultimately 
doomed by Peter's betrayal) to protect them.







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 22:39:24 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:39:24 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie
In-Reply-To: <ekdmnu+76ea@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfpes+coc4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162046

> >>Betsy HP:
> > <snip>
> > But here's the thing.  *Harry never cracks a book either*!!  For 
> > some reason that tickled me.  I picture Harry being all "stupid   
> > lump never reads," while he carefully avoides the crowded        
> > bookshelf himself. 
> > <bg> <SNIP>

> >>Potioncat:
> > I'm not sure if I've simply projected onto Harry. I don't think I 
> > can quote too much canon here, but I don't think you're entirely 
> > correct. <g> For some reason I seem to think Harry had read those 
> > books himself. Maybe I only think so because I would have.
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> I will quote some for you dear :)  
> "He had looked through his books at the Dursleys', but did Snape 
> expect him to remember everything in One Thousand Magical Herbs and 
> Fungi?" - ch.8 "The potions master"
> Oh, and of course we have that book that Snape confiscates from 
> Harry, when he is reading outside ( heee, cannot find that quote).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I'm specifically talking about those books that have never been 
touched.  I imagine they're along the lines of "Kidnapped!" 
and "Treasure Island" and books of those ilk.  Strictly the sort of 
fiction someone would pick up for a young boy as a gift.  And as far 
as canon show us, Harry never touches them either.

Harry does read for information (it was a quidditch book that Snape 
most properly confiscated <g>), but he doesn't read fiction simply 
for the pleasure of reading.  None of JKR's characters do.  (Except 
for possibly Snape whose bookshelf may well include Muggle literature 
from his dad's side of the family.)

This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It's a bit odd, because that's 
usually a quick and easy way for an author to get the reader on his 
or her protaganist's side, with the assumption that a reader will 
feel a kinship with another reader.  But something JKR has done (and 
should feel quite good about, I think) is to attract a lot of 
children who weren't readers themselves.  So maybe the thought was 
that they'd feel more of a kinship to a boy who *isn't* curling up 
with a good book as an escape from his dreadful family.

> >>Neri:
> > Heroes and Heroines of fiction books are generally not required to
> > demonstrate reading fiction on page, unless the specific work of
> > fiction has direct bearing on the plot.
> > <snip>

> >>Carol:
> I seem to recall David Copperfield, Jane Eyre, and the four heroines
> of "Little Women" all taking great pleasure in reading and/or being
> read to. (Jo March also wrote rather trashy, melodramatic novels,
> comparable to some of the fanfic we see these days.) Maybe the
> behavior of child heroes and heroines has changed since the        
> invention of television and movies, and especially of computers and 
> video games, but being in a novel certainly didn't excuse          
> nineteenth-century hereos and heroines from reading them.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I seem to recall that most if not all of the main 
characters in the books I read growing up were readers.  We weren't 
necessarily told what books they were reading, but the author would 
mention that they enjoyed that sort of activity.  (A recent book I've 
read "The Little Friend" by Donna Tartt even shows her protaganist 
getting very fierce about winning her local library's summer reading 
contest.)  So the trend has continued into this century, even with 
the video games (and the rock and/or roll music <beg>).

> >>Carol:
> It seems that people in the WW do read (though not much fiction...
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
IIRC JKR stated in an interview that there are no fiction authors in 
the WW.  (I believe she said something about having to write charms 
instruction books if she lived there.)  Yet another example of the 
bleakness of the WW.

(I snipped your thing about Snape not reading fiction because as 
Potioncat did with Harry, I totally project reader!Snape onto that 
character. I will not be denied! <g>)

Betsy Hp




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Nov 27 22:51:31 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:51:31 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekfft1+e8s2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfq5j+sp08@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162047

a_svirn wrote:
> > And since when slave-holders have responsibilities to or for their
slaves? Slavery is a one-sided deal: slaves have all the
responsibilities, while owners have all the rights. The Harry-Kreacher
situation being no exception. 
> 
Ceridwen responded:
> I thought it was odd that Harry inherited a slave/house elf, too.  I 
> really didn't see JKR going there.
> 
> But, the situation exists.  Harry, without asking for it, got 
> Kreacher willed to him.  He now has one of two options: give
Kreacher clothes, or not give him clothes. <snip>
>
> If Harry doesn't give Kreacher clothes, he does have a
responsibility to him.  Kreacher is dependent on his owner for basic
needs like housing and food.  Whether it is a legal obligation or just
a moral one, Harry has a duty toward Kreacher as his dependent.
<snip>
> 
> House elves bring another layer of responsibility to their owners.  
> Elves' natures, whether charmed or inborn, mean they want to serve 
> wizards and witches.  They fear freedom, from what I get from the 
> books.  <snip>

Carol adds:
I agree, and I think a-svirn has conceded the fear of freedom in
another post. It seems to be the word "responsibility" that's causing
problems here. You and I are viewing it as a moral obligation,
noblesse oblige, to provide decent living conditions and humane
treatment to a dependent. A-svirn seems to be viewing "responsibility"
as synonymous with "duty."

Kreacher has very few duties or obligations in HBP. In fact, if
there's any truth in the proverb "the devil finds work for idle hands
to do," then he's in a position to do mischief if he isn't being
watched and/or kept busy. besides, House-Elves in general like work.
Kreacher might even find that he enjoys being kept busy (though as I
said earlier, I'm pretty sure that the Hogwarts Elves don't want
anything so filthy helping them in the kitchen). Everyone needs to
feel useful. Everyone needs to feel that he belongs. that includes
House-Elves, as we see with poor Winky.

At any rate, in a normal House-Elf/Wizard relationship, the House-Elf
has duties to perform and his owner has the responsibilities that go
along with a position of power over other sentient beings. Think of
the owner of a corporation or the principal of a school or a medieval
king. Each has a moral obligation to treat his subordinates well.
Harry, having inherited a House-Elf whom he cannot safely free, has
inherited that responsibility. He "fulfills" it primarily by dumping
it onto Dumbledore, who is now responsible for seeing that Kreacher is
humanely treated, and Dobby, who is now responsible for seeing that
Kreacher doesn't get into mischief.

That's the kind of responsibility I'm talking about. A parent, a pet
owner, an employer, anyone who's in a superior or supervisiory
position to another person or being has that obligation. Not to
exercise that responsibility is to abuse one's power, as the Malfoys
did, or to disregard the obligation to treat inferiors humanely, as
Sirius Black did.

Obviously, slavery is a great evil, but it can be ameliorated. It need
not involve whips and threats and ironed hands. Where slavery exists,
the responsibility is not, or should not, be all on the slave's side.
The master has an obligation as a human being with power over others
to use that power wisely and humanely. Not to do so is to be a tyrant,
nota master. If slavery can't be ended because of more pressing
matters, such as Voldemort's return, the only humane option is to make
it as bearable as possible, a necessary and temporary evil (like a
benevolent dictatorship) in preference to a greater evil (like
anarchy). It would be better, obviously, to eliminate slavery
altogether, or at least for individual wizards to avoid owning slaves.
Unfortunately, that option is not available either to Harry in HBP or
to Sirius Black in OoP. Both of them are stuck with Kreacher, and
their treatment of him is an index of their humanity, as Petunia's
treatment of Harry, who is her dependent and inferior to her in age
and status (and while Harry is small, in strength), is an index of
hers. Harry has not followed Petunia's example by *abusing* Kreacher,
 but he has yet to learn not to follow Sirius's example in neglecting him.

Harry was too angry and grief-stricken at the end of OoP to heed
Dumbledore's words regarding Sirius's treatment of Kreacher. Here's
hoping he'll remember them and act on them in Book 7.

Carol, simply arguing that if Harry *must* be a slave owner, he ought
to be a responsible one





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Nov 27 23:16:01 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:16:01 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie
In-Reply-To: <ekevhc+sjcl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekfrjh+89m8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162048

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > Potioncat:
> > 
> > OK, so he doesn't read as much as Hermione or me, but he reads more 
> > than some teenagers I know. So, if Hermione is at one extreme and 
> > Dudley on the other, Harry would be somewhere in the middle.
> > 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Actually, Hermione only reads the study-related stuff, or 
> maybe "culture"-related (to acquaint herself with the WW customs and 
> ways). We never see her reading anything for fun. Rowling even made a 
> point to show Hermione calling some dusty folio her "bedside reading". 

Geoff:
Correct me if I'm wrong [I'm sure you will :-)] but, being pedantic,  isn't 
this the instance where Hermione refers to light reading?

'"Stay there!" she said and she sprinted up the stairs to the girls' dormitories. 
Harry and Ron barely had time to exchange mystified looks before she 
was dashing back, an enormous old book in her arms.
"I never though to look in here!" she whispered excitedly. "I got this out of 
the library weeks ago for a bit of light reading."'
(PS "Nicolas Flamel" pp.160-61 UK edition)




From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com  Tue Nov 28 00:31:53 2006
From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:31:53 -0000
Subject: Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <ekcrgt+at0k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekg01p+pgk3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162049

CV, who has been out of the HP loop for a very, very long time, hears 
the magic word "Quirrell" and rises from her self-imposed coma in 
Quirrell Corner.

<big snip>

> 
> Sarah:
> > Harry already killed Quirrell, didn't he?  It could be argued that
> Quirrell self-bubbled by touching Harry, or that it was accidental, 
or
> a side effect, but the bottom line is that Harry laid hands on
> Quirrell and Quirell died.  If this didn't divide Harry's soul, then
> he should have plenty of options for Voldemort.
> 
> Carol:
> Erm, no. As I said, offlist, it's only in the film that Harry kills
> Quirrell. In SS/PS, Harry falls unconscious before Quirrell dies.
> Dumbledore tells Harry that he "arrived just in time to pull 
Quirrell
> off [him]" and that Voldemort "left Quirrell to die" (SS Am. ed. 297
> and 298). And in GoF, Voldemort reiterates this version of events 
when
> he tells the DEs that "the servant [Quirrell] died when I left his
> body" (Am. ed. 654). Better still, JKR confirms the accuracy of 
these
> statements in her answer to a question on Thestrals in the 2004
> Edinburgh Book festival interview: "Someone said that Harry saw
> Quirrell die, but that is not true. He was unconscious when Quirrell
> died, in Philosopher's Stone. He did not know until he came around
> that Quirrell had died when Voldemort left his body." Someone said
> that Harry saw Quirrell die, but that is not true. He was 
unconscious
> when Quirrell died, in Philosopher's Stone. He did not know until he
> came around that Quirrell had died when Voldemort left his body."
> 
> http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm
> 
> So, no, Harry hasn't killed anybody, even in self-defense, and
> Quirrell's death had no effect whatever on his soul. (IMO, it was 
the
> DADA curse, in combination with his own character flaws, that killed
> Quirrell. See my post, "The DADA jinx and its victims"
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/
137961?threaded=1&l=1
> 

OK. As old-timers here know, Quirrell is my favorite character. He 
represents the rape and abuse victim class in the series. He was a 
wide-eyed innocent when he left Hogwarts to improve his skills. He 
was seduced by a charismatic character who enters Quirrell's body 
against his will. This is a classic rape metaphor. Quirrell's 
personality then changes - he dressed differently - he stammers - he 
has body tics - he is frightened by everything. We hear him weeping 
in private. Some of those mannerisms were affected, but there is no 
doubt that the weeping in private is real. I think that the other 
mannerisms are probably more real than affected as well. I believe a 
lot of the forcefulness in the dungeon was bravado.

In every way, he behaves as an abused spouse. He is forced to do 
things against his will. He apparently has no friends or confidents.

At the time JKR was writing the first book of the series, she was 
also a recovering victim of spousal abuse. Intentional or not, 
Quirrell is her mirror at the time. 

We readers are accomplices in this. We are given a character who is 
quite obviously in a state of distress and we are not empathetic. We 
even allow her to kill him off in cold blood without looking back. 

For this reason, I have real difficulty believing that we have heard 
the end of the stuttering professor.

There are a couple of problems with his supposed death. First, 
Dumbledore never says that Quirrell actually died. As Carol points 
out above, he only says that Voldemort left him to die. Why would 
Quirrell be in a terminal condition? He has a double-dose of unicorn 
blood in him which "will keep you alive if you are a breath from 
death". Furthermore, Voldy says that when he inhabits animals, they 
die because their bodies are not suited for magic. But Quirrell's 
body is well-suited for magic. Finally, the one key to physical 
recovery, even after the unicorn blood is the Stone, which is right 
there in the room with them. He was certainly damaged by having Harry 
touch him, but is that a fatal blow?

There is no proof in the book at all that Quirrell didn't survive the 
dungeon. We have only the JKR quote above (http://www.accio-quote.org/
articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm) to indicate that Quirrell is dead. 

"He did not know until he came around that Quirrell had died when 
Voldemort left his body." 

I don't know. I just have a problem with that. First of all, it isn't 
true. Harry did not know in the hospital wing that Quirrell died when 
Voldy left his body. At best, he knows that Quirrell died AND Voldy 
left his body. There is no way for Harry to put the two issues 
together at this point in his education. Plus, we have an example of 
Voldy leaving a body and the body not dying - I refer to Harry's 
possession in the Ministry.

And then there is Dumbledore's statement that he NEVER was able to 
keep a DADA teacher after the curse. But that is also demonstrably 
wrong related to Quirrell. Was Dumbledore mistaken? Is it a flint? Or 
is Dumbledore and JKR covering up something important for the 
climactic battle?

Finally, could JKR, in one bold stroke, kill off the most pitiful 
character in the series - the one who represents herself at her 
lowest?

I'm just not sure. But I'm liking the idea that Quirrell is alive 
more and more.

~ CV, glad to be back.




From coriolan at worldnet.att.net  Tue Nov 28 01:26:25 2006
From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:26:25 -0000
Subject: FILK: Slughorn Guy
Message-ID: <ekg381+s3uq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162050


Slughorn Guy (HPB, Chap 17-18)

To the tune of Witch Doctor 

The 1958 novelty hit by Ross Bagdasarian (a.k.a. David Seville, of 
Alvin & The Chipmunks fame)

You can get the music on this You-tube video (ignore the visuals). I 
can't find the original ? this is a performance by Ray Stevens that 
doesn't follow my text exactly, but it's close enough

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdycQQWQTIU&mode=related&search= 

THE SCENE: The Pensieve, as HARRY & DUMBLEDORE witness SLUGHORN'S 
altered memory. 

SLUGHORN: (through a dense fog)
Hey, no way Jose bing bang
I don't know a thing thang
Oh shux jus' my lux
No know know-a no-a Horcrux
etc.

DUMBLEDORE:
You see the Slughorn guy 
With Riddle at his side
I think the Slughorn guy 
Of Horcrux did confide
But now that Slughorn guy 
This memory denied
Foe he says:

SLUGHORN: (through a dense fog)
Hey, no way Jose bing bang
I don't know a thing thang
Oh shux jus' my lux
No know know-a no-a Horcrux
etc.

DUMBLEDORE:
We see that Slughorn guy 
Talk to that Riddle bloke
It seems the Slughorn guy 
Now claims that he misspoke
And then the Slughorn guy 
He vanished into smoke
While saying
..

SLUGHORN: (through a dense fog)
Hey, no way Jose bing bang
I don't know a thing thang
Oh shux  jus' my lux
No know know-a no-a Horcrux, 
etc.

DUMBLEDORE:
See how Slughorn's memory 
Has clumsily been altered
He's done a deed he's wanting to keep hid
I'll send you out with this homework
And here you musn't falter:
To you he'll spill the beans, you're Lily's kid!

HARRY
My friend the Dumble says
I musn't be afraid
My friend the Dumble says
I must Slughorn persuade
But when I went to him
By tongue I was betrayed
I just went:

Hey, Slug, chug-a-lug, tisk task
Lemme lemme ask ask?
Oh shux chuck-a-lucks
So tell tell me tell me Horcrux 
Hey, Slug, chug-a-lug, tisk task
..
etc.

(SLUGHORN flees from HARRY as the music fades out)

    -	CMC

HARRY POTTER FILKS
http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm





From phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net  Tue Nov 28 00:53:40 2006
From: phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net (Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:53:40 -0000
Subject: A couple of little theories!
In-Reply-To: <ekf4ko+916p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekg1ak+tph4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162051

Rebecca:
> First of all, in GoF;c33 Voldemort says that his most faithful
> servant has already entered his service, is at Hogwarts and it was
> through his efforts that Harry was in the graveyard at all. So
> it's Snape? That's what you think reading that. Yet in GoF;c35
> Barty Crouch Jr says that he was the one who did everything. This
> is under the influence of the Veritaserum, so it has to be true.
> Yet Snape is in the room while Barty takes said truth serum, and
> it is always possible that Snape (who is quite capable of casting
> spells wordlessly) could have had him under the Imperius curse,
> couldn't he? Well, no, because Snape wasn't in the room
> when 'Moody' told Harry  he was the one who put Harry's name in
> under a different school, that he gave him the clues, and turned
> the cup into a portkey.
<snip>
> Secondly, I have no idea why this hit me the other night while re-
> reading GoF, but I was just struck by an amazingly scary thought.
> We know that Wormtail owes Harry a life debt, and there are some
> fans who would suggest that Snape also does, through his previous
> life-deat to James Potter, but we must also remember that through
> Voldemort choosing Harry as the child in the prophecy, Harry
> inadvertently spared the life of someone else. Someone who, it
> could maybe be said, Harry loves. One of his closest friends. The
> one with whom he shared a terrible secret for at least a year -
> Neville Longbottom. We know that Neville is not the brightest of
> students, and he says himself he is little more that a squib. From
> the way the prophecy sounds, the child in the prophecy has to die
> to kill Voldemort. <snip>

Hi (here's another long post):

I believe that Snape is a true member of the Order of the Phoenix and loyal to Dumbledore.  My reason is simple - - Snape worked closely with Dumbledore for at least 15 years at the end of HBP (he told Umbridge that he had worked at Hogwarts for 14 years).  I believe that Dumbledore would know if someone that he worked closely with was willingly on Voldy's side.  (Would Harry have taken Occlumency from Snape if Dumbledore knew he worked for Voldemort?)  But Snape is not a good guy.  He is blatant in showing preferential treatment to those in his house; while Harry, Neville, Hermione and Ron can do no right and are continuously mistreated by him.  We know this behavior began before Harry arrived at Hogwarts because George and Fred remarked on it during the start of term feast.

Now on to the subject of whether Harry will kill Voldemort and/or die himself.  The HP series was originally intended for kids (though we adults love it with good reason).  Also, the plot for all seven books was outlined before the first book was written.  I don't believe that JKR would write books for children in which the hero (a child) after overcoming more trials than an adult can imagine would end by killing someone and then dying.  Why overcome the obstacles if you don't live happily ever after?  Therefore, I think that Harry will survive; that he and Ginny will marry and live happily ever after.

Voldemort is afraid of death; in OOP Dumbledore tells Voldemort that
they both know there are things that are worse than death.  In PoA we learn about the Dementor's kiss which is described as resulting in a vegetative state that's described as "worse than death".  I believe that Harry will somehow cause the dementors to kiss Voldemort.  Since Voldy will not have the powerful happy memories to draw upon; he will not be able to produce a patronus to ward off them off.  Hence Harry will defeat Voldemort without killing him.

Phyllis






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 01:41:31 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:41:31 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves ... Oaths and Honor
In-Reply-To: <ekfcso+nm3k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekg44b+cmpl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162052

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > <HUGE SNIP>
> >> What I conceive them wanting is fair and reasonable
> > treatment. I speculate that if House-Elves were freed
> > the way slaves were freed; just a slaves, they would
> > soon find themselves back in the same situation they
> > were in before they were freed. They would be back 
> > doing what they truly like to do, which is serving 
> > and caring for humans. And much like human slaves who
> > were freed, they would continue to be taken advantage
> > of.
> <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Okay, I am just trying to figure out where you are 
> coming from, so basically I just want to know why are 
> you so convinced that elves truly like serving humans.
> Are you just discarding the existance of enchantment 
> on them? Do you think it is a lie and house elves are
> not enchanted, ....
> 
> ... but don't you think that we canot know yet whether
> they truly like serving till enchantment is lifted ...
> 
> Alla
>

bboyminn:

First, I realized that I may have phrased my original
statement oddly, I did not mean to imply that Human
Slaves '..would be back doing what they truly like 
to do,...'. That refers exclusively to Elves. You
seem to have taken it correctly, but in case someone
didn't I wanted to clear that up.

As to house-elf enchantments, I believe the statement
in question was made by Dobby when he referred to 
being 'bound by the enchantment of our kind'. 

Now rolling back the Time Turner to my previous, 
distant, and exceptionally long and speculative rant on
house-elves. Note Dobby refers to the 'enchantments of
OUR kind', not the enchantments PLACED ON our kind. That
lead me to speculate that the 'magic' that bind a house-
elf to his master comes from the Elves themselves. And
in my speculative view, that binding is the binding of
an oath and fierce Elfin Honor. When an elf makes a 
commitment, he/she takes it very seriously, gravely
serious. An Elf would sooner die than break his oath of
commitment, or to dishonor the oath of commitment made
by his ancestors. So, fierce Elfin Honor, and a deep 
and abiding respect for their history is what binds as
elf in place.

So, in reality (speculative reality that is) an elf can 
walk away anytime they want. What is a wizard going to
do about it? Wizards certainly have exploited Elfin 
Honor, they have even twisted it over the centuries to
given themselves the impression of more, near absolute,
power. But in reality, whether abused, mistreated, or 
killed; the elves don't care, they would sooner honor 
their commitment in misery and death than to disgrace 
their ancestors and their race. 

So, in my view, to break the enchantments, we simply 
have to convince Elves that they have the power to 
be masters of their own destiny.

Three examples -

Dobby is not necessarily rebelling against Lucius Malfoy,
he is rebelling against his own ill treatment, and 
against a plot to harm Harry Potter, the one selfless
person who has made the lot of the Elves better. Further
what is the first thing this rebel does when he is freed?
He seeks new employment in the form of a new family to 
serve. Greedy wizards don't want to set a precident that
weakens their power over elves, so they are certainly not
willing to pay for what they can get for free.

Next, take a faithful companion like a Dog; just an 
ordinary dog. Out of loyalty and faithfulness to his
master, a dog will run himself to death if his master
takes him out for a jog on a hot day. That dog will never
stop and say (as dogs do) 'I want/need to rest'. 

So, loyalty and faithfulness are enough to drive a 
creature to extremes, even to death rather than seem to
betray their master. Though, I hardly think we consider
dogs to be slaves. 

NO, I definitely can't prove this, not from direct canon,
but I think my conclusions, regardless of whether they are
accurate or not, are reasonably drawn from the canon 
subtext.

Finally, taking the assorted 'worker'-elf myths in general
indicates that what these 'worker' elves do what they do 
voluntarily. That is not exactly how JKR drew them in 
her books, but she certainly /drew on/ the heart of the
legends to create her own variety.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn




From jnferr at gmail.com  Tue Nov 28 01:53:50 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 19:53:50 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A couple of little theories!
In-Reply-To: <ekg1ak+tph4@eGroups.com>
References: <ekf4ko+916p@eGroups.com> <ekg1ak+tph4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611271753q206ae83cyc0f2c42b6b00927f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162053

Phyllis :

Voldemort is afraid of death; in OOP Dumbledore tells Voldemort that
they both know there are things that are worse than death.  In PoA we learn
about the Dementor's kiss which is described as resulting in a vegetative
state that's described as "worse than death".  I believe that Harry will
somehow cause the dementors to kiss Voldemort.  Since Voldy will not have
the powerful happy memories to draw upon; he will not be able to produce a
patronus to ward off them off.  Hence Harry will defeat Voldemort without
killing him.

montims:
I just had a thought regarding this - as LV's soul has been split and
encased so many times, would the Dementors even be able to detect what
remains in his body?  We know that when Sirius escaped into his dog form,
they weren't so aware of him...  Besides which, Harry had better be sure he
has destroyed all the horcruxes before setting Dementors on LV, as otherwise
we will be back to square 1...


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




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 01:52:38 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:52:38 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekfq5j+sp08@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekg4p6+em42@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162054

> >>Ceridwen responded:
> > <snip>
> > But, the situation exists.  Harry, without asking for it, got 
> > Kreacher willed to him.  He now has one of two options: give
> > Kreacher clothes, or not give him clothes.
> > <snip>
> > House elves bring another layer of responsibility to their       
> > owners. Elves' natures, whether charmed or inborn, mean they want 
> > to serve wizards and witches.  They fear freedom, from what I get 
> > from the books.  
> > <snip>

> >>Carol:
> I agree, and I think a-svirn has conceded the fear of freedom in
> another post. It seems to be the word "responsibility" that's      
> causin problems here.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
IMO, I think it's more what encompasses Harry's responsibility.  From 
what I'm understanding, both you and Ceridwen seem to feel that 
Kreacher's mental well-being is dependent upon Harry giving him 
chores.  It doesn't matter if the particular assignment forces 
Kreacher to betray a family he loves (spying on Draco), as long as 
Kreacher is busy.

Frankly, I don't understand that view point.  I'm not sure what canon 
you all are drawing on.  I don't recall Kreacher ever complaining 
about a lack of work.

The way I see it, Kreacher starts off as a prisoner of war.  He is 
bound by the house-elf enchantments to the enemy.  Harry has made 
sure that he cannot escape, and he's humanely given him food and 
shelter (which I agree is a good thing).

But then Harry (or JKR?) makes the odd decision of having Harry 
behave not as someone responsible for a prisoner of war.  Harry 
becomes a slave owner in every sense.  He assigns Kreacher a task 
Kreacher does not want but has no choice but to do.  That's not Harry 
acting responsibly.  It's Harry acting as a normal wizard of the WW 
who owns a house-elf.

> >>Carol, simply arguing that if Harry *must* be a slave owner, he   
> ought to be a responsible one

Betsy Hp:
I'm just not sure why Harry needs to take on the role of slave 
owner.  Wouldn't a guard for a prisoner of war be enough?  And a tiny 
bit more noble?

Betsy Hp




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 02:12:14 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:12:14 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekfmke+ddgo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekg5tu+r48a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162055


> Neri wrote:
> > Heroes and Heroines of fiction books are generally not required to 
> > demonstrate reading fiction on page, unless the specific work of 
> > fiction has direct bearing on the plot. It appears that *being* in 
> > novels excuses you from *reading* them. I mean, just think of any 
> > favorite fictional heroes of you and try to remember what fiction 
> > they ever read. Rare exceptions to this rule seem to be romantic 
> > heroines of good breeding that have to appear refined, and/or 
> > destitute heroines that dream of achieving renown through becoming 
> > novelists themselves. Since both Harry and Hermione don't fit into 
> > these categories, I really don't feel that not reading any fiction
> on page should be counted against them.
> 
> Carol responds:
> I seem to recall David Copperfield, Jane Eyre, and the four heroines
> of "Little Women" all taking great pleasure in reading and/or being
> read to. (Jo March also wrote rather trashy, melodramatic novels,
> comparable to some of the fanfic we see these days.) <snip>

Neri again:
As I wrote above, there *are* exceptions, and note that most of your
counterexamples indeed fall into the categories I mentioned as typical
exceptions (I had Jo March specifically in mind). However, I suspect
that if you'll conduct a general survey you'll find that the general
picture is different, especially if you concentrate on the adventure
and fantasy genres (which is where HP belongs, last time I checked).
I'd be rather surprised if Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, Jim Hawkins, Kim,
Mowgli, Oliver Twist, Dorothy, Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, Phileas
Fogg, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, d'Artagnan, Cinderella, Snow White, Nils
Holgerssen, the Pevensie kids, Bilbo and Frodo ever read more than
three novels between them, unless it was specifically required for the
plot. But maybe my memory is failing me.

Neri






From sterlingedits at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 02:14:38 2006
From: sterlingedits at yahoo.com (Rebecca)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 02:14:38 -0000
Subject: Fawkes, Dumbledore, Harry and Gryffindor
In-Reply-To: <ekf672+a1or@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekg62e+l3re@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162056

Beci:
> Fawkes is the phoenix that gave it's feather to Harry's wand.
> Harry is always to Dumbledore.
> Dumbledore, Fawkes' owner, was in Gryffindor.
> Gryffindor's sword was brought to Harry in the sorting hat, by
> Fawkes.
> Harry's parents moved to Godric's Hollow.
> Godric founded Gryffindor house.
> Gryffindor's house colours are scarlet and gold, the same as Fawkes.

Rebecca:
You bring up some good points. In an interview somewhere, JK said it
was "important" that Fawkes had only ever belonged to Dumbledore. I'm
still trying to figure out why.







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 03:36:24 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:36:24 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekfmke+ddgo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekgaro+mfsj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162057

> Carol responds:
> I seem to recall David Copperfield, Jane Eyre, and the four heroines
> of "Little Women" all taking great pleasure in reading and/or being
> read to. (Jo March also wrote rather trashy, melodramatic novels,
> comparable to some of the fanfic we see these days.) Maybe the
> behavior of child heroes and heroines has changed since the 
invention
> of television and movies, and especially of computers and video 
games,
> but being in a novel certainly didn't excuse nineteenth-century 
hereos
> and heroines from reading them.

zgirnius:
Holden Caulfield's favorite book was "The Great Gatsby", to move into 
the 20th century. And I am always reading about whatever it is 
Spenser is currently reading, in Robert Parker's mystery series.

Carol: 
> Maybe the Muggle
> world is their fantasy world, but they know too little about it to
> make it worthy of anything more complex than a comic book. (Muggle
> studies consists of electrical diagrams and the physics of lifting
> heavy objects without a wand. What a tragic misunderstanding that
> creates!) Possibly the Quibbler could count as fiction (though it's
> not intended to be), and on another level, so could the adventures 
of
> Gilderoy Lockhart. But novels per se don't seem to be available
> outside the Muggle world.

zgirnius:
I can't recall the mention of a single wizarding novel. But there 
is "Helas, je me suis Transfigure mes Pieds", a play by the French 
wizard Malecrit quoted in Quidditch through the Ages. There is also a 
poem by the fifteenth century Norwegian wizarding poet Ingolfr the 
Iambic about Quidditch. And of course, there is Snape's riddle poem. 
Of course, Harry probably did not read the first two examples of 
wizarding literature, but at least some exists.

zgirnius, who wonders whether Malecrit's play was a farce? A tragedy?





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 28 03:49:59 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:49:59 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekg5tu+r48a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekgbl7+9n74@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162058

> Neri again:

> I'd be rather surprised if Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, Jim Hawkins, Kim,
> Mowgli, Oliver Twist, Dorothy, Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, Phileas
> Fogg, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, d'Artagnan, Cinderella, Snow White, 
Nils
> Holgerssen, the Pevensie kids, Bilbo and Frodo ever read more than
> three novels between them, unless it was specifically required for 
the
> plot. But maybe my memory is failing me.


Potioncat:
I'm reading Huck Finn now, and to my surprise, Tom Sawyer reads a 
lot. He's the one who read the stories that the boys base their 
adventures upon. He knows about pirates, knights, and  highwaymen. He 
doesn't understand all the details, which makes for a bit of humor in 
itself, but he does read.



In post #162046

>Betsy Hp:
>IIRC JKR stated in an interview that there are no fiction authors in
>the WW. (I believe she said something about having to write charms
>instruction books if she lived there.) Yet another example of the
>bleakness of the WW.


Potioncat:
Does she really? I do remember something about her writing charms, 
but no fiction? I can't find it at the Lexicon, does anyone have a 
list of Wizards of the month? I could have sworn there was a witch 
who wrote romance type books. There is a Beatrix Bloxum who 
wrote "Toadstool Tales," which is fiction, but was banned because it 
caused nausea. (At least, I think it's fiction.)


Betsy HP:
(I snipped your thing about Snape not reading fiction because as
Potioncat did with Harry, I totally project reader!Snape onto that
character. I will not be denied! <g>)

Potioncat:
I'm betting both Snape's parents were readers, and I'm betting there 
are some Muggle fiction books at Spinner's End.








From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 28 04:00:26 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:00:26 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekg4p6+em42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekgc8q+a71c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162059

Ceridwen then:
> > House elves bring another layer of responsibility to their 
owners. Elves' natures, whether charmed or inborn, mean they want to 
serve wizards and witches.

a_svirn:
> That's rather crucial distinction, though. If it is charmed, and we 
know it is ? we've been told so, the fist responsibility of a decent 
wizard is to free them from those charms.

Ceridwen:
But Harry can't do that right now.  Kreacher is too dangerous to be 
tossed out.

Ceridwen then:
> > They fear freedom, from what I get from the  books.

a_svirn:
> So what? Human slaves are also known to fear freedom. That's what 
slavery does to a person ? cripple them mentally. Especially if the 
said person was born in slavery and doesn't know the difference.

Ceridwen:
And tossing a mentally crippled person out to face their fear alone 
is cruel.  To be free from both slavery *and* fear, elves need to 
know there is something out there for them, work to provide what was 
once provided by their masters.  It may be a miserable life to be a 
slave, but sentient beings want so much to survive that they put up 
with a lot since at least they're not in danger of dying overnight in 
the cold, and where there is life, there is always hope.  It would be 
grossly cruel and negligent to turn elves loose to die, in my 
opinion.  This would amount to genocide, or very well could amount to 
it, and definitely would look like it would amount to that from the 
viewpoint of the ones being forced out of their homes and jobs.  
That's why I obliquely mentioned a WW catering service or temporary 
house elf employment service.  Something they can do, have been 
trained to do, someplace to find security in lieu of being slaves.  
Other than that department at the Ministry, what other employment is 
there for free agent house elves?  Will they be going from the frying 
pan straight into the fire?

Ceridwen then:
> > They wouldn't know how to manage for themselves, particularly 
with some compelling force making them want to work, work, work.

a_svirn:
> Dobby can manage for himself. So does Kreacher. And I didn't notice 
how Kreacher is being compelled to "work, work, work". Rather the 
opposite. In fact, even Winky doesn't seem to be compelled to "work, 
work, work".

Ceridwen:
Just a personal thing with me: just because Edmund Hillary climbed 
Mt. Everest, and Lance Armstrong won bicycle races, that doesn't mean 
that I can do either thing.  Hillary and Armstrong are exceptional 
people, and Dobby is an exceptional elf.  Kreacher manages for 
himself, yes.  As you mentioned above, in a part I snipped, elves 
seem to find food somehow.  I don't think it's right of Kreacher's 
owners to assume he will scrounge for food somehow.  This is an 
obligation of the owner, as long as there are owners and house 
elves.  But, to say that because Dobby did it, and Kreacher managed 
to survive, that all elves can and should be put into the same 
position, doesn't allow for individual talents, fears/strengths, and 
so on.

I think Winky is depressed.

Ceridwen then:
> > The  nature of elves, and the fact that there doesn't seem to be 
an employment agency renting them out for catered affairs and 
temporary  work - I don't count the relocation office, that seems to 
just send  elves to a new master's household - means that the owners 
are more  than just owners, they are the responsible parties for all 
of their  elves' needs.

a_svirn:
> On the contrary, it means that owners are exactly what they are ? 
owners. They sell and by elves as if they were livestock, or used 
cars. And what's wrong with their nature? They seem to have all the 
emotions humans have. You don't think that Wooster has a right to 
*own* Jeeves just because Jeeves wants to serve Wooster?

Ceridwen:
They are still responsible for the things their elves can't get on 
their own.  Not all elves in the WW can go work at Hogwarts if 
they're tossed out.  And, we don't know that WW owners sell and buy 
slaves, or at least I can't remember a quote like that (I could be 
wrong, though!).  However the owners got the elves, through purchase 
or through some sort of hereditary thing, they are still responsible 
for the common form of payment.

I don't think Jeeves and Wooster are a similar case.  Jeeves can 
leave when he likes, and he can find other employment of the same or 
different variety.  Didn't Jeeves end up owning a pub?  From what it 
looks like in the WW, house elves at loose ends go to some Ministry 
department to be reassigned to another owner, there is no choice.  
Anyway, Wooster is responsible for paying Jeeves, and providing him 
lodging and a day off.  He doesn't have the extent of responsibility 
of a WW owner since Jeeves can leave to pursue any career he chooses.

Ceridwen then:
> > If wizards really want to do something constructive for the 
future of elves, they will have to address the fear of freedom, and 
the lack of some sort of employment that will not send elves from one 
place of slavery to another.

a_svirn:
> Which means they have to set them free. How does one address fear 
of freedom? The only way to fight fear, any fear is to offer 
security. If wizards replaced the elves relocation office with the 
elves social well-fair office, I think elves would fear freedom less.

Ceridwen:
I think if there were other employment options, elves would have 
little if anything to fear that wasn't culturally induced, which of 
course generations of slavery is.  How noble of the WW to generously 
provide elves with yet another slavery position!  I think they ought 
to get out of it and let the free market work.  Even if elves begin 
by hiring out as temporary home workers and caterers, they can branch 
out into industry and sales, and other usual forms of work.  But, for 
right now, Harry can't free Kreacher because Kreacher is too much of 
a danger, and to make sure that Kreacher won't go against him, he has 
to issue orders.  Which, in this particular case, makes the 
master/slave relationship necessary to the wider problem of defeating 
Voldemort.  In my opinion, of course!

Betsy Hp:
> IMO, I think it's more what encompasses Harry's responsibility. 
>From what I'm understanding, both you and Ceridwen seem to feel that 
Kreacher's mental well-being is dependent upon Harry giving him 
chores. It doesn't matter if the particular assignment forces 
Kreacher to betray a family he loves (spying on Draco), as long as 
Kreacher is busy.

Ceridwen:
Hm?  I said that?  I sure didn't mean to!  I can't speak for Carol, 
but I had hoped to say that it seems that elves have no other option 
than to work as slaves.  The suits their nature, whether this nature 
is inborn or enchanted on them.  They have no other recourse, no 
place to go where they can get gainful employment to meet their 
needs.  Leaving aside the moral wrong of actually owning a sentient 
being for the moment, a WW owner of a house elf has to take this lack 
of other options into consideration as well as the obvious 
responsibilities of bed and board.  Harry's responsibilities toward 
Kreacher go beyond making sure he is housed and fed.  He also has to 
consider Kreacher's other options in the world outside of his 
hereditary employment.  And in this particular case, Harry also has 
to consider Kreacher's other options, Bellatrix and Narcissa, as 
potential dangers, but that is just in this case.

Kreacher's mental well-being is Kreacher's responsibility.  He can 
work and hate it, or he can work and like it.  He indicates, or the 
story does, that he liked working for the Blacks.  He disliked 
working for the disowned son, and he really dislikes working for 
Harry.  He doesn't seem capable, or perhaps willing, to leave his 
secure position the way Dobby did.  So he shows his discontent in 
other ways.  But it makes him more miserable, too. 

And, thinking so much about Kreacher, did Harry ever rescind the 
order to stop following Draco?  Or is Kreacher still following him?

Ceridwen, sure she just muddied her section of the waters a little 
more instead of clarifying.




From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca  Tue Nov 28 04:44:45 2006
From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:44:45 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekg4p6+em42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekgert+ekbk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162060

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
<snip>
> Betsy Hp:
<snip>
> The way I see it, Kreacher starts off as a prisoner of war.  He is 
> bound by the house-elf enchantments to the enemy.  Harry has made 
> sure that he cannot escape, and he's humanely given him food and 
> shelter (which I agree is a good thing).
> 
> But then Harry (or JKR?) makes the odd decision of having Harry 
> behave not as someone responsible for a prisoner of war.  Harry 
> becomes a slave owner in every sense.  He assigns Kreacher a task 
> Kreacher does not want but has no choice but to do.  That's not 
Harry 
> acting responsibly.  It's Harry acting as a normal wizard of the WW 
> who owns a house-elf.

Quick_Silver:
Ok I agree with what you say but at the same time I feel that there's 
meant to be a certain irony to the Kreacher scenes. In OotP Kreacher 
manipulated Sirius's ignorance about the nature of house-elves and 
his own magical enchantments (by his rather interesting interruption 
of "Get Out") to bring about the plan that would have resulted in 
Harry's death. Instead it killed Sirius and left Kreacher as the 
property of Harry who has seen how dangerous house-elves are 
(personally I wouldn't let go of my wand if I was a wizard and a 
house elf was near). Then Harry uses Kreacher (and Dobby) to spy on 
Malfoy...the son of the person Kreacher was spying for in OotP. 

Quick_Silver (who thinks that the joke was on Kreacher this time)





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 05:11:25 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:11:25 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekgert+ekbk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekggdt+158g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162061

> Quick_Silver:
> Ok I agree with what you say but at the same time I feel that 
there's 
> meant to be a certain irony to the Kreacher scenes. In OotP Kreacher 
> manipulated Sirius's ignorance about the nature of house-elves and 
> his own magical enchantments (by his rather interesting interruption 
> of "Get Out") to bring about the plan that would have resulted in 
> Harry's death. Instead it killed Sirius and left Kreacher as the 
> property of Harry who has seen how dangerous house-elves are 
> (personally I wouldn't let go of my wand if I was a wizard and a 
> house elf was near). Then Harry uses Kreacher (and Dobby) to spy on 
> Malfoy...the son of the person Kreacher was spying for in OotP. 
> 
> Quick_Silver (who thinks that the joke was on Kreacher this time)
>

Alla:

Oh, I agree completely. I would not shed a tear if Kreacher ends up 
dead on the first page of the book 7, but at the same time, at the 
same time ( and again, please believe me that I am a proud member 
of "Die, Kreacher, die club" :)), I don't know.

I do think that making Harry ending with Kreacher was...odd.

I have a very bad suspicion that JKR means us to agree with Dumbledore 
( that Kreacher needs to be pitied, that he was mistreated by wizards, 
etc,etc), but if it is so - the lesson to me falls oh so very flat, so 
very on deaf ears.

I mean Harry is expected to be responsible for bastard who is 
complicit in the death of his godfather and that bastard needs to be 
pitied?

Um, thanks, but no thanks JKR.

But again at the same time - this is slavery in my view, pure and 
simple.

As I said I fully expect at least the beginnings of house elves 
situation to be changed somehow at the end of book 7 - maybe 
enchantment lifted and we will at least know what elves truly want? 
And wizards beginning to do something to honor their wishes whatever 
that is?

I am not making a great deal of sense at this late hour. I guess what 
I am trying to say is while I have no sympathy for Kreacher's 
enslavement, it is purely revenge feeling and similar wish to see him 
suffer as I have of Snape, and I did find Harry's ordering Kreacher to 
spy after Malfoys to be a bit unworthy of Harry, I suppose.

Again, I do not begrudge him much, I think it was pretty clear that 
Harry did not want owning the blasted elf, but I think that Dobby 
would have done same job just as well and what is most importantly 
willingly and with pleasure.

Ugh, not too coherent, but would be happy to clarify.

Tomorrow.

Alla




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 05:21:22 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:21:22 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekg5tu+r48a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekgh0i+qsle@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162062

> Neri again:
> As I wrote above, there *are* exceptions, and note that most of your
> counterexamples indeed fall into the categories I mentioned as 
typical
> exceptions (I had Jo March specifically in mind). However, I suspect
> that if you'll conduct a general survey you'll find that the general
> picture is different, especially if you concentrate on the adventure
> and fantasy genres (which is where HP belongs, last time I checked).
> I'd be rather surprised if Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, Jim Hawkins, Kim,
> Mowgli, Oliver Twist, Dorothy, Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, Phileas
> Fogg, Peter Pan, Robin Hood, d'Artagnan, Cinderella, Snow White, 
Nils
> Holgerssen, the Pevensie kids, Bilbo and Frodo ever read more than
> three novels between them, unless it was specifically required for 
the
> plot. But maybe my memory is failing me.

zgirnius:
Peter Pan's Lost Boys did not know how to read, but they were 
grateful that Wendy could, and told them many of the wonderful 
stories she had read. As for Peter, was there a library in Neverland?

Bilbo and Frodo did not read novels, as the form appears not to have 
existed in their culture or those around it. On the other hand, they 
wrote what must therefore be the first novels of Middle Earth, and 
both read Elven lays with great enjoyment (having learned Elvish 
enough to do so, and in Bilbo's case well enough to consider 
translating them into the Westron Tongue as well.) We know they both 
liked reading.

Robin Hood is a bad example. Cervantes is considered the first 
European author of a novel, and Robin's story is set in England a 
couple (?) hundred years before Cervantes' time. Cervantes' hero, of 
course, read more adventure stories than was good for him and 
developed the delusion that he was a knight errant. He could not have 
read novels.

For similar reasons, so is d'Artagnan. His impoverished family could 
not have owned many books; his father passed on to him what he needed 
to make his way in the world (namely, skill in fencing and the arts 
of war) and  he lived in a time and place when they were still fairly 
limited. 

Actually, this is true of lots of sword and sorcery type fantasies, 
whose lowly boy heroes from medievalesque societies cannot be 
expected to be more than barely literate. They often are described at 
the start, before they start adventuring, as being kids who like 
stories and dream dreams of grand adventures, though, inspired by the 
songs of minstrels or tales of storytellers they have heard. I would 
consider this an equivalent of letting us know that a character in a 
book set in "the Western World" during or after the nineteenth 
century likes to read fiction. The modern-day bookworm readers of 
fantasies will relate.

Holmes does not read fiction, as I believe is discussed in the 
stories, being far more interested in true crime and technical works 
on chemistry and his other interests. Though he certainly has a 
different interest in creative art through his violin playing and 
enjoyment of music (I believe Wagner is a favorite of his). His 
reading habits are definitely part of his characterization. Watson is 
the narrator, and says little about his own habits.

Mowgli was raised by wild animals, no surprise he did not read. Kim I 
haven't read myself. Tom and Huck's imaginary play suggests to me 
they read the Adventures of Robin Hood, at least, being familiar with 
such names as Robin Hood, and Guy of Gisbourne, and having some 
notion how such people would have spoken to one another, at least in 
books. (Utterly unlike two boys from 19th century Missouri, in 
particular). Which points to the fact that a writer does not need to 
mention a character reading a book, to suggest s/he has done so. Tom 
is no bookworm, but we know he enjoys, and has his imagination fired 
up by, an adventure story.

Snow White and Cinderella are the stars of fairy tales, much shorter 
works which don't give us the detail we'd get in a novel, so their 
reading preferences are not discussed. Very little about them is, 
other than the bare bones of their stories. Their favorite foods? 
pastimes? any friends they ever had? Favorite color? fabric? songs? 
animals? chores? humor? We have no idea.

Phileas Fogg's reading habits we read in detail in the first chapter. 
Every day he goes to the Reform Club, and reads the paper. Also the 
Standard (magazine?). It is implied he needs no books at home, 
because his club has a library. We presume he has read lots of travel 
books/literature, because we are told he has an encyclopaedic 
knowledge of geography and travel schedules which he produces at the 
drop of a hat in discussions with fellow club members. Apparently 
another non-fan of fiction, but we have reason to draw this 
conclusion.

Nils I don't know, and the Pevensies were too long ago.

I don't know about Jim Hawkins, I think it may not be mentioned. 
Though Treasure Island purports to be an older Jim's written (first 
person) account of his youthful adventure, where it might seem odder 
to bring up the issue. It's different when an omniscient narrator 
just drops an explanation on us. But Captain Blood (hero of another 
pirate adventure novel, by Rafael Sabatini, that I loved in my youth) 
likes Horace and quotes him in Latin in the first chapter of the 
eponymous novel. And no, it is not necessary to the plot at all, but 
it tells us something about the character. I didn't know Latin, but 
bookworm that I was, it already disposed me to like him. <bg>

Noone is saying that Harry must produce a list of novels read to be 
considered a reader by us. It is, however, the case that authors, 
even in the fantasy/adventure genres, often mention fiction and 
reading for a variety of reasons, and this can be part of creating an 
impression of their chatacters in the readers' minds. I think Harry 
is not much of a reader, and the wizarding world is poor in 
literature, since not only do we never see Harry read literature, we 
never hear him, or anyone else, discuss literature, quote it, or make 
a literary reference (such as Tom and Huck's Robin Hood roleplaying, 
I might add, not some elevated discussion).




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 05:21:42 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:21:42 -0000
Subject: Ministry of Magic - Refresher Pamphlet - Wizarding Places
Message-ID: <ekgh16+80km@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162063

In these Difficult anmd Dangerous Times, your Ministry of Magic 
would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the 
protections available and in-place on various Wizarding 
locations/homes.

***************************************************************
1. Invisibility to Muggles

As a reminder, various locales are invisible to Muggles; the Leaky 
Cauldron and therefore the entrance to Diagon Alley cannot be seen 
by Muggles. All of the space beginning with the storefront of the 
Leaky Cauldron and including all of Diagon and Knockturn Alley and 
the shops therein are magically located between the surrounding 
Muggle structures. Any Muggle looking out of a window facing Diagon 
Alley will simply see the next adjacent Muggle structure as if there 
was no space for Diagon Alley; that is, as if the other building was 
right next door.

Witches and wizards with Muggle relations (parents, grandparents, 
etc.) should please inform the Ministry, Department of Muggle 
Relations, before bringing their Muggle relations into Diagon Alley. 
Simply holding their hand and leading them into the Leaky Cauldron 
will allow them access.

Those that would prefer that their homes be invisible to Muggles 
should simply place an Unplottable Charm on their residence. Please 
note: the Unplottable Charm will also mean your residence cannot be 
located on a map for other witches and wizards. If that is your 
desire, have at it. If not, you will need to keep this in mind if 
you expect others to come calling. You may find that others will 
find your house hard to find!

2. Repelling/Deflecting Muggles

Those wishing to accept a little less security could simply place a 
Muggle Repelling Charm on their home. Your house won't be invisible, 
but you won't have any Muggle visitors either. For larger estates, 
you may want to consider a charm to change the appearance of your 
house. There are various options to choose from, contact the 
Ministry if you need help with this charm or if you aren't sure 
which option would be best for your situation. As an example, 
Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and Wizardry is charmed to look like 
a ruined old and dangerous castle. As a reminder, for those that 
don't remember, you can use a charm that makes Muggles suddenly 
remember a previous engagement.

3. Preventing unwanted Wizard entry. The Anti-Apparition Charm

To protect your home from unwanted and/or uninvited entry, the 
Ministry highly recommends you place an anti-apparation / anti-
disapparition charm on your house. You won't be able to disapparate 
from inside your home and others won't be able to apparate to within 
your home, this includes yourselves, so be forewarned. The anti-
apparition charm does not prevent others from physically walking 
into your house, but that is not it's function. It requires the 
entrance of any entrants to be via the entrance, i.e. your door.

4. Magical Hiding. The Fidelius Charm

The Ministry recommends only highly qualified witches/wizards use 
the Fidelius Charm and only in extreme circumstances. Only those 
that fear for their lives should consider using this charm as you 
will be hidden from almost everyone.

There are three conditions that must be met to cast a proper 
Fidelius Charm:

1) The condition must be true - if you cast the charm saying you are 
hiding at location X, you must be staying at location X and you must 
remain there. Leaving location X causes the charm to be untrue (for 
you) and you will no longer be hidden. Returning to location X may 
not cause you to return to your hidden state, too many variables 
must be considered. Consult a Fidelius expert, if you can find one!

2) The condition must be Proprietary - that is, the secret must be 
yours to make and if others are involved, all must agree to make the 
secret. You cannot make any place into your hiding place, you must 
have control of the location or have been ceded control of the 
location and you can only hide that which is yours to hide. 
Attempting to place a Fidelius on a location which is not under your 
control will likely cause the charm to backfire and the location may 
instead become invisible to you!

3) The charm must be limited to a simple secret and to a simple 
locaton - do not attempt to hide an extended family with one charm. 
Likewise, don't make your hiding place the entire village of 
Hogsmeade. It won't work, you'll end up with nothing. If there is a 
question as to what constitutes "simple", consult that same Fidelius 
expert.

Warning: Be very circumspect when choosing you Secret Keeper. Choose 
someone that you have the ultimate faith in and who could be 
expected to guard your secret with his/her life. You may make 
yourself or one of the hidden the SK, but be forewarned that if the 
SK even accidently causes the secret to be untrue for her/himself 
then the whole Fidelius is broken.

Some common misconceptions regarding the Fidelius Charm: People will 
not forget you, they simply will not be able to find you unless told 
by your SK. Your hiding place will not become invisible, only you 
will be invisible while within the location. The caveat to this is 
if your secret is the location/house then the location/house is what 
is hidden. But of course this means that the secret does not pertain 
to any person or persons and nobody is personally hidden within the 
location.

********************************************************************

The Ministry sincerely hopes this pamphlet will be of service to the 
Wizarding World in their personal protection endeavors. For follow 
up questions please contact the Ministry. (Unless it's a question 
about the Fidelius Charm - there you're on your own)

Mike, who enjoyed taking liberties in his capacity as an official in 
the Department of Rudundency Department, Obfuscation Division by 
Adding Multiple Subtractions and Contractions, before Retraction :D




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Tue Nov 28 06:46:49 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:46:49 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the...
Message-ID: <ce2.4324ec7.329d3559@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162064

In a message dated 11/20/06 10:26:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk writes:


> Sherry, confident Harry will survive and joining Geoff in the IWHTL club!
> 
> Geoff:
> I'm glad there's at least a second member of the club!
> 
> 

Sandy:

Hmphh! I contacted you off-list some months ago and asked to become an 
official member of your club --- a request you graciously consented to, much to my 
delight. I'm sure you have forgotten because I have been quiet on the list for 
awhile now. Unfortunately, real life has thrown me some curves lately (loss of 
my mother and being ill) so I have fallen far behind on my list mail. 

Although I have not included your quote, I, like you, read Harry Potter to 
escape the realities of real life for a while. As such, I would consider the 
death of Harry to be a totally unsatisfactory and meaningless ending. For me, it 
is all about hope. The hope that there is a better life and adversities can be 
overcome. If Harry can make it through his ordeals and go on to a happy life, 
then so can I. 

Sandy


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




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 07:02:57 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:02:57 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekg5tu+r48a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekgmv1+blkl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162065

> 
> Potioncat:
> I'm reading Huck Finn now, and to my surprise, Tom Sawyer reads a 
> lot. He's the one who read the stories that the boys base their 
> adventures upon. He knows about pirates, knights, and  highwaymen. He 
> doesn't understand all the details, which makes for a bit of humor in 
> itself, but he does read.

Neri:
As I wrote, it was required by the plot. But lets see if I can restate
my rule more precisely. The rule would be: in a fantasy setting that
is supposed feel *real*, it would be rare to find "fiction" books. And
the more "real" the fantasy setting is presented, the less you are
likely to find fiction books in it.

So for example, the Tolkien universe does have books in it. Bilbo is
even writing one himself. But this book ("There and Back Again") is
not fiction ? it is true inside the reality of Tolkien's universe.
There's also a lot of legend and lore in LotR, but it is *true* legend
and lore ? it plays the role of history inside the Tolkien universe.
The same also works for HP: the legend of the Chamber of Secrets, for
example, turns out to be true history inside the Potterverse. 

The point is: I can't recall a single book inside the Tolkien universe
that is stated to be total fiction, purely for the sake of the
storytelling with no presumption to Tolkienverse "fact". 

The reason for this is probably that it might be too confusing: inside
a fantasy setting that needs to be convincing enough, to have a book
that is fiction in that fantasy setting. It's too complicated. The
author is trying to make the reader feel the fantasy setting in his
fictional story as "real". It would be counterproductive to present in
it a book that is supposed to be pure fiction.  

So Tom Sawyer is allowed to read fiction because his adventures take
place in a RL setting, but Harry Potter is not allowed to read fiction
because his adventures take place in the WW fantasy setting. It might
confuse the reader. The sense of what is "real" and what is fictional
in the WW might be lost. So Harry is only allowed to read fiction when
he is in the RL setting, in the Dursleys house. But he is only present
there for a short time each book, and besides, the fantasy setting
creeps into the Dursleys' too: snakes talk, house elves and flying
cars and dementors appear. 

Now, if JKR wanted to confuse the border between imagination and
realty *on purpose*, she could have made Harry read, say, "Chitty
Chitty Bang Bang", maybe even make him play an imaginary adventure
based on it, and *then* present the flying Ford Anglia. The reader
then wouldn't be sure if Harry is imagining this or not. JKR is
actually playing this trick with Luna ? she has Luna reading and
believing the obviously fictional Quibbler stuff in order to keep the
realty of the thestrals (in the beginning of OotP) and of the voices
behind the veil (in its end) ambiguous. But this is not what JKR is
trying to do with Harry. She's trying to make Harry's adventures feel
as real as possible for the reader. So this is why no fiction in the
WW is allowed, and why Harry and Hermione read a lot, but never fiction.

So now for testing my rule: I haven't read all the Narnia books, and
the ones I did read it was many years ago, so I remember very little.
But I'm willing to bet: if the Narnia kids ever read fiction at all,
it would only be when they are in the RL world, and never when they
are in Narnia itself. 


Neri





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 28 07:39:53 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:39:53 -0000
Subject: Harry's happy death (Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the...
In-Reply-To: <ce2.4324ec7.329d3559@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ekgp49+74r5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162066

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/20/06 10:26:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
> gbannister10 at ... writes:
> 
> 
> > Sherry, confident Harry will survive and joining Geoff in the IWHTL club!
> > 
> > Geoff:
> > I'm glad there's at least a second member of the club!
> > 
> > 
> 
> Sandy:
> 
> Hmphh! I contacted you off-list some months ago and asked to become an 
> official member of your club --- a request you graciously consented to, much to my 
> delight. I'm sure you have forgotten because I have been quiet on the list for 
> awhile now. Unfortunately, real life has thrown me some curves lately (loss of 
> my mother and being ill) so I have fallen far behind on my list mail. 
> 
> Although I have not included your quote, I, like you, read Harry Potter to 
> escape the realities of real life for a while. As such, I would consider the 
> death of Harry to be a totally unsatisfactory and meaningless ending. For me, it 
> is all about hope. The hope that there is a better life and adversities can be 
> overcome. If Harry can make it through his ordeals and go on to a happy life, 
> then so can I. 

Geoff:
My apologies. My liberated house-elf who still works for me accidentally erased  the 
membership file for IWHTLC from my magical Mac.
:- 




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Tue Nov 28 07:52:56 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:52:56 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie through the Veil...)
In-Reply-To: <ekdamr+ur9t@eGroups.com>
References: <ekcrgt+at0k@eGroups.com> <ekdamr+ur9t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611272352u53e4de7dxb60acc26796c0261@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162067

Betsyhp:

But here's the thing. *Harry never cracks a book either*!! For some
reason that tickled me. I picture Harry being all "stupid lump never
reads," while he carefully avoides the crowded bookshelf himself. <bg>

Lynda:

Now that's an interesting assertion. We know from later in the book (SS that
is) that Harry at least reads enough to have looked over his schoolbooks.
The text when he's in his first potion's class tells us that. And since the
narrator doesn't give us blow by blow of Harry's every activity I cannot say
"Harry doesn't read". I can say, "The text doesn't state that Harry reads,"
and apparently he doesn't come from a household that models reading as a
leisure activity. He doesn't belong to the library, but usually, children in
primary grades are taken to the library by their parents and apparently,
this isn't someplace Harry was taken by the Dursleys. So perhaps Harry's
lack of reading is more of the neglect from the Dursleys than anything else.

Lynda


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




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 10:30:59 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:30:59 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekg4p6+em42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekh353+538i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162068

Ceridwen then:
> > House elves bring another layer of responsibility to their
owners. Elves' natures, whether charmed or inborn, mean they want to
serve wizards and witches.

a_svirn:
> That's rather crucial distinction, though. If it is charmed, and we
know it is ? we've been told so, the fist responsibility of a decent
wizard is to free them from those charms.

Ceridwen:
But Harry can't do that right now. Kreacher is too dangerous to be
tossed out.

a_svirn now:
I thought you were addressing the problem in general here. "House-
elves bring another level of responsibility etc". I answered in 
general too. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that Kreacher 
can't be freed just yet. 

a_svirn:
> So what? Human slaves are also known to fear freedom. That's what
slavery does to a person ? cripple them mentally. Especially if the
said person was born in slavery and doesn't know the difference.

Ceridwen:
And tossing a mentally crippled person out to face their fear alone
is cruel. To be free from both slavery *and* fear, elves need to
know there is something out there for them, work to provide what was
once provided by their masters.

a_svirn now:
Much less cruel than keep them enslaved against their will though. 
But I agree that freeing slaves without offering them security and 
employment is irresponsible. 

Ceridwen then:
> > They wouldn't know how to manage for themselves, particularly
with some compelling force making them want to work, work, work.

a_svirn:
> Dobby can manage for himself. So does Kreacher. And I didn't notice
how Kreacher is being compelled to "work, work, work". Rather the
opposite. In fact, even Winky doesn't seem to be compelled to "work,
work, work".

Ceridwen:
Just a personal thing with me: just because Edmund Hillary climbed
Mt. Everest, and Lance Armstrong won bicycle races, that doesn't mean
that I can do either thing. Hillary and Armstrong are exceptional
people, and Dobby is an exceptional elf.

a_svirn now:
We have seen three elves at close quarters. Two of them rebelled 
against their masters. All things considered not a bad percentage. 
Better, in fact, than with human slaves. 

Ceridwen:
They are still responsible for the things their elves can't get on
their own. Not all elves in the WW can go work at Hogwarts if
they're tossed out. And, we don't know that WW owners sell and buy
slaves, or at least I can't remember a quote like that (I could be
wrong, though!). However the owners got the elves, through purchase
or through some sort of hereditary thing, they are still responsible
for the common form of payment.

a_svirn now:
What payment? Since when slaves are being paid? 

Ceridwen:
I don't think Jeeves and Wooster are a similar case. Jeeves can
leave when he likes, and he can find other employment of the same or
different variety.

a_svirn now:
It is a very dissimilar case, certainly, that's the point. I brought 
it up because I am honestly baffled by all this talk about 
elves' "nature".  The argument is than since they *want* or even 
*need* to serve, slavery is a natural state for them. Living aside 
the fact that not all of them *need* to serve, I don't see how 
slavery is the answer to this basic need. Jeeves needs and wants to 
serve too. He voluntary went into service. That doesn't make him a 
slave by nature however, nor does it make Wooster a *natural 
master*.  

a_svirn:
> Which means they have to set them free. How does one address fear
of freedom? The only way to fight fear, any fear is to offer
security. If wizards replaced the elves relocation office with the
elves social well-fair office, I think elves would fear freedom less.

Ceridwen:
I think if there were other employment options, elves would have
little if anything to fear that wasn't culturally induced, which of
course generations of slavery is. How noble of the WW to generously
provide elves with yet another slavery position! I think they ought
to get out of it and let the free market work.

a_svirn:
Erm.. I believe I did say that they have to set them free first. So 
where does that "yet another slavery position" comes from? To the 
best of my knowledge social welfare is not incompatible with free 
market. It is, however, incompatible with slavery. 

Carol:
That's the kind of responsibility I'm talking about. A parent, a pet
owner, an employer, anyone who's in a superior or supervisiory
position to another person or being has that obligation. Not to
exercise that responsibility is to abuse one's power, as the Malfoys
did, or to disregard the obligation to treat inferiors humanely, as
Sirius Black did.

a_svirn:
And all those similes but one are quite irrelevant. Parents and 
employers do not OWN their children and employees. Which is a crucial 
distinction. The only comparison that makes a horrid kind of sense is 
one with a pet owner. It is all too easy to liken a slave with a pet 
or with livestock: reducing a person to a status of animal is what 
slavery does. Moreover, it is exactly the kind of mental exercise 
than enables Harry to take his rights as a slave-holder for granted. 
The snag is that Kreacher is not an animal; he is as much of a person 
as Harry himself, and the only moral responsibility to another person 
would be to set them free, or failing that, treat them with respect 
until such time they *can* be set free. 

Betsy Hp:
I'm just not sure why Harry needs to take on the role of slave
owner. Wouldn't a guard for a prisoner of war be enough? And a tiny
bit more noble?

a_svirn:
Exactly. 





From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Tue Nov 28 10:48:33 2006
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:48:33 EST
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Se...
Message-ID: <bc5.5fdf77a.329d6e01@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162069

 
In a message dated 11/27/2006 10:35:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
a_svirn at yahoo.com writes:

Actually, Hermione only reads the study-related stuff, or 
maybe  "culture"-related (to acquaint herself with the WW customs and 
ways). We  never see her reading anything for fun


 
========================
Sherrie here:
 
Having had the same accusation leveled against me (by a sister whose idea  of 
heavy reading is Danielle Steel - I'm gagging even THINKING the name), I feel 
 compelled to speak up for Hermione.   What constitutes "fun"  reading?  I 
read almost constantly - even when watching NASCAR - yet other  than Harry 
Potter, I can't recall the last time I read a fiction book (not  counting scripts 
for plays I've done!) - probably the last time I picked up  THE KILLER ANGELS, 
which was several years ago.  To me, "fun" reading is a  good history book 
(particularly, though not exclusively, anything related to the  War Between the 
States, the Salem Witch Trials, or Henry VIII).  There is  far more romance, 
intrigue, humor and tragedy in history "than any Russian play  could guarantee". 
 Even Tolstoy or Dostoevsky couldn't have thought up  Henry VIII and his 
tangled life!
 
It's something I identified with in Hermione right away - because I've been  
that way since I was a child.  My parents laughed a few years ago when I  
found a copy of one of the first books I ever owned on ebay - a book I'd  
originally gotten & read when I was not-quite-five.  It  wasn't Dr. Seuss - it was THE 
HOW & WHY WONDER BOOK OF THE CIVIL WAR.   (I didn't read THE CAT IN THE HAT 
til I was in college, & my youngest sister  was learning to read.)  The first 
fiction book I remember reading was  Taylor Caldwell's A PILLAR OF IRON (I was 
eight).
 
My point?  Erm - I had one, it's got to be around here somewhere...oh,  yes, 
here it is.  It's simply that, to Hermione, what you consider  "study-related 
stuff" may BE fun reading.  She probably also enjoys   visits to historical 
sites and museums, and perhaps planetariums or aquariums -  it's one of the 
reasons I don't hold much hope for a relationship between her  and Ron; they're 
fish and fowl.  Each one's idea of "fun" bores the other  one silly - and trying 
to force the other to have "fun" (by their  definition) generally breeds 
resentment.  A couple of years of being  dragged to Quidditch matches, & I see 
Hermione braining Ron with HOGWARTS A  HISTORY, or some equally heavy book...or 
maybe the bookend - she wouldn't  mistreat a book that way!
 
Sherrie
(who doesn't think it will become an issue, because Ron will snuff it in  the 
final battle)
(and who ought to have left for Gettysburg an hour  ago!)


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




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Nov 28 12:10:54 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:10:54 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Se...
In-Reply-To: <bc5.5fdf77a.329d6e01@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ekh90e+rd29@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162070


> Sherrie here:
>  
> Having had the same accusation leveled against me (by a sister 
whose idea  of 
> heavy reading is Danielle Steel - 

Potioncat:
That line is priceless, I couldn't snip it!


Sherrie:
To me, "fun" reading is a  good history book 
> (particularly, though not exclusively, anything related to the  War 
Between the 
> States, the Salem Witch Trials, or Henry VIII).  There is  far more 
romance, 
> intrigue, humor and tragedy in history "than any Russian play  
could guarantee". 


Potioncat:
I took "Puddin'head Wilson" with me to the dentist---the very same 
dentist who let it slip that Snape wasn't the baddie in SS/PS--he 
looked at the book, looked at me and said, "I never knew anyone would 
read Mark Twain if they didn't have to."

I switched to his associate.


Back to canon. Snape has a house full of books. Have we seen any 
other wizard with books? In their office or carrying books?

Oh, Hagrid read about dragons. Flitwick has books in his classroom. 
Anyone else?





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 12:29:58 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:29:58 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekggdt+158g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekha46+uru0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162071

> Alla:
> 
> I have a very bad suspicion that JKR means us to agree with 
Dumbledore 
> ( that Kreacher needs to be pitied, that he was mistreated by 
wizards, 
> etc,etc), but if it is so - the lesson to me falls oh so very flat, 
so 
> very on deaf ears.

a_svirn:
I, for one, do wholeheartedly agree with Dumbledore in this instance. 
(Almost unprecedented for me, really). Kreacher didn't ask to be 
owned. He most emphatically did not ask to be owned by Sirius. He 
rebelled, and managed to destroy his oppressor. I say, good for him. 
Bad for Harry, of course.   

> Alla:
> I mean Harry is expected to be responsible for bastard who is 
> complicit in the death of his godfather and that bastard needs to 
be 
> pitied?

a_svirn:
Well, Kreacher didn't ask Harry to be responsible for him, did he? 
Harry chose to assume that responsibility himself. I think it was a 
kind of test for Harry, and one he failed. 




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 12:59:36 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:59:36 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekha46+uru0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekhbro+ruf5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162072

> > Alla:
> > 
> > I have a very bad suspicion that JKR means us to agree with 
> Dumbledore 
> > ( that Kreacher needs to be pitied, that he was mistreated by 
> wizards, 
> > etc,etc), but if it is so - the lesson to me falls oh so very 
flat, 
> so 
> > very on deaf ears.
> 
> a_svirn:
> I, for one, do wholeheartedly agree with Dumbledore in this 
instance. 
> (Almost unprecedented for me, really). Kreacher didn't ask to be 
> owned. He most emphatically did not ask to be owned by Sirius. He 
> rebelled, and managed to destroy his oppressor. I say, good for 
him. 
> Bad for Harry, of course.   

Alla:

Absolutely - Kreacher did not ask to be owned by Sirius. He seemed 
to have a lot of fondness for his previous masters though. But you 
get no argument from me in general, I understand what you are 
saying, I just cannot bring myself to feel one ounce of sympathy for 
Kreacher. Purely emotional reaction of course.


 
> > Alla:
> > I mean Harry is expected to be responsible for bastard who is 
> > complicit in the death of his godfather and that bastard needs 
to 
> be 
> > pitied?
> 
> a_svirn:
> Well, Kreacher didn't ask Harry to be responsible for him, did he? 
> Harry chose to assume that responsibility himself. I think it was 
a 
> kind of test for Harry, and one he failed.
>

Alla:

Harry did not ask to be responsible for Kreacher either, like at 
all, as far as I can remember. :)

But I agree with you again in a sense that sending Kreacher to 
Hogwarts would have been a better choice.




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Tue Nov 28 13:09:35 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 07:09:35 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death(Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the...
References: <ce2.4324ec7.329d3559@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00c701c712ee$73ae7d00$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 162073

Sandy:
<snip>The hope that there is a better life and adversities can be 
overcome. If Harry can make it through his ordeals and go on to a happy life, 
then so can I. 

Lana writes:  I, too, would love to see Harry survive.  I would also love to see Ginny in the end as well..  And Ron and Hermoine would be great too..  I know we are to see more death, but I would hate for it to be one of the kids.  
  I am not sure how I owuld be able to read the last book to my 7 year old.  She is a BIG fan, and it would be a crushing blow for her and, of course, for me too.
  Lana

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




From scarah at gmail.com  Tue Nov 28 13:04:03 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:04:03 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekha46+uru0@eGroups.com>
References: <ekggdt+158g@eGroups.com> <ekha46+uru0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590611280504x46f2bdffvcc84bf065cfa3314@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162074

a_svirn:
I, for one, do wholeheartedly agree with Dumbledore in this instance.
(Almost unprecedented for me, really). Kreacher didn't ask to be
owned. He most emphatically did not ask to be owned by Sirius. He
rebelled, and managed to destroy his oppressor. I say, good for him.
Bad for Harry, of course.

Sarah:
It's too late for Harry to free Kreacher and risk the alternative, and
by the time Harry showed up at Grimmauld Place it was too late for
Sirius to do the same.  But this does raise the question of why Sirius
wouldn't have freed him straight off, before he had so much
information about who was in the Order, etc.

Free elves can always go get a job at Hogwarts and get paid.

The only reasonable explanation is that Kreacher, if freed, would have
gone to one of the Black sisters, and been able to tell them something
or do something for them that was counter to the Order's wishes (even
prior to the house being made headquarters).  I wouldn't be at all
surprised if Dumbledore made Sirius hold on to Kreacher, the same way
he convinced Harry to.  Dumbledore may have neglected to advise Sirius
as to the optimal treatment of Kreacher, but forgetting stuff like
that isn't exactly completely outside of his characterization.  It's
also not unthinkable in terms of Dumbledore's characterization that he
did provide his hopes for Kreacher's treatment, and Sirius didn't
entirely listen.  Harry's surrogate parents and his possible surrogate
parent, both disregarding Dumbledore's suggestions about treatment of
their charges.

Sarah



From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Tue Nov 28 13:50:33 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 13:50:33 -0000
Subject: Sending Voldie through the Veil (Was: Where will the "great battle" be)
In-Reply-To: <ekg01p+pgk3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekher9+lhsf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162075

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Constance Vigilance" 
<ConstanceVigilance at ...> wrote:

> OK. As old-timers here know, Quirrell is my favorite character. He 
> represents the rape and abuse victim class in the series. He was a 
> wide-eyed innocent when he left Hogwarts to improve his skills. He 
> was seduced by a charismatic character who enters Quirrell's body 
> against his will. This is a classic rape metaphor. Quirrell's 
> personality then changes - he dressed differently - he stammers - 
he 
> has body tics - he is frightened by everything. We hear him 
weeping 
> in private. <snip>
 In every way, he behaves as an abused spouse. 
> 
> At the time JKR was writing the first book of the series, she was 
> also a recovering victim of spousal abuse. Intentional or not, 
> Quirrell is her mirror at the time. 
> 
> We readers are accomplices in this. We are given a character who 
is 
> quite obviously in a state of distress and we are not empathetic. 
We 
> even allow her to kill him off in cold blood without looking back. 
> 
> For this reason, I have real difficulty believing that we have 
heard 
> the end of the stuttering professor.
> 
> There are a couple of problems with his supposed death. First, 
> Dumbledore never says that Quirrell actually died. As Carol points 
> out above, he only says that Voldemort left him to die. Why would 
> Quirrell be in a terminal condition? He has a double-dose of 
unicorn 
> blood in him which "will keep you alive if you are a breath from 
> death". <snip>
 Finally, the one key to physical 
> recovery, even after the unicorn blood is the Stone, which is 
right 
> there in the room with them. He was certainly damaged by having 
Harry 
> touch him, but is that a fatal blow?
> 
> There is no proof in the book at all that Quirrell didn't survive 
the 
> dungeon. We have only the JKR quote above (http://www.accio-
quote.org/
> articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm) to indicate that Quirrell is dead. 
> 
> "He did not know until he came around that Quirrell had died when 
> Voldemort left his body." 
> 
> I don't know. I just have a problem with that. First of all, it 
isn't 
> true. Harry did not know in the hospital wing that Quirrell died 
when 
> Voldy left his body. At best, he knows that Quirrell died AND 
Voldy 
> left his body. There is no way for Harry to put the two issues 
> together at this point in his education. Plus, we have an example 
of 
> Voldy leaving a body and the body not dying - I refer to Harry's 
> possession in the Ministry.
> 
> And then there is Dumbledore's statement that he NEVER was able to 
> keep a DADA teacher after the curse. But that is also demonstrably 
> wrong related to Quirrell. Was Dumbledore mistaken? Is it a flint? 
Or 
> is Dumbledore and JKR covering up something important for the 
> climactic battle?
> 
> Finally, could JKR, in one bold stroke, kill off the most pitiful 
> character in the series - the one who represents herself at her 
> lowest?

Marianne:

I probably should have done more snipping, but since this is CV's 
first post in a while, and a golden opportunity for her to restate 
her Quirrell support, I didn't have the heart to take electronic 
shears to it.

I'm wary of using JKR quotes as support as sometimes she is not 
precise in her language, whether she may be doing it deliberately to 
throw readers off the scent or because she is answering quickly and 
doesn't take the time to be absolutely, completely, correct.  For 
instance, in two different interviews she commented on the Potters 
situation at the time of Harry's baptism. In one interview she said 
they were thinking of going into hiding.  In the other she said they 
were already in hiding. Well, either they were in hiding or they 
weren't. It may not matter in the whole arc of the story, but this 
does indicate that JKR is not always precise. 

Her words quoted above may not make sense in terms of what Harry's 
knowledge at the time would lead him to understand, but it may be 
that this explanation, in JKR's mind, is close enough to the truth 
that she's not worried about any possible discrepancies.

CV's comment on the readership's lack of empathy is intriguing. Is 
it because, with all his ticks and mannerisms, he ranges from 
looking ridiculous to looking pathetic, neither of which is geared 
towards making him sympathetic? Is it because we don't see him 
attempt to fight back against his possession or expose it to DD or 
the Ministry or anyone who might think that proof of Voldemort's 
existence is something that should be known? Does this make him weak 
or bad or at least far enough fallen from grace that he somehow 
doesn't deserve our pity? 

We could probably draw parallels with Wormtail, who also seems to be 
an unwilling servant of Voldemort. Although in Peter's case, it 
seems to have been a matter of wanting to save his own skin that 
caused him to turn.

In answer to the last question, assuming Quirrell does represent 
JKR "at her lowest," could not killing him off be JKR's symbolic way 
of getting rid of that part of her life, saying it effect, it's over 
and done, and it's time close the book on that period? 

Then again, DD did make that offer to Draco in HBP to hide him after 
convincing the world he's dead. As we all anxiously await for a 
supposedly dead character to reappear in Book 7, perhaps it won't be 
Emmeline Vance or Caradoc Dearborn or Amelia Bones or Regulus Black. 
Perhpas it will be Quirrell.

Marianne  




From jnferr at gmail.com  Tue Nov 28 14:05:05 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:05:05 -0600
Subject: Umbridge as catalyst
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611280605n269a5479g3c4878dea70bbe1a@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162076

montims:
I've been thinking again about OotP, and realise again just how much DD
miscalculated LV at the beginning of the book...

If Umbridge had not sent the Dementors, Harry would likely have just spent a
very long, lonely and frustrating summer holiday, then gone back to school
knowing nothing about 12 GP, the Order, or anything else (Hermione and Ron
would presumably have still been forbidden to tell him, for the same
reasons).  He would have understood even less the purpose of the Snape
occlumens lessons...

Unknown to DD, his guard on Harry was a waste of time and energy, as LV was
focused elsewhere - on getting the prophecy.  For that matter, if LV had
targeted Harry, what good would Dung (assuming he was still at his post)
have been?  And as for the Dementors, Umbridge had no idea that Harry had
any way of stopping them - she had probably heard the Malfoy stories of his
fainting, but very few people knew he could produce a Patronus.  Were they
just intended to scare him, or had she really meant for him to be Kissed?

In any case, Umbridge actually was a catalyst to the whole thing - her
actions got Harry to 12 GP, reunited, however briefly, with Sirius; he
learnt about the Order (and Snape's involvement in it, which saved them all
in the Ministry battle); he (under Hermione's inspiration, of course...) set
up the DA in response to her curriculum, etc.

Under DD's plan of inaction, Harry would have quietly gone mad (or not so
quietly, and his madness documented by the Prophet), isolated from DD and
the Order members for their safety, believing Sirius was still in hiding
somewhere unreachable, and unknowing that he was being covertly guarded from
the threat that he was expecting any moment.  And when the dreams came, who
would he have told?  Oh yes, and Ron and Hermione would have been further
isolated from him by being made prefects when he wasn't, with no explanation
from DD.


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




From dougsamu at golden.net  Tue Nov 28 14:16:18 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:16:18 -0500
Subject: Worse than death! was: Re: Freedom for House-Elves
Message-ID: <A566D752-71EC-47E1-A001-E48001327DE1@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 162077

Ceridwen:

I think Winky is depressed.

  Doug: :-)
  That's it!  A fate worse than death! Voldemort gets transferred  
into Winky!

Why are Humans the only primates with chins and nuclear weapons?
        __________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>__________




From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 15:07:39 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:07:39 +1300 (NZDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie
In-Reply-To: <ekfd6d+5gqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20061128150739.74197.qmail@web38312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162078


--- Neri <nkafkafi at yahoo.com> wrote:

 Since both Harry and Hermione
> don't fit into 
> these categories, I really don't feel that not
> reading any fiction on 
> page should be counted against them.


Cassy:

I somehow think that ON PAGE are key words here. We
actually have no evidence that Harry reads much for
pleasure, but we have no evidence to the contrary.
After all, we have only seen him taking a bath on page
once in GoF (the egg affair), but it doesn't mean that
it was the only time he washed in 6 year, right? We
don't see EVERY moment of Harry's life, only those
important to the plot. 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 



From lyraofjordan at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 15:20:36 2006
From: lyraofjordan at yahoo.com (lyraofjordan)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:20:36 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Se...
In-Reply-To: <ekh90e+rd29@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekhk44+st9o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162079

> 
> Sherrie:
> To me, "fun" reading is a  good history book 
> > (particularly, though not exclusively, anything related to the  
War 
> Between the 
> > States, the Salem Witch Trials, or Henry VIII).  There is  far 
more 
> romance, 
> > intrigue, humor and tragedy in history "than any Russian play  
> could guarantee". 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I took "Puddin'head Wilson" with me to the dentist---the very same 
> dentist who let it slip that Snape wasn't the baddie in SS/PS--he 
> looked at the book, looked at me and said, "I never knew anyone 
would 
> read Mark Twain if they didn't have to."
> 
> I switched to his associate.
> 
> 
> Back to canon. Snape has a house full of books. Have we seen any 
> other wizard with books? In their office or carrying books?
> 
> Oh, Hagrid read about dragons. Flitwick has books in his 
classroom. 
> Anyone else?

Lyra:
McGonnagall is carrying a pile of books that she drops at some 
point. (when Moody turns Malfoy into the ferret. GOF chapter 13) but 
I always assumed they were textbooks or references of some sort.

And Hannah Abbot checks some books out of the library when Harry is 
there one time -- during OWL year, (OOTP, chapt 29), and again I 
assumed they were reference books, especailly because Hannah is 
described as "frantic-looking."



>





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 28 15:22:32 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:22:32 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekgmv1+blkl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekhk7o+2vo5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162080

Neri:
> JKR is actually playing this trick with Luna ? she has Luna 
> reading and believing the obviously fictional Quibbler stuff in 
> order to keep the realty of the thestrals (in the beginning of 
> OotP) and of the voices behind the veil (in its end) ambiguous. 
> But this is not what JKR is trying to do with Harry. She's trying
> to make Harry's adventures feel as real as possible for the 
> reader. So this is why no fiction in the WW is allowed, and why
> Harry and Hermione read a lot, but never fiction.

Jen:  Does it work if the fiction isn't intended to be fiction <g>?  
I get your point and think it's a good one, most fantasy settings 
want to make a clear distinction between what is real in the world 
and what is not.  Although if this was JKR's plan with Luna it 
didn't work for me because Harry is a very literal sort of guy 
without much imagination: once he saw the thestrals and heard the 
voices behind the Veil, I took those to be a very real part of the 
world unlike some of Luna's beliefs.  Just as in COS it never 
occurred to me Harry was imagining the disembodied voice even though 
that suggestion is presented as one possibility to consider.  

(I understand Harry is meant to have an imagination in the Muggle 
world so he can believe in the WW at *all*, and to contrast him with 
the Dursleys who are entirely unimaginative.  But once past the 
portal into the WW he is drawn very literally in order to make the 
plot work.  Hermione is the 'clever' one and even then most of her 
ideas come from non-fiction books as other people have mentioned.)

Neri: 
> So now for testing my rule: I haven't read all the Narnia books,
> and the ones I did read it was many years ago, so I remember very 
> little.  But I'm willing to bet: if the Narnia kids ever read 
> fiction at all, it would only be when they are in the RL world,
> and never when they are in Narnia itself. 

Jen:  I just finished this series over the summer and no examples 
spring to mind.  Mr. Tumnus has a bookshelf with non-fiction books 
about the beings in Narnia and several myth books about humans but 
Lucy doesn't read more than the titles.  Other than that my memories 
are of battles, time aboard ships, visiting distant lands and lots 
of action sequences while the various children are in Narnia.  
Someone who has read the series several times might be able to come 
up with an example.

Besides blurring of reality, another reason for not having fantasy 
characters read fiction books is that there's simply no time for 
reading when Evil is taking over the Universe.  This is true in 
Narnia and the other fantasy series I read, Star Wars.  The Jedi 
Temple is the only known source of books in my memory and in both 
the adult and juvenile book series the mostly non-fiction Jedi 
archives are used only for researching missions or for reading 
Sith 'legends' (which may or may not be true).  HP has more books 
for narrative purposes because it's set in a school with school-age 
characters, but in my view they are simply there to fill out the 
world and for plot purposes.  JKR uses them very *well* for this 
purpose and for humour, but what's the fun of watching the Trio read 
fiction when they could be discussing the latest fiendish plot or 
trying to outwit all the adults?!?

Jen R., hoping at least one of Luna's creatures will prove to be 
real as a jab at Hermione even though Luna doesn't seem to notice 
her skepticism.




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 15:52:16 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:52:16 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekg4p6+em42@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekhlvg+8id9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162081

> > >>Carol:
> > I agree, and I think a-svirn has conceded the fear of freedom in
> > another post. It seems to be the word "responsibility" that's      
> > causin problems here.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> IMO, I think it's more what encompasses Harry's responsibility. 
>From what I'm understanding, both you and Ceridwen seem to feel that 
> Kreacher's mental well-being is dependent upon Harry giving him 
> chores.  It doesn't matter if the particular assignment forces 
> Kreacher to betray a family he loves (spying on Draco), as long as 
> Kreacher is busy.
> 
> Frankly, I don't understand that view point.  I'm not sure what
canon you all are drawing on.  I don't recall Kreacher ever
complaining about a lack of work.
> 
Carol responds:
I don't understand that point of view, either, since it's not at all
what I'm arguing. (I can't spek for Ceridwen.) I'm saying that Harry
has the responsibility to treat Kreacher humanely or see that he is
humanely treated. As an aside, I suggested that he should be given
something to do, in part because house-elves in general like work and
in part to keep him out of mischief, but that's not what I meant by
responsibility. In essence, since Harry can't get out of owning
Kreacher--he's too dangerous to set free--Harry's only option is to be
a benevolent and *responsible* slave owner. He can't give Kreacher
clothes, but he can and should make sure that he's clean and well-fed
and otherwise treated humanely. 

As a practical measure, *not* part of Harry's responsibility to
Kreacher but simple common sense to prevent trouble, Kreacher should
be given some task that he's capable of doing. He is, after all, a
house-elf and maybe part of what's wrong with him in OoP is that he
*doesn't* have any tasks to do. He's certainly happy to work for
Narcissa when given the opportunity. In any case, if he has nothing to
do, he'll be bored and likely to cause trouble.

You're right that the particular assignment that Harry has given
Kreacher is odious to him and violates his loyalties. Harry doesn't
understand that because he opposes everything that the Black family
stands for. It's a Catch-22 because there really isn't much that
Kreacher can do for Harry without causing resentment, but he can't be
left to his own resources without supervision because his loyalties
lie with dangerous people who support Voldemort (at least until Book
7, when matters could change drastically). I suppose he could be
assigned to shine the Slytherin students' boots or do their laundry,
in which case he would be serving witches and wizards whose values
reflect his own even if they're not Voldemort supporters. 

But I'm not arguing that giving Kreacher work is part of Harry's
responsibility. I'm only saying that, as the owner of a slave he can't
set free, he has the responsibility to treat that slave humanely, with
respect and consideration and yet with reasonable restrictions, as he
would a child or an employee or any sort of subordinate. Even a pet is
generally treated more responsibly than Harry treats Kreacher. IMO, he
wants to be rid of him. He's rather not think about him. so Dobby, who
knows that it's not safe to ignore or neglect Kreacher, steps in.
Unfortunately, neither house-elf treats the other with respect or
courtesy, and Kreacher ends up losing several teeth. Dobby, who has no
authority over him, can only control him with force. Harry, however,
could do so with a word: "Kreacher, go take a bath and put on a clean
tea towel. Make yourself a clean loincloth if you like, but get rid of
that one. Clean your nails and trim your ear hairs while you're at
it." "Kreacher, how do you feel about cleaning the Slytherin students'
boots?" "Kreacher would be honored to serve the children of the Death
Eaters." "Then go clean Draco Malfoy's boots and do Crabbe's, Goyle's,
and Nott's while you're at it. You might do Zabini's, too. He's not a
Death Eater kid, but he's a pureblood and hates blood traitors."
"Kreacher would be happy to serve such noble children." "Go do it,
then. but clean yourself up first and have something to eat. Come back
to me when you need something else to do. Oh, and get a good night's
sleep."

Just because Kreacher hasn't complained about a lack of work doesn't
mean that he wouldn't be happy to do it--for the "right" people. Harry
needs to heed Dumbledore's words about treating Kreacher "with
kindness and respect" (OoP Am. ed. 832). *That* is Harry's
responsibility, and that it what he has so far failed to do.

Betsy HP:
> The way I see it, Kreacher starts off as a prisoner of war.  He is 
> bound by the house-elf enchantments to the enemy.  Harry has made 
> sure that he cannot escape, and he's humanely given him food and 
> shelter (which I agree is a good thing).
> 
> But then Harry (or JKR?) makes the odd decision of having Harry 
> behave not as someone responsible for a prisoner of war.  Harry 
> becomes a slave owner in every sense.  He assigns Kreacher a task 
> Kreacher does not want but has no choice but to do.  That's not
Harry acting responsibly.  It's Harry acting as a normal wizard of the
WW who owns a house-elf.

Carol:
I'm not arguing that Harry is acting responsibly. I'm saying that he
has a responsibility which he's neglecting. Like it or not, he *is* a
slave owner, and he's responsible for every aspect of his slave's
welfare, including giving him duties to perform that are not odious to
him and that suit his tastes and abilities. That's especially
important in the case of a dangerous slave like Kreacher, who is also,
if you like, a Prisoner of War. IMO, he's still a slave, or indentured
servant, who happens to dislike his owner even when that owner doesn't
abuse him.

Harry makes sure that *someone else* meets Kreacher's needs for food
and shelter and then ignores and neglects him. When he does give him a
task, it's one that conflicts with Kreacher's loyalties. Harry either
doesn't realize or doesn't care that he's causing Kreacher distress.
Like Sirius before him, he doesn't see Kreacher as a sentient being
with thoughts and feelings. He sees him as a traitorous bit of filth
who nevertheless has his uses.

Since Harry can't free him, and since compelling him to violate his
loyalties is a form of tyranny, Harry needs to think his situation and
to behave responsibly toward the being who, contrary to the wishes of
both, happens to belong to him. He'd do his best to treat Buckbeak
well. He ought to do as much and more for Kreacher. If he must be a
slave owner, he should be a benevolent and responsible slave owner.
That's all I'm saying.

> Betsy Hp:
> I'm just not sure why Harry needs to take on the role of slave 
> owner.  Wouldn't a guard for a prisoner of war be enough?  And a
tiny bit more noble?

Carol:
How so? Harry owns Kreacher, thanks to Sirius Black's will. He's not a
mere guard. That role has been relegated to Dobby. Until such time as
he can safely free Kreacher, Harry is as much responsible for his
well-being as a parent for a child's. Nobility is not in the job title
but in the actions. there's even a term for what I'm talking about:
noblesse oblige, the obligation of the well-born (in this case, the
wealthy wizard) to be honorable, generous, and responsible toward
those of lesser rank, particularly his dependents. Rather than
treating him as a prisoner of war, he should treat him as a person, or
personlike being, for whom he is responsible. I think they'd both be
much better off if he treated Kreacher as his employee rather than as
a prisoner of war--always bearing in mind that Kreacher must be
watched as well as treated as house-elves wish to be treated.

Why are the Hogwarts house-elves happy? Because they have work that
suits them. They feel useful and they have a sense of belonging.
They're clean and well-fed. If Kreacher could live under similar
conditions (with a little therapy thrown in <g>), perhaps he'd be
happy, too. Who knows? Maybe there's even hope for his redemption.

Carol, who simply wants Harry to recognize Dumbledore's wisdom before
it's too late




From Elvishooked at hotmail.com  Tue Nov 28 16:29:09 2006
From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:29:09 -0000
Subject: Harry's happy death(Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the...
In-Reply-To: <00c701c712ee$73ae7d00$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>
Message-ID: <ekho4l+5r6h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162082

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" <unicornspride at ...> wrote:
<<<I, too, would love to see Harry survive.  I would also love to see 
Ginny in the end as well..  And Ron and Hermoine would be great too..  
I know we are to see more death, but I would hate for it to be one of 
the kids.  
I am not sure how I owuld be able to read the last book to my 7 year 
old.  She is a BIG fan, and it would be a crushing blow for her and, of 
course, for me too.
Lana>>>

Inge:
I can only speak for myself, but personally I would not read Harry 
Potter 4-5-6 to a 7-year old...
One, because a 7-year-old probably wouldn't understand the essense of 
those books, and second because they're simply too scary for a 7-year 
old to deal with.
So - I can't see how Rowling would have that agegroup in mind as she's 
writing the final book now that she's already set the *scare-standard* 
in at least the 3 previous books, and I can't see that standard reduced 
in the last one.




From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Nov 28 16:15:59 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:15:59 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
References: <ekgmv1+blkl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006001c71308$7ee52100$d4b4400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 162083

Neri:
So Tom Sawyer is allowed to read fiction because his adventures take place 
in a RL setting, but Harry Potter is not allowed to read fiction because his 
adventures take place in the WW fantasy setting. It might confuse the 
reader. The sense of what is "real" and what is fictional in the WW might be 
lost. So Harry is only allowed to read fiction when he is in the RL setting, 
in the Dursleys house. But he is only present there for a short time each 
book, and besides, the fantasy setting creeps into the Dursleys' too: snakes 
talk, house elves and flying cars and dementors appear.

Magpie;
I disagree.  The point is that one of the many digs at Dudley is that 
although he's broken everything else in his room, the books are untouched, 
yet Harry himself doesn't touch books much either, except for one that is 
about what he does like, Quidditch.  Harry lives his first 11 years in the 
Muggle years and does not turn to literature as an escape as another 
character in that situation very well might have done.  There would be 
nothing unusual in starting off Harry's story by making him a reader before 
he finds out he's a wizard.  We do hear that he likes to watch television, 
something Dudley also enjoys.

I would also suggest that loving books is the character point. I just read a 
book where the hero goes on a tangent about how the library smells and how 
books smell--he admits he mostly likes Civil War books because of the gory 
pictures, but there's no doubt the author is describing a book lover--going 
out of his way to do so.  It seems a bit of a cheat to suggest that if 
reading is important to the plot it's not really a character trait--I'd say 
Tolkien makes it very clear that both Bilbo and Frodo are book lovers, and 
the fact that they read myths based on legend doesn't change that, 
especially since they seem to relate to the stories the same way we relate 
to fiction.

(And while another poster covered many of the characters mentioned 
originally, I seem to remember one of the problems with Eustace Scrubb's 
upbringing was the lack of the kind of books the Penvensies liked, but maybe 
I'm misremembering.)

So to me the important point isn't that one doesn't much read about fantasy 
adventures when one is in one--that's true.  But establishing one's 
character as a book-lover is something else.  Harry doesn't happen to be 
that.

Lynda:

Now that's an interesting assertion. We know from later in the book (SS that 
is) that Harry at least reads enough to have looked over his schoolbooks.
The text when he's in his first potion's class tells us that. And since the 
narrator doesn't give us blow by blow of Harry's every activity I cannot say
"Harry doesn't read". I can say, "The text doesn't state that Harry reads," 
and apparently he doesn't come from a household that models reading as a
leisure activity. He doesn't belong to the library, but usually, children in 
primary grades are taken to the library by their parents and apparently, 
this isn't someplace Harry was taken by the Dursleys. So perhaps Harry's 
lack of reading is more of the neglect from the Dursleys than anything else.

Magpie:
I think Harry is cheerfully and unashamedly presented as a boy not much 
interested in reading--never was, never will be, and we've got a very 
detailed picture of his activities.  He's not illiterate and has gotten 
interested in certain books in his life--he looked over books of spells for 
his new school, reads a Quidditch book and likes looking at the Prince's 
notes.  This doesn't seem connected to the Dursleys. (Harry doesn't follow 
their lead in anything else, so their not reading wouldn't be a deterrant.) 
It would have been simple to say Harry liked to read (unlike Dudley) or 
liked school.  JKR made him a slightly different boy. He's not a booklover, 
didn't like school etc.

-m 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 17:22:21 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:22:21 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekh353+538i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekhr8d+tjsm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162084


a_svirn wrote:
> We have seen three elves at close quarters. Two of them rebelled 
> against their masters. All things considered not a bad percentage. 
> Better, in fact, than with human slaves. 

Carol responds:
We see Dobby, Kreacher, and Winky at close range *because* they're
exceptional, all of them in some way involved with Harrry. Only in
Dobby's case is that involvement vouluntary. (Interesting, isn't it,
that Dobby worships Harry as the hero of the house-elves, but Winky,
who worked for Mr. Crouch, also an enemy of the Death Eaters and
Voldemort, worships him instead, while also caring deeply about his
Death Eater son? the politics of the WW are of no concern to her, but
she wants Barty Jr. to be able to watch Quidditch and see the sun.)
The house-elves at Hogwarts, in contrast, appear to be typical--more
than satisfied with their situation and disapproving of those who, in
their view, disgrace them. And even Dobby is happy with Dumbledore as
a "master" (employer), though he also volunteers to serve Harry.

Judging house-elves in general by these three atypical specimens is
like judging Hogwarts students by HRH. Those three go around breaking
rules and wandering the halls at midnight and figuring out ways to
fight Voldemrot. But three out of 280 (or more) is not a
representative sample.

> a_svirn wrote:
> <snip> I am honestly baffled by all this talk about 
> elves' "nature".  The argument is than since they *want* or even 
> *need* to serve, slavery is a natural state for them. Living aside 
> the fact that not all of them *need* to serve, I don't see how 
> slavery is the answer to this basic need. <snip>

Carol:
No one is saying that slavery is the answer to the house-elves' need
to serve, only that--from what we have seen of house-elves, including
the atypical three that you cited--house-elves *want* to serve humans.
winky mourns for the master who fired her, Dobby does everything he
can to help Harry while also working for Hogwarts, even cleaning up
the hats that Hermione has knitted when the other elves refuse to do
so. He also states, paradoxically, "Dobby is a free house-elf and can
obey anyone he likes" (HBP Am. ed. 421). And Kreacher also wants to
work, or at least is not averse to working for someone whose values
resembled his old mistress's, as evidenced by his remark in HBP:
"Kreacher would much rather be the servant of the Malfoy boy, oh yes"
(422).
> 
a_svirn:
> > Which means they have to set them free. How does one address fear
> of freedom? The only way to fight fear, any fear is to offer
> security. If wizards replaced the elves relocation office with the
> elves social well-fair office, I think elves would fear freedom less.
<snip> 
> The snag is that Kreacher is not an animal; he is as much of a
person as Harry himself, and the only moral responsibility to another
person would be to set them free, or failing that, treat them with
respect until such time they *can* be set free. 

Carol responds:
Which is exactly what I've been arguing. House-elves in general can't
be set free until they have some options. Kreacher can't be set free
because he's dangerous. The interim solution is responsible ownership,
treating the house-elves humanely and with respect. Harry has so far
failed to do that with Kreacher, understandably, given Kreacher's
history, personality, and loyalties. But he needs to at least attempt
to understand Kreacher. Forbidding Dobby and Kreacher to fight is a
start. Ordering Kreacher to keep clean--though it's an order--would
also be to his benefit. Obedience can be, if not a virtue, at least to
the advantage of the person given the order. Not all rules, laws, and
orders are made to be broken. 

Carol, imagining a mob of "freed" house-elves with no place to go, no
employment, and nothing but the clothes they consider a disgrace to
call their own




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 28 17:43:47 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:43:47 -0000
Subject: Lily's defeat of Voldemort & Harry's vanquishment (Re: The Locked Room )
In-Reply-To: <000001c71247$f9266710$0200a8c0@MYPOJ4J8EP5FMM>
Message-ID: <ekhsgj+cies@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162085

> Bess:
> I think we know too little of Lily's life between school and her 
> death (and this applies a bit to James too) to do anything other 
> than pure conjecture.  I do think we will learn a whole lot more 
> about Lily in book 7 and that will probably be relevant and may 
> well help Harry with what he has to do.  Would certainly be very 
> nice to learn exactly what Lily and James did - especially how 
> they thwarted/escaped Voldemort 3 times and WHY! 

Jen: Since all we have as conjecture, might as well put forth an 
idea, huh <g>?  Just as Lily used no weapons or magical prowess to 
defeat Voldemort in her encounter, Harry will have extinguished all 
his own and his friends' best magical tricks when he faces Voldemort 
for the last time.  Like Lily, Harry will only be armed with 
the 'Power the Dark Lord knows not' and that will be enough just as 
it was for her and just as it was for Harry at the MOM when he 
expelled Voldemort from possessing him.   

In fact, I'd say the possession incident was foreshadowing for the 
ending in the locked room.  Voldemort was driven from Harry's body 
by his feelings of love *and* his feelings of loss, the 'wonderful 
and terrible' power which is also in the locked room.  

I don't see how the power in the locked room won't play a role in 
Harry's final vanquishment as it did in Lily's sacrifice.  My guess 
is Lily was drawn to study the power in the locked room because of 
who she was,  because she also had the power the 'Dark Lord knows 
not' and her instincts for saving others led to her sacrifice.  
Harry--with Lily's eyes, the windows to the soul--has those same 
instincts and will be able to vanquish Voldemort in a similar way. 

Some people object to the idea of defeating Voldemort with love and 
that's where the power in the locked room comes in--with that, 
Voldemort defeats *himself* and Harry simply has the instincts to 
get him there much as Lily had the instincts to bring no fancy magic 
or tricks to her final moment but allowed Voldemort to defeat 
himself at GH.

Bess: 
> I think it would be such poetic justice for Voldemort to be 
> vanquished by the power he so despises.

Jen: Yes, exactly, as happened before with Lily.  And probably again 
at the graveyard by taking Harry's blood.

> Jen previous:
> The pain Harry felt being possessed by LV is how I imagine 
> Voldemort feeling when he's in the locked room--terrible, 
> excruciating pain, so much that he wishes to die?? That would be
> an interesting parallel. 
 
>Bess: 
> Not sure whether Voldemort would actually wish to die - after all
> his whole life and existence has been devoted to NOT dying. Its
> almost the animal instinct to survive simply because when it
> really comes down to it, Voldemort is terrified of death. What
> will he see/experience if he went into the Locked Room???

Jen:  That's very true.  Not having experienced either the wonderful 
or terrible feelings love can bring I'm not exactly sure what he'd 
do.  It would be unbearable for him just as staying in Harry's body 
was though, imo.  You mentioned Kemper's post, #161983, and his 
suggestion was that Voldemort would walk himself through the Veil 
after time in the room.  I like that one. 

Bess:   
> What will be very interesting is how Harry would be able to get
> Voldemort to the Locked Room.  I don't think the last battle will
> start there. Maybe Harry (or rather Hermione as she is probably 
> bright enough to figure out how to do it) will set up a portkey. 
> This could be rather ironic if H/Hr can work together to trick 
> Voldemort to touch something that is actually a portkey and will 
> transport him to the MoM/Locked Room. Alternatively, perhaps Harry 
> could do precisely what Voldemort did to him and manage to trick V
> into going to the MoM in the same way that V tricked Harry in 
> Phoenix. That too would be rather ironic! Though in either 
> scenario, would Voldemort appreciate the irony? Dumbledore 
> probably would do!

Jen: Ack, I'm no good at the plotting aspects.  Yours work for me! 
One ironic twist could be Harry turning temptation onto Voldemort, 
luring him to the MOM for something *he* desperately wants, a 
Horcrux.  That would cover the irony right, Voldemort falling for a 
bait that means the world to him just as Harry fell for saving 
Sirius?  And no, I don't think LV would get the irony <g>.

Jen R.
(Hope you get a chance to post when you can Bess, on this or another 
thread, I did enjoy reading all your thoughts even though I went off 
on a tangent and didn't answer everything.)





From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Tue Nov 28 18:08:03 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:08:03 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <006001c71308$7ee52100$d4b4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ekhtu3+9q6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162086

> Magpie:
> I think Harry is cheerfully and unashamedly presented as a boy not
> much interested in reading--never was, never will be, and we've got
> a very detailed picture of his activities.  <snipping> It would 
> have been simple to say Harry liked to read (unlike Dudley) or 
> liked school.  JKR made him a slightly different boy. He's not a 
> booklover, didn't like school etc.

Jen:  Neri's point works along with the character point though, that 
part of the reason JKR didn't make Harry a book lover was so the WW 
wouldn't be seen as part of his imagination or the lines wouldn't be 
blurred once he does enter the WW.  In Narnia the kids don't believe 
Lucy at first because she does have a wonderful imagination, in part 
from being very literate and living with book-reading siblings.  
Plus in a fantasy series like Narnia or the Borrowers, there's an 
adult outside the world who knows of the world and lends the air 
of "it doesn't matter if it's true or a child's imagination, 
believing makes it real."  JKR completely bypassed such a storyline 
by having the Durlseys know the WW is real and decide to deny it, as 
well as having Harry act as a fairly unimaginative boy--even his far-
fetched dreams turn out to be real!  That way there's *no* question 
the WW exists, no question it's part of Harry's imagination. 

Jen





From pam_rosen at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 17:53:21 2006
From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 09:53:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death(Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the...
Message-ID: <20061128175321.55422.qmail@web30811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162087

Inge:
I can only speak for myself, but personally I would not read Harry 
Potter 4-5-6 to a 7-year old...<snip>

Pam:

My 7 year old son and I are just about to complete Book 4 (ever try to read every word of the books out loud?) and I must admit,  I am not looking forward to read 5 and 6 to him.  He wants to, of course, but I know he's going to take Sirius' death very hard.  He sat up with hopeful attention every time Sirius sent an owl to Harry throughout GOF. 

He seemed to take GOF pretty well, though. In fact, while discussing it with him the other day, he theorized that the reason that Voldemort didn't die when the AK deflected off of baby Harry and bouched back to Voldemort was that Voldemort "put some of himself" in Harry so that Voldemort couldn't die if part of him lived in Harry.  The kid has never heard the word "horcrux" nor has he ever dreamed that a huge group of adults from all over the world were discussing that very idea.  So that tells me right there that 7 year olds can "get it."

Generally, I cannot complain about any books that can teach my son about friendship, morality, consequences, that not everyone is as they seem, not everyone is nice, bad guys are hard to spot, and to remain "ever vigilant."  I have no problem with that at all. As for scarieness...he's seen worse on The Power Rangers.

Pam

Lots of great events happening in summer 2007, so start making your travel plans now!

Phoenix Rising:  New Orleans, May 17 - 21  http://www.thephoenixrises.org/
Enlightening 2007:  Philadelphia, July 12 - 15  http://enlightening2007.org/
Sectus:  London, July 19 - 22  http://www.sectus.org/index.php
Prophecy 2007:  Toronto, August 2 - 5  http://hp2007.org/



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 18:55:54 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 18:55:54 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekhr8d+tjsm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eki0nq+qbjl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162088

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> a_svirn wrote:
> > We have seen three elves at close quarters. Two of them rebelled 
> > against their masters. All things considered not a bad 
percentage. 
> > Better, in fact, than with human slaves. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> We see Dobby, Kreacher, and Winky at close range *because* they're
> exceptional, all of them in some way involved with Harrry. Only in
> Dobby's case is that involvement vouluntary. (Interesting, isn't it,
> that Dobby worships Harry as the hero of the house-elves, but Winky,
> who worked for Mr. Crouch, also an enemy of the Death Eaters and
> Voldemort, worships him instead, while also caring deeply about his
> Death Eater son? the politics of the WW are of no concern to her, 
but
> she wants Barty Jr. to be able to watch Quidditch and see the sun.)
> The house-elves at Hogwarts, in contrast, appear to be typical--more
> than satisfied with their situation and disapproving of those who, 
in
> their view, disgrace them. And even Dobby is happy with Dumbledore 
as
> a "master" (employer), though he also volunteers to serve Harry.

Alla:

I am not quite sure if this is correct - saying that these three are 
atypical House elves. I think the exact opposite idea can be argued 
as well - that we see those three elves up close and personal 
**precisely** because JKR wants to show us what typical House elves 
are ( or as close as typical as it can possible be) and chooses to 
weave some of them in Harry's story one way or another.

We do not know anything about Hogwarts house elves, except that they 
are happy at Hogwarts, so I don't know whether I can think of their 
personalities as typical, because they have no developed 
personalities that author makes me aware of so far.


Carol:
> Judging house-elves in general by these three atypical specimens is
> like judging Hogwarts students by HRH. Those three go around 
breaking
> rules and wandering the halls at midnight and figuring out ways to
> fight Voldemrot. But three out of 280 (or more) is not a
> representative sample.

Alla:

Oh, good example, except I have completely opposite view of that. Why 
are Harry, Ron and Hermione so atypical? I mean, yes, Harry's life is 
not very typical, true, but as personalities of Hogwarts' students, 
why not?

Of course even better example for me is the Slytherin House 
discussion.

Do we mean to see Draco Malfoy as typical representative of that 
House? I would say, yes, why not?

I do not know any other student from this house who does not have the 
views of Mr. Malfoy. Harry does not see them? Well, maybe, but if the 
author for six books chose not show me one, I am going to assume that 
for the sake of the story those students do not exist. JKR can of 
course pull the rug in book 7 and show me someone who behave 
differently, but so far it looks to me as she is going in different 
direction, namely changing the behaviour of the said Mr. Malfoy.

So, I will stick with him as typical Slytherin as of today.

Same with House elves - I am thinking that the three we saw are meant 
to be the representatives of their race and if something going to 
change we will see it in their behaviour first.

IMO of course,

Alla




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 19:05:37 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:05:37 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekhtu3+9q6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eki1a1+g1s0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162089

Magpie:
> > I think Harry is cheerfully and unashamedly presented as a boy not
much interested in reading--never was, never will be, and we've got a
very detailed picture of his activities.  <snipping> It would have
been simple to say Harry liked to read (unlike Dudley) or liked
school.  JKR made him a slightly different boy. He's not a booklover,
didn't like school etc.
> 
> Jen:
>  Neri's point works along with the character point though, that 
> part of the reason JKR didn't make Harry a book lover was so the WW 
> wouldn't be seen as part of his imagination or the lines wouldn't be 
> blurred once he does enter the WW.  In Narnia the kids don't believe 
> Lucy at first because she does have a wonderful imagination, in part 
> from being very literate and living with book-reading siblings.  
> Plus in a fantasy series like Narnia or the Borrowers, there's an 
> adult outside the world who knows of the world and lends the air 
> of "it doesn't matter if it's true or a child's imagination, 
> believing makes it real."  JKR completely bypassed such a storyline 
> by having the Durlseys know the WW is real and decide to deny it, as 
> well as having Harry act as a fairly unimaginative boy--even his
far-fetched dreams turn out to be real!  That way there's *no*
question the WW exists, no question it's part of Harry's imagination. 

Carol responds:
Good points, but I wonder whether part of the reason Harry isn't like
the Pevensie kids is that he didn't have access to books. The Dursleys
aren't readers, and Dudley's (untouched) books were in his second
bedroom, which Harry didn't have access to when he was younger than
eleven. He couldn't play with Dudley's toys or his computer, and he
probably didn't mindlessly watch television as much as Dudley did or
enjoy the same shows. In nice weather, he could play outside, most
likely by himself, but on cold, rainy days, surely he could have
curled up with a book from the school library. Maybe the Dursleys
discouraged him from reading fiction, and fantasy in particular,
because they didn't approve of anything imaginary?

It seems clear that Harry never developed the habit of reading for
pleasure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he wouldn't have
entertained himself that way if it were the entertainment available.
He might even have enjoyed, say, "Peter Pan" or "Treasure Island," but
such books, particularly "Peter Pan" because it deals with magic,
would probably have been kept from him. At any rate, the only books we
know of in the Dursley household were in Dudley's second bedroom, and
by the time Harry had access to them, they would no longer have
interested him because he'd discovered a world where magic was real.

If Harry were a "normal" orphan whose parents really had been killed
in a car accident, I can see him reading as a means of escape, and I
think the books would be those that a child born in the late 70s or
early 80s would be familiar with, some classics, some more modern, so
that young readers born in, say, the late 80s or early 1990s could
identify with him. But Harry isn't that kind of orphan and we don't
see him at a point when he could have read Muggle fiction even if the
Dursleys allowed him to do so. By the time we see him, he has neither
the need nor the time to read fiction, fantasy, or tales of the sort
that, say, Frodo or Bilbo would listen to even if they exist in the WW.

Another point that no one has touched on: If Harry enjoyed reading
fiction and fiction existed in the WW, JKR would have to invent it, or
at least the titles of the books, as she would not have to do for an
orphaned protagonist of a book set in the RL. There's no point,
really, since no reader can have read the invented books (unless JKR
writes them herself, as she did with "Fantastic Beasts" and "Quidditch
through the Ages"). The titles would serve only as color and
background information, with a few linguistic jokes (of the Libatius
Borage as the author of a book on potions variety) but they wouldn't
serve to help young readers identify with her protagonist. The glasses
and "knobbly" knees and vulnerability do that.

A sidenote on "Helas, je me suis Transfigure mes Pieds", a play by the
French wizard Malecrit mentioned by zgirnius upthread. Clearly, we
have another linguistic joke here--a playwright named Malecrit (bad
critic?) who is presumably a bad judge of good writing. And the title,
which I think translates to "Alas, I've transfigured my feet" (please
correct me if I'm wrong; I took Latin, not French, as my foreign
language), can only be a farce. (The Lexicon translates "Malecrit" as
"badly written," but I'm basing "crit" on "critic" and similar words.
I could be wrong, but it's a Libatius-Borage-style joke either way.)

Carol, whose mind is on fruitcake ingredients and hopes that this post
is not too jumbled to be intelligible






From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 19:33:47 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:33:47 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Se...
In-Reply-To: <ekh90e+rd29@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eki2ur+usqf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162090

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

<SNIP>

> Snape has a house full of books. Have we seen any 
> other wizard with books? In their office or carrying books?
> Oh, Hagrid read about dragons. Flitwick has books in his classroom. 
> Anyone else?

zanooda:

Slughorn has books in the house where he is hiding, they are 
mentioned together with soft cushions, boxes of candy, drinks and 
other things that Slughorn loves to surround himself with (HBP, p.67 
US). However, it's not clear if the books belong to Slughorn himself 
or to the Muggles who own the house.

Another one - when we first see Tom Riddle, he is reading a book 
(HBP, p.269). I'm not sure it's a valid example though, because he 
lives in the Muggle world at this point and doesn't know he is a 
wizard yet.





From bartl at sprynet.com  Tue Nov 28 20:04:00 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:04:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of
 the Children!")
Message-ID: <18155975.1164744241138.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 162091

Jen:  
>JKR completely bypassed such a storyline 
>by having the Durlseys know the WW is real and decide to deny it, as 
>well as having Harry act as a fairly unimaginative boy--even his far-
>fetched dreams turn out to be real!  That way there's *no* question 
>the WW exists, no question it's part of Harry's imagination. 

Bart: 
Did she, now? Is there no question? 

It would explain why there is no possibility of books past the 7....

Bart



From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 20:34:55 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:34:55 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <eki1a1+g1s0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eki6hf+r6d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162092

Carol:
> A sidenote on "Helas, je me suis Transfigure mes Pieds", a play by 
the
> French wizard Malecrit mentioned by zgirnius upthread. Clearly, we
> have another linguistic joke here--a playwright named Malecrit (bad
> critic?) who is presumably a bad judge of good writing. And the 
title,
> which I think translates to "Alas, I've transfigured my feet" 
(please
> correct me if I'm wrong; I took Latin, not French, as my foreign
> language), can only be a farce. (The Lexicon translates "Malecrit" 
as
> "badly written," but I'm basing "crit" on "critic" and similar 
words.

zgirnius:
Never bet against the Lexicon. <g>
Ecrire is the verb to write in French, ecrit is a form of it which 
can mean written. So it is "badly written". 

I still don't think it is logistics that prevent us from seeing Harry 
read for pleasure. I believe he really doesn't, much. Hearing him 
chat about a fictional work of fiction, or read an unnamed one 
instead of practicing Occlumency when he is stressed out, or mention 
one, however silly its name, and so on, would tend to make me view 
him as a reader, as Rowling's descriptions do not. Not that this 
makes me dislike Harry or respect him less; I just see him as 
different from myself in this regard, where (for example) Hdermione 
and younger me might have had this as a trait in common. (I do accept 
the idea of reading history books and other works of non-fiction for 
pleasure, as Hermione's reference to some enormous, dusty tome or 
other suggests she does).

Though I am certainly willing to consider that Harry might have been 
a reader under other circumstances. I've read way too much on the 
importance of fathers/male role models reading to/around boys in 
parenting books to disagree. Somehow I don't see Uncle Vernon making 
the effort (even for Dudders).









From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 21:00:25 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:00:25 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekhr8d+tjsm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eki819+cf7j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162093

> Carol:
> We see Dobby, Kreacher, and Winky at close range *because* they're
> exceptional, all of them in some way involved with Harrry. 

a_svirn:
How do you know that they are exceptional if they are only ones 
we've seen so far? 

> Carol:
Only in
> Dobby's case is that involvement vouluntary. (Interesting, isn't 
it,
> that Dobby worships Harry as the hero of the house-elves, but 
Winky,
> who worked for Mr. Crouch, also an enemy of the Death Eaters and
> Voldemort, worships him instead, while also caring deeply about his
> Death Eater son? the politics of the WW are of no concern to her, 
but
> she wants Barty Jr. to be able to watch Quidditch and see the sun.)

a_svirn:
What's so strange about it? She loved both Crouches. Crouch Jr.'s 
mother was also more concerned about him than about the WW politics. 
Moreover, the very fact that Crouch Sr. chose the WW politics over 
his own son was regarded by all the good guys as the most unnatural 
thing. 

> Carol:
> The house-elves at Hogwarts, in contrast, appear to be typical--
more
> than satisfied with their situation and disapproving of those who, 
in
> their view, disgrace them. 

a_svirn:
Or, they are on the contrary most atypical, because Dumbledore is an 
atypical master, and treat them with unprecedented kindness. We know 
from Dobby that in general house-elves have a really rough deal. 

"Ah, if Harry Potter only knew!" Dobby groaned, more tears dripping 
onto his ragged pillowcase. "If he knew what he means to us, to the 
lowly, the enslaved, we dregs of the magical world! Dobby remembers 
how it was when He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named was at the height of his 
powers, sir! We house-elves were treated like vermin, sir! Of 
course, Dobby is still treated like that, sir," he admitted, drying 
his face on the pillowcase. "But mostly, sir, life has improved for 
my kind since you triumphed over He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

But I don't suppose that Dumbledore ever treated Hogwarts elves like 
vermin, even with Voldemort at the height of his powers. That make 
hogwarts elves an exception, rather than a rule. 

> Carol:
And even Dobby is happy with Dumbledore as
> a "master" (employer), though he also volunteers to serve Harry.

a_svirn:
Did Dobby ever call Dumbledor master? I don't remember. I rather 
think he was at pains to emphasise that he was an *employee*, and 
his work at Hogwarts *employment*. 

> Carol: 
> Judging house-elves in general by these three atypical specimens is
> like judging Hogwarts students by HRH. Those three go around 
breaking
> rules and wandering the halls at midnight and figuring out ways to
> fight Voldemrot. But three out of 280 (or more) is not a
> representative sample.

a_svirn:
The only one atypical among them is Harry ? the Chosen one. Ron and 
Hermione are quite typical, (Ron, especially), and every kid we've 
seen so far indulged into breaking rules and wandering halls. The 
Marauders, Snape, the Twins, Draco and Co, Ginny. The entire DA in 
fact broke school rules such as they were. Honestly, I would be 
surprised is you find *one* student who never broke Hogwarts rules. 
I suppose Percy might be a likely candidate, unless there is a rule 
that forbids a prefect to kiss another prefect in an empty 
classroom. 


> Carol:
> No one is saying that slavery is the answer to the house-elves' 
need
> to serve, only that--from what we have seen of house-elves, 
including
> the atypical three that you cited--house-elves *want* to serve 
humans.
> winky mourns for the master who fired her, Dobby does everything he
> can to help Harry while also working for Hogwarts, even cleaning up
> the hats that Hermione has knitted when the other elves refuse to 
do
> so. He also states, paradoxically, "Dobby is a free house-elf and 
can
> obey anyone he likes" (HBP Am. ed. 421). And Kreacher also wants to
> work, or at least is not averse to working for someone whose values
> resembled his old mistress's, as evidenced by his remark in HBP:
> "Kreacher would much rather be the servant of the Malfoy boy, oh 
yes"
> (422).

a_svirn:
And? What does it say about their nature? As far as I can see it 
says that they are capable of strong emotions. Also I would guess, 
although that's a pure speculation, that they don't have any other 
outlet for their emotions than their masters. I mean we don't see 
them as family-persons, do we? Where are Winky's or Dobby's 
relatives? I am pretty sure that wizards take pains not to keep 
their families apart. In fact, they probably make sure that there 
*aren't* any families. When you are in a position of a pet ? as you 
put it ? or livestock more probably, you don't have children; you 
*breed* instead. And then your master probably distribute the litter 
though that "relocation office". If poor Winky never saw her 
children or her parents, whom she is supposed to love?  As for "obey 
whoever I like", it only proves that he "doesn't" really want to 
obey anyone. It comes to the same thing. Kreacher holds onto his old 
loyalties ? also an emotional thing and nothing to do with the 
mysterious evline nature. The only thing about their "nature" that 
we can be sure about is that they prefer to live in human houses. 
Just like garden gnomes like to live in human gardens. Unlike 
gnomes, elves are prepared to make themselves useful for humans 
(which is only fair, after all, since theose are *human* houses). 
But the very need of a human house as their habitat makes elves 
vulnerable. 

> Carol:
> Which is exactly what I've been arguing. House-elves in general 
can't
> be set free until they have some options. Kreacher can't be set 
free
> because he's dangerous. The interim solution is responsible 
ownership,
> treating the house-elves humanely and with respect. 

a_svirn:
You can't treat a person with respect *and* as a slave. Respect and 
slavery are mutually exclusive. How much respect does "wash you 
loincloth, Kreacher" convey? About as much as "I'd washed your pants 
if I were you". 

> Carol:
Harry has so far
> failed to do that with Kreacher, understandably, given Kreacher's
> history, personality, and loyalties. But he needs to at least 
attempt
> to understand Kreacher. Forbidding Dobby and Kreacher to fight is a
> start. Ordering Kreacher to keep clean--though it's an order--would
> also be to his benefit. Obedience can be, if not a virtue, at 
least to
> the advantage of the person given the order. Not all rules, laws, 
and
> orders are made to be broken. 

a_svirn:
Slavery is, though. Should be broken, must be broken. If Kreacher 
manages to do so ? well, good for him.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 28 21:11:02 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:11:02 -0000
Subject: Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Sending Voldie
In-Reply-To: <20061128150739.74197.qmail@web38312.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eki8l6+laqd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162094

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Cassy Ferris <cassy_ferris at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> --- Neri <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
> 
>  Since both Harry and Hermione
> > don't fit into 
> > these categories, I really don't feel that not
> > reading any fiction on 
> > page should be counted against them.
> 
> 
> Cassy:
> 
> I somehow think that ON PAGE are key words here. We
> actually have no evidence that Harry reads much for
> pleasure, but we have no evidence to the contrary.
> After all, we have only seen him taking a bath on page
> once in GoF (the egg affair), but it doesn't mean that
> it was the only time he washed in 6 year, right? We
> don't see EVERY moment of Harry's life, only those
> important to the plot. 

Geoff:
Neither have we seen him going to the toilet, having a 
wet dream or picking his nose in public.
:-)





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 21:16:49 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:16:49 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <eki819+cf7j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eki901+mp9h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162095

Carol:
<SNIP of the whole post>
Not all rules, laws, 
> and
> > orders are made to be broken. 
> 
> a_svirn:
<SNIP of the whole post>
> Slavery is, though. Should be broken, must be broken. If Kreacher 
> manages to do so ? well, good for him.
>

Alla:

I agree with you a_svirn, with every word of your post in fact, well 
except my feelings towards Kreacher of course, but I would prefer him 
to not be anybody's slave either.

But when Kreacher is freed and more or less on equal footing with 
Harry, he is fair game in my opinion as in answering for his deeds.

It is funny when I think about house elves. As I said I totally think 
that their situation is slavery, etc, but I just cannot bring myself 
to empathize fully with them as characters. Strange.

I mean on the intellectual level I know what I want to happen, etc, 
but on the emotional, I am just not touched fully.

I mean, I understand why I feel that way about Kreacher, but I also 
find Dobby to be the most annoying character **ever**. I suppose I 
pity Winky the most, but it is still not much.

Oh, and I do not think that this has anything to do with the fact 
that they are non-human race, frankly.

I think I mentioned it in the past that I totally sympathise with 
werewolves ( well that is understandable to me - who would not feel 
for Remus as representative of them), I find centaurs to be totally 
cool and I so want to know more about goblins and find their 
rebellions mentioned in passing to be much more sympathetic than 
house elves plight.

I can find no other reasons that JKR not making me feel for these 
three elves as characters.

Alla.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 28 21:24:05 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:24:05 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <006001c71308$7ee52100$d4b4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eki9dl+q4jg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162097

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

> Magpie;
 
> (And while another poster covered many of the characters mentioned 
> originally, I seem to remember one of the problems with Eustace Scrubb's 
> upbringing was the lack of the kind of books the Penvensies liked, but maybe 
> I'm misremembering.)

Geoff:
I think a very relevant quote is on the very first page of "Voyage of the Dawn 
Treader":

"There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb and he almost deserved 
it......

....Eustace Clarence liked animals, especially beetles, if they were dead and 
pinned on a card. He lked books if they were books of information and had 
pictures of grain elevators or of fat foreign children doing exercises in model 
schools."
("Voyage of the Dawn Treader", chapter 1 "The Picture in the Bedroom")

So, like Hermione to an extent, he uses books to garner and squirrel away 
knowledge but obviously doesn't wish to suspend his belief willingly.




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Nov 28 21:36:01 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:36:01 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <eki1a1+g1s0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekia41+hh33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162098

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

Carol:
> A sidenote on "Helas, je me suis Transfigure mes Pieds", a play by the
> French wizard Malecrit mentioned by zgirnius upthread. Clearly, we
> have another linguistic joke here--a playwright named Malecrit (bad
> critic?) who is presumably a bad judge of good writing. And the title,
> which I think translates to "Alas, I've transfigured my feet" (please
> correct me if I'm wrong; I took Latin, not French, as my foreign
> language), can only be a farce. (The Lexicon translates "Malecrit" as
> "badly written," but I'm basing "crit" on "critic" and similar words.
> I could be wrong, but it's a Libatius-Borage-style joke either way.)

Geoff;
I think you've picked up the wrong link. This looks like another of JKR's 
plays on words. It breaks exactly as "mal ?crit" which, as the Lexicon 
apparently observes is "badly written" or another perhaps more 
accurate translation "bad writing".

I must confess to being better at Latin than French although I took both 
to GCE O Level. The former has always interested  me despite finishing 
up as a Maths and Computing teacher....




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 21:59:05 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:59:05 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekgmv1+blkl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekibf9+kqd7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162099

> >>Neri:
> <snip>
> But lets see if I can restate my rule more precisely. The rule     
> would be: in a fantasy setting that is supposed feel *real*, it    
> would be rare to find "fiction" books. And the more "real" the      
> fantasy setting is presented, the less you are likely to find      
> fiction books in it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm not a Tolkien expert, but didn't the characters all go for those 
long epic poem type things that were big in the Western world before 
novels were born?  Poems and songs of love and war, etc?  I would 
equate such an interest with being a "reader".  Also, in Robert 
Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series (fantasy presented as "real") the 
main characters are readers, with the main protaganist stretching out 
in front of the fire with his favorite book.  So I don't think that 
rule holds true.

> >>Neri:
> The reason for this is probably that it might be too confusing:     
> inside a fantasy setting that needs to be convincing enough, to    
> have a book that is fiction in that fantasy setting. It's too      
> complicated.

Betsy Hp:
Why would it be complicated?  It's a cultural point and a character 
point, that's all.  Types of music, types of story-telling, it all 
goes to setting a scene.  

> >>Neri:
> <snip>
> So Tom Sawyer is allowed to read fiction because his adventures take
> place in a RL setting, but Harry Potter is not allowed to read     
> fiction because his adventures take place in the WW fantasy        
> setting.

Betsy Hp:
Except the non-reading occurs in the very real life setting of the 
Dudley suburban home.  So I don't think your original "rule" even 
applies.

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> I would also suggest that loving books is the character point. I   
> just read a book where the hero goes on a tangent about how the    
> library smells and how books smell--he admits he mostly likes Civil 
> War books because of the gory pictures, but there's no doubt the    
> author is describing a book lover--going out of his way to do so.   
> It seems a bit of a cheat to suggest that if reading is important   
> to the plot it's not really a character trait--I'd say Tolkien     
> makes it very clear that both Bilbo and Frodo are book lovers, and
> the fact that they read myths based on legend doesn't change that,
> especially since they seem to relate to the stories the same way we 
> relate to fiction.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  And part of Harry's character is that he's not a reader.  
It was just amusing to me in the opening of PS/SS because that was 
presented as a count against Dudley, but Harry isn't a reader 
himself.  It doesn't mean that Harry's a bad kid or anything.  He's 
just not a book lover.

(Honestly, I find the scramble to try and show that Harry *is* a book 
lover a bit amusing too.  Why does he need to be?  Perhaps it goes 
towards my little theory that presenting your character as a book 
lover is an easy way to get the reader on your character's side, 
because presumably the reader is a book lover themselves.)

> >>Lynda:
> > <snip>
> > And since the narrator doesn't give us blow by blow of Harry's   
> > every activity I cannot say "Harry doesn't read".
> > <snip>

> >>Magpie:
> I think Harry is cheerfully and unashamedly presented as a boy not 
> much interested in reading--never was, never will be, and we've got 
> a very detailed picture of his activities. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  We've seen Harry wasting time at different points 
(usually at the Dursleys), and he generally stares at the ceiling or 
out the window, or loafs about.  He never picks up a book (unless 
he's doing school work).  So the books crowded on that shelf in 
Harry's room remain untouched.

And again, that's not a *bad* thing.  I found it amusing, but it's 
also a part of what makes Harry, Harry.  (Just as Tom Sawyer's 
reading helped make Tom, Tom.  And, IIRC, was part of the reason 
Huck's father beat him.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > IIRC JKR stated in an interview that there are no fiction authors 
> > in the WW.

> >>Potioncat:
> Does she really? I do remember something about her writing charms,
> but no fiction?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's how I remember it (I remember being mildly horrified at the 
idea) but I couldn't say where or when I heard/read it.  And it was 
just an interview.  She may have changed her mind. <g>

Betsy Hp




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 22:28:45 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:28:45 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekhk7o+2vo5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekid6t+eitf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162100

> Neri:
> > JKR is actually playing this trick with Luna ? she has Luna 
> > reading and believing the obviously fictional Quibbler stuff in 
> > order to keep the realty of the thestrals (in the beginning of 
> > OotP) and of the voices behind the veil (in its end) ambiguous. 
> > But this is not what JKR is trying to do with Harry. She's trying
> > to make Harry's adventures feel as real as possible for the 
> > reader. So this is why no fiction in the WW is allowed, and why
> > Harry and Hermione read a lot, but never fiction.
 
> Jen:  Does it work if the fiction isn't intended to be fiction 
<g>?  

Neri again:
Apparently it doesn't. It's indeed a subtle nuance, but since the 
Quibbler claims to publish true stories, it blurs the difference 
between "truth" and "non-truth" (as defined within the Potterverse, 
of course) rather than the difference between reality and 
imagination. JKR trusts that her readers can handle the complications 
of truth vs. non-truth because, after all, this is what the HP series 
is all about, isn't it? The whole series revolves around many 
mysteries of what is true and what isn't (in the Potterverse). The 
series is full to choke with red herrings, and the Quibbler is merely 
another source of red herrings. The only sophistication here is that 
the value of the Quibbler's red herrings is not so much in themselves 
(because most of them are too outrageous to be believable anyway) but 
in casting doubts on more serious things that Luna says. 

OTOH, blurring the difference between imagination and reality, this 
would be a whole different level, and it's a level that wouldn't 
contribute to the HP series. For example, take the theory that 
everything happening in the series is a dream or something that Harry 
is imagining in his closet in the Durselys. In the end of Book 7 he's 
going to wake up and find that none of it really happened. Most HP 
readers hate this theory, and for a good reason. If JKR started to 
cast doubts on which part of the Potterverse is real and which part 
is Harry's imagination, it would have screwed up our sense of 
realism, that things are really happening and are really important 
and we care about the characters and what will happen to them. We'd 
never care so much about what happens in, say, "Alice in Wonderland", 
because what happens to Alice never feels quite real and isn't 
supposed to. Which is why Alice *does* read fiction (providing it has 
pictures in it).


> Jen:  
> Besides blurring of reality, another reason for not having fantasy 
> characters read fiction books is that there's simply no time for 
> reading when Evil is taking over the Universe.  This is true in 
> Narnia and the other fantasy series I read, Star Wars.

Neri:
Since you mention Star Wars, has anybody noticed that Harry lives in 
the Nineties and he appears to never have heard of Star Wars? He 
hears about evil wizards "going to the Dark Side" and he never 
thinks "hey, this is like Star Wars". Harry not only doesn't read 
fiction, he also never goes to the movies, he never watches 
television (except for the news), he never watches video and he never 
plays computer games. All the things that Dudley does without being 
the great intellectual and imaginative type.

So the point here isn't that Harry doesn't like to read. The point is 
that the whole fiction element is totally absent from his life, or at 
least from what JKR chooses to tell us about his life. Why? Because 
it would interfere with our feeling of the reality of the 
Potterverse.  


Neri





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 22:42:39 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:42:39 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekibf9+kqd7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekie0v+io5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162101

> > >>Neri:
> > <snip>
> > So Tom Sawyer is allowed to read fiction because his adventures 
take
> > place in a RL setting, but Harry Potter is not allowed to 
read     
> > fiction because his adventures take place in the WW 
fantasy        
> > setting.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Except the non-reading occurs in the very real life setting of the 
> Dudley suburban home.  So I don't think your original "rule" even 
> applies.

Alla:

I think what Neri meant ( hopefully I understand it) is that it would 
screw the feeling of Potterverse in general as **real** ( as much as 
it can be), as in it would be easier to think - if Harry reads the 
fiction that when he goes to WW, it is all product of his 
imagination, regardless of whether he started reading fiction at 
Dursleys or not.

I mean he explains it much better downthread.


 
> Betsy Hp:
> Exactly.  And part of Harry's character is that he's not a reader.  
> It was just amusing to me in the opening of PS/SS because that was 
> presented as a count against Dudley, but Harry isn't a reader 
> himself.  It doesn't mean that Harry's a bad kid or anything.  He's 
> just not a book lover.
> 
> (Honestly, I find the scramble to try and show that Harry *is* a 
book 
> lover a bit amusing too.  Why does he need to be?  Perhaps it goes 
> towards my little theory that presenting your character as a book 
> lover is an easy way to get the reader on your character's side, 
> because presumably the reader is a book lover themselves.)

Alla:

It is not a point of whether he needs to be or not to me, it is a 
point of some of us indeed seeing Harry picking up a book, thus 
concluding that he reads at least something, you know?

JMO,

Alla



 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 22:44:16 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:44:16 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <eki901+mp9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekie40+m5eh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162102

Alla wrote:
<snip>
> It is funny when I think about house elves. As I said I totally
think that their situation is slavery, etc, but I just cannot bring
myself to empathize fully with them as characters. Strange.
> 
> I mean on the intellectual level I know what I want to happen, etc, 
> but on the emotional, I am just not touched fully.
> 
> I mean, I understand why I feel that way about Kreacher, but I also 
> find Dobby to be the most annoying character **ever**. I suppose I 
> pity Winky the most, but it is still not much.
> 
> Oh, and I do not think that this has anything to do with the fact 
> that they are non-human race, frankly.
> 
> I think I mentioned it in the past that I totally sympathise with 
> werewolves ( well that is understandable to me - who would not feel 
> for Remus as representative of them), I find centaurs to be totally 
> cool and I so want to know more about goblins and find their 
> rebellions mentioned in passing to be much more sympathetic than 
> house elves plight.
> 
> I can find no other reasons that JKR not making me feel for these 
> three elves as characters.
>
Carol responds:
I know what you mean even though I don't agree with you on house-elf
slavery per se. It's hard to relate to any of the three house-elves
we're familiar with as characters the way we do with, say, Ron. (I'm
choosing a character that you and I both like for the sake of this
discussion. <smile>)

You say that you don't think it's because they're nonhunman and you
cite werewolves as a counterexample. But werewolves *are* human except
for the monthly transformation into a ravening beast, as human as
Animagi, who willingly turn into animals rather more frequently.
Centaurs, granted, are not human, but I find most of them less
attractive than you do. Even Firenze and Ronan, the most reasonable of
the Centaurs, view themselves as superior to humans, which is no
better than humans feeling the reverse. If we had, say, Bane and
Umbridge exchanging insults, it would simply be a matter of two
prejudiced and violent beings neither better than the other, IMO.
Umbridge has a wand and Bane has hooves and a bow. Brute force wins
the day and he carries her off, but if she'd kept her wand and faced
only him, the odds would have been more even. Neither is superior to
the other, IMO. The Centaurs, unlike the House-Elves, have dignity and
a sense of self-worth which keeps them from speaking in that annoying,
grovelling House-Elf manner, but they're also arrogant and
contemptuous of humans, except, apparently, Dumbledore, and they are
as capable as the Death Eaters of acting as a mob. (Or herd, in their
case.) Maybe you like them because they appear to be individuals with
distinct personalities and are less caricatured than the
House-Elves.(?) That's what makes them at least palateable to me, even
though I don't like them (except possibly Ronan, and he's not on my
list of favorite characters by any means).

The Giants are another "race" or species that comes across as
caricatured to me. Ron *seems* to stereotype them in GoF when he's
talking about why it would be wise for Hagrid to keep his mouth shut
about his mother, but we see in OoP that Ron is right. The Giants
*are* violent and are busy killing each other off without any help
from the Wizards. Even "little" Grawp, picked on by the others, roars
and pulls up trees for entertainment, beats up his brother (gives new
meaning to "Am I my brother's keeper?"), and can barely string two
mispronounced words together ("Where Hagger?"). I don't know of anyone
who really enjoyed the chapter on the giants or who considers Grawp a
favorite character. Most of us wish he hadn't been brought into the
books and consider him a deus ex machina brought into the plot because
JKR needed someone or something to chase the Centaurs away and
Dumbledore was not available.

It shouldn't be surprising, then, that the House-Elves are cartoonlike
and hard to sympathize with. When I first encountered Dobby, and again
when I first encountered Kreacher, I thought of Gollum, who uses a
similar speech pattern but, IMO, more effectively and memorably, and
with better reason, having spent the entire Third Age (IIRC) on his
little island on a cold, dark lake beneath a mountain. Gollum, though
in some ways despicable, is pitiable. Dobby is just annoying. Dobby is
just trying to help Harry Potter, sir, but Dobby is getting on my
nerves, sir, with his crying and nose-blowing and head-banging, and
Dobby had better stop soon, sir, or I'll shut the book on him. And
Winky at first is a female version of Dobby, until (hic) she starts
(hic) drinking and at least (hic) shows some spirit in defying
Hermione, who is nosing into her master's business (or is that
Harry?). Kreacher muttering to himself is actually funny in places
("And that's its twin. Nasty little brats of a blood traitor they
are") if you don't take his insults too seriously. But his one-note
monologues get old fast, and, of course, he's partly responsible for
Harry going to the DoM and, indirectly, for his own master's death
(though that wasn't part of the plan). I don't hate him or want Harry
to take vengeance on him (he's too pathetic and perhaps contemptible
for that, and besides, I don't believe in revenge because hatred harms
the hater), but I'd just as soon see as little of him, and all of
them, as possible.

I don't mind discussing their plight on an intellectual level, and it
would be nice to know how the enchantment that binds a House-Elf to a
single family works and who imposed it. I also think that the desire
to serve humans is ingrained, as Dobby illustrates. He's a free
House-Elf and he still *chooses* to serve and obey a human master,
Harry. And I doubt that he would disobey Ron if Ron were to give him
an order because Ron is Harry "Wheezy" and gave Dobby socks and a
sweater. Whatever the enchantment is, it was not what made the
House-Elves want to serve people in the first place. (Winky is also
free of her enchantment, her obligation to serve the Crouches, once
she's given clothes. But her nature, or her indoctrination, or both,
make her want to serve them. Kreacher is the only one still under any
sort of compulsion to obey, and he openly resents and insults his
master, but he would happily serve "the pureblood grand-nephew of
[his] old mistress." No magic compels him to be loyal to the
now-extinct Black family and its offshoots with other surnames. Its
his choice. 

I've strayed back onto the original topic, but my point here is that
it's possible to analyze these characters and their plight, and enjoy
doing so, without feeling any empathy or affection for the characters
as they appear on the page. I'm with you. Intellectually, I care.
Emotionally, not one of them attracts or moves me to anything other
than annoyance most of the time. I would guess that Dobby is the
reason so few people choose CoS as their favorite HP book and the
absence of house-elves is one reason (though probably not the main
one) that so many people love PoA.

Carol, wondering if anyone really likes the House-Elves or if we're
all just considering them as abstractions






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 22:53:14 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:53:14 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekhlvg+8id9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekiekq+4fvf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162103

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> 
> > From what I'm understanding, both you [Carol] and Ceridwen seem   
> > to feel that Kreacher's mental well-being is dependent upon Harry 
> > giving him chores.
> > <snip>
> > Frankly, I don't understand that view point.
> > <snip>

> >>Carol:
> I don't understand that point of view, either, since it's not at all
> what I'm arguing.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I guess it's statements like the one below that confused me.

> >>Carol:
> As a practical measure, *not* part of Harry's responsibility to
> Kreacher but simple common sense to prevent trouble, Kreacher should
> be given some task that he's capable of doing. He is, after all, a
> house-elf and maybe part of what's wrong with him in OoP is that he
> *doesn't* have any tasks to do.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It still seems to me that you're linking Kreacher being assigned 
chores with his mental well-being.  I don't agree with that.  I think 
the problem with Kreacher in OotP had nothing to do with his lack of 
chores and everything to do with watching his beloved home being torn 
to shreds by the dregs (in his opinion) of the WW.

> >>Carol:
> But I'm not arguing that giving Kreacher work is part of Harry's
> responsibility. I'm only saying that, as the owner of a slave he    
> can't set free, he has the responsibility to treat that slave       
> humanely, with respect and consideration and yet with reasonable    
> restrictions, as he would a child or an employee or any sort of    
> subordinate. Even a pet is generally treated more responsibly than 
> Harry treats Kreacher.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree with you, but I think the lack of responsibility and the lack 
of nobility on Harry's part came at the moment he gave Kreacher a 
task.  Up until that time Harry was treating Kreacher as an enemy 
combatant.  I believe this is how Kreacher saw himself, and I believe 
this lifted Kreacher to the level of equal.  Harry knew Kreacher was 
dangerous, knew he needed to be properly contained, and he acted 
accordingly.  

Instead of contempt (Sirius) and condescension (Hermione), Harry 
treated Kreacher as a thinking being with his own individual views.  
And Harry took those views seriously.  Which was good.  Harry didn't 
expect Kreacher to embrace the "happy house-elf" routine, as Dobby 
did (wasn't the fight about Kreacher bad-mouthing Harry?).  He 
expected Kreacher to be as miserable and resentful as a prisoner of 
war would and should be.  He even expected Kreacher to do his best to 
escape.

IOWs, despite being a slave-owner, Harry didn't act as one.  And he 
didn't treat his slave as a slave.  He treated Kreacher as an equal.  
Someone quite capable of cleaning himself and changing his own 
clothes if and when he so desired.

> >>Carol:
> Harry needs to heed Dumbledore's words about treating Kreacher "with
> kindness and respect" (OoP Am. ed. 832). *That* is Harry's
> responsibility, and that it what he has so far failed to do.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, see I think Harry came closer to following Dumbledore's advice 
in merely keeping Kreacher prisoner.  It's when he decides to make 
use of his slave that Harry falls down, IMO.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I'm just not sure why Harry needs to take on the role of slave 
> > owner.  Wouldn't a guard for a prisoner of war be enough?  And a
> > tiny bit more noble?
 
> >>Carol:
> How so?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Because a prisoner of war is an equal.  A slave is not.  By first 
treating Kreacher as a prisoner, Harry acknowledges Kreacher's view 
points and ability to think for himself.  By turning around and 
treating Kreacher as a slave, Harry negates Kreacher's individuality 
and equality.

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> Rather than treating him as a prisoner of war, he should treat him 
> as a person, or personlike being, for whom he is responsible. I     
> think they'd both be much better off if he treated Kreacher as his 
> employee rather than as a prisoner of war--always bearing in mind   
> that Kreacher must be watched as well as treated as house-elves    
> wish to be treated.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But that does so much to *lower* Kreacher.  You're taking away 
Kreacher's ability to think for himself and treating him like an 
animal.

Kreacher doesn't *want* to be Harry's employee.  He *hates* Harry and 
everything he stands for.  By treating him as a prisoner, Harry 
validates Kreacher's ability to think and decide for himself.  

"You hate me, you want my side to fail, and you are dangerous. These 
are your views, they are your own.  So I will keep you prisoner until 
the war is over."
vs.
"Poor, simple creature!  You have no thoughts of your own and no 
ability to form your own opinion.  So I shall mold you into a 
creature I find pleasing."

The first is above board and noble, IMO; the second is sickening.

> >>Ceridwen:
> <snip>
> ...I had hoped to say that it seems that elves have no other option
> than to work as slaves. The suits their nature, whether this nature
> is inborn or enchanted on them. They have no other recourse, no
> place to go where they can get gainful employment to meet their
> needs.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, the way I see it, House-elves enjoy domestic work.  They like to 
cook and clean and seem to take pride in keeping a nice home.  (I 
tend to think Ron's comment that his family can't afford a house-elf 
has more to do with the state of their home than a house-elf 
market.)  And generally, a good domestic can always find a job.

Really, the issue isn't the work IMO (nothing wrong with being a cook 
or housekeeper in my book), but in the lack of equal choice.  A 
wizard may fire a house-elf (give him or her clothes), but a house-
elf cannot quit.  (Remember, Dobby didn't leave the Malfoys.  Harry 
tricked Lucius into firing him.)

I think the house-elf solution is simply give the house-elves to 
ability to quit.  With the threat of a good house-elf being wooed 
away by nicer work conditions (whatever those are to house-elves) I 
think you'd find most wizards doing their best to keep their 
particular house-elf content.

> >>Ceridwen:
> Harry's responsibilities toward Kreacher go beyond making sure he   
> is housed and fed. He also has to consider Kreacher's other options 
> in the world outside of his hereditary employment.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Why?  Do you think Harry is going to keep Kreacher once the war is 
over?  Why wouldn't Harry let Kreacher allow Kreacher to seek work 
with a family he'd actually enjoy working for once the danger is past?

That's part of the reason I think Harry was better off treating 
Kreacher as a prisoner of war.  There's an implied end to the 
imprisonment.  By treating him as a slave, the only end is Kreacher's 
death.  Which seems a bit bleak to me.

Betsy Hp




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 23:02:06 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:02:06 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekie0v+io5r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekif5e+83b6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162104

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Except the non-reading occurs in the very real life setting of   
> > the Dudley suburban home.  So I don't think your original "rule" 
> > even applies.

> >>Alla:
> I think what Neri meant ( hopefully I understand it) is that it    
> would screw the feeling of Potterverse in general as **real** ( as 
> much as it can be), as in it would be easier to think - if Harry    
> reads the fiction that when he goes to WW, it is all product of his 
> imagination, regardless of whether he started reading fiction at 
> Dursleys or not.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Why assume that the only fiction out there is fantasy?  Why assume 
that the only books on Dudley's shelf are fantasy?  Why assume that 
if JKR wanted to make Harry as book-lover or a reader she'd have 
limited him to the fantasy genre?

All I'm saying is that Harry doesn't touch the books on Dudley's 
shelf.  He is not a reader.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > (Honestly, I find the scramble to try and show that Harry *is* a 
> > book lover a bit amusing too.  Why does he need to be? 
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> It is not a point of whether he needs to be or not to me, it is a 
> point of some of us indeed seeing Harry picking up a book, thus 
> concluding that he reads at least something, you know?

Betsy Hp:
Harry reads his school books, yes.  But no canon has been presented 
to show that Harry reads for the pleasure of reading.  And he 
certainly doesn't read any fiction (and fiction does not mean just 
fantasy, to be clear).  Ergo, he is not a reader; he is not a book-
lover. (Which, as Magpie pointed out, does not suggest that Harry is 
illiterate.)  And that's *fine*.  So yes, the scramble still amuses.

Betsy Hp




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Nov 28 23:37:12 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:37:12 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <eke458+5jbp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekih78+usnt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162105

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> Way back on November 14, Betsy replied to my claim that Hermione and
> Ginny must be close friends. Nearly two weeks, one busted DSL line,
> and an unexpected trip out of town later, I'm finally responding to
> her.  Sorry Betsy, for the ridiculous wait.

Betsy Hp:
Eep! Just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water... <g>

> >> Betsy Hp:
> > Hermione doesn't tell Ginny about figuring out Rita Skeeter's 
> > secret, capturing her, or her big plan to have Rita write Harry's 
> > story up.  Ginny seems to find out about the DA club along with 
> > everyone else (after Ron and Harry).  There's nothing to suggest 
> > Ginny knew about the contract being hexed.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> If these are the kind of secrets you're talking about, Hermione    
> isn't friends with Harry and Ron either.  Hermione keeps her own    
> counsel, even when she probably shouldn't, on lots of things.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree that Hermione is very independent and prefers to work on her 
own.  But when Hermione *does* share her plans, Ron or Harry are 
generally the first to hear of it.  And when Hermione needs a partner 
in crime, Ron or Harry are the ones generally roped in.  Ginny never 
is, that I've seen.  Frankly, IMO if Hermione and Ginny were as close 
as all that, JKR would have been forced to write Ginny a bigger role.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Ginny wasn't involved at all in Hermione's attempt to save
> > Buckbeak, even after Ron and Harry bowed out for a bit.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:  
> Too early.  Ginny and Hermione won't have had a chance to spend a   
> lot of time together until the summer of the Quidditch World Cup.  
> Their rather extensive knowledge of each other's lives only becomes 
> apparent after that.

Betsy Hp:
Huh.  See, I didn't think Ginny and Hermione spent all that much time 
together during the QWC (not even a full night, right?).  And I don't 
see any evidence that Ginny has "extensive knowledge" of Hermione's 
life.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I'm not arguing that there's only one way of writing close female 
> > friendship.  What I am saying is that I don't see evidence that 
> > Hermione and Ginny are *close* female friends.  Whatever the
> > manner or means.  In many ways I'd label them "friendly" rather 
> > than "friends". 

> Amiable Dorsai:
> Hmmm.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.  I can't help but
> notice this largish anvil of Hermione's trust of Ginny with
> information she apparently shares with no one else, though.  

Betsy Hp:
I agree that this is where we're falling down.  You see this as an 
example of Ginny's closeness to Hermione.  While I think it comes 
down to Hermione's date for the Yule Ball not being that important a 
bit of information.  I doubt anyone other than Ron cared.  Annoying 
Ron was the only apparent reason for secrecy, and Ginny knew about 
Krum before Hermione decided to keep it a secret.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > when it's suggested that Hermione *does* have tons of female 
> > friends, I question. 

> Amiable Dorsai:
> Tons?  I think Ginny's rather more petite than that.

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  I was referring back to the original post that started the 
conversation here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161430
> >>Miles:
> <snip>
> She [Hermione] seems to have very close friendships with
> several girls including Ginny...
> <snip>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > And Hermione's attitude during GoF seemed much more
> > "goodness this boy and girl thing is soo silly" than "this is what
> > hopes and dreams are made of!<3!).  

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> > You're going to have to fire some more canon at me to get me
> > to accept that--what I recall is a Hermione who took the whole
> > thing very seriously indeed, to the point where she dolled
> > herself up for the first time we ever see, applying herself so
> > assiduously to the task that her two best male friends took a
> > while to recognize her.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > ...  And while she did take some time to doll herself up, she was 
> > also very careful to point out that this was not her normal       
> > behavior.  

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> I am so badly confused: Either it was a big enough deal that she
> radically changed her normal behavior for it, or it was no big deal 
> to her.  How do you manage to have both propositions be true at the 
> same time?

Betsy Hp:
I blame JKR.  Realistically, you're correct.  A girl with no interest 
in hair, make-up, and fashion does not suddenly, with no help 
whatsoever, turn out as poised and pressed as JKR has Hermione.

But JKR wrote the belle of the ball scene without any suggestion that 
older Gryffindors girls (or other sort of fairy godmother) helped 
Hermione in anyway.  JKR also has Hermione poo-poo the whole effort 
as far too much time wasted on a rather silly goal.  So we have a 
girl who, as you put it, radically changes her normal behavior while 
maintaining that it was all no big deal.  Do I smell shenanigans?  
Damn straight.  Personally, I think JKR sacrificed character for 
a "think of the children!" moment.

But since there's no hint of Krum as Hermione's burning love 
interest, since Hermione doesn't turn over a new leaf and become 
interested in the WW's fashions, I believe the contradiction stands.  
Hermione is "above" girlish things like appearance and boys.  But 
whenever she's forced to enter that particular arena, she 
effortlessly rules.

Betsy Hp




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 00:12:37 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:12:37 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekie40+m5eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekij9l+mjhq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162106

> Carol:
> I don't mind discussing their plight on an intellectual level, and 
it
> would be nice to know how the enchantment that binds a House-Elf 
to a
> single family works and who imposed it. I also think that the 
desire
> to serve humans is ingrained, as Dobby illustrates. He's a free
> House-Elf and he still *chooses* to serve and obey a human master,
> Harry. 

a_svirn:
Except that 
a)Harry is not his master, but his friend
b)"choose to obey" is an oxymoron ? if you aren't compelled by a 
thing, person, agency,  or law to obey, that's not really an act of 
obedience. "Choose to obey" in fact means "do whatever I choose".
 
Moreover, he didn't even obey his masters when he was magically 
bound. His self-punishments are in fact acts of disobedience ? he 
found a loophole in the enchantments and used it to disobey ? 
whenever he chose. Which shows that his longing for freedom was 
stronger even than magical bonds. Freedom, after all, is first and 
foremost the freedom of choice. 

> Carol:
 Whatever the enchantment is, it was not what made the
> House-Elves want to serve people in the first place. 

a_svirn:
In that case why do humans need the enchantment at all? If house-
elves are slaves by nature why do humans need both magic *and* 
legislation to keep them enslaved? Kind of redundant. 

I don't understand what you mean when you say that desire to 
serve "ingrained". Only God Almighty or Nature Itself can ingrain 
anything in nature. But we know that elves weren't created as 
slaves, they were enslaved and kept enslaved by wizards. Therefore 
whatever it is that "ingrained" into them has been ingrained by 
wizards. Which rather suggests that "desire to serve" is not an 
instinct, but a feedback reaction. 

> Carol:
(Winky is also
> free of her enchantment, her obligation to serve the Crouches, once
> she's given clothes. But her nature, or her indoctrination, or 
both,
> make her want to serve them. 

a_svirn:
She is indoctrinated alright. She also loves them. That doesn't 
prove that anything is wrong with her "nature". It just shows what 
does it mean to be conditioned.

> Carol:
Kreacher is the only one still under any
> sort of compulsion to obey, and he openly resents and insults his
> master, but he would happily serve "the pureblood grand-nephew of
> [his] old mistress." No magic compels him to be loyal to the
> now-extinct Black family and its offshoots with other surnames. Its
> his choice. 

a_svirn:
So that's another case of conditioning and misplaced loyalty. 
However, his open rebellion proves that he is actually quite freedom-
loving. Slaves aren't supposed to choose their own masters. 





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 01:30:55 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:30:55 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <eki901+mp9h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekinsf+4uuh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162108

---  "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:

> 
> Alla:
> 
> ...
> 
> It is funny when I think about house elves. As I said
> I totally think that their situation is slavery, etc,
> but I just cannot bring myself to empathize fully with
> them as characters. Strange.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think I mentioned it in the past that I totally 
> sympathise with werewolves ..., I find centaurs to be
> totally cool and I so want to know more about goblins 
> and find their rebellions mentioned in passing to be 
> much more sympathetic than house elves plight.
> 
> I can find no other reasons that JKR not making me feel
> for these three elves as characters.
> 
> Alla.
>

bboyminn:

Well, I don't I will add much, but a very interesting
thought came to me as I read your post.

I noticed that you are sympathetic toward beings who
struggle to assert themselves and their independance
in life, and are unsympathetic to those who do not.
Those willing to STRUGGLE being the key.

Certainly werewolves are struggling against society in
an effort to establish a fair place for themselves. 
Lupin chooses one method, and apparently a great many
werewolves of the /Greyback/ ilk choose another. None
the less, each is struggling in his own way against 
the oppression and prejudic of wizards.

Goblins certainly do not 'roll over and play dead' 
for anyone. Even when they have been afforded some 
rights after their many rebellions, they still seem
to take great joy in throwing a monkey wrench into
the works of everything the Wizard Government tries
to do. They are successful economically, but their 
struggle is to reject the idea that Wizards have any
authority over them, and that Wizards have any 
authority over any other creatures.

Centaur struggle is similar to the Goblins, they 
absolutely deny that the wizards are in charge of every
one and every thing. They are struggling to assert their
independance and free will, and to assert that they 
are outside the authority of Wizards. To them, Wizards
arrogant claim of authority is like Britain claiming
authority over France, because those French are such 
inferior beings. Too hung up on wine and cheeze to 
take the time to properly govern themselves. (Again,
the Britain/France thing is just an analogy to 
Centaurs and Wizards.) Centaurs are not the play
things of wizards, neither the economic, social, 
or political play things. 

Now, let us look at the unsympathetic characters, Elves
are not doing anything to assert themselves, or their 
collective wants and needs, nor to assert their free will
and independance. They seem content with their lot in
life. Keep in mind that Dobby did not actively try to
escape his bondage. He was resign to serving the Malfoys
until the day he died. It was Harry who put him, unbidden,
out of his Malfoy misery. 

Next, the Giants, the giants seem totally irrational,
though some will object to the comparison, they seem
like Islamic radical fundamentalists. They seem content
to bring upon themselves the maximum sustained misery 
they can collectively muster. They seem determine to
life in irrational chaos and self-destruction. 

Hard to have sympathy with people who won't and can't
even conceive of trying to save themselves or improve
their lot in life. You simply can't save those who don't
want to be saved, as anyone who has ever dealt with drug
and alcohol addicts knows. You can't save them, you can
only help them save themselves, and to do that, they have
to acknowledge needing to be save, and further acknowledge
wanting to be saved. Addicts, Elves, and Giants don't
seem to have any interest in collectively 'saving' them
selves. In the case of the Giant, they seem determined to
destroy themselves. Hard to have sympathy for that; pity
-maybe, but not sympathy.

How does that now square with your ideas of sympathetic 
and unsympathetic creatures???

Steve/bboyminn




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 29 01:27:09 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:27:09 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekiekq+4fvf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekinld+tgs5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162109

Ceridwen:
> > <snip>
> > ...I had hoped to say that it seems that elves have no other 
option than to work as slaves. The suits their nature, whether this 
nature is inborn or enchanted on them. They have no other recourse, no
place to go where they can get gainful employment to meet their needs.


Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, the way I see it, House-elves enjoy domestic work.  They like 
to  cook and clean and seem to take pride in keeping a nice home.  (I 
tend to think Ron's comment that his family can't afford a house-elf 
has more to do with the state of their home than a house-elf 
market.)  And generally, a good domestic can always find a job.

Ceridwen:
So, since they like to cook and clean, being domestic slaves suits 
their natures.  And yes, a good domestic is certainly a treasure.

Besty Hp:
> Really, the issue isn't the work IMO (nothing wrong with being a 
cook or housekeeper in my book), but in the lack of equal choice.  A 
wizard may fire a house-elf (give him or her clothes), but a house-
elf cannot quit.  (Remember, Dobby didn't leave the Malfoys.  Harry 
tricked Lucius into firing him.)

I think the house-elf solution is simply give the house-elves to 
ability to quit.  With the threat of a good house-elf being wooed 
away by nicer work conditions (whatever those are to house-elves) I 
think you'd find most wizards doing their best to keep their 
particular house-elf content.

Ceridwen:
That might work.  It would necessitate hiring rather than owning 
house elves.  But at the same time, for full-time employment, there 
would be primarily the same old masters to serve, the wizards and 
witches who already own house elves.  This is a small pool to choose 
from.  I lived in a very small, isolated town for six or seven 
years.  People went from job to job, did as they pleased, quit or 
were fired, and moved on, sometimes holding the same job four or five 
times because there were no other jobs.  Employers treated employees 
poorly, fired them, hired new people practically off the street if 
their schedule was compatible with the job more than if the person 
was compatible to the position, and ended up firing and then, at some 
much later date, re-hiring people they had fired because there were 
no other people.  I think that a temp agency or part-time service 
provider, like the maid services that come to your home once a week 
for a smaller fee than full-time, would be nice.  Then someone like 
Molly could have an elf-catered wedding for Bill and Fleur, or clean 
up her home for a visit from the prospective in-laws without tiring 
herself too much.
 
Ceridwen:
> > Harry's responsibilities toward Kreacher go beyond making sure he 
is housed and fed. He also has to consider Kreacher's other options 
in the world outside of his hereditary employment.

Betsy Hp:
> Why?  Do you think Harry is going to keep Kreacher once the war is 
over?  Why wouldn't Harry let Kreacher allow Kreacher to seek work 
with a family he'd actually enjoy working for once the danger is past?

Ceridwen:
No, I don't think Harry will keep Kreacher after LV's demise.  That 
would be the perfect time to hand him clothes and send him on his 
merry way.  But until then, he does have a responsiblity toward 
Kreacher as his dependent.

Betsy Hp:
> That's part of the reason I think Harry was better off treating 
Kreacher as a prisoner of war.  There's an implied end to the 
imprisonment.  By treating him as a slave, the only end is Kreacher's 
death.  Which seems a bit bleak to me.

Ceridwen:
Even as a prisoner of war, Harry as his captor would have 
responsibilities toward Kreacher.  He would still be responsible for 
his housing, food, medical, and morale.  He would be expected to 
allow Kreacher contact with his loved ones, but not to allow contact 
with active enemy agents.  To Kreacher, Harry's enemies are his loved 
ones.  It would be disasterous for the Order if Harry had to allow 
contact between Kreacher and Narcissa or Bellatrix.  Harry would also 
be in charge of censoring Kreacher's contacts, both incoming and 
outgoing, or seeing to it that this contact was censored.

Harry would also be able to work the prisoner.  Nothing cruel and 
unusual, and nothing that could compromise security, but work.  It 
keeps the prisoner active so that, during work hours at least, he is 
not keeping himself busy by trying to contact enemy agents or 
plotting or attempting escape.  Kreacher could be sentenced to 
gardening, digging holes where necessary, filling sandbags for a 
flood, building a new hut for Hagrid, picking up litter on the side 
of the road (under supervision), doing laundry, working in the 
kitchen, farm work, or other jobs.

As a prisoner of war, it would be Kreacher's duty to try and escape.  
He did what he could to get to the former Black sisters when he 
belonged to Sirius, so perhaps Kreacher looks at things more the way 
you do.  But, in a POW setting, it wouldn't be out of place to shoot 
Kreacher in the back if he does try to escape.

Ceridwen.




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 01:59:56 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 01:59:56 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekimv1+lg0h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekipis+3sd2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162110


> > >>Alla:
> > I think what Neri meant ( hopefully I understand it) is that
it
> > would screw the feeling of Potterverse in general as **real** (
as
> > much as it can be), as in it would be easier to think - if
Harry
> > reads the fiction that when he goes to WW, it is all product of
his
> > imagination, regardless of whether he started reading fiction at
> > Dursleys or not.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Why assume that the only fiction out there is fantasy? Why assume
> that the only books on Dudley's shelf are fantasy? Why assume
that
> if JKR wanted to make Harry as book-lover or a reader she'd have
> limited him to the fantasy genre?

Alla:

That is not what I understood Neri's point to be and it is
definitely not mine. It does not matter whether Harry will be
reading fantasy or **any** other fiction in order for Neri's
argument to work in my opinion. All that is needed is for Harry to
have overactive imagination , influenced by **any** type of fiction,
by any book that describes fictional events. As long as we know
that, well, we can never be sure whether Harry just dreampt up WW
just as he would be dreaming about adventures of his favorite
characters from the books, any books?

And if JKR wants to stress that WW is real, I understand what Neri
is saying as plausible argument.


Betsy:
> All I'm saying is that Harry doesn't touch the books on Dudley's
> shelf. He is not a reader.

Alla:

How is the second sentence follows from the first though? Yes, Harry
does not touch books on **Dudleys shelf** He does not read them,
while he cares enough, he is curious enough about his school books
to look through them while he is still at Dursleys.

He reads them, thus in my opinion he is a reader.


> Betsy Hp:
> Harry reads his school books, yes. But no canon has been
presented
> to show that Harry reads for the pleasure of reading. And he
> certainly doesn't read any fiction (and fiction does not mean just
> fantasy, to be clear). Ergo, he is not a reader; he is not a book-
> lover. (Which, as Magpie pointed out, does not suggest that Harry
is
> illiterate.) And that's *fine*. So yes, the scramble still
amuses.

Alla:

See above and one more thing, what is reading for pleasure? Why
Harry reading Qudditch book is not reading for pleasure?

I absolutely read many fantasy books, but I also read lots of non-
fiction, for pleasure that is.

I mean, we do not see Hermione reading fiction either, does it mean
she is not reading for pleasure?

In my book she certainly does , because for her "Hogwarts a history"
is pleasure reading and for Harry Quidditch related books are
pleasure reading IMO.

I mean, really I am not saying that Harry reads **nearly** as much
as Hermione, but neither would I agree that he does not like the
books **at all**. I think he has some books he likes, some of them
we see as Quidditch books for example.

ETA:

Just thought of example from RL. I have a friend, also a lawyer, 
whose reading for pleasure as far as I am aware of constitutes one 
book a month for her bookclub, that is it.

Now, I read well, on the average at least ten fifteen  books a month.

Would you say that my friend is a reader or not?

Because I would say that she is, since I had met by now some people 
who did not pick up a book for years.

Same with Harry. I am not sure if he reads for pleasure often, but 
as long as he does sometimes, he is a reader to me.

JMO,

Alla




From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Nov 29 03:17:37 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:17:37 -0000
Subject: A couple of little theories!
In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40611271753q206ae83cyc0f2c42b6b00927f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekiu4h+9aj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162111

Beci wrote:

> We also know  that if JKR has to tell us anything 
> really important it is said in dialogue by Dumbledore
> or Hermione. Hermione very frequently and very 
> insistently keeps telling us that 'Dumbledore trusts 
> Snape', as does Dumbledore himself. So what I see here 
> is incontrovertible proof that Snape cannot possibly be 
> working for Voldemort, and is therefore not evil. 

Abergoat writes:
I agree with you and Phyllis, JKR has given numerous hints 
that Snape is trustworthy, as horrible as he is. I suspect 
that what Dumbledore chose not to tell Harry was that 
Snape has a reason he entered Voldemort's service...for
revenge against Voldemort himself. Ala 'Et tu, Brute?'
I believe Snape has always been a spy.

As for who 'kills' Voldemort, I'm inclined to go Phyllis's
route. Harry will 'choose' to view the prophecy as meaningless
and will not kill Voldemort even when he has the chance. 
Instead the Dementors will 'accidentally?' take care of the
matter.  Might be nice if Voldemort's soul is so poisonous
that his soul kills off the dementors...

Montims, interesting thought that Voldemort may have so little
soul left that they cannot detect him.  But I've been curious
why the dementors are so attracted to Harry...

Abergoat




From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Nov 29 03:22:54 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:22:54 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekif5e+83b6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekiuee+l9dt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162112


> Betsy Hp:
> Harry reads his school books, yes.  But no canon has been presented 
> to show that Harry reads for the pleasure of reading.  And he 
> certainly doesn't read any fiction (and fiction does not mean just 
> fantasy, to be clear).  Ergo, he is not a reader; he is not a book-
> lover. (Which, as Magpie pointed out, does not suggest that Harry 
is 
> illiterate.)  And that's *fine*.  So yes, the scramble still amuses.


Potioncat:
Guilty as charged (of scrambling) Though I'm not sure why. So, 
instead I can say, the more noble character is Snape, who appears to 
particularly value books.

The point was funny, that the narrator makes the connection of Dudley 
not reading but leaves it to us to realise that Harry doesn't read 
either. (I have that right, don't I?) 

It's another one of the contradictions we get in this series.  We can 
make fun of Marge and Vernon's weight, but we don't like it when 
Draco makes fun of Molly. We look down on Crabbe's and Goyles 
gluttony, yet we smile at Ron's. It's OK for Sprout to give Harry 
points, just because, but it isn't ok for Snape to favor Draco.

I'm not sure if JKR is setting us up, or if she's revealing something 
she doesn't intend to.




From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 29 03:13:14 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 03:13:14 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekie40+m5eh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekitsa+gnp1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162113

Carol:
<snip>
> Dobby is just annoying. Dobby is just trying to help Harry Potter, 
> sir, but Dobby is getting on my nerves, sir, with his crying and 
> nose-blowing and head-banging, and Dobby had better stop soon, 
> sir, or I'll shut the book on him. And Winky at first is a female 
> version of Dobby, until (hic) she starts (hic) drinking and at 
> least (hic) shows some spirit in defying Hermione, who is nosing 
> into her master's business (or is that Harry?). Kreacher muttering 
> to himself is actually funny in places("And that's its twin. Nasty 
> little brats of a blood traitor they are") if you don't take his 
> insults too seriously. But his one-note monologues get old fast, 
> and, of course, he's partly responsible for Harry going to the DoM 
> and, indirectly, for his own master's death (though that wasn't 
> part of the plan). 
<snipping>
> Carol, wondering if anyone really likes the House-Elves or if we're
> all just considering them as abstractions

Jen: Carol, stop!  You're cracking me up.  Well, it seems I might be 
in the minority but the interaction between Dobby and Kreacher in 
HBP is one of my single favorite moments in the entire book (and 
there were quite a few good moments, imo).  Not to mention Kreacher 
in OOTP: "'Is it true?  Is it Harry Potter?  Kreacher can see the 
scar, it must be true, that's the boy who stopped the Dark Lord, 
Kreacher wonders how he did it--'  'Don't we all, Kreacher?' said 
Fred."  I mean, JKR is basically making fun of her whole *plot* in 
that one interaction and she's giving the set-up to Kreacher.

Laughing at house elves is a guilty pleasure, though: they're 
*enslaved* for gosh sakes, nothing funny there!  Likewise, feeling 
fondly towards them puts one in the same company as Arthur and the 
Muggles, it's walking smack dab into a stereotype.  I honestly do 
care what happens to the elves though, more than some of the human 
characters on both sides of the fence.  I very much hope Dobby plays 
an important role in the defeat of Voldemort and is the first Elf 
(or any being come to that) to attend Hogwarts.  I want Winky to 
find some happiness in her life other than Butterbeer, whether 
that's a new family, freedom, heck maybe even love <g>.  
Kreacher....he's harder to love.  Maybe Draco will locate his better 
side and Kreacher can live with him and will be treated with more 
respect than Dobby was?  And he will be the first member of his 
family not to be beheaded at death?!?  Not much, granted, but 
something.

My long answer is simply a resounding 'yes' to Carol's question of 
whether anyone really likes the House-Elves.  In fact, unlike Alla, 
I can't think of another non-human group I care so much about.  The 
centaurs would be a distant second and only because I hope the next 
headmaster/mistress continues to offer them sanctuary in the forest 
if that's what they choose.  Goblins?  Eh.  Trolls and giants?  
Won't go there.  No, the elves stand alone in my mind.

Jen 





From dx_xfactor at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 02:14:45 2006
From: dx_xfactor at yahoo.com (Annette)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:14:45 -0000
Subject: Harry's happy death(Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the...
In-Reply-To: <20061128175321.55422.qmail@web30811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ekiqel+qou2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162114

> Inge:
> I can only speak for myself, but personally I would not read Harry
> Potter 4-5-6 to a 7-year old...<snip>

> Pam:
> My 7 year old son and I are just about to complete Book 4 (ever try
> to read every word of the books out loud?) and I must admit, I am
> not looking forward to read 5 and 6 to him.

Why?? If it gets the child to take an interest in reading it is worth
it. My kids have watched Harry Potter since it came out. I have also
read to my youngest. Harry Potter is alot better then most things on
TV now days.

Annette



From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 29 01:42:46 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:42:46 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
References: <ekhtu3+9q6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <014201c71357$ac62d830$d4b4400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 162115

Jen:  Neri's point works along with the character point though, that part of 
the reason JKR didn't make Harry a book lover was so the WW wouldn't be seen 
as part of his imagination or the lines wouldn't be
blurred once he does enter the WW.  In Narnia the kids don't believe Lucy at 
first because she does have a wonderful imagination, in part from being very 
literate and living with book-reading siblings.
Plus in a fantasy series like Narnia or the Borrowers, there's an adult 
outside the world who knows of the world and lends the air of "it doesn't 
matter if it's true or a child's imagination, believing makes it real."  JKR 
completely bypassed such a storyline by having the Durlseys know the WW is 
real and decide to deny it, as well as having Harry act as a fairly 
unimaginative boy--even his far-fetched dreams turn out to be real!  That 
way there's *no* question the WW exists, no question it's part of Harry's 
imagination.

Magpie:
But I can't help but think this all sounds like an unnecessary defense, a 
way of saying that Harry would be a reader except JKR had these reasons not 
to make him that way., so maybe he should be counted as one anyway.  Why is 
that needed?  Why can't we just say that one of the things we know about 
Harry as a boy is that he doesn't particularly like to read, unlike some 
other fictional characters.  I don't see anything about the story that would 
make Harry liking books a problem, any more than it would have been a 
problem to have him be bad at sports.  It seems like it's just the way he 
is.

This aspect of his personality doesn't need to be chalked up to outside 
forces such as: he didn't have access to books at the Dursleys (but would 
have read if he had), JKR didn't want the WW to be mistaken for his 
fantasies (so he can't be a big reader or our own suspension of disbelief 
would collapse), fantasy characters aren't allowed to read (otherwise Harry 
would), if Harry read JKR would have to make up Wizarding books for him to 
read (and she doesn't like to make things things up;-).  I don't think 
Harry's being a reader would confuse anything or make the WW seem less real 
or blur any lines between fantasy and reality.  It would work fine.  Harry 
just doesn't happen to be that boy.

zgirnius:
I still don't think it is logistics that prevent us from seeing Harry read 
for pleasure. I believe he really doesn't, much. Hearing him chat about a 
fictional work of fiction, or read an unnamed one instead of practicing 
Occlumency when he is stressed out, or mention one, however silly its name, 
and so on, would tend to make me view him as a reader, as Rowling's 
descriptions do not. Not that this makes me dislike Harry or respect him 
less; I just see him as different from myself in this regard, where (for 
example) Hdermione and younger me might have had this as a trait in common. 
(I do accept the idea of reading history books and other works of 
non-fiction for
pleasure, as Hermione's reference to some enormous, dusty tome or other 
suggests she does).

Magpie:
Exactly.  After six books and thousands of pages I feel like I've gotten 
plenty of cues that Harry isn't a reader, which is no worse than the fact 
that Herbology isn't his favorite subject.  Given what we've seen of Harry's 
daily life--which is a lot--it's pretty clear in what direction his 
interests generally fall.  As types go, he's not the kid who reads a lot.

Neri:
OTOH, blurring the difference between imagination and reality, this would be 
a whole different level, and it's a level that wouldn't contribute to the HP 
series. For example, take the theory that everything happening in the series 
is a dream or something that Harry is imagining in his closet in the 
Durselys. In the end of Book 7 he's going to wake up and find that none of 
it really happened. Most HP readers hate this theory, and for a good reason. 
If JKR started to
cast doubts on which part of the Potterverse is real and which part is 
Harry's imagination, it would have screwed up our sense of realism, that 
things are really happening and are really important and we care about the 
characters and what will happen to them. We'd
never care so much about what happens in, say, "Alice in Wonderland", 
because what happens to Alice never feels quite real and isn't supposed to. 
Which is why Alice *does* read fiction (providing it has pictures in it).

Magpie:
Are you suggesting that if we'd happened to be told that Harry liked to 
read --including fiction--in the opening chapters of PS, that that would 
somehow give the theory that the whole story is his imagination more weight? 
Because I really don't think that's true.  Nor do I think that the fact that 
Alice sees no use in a book "without pictures or conversations" somehow sets 
up that she's a big reader of fiction and therefore she's going to turn out 
to have been asleep through the whole book.

Neri:
Since you mention Star Wars, has anybody noticed that Harry lives in the 
Nineties and he appears to never have heard of Star Wars? He hears about 
evil wizards "going to the Dark Side" and he never
thinks "hey, this is like Star Wars". Harry not only doesn't read fiction, 
he also never goes to the movies, he never watches television (except for 
the news), he never watches video and he never plays computer games. All the 
things that Dudley does without being
the great intellectual and imaginative type.

Magpie:
I hesitate to say this because I don't mean to pretend I know your personal 
motivations, but I can't help but jump on those last words "without being 
the great intellectual and imaginative type" because it seems like that's 
exactly why Harry's disinterest in books is an issue is because it's seen as 
somehow insulting, as if it's a way of saying he's stupid.  (Which of course 
is partly the point of telling us Dudley's own books are untouched.)  Harry 
is not a kid who references Muggle culture for anything. The books aren't 
postmodern in that way, where the characters think of themselves as heroes 
in the kinds of stories they've read or seen on TV (which probably helps 
keep them from being dated and irritatingly hip).  But even that I think 
could be done along with a Harry who happened to read a lot.  He would just 
be a different character, so he'd probably be different from the ground up.

Neri:
So the point here isn't that Harry doesn't like to read. The point is that 
the whole fiction element is totally absent from his life, or at least from 
what JKR chooses to tell us about his life. Why? Because
it would interfere with our feeling of the reality of the
Potterverse.

Magpie:
There's probably a lot of reasons for all the characters to be everything 
they are. I don't think this one aspect of Harry necessarily comes down to 
this one thing.  There's lots of ways Harry could have been a reader without 
it threatening the realness of the WW, imo.

-m
 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 04:35:10 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:35:10 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <014201c71357$ac62d830$d4b4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ekj2lu+hre2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162116

> Magpie:
<SNIP>
 I don't think 
> Harry's being a reader would confuse anything or make the WW seem 
less real 
> or blur any lines between fantasy and reality.  It would work 
fine.  Harry 
> just doesn't happen to be that boy.

Alla:

I don't get it. Okay, you are saying it would work fine, Neri and me 
tagging along with Neri saying that it is easily could be seen as 
one of motivations for JKR to not make Harry's reading Dursleys' 
books. Could you clarify please how the argument is invalid on its 
own? I mean, how the argument that in your view Harry is not a 
reader seem to invalidate the idea that he is not a reader of 
fiction ( because he does read non-fictional books) precisely for 
that reason?

Harry may indeed not be that boy, or JKR may want to do exactly what 
Neri suggested, no?

> Magpie:
> Are you suggesting that if we'd happened to be told that Harry 
liked to 
> read --including fiction--in the opening chapters of PS, that that 
would 
> somehow give the theory that the whole story is his imagination 
more weight? 
> Because I really don't think that's true.  <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying ( or more accurately) it is 
me liking Neri's argument. Why it cannot be true?


Neri:
<SNIP>
  All the 
> things that Dudley does without being
> the great intellectual and imaginative type.
> 
> Magpie:
> I hesitate to say this because I don't mean to pretend I know your 
personal 
> motivations, but I can't help but jump on those last 
words "without being 
> the great intellectual and imaginative type" because it seems like 
that's 
> exactly why Harry's disinterest in books is an issue is because 
it's seen as 
> somehow insulting, as if it's a way of saying he's stupid.  (Which 
of course 
> is partly the point of telling us Dudley's own books are 
untouched.) 
<SNIP>

Alla:

Well, to me the issue is that do not see in canon that Harry is 
disinterested in the books per se, I see him not reading muggle 
fiction books, more precisely books on Dudleys shelf, that is it. 
So, yes, that is the main issue to me. Even if the only thing Harry 
reads is non-fiction sometimes, I consider that to be a reader.

But  what you just said , certainly comes as my **secondary**  
motivation, absolutely. Let me stress it again - secondary 
motivation, because I do not agree that canon shows us that Harry 
never reads a book. Having said that, I certainly think that 
character or person should read books sometimes. IMO of course.

I once went on a date with the guy, who told me that the last time 
he read a book was when he was in the fifth grade. He did not seem 
to be joking, the guy was in his early thirties. This was my first 
and last date with this guy.

So, yeah, I would **prefer** Harry picking a book sometimes, but I 
also **see** Harry picking a book in canon sometimes and whether it 
is a fiction or book about Quidditch, really makes no difference to 
me.

Let me say again, I am not even sure if I call Harry book lover, but 
would I call him a reader? Certainly, I would. If you insist, I can 
call him a non-fiction reader with the assumption that it is a 
possibility that he reads fiction when we don't see it, but even if 
he does not, I had seen enough of him reading to convince me that 
the books exist for him.

Certainly Harry is no scholar and he does not need to be, he is not 
that much into books, but I saw him with the book enough time ( as 
much as the story allows of course) to convince me that he knows 
that the books exist :)

JMO,

Alla, who has a very bad suspicion that this is her sixth post if 
she counts it again, but since it is too late she takes a chance and 
posts and goes to slam her fingers.




From pam_rosen at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 04:23:52 2006
From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:23:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death(Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the...
Message-ID: <20061129042353.88330.qmail@web30806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162117

Pam: 
> My 7 year old son and I are just about to complete Book 4 (ever try
> to read every word of the books out loud?) and I must admit, I am
> not looking forward to read 5 and 6 to him.  

Annette asks: Why?? If it gets the child to take an interest in reading it is worth it. My kids have watched Harry Potter since it came out. I have also read to my youngest. Harry Potter is alot better then most things on TV now days.

Pam replies:  Oh, perhaps I was misunderstood.  When I said that I was not looking forward to it, I didn't mean to imply that I wasn't going to do it.  But knowing how he worships Sirius and Dumbledore, and knowing what's coming, I know that will hurt him, and he will learn, for the first time in his life, that all stories do not have happily ever afters.  I know that's a good thing, but it is the loss of that basic child innocence that I was referring to when I said I wasn't looking forward to it.  But I guess it is better to learn it from a book first and get the real live experience later in life.

Pam



From stevejjen at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 29 04:37:56 2006
From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:37:56 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <014201c71357$ac62d830$d4b4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ekj2r4+fbsr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162118

> Magpie:
> But I can't help but think this all sounds like an unnecessary
> defense, a way of saying that Harry would be a reader except JKR
> had these reasons not to make him that way., so maybe he should be
> counted as one anyway.  Why is that needed?  Why can't we just say
> that one of the things we know about Harry as a boy is that he 
> doesn't particularly like to read, unlike some other fictional
> characters.  I don't see anything about the story that would make
> Harry liking books a problem, any more than it would have been a 
> problem to have him be bad at sports.  It seems like it's just the
> way he is.

Jen:  You may hear a defense of Harry in my words, but I promise I'm 
not mounting one.  Neri brought up an interesting thought, I applied 
it to the story and other fantasy series I'm familiar with and ran 
with it.  I don't care if Harry reads, I didn't even *notice* that 
about him until someone here started this thread and said, 'hey, 
Harry doesn't read.' Likewise it never occurred to me that the WW 
doesn't have any fiction because other aspects of the series are 
more engrossing.  Maybe it's JKR's chosen characterization, maybe 
she had several reasons for her choice, maybe the Harry who appeared 
fully formed in her head just wasn't a reader and she went with it--
who knows?  It's just a new point to me and an interesting one to 
consider as we sit here and wait for the final bell.  I don't think 
there's a 'right' answer to the question.





From powellstarkey at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 04:41:22 2006
From: powellstarkey at yahoo.com (powellstarkey)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 04:41:22 -0000
Subject: I am new with a comment
Message-ID: <ekj31i+dprn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162119

 I just wanted to comment by saying that the conversations that you are
having on this site are great. I am an avid Harry Potter fan. I am
rereading the books now.

I was very intrigued by the topic on how much does Dumbledore know? I
think he knows a lot that goes on at the school. I think that with all
the magical objects and people at Hogwarts they have a lot of respect
for him even if they don't like him.

I also think that he does not waste his time with unnecessary words, he
uses his words carefully. I think he treats Potter as a parent or an
adult sometimes treats a child. We give them the information that they
need at the time. Sometimes when you receive too much at one time your
brain goes into overload. I think Dumbledore knows that.

powellstarkey



From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 29 05:14:39 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:14:39 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
References: <ekj2lu+hre2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <01a401c71375$484a51c0$d4b4400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 162120




>> Magpie:
> <SNIP>
> I don't think
>> Harry's being a reader would confuse anything or make the WW seem
> less real
>> or blur any lines between fantasy and reality.  It would work
> fine.  Harry
>> just doesn't happen to be that boy.
>
> Alla:
>
> I don't get it. Okay, you are saying it would work fine, Neri and me
> tagging along with Neri saying that it is easily could be seen as
> one of motivations for JKR to not make Harry's reading Dursleys'
> books. Could you clarify please how the argument is invalid on its
> own? I mean, how the argument that in your view Harry is not a
> reader seem to invalidate the idea that he is not a reader of
> fiction ( because he does read non-fictional books) precisely for
> that reason?>
> Harry may indeed not be that boy, or JKR may want to do exactly what
> Neri suggested, no?

Magpie:
I'm saying that sure, we don't know JKR's motivations and it's possible that 
she didn't want him to be a reader because she thought it would clash with 
the fantasy setting. But that's just imagining things that are in her head. 
One could just as easily suggest that she made him not much of a reader 
because she thought kids would be turned off by a kid who was a reader 
because they thought he was a nerd.  We don't know.

Whatever the reason for this part of his character (Jen gave a few other 
possibilities in her last post and they were all valid possibilities too) 
the books have made it pretty clear reading books isn't one of Harry 
Potter's most well-loved pastimes.  He's specifically shown reading 
Quidditch books to show his love ot Quidditch as a pastime.
>
>> Magpie:
>> Are you suggesting that if we'd happened to be told that Harry
> liked to
>> read --including fiction--in the opening chapters of PS, that that
> would
>> somehow give the theory that the whole story is his imagination
> more weight?
>> Because I really don't think that's true.  <SNIP>
>
> Alla:
>
> Yes, that is precisely what I am saying ( or more accurately) it is
> me liking Neri's argument. Why it cannot be true?

Magpie:
We can imagine it to be true, but I really don't see how it's likely enough 
to consider it a reason behind Harry's personality. Imagine when we meet 
Harry when he's living with the Dursleys and as hear he has no friends 
because of Dudley's gang and thinks the lady down the street is boring, we 
also hear that he likes to read and Dudley throws his books out windows or 
whatever. How does that change how real the WW is written?

> Alla:
>
> Well, to me the issue is that do not see in canon that Harry is
> disinterested in the books per se, I see him not reading muggle
> fiction books, more precisely books on Dudleys shelf, that is it.
> So, yes, that is the main issue to me. Even if the only thing Harry
> reads is non-fiction sometimes, I consider that to be a reader.
>
> But  what you just said , certainly comes as my **secondary**
> motivation, absolutely. Let me stress it again - secondary
> motivation, because I do not agree that canon shows us that Harry
> never reads a book. Having said that, I certainly think that
> character or person should read books sometimes. IMO of course.

Magpie:
I think canon's made it clear that reading is not much of a pastime for 
Harry when he's not doing homework. That doesn't mean he's never read a book 
or is an idiot.  But of course there's a difference between characters who 
are specifically given a *love* of books and Harry, especially young 
characters.  A good analogy would be Hermione. She loves books. She has also 
attended Quidditch games.  And yet people in canon consider her not a 
Quidditch fan like Harry is, even though she's gone to games, just as Harry 
is not a book fan like Hermione is, even though he's read books about 
Quidditch.

Alla:>
> I once went on a date with the guy, who told me that the last time
> he read a book was when he was in the fifth grade. He did not seem
> to be joking, the guy was in his early thirties. This was my first
> and last date with this guy.
>
> So, yeah, I would **prefer** Harry picking a book sometimes, but I
> also **see** Harry picking a book in canon sometimes and whether it
> is a fiction or book about Quidditch, really makes no difference to
> me.

Magpie:
I think you're making Harry too extreme by comparing him to someone who 
hadn't read a book for most of his life. We're talking about him not having 
a love of reading the way he has a love of other things, like Quidditch. 
Not being a character who's given a specific love of books does not make the 
character allergic to books.  Harry and Ron might read plenty of books in 
their lives, but a love of books is not a defining characteristic of them so 
far. They're not abnormally book-shy.

-m 





From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com  Wed Nov 29 06:45:48 2006
From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 06:45:48 -0000
Subject: Quirrell Corner (was: Sending Voldie through the Veil)
In-Reply-To: <ekher9+lhsf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekjaas+pq5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162121

Pleased that someone wants to talk about the Q-man, CV tosses back 
the remains of her Purple Turban and sets the smoking glass on the 
table.

Marianne:
> 
> I'm wary of using JKR quotes as support as sometimes she is not 
> precise in her language, whether she may be doing it deliberately 
to 
> throw readers off the scent or because she is answering quickly and 
> doesn't take the time to be absolutely, completely, correct.  

CV:

Yay! I have always been able to argue against every other bit of 
"evidence" that the Q-man is dead, but this remark of JKR has always 
been problematic. Now you've provided the answer to that! Here, let 
me buy you a Purple Turban. They are delicious.

Marianne:

> [T]he readership's lack of empathy is intriguing. Is 
> it because, with all his ticks and mannerisms, he ranges from 
> looking ridiculous to looking pathetic, neither of which is geared 
> towards making him sympathetic? Is it because we don't see him 
> attempt to fight back against his possession or expose it to DD or 
> the Ministry or anyone who might think that proof of Voldemort's 
> existence is something that should be known? Does this make him 
weak 
> or bad or at least far enough fallen from grace that he somehow 
> doesn't deserve our pity? 
> 

CV:

Actually, I only recently began to understand the abuse metaphor 
espoused in Quirrell. When I fully began to see Quirrell's symptoms 
as representing a tortured person in the grip of another, I began to 
wonder why nobody, including myself, feels sympathy for this guy. How 
can we be so cold? Maybe Quirrell's duplicitous act is so effective 
that we don't have the time to get to see the pain that lies beneath 
the surface. But then, isn't that the way with abuse victims? They 
can so perfectly mask the pain that other people are completely 
fooled.

Marianne:

> We could probably draw parallels with Wormtail, who also seems to 
be 
> an unwilling servant of Voldemort. Although in Peter's case, it 
> seems to have been a matter of wanting to save his own skin that 
> caused him to turn.
> 

CV:

Peter is another interesting character. On one level, he is a 
snivelling weakling who will sell out his friends for his own 
purposes. On another, he knows that he is the runt of the litter. He 
is the butt of jokes. He has very few personal resources. This is the 
type of person who is easily seduced, especially by a person who 
makes promises. Peter is another victim of Voldemort.

One wonders how Voldy communicates with people when he is in his 
gaseous form. Can he talk when he is smoke? Or does he possess people 
in order to talk to them?

Marianne:

> [A]ssuming Quirrell does represent 
> JKR "at her lowest," could not killing him off be JKR's symbolic 
way 
> of getting rid of that part of her life, saying it effect, it's 
over 
> and done, and it's time close the book on that period? 
> 

CV:

You have a point. It could be that. But by this time, I'm so 
personally invested in the Q-man that I prefer to believe 
differently. :) Here, you need to drink that Purple Turban fast or it 
will disolve the glass.

Marianne:

As we all anxiously await for a 
> supposedly dead character to reappear in Book 7, perhaps it won't 
be 
> Emmeline Vance or Caradoc Dearborn or Amelia Bones or Regulus 
Black. 
> Perhpas it will be Quirrell.
> 

CV:

Yay! (Are we anxiously awaiting a supposedly dead character to 
reappear? I know *I* am, but has there been other indications to that 
effect, or is this just speculation?)

There is a theory that has been floating around for a long time that 
basically states that each task in the dungeon represents one book in 
the series. In that case, the final book should be something like 
Harry Potter and Nobody Expects Quirrell. Right?






From technomad at intergate.com  Wed Nov 29 06:54:38 2006
From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:54:38 -0600
Subject: Harry and the house-elves---another view
Message-ID: <00cb01c71383$3e092a20$ca570043@D6L2G391>

No: HPFGUIDX 162122

The house-elves' position is an interesting one.  To us, they seem to be 
slaves, at the mercy of their masters.  But---except for Dobby, who is 
presented as an anomalous case, they seem to be happy and contented as they 
are.  Winky, to take an obvious example, does not seem to be anywhere nearly 
as convinced of the glorious blessings of freedom as we'd expect of a 
recently-freed slave.

One thing that a lot of posters on this point forget, again and again, is 
that _house-elves are NOT human!!!_  They are another race entirely.  Humans 
hate being enslaved.  House-elves may well see their situation as the 
highest and noblest calling available to them.  Dobby is not a typical 
example, and the other house-elves seem to consider him to be on the same 
level as the sort of harmless mentally-disturbed person one sees 
sometimes---not dangerous, but not to be emulated.

And there might be very good reasons why house-elves are "enslaved."  I know 
that there is (or was) at least one other _Fables_ fan on here, which is 
nice since this reminds me of a recent story-arc in _Fables._  Basically, 
the New York Fable community had to deal with a person who had stupidly let 
a D'Jinn loose---without making his third wish "Go back into your bottle and 
seal yourself back in."  In the Fableverse, D'Jinns are incredibly powerful 
and extremely capricious---worlds have been destroyed by uncontrolled 
D'Jinns at play.  House-elves apparently have their own kind of magic, and 
Dobby, once free to do as he pleased, was able to face down Lucius 
Malfoy---who, for all his faults, is almost certainly neither a coward nor a 
weak wizard.

If all the house-elves were freed, they might be even more dangerous than 
Dementors or another goblin rebellion.  And, again, you can't generalize 
from Dobby, or Winky.  Neither of them is particularly typical of 
house-elves.  What if, once freed, they decided they'd been "cast aside and 
scorned" and began to wreak vengeance on all and sundry? 




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Nov 29 07:26:33 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:26:33 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Readers (was Re: JKR and "Think of the Children!"(was: Se...
In-Reply-To: <eki2ur+usqf@eGroups.com>
References: <ekh90e+rd29@eGroups.com> <eki2ur+usqf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611282326tcf2eb3er2f8a7723427ddbb4@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162123

Potioncat:
I took "Puddin'head Wilson" with me to the dentist---the very same
dentist who let it slip that Snape wasn't the baddie in SS/PS--he
looked at the book, looked at me and said, "I never knew anyone would
read Mark Twain if they didn't have to."

Lynda:
I, on the other hand, while majoring in English Lit, discovered a deep and
enduring loathing for Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville. Mark Twain I
do enjoy, but as a rule I far prefer British authors, especially prior to
the 20th century.

Lynda (whose Dr. always asks her what she is reading now. Specifically any
new fantasy novels. Seems his kids grew up and no longer require him to read
to them or take them to movies).


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




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Nov 29 08:46:47 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:46:47 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <01a401c71375$484a51c0$d4b4400c@Spot>
References: <ekj2lu+hre2@eGroups.com> <01a401c71375$484a51c0$d4b4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611290046t658a5540o8fbc3c4ae682fb24@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162124

Lynda:

I still tend to think that the reason Harry isn't a reader of fiction (and
this is ok) is because he didn't grow up in a family of readers. And that's
fine. Not everyone is. Even many who are "readers" really aren't. I remember
watching in horror as a woman in a Target 2 months ago came in and snatched
every single new Harlequin off the shelf of the book aisle. Yep. She noticed
me watching. As she ran past me down the aisle she said, "this'll hold me
for a month!" I did remember to mentally wish her happy reading, but that's
so far from my normal reading that its a different world to me. I'm not
saying I've never read a Harlequin romance but...(off my soapbox now,
really!)

And I tend to agree as well that Harry doesn't read for pleasure is also
that he doesn't really have the time. He is after all, learning to save the
world. And there's a time to read and a time for action.

On that note. My next action is finding my Harry Dresden book so I can read
a very few minutes before bed. Yeah. I can do that tonight. I just started
it. Not nearly to the gory part yet...

Lynda


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




From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Nov 29 09:43:49 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:43:49 -0000
Subject: A couple of little theories!
In-Reply-To: <ekiu4h+9aj4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekjkol+crfs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162125

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

> Abergoat writes:

<SNIP>
> I suspect that what Dumbledore chose not to tell Harry was that 
> Snape has a reason he entered Voldemort's service...for
> revenge against Voldemort himself. 
<SNIP> 
> As for who 'kills' Voldemort, I'm inclined to go Phyllis's
> route. Harry will 'choose' to view the prophecy as meaningless
> and will not kill Voldemort even when he has the chance. 

Brothergib -
I agree that Harry will not become a murderer. It is interesting to 
wonder how Snape will react to this. I agree that Snape hates 
Voldemort more than anyone else. I also think his role is to remove 
all the obstacles in Harry's way (i.e. Horcruxes) to allow Harry a 
chance to kill Voldemort. If Harry then chooses not to kill 
Voldemort, do we think that Snape will try himself....'The one with 
the power to defeat the Dark Lord approaches'....Yes, he's standing 
outside listening to this actually!!>

Abergoat again:
<SNIP> 
> But I've been curious why the dementors are so attracted to Harry...
> 

Brothergib again:
I also wondered about this, particularly since the Minister for Magic 
was so shocked that they would attack a boy! JKR once said that the 
events at Godric's Hollow are the key to the series, and I have to 
admit that I haven't heard a satisfactory answer yet.
Evidence suggests that it was the AK spell that Voldemort fired at 
Harry. But if it rebounded and 'killed' Voldemort, how did it destroy 
the house? And if the spell was blocked by Lily's sacrifice, why is 
there an enduring link between LV and HP? Why does all the other 
evidence suggest that some piece of LV still resides in HP (e.g. 
sorting hat suggesting Slytherin/dementors attracted to HP)?

Very confusing!!

Brothergib




From jamess at climaxgroup.com  Wed Nov 29 11:40:13 2006
From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:40:13 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Umbridge as catalyst
Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39CF3@mimas>

No: HPFGUIDX 162126

montims:
I've been thinking again about OotP, and realise again just how much DD
miscalculated LV at the beginning of the book...

If Umbridge had not sent the Dementors, Harry would likely have just spent a
very long, lonely and frustrating summer holiday, then gone back to school
knowing nothing about 12 GP, the Order, or anything else (Hermione and Ron
would presumably have still been forbidden to tell him, for the same
reasons). He would have understood even less the purpose of the Snape
occlumens lessons...

[snip]

James:

You make a good point. But remember how Harry has always been picked up and
taken somewhere towards the end of the summer holiday. I suspect the plan
was to always bring Harry to No.12 to meet up with everyone before term and
be properly defended on his journey to hogwarts. The incident with the
dementors merely forced there hand on the timing. 



From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 07:59:58 2006
From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:59:58 -0000
Subject: I am new with a comment
In-Reply-To: <ekj31i+dprn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekjelu+ko0t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162127

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "powellstarkey" 
<powellstarkey at ...> wrote:
>
>  I just wanted to comment by saying that the conversations that 
you are
> having on this site are great. I am an avid Harry Potter fan. I am
> rereading the books now.
> 
> I was very intrigued by the topic on how much does Dumbledore 
know? I
> think he knows a lot that goes on at the school. I think that with 
all
> the magical objects and people at Hogwarts they have a lot of 
respect
> for him even if they don't like him.
> 
> I also think that he does not waste his time with unnecessary 
words, he
> uses his words carefully. I think he treats Potter as a parent or 
an
> adult sometimes treats a child. We give them the information that 
they
> need at the time. Sometimes when you receive too much at one time 
your
> brain goes into overload. I think Dumbledore knows that.
> 
> powellstarkey

While I agree with you somewhat, I think that had Dumbledore shared 
his knowledge of LV with Harry sooner, Harry could have been spared 
much heartache - namely the loss of Sirius. 

Dumbledore knew (or strongly suspected) that LV would try to lure 
Harry into the DofM to retrieve the prophecy. Had Dumbledore shown 
the memory from the pensieve to Harry prior to his 5th year and also 
warned Harry of his suspicions that LV would try to lure him to the 
DofM under false pretenses, Harry would never have gone there. 
Sirius would never have left #12 Grimmauld Place to come to Harry's 
rescue. Sirius would still be alive. 

I do agree that Dumbledore was just trying to protect Harry, spare 
him heartache and misery. However, he quite inadvertantly created 
more for Harry instead of alleviating it. I know that he realized 
his mistake after LV couldn't hang onto possessing Harry in the 
Ministry after the battle with the Death Eaters.

Is this your first time rereading the books? I've read each of them 
dozens of times - each ;) Each time something jumps out at me that I 
sort of missed before, or that just didn't seem that significant the 
other time(s) I read them.

I'm going to be posting some of my ?'s shortly.

Jenni from Alabama 






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 13:01:20 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:01:20 -0000
Subject: Harry and the house-elves---another view
In-Reply-To: <00cb01c71383$3e092a20$ca570043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <ekk0b0+rkq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162128

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" <technomad at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> One thing that a lot of posters on this point forget, again and 
again, is 
> that _house-elves are NOT human!!!_  They are another race 
entirely.  Humans 
> hate being enslaved.  House-elves may well see their situation as 
the 
> highest and noblest calling available to them. <SNIP>


Alla:

They may or they may not. Till enchantment is lifted, we do not have 
the 
complete picture IMO.



Eric Oppen:
> And there might be very good reasons why house-elves 
are "enslaved."  <SNIP>House-elves apparently have their own kind of 
magic, and 
> Dobby, once free to do as he pleased, was able to face down Lucius 
> Malfoy---who, for all his faults, is almost certainly neither a 
coward nor a 
> weak wizard.
> 
> If all the house-elves were freed, they might be even more 
dangerous than 
> Dementors or another goblin rebellion.

Alla:

I am sorry, but how is this reason even approaching to be the good 
reason?

Wizards are afraid that another race has magic more powerful than 
them and they decided to keep them enslaved because of that, I mean, 
if this was primary reason indeed, IMO this is a disgusting reason. 
It is surely easier to do so, than become friends or allies with 
house elves and make sure that house elves have no reason to turn on 
wizards.

And I do not see wizards go and try to imprison Giants. Who sure are 
dangerous and violent, many of them.

I mean, did they just got lucky with house elves and figure that to 
keep their magic in check is a good reason to continue?

Sorry, I do not think it is a good reason.


Eric Oppen:
  And, again, you can't generalize 
> from Dobby, or Winky.  Neither of them is particularly typical of 
> house-elves. 

Alla:

And again, I disagree, if I had been given to see up close and 
personal three house elves only, I may assume that those are 
**typical** house elves. IMO of course.

Eric Oppen:
 What if, once freed, they decided they'd been "cast aside and 
> scorned" and began to wreak vengeance on all and sundry?
>

Alla:

Maybe that would be a very memorable lesson for wizards then not to 
try and enslave another race than can get upset about that.

JMO,

Alla




From antonia31h at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 08:22:18 2006
From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:22:18 -0000
Subject: A few questions about OOTP
Message-ID: <ekjfvq+58ra@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162129

I was just wondering about certain things from OOTP. For example what
is beneath the veil in that room of the Ministry of Magic? What were
those voices Harry heard and Luna mentioned? And what about the room
that is locked at all times and as Dumbledore said has such a great
force inside it, one that Harry also posess? Is this force love? And
if so how is it kept in that room? And last but not least what is the
thing with the brains floating in the room? What did Hermione mean by
"they are breeding"? Breeding what?
If anyone could answer I would be very grateful.
Antonia31h




From jnferr at gmail.com  Wed Nov 29 13:59:34 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:59:34 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Umbridge as catalyst
In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39CF3@mimas>
References: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39CF3@mimas>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611290559p5bbf6779n6a2abbd49a0246fe@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162130

>
> montims:
> I've been thinking again about OotP, and realise again just how much DD
> miscalculated LV at the beginning of the book...
>
> If Umbridge had not sent the Dementors, Harry would likely have just spent
> a
> very long, lonely and frustrating summer holiday, then gone back to school
> knowing nothing about 12 GP, the Order, or anything else (Hermione and Ron
> would presumably have still been forbidden to tell him, for the same
> reasons). He would have understood even less the purpose of the Snape
> occlumens lessons...
>
> [snip]
>
> James:
>
> You make a good point. But remember how Harry has always been picked up
> and
> taken somewhere towards the end of the summer holiday. I suspect the plan
> was to always bring Harry to No.12 to meet up with everyone before term
> and
> be properly defended on his journey to hogwarts. The incident with the
> dementors merely forced there hand on the timing.


montims:
true - he's been picked up and moved by JKR, but not necessarily by DD -
after PoA, for example, he runs away after the Aunt Marge incident and is
taken to Diagon Alley by the Knight Bus.  That was very contrary to DD's
intentions, with Sirius on the loose.  In Goblet, he is invited to the QWC,
but that's ok because LV has still not returned.  In Order, LV has returned,
and DD fears that he is targeting Harry, so no, I don't think DD would have
wanted him out of the protection of Privet Drive or the Guard for a minute
more than necessary.  I suspect, in fact, he would have sent Hagrid (if he
had returned) or Moody to escort Harry to Hogwarts at the last minute.  In
HBP, DD himself escorts Harry to the Burrow, which "has been given the
highest security the Ministry of Magic can provide".

And, by the way, while looking for that quote I read the explanation at the
end again to see if DD tells Harry what he had intended to do, and that is
not there, but "It was my fault that Sirius died," said Dumbledore clearly.
"...Sirius was a brave, clever and energetic man, and such men are not
usually content to stay at home in hiding while they believe others to be in
danger..."  It seems DD has now learned the lesson that he cannot expect
people to just sit around waiting for him to fix things.  If Harry HAD been
Kissed, or otherwise attacked, DD would have said the same about him.


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




From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Wed Nov 29 13:59:49 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:59:49 -0000
Subject: Quirrell Corner (was: Sending Voldie through the Veil)
In-Reply-To: <ekjaas+pq5r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekk3ol+k8k6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162131

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Constance Vigilance" 
<ConstanceVigilance at ...> wrote:

> CV:
 Here, let 
> me buy you a Purple Turban. They are delicious.

Marianne:

Is it wise to start drinking these things at 8:00 in the morning???
 
> CV:
> 
> Actually, I only recently began to understand the abuse metaphor 
> espoused in Quirrell. When I fully began to see Quirrell's 
symptoms 
> as representing a tortured person in the grip of another, I began 
to 
> wonder why nobody, including myself, feels sympathy for this guy. 
How 
> can we be so cold? Maybe Quirrell's duplicitous act is so 
effective 
> that we don't have the time to get to see the pain that lies 
beneath 
> the surface. But then, isn't that the way with abuse victims? They 
> can so perfectly mask the pain that other people are completely 
> fooled.

Marianne:
And you've sold me on this. When I read your first post I felt a 
pang of remorse because I had tossed Quirrell on the dung-heap of 
despised characters without really stopping to think of his 
situation. Really, how can one not cut the guy some slack once you 
think about being under Voldemort's control to the point of having 
his face sticking out the back of your head?  The more I think about 
that, the more creeped out I get.

Maybe I would have paid more attention to him had he stuck around 
for more than one book. Instead, he's gone and each succeeding book 
gave me more events and characters to think/worry about.

<snip>
> CV:
> 
> Peter is another interesting character. On one level, he is a 
> snivelling weakling who will sell out his friends for his own 
> purposes. On another, he knows that he is the runt of the litter. 
He 
> is the butt of jokes. He has very few personal resources. This is 
the 
> type of person who is easily seduced, especially by a person who 
> makes promises. Peter is another victim of Voldemort.

Marianne:
I think Peter is a much more capable wizard than people think. He 
was overshadowed in his school years by Sirius and James, but they 
were supposedly extremely bright and gifted. Even an above-average 
student would look sub-standard by comparison. I think Peter made a 
deal in his own mind that it was worth being the low man on the 
Marauders' totem pole in order to reap the benefits of having strong 
friends who would carry him to some extent, ie, helping with the 
Animagus transformation. 

Whatever triggered his decision to turn to the DEs, I wonder if in 
the back of his mind he felt he'd be ensuring his own safety by 
trading the protection of one group for another which now had gained 
what he thought was the upper hand?  
 
CV:
> One wonders how Voldy communicates with people when he is in his 
> gaseous form. Can he talk when he is smoke? Or does he possess 
people 
> in order to talk to them?

Marianne:
And some prefer not to wonder about such things because they lead to 
nightmares<g>. I'd vote for possession. It's so much neater. The 
person can't try to outrun you and, once you're "inside" you can 
control them.  Now I'm wondering how Vapor-mort travels. Does he 
linger in the air waiting for some unsuspecting human to wander by?  
Would a severe storm blow him across the country?
 
<snip> 
> Marianne:
> 
> As we all anxiously await for a 
> > supposedly dead character to reappear in Book 7, perhaps it 
won't 
> be 
> > Emmeline Vance or Caradoc Dearborn or Amelia Bones or Regulus 
> Black. 
> > Perhpas it will be Quirrell.
> 
> CV:
> 
> Yay! (Are we anxiously awaiting a supposedly dead character to 
> reappear? I know *I* am, but has there been other indications to 
that 
> effect, or is this just speculation?)

Marianne:
Oh, it's rampant speculation.  Ever since DD tried to convince Draco 
that he could be hidden while the world thought he was dead, there 
had been pondering about whether some character who we were told had 
died might really be alive.  And then, of course, there was that 
mention long ago about the Draught of Living Death.  It's about time 
for that to make an appearance. 

CV:
> There is a theory that has been floating around for a long time 
that 
> basically states that each task in the dungeon represents one book 
in 
> the series. In that case, the final book should be something like 
> Harry Potter and Nobody Expects Quirrell. Right?

Marianne:
Sure, why not? Quirrell's "death" was the perfect opportunity for DD 
to pull a fast one.  Who else was around to witness what might have 
happened? Let's make a Purple Turban pledge - Quirrell will return 
in Book 7!

Marianne





From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 29 14:29:02 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:29:02 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of
 the Children!")
Message-ID: <1003230.1164810542280.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 162132

Magpie:
>There's probably a lot of reasons for all the characters to be everything 
>they are. I don't think this one aspect of Harry necessarily comes down to 
>this one thing.  There's lots of ways Harry could have been a reader without 
>it threatening the realness of the WW, imo.

Bart:
One aspect that we have been ignoring. Reading requires leisure time. Between his schoolwork, Quidditch, and saving the school/world, when does Harry have time to read? For example,there are a number of gaps in OOTP, where one might assume that he's reading SOMETHING, and they are not necessarily his school books. 

Which reminds me of a story (and I'm too lazy to look up the details now) about a 19th century serial novel, where one chapter ends with a couple saying goodnight, and the next with them eating breakfast together. When complaints came in, his response was on the close order, "The author is not responsible for what the characters do in between chapters." There are plenty of gaps in the books, where weeks or even months are not mentioned in detail, and we sometimes have no idea of what he's actually doing. 

Bart



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 14:46:34 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 14:46:34 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <01a401c71375$484a51c0$d4b4400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ekk6ga+8u8v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162133

> Magpie:
> I'm saying that sure, we don't know JKR's motivations and it's 
possible that 
> she didn't want him to be a reader because she thought it would 
clash with 
> the fantasy setting. But that's just imagining things that are in 
her head. 
> One could just as easily suggest that she made him not much of a 
reader 
> because she thought kids would be turned off by a kid who was a 
reader 
> because they thought he was a nerd.  We don't know.

Alla:

Indeed, those are metarguments, but as long as there is no reason for 
them not to work, they are working for me, hehe.

Magpie:
> Whatever the reason for this part of his character (Jen gave a few 
other 
> possibilities in her last post and they were all valid 
possibilities too) 
> the books have made it pretty clear reading books isn't one of 
Harry 
> Potter's most well-loved pastimes.  He's specifically shown reading 
> Quidditch books to show his love ot Quidditch as a pastime.

Alla:

See, I do not get how one contradicts each other. I guess it is again 
a question of degree for me. Most well-loved, surely not, but why 
read the book in the first place, even if the book is about your 
favorite sport, if you can just do without it and just play your 
sport and talk to your friends about it.

He is shown reading about it, to you it only stresses that he loves 
Quidditch, to me it is shown that he cares enough about books to go 
and check out what was written about his favorite sport.

Like I like cooking for example (I do not consider myself to be a 
great cook, but I can make some things well), but I do not read 
cookbooks, not because I do not like cooking, but because those books 
are not interesting to me, even though I like cooking well enough.


> > Alla:
> >
> > Yes, that is precisely what I am saying ( or more accurately) it 
is
> > me liking Neri's argument. Why it cannot be true?
> 
> Magpie:
> We can imagine it to be true, but I really don't see how it's 
likely enough 
> to consider it a reason behind Harry's personality. 

Alla:

I do.

Magpie:
Imagine when we meet 
> Harry when he's living with the Dursleys and as hear he has no 
friends 
> because of Dudley's gang and thinks the lady down the street is 
boring, we 
> also hear that he likes to read and Dudley throws his books out 
windows or 
> whatever. How does that change how real the WW is written?

Alla:

I thought I was clear enough upthread, sorry if I was not. Let's 
continue with your hypothetical. Harry likes to read and since his 
home life is so bleak, he spends days and days in his cupboard 
thinking about his favorite characters adventures, imagining himself 
in those worlds, and lo and behold, what do we know - one day a 
letter arrives, inviting Harry to go and indeed live in one of those 
worlds.

I mean I am honestly surprised, that it is hard to see that in this 
scenario WW can be easily seen as the product of Harry's imagination.

In fact, when I read this argument, I was like - wow, Neri that is so 
obvious, how could I have not seen that - you are a genuis :)

 
> Magpie:
> I think canon's made it clear that reading is not much of a pastime 
for 
> Harry when he's not doing homework. That doesn't mean he's never 
read a book 
> or is an idiot.  But of course there's a difference between 
characters who 
> are specifically given a *love* of books and Harry, especially 
young 
> characters.  A good analogy would be Hermione. She loves books. She 
has also 
> attended Quidditch games. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, Harry is not Hermione, I have said it several times, in fact 
Harry is very far from Hermione on the scale of loving books. :)




> Magpie:
> I think you're making Harry too extreme by comparing him to someone 
who 
> hadn't read a book for most of his life. We're talking about him 
not having 
> a love of reading the way he has a love of other things, like 
Quidditch. 
> Not being a character who's given a specific love of books does not 
make the 
> character allergic to books.  Harry and Ron might read plenty of 
books in 
> their lives, but a love of books is not a defining characteristic 
of them so 
> far. They're not abnormally book-shy.


Alla:

Wow, wow, wait. When you phrase it that way...

That is precisely what I am arguing against - that Harry never had 
read a book in his entire life besides text books or that he is 
allergic to books.

That is how I understood Betsy's original point. As long as we agree 
that he indeed reads books sometimes, I have no argument that he 
loves Qudditch much more than he loves books.

In fact as I also said upthread, I am not even insisting on calling 
him a book lover, but I certainly insist on calling him a reader.

JMO,

Alla.




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Wed Nov 29 15:15:32 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 09:15:32 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW(was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
References: <ekk6ga+8u8v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00d401c713c9$5d048500$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 162134

Okay,
  I talked to my step daughters Philosophy teacher last night.

  This is what he said.  

A reader is considered as someone who doesn't necessarily read every book in site.  A reader doesn't have to specifically read "books".  A reader is considered (in his opinion) to be anyone who reads anything.  It could be a text book, fiction book, non fiction book, magazine, pamphlets, newspapers, or as simple as the ads on the bullitin board.
  A non reader would be someone who watches the news or listens to the radio instead of reading the newspaper.  
  We have specific canon that Harry reads the paper.  He checked the paper for signs of Sirius.  We know he reads his Quidditch book.   Matter of interest to him.  We also know he reads his text books.  At least his (well at least Snapes .. LOL) potions book.  We know that he has at some point read things on the bullitin board when Umbridge was in charge.  No choice with all the rules.  
  So, with this considered..  If the professors eyes, Harry is considered a reader.  Not an avid reader like we all are.. LOL  But a reader nonetheless.
   Anyway, I just thought I would share the Professors opinion which I agree with completely.
  Lana

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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 29 15:18:12 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:18:12 -0000
Subject: Harry's reading and fiction within fiction
Message-ID: <ekk8bk+qvsh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162135


In message 162124, Lynda wrote:
> I still tend to think that the reason Harry isn't a reader of fiction (and
> this is ok) is because he didn't grow up in a family of readers. And that's
> fine. Not everyone is.

Geoff:
There is possibly another point to be considered. After `Philosopher's 
Stone' was published in the UK getting towards ten years ago, the book 
was held in a great deal of favour by teachers and workers with young 
people because it got the BOYS reading. there has been a lot of concern 
in recent years over the lack of conection between many boys and reading 
and, inevitably, there have been various governmental initiatives towards 
addressing this. It is not a new problem. 

Back when I was in my teens, I was considered a swot because I read a lot 
? including fiction. I discovered LOTR when I was about 16, not long after 
its publication and, aside from this,  I would often have my nose in a book, 
either fiction of non-fiction for that matter.

Even today, many lads I know, even intelligent ones, do not like sitting 
down to read. Looking information they need, yes, but a story? Maybe, 
maybe not. Alhough Harry's books have changed that perception a little, 
they would far sooner be doing something active - Computer games, 
sports, hanging out with friends ? or perhaps watching TV which requires 
less effort than concentrating on the printed page.

In that sense, Harry is not unique. Living in the Muggle world as he was 
at that time, he was a child of his time.

=====

In message 162100, Neri wrote:
> Since you mention Star Wars, has anybody noticed that Harry lives in
> the Nineties and he appears to never have heard of Star Wars? He
> hears about evil wizards "going to the Dark Side" and he never
> thinks "hey, this is like Star Wars". Harry not only doesn't read
> fiction, he also never goes to the movies, he never watches
> television (except for the news), he never watches video and he never
> plays computer games. All the things that Dudley does without being
> the great intellectual and imaginative type.

Geoff:
An interesting question here would be, where has the opportunity been 
created for Harry to mention `Star Wars'. Let's look at some information 
in Book 1:

`He (Dudley) was just ripping the paper off a gold wristwatch when Aunt 
Petunia came back from the telephone, looking both angry and worried.
"Bad news, Vernon," she said. "Mrs. Figg's broken her leg. She can't take 
him." She jerked her head in Harry's direction.

Dudley's mouth fell open in horror but Harry's heart gave a leap.. Every 
year on Dudley's birthday his parents took him and a friend out for the 
day, to adventure parks, hamburger bars or the cinema. every year, Harry 
was left behind with Mrs. Figg


~~~

"Now what?" said Aunt Petunia, looking furiously at Harry as though he 
had planned this
..

~~~

"We could phone Marge," Uncle Vernon suggested.

"Don't be silly, Vernon, she hates the boy."

The Dursleys often spoke about Harry like this, as though he wasn't 
there -  or rather, as though he was something very nasty that couldn't 
understand them, like a slug.

"What about what's-her-name, you friend ? Yvonne?"

"On holiday in Majorca," snapped Aunt Petunia.

"You could just leave me here," Harry out in hopefully (he'd be able to 
watch what he wanted on television for a change and maybe even have 
a go on Dudley's computer.'

(Philosopher's Stone, "The Vanishing Glass" from pp.21-22 UK edition)

Now, from this it is blindingly obvious that Harry doesn't get taken out ?
 especially to the cinema; he doesn't get to see any TV programmes he 
would like to and he doesn't get near a computer, except perhaps at 
school, although, speaking as a retired computer teacher, at that time 
computers were not so widely available in Junior schools (7-11 years old, 
years 3-6 in the structure in Harry's area).

It is also unlikely that he picked up anything from his peer group 
because he was isolated. A rather sad little paragraph in PS comments:

`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 liked to disagree with Dudley's gang.'
(Philosopher's Stone, "The Vanishing Glass" p.27 UK edition)

That, to me, says it all.

=====

Betsy Hp wrote in post 162099:
> I'm not a Tolkien expert, but didn't the characters all go for those
> long epic poem type things that were big in the Western world before
> novels were born? Poems and songs of love and war, etc? I would
> equate such an interest with being a "reader".

Geoff:
I think it is difficult to draw parallels here. LOTR is set in a long-ago 
world where I suspect most books were books of lore or history. There 
was no printing so the idea of a book for everyone to read would be alien, 
as in real world mediaeval times. There is obviously an oral tradition 
because the hobbits sing songs and probably make them up. But the epic 
poem type of literature which you mention is usually based on the history 
of Middle-Earth. 

Just to give a couple of examples. Sam, surprisingly, begins to quote: 
`Gil-galad was an Elven-king
', which he had learned from Bilbo, as 
they are resting on the approach to Weathertop and soon afterwards, 
Aragorn (still Strider to the hobbits) chants part of the story of Beren 
and Tin?viel: `The leaves were long, the grass was green, the 
hemlock-umbels tall and fair...' just before the Nazg?l attack. (both in 
FOTR Chapter 11 `A Knife in the Dark'). And even attempts by the 
characters to produce new poetry finds it based on the history of their 
world. Bilbo's poem at Rivendell: `E?rendil was a mariner
' is not fiction. 
Hence, fiction within the world of Tolkien and also the reading of fiction 
within that world would appear to be almost non-existent.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 15:22:55 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:22:55 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekij9l+mjhq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekk8kf+5uau@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162136

Carol earlier:
<snip> it would be nice to know how the enchantment that binds a
House-Elf to a single family works and who imposed it. I also think
that the desire to serve humans is ingrained, as Dobby illustrates.
He's a free House-Elf and he still *chooses* to serve and obey a human
master, Harry. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Except that 
> a)Harry is not his master, but his friend
> b)"choose to obey" is an oxymoron ? if you aren't compelled by a 
> thing, person, agency,  or law to obey, that's not really an act of 
> obedience. "Choose to obey" in fact means "do whatever I choose".

Carol again:
Of course "chooses to obey" is an an oxymoron, but it's Dobby's
oxymoron, not mine: "Dobby is a free house-elf and can obey anyone he
likes" (HBP Am. ed. 421). That's a paradoxical view of freedom--a
choice of masters. Or, if you dislike the term "master," a choice of
humans to serve. He doesn't say, "Dobby is a free house-elf and will
not serve anyone." He still wants a human to obey, and he chooses
Harry Potter. And he does not regard "Harry Potter, sir," as a friend
and equal but as someone with the right to give him orders. That
Dobby's obligation to obey him is self-imposed does not make it any
less an obligation in his mind.

Dobby's *choice* to *serve* when no magical bond is compelling him to
do so shows as clearly as anything in the books that service to humans
is ingrained in house-elf nature. Dobby is technically an employee of
Hogwarts and presumably works in the kitchen with the other elves. He
also picks up the hats and socks that Hermione leaves when no other
elf will do it (an unfortunate circumstance in its way because it
leaves Hermione deluded, and the boys either neglect or are afraid to
tell her), but in addition to that, he chooses to obey Harry Potter in
both OoP and HBP and to aid him in GoF. If that's not clear evidence
that Dobby wants to serve his chosen human, I'm Winky.
>  
a-svirn:
> Moreover, he didn't even obey his masters when he was magically 
> bound. His self-punishments are in fact acts of disobedience ? he 
> found a loophole in the enchantments and used it to disobey ? 
> whenever he chose. Which shows that his longing for freedom was 
> stronger even than magical bonds. Freedom, after all, is first and 
> foremost the freedom of choice. 

Carol:
"Dobby likes getting paid, but he likes work better." And work, for
Dobby, means working for Wizards, not for himself or for another
house-elf or even for a goblin.

And his disobedience has nothing to do with a desire for freedom; it's
a desire to aid and protect Harry Potter, his hero, who is already his
chosen human even before he's freed. You're being a bit slippery here
if you'll forgive me, saying that enslavement is abhorrent because the
slave lacks freedom yet saying that even the most abject slave (Dobby
or Kreacher) has freedom of choice. (I can see *me* making that point,
but I'm not sure how it aids your side of the argument.) So Dobby has
freedom of choice as a slave to the Malfoys and freedom of choice as a
free elf and freedom is first and foremost freedom of choice? Why
would he long for freedom, then, if he already has it?

I think what Dobby longs for in CoS is escape from abuse and from
service to "bad, Dark wizards." He prefers to serve his hero, the Boy
Who Lived, because in his mind (but not Winky's or Kreacher's,
apparently) abuse is associated with Voldemort. He prefers to serve a
Wizard who had the magnanimity to request him to sit down in his
presence "like an equal." That choice of masters is available to Dobby
(who is disobeying the Malfoys by helping, though not yet obeying
Harry) is the same choice he makes when he's "a free house-elf." He
wants to work for a Wizard, and his chosen Wizard is Harry.
> 
Carol:
>  Whatever the enchantment is, it was not what made the House-Elves
want to serve people in the first place. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> In that case why do humans need the enchantment at all? If house-
> elves are slaves by nature why do humans need both magic *and* 
> legislation to keep them enslaved? Kind of redundant.

Carol again:
Good question--unless the enchantment was placed by the house-elves
themselves when they agreed to serve a particular family--a binding
magical contract--and the Wizards took advantage of it. There's no
need for legislation to keep them enslaved, I agree. The legislation
should specify humane treatment for house-elves, with freedom and
reemployment for those who are abused. Of course, they'll need to be
reindoctrinated to understand that freedom under such circumstances is
not a disgrace.

a_svirn: 
> I don't understand what you mean when you say that desire to 
> serve "ingrained". Only God Almighty or Nature Itself can ingrain 
> anything in nature. But we know that elves weren't created as 
> slaves, they were enslaved and kept enslaved by wizards. Therefore 
> whatever it is that "ingrained" into them has been ingrained by 
> wizards. Which rather suggests that "desire to serve" is not an 
> instinct, but a feedback reaction. <snip>

Carol:
See above. Dobby desires to serve Wizards even after he's free. It
can't simply be indoctrination or he probably wouldn't rebel at all,
or if he did, he'd want to be free in the sense that Wizards are free,
to seek first education or training and then employment in their
chosen field, perhaps working for themselves as an entrepreneur. Dobby
uses his freedom to seek employment at Hogwarts, in part because it's
the only paid employment available to him, but once he's there he
*chooses* the added *unpaid service* to Harry Potter, his chosen
human. It isn't enchantment that prevents him from throwing off what
you consider to be the shackles of service to humans. It's choice. He
likes to work. He says so himself. He even talks Dumbledore into
giving him fewer days off and lower pay than Dumbledore offered. And
he not only works for but serves Harry for no pay whatever, choosing
to obey him. If that's not an ingrained, and probably inborn,
instinct, I don't know what is. (The desire to serve a particular
Wizard or family is stronger than the desire to work for humans in
general, as shown by Winky and Kreacher, but in all cases, they want
to serve some human and regard that person as master or mistress even
when that person fires them or dies. Even a free house-elf like Dobby
regards his chosen human as his master, whether he uses the term or
not. "Dobby will do whatever Harry Potter wants him to do!" (HBP 421)
And later, his eyes shining with excitement, he says, "And if Dobby
does it wrong, Dobby will throw himself off the topmost tower, Harry
Potter!" (421-22). (Fortunately, Harry tells him there's no need for
that.) The excitement shows that he's under no enchantment but his own
or the enchantment of his kind. He's willing, even eager, to die for
Harry, or even to kill himself if he fails him. That's no doing of
Wizards (he would not have willingly thrown himself off the tower for
the Malfoys). It's house-elf psychology. As is Kreacher's choice to
disobey *his* legal master and go to Narcissa black Malfoy. They
parallel each other. And if Kreacher were free, we know where he would
go. He would choose to serve either Narcissa or his beloved Miss
Bellatrix (who is probably hiding in that hidden chamber under the
Malfoys' drawing room).

Carol earlier:
> Kreacher is the only one still under any sort of compulsion to obey,
and he openly resents and insults his master, but he would happily
serve "the pureblood grand-nephew of [his] old mistress." No magic
compels him to be loyal to the now-extinct Black family and its
offshoots with other surnames. It's his choice. 
> 
> a_svirn:
<snip>
> However, his open rebellion proves that he is actually quite
freedom-loving. Slaves aren't supposed to choose their own masters.
>
Carol again:
By George, I think she's got it! Freedom for a house-elf is the
freedom to choose his or her own master, to choose which Wizard or
Wizarding family to serve. That's all they want. That and humane
treatment, which, in the absence of legislation, the Wizard has the
responsibility to provide on his own--as Dumbledore tried and failed
to persuade Sirius Black to do. They don't want Wizard-style freedom,
only the chance to do the kind of work they like (housework) in the
Wizard house of their choice under safe and humane conditions. There's
a reason they're called *house* elves.

BTW, JKR has said in an interview that even though house-elves can
perform magic without wands, there are some things Wizards can do that
house-elves can't. Maybe those things include building houses and
producing the food that house-elves cook, which would explain their
reciprocal relationship. Apparently, house-elves need humans as much
as humans need (or think they need) them. I'm guessing that
house-elves bound themselves to humans in the first place for exactly
this reason. It also explains why even a free house-elf like Dobby
would choose to serve humans rather than fending for himself.
(Kreacher would love to take Dobby's old job.)

Carol, wishing that she could borrow a house-elf to magically sort and
organize her papers







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Nov 29 15:52:18 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:52:18 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ekih78+usnt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkabi+c4nb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162137

> Betsy Hp:
> Huh.  See, I didn't think Ginny and Hermione spent all that much time 
> together during the QWC (not even a full night, right?).  

Pippin:
 Canon says Hermione was at the Weasleys for a week after the QWC, 
and doesn't say how long she was there beforehand. You may be
thinking of the celluloid thingy, which has the timeline you suggest.

> Betsy Hp:
> I agree that this is where we're falling down.  You see this as an 
> example of Ginny's closeness to Hermione.  While I think it comes 
> down to Hermione's date for the Yule Ball not being that important a 
> bit of information.  I doubt anyone other than Ron cared.  Annoying 
> Ron was the only apparent reason for secrecy, and Ginny knew about 
> Krum before Hermione decided to keep it a secret.

Pippin:
ROTFL! Hermione's date may have been a matter of no importance
to anyone but Ron, but Viktor Krum's date would have been news on
the international level. Krum had to decide to keep it secret too, or
the news would have been out in no time. That gives me a theory:
the reason Viktor still  didn't know how to pronounce Hermione's name
was that they did most of  their prior communication by owl to
avoid being seen together.

> Betsy Hp:
> I blame JKR.  Realistically, you're correct.  A girl with no interest 
> in hair, make-up, and fashion does not suddenly, with no help 
> whatsoever, turn out as poised and pressed as JKR has Hermione.
> 
> But JKR wrote the belle of the ball scene without any suggestion that 
> older Gryffindors girls (or other sort of fairy godmother) helped 
> Hermione in anyway.  

Pippin:
"I will be most seriously displeased if a Gryffindor student 
embarrasses the school in any way." --Professor McGonagall,
GoF 'The Unexpected Task'.

She was talking about deportment of course, but also, one
may be sure, about proper attire and grooming. That's not
to say that JKR handled the preparations for the ball realistically.
Opening couples *rehearse* for heaven's sake, so of course
Harry would have known who Krum's partner was.

But I see no reason that Hermione, and all the other students
at the school, could not have had the benefit of professional
or magical fashion advice, not to mention that Hermione
is perfectly capable of seeking that out for herself.  (One
might guess that Ron would be too embarrassed to complain
about his dress robes, and that Ginny secured hers by
threatening to take advantage of whatever funds are available
for indigent students if Mum and Dad didn't cough up.)

Anyway, just because a girl doesn't  routinely spend an hour 
and a half every day primping doesn't mean she can't doll up 
when the occasion requires. You wouldn't recognize *me* 
from my prom pictures, I can tell you that <g>. I will admit 
that moving gracefully in a gown requires practice, but as I said, 
JKR dodged the whole business of rehearsal.

( Not that rehearsal always helps. I will never forget the real life
Christmas ball  where I saw an unfortunate ball opener
catch her heel in the hem of her gown and fall on 
her elegantly attired rear end,  her ceremonial Christmas rose still 
clutched in  hand. Alas!)

Pippin
hoping that wizarding dress robes are enchanted to prevent
such accidents




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 16:02:04 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:02:04 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekipis+3sd2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkats+c3lc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162138

Betsy Hp:
> > All I'm saying is that Harry doesn't touch the books on Dudley's
shelf. He is not a reader.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> How is the second sentence follows from the first though? Yes, Harry
> does not touch books on **Dudleys shelf** He does not read them,
> while he cares enough, he is curious enough about his school books
> to look through them while he is still at Dursleys.
> 
> He reads them, thus in my opinion he is a reader.
> 
> 
Betsy Hp:
> > Harry reads his school books, yes. But no canon has been
> presented to show that Harry reads for the pleasure of reading. And
he certainly doesn't read any fiction (and fiction does not mean just
fantasy, to be clear). Ergo, he is not a reader; he is not a book-
lover. <snip>

Carol responds to both:
Harry doesn't touch the books on Dudley's shelf at least in part
because he doesn't have the opportunity to do so until he moves into
Dudley's second bedroom near the beginning of SS/PS. At that point, he
has no reason and no temptation to read them, whether or not they are
fiction, because he has something that to him is better than fiction,
a whole new world that he belongs to and wants to know about. So he
eagerly samples his schoolbooks (not being Hermione or Snape, he
doesn't read them through and memorize them; instead, he samples
tantalizing tidbits in the time available, one month before school
starts). Later, when he becomes part of the WW, the books become just
schoolbooks and he finds them less fascinating. His recreational
reading apparently consists of books on Quidditch and FBAWTFT (and the
HBP's marginal notes). I would say that Harry reads, not for the
pleasure of reading, but for the pleasure of learning about what
interests him, and then only sporadically. I emphatically agree with
Betsy that he's not a book lover, but that doesn't mean that, under
certain circumstances, he does not feel pleasure from reading. It's
not a love of books and words but a desire for certain kinds of
knowledge that drives him to read, IMO. Not so different from
Hermione, really, except that she's a different type of learner--Harry
learns primarily by doing; Hermione learns primarily by understanding
and processing information.

But we can't really judge by the books on Dudley's shelf. If he had
moved into Dudley's second bedroom under different circumstances (say,
the school board sent someone to check out his living conditions) and
there were no Hogwarts textbooks to read, only Muggle fiction and
fantasy and nonfiction books for boys, would he have read them in
preference to playing with the broken toys or looking out the window
at the rain? Chances are he would at least have sampled them and
possibly found that he liked them. As it is, I doubt we'll ever find
out what those untouched books are or how Harry would have felt about
them if he hadn't discovered that he belonged to another world. Now
they're nothing but relics of the Muggle society that he wants no part
of. A sad loss for him, but not an uncommon one even among Muggle kids
these days, who find their vicarious adventures in TV, movies, and
video games.

In the WW, of course, he has not had time for much reading other than
schoolbooks so far. Maybe when he grows up and settles down, he'll
want to read to his children. The question is, if and when that
happens, what will he read to them?

Carol, who agrees with Betsy that the WW needs some good literature
and thinks they'd benefit from a dose of Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens,
and Melville for starters




From saundradj at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 29 15:17:20 2006
From: saundradj at hotmail.com (Saundra)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:17:20 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ekih78+usnt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekk8a0+cjkq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162139

> Betsy Hp:
> I blame JKR. Realistically, you're correct. A girl with no interest
> in hair, make-up, and fashion does not suddenly, with no help
> whatsoever, turn out as poised and pressed as JKR has Hermione.
>
> But JKR wrote the belle of the ball scene without any suggestion
> that older Gryffindors girls (or other sort of fairy godmother)
> helped Hermione in anyway. JKR also has Hermione poo-poo the whole
> effort as far too much time wasted on a rather silly goal. So we
> have a girl who, as you put it, radically changes her normal
> behavior while maintaining that it was all no big deal. Do I smell
> shenanigans? Damn straight. Personally, I think JKR sacrificed
> character for a "think of the children!" moment.
>
> But since there's no hint of Krum as Hermione's burning love
> interest, since Hermione doesn't turn over a new leaf and become
> interested in the WW's fashions, I believe the contradiction
> stands.  Hermione is "above" girlish things like appearance and
> boys. But whenever she's forced to enter that particular arena,
> she effortlessly rules.

Saundra  coming out of lurkerdom replies:

You are certainly making a lot of assumptions. Just because Hermione
didn't overtly engaged in WW fashions doesn't  mean she knew nothing of them. Nowhere in cannon does it say that Hermione disliked all thing girlish all the time.

I was the sort of girl who eshewed traditional feminine convention on a daily basis and yet who could on a dime turn it around and become a bombshell. In fact on  those very special occasions, I enjoyed seeing the look of shocked surprise on people's faces. After the event was over, I went right back to my nondescript (fashion, hair and make-up) ways. I am still that way as an adult. Really most of the thing it's just too much trouble.

And lastly, because this is the  WW, Hermione did have magic at her
disposal and she has read enough to know how to use it.







From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 16:26:03 2006
From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:26:03 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris
Message-ID: <ekkcas+90tk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162140

This has probably been mentioned before, but here goes:

Why is Filch's cat addressed with a woman's name and title? Is 
this 'cat' really a woman who is Filch's 'love interest'. If so, no 
wonder he was so upset when Mrs. Norris was petrified in CoS!!

This has probably been addressed already, but I'm really curious to 
the answer to this.

Jenni from Alabama




From littleleah at handbag.com  Wed Nov 29 17:14:34 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:14:34 -0000
Subject: Mrs. Norris
In-Reply-To: <ekkcas+90tk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkf5q+1rrj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162141

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jdl3811220" <jlenox2004 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> This has probably been mentioned before, but here goes:
> 
> Why is Filch's cat addressed with a woman's name and title? Is 
> this 'cat' really a woman who is Filch's 'love interest'. If so, no 
> wonder he was so upset when Mrs. Norris was petrified in CoS!!
> 
> This has probably been addressed already, but I'm really curious to 
> the answer to this.
> 
> Jenni from Alabama
>

Leah

Jenny, there certainly was speculation on whether Mrs Norris was 
Filch's love interest, either enchanted in some way or an Animagus, but 
the Rumours section of JKR's website has put paid to this, by saying 
that Mrs Norris is not an Animagus, just an intelligent and unpleasant 
cat. She doesn't actually deny that she is a human enchanted into a 
cat, but I read the quote as saying Mrs Norris is totally feline.

The name (also confirmed by JKR in an interview) comes from Mansfield 
Park by Jane Austen.  Mrs Norris is the heroine's aunt and one of the 
most unpleasant characters to grace English Literature.

Leah   





From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Nov 29 16:46:07 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:46:07 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
References: <1003230.1164810542280.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <008001c713d5$e0b616a0$49ba400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 162142

> Bart:
> One aspect that we have been ignoring. Reading requires leisure time.
> Between his schoolwork, Quidditch, and saving the school/world, when does
> Harry have time to read? For example,there are a number of gaps in OOTP,
> where one might assume that he's reading SOMETHING, and they are not
> necessarily his school books.

Magpie:
All I'm saying is that reading for pleasure is not something that's ever 
much been associated with Harry as a character.  We're told other ways he
spends his time, including his free time, and reading isn't a pastime we're 
told he's particularly fond of.  Why would I feel the need to imagine him
reading in the gaps any more than I might imagine him doing anything else 
not particularly associated with him?  Especially not things I do see him 
doing in his downtime?  When Harry has downtime he tends to like to spend it 
with his friends.  Sometimes they play games.  We have plenty of downtime 
scenes with Harry.

Bart:
> Which reminds me of a story (and I'm too lazy to look up the details now) 
>  > about a 19th century serial novel, where one chapter ends with a couple
> saying goodnight, and the next with them eating breakfast together. When > 
> complaints came in, his response was on the close order, "The author is
> not responsible for what the characters do in between chapters." There are 
>  > plenty of gaps in the books, where weeks or even months are not 
> mentioned > in detail, and we sometimes have no idea of what he's actually 
> doing.

Magpie:
But the author has given us a pretty good view of one Harry Potter for six 
books and that includes most of the things he likes to do.  I don't think 
it's so radical to remember reading for pleasure is not something
particularly associated with him.

Geoff:
In that sense, Harry is not unique. Living in the Muggle world as he was at 
that time, he was a child of his time.

Magpie:
I don't think anyone has suggested he was unique.  He's a boy like the many 
others you described in your post--perfectly fine thing for him to be. The 
author could of course have also chosen to make him one of the many Muggle 
children, even boys, who do love to read a lot, and did before Harry Potter 
was published.

Lana:
A reader is considered as someone who doesn't necessarily read every book in 
site.  A reader doesn't have to specifically read "books".  A reader is
considered (in his opinion) to be anyone who reads anything.  It could be a 
text book, fiction book, non fiction book, magazine, pamphlets, newspapers,
or as simple as the ads on the bullitin board.

Magpie:
Obviously, I'm not using your philosophy teacher's definition that includes 
every single child in Hogwarts since they all read textbooks for school. Nor
does it include people who read posted ads. That definition's fairly 
meaningless character-wise. I'm talking about the, imo, not radical point 
that we see a lot of what Harry Potter likes to do and he's not one of the 
common types of heroes in children's books who are specifically described as 
liking to read books of whatever kind. A book lover.   The fact that Harry
reads the paper for signs of things going on in his own life does not make 
him this kind of character. His reading of Quidditch books due to his 
interest in Quidditch, something the author has clearly made a pastime, also 
does not make him this kind of character.  An avid reader is the point.  If 
you're reaching for the times Harry read notices posted on the bulletin 
board I think that rather proves the point.

Alla:

See, I do not get how one contradicts each other. I guess it is again a 
question of degree for me. Most well-loved, surely not, but why read the 
book in the first place, even if the book is about your
favorite sport, if you can just do without it and just play your sport and 
talk to your friends about it.

Magpie:
Because I just think this is stretching the point to where it's meaningless. 
Nobody's saying Harry is allergic to books, just that he's not a character
who's been given a particular love of books and reading as opposed to a love 
of Quidditch.

Alla:
Like I like cooking for example (I do not consider myself to be a great 
cook, but I can make some things well), but I do not read cookbooks, not
because I do not like cooking, but because those books are not interesting 
to me, even though I like cooking well enough.

Magpie:
So you know what it is that you like.  You like cooking, you don't like 
reading cookbooks.  Harry likes Quidditch and in his case finds the book he
has on Quidditch interesting as well--though he doesn't devour any and all 
Quidditch books either.  Hermione's played Quidditch. Quidditch is not a
particular love of hers.

Alla:
I thought I was clear enough upthread, sorry if I was not. Let's continue 
with your hypothetical. Harry likes to read and since his home life is so 
bleak, he spends days and days in his cupboard thinking about his favorite 
characters adventures, imagining himself
in those worlds, and lo and behold, what do we know - one day a letter 
arrives, inviting Harry to go and indeed live in one of those worlds.

I mean I am honestly surprised, that it is hard to see that in this scenario 
WW can be easily seen as the product of Harry's imagination.

Magpie;
It's not.  But the fact that it could be seen that way (especially by Harry 
himself) does not change that the WW is written as objectively real, even 
before Harry is born, with even the Dursleys believing it.  The reality of 
the WW is never in question.  So I don't see why that's such a danger it's 
got to be the sole reason Harry isn't this boy.  I'm not convinced the 
author couldn't have given her protagonist that personality or even ever 
wanted to.  That she didn't is clear--and any one of the reasons mentioned 
could have played a part.  I can see the same advantages you do to him not 
being that kind of kid.  Whatever the reason, Harry's not that boy. We don't 
know what's in the author's head, just what's on the page.

The question of why Harry is the way he is in a Meta sense is different from 
whatever he is.  Like, it's quite possible Harry's good at Quidditch because 
JKR thought being a sports hero would appeal to kids, but within canon all 
that matters is that Harry is indeed good at Quidditch.

Alla:

Wow, wow, wait. When you phrase it that way...

That is precisely what I am arguing against - that Harry never had read a 
book in his entire life besides text books or that he is allergic to books.

That is how I understood Betsy's original point. As long as we agree that he 
indeed reads books sometimes, I have no argument that he
loves Qudditch much more than he loves books.

Magpie:
That's the way I took Betsy's point, that there's nothing particularly 
strange about a boy in canon being more interested in other things than
books.

Alla:
In fact as I also said upthread, I am not even insisting on calling him a
book lover, but I certainly insist on calling him a reader.

Magpie:
Then I should stop using that word.  I was using the word reader in this 
case to mean booklover (a way I've heard it used especially with reference 
to kids), not the way it's being defined by others as someone who is able to 
read.

-m 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 17:40:06 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:40:06 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekk8kf+5uau@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkglm+dkp9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162143

> Carol:
> Of course "chooses to obey" is an an oxymoron, but it's Dobby's
> oxymoron, not mine: "Dobby is a free house-elf and can obey anyone he
> likes" (HBP Am. ed. 421). 

a_svirn:
I am aware that it's Dobby's oxymoron. But you seem to overlook the
fact that being an oxymoron it negates the meaning of `obey'. What
Dobby actually says is that doesn't want to obey. He wants to do
whatever he chooses. 

> Carol:
That's a paradoxical view of freedom--a
> choice of masters. 

a_svirn:
What's so paradoxical about it? If I am free to choose I am free period. 

> Carol:
Or, if you dislike the term "master," a choice of
> humans to serve. 

a_svirn:
Oh, I am OK with the word "master". It's Dobby who is positively
allergic to it. 

> Carol:
He doesn't say, "Dobby is a free house-elf and will
> not serve anyone." 

a_svirn:
Why should he say anything of the sort? Millions of people go into
service by their own volition ? cleaning service, valeting, nursing
etc. And no one would dream to speculate about their nature. 

> Carol:
He still wants a human to obey, and he chooses
> Harry Potter. And he does not regard "Harry Potter, sir," as a friend
> and equal but as someone with the right to give him orders. 

a_svirn:
Yes, he does. His relationship with Harry is reciprocal. Harry
bestowed a gift of freedom on Dobby, and Dobby wants to return the
favour by only way he knows ? render him services. JKR even stressed
the reciprocity of their relationship by the symbolic exchange of socks. 


> a-svirn:
> > Moreover, he didn't even obey his masters when he was magically 
> > bound. His self-punishments are in fact acts of disobedience ? he 
> > found a loophole in the enchantments and used it to disobey ? 
> > whenever he chose. Which shows that his longing for freedom was 
> > stronger even than magical bonds. Freedom, after all, is first and 
> > foremost the freedom of choice. 
> 
> Carol:
> "Dobby likes getting paid, but he likes work better." And work, for
> Dobby, means working for Wizards, not for himself or for another
> house-elf or even for a goblin.

a_svirn:
How do you know that he wouldn't work for a goblin? 

> Carol:
> And his disobedience has nothing to do with a desire for freedom; it's
> a desire to aid and protect Harry Potter, his hero, who is already his
> chosen human even before he's freed. You're being a bit slippery here
> if you'll forgive me, saying that enslavement is abhorrent because the
> slave lacks freedom yet saying that even the most abject slave (Dobby
> or Kreacher) has freedom of choice. (I can see *me* making that point,
> but I'm not sure how it aids your side of the argument.) So Dobby has
> freedom of choice as a slave to the Malfoys and freedom of choice as a
> free elf and freedom is first and foremost freedom of choice? Why
> would he long for freedom, then, if he already has it?

a_svirn:
I believe I said quite distinctly that Dobby found a loophole in the
enchantments. He did not have freedom, since the enchantments bound
him to his master, but fortunately the enchantments do not cover all
contingences. Kreacher also found such loopholes;  that's how he
helped to destroy Sirius. Wherein do you see the contradiction? 

> a_svirn: 
> > I don't understand what you mean when you say that desire to 
> > serve "ingrained". Only God Almighty or Nature Itself can ingrain 
> > anything in nature. But we know that elves weren't created as 
> > slaves, they were enslaved and kept enslaved by wizards. Therefore 
> > whatever it is that "ingrained" into them has been ingrained by 
> > wizards. Which rather suggests that "desire to serve" is not an 
> > instinct, but a feedback reaction. <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> See above. Dobby desires to serve Wizards even after he's free. It
> can't simply be indoctrination or he probably wouldn't rebel at all,
> or if he did, he'd want to be free in the sense that Wizards are free,
> to seek first education or training and then employment in their
> chosen field, 

a_svirn:
And that's exactly what he does ?gets employment in his chosen field. 

> Carol:
perhaps working for themselves as an entrepreneur. 

a_svirn:
Erm. Do you suggest that entrepreneurs are more "naturally free" than
cooks, waiters or cleaners? 

> Carol:
Dobby
> uses his freedom to seek employment at Hogwarts, in part because it's
> the only paid employment available to him, but once he's there he
> *chooses* the added *unpaid service* to Harry Potter, his chosen
> human. 

a_svirn:
That's right. Unpaid service done by your own volition means *favour*.
You do them to friends. 

Carol:
It isn't enchantment that prevents him from throwing off what
> you consider to be the shackles of service to humans. It's choice. He
> likes to work. He says so himself. 

a_svirn:
Yes, he does. Good for him. 

Carol:
He even talks Dumbledore into
> giving him fewer days off and lower pay than Dumbledore offered.

a_svirn:
As you yourself said he was indoctrinated. It's not easy to shake off
a habit of lifetime, but he made a good start. 

Carol:
  He's willing, even eager, to die for
> Harry, 

a_svirn:
So does Ron. And Hermione. So did Sirius. And Dumbledore. 

Carol:
or even to kill himself if he fails him. 

a_svirn:
humans are known do such things too.

Carol:
That's no doing of
> Wizards (he would not have willingly thrown himself off the tower for
> the Malfoys). It's house-elf psychology. As is Kreacher's choice to
> disobey *his* legal master and go to Narcissa black Malfoy. They
> parallel each other. And if Kreacher were free, we know where he would
> go. He would choose to serve either Narcissa or his beloved Miss
> Bellatrix (who is probably hiding in that hidden chamber under the
> Malfoys' drawing room).

a_svirn:
As I said, it's the case of both love and conditioning. 

> Carol:
> By George, I think she's got it! Freedom for a house-elf is the
> freedom to choose his or her own master, to choose which Wizard or
> Wizarding family to serve. That's all they want. 

a_svirn:
Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? Freedom for Kreacher is the
freedom to choose his own master.  Freedom for Dobby is to be free and
obey "anyone he likes", that is to say no one. 

> Carol:
That and humane
> treatment, which, in the absence of legislation, the Wizard has the
> responsibility to provide on his own--as Dumbledore tried and failed
> to persuade Sirius Black to do. 

a_svirn:
Or the absence of legislation should be rectified and elves rights
guaranteed by the law. 

> Carol:
They don't want Wizard-style freedom,
> only the chance to do the kind of work they like (housework) in the
> Wizard house of their choice under safe and humane conditions. There's
> a reason they're called *house* elves.

a_svirn:
There is. I am guessing house-elves need human houses to live, just
like gnomes need human gardens to live. Unlike gnomes, elves were
prepared to work to justify their presence in the human houses, and
humans took advantage of that. 




From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 17:33:38 2006
From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:33:38 -0000
Subject: A few questions about OOTP
In-Reply-To: <ekjfvq+58ra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkg9i+vdvr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162144

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antonia31h" <antonia31h at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I was just wondering about certain things from OOTP. For example what
> is beneath the veil in that room of the Ministry of Magic? What were
> those voices Harry heard and Luna mentioned? And what about the room
> that is locked at all times and as Dumbledore said has such a great
> force inside it, one that Harry also posess? Is this force love? And
> if so how is it kept in that room? And last but not least what is the
> thing with the brains floating in the room? What did Hermione mean by
> "they are breeding"? Breeding what?
> If anyone could answer I would be very grateful.
> Antonia31h

My understanding is that the brains contained memories (bad ones from 
my point of view). IMO, Ron had horrible scenes from those memories 
playing through his mind the entire time those tentacles of thought 
were wrapped around him. 

That they were 'breeding' meant (IMO) that new memories were being 
added. Whose and from where the memories were coming, I don't know. 
The book doesn't say.  

If you notice, there are still marks left on Ron even a while after 
the battle. Madam Pomfrey says that these wounds (from the tentacles 
of thought/memory that wrapped around Ron during the battle) are hard 
to heal because they are deep. This is true in life. Bad memories are 
hard to get over. It takes time to heal.

I think that the marks may still be there in HBP. Seems like this is 
mentioned. Harry's are still there from Umbridge and Marrietta's are 
still there from being a 'sneak'. If I'm not mistaken, I think Ron's 
are still there too. Oh well, I'll just have to read the book again. 
Darn, I hate that :)

Jenni from Alabama








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 17:47:46 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:47:46 -0000
Subject: Harry and the house-elves---another view
In-Reply-To: <ekk0b0+rkq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkh42+jm52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162145

Alla wrote:
> 
> They may or they may not. Till enchantment is lifted, we do not have 
> the complete picture IMO.
> 
Carol responds:
But what exactly is this enchantment? Who placed it, on whom, and
when? does it affect all house-elves as a species or individual
house-elves or house-elves descended from the first elf bound to a
particular family? What if it can't be lifted or they placed it on
themselves?

The only quote I can think of related to such an enchantment is
Dobby's remark in CoS that he's "bound to serve one house and one
family forever," which turns out not to be true. He's now free to
choose his own employment and/or master, and he's chosen to work for
humans at Hogwarts for as little pay and with as little free time as
possible, at the same time also choosing to serve Harry.

Kreacher appears magically bound to serve Harry but tries to find ways
out of doing so. However, he seems perfectly willing to serve "the
pureblood grand-nephew of [his] old mistress," indicating that it
isn't serving Wizards that he objects to, it's only serving the enemy
of the Wizard family he's loyal to. The binding enchantment that
compels a house-elf to serve a particular master seems to be separate
from the desire to serve Wizards in general, which remains in place
regardless of loyalty or disloyalty to a particular owner or master.
(In Winky, we see those desires working together--she wants to work
for the master she's loyal to, only in her case, he's freed her
against her will. She's not magically compelled to serve anybody. She
wants to serve the Crouches and can't.)

I don't think that lifting some generalized enchantment, if one exists
and if it's possible to do so, is going to do the trick. House-elves
will want to serve in some Wizard's house no matter what. I think the
only solution is to legislate humane conditions (and to teach Wizards
to regard house-elves as fellow beings with thoughts and feelings,
however different from their own.

Alla:
<snip>
> And I do not see wizards go and try to imprison Giants. Who sure are 
> dangerous and violent, many of them. <snip>

Carol:
So you concede that giants are by nature different from humans (Wizard
or not). Maybe house-elves are different by nature, too, not only in
their appearance and their magical abilities but in their psychology.
They seem to *want* to serve humans, to take pride and pleasure in
serving them well, especially humans who treat them with kindness and
respect (as Dumbledore says). They appreciate a thank you and a
compliment, as indicated by the house-elves at Hogwarts.

> Eric Oppen:
>   And, again, you can't generalize from Dobby, or Winky.  Neither of
them is particularly typical of house-elves. 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> And again, I disagree, if I had been given to see up close and 
> personal three house elves only, I may assume that those are 
> **typical** house elves. IMO of course.

Carol:
How can Kreacher, Dobby, and winky be typical when they're all so
different from each other and from the hundreds of house-elves at
Hogwarts, who are virtually indistinguishable? Maybe Kreacher and
Dobby, each in his own way, are "typical" of mistreated house-elves,
who rebel against hated masters by sneaking out on them and helping
their enemies, but Dobby is the only house-elf we've seen who wants
and appreciates freedom; Kreacher has expressed no such desire. And
maybe Winky is typical of "freed" (fired) house-elves, who become
despondent and take to drinking butterbeer if it's available (though
at first Winky seemed willing to try to find employment with Dobby;
evidently, it's only when she saw how happy the Hogwarts elves in
general were that she realized how much she missed her master. Or
maybe the butterbeer wasn't available as consolation until she got
there). At any rate, we haven't seen any other house-elves in their
particular situations, so we don't know whether they're typical or not.

Hogwarts house-elves, in contrast, all act in the same way (happy to
serve "miss" and "masters" until they hear Hermione's views on
house-elf rights, after which they escort HRH out of the kitchens).
They appear to be typical of house-elves who are well treated by their
masters--proud of their calling and of doing an excellent job of
cooking and cleaning, ashamed of fellow elves who disgrace them by
drinking and being dirty, and regarding those who talk about freedom
as eccentric or dangerous. Winky was once that kind of typical
house-elf, proud to do important tasks (watching over the Imperiused
Barty Jr.) for her master and to keep his secrets--and, of course, to
keep his house clean. She believes that he's ill because he needs her.
It's only when she's freed that she becomes atypical--slovenly,
drunken, unwilling to work. If Crouch had taken her back, I have no
doubt that she'd have served him happily and well.

If serving humans is in their nature (as the evidence I've cited
indicates) and they enjoy doing it (as they clearly do when they're
serving a master they love and respect), why deny them the right to do
it? Why insult them by offering them freedom when they don't want it?
IMO, the Weasleys, who have grown up in the WW, understand house-elves
(and giants) much better than Muggle-raised Hermione does.

Let them do what they do well. Let them be happy. If you treat them
kindly and give them basic comforts--food, tea towels, and shelter,
with the means of keeping clean--they'll be happy. Unless they're
atypical house-elves like Winky and Kreacher, both of whom may be too
far gone to be helped.

Carol, thinking that lifting whatever enchantment is placed on
house-elves is not the answer; the only solution is understanding
their nature and respecting their needs




From bartl at sprynet.com  Wed Nov 29 17:55:54 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:55:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Names in the Potterverse
Message-ID: <14679840.1164822954941.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 162146

Leah:
>The name (also confirmed by JKR in an interview) comes from Mansfield 
>Park by Jane Austen.  Mrs Norris is the heroine's aunt and one of the 
>most unpleasant characters to grace English Literature.

Bart:
Which brings us back to names. I (and many others) have noticed that many, if not most of the names in the Potterverse have 2, 3 or more levels of meaning. Recently, I mentioned the way that Dumbledore keeps his mouth shut about many things; it was pointed out that Dumbledore also meant bumblebee. But there's no reason why BOTH can't be true. Mr. Filch confiscates (or filches) items from students. We could probably find a dozen meanings in Harry Potter alone (consider "potter", one who works with clay to build things, "putter", meaning that he doesn't learn things thoroughly but goes ahead without knowledge, "potter", when he gambles, always wins the pot, just to give a few). Now, sometimes these names are so obvious that it is very difficult to imagine that JKR did not intend the multiple puns (look at the I am Lord Voldermot anagram, for example; she spent a LOT of time on many of the names). Some are certainly pushing things, and may be just coincidence. But for the major characters, certainly, she clearly put a lot of effort into their names (so much so that she has been embarassed a couple of times by names for which she did not put in much work). 

Bart



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 17:59:02 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:59:02 -0000
Subject: Harry and the house-elves---another view
In-Reply-To: <ekkh42+jm52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkhp6+ss5u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162147

> Alla wrote:
> > 
> > They may or they may not. Till enchantment is lifted, we do not 
have 
> > the complete picture IMO.
> > 
> Carol responds:
> But what exactly is this enchantment? Who placed it, on whom, and
> when? does it affect all house-elves as a species or individual
> house-elves or house-elves descended from the first elf bound to a
> particular family? What if it can't be lifted or they placed it on
> themselves?
<SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, that is my point. We don't know what is in it and what I am 
objecting against is the certainty that elves placed it upon 
themselves. I don't remember reading it in canon. It is a 
possibility, but surely not the only one IMO. The idea of wizards 
taking advantage of elves is also the possibility.



> Alla:
> <snip>
> > And I do not see wizards go and try to imprison Giants. Who sure 
are 
> > dangerous and violent, many of them. <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> So you concede that giants are by nature different from humans 
(Wizard
> or not). Maybe house-elves are different by nature, too, not only in
> their appearance and their magical abilities but in their 
psychology.
> They seem to *want* to serve humans, to take pride and pleasure in
> serving them well, especially humans who treat them with kindness 
and
> respect (as Dumbledore says). They appreciate a thank you and a
> compliment, as indicated by the house-elves at Hogwarts.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Erm... NO I do not. I had seen several dangerous and violent wizards 
in canon as well, who maybe be smaller size, but have just as violent 
nature as giants do IMO and surely would not make a comparison about 
different nature of house elves from there.


Alla, rushing and only answers these two points briefly and who 
loves, loves a_svirn reply again and agrees with it.
I am rushing and only answering these




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 18:21:09 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:21:09 -0000
Subject: A few questions about OOTP
In-Reply-To: <ekjfvq+58ra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkj2l+hob5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162148

Antonia31h wrote:
>
> I was just wondering about certain things from OOTP. For example
what is beneath the veil in that room of the Ministry of Magic? What
were those voices Harry heard and Luna mentioned? And what about the
room that is locked at all times and as Dumbledore said has such a
great force inside it, one that Harry also posess? Is this force love?
And if so how is it kept in that room? And last but not least what is
the thing with the brains floating in the room? What did Hermione mean
by "they are breeding"? Breeding what?
> If anyone could answer I would be very grateful.


Carol responds:

Nothing is "beneath" the Veil. It hangs in an archway and the kids can
walk around it. However, once someone goes through the Veil, as Sirius
Black dead, they're dead. Also, Luna speaks of the voices that sha and
Harry can hear as being "inside" (Hermione claims that there is no
"inside," but she's clearly wrong. There's something on the other side
of the Veil, and it appears to be Death. The voices, as Luna tells
Harry, are the voices of the dead. Death is not the end, but the next
great adventure. Presumably, some of the Unspeakables, those who work
in the Death Chamber, study death, just as others study Love (which is
almost certainly contained in the locked room--I have no idea how it's
kept there, but I expect we'll encounter it again in Book 7) and still
others study Time (the Time Turners, which can probably be replaced or
repaired, though not, I hope, for the use of our characters) and the
Mind (the Brain Room) and Prophecies (those, unfortunately, probably
can't be replaced, but not all of them were destroyed). 

To get back to the brains, which are floating in a tank (it makes me
think of pickled frogs floating in formaldehyde or the jars lining the
shelves of snape's office), these are clearly the brains of dead
witches and wizards. We see the tentacles of thought (somehow not dead
and clearly not part of the soul, which "will have gone on," to quote
Nearly Headless Nick) coming out of the brain that Ron summoned and
stinging him, oddly causing welts on his flesh that Madam Pomfrey
later treats with Dr. Ubbly's Oblivious Unction.

I don't recall any quote about the brains "breeding" (I do recall the
Dementors "breeding," but that's another matter). Can you cite it for me?

In any case, it's all a matter of the mysteries of human existence
that Unspeakables like Bode and Croaker study in the Department of
Mysteries--the same mysteries that the Greek philosophers studied and
tried in vain to explain: love, death, time, thought, truth, and life
itself (though I don't recall a room associated with that one). "No
idea what they get up to" says Mr. Weasley of the Unspeakables in GoF,
but it's clear from the Veil and the Time Turners and the vat of
brains and all the rest that they're taking a practical approach to
studying what the Greeks thought about abstractly, turning philosophy
into science in a way possible only to Wizards.

Here's an excerpt from a post-HBP interview that may be useful to you:

[Question from a reader] How and when was the veil created?

JKR: The veil's been there as long as the Ministry of Magic has been
there, and the Ministry of Magic has been there, not as long as
Hogwarts, but a long time. We're talking hundreds of years. It's not
particularly important to know exactly when, but centuries, definitely.

M[elissa] A[nelli]: Was it used as an execution chamber or just studying?

JKR: No, it's just studying. The Department of Mysteries is all about
studying. They study the mind, the universe, death. . . .

MA: Are we going back to that room, that locked room?

JKR: No comment. [Read "yes"!]

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm

Carol, who used to think that the Veil was once an execution chamber
until JKR vetoed that idea




From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 18:23:31 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:23:31 -0000
Subject: A few questions about OOTP
In-Reply-To: <ekjfvq+58ra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkj73+8c7f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162149

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "antonia31h" <antonia31h at ...> 
wrote:

<SNIP>

> And last but not least what is the
> thing with the brains floating in the room? What did Hermione mean 
by
> "they are breeding"? Breeding what?


zanooda:

It was Luna, not Hermione, who said that. When Harry & Co. entered 
the room, Luna thought the things in the tank were "aquavirius 
maggots" IIRC or something like that. She heard from her father that 
the Ministry was breeding them. Then Hermione had a look at the 
objects and said they were brains. I don't have the book with me to 
give you a quote, but it should be right there in "The Department of 
Mysteries" chapter.

zanooda, pretty sure that she remembers it correctly :-)




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 19:01:02 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:01:02 -0000
Subject: Quirrell Corner (was: Sending Voldie through the Veil)
In-Reply-To: <ekk3ol+k8k6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekklde+n6qp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162150

CV:
> > 
> > Actually, I only recently began to understand the abuse metaphor
espoused in Quirrell. When I fully began to see Quirrell's symptoms as
representing a tortured person in the grip of another, I began to
wonder why nobody, including myself, feels sympathy for this guy. How
can we be so cold? Maybe Quirrell's duplicitous act is so effective 
that we don't have the time to get to see the pain that lies beneath 
the surface. But then, isn't that the way with abuse victims? They can
so perfectly mask the pain that other people are completely fooled.
> 
> Marianne:
> And you've sold me on this. When I read your first post I felt a 
> pang of remorse because I had tossed Quirrell on the dung-heap of 
> despised characters without really stopping to think of his 
> situation. Really, how can one not cut the guy some slack once you 
> think about being under Voldemort's control to the point of having 
> his face sticking out the back of your head?  The more I think about 
> that, the more creeped out I get.
> 
> Maybe I would have paid more attention to him had he stuck around 
> for more than one book. Instead, he's gone and each succeeding book 
> gave me more events and characters to think/worry about.

Carol responds:
Setting aside my own DADA curse theory as it relates to Quirrell, I'm
not so sure that JKR intends us to see Quirrell as a victim. (then,
again, she may not intend for us to like Snape, so her intentions
don't always correspond with reader's reactions. <smile>)

However, it appears that Quirrell was originally gullible and easily
seduced by LV's lie that "there is no good and evil, only power and
those too weak to seek it," which BTW sounds like a line that would
appeal to Wormtail as well. It's also clear that Quirrell was working
for Voldemort, trying to steal the stone from the vault in Gringotts,
for example, before Voldemort was actually possessing him. He wasn't
wearing a turban when Harry originally encountered him in the Leaky
Cauldron, and he could shake hands with Harry at that point (either
because he was not yet evil or because it's only Voldemort who can't
touch Harry because of the blood protection--I'm not sure which).

Later Dumbledore says that Quirrell, driven by greed and hatred, could
not touch Harry. Also, Quirrell was apparently willing to kill a
unicorn and drink its blood for his master, and he certainly tried to
kill Harry (on his own, I think--it was a stupid move that could have
ruined the plan to steal the stone if it had succeeded and Quirrell
had been caught) before he drank the unicorn blood, which presumably
corrupted him beyond redemption (or maybe simply killing his first
unicorn did that). Unlike Wormtail, who serves Voldemort more from
fear than loyalty (unless his gratitude for the silver hand provides a
new motive, as it seems to in GoF). Quirrell seems like a devoted
servant, afraid of his master's displeasure when he's weak or
incompetent, but nevertheless willing and even eager to please him. He
seems to have *allowed* Voldemort to get inside his head; JKR says
that Snape would never wear a turban; IOW, he would not have consented
to be possessed and inhabited, even if he's ESE (which I doubt).
Quirrell seems to have willingly submitted to this humiliating and
revolting form of domination, in part through fear but in part because
he regarded himself as a servant and Voldemort as his master. Maybe
Voldemort knew what he wanted to know, the Darkest of the Dark Arts,
and how better to learn them than with your master inside your mind?

> CV:
> > One wonders how Voldy communicates with people when he is in his
gaseous form. Can he talk when he is smoke? Or does he possess people
in order to talk to them?
> 
> Marianne:
> And some prefer not to wonder about such things because they lead to 
> nightmares<g>. I'd vote for possession. It's so much neater. The 
> person can't try to outrun you and, once you're "inside" you can 
> control them.  Now I'm wondering how Vapor-mort travels. Does he 
> linger in the air waiting for some unsuspecting human to wander by?  
> Would a severe storm blow him across the country?

Carol:
I've wondered before, and never received a response, how Quirrell
found LV in the first place and how he got Vapor!mort back to England.
I've suggested that Voldemort was possessing Nagini when Quirrell
brought him into England, maybe with some special permit for
transporting magical animals, more likely smuggling her in illegally.
But how Quirrell communicated with Voldemort is a more difficult
question. Maybe he could speak to him in ordinary English from an
animal's body, and Quirrell, who had gone abroad to study Vampires and
other Dark creautres, would have been fascinated by the talking snake
or rat or whatever.

In Wormtail's case, we know how he found Voldemort. His little rat
friends told him where to find the monster that possessed and
destroyed small creatures. He, too, must have been able to talk with
Vapor!mort while LV was possessing an animal. Or he might have been
able to talk with the animal itself. Unlike Quirrell, he would have
understood animal language. An Animagus dog can understand a
half-kneazle cat, so Wormtail could probably understand other animals,
even possibly snakes, in his animal form. As for how Vapor!mort
traveled in this instance, maybe he didn't. It seems that Wormtail
(whom I agree is not the incompetent wizard he's viewed as being)
conjured up the potion to create LV's fetal form. Nagini was obviously
around at that point, as her venom was a potion ingredient, and
Wormtail, like Quirrell, must have killed a unicorn, as unicorn blood
was another ingredient. (He didn't drink the blood, though, so he's
not living a half-life.)

Carol, who thinks that Quirrell succumbed to the lure of Voldemort
through his own weakness (with the help of the DADA curse)


> <snip> 
> > Marianne:
> > 
> > As we all anxiously await for a 
> > > supposedly dead character to reappear in Book 7, perhaps it 
> won't 
> > be 
> > > Emmeline Vance or Caradoc Dearborn or Amelia Bones or Regulus 
> > Black. 
> > > Perhpas it will be Quirrell.
> > 
> > CV:
> > 
> > Yay! (Are we anxiously awaiting a supposedly dead character to 
> > reappear? I know *I* am, but has there been other indications to 
> that 
> > effect, or is this just speculation?)
> 
> Marianne:
> Oh, it's rampant speculation.  Ever since DD tried to convince Draco 
> that he could be hidden while the world thought he was dead, there 
> had been pondering about whether some character who we were told had 
> died might really be alive.  And then, of course, there was that 
> mention long ago about the Draught of Living Death.  It's about time 
> for that to make an appearance. 
> 
> CV:
> > There is a theory that has been floating around for a long time 
> that 
> > basically states that each task in the dungeon represents one book 
> in 
> > the series. In that case, the final book should be something like 
> > Harry Potter and Nobody Expects Quirrell. Right?
> 
> Marianne:
> Sure, why not? Quirrell's "death" was the perfect opportunity for DD 
> to pull a fast one.  Who else was around to witness what might have 
> happened? Let's make a Purple Turban pledge - Quirrell will return 
> in Book 7!
> 
> Marianne
>





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 19:18:37 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:18:37 -0000
Subject: Harry and the house-elves---another view
In-Reply-To: <ekkh42+jm52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkmed+d84l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162151

> Alla:
> <snip>
> > And I do not see wizards go and try to imprison Giants. Who sure 
are 
> > dangerous and violent, many of them. <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> So you concede that giants are by nature different from humans 
(Wizard
> or not). 

a_svirn:
That's hardly such an important concession to make. It's perfectly 
obvious that they are *different* by nature ? they aren't human after 
all. But *different* doesn't mean *inferior* or *servile* by nature. 
It only means different. 

> Carol:
Maybe house-elves are different by nature, too, not only in
> their appearance and their magical abilities but in their 
psychology.

a_svirn:
Or maybe not. Their emotions seems to be perfectly human. 


> > Alla:
> > And again, I disagree, if I had been given to see up close and 
> > personal three house elves only, I may assume that those are 
> > **typical** house elves. IMO of course.
> 
> Carol:
> How can Kreacher, Dobby, and winky be typical when they're all so
> different from each other and from the hundreds of house-elves at
> Hogwarts, who are virtually indistinguishable? 

a_svirn:
How do you know that they are different from the mass of elves that 
you yourself call indistinguishable? My dictionary says about 
indistinguishable:

 1. a. Incapable of being discriminated or recognized as *different* 
from something else, or from each other; of which the *difference* 
[emphasis mine a_svirn] cannot be perceived. Also as n.


> Carol, thinking that lifting whatever enchantment is placed on
> house-elves is not the answer; the only solution is understanding
> their nature and respecting their needs

a_svirn:
I am afraid the task of understanding anyone's "nature" is a bit too 
demanding. We, humans can't even understand our own nature most of 
the time. Respecting their needs, now, this sounds reasonable. 





From Elvishooked at hotmail.com  Wed Nov 29 19:28:59 2006
From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:28:59 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore in CoS
Message-ID: <ekkn1r+6cpm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162152

Re-reading CoS at the moment, I got into an argument with my daughter 
about Dumbledore.
It's probably been discussed before, but since the reference is book 
2 it may have been quite a while ago, so...

The argument is about Dumbledore's keeping an eye on Harry.
My idea is, that Albus probably has no idea where the Chamber was 
located, but he likely had a good feeling about what sort of monster 
was in there.

Does everyone agree with me, that Dumbledore closely 'monitors' Harry 
throughout the book (as well as the other books of course) and that, 
at the moment Harry et co. discovers the entrance to the Chamber, 
that Albus is right there with them (no, not physically, but closely 
watching from wherever)?
Is it just me - or did Dumbledore know everything that went on in the 
Chamber after Harry entered it? Didn't he send the bird and the sword 
at the exact moment, he realised Harry needed these 2 things?

And finally - wouldn't Dumbledore have stepped in and taken over, if 
at any point he feared Harry couldn't handle the situation? (Much as 
he did in PS in the end).

My daughter's view is, that Harry was totally on his own in the 
Chamber and that Dumbledore most likely didn't even know that Harry 
had entered it.

Inge




From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 19:31:19 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:31:19 -0000
Subject: Harry and the house-elves---another view
In-Reply-To: <ekkh42+jm52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkn67+q3pg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162153

> Carol responds:
> But what exactly is this enchantment? Who placed it, on whom, and
> when? does it affect all house-elves as a species or individual
> house-elves or house-elves descended from the first elf bound to a
> particular family? What if it can't be lifted or they placed it on
> themselves?
> 
> The only quote I can think of related to such an enchantment is
> Dobby's remark in CoS that he's "bound to serve one house and one
family forever," which turns out not to be true. <Snip>

Beatrice:
I must say that this seems to be a bit pedantic ? certainly we can 
concede  that there is some kind of magic that binds these house 
elves into slavery.  And yes I did say slavery, even if some of them 
are "willing" (although I will take issue with this in a moment).  
Whether or not we can call it an enchantment is really irrelevant.   
I think that you are being a bit too fastidious in your textual 
analysis.  It seems quite obvious from the text that house elves are 
magically bound to a "family" or a home until such time as they are 
freed by someone else's actions.  Therefore, they do not have the 
right or ability to choose their servitude.  Perhaps it would be 
better to think of house elves as analogous to African-American 
slaves in the U.S.  True some were "happy" under slavery and felt a 
loyalty to their "family,"  but it doesn't mean that their conditions 
were just or that they are better off under the thumb of slavery.  

While I agree that one can't lift a blanket enchantment, the WW could 
force families to free all house elves and allow the elves to choose 
IF they want to serve in this capacity.  I think that Alla makes an 
excellent point about not really being able to understand the true 
nature of house elves while they are bound in such a way.  I know 
that Hermione is made fun of in the text for SPEW and even Harry is 
unable to see her view point, but I think that she is right on the 
money.  House elves are slaves, even if they are treated well and it 
is appalling that a society would allow such a condition to exist. 
 
> Alla:
> <snip>
> > And I do not see wizards go and try to imprison Giants. Who sure 
are 
> > dangerous and violent, many of them. <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> So you concede that giants are by nature different from humans 
(Wizard
> or not). Maybe house-elves are different by nature, too, not only in
> their appearance and their magical abilities but in their 
psychology.
> They seem to *want* to serve humans, to take pride and pleasure in
> serving them well, especially humans who treat them with kindness 
and
respect (as Dumbledore says)

Beatrice:

But isn't this simply a way of perpetuating fascist discourses?  
Simply to label a group as other and indicate that somehow they do 
not deserve the same rights and privileges of the hegemony?  Hermione 
reminds me in many ways of Woolf trying in vain to point out the 
inequities of society to demonstrate that fascism is alive and well 
in all aspects of linguistics and culture.  (Don't forget the legal 
definition of an African American under slavery was that they were 
only ? human).
 
> Carol: 
> If serving humans is in their nature (as the evidence I've cited
> indicates) and they enjoy doing it (as they clearly do when they're
> serving a master they love and respect), why deny them the right to 
do
> it? Why insult them by offering them freedom when they don't want 
it?
> IMO, the Weasleys, who have grown up in the WW, understand house-
elves
> (and giants) much better than Muggle-raised Hermione does.
> 
> Let them do what they do well. Let them be happy. If you treat them
> kindly and give them basic comforts--food, tea towels, and shelter,
> with the means of keeping clean--they'll be happy. Unless they're
> atypical house-elves like Winky and Kreacher, both of whom may be 
too
> far gone to be helped.
>
Beatrice:
So are we to support a system of slavery, just because house elves 
have learned to adapt and be grateful for what little comfort they 
are afforded?  The Weasleys, Hagrid, et al are just as blameworthy as 
the Malfoys IMO.  Certainly they have grown up surrounded by an 
intolerable system of bondage, but their inability to examine this 
system critically is inexcusable.  Their logic is the same kind of 
logic that perpetuates racism and intolerance.  Don't look at the 
Weasleys (who are wonderful, but blind in this instance).  Look at 
Dumbledore who tells Harry repeatedly that house elf enslavement is 
intolerable, that it is based lies that wizards tell themselves.

Beatrice, who wants to get beyond the minutia to have some truly 
discursive moments. 







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 20:31:23 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:31:23 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekkglm+dkp9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkqmr+b1n6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162154

Carol earlier:
> > Of course "chooses to obey" is an an oxymoron, but it's Dobby's
oxymoron, not mine: "Dobby is a free house-elf and can obey anyone he
> likes" (HBP Am. ed. 421). 
> 
> a_svirn:
> I am aware that it's Dobby's oxymoron. But you seem to overlook the
> fact that being an oxymoron it negates the meaning of `obey'. What
> Dobby actually says is that doesn't want to obey. He wants to do
> whatever he chooses. <snip>

Carol:
And what he chooses is to obey Harry. He says "Dobby is a free
house-elf and can obey anyone he likes, followed by "Dobby will do
whatever Harry Potter wants him to do!" (HBP 421) (HBP Am. ed. 421).
IOW, he does not say that he doesn't want to obey. He says that he
wants to obey Harry. Oxymoron or no, obedience is his choice--just as
a child chooses to obey or not obey a parent. And you don't obey your
equal. You obey your superior, or someone you regard as your superior. 
You can't disregard the word "obey" in the quotation or make it go
away because you don't want it to be there. 

Carol earlier:
> He still wants a human to obey, and he chooses Harry Potter. And he
does not regard "Harry Potter, sir," as a friend and equal but as
someone with the right to give him orders. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes, he does. His relationship with Harry is reciprocal. Harry
> bestowed a gift of freedom on Dobby, and Dobby wants to return the
> favour by only way he knows ? render him services. JKR even stressed
> the reciprocity of their relationship by the symbolic exchange of
socks. 
>
Carol:
An employee can give his employer a Christmas present. a servant can
give his master a Christmas present. That does not make their
relationship reciprocal. Nor have I ever heard that an exchange of
socks symbolizes equality. Maybe it symbolizes the right to have warm
feet.

> > Carol earlier:
> > "Dobby likes getting paid, but he likes work better." And work,
for Dobby, means working for Wizards, not for himself or for another
> > house-elf or even for a goblin.
> 
> a_svirn:
> How do you know that he wouldn't work for a goblin? 

Carol:
I don't know that he *wouldn't*, though goblins seem to have a
monopoly on banking, metal working, and mining, all occupations that
Dobby doesn't seem to have any inclination toward or aptitude for,
AFAWK. He seems to be domestically inclined, as you say yourself later
on. He likes human habitations and wizard masters, whether he's paid
by them or not. Neither he nor Winky sought any other sort of
employment during the year or so before Dumbledore hired them.

Carol:
> perhaps working for themselves as an entrepreneur. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Erm. Do you suggest that entrepreneurs are more "naturally free"
than cooks, waiters or cleaners? 

Carol:
Not that it's relevant, but I don't see any of us as free, actually.
We all have to earn a living. We--and wizards--just have more freedom
of choice in our occupations than house-elves do, primarily because
our talents and inclinations are more varied. And someone who works
for himself at least has the freedom to set his own hours. Maybe I
should have said freelancer rather than entrepreneur. (I like being my
own boss and not having to fight traffic. But I still have to meet
other people's demands and earn a livng.)
> 
> > Carol:
> Dobby uses his freedom to seek employment at Hogwarts, in part
because it's the only paid employment available to him, but once he's
there he *chooses* the added *unpaid service* to Harry Potter, his
chosen human. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> That's right. Unpaid service done by your own volition means
*favour*. You do them to friends. 

Carol:
That's not what Dobby said, though, is it? It's more like "Your wish
is my command." He says that he'll obey whoever he chooses and that
he'll do whatever Harry wants him to do. (and what he wants Kreacher
to do as well.) In contrast, Ron and Hermione, who *are* his equals, 
would never promise to *obey* him. (However much his temper sometimes
scares Hermione, causing her to go along with him against her better
judgment, she's still not obeying him and regarding him as her master.
Sh helps him or goes along with what he wants to do out of friendship.
(He did the same for her on the potentially disastrous excursion to
the Centaurs.) What, aside from freeing him (hardly an act that an
equal can perform) and giving him socks has Harry done for Dobby that
would make you see them as equals? Has he knitted him clothes or
washed his clothes or cooked his food? Has he accompanied him on his
adventures? The relationship is still that of servant to master, with
Harry giving the orders and Dobby following them. The only difference
between that relationship and the normal house-elf/human relationship
is that Dobby has offered his services, and specifically his
obedience, to his idol, Harry Potter. (Where is the evidence that
Harry idolizes Dobby? They're not equals.)


Carol earlier:
> > By George, I think she's got it! Freedom for a house-elf is the
freedom to choose his or her own master, to choose which Wizard or
Wizarding family to serve. That's all they want. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? Freedom for Kreacher is the
freedom to choose his own master.  Freedom for Dobby is to be free and
obey "anyone he likes", that is to say no one.

Carol:
That is to say, "Harry Potter, sir." Dobby, the free house-elf, has
chosen Harry, just as Kreacher would choose Narcissa or Bellatrix if
he were free.
> 
> > Carol:
> That and humane treatment, which, in the absence of legislation, the
Wizard has the responsibility to provide on his own--as Dumbledore
tried and failed to persuade Sirius Black to do. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Or the absence of legislation should be rectified and elves rights
> guaranteed by the law. 

Carol:
Of course. I'm talking about an interim solution. Once Voldemort is
defeated, of course such legislation should be passed. See my previous
posts.
> 
> > Carol:
> They don't want Wizard-style freedom, only the chance to do the kind
of work they like (housework) in the Wizard house of their choice
under safe and humane conditions. There's a reason they're called
*house* elves.
> 
> a_svirn:
> There is. I am guessing house-elves need human houses to live, just
> like gnomes need human gardens to live. Unlike gnomes, elves were
> prepared to work to justify their presence in the human houses, and
> humans took advantage of that.
>
Carol:
Excellent! It's their *nature* to live in human houses and do house
work. They *like* working for humans who treat them well. I knew we
could agree on something--besides humane treatment for house-elves,
for which we've both been arguing in our separate ways for this entire
thread.

Carol, noting that it would be against a gnome's nature to compel it
to work even if it could, whereas elves require no such compulsion 




From mhensley7 at juno.com  Wed Nov 29 18:24:15 2006
From: mhensley7 at juno.com (Melanie Hensley)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:24:15 -0000
Subject: A thought..
Message-ID: <ekkj8f+5itf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162155

I was reading the Prisoner of Azkaban for the 400th : ) time the other
day and came across something I never gave much thought too before.  In
one of the last Chapter's Dumbledore told Harry he may one day be
grateful he saved Wormtail's life.. He said once you save a wizard's
life, they tend never to forget that no matter how dark a wizard they
may be...  Could this be a omen for #7??  What is anyone else's view on
this??
Melanie in Indiana




From lmkos at earthlink.net  Wed Nov 29 20:28:37 2006
From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:28:37 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and the house-elves---another view
In-Reply-To: <00cb01c71383$3e092a20$ca570043@D6L2G391>
References: <00cb01c71383$3e092a20$ca570043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.0.20061129130246.02ffbae0@pop.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 162156

At 12:54 AM 11/29/06 -0600, Eric wrote:
>The house-elves' position is an interesting one.  To us, they seem to be
>slaves, at the mercy of their masters.  But---except for Dobby, who is
>presented as an anomalous case, they seem to be happy and contented as they
>are.  Winky, to take an obvious example, does not seem to be anywhere nearly
>as convinced of the glorious blessings of freedom as we'd expect of a
>recently-freed slave.
>
>One thing that a lot of posters on this point forget, again and again, is
>that _house-elves are NOT human!!!_  They are another race entirely.  Humans
>hate being enslaved.  House-elves may well see their situation as the
>highest and noblest calling available to them.  Dobby is not a typical
>example, and the other house-elves seem to consider him to be on the same
>level as the sort of harmless mentally-disturbed person one sees
>sometimes---not dangerous, but not to be emulated.
>
>[snipped paragraph]
>
>If all the house-elves were freed, they might be even more dangerous than
>Dementors or another goblin rebellion.  And, again, you can't generalize
>from Dobby, or Winky.  Neither of them is particularly typical of
>house-elves.  What if, once freed, they decided they'd been "cast aside and
>scorned" and began to wreak vengeance on all and sundry?



(from Lenore--This is my first post):

A new book on the subject by Anna Franklin, The Illustrated Encyclopedia of 
Fairies, appears to confirm your theory, Eric.  She has collected many of 
the old traditions about elves and such. I will quote a little bit here:

"Some say that boggarts are house fairies [house elves] who have turned 
evil. They may wreck houses, steal children's suppers, and knock things on 
the floor. They can terrorize a whole district. They [can] eat wood and are 
able to consume a whole house.  If a family tries to move away from them 
they will climb into the crocks... and travel with the unfortunate people 
to their new home."

She says, about brownies [house elves]:
They "become attached to particular houses or families and who do odd jobs 
about the house and farm, learning, tidying up or helping with the 
brewing.  The only reward they ask is a bowl of cream or milk...."

"They live in dark corners of the house, or in some cases nearby hollow 
trees... They are good at hiding and can make themselves disappear at will. 
... If brownies are offended they can become malicious and turn into boggarts."

"(The fact that brownies do all the house and farm work for no more than 
their food was not lost on Lord Baden-Powell who named his packs of junior 
Girl Guides 'Brownies', as opposed to the more adventurous 'Wolf Packs' of 
his boys - a pertinent comment on the sexual stereotyping of the era.)"

Lenore (chuckling at that last thought, and wondering if JKR was wanting to 
make that very point)






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 29 21:59:40 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:59:40 -0000
Subject: A thought..
In-Reply-To: <ekkj8f+5itf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkvsc+p30u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162157

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melanie Hensley" <mhensley7 at ...> wrote:
>
> I was reading the Prisoner of Azkaban for the 400th : ) time the other
> day and came across something I never gave much thought too before.  In
> one of the last Chapter's Dumbledore told Harry he may one day be
> grateful he saved Wormtail's life.. He said once you save a wizard's
> life, they tend never to forget that no matter how dark a wizard they
> may be...  Could this be a omen for #7??  What is anyone else's view on
> this??

Geoff:
It's much more than a wizard never tending to forget as Dumbledore 
explains:

'"Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who 
is in your debt. When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates 
a certain bond between them... and I'm much mistaken if  Voldemort 
wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter."

"I don't want a bond with Pettigrew!" said Harry. "He betrayed my parents!"

"This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me... 
the time may come when you will be glad you saved Pettigrew's life."'
(POA "Owl Post Again" p.311 UK edition)

It's not a case of "Oh, Harry old chap, I owe you one for today. Drop me a 
line or give me a bell if you ever need help." It's a magical debt and we may possibly see 
the repayment in Book 7. 

Could be interesting.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Nov 29 21:50:19 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:50:19 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore in CoS
In-Reply-To: <ekkn1r+6cpm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekkvar+ci1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162158

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

> Is it just me - or did Dumbledore know everything that went on in the 
> Chamber after Harry entered it? Didn't he send the bird and the sword 
> at the exact moment, he realised Harry needed these 2 things?
> 
> And finally - wouldn't Dumbledore have stepped in and taken over, if 
> at any point he feared Harry couldn't handle the situation? (Much as 
> he did in PS in the end).
> 
> My daughter's view is, that Harry was totally on his own in the 
> Chamber and that Dumbledore most likely didn't even know that Harry 
> had entered it.

Geoff:
My reading of the book is opposite to what you suggest:

'Dumbledore crossed to one of the chairs by the fire.

"Sit down, Harry." he said and Harry sat, feeling unaccountably nervous.

"First of all, Harry, I want to thank you," said Dumbledore, eyes twinkling 
again. "You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber. 
Nothing but that could have called Fawkes to you."'
(COS "Dobby's Reward" p.244 UK edition)

Dumbledore's wording, to me, implies that he did not send Fawkes and 
that the phoenix has the power, the intelligence and some sort of innate 
way of sensing events which allow him to make his own decisions.

We do know from later books that he seems to possess other powers, 
for example  the ability to Apparate or something similar.




From random832 at gmail.com  Wed Nov 29 21:01:50 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:01:50 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry and the house-elves---another view
In-Reply-To: <ekk0b0+rkq3@eGroups.com>
References: <00cb01c71383$3e092a20$ca570043@D6L2G391> <ekk0b0+rkq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50611291301m7b1ad84cxaee69bd8c02c8fbb@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162159

> Alla:
> They may or they may not. Till enchantment is lifted, we do not have
> the complete picture IMO.

Random832:
The textual evidence for this 'enchantment' and particularly that it
was imposed on them by wizards, is unconvincing.

> Alla:
> And again, I disagree, if I had been given to see up close and
> personal three house elves only, I may assume that those are
> **typical** house elves. IMO of course.

Random832:
They are not typical of each other. Surely if anything only one of
them can be "typical" of house elves in general.

-- 
Random832



From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 22:31:06 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:31:06 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekinld+tgs5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekl1na+uo3d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162160

> >>Ceridwen:
> > <snip>
> > ...I had hoped to say that it seems that elves have no other 
> > option than to work as slaves. The suits their nature, whether    
> > this nature is inborn or enchanted on them. They have no other    
> > recourse, no place to go where they can get gainful employment to 
> > meet their needs.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Hmm, the way I see it, House-elves enjoy domestic work. 
> > <snip>
> > And generally, a good domestic can always find a job.

> >>Ceridwen:
> So, since they like to cook and clean, being domestic slaves suits 
> their natures.  And yes, a good domestic is certainly a treasure.

Betsy Hp:
Why on earth would you equate domestic work with slavery?  (Why not 
accounting?  Or building? Or banking? Or teaching?)  House-elves like 
to cook (apparently), so they could live up to their nature and get a 
job as a cook.  Just as Charlie Weasley likes dragons and so lives up 
to his nature and gets a job working with dragons.  If his boss 
suddenly decided that Charlie was actually a slave and started 
treating him accordingly, I'm pretty sure Charlie would exercise his 
ability to choose (not being hampered by magical bonds) and go find a 
job dealing with dragons somewhere else.

As you say, a good domestic is a treasure.  If house-elves were able 
to quit, I'm quite sure they'd be wooed appropriately. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > I think the house-elf solution is simply give the house-elves to 
> > ability to quit.  With the threat of a good house-elf being wooed 
> > away by nicer work conditions (whatever those are to house-elves) 
> > I think you'd find most wizards doing their best to keep their 
> > particular house-elf content.

> >>Ceridwen:
> That might work.  It would necessitate hiring rather than owning 
> house elves.  But at the same time, for full-time employment, there 
> would be primarily the same old masters to serve, the wizards and 
> witches who already own house elves.  This is a small pool to       
> choose from.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Not necessarily.  There's the entirety of wizarding Britian to choose 
from (and possibly the Continent depending on house-elf language 
skills).  There are young up and comers graduating from Hogwarts 
every day (I'd imagine the Weasley twins wouldn't mind a house-elf), 
and there are tons of businesses that might like the idea of a house-
elf on the staff. The Leaky Cauldron, that ice-cream shop on Diagon 
Alley Harry loves so much, various pubs and hotels and resaurants 
would probably find work for an eager house-elf.  St. Mungo's could 
be a source of quite a few jobs.

> >>Ceridwen:
> I think that a temp agency or part-time service provider, like the 
> maid services that come to your home once a week for a smaller fee 
> than full-time, would be nice.  Then someone like  Molly could have 
> an elf-catered wedding for Bill and Fleur, or clean up her home for 
> a visit from the prospective in-laws without tiring herself too    
> much.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Though, honestly I suspect most house-elves would not 
choose to quit their current jobs.  It seems that house-elf 
discontent (from what we've seen) derives more from a lack of 
political or philosophical agreement than worry over work or 
treatment.  But if the option to quit was there, I think that if the 
vaunted house-elf loyalty is more a thing of magic than true feeling, 
eventually more and more house-elves would seek those jobs that best 
met their particular needs and desires.  And there'd be the benefit 
of house-elves figuring it out for themselves, rather than wizards 
projecting things onto them.

(Of course if things really began to snow-ball there'd be discontent 
amongst the wizarding population as house-elves joined the employment 
ranks...  but that's another issue. <g>)

> >>Ceridwen:
> Even as a prisoner of war, Harry as his captor would have 
> responsibilities toward Kreacher.  He would still be responsible    
> for his housing, food, medical, and morale.
> <snip>
> Harry would also be in charge of censoring Kreacher's contacts,    
> both incoming and outgoing, or seeing to it that this contact was   
> censored.

Betsy Hp:
I feel like Harry did see to those things.  I mean, because of the 
magical bonds Harry didn't have to keep Kreacher in a cell or 
anything, so Kreacher seems to have had free run of Hogwarts.  Which 
means Harry didn't have to personally deliver Kreacher his food or 
escort him to the bath or anything.  But he confined Kreacher to a 
place where Kreacher's basic needs were cared for.  (Not the 
Shrieking Shack, for example.)  And Harry made sure Kreacher couldn't 
contact the enemy.

> >>Ceridwen:
> Harry would also be able to work the prisoner.  Nothing cruel and 
> unusual, and nothing that could compromise security, but work.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, I suppose it could be argued that in ordering Kreacher to follow 
Draco, Harry was just giving Kreacher a simple task.  But I think the 
cruelty was in making Kreacher work against his side.  Which I've 
seen prisoner's of war have to do (in various WWII movies <g>), but 
for some reason I saw this as Harry crossing the line from guard to 
slave owner.  Maybe because he took such advantage of a magical bond?

> >>Ceridwen:
> As a prisoner of war, it would be Kreacher's duty to try and       
> escape. He did what he could to get to the former Black sisters     
> when he belonged to Sirius, so perhaps Kreacher looks at things    
> more the way you do.  But, in a POW setting, it wouldn't be out of 
> place to shoot Kreacher in the back if he does try to escape.

Betsy Hp:
Yes.  And it's still more noble, IMO, than treating Kreacher as a 
slave.  I suppose it's a very fine line.  POWs were used as a sort of 
slave labor force, after all.  That's where slaves came from in many 
cases for that matter.  I guess it all comes down to how *Harry* 
views Kreacher.  In the end I'm sure Kreacher saw himself as a POW 
even while following Draco around.  But for some reason I see Harry 
as seeing Kreacher as his slave at that point. I could very well be 
wrong.  Harry never takes a moment to think about it, so it's really 
impossible to see into his head on this matter.

Makes for some interesting discussion though! <g>

Betsy Hp




From dougsamu at golden.net  Wed Nov 29 23:05:51 2006
From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:05:51 -0500
Subject: Harry and the house-elves---another view
Message-ID: <AA972521-B52D-4279-81C0-FC6C6AF25CF7@golden.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 162161

Lenore :
Lord Baden-Powell who named his packs of junior
Girl Guides 'Brownies', as opposed to the more adventurous 'Wolf Packs'

Doug:
The Brownie movement was founded by Lady Baden-Powell...


No one, no one is here. We stand in the Atlantic. We become panoramic.
          __________<http://home.golden.net/~samu>__________




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 23:28:24 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:28:24 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekiuee+l9dt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekl52o+dkpe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162162

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Harry reads his school books, yes.  But no canon has been        
> > presented to show that Harry reads for the pleasure of reading.  
> > And he certainly doesn't read any fiction (and fiction does not   
> > mean just fantasy, to be clear).  Ergo, he is not a reader; he is 
> > not a book lover. (Which, as Magpie pointed out, does not suggest 
> > that Harry is illiterate.)  And that's *fine*.  So yes, the       
> > scramble still amuses.

> >>Potioncat:
> Guilty as charged (of scrambling) Though I'm not sure why. So, 
> instead I can say, the more noble character is Snape, who appears   
> to particularly value books.

Betsy Hp:
Heck, I just caught it on my hundredth, thousandth, billionth flip 
through PS/SS, so don't feel bad. <g>  I think it makes sense for a 
book-lover to project the same view onto the protaganist.  And I 
think it's also a bit unusual to have a hero so not into books (at 
least from my experience).  Though of course I totally agree about 
Snape's nobility. <eg> 

> >>Potioncat:
> The point was funny, that the narrator makes the connection of     
> Dudley not reading but leaves it to us to realise that Harry       
> doesn't read either. (I have that right, don't I?) 

Betsy Hp:
Exactly right. Though to be perfectly clear I not saying Harry (nor 
do I think JKR is suggesting) that Harry is illiterate.  He's just 
not a book-lover, or what my family always classified as a "reader".

[As in, "What on earth should I get cousin so and so for his 
birthday?"  "Well, he's a reader, so just pick up a book of some 
sort.  Something an eleven-year old might enjoy."

*NOT* as in

"Well, he's a reader so..." "Yes, thank you, at eleven years of age 
I'd expect him to be able to read, but you've failed to narrow it 
down for me."]

> >>Potioncat:
> It's another one of the contradictions we get in this series.  We   
> can make fun of Marge and Vernon's weight, but we don't like it     
> when Draco makes fun of Molly. We look down on Crabbe's and Goyles 
> gluttony, yet we smile at Ron's. It's OK for Sprout to give Harry 
> points, just because, but it isn't ok for Snape to favor Draco.

Betsy Hp:
Or, it's okay to physically hurt Draco, but not physically hurt 
Harry.  It's okay to mark Marietta's face, but not Harry's hand.  
It's okay for Hermione to cheat, but not Harry (which was an 
interesting one, IMO).  Or it's okay for Hermione to blackmail, but 
not the twins as another more grayish example.

> >>Potioncat:
> I'm not sure if JKR is setting us up, or if she's revealing        
> something she doesn't intend to.

Betsy Hp:
That's the million dollar question, isn't it?  For me it's big part 
of what will decide me on how to classify this series.  Come on book 
7!! <g>

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> It does not matter whether Harry will be reading fantasy or **any** 
> other fiction in order for Neri's argument to work in my opinion.   
> All that is needed is for Harry to have overactive imagination ,    
> influenced by **any** type of fiction, by any book that describes   
> fictional events. As long as we know that, well, we can never be   
> sure whether Harry just dreampt up WW just as he would be dreaming 
> about adventures of his favorite characters from the books, any    
> books?
> And if JKR wants to stress that WW is real, I understand what Neri
> is saying as plausible argument.

Betsy Hp:
It's a plausible *argument*, but it's not a plausible *rule*, IMO.  
JKR may well have created active/doer!Harry rather than book-
lover/imaginative!Harry for that reason.  What I objected to was the 
suggestion that this is a rule all "realistic" fantasies have to 
follow.

Which means that I don't think JKR created Harry the way she did in 
order to shoe-horn him into some "required fantasy hero" role.  She 
created him the way she did because that's how she sees Harry.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> ...what is reading for pleasure? Why Harry reading Qudditch book is 
> not reading for pleasure?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Because it's one book.  If Harry were a book-lover, if a main source 
of pleasure for him was reading, he (like Hermione) would be found 
reading more often.  Instead he fixes broken alarm clocks, or plays 
chess with Ron, or stares at the ceiling, or walks aimlessly around 
the neighborhood.

> >>Alla:
> I mean, we do not see Hermione reading fiction either, does it mean
> she is not reading for pleasure?
> In my book she certainly does , because for her "Hogwarts a history"
> is pleasure reading and for Harry Quidditch related books are
> pleasure reading IMO.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, Hermione is certainly what I'd call a "reader" (by which I mean a 
book-lover).  Sure, she prefers non-fiction to fiction (like my 
father-in-law actually - a huge reader or book-lover), but she does 
enjoy reading as an entertainment.

Harry, on the other hand, will enjoy a book about his interests now 
and again.  But if you were going to buy him a gift, would you buy 
him a book or a quidditch kit?  When he's in Diagon Alley do you 
think he'd lose himself in the bookstore, or the quidditch shop (or 
the joke shop, for that matter)?

> >>Alla:
> I mean, really I am not saying that Harry reads **nearly** as much
> as Hermione, but neither would I agree that he does not like the
> books **at all**. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Of course not.  I've never suggested that.  But give him a choice 
between a shelf full of books or something to tinker with, and Harry 
will choose to tinker from what we've seen (fix the broken alarm 
clock rather than pull a book off the shelf).  It's part of what 
makes Harry, Harry.

> >>Alla:
> Just thought of example from RL. I have a friend, also a lawyer,
> whose reading for pleasure as far as I am aware of constitutes one
> book a month for her bookclub, that is it.
> <snip>
> Would you say that my friend is a reader or not?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Assuming your friend reads at a good clip (IOWs, she's not taking the 
entire month to read that one book) than no, I wouldn't call her a 
reader.  If I were gift shopping for her and asking about for advice 
I don't think I'd be told, "Oh she loves books, you can't go wrong 
with a book."  (Of course, not knowing your friend, it could be she's 
a "reader" or book-lover but just really busy and so can only spare 
the time to do a book a month as a form of "me time".  In which case, 
she'd *love* getting a book for a gift and look forward to the time 
to actually read it.  And then I *would* classify her as a "reader" 
or book-lover.)

Which is like one of my sisters, or my husband.  Both of whom will 
get pulled into a book from time to time, or go through spells where 
they'll read for a bit.  But while gift shopping I wouldn't classify 
them as "readers".  A book wouldn't be a guaranteed hit.  (Not to say 
a specific book wouldn't work.  But I doubt I'd start in a bookstore.)

Whereas, me?  I'm a "reader".  Even if you're not sure *what* I'd 
like to read specifically you're not going to go wrong in giving me a 
gift card to a bookstore.  My sister would prefer an outdoor shop, my 
husband a tool shop.

Bringing it back to Harry... we've seen him killing time.  We've seen 
him go for a little de-tox time or relaxation time.  Rarely (if ever, 
actually) does he reach for a book.  Instead he goes flying.  Because 
that's Harry. 

Betsy Hp




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Nov 29 23:36:31 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 15:36:31 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's happy death(Was Re: Harry, Sirius Black, and the...
In-Reply-To: <20061129042353.88330.qmail@web30806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20061129042353.88330.qmail@web30806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611291536i6650bcffqeac21bb1185df76@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162163

Inge:
I can only speak for myself, but personally I would not read Harry
Potter 4-5-6 to a 7-year old...<snip>

Pam:

My 7 year old son and I are just about to complete Book 4 (ever try to read
every word of the books out loud?) and I must admit, I am not looking
forward to read 5 and 6 to him. He wants to, of course, but I know he's
going to take Sirius' death very hard. He sat up with hopeful attention
every time Sirius sent an owl to Harry throughout GOF.


Lynda:

When I was nanny to a seven year old and his five year old sister, the seven
year old promised his father that if he (dad) bought the HP books, then four
in number Kyle would read every last word. Kyle had been having problems
learning to read (of the "I can't. Do it for me variety") so we all made
shure he stuck to his guns. Little sister, who is always determined to do
whatever Kyle does at the same time (yep!--and generally she's successful)
started SS as soon as Kyle finished. It took her a year and the audio to go
through every night before bed, but she did it and followed up with the rest
of them. Were they too young? I would never have introduced the books
without parental permission, but Kyle is the kid that has loved fantasy from
birth. He, his sister and his mother used to watch the X-Files together
waiting for their dad to come home from work. The only reason they did not
watch Goosebumps was because I didn't let them (Never liked that series).
But the kids have suffered no harm from the books. In fact they're two of
the best adjusted kids at their school. And that didn't come from me. That
came from another source and was passed on to me because the person who was
told that knew that I had had a hand in raising them.

Lynda


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




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Thu Nov 30 00:19:32 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:19:32 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ekk8a0+cjkq@eGroups.com>
References: <ekih78+usnt@eGroups.com> <ekk8a0+cjkq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611291619g3be00744qdd287d092e2a8ce2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162164

Saundra:

You are certainly making a lot of assumptions. Just because Hermione
didn't overtly engaged in WW fashions doesn't mean she knew nothing of them.
Nowhere in cannon does it say that Hermione disliked all thing girlish all
the time.

I was the sort of girl who eshewed traditional feminine convention on a
daily basis and yet who could on a dime turn it around and become a
bombshell. In fact on those very special occasions, I enjoyed seeing the
look of shocked surprise on people's faces. After the event was over, I went
right back to my nondescript (fashion, hair and make-up) ways. I am still
that way as an adult. Really most of the thing it's just too much trouble.

And lastly, because this is the WW, Hermione did have magic at her
disposal and she has read enough to know how to use it.

Lynda:

I still do!. Because I work with severely handicapped kids, my normal work
attire is, shall we say, casual. Very casual. Neat, clean, but usually of
the T-shirt and blue jeans variety. My hair is very thick and can be
unmanagable, so it is normally pulled back into a ponytail. Nothing fancy. I
do wear a little makeup to work, but it is minimal. When I'm at home, i'm
strictly jeans and t-shirt. No makeup.  When I go out though, either to a
party or with friends, or even to volunteer at my local library, or to do
some public speaking, I doll up a little, accessorize, pull out my nicer
clothes, touch up my makeup.  Its not that difficult. I just don't see the
reason for looking like a fashion plate on daily basis. (Not that I do...but
you get the picture).

Lynda


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




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Thu Nov 30 00:09:14 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:09:14 -0800
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's reading and fiction within fiction
In-Reply-To: <ekk8bk+qvsh@eGroups.com>
References: <ekk8bk+qvsh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0611291609g538965bo6922c312dcc0d206@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162165

Geoff:

Even today, many lads I know, even intelligent ones, do not like sitting
down to read. Looking information they need, yes, but a story? Maybe,
maybe not. Alhough Harry's books have changed that perception a little,
they would far sooner be doing something active - Computer games,
sports, hanging out with friends ? or perhaps watching TV which requires
less effort than concentrating on the printed page.

Lynda:

Yes. I run across the same type of thing. One of my friend's has a
four-year-old who is already like this. He loves his books, but he likes to
have them with him so that he can show them off or (in the case of his
picture Bibles) look at a story and ask questions. Not have it read to him.
He'd rather be outside playing, or taking a walk with Mom or anything but
reading or in his case being read to.

Lynda


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




From jnferr at gmail.com  Thu Nov 30 01:05:32 2006
From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 19:05:32 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ekkabi+c4nb@eGroups.com>
References: <ekih78+usnt@eGroups.com> <ekkabi+c4nb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <8ee758b40611291705l76a135fbib51d606d5e48d7ea@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162166

>
> Pippin:


 That's not
> to say that JKR handled the preparations for the ball realistically.
> Opening couples *rehearse* for heaven's sake, so of course
> Harry would have known who Krum's partner was.


montims:
I have to say, though - I think that's more of an American thing, like
wedding dinner rehearsals, etc.  I never knew them to happen in England at
all, and certainly not at a school event, however grand...


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




From inufan_625 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 23:31:25 2006
From: inufan_625 at yahoo.com (inufan_625)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 23:31:25 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekl1na+uo3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekl58d+nib5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162167


> Betsy Hp:
> I feel like Harry did see to those things.  I mean, because of the 
> magical bonds Harry didn't have to keep Kreacher in a cell or 
> anything, so Kreacher seems to have had free run of Hogwarts.  Which 
> means Harry didn't have to personally deliver Kreacher his food or 
> escort him to the bath or anything.  But he confined Kreacher to a 
> place where Kreacher's basic needs were cared for.  (Not the 
> Shrieking Shack, for example.)  And Harry made sure Kreacher 
> couldn't contact the enemy.

inufan625:
I agree. Harry has lived up to his responsibilty as owner of Kreacher
in providing him with life's basic needs. As you said he could have
easily ordered Kreacher to hold himself up in a hole in the ground or
something and had Dobby throw him down table scaprs once a week, but
he didn't. Harry didn't want a slave, just as he doesn't like the way
Dobby practically whorships him, but he has to make the best of those
situation, just as we all do.

 
> > >>Ceridwen:
> > Harry would also be able to work the prisoner.  Nothing cruel and 
> > unusual, and nothing that could compromise security, but work.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, I suppose it could be argued that in ordering Kreacher to
>follow Draco, Harry was just giving Kreacher a simple task.  But I
>think the cruelty was in making Kreacher work against his side. 
>Which I've seen prisoner's of war have to do (in various WWII movies
>but for some reason I saw this as Harry crossing the line from guard
>to slave owner.  Maybe because he took such advantage of a magical >bond?
> 

inufan625:
Actually if I remember correctly Kreacher actually enjoyed the
prospect of being told to follow Malfoy arround and did in fact enjoy
it as his report consisted mostly of kissing Malfoy's rear end. So in
a way the task Harry assigned him was a kind one. The only part he
didn't like was having to 'tattle' on Malfoy, which he ended up not
doing anyway as Dobby proved more useful.








From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com  Wed Nov 29 22:15:22 2006
From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:15:22 -0000
Subject: Quiditch
Message-ID: <ekl0pq+k1qo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162168

I don't know if this had been talked about but there is something I 
wondered about and maybe I missed this but when a team scores; how is 
the quaffle put back into play? 

dragonkeeper  




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 02:33:17 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:33:17 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ekkabi+c4nb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eklftd+9dm3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162169

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Huh.  See, I didn't think Ginny and Hermione spent all that much 
> > time together during the QWC (not even a full night, right?).  

> >>Pippin:
> Canon says Hermione was at the Weasleys for a week after the QWC, 
> and doesn't say how long she was there beforehand. You may be
> thinking of the celluloid thingy, which has the timeline you       
> suggest.

Betsy Hp:
No, I was going with the book.  I was thinking of the actual QWC, 
which was quite short. 

[As total aside, I have a love/hate thing with the films (which do 
play up a Hermione/Ginny friendship beyond the books, IMO).  I love 
what they're doing with Ginny, but hate what they've done with 
Hermione.]

I flipped through GoF just to get a feel for Ginny and Hermione's 
relationship during that time.  And they do hang for a bit (Hermione 
shows up with Ginny when Harry arrives at the Burrow, for example).  
But the sticking point, for me, is the ease with which Ginny is 
excluded from the "Trio" talk.  I cannot accept a true, deep 
friendship between Hermione and Ginny when Hermione excludes Ginny 
from such a large part of her life.  It just doesn't follow for me.  
YMMV, of course.

> >>Pippin:
> ROTFL! Hermione's date may have been a matter of no importance
> to anyone but Ron, but Viktor Krum's date would have been news on
> the international level.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So?  I'm talking about how greatly *Hermione* values the 
information.  I just never got the sense that this was a deep, only 
my best friend shall know, sort of secret. 

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I blame JKR.  Realistically, you're correct.  A girl with no      
> > interest in hair, make-up, and fashion does not suddenly, with no 
> > help whatsoever, turn out as poised and pressed as JKR has       
> > Hermione.
> > <snip>

> >>Saundra coming out of lurkerdom replies:
> You are certainly making a lot of assumptions. Just because Hermione
> didn't overtly engaged in WW fashions doesn't mean she knew nothing 
> of them. Nowhere in cannon does it say that Hermione disliked all   
> thing girlish all the time.

Betsy Hp:
I feel like I'm going with canon rather than assuming.  I mean, sure 
it's based on a lot of negatives, but I'm just going with what JKR 
gave me (or didn't give me, as the case may be). <g>

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> But I see no reason that Hermione, and all the other students
> at the school, could not have had the benefit of professional
> or magical fashion advice, not to mention that Hermione
> is perfectly capable of seeking that out for herself.  (One
> might guess that Ron would be too embarrassed to complain
> about his dress robes, and that Ginny secured hers by
> threatening to take advantage of whatever funds are available
> for indigent students if Mum and Dad didn't cough up.) 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Now see, this is what I'd call an assumption.  I mean, it makes 
perfect sense, but there's nothing in canon to suggest such a thing.  
(We'd have to assume McGonagall was talking about embarrassing 
fashion faux-pas as well as spiking the punch and getting caught half-
naked with that cute guy from DADA in the bushes.)

And everyone *knows* Ron's ugly dress robes were an expression of his 
mother's frustration and rage with Arthur projected on one of her 
least liked sons. Joke! Joke! I only kid! Or do I? <beg>

> >>Pippin:
> Anyway, just because a girl doesn't  routinely spend an hour 
> and a half every day primping doesn't mean she can't doll up 
> when the occasion requires. You wouldn't recognize *me* 
> from my prom pictures, I can tell you that <g>.
> <snip>

> >>Saundra:
> I was the sort of girl who eshewed traditional feminine convention 
> on a daily basis and yet who could on a dime turn it around and    
> become a bombshell.
> <snip>

> >>Lynda:
> <snip>
> When I go out though, either to a party or with friends, or even to 
> volunteer at my local library, or to do some public speaking, I    
> doll up a little, accessorize, pull out my nicer clothes, touch up 
> my makeup. Its not that difficult.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hee!  Oh, I'm quite sure you were all stunning fourteen year olds who 
found the perfect color and cut of dress, applied just the right 
amount of make-up, and did your up-do just so, for your very first 
formal event as a young lady without a bit of help.

I do realize it can happen [not having witnessed it myself - my very 
first dress up event at boarding school (read, with only peers to 
advise) involved an unfortunate encounter with some rather assertive 
blue eye-shadow, an over-heated curling iron, and (I'll admit it) 
Pansy's pink dress <g>] so I didn't throw the book across the room at 
Hermione's entrance.  But I didn't relate.  And, IMO, it's when 
Hermione started to leave the world of "multi-faceted character" and 
enter the plastic universe of "too perfect to be believed."

Of course, this is just my opinion.  And it has been shaped by the 
Hermione of HBP.  Honestly, if that Hermione were a bit less of a 
cow, I'd probably just cheer on her GoF triumph.  Now it's just a 
marker for when things started to go down hill.

Just my opinion.

Betsy Hp




From elfundeb at gmail.com  Thu Nov 30 02:34:39 2006
From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:34:39 -0500
Subject: The Regulus Story
Message-ID: <80f25c3a0611291834nf6d2bd7k34b958b4de450917@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162170

While we're on the topic of Regulus, I stumbled across a an interesting
short story over the holiday weekend (in a multivolume collection of
"Children's Classics" published way back in 1920). entitled "Bravery of
Regulus"  This may be old news, but I don't recall ever hearing about this
story before.

According to the story, Regulus was a third century B.C. Roman who commanded
an army sent to fight the Carthaginians.  The Carthaginians captured him and
decided to send him to Rome with their ambassadors to request terms of peace
and an exchange of prisoners.  If he did not secure these goals, he was to
return to Carthage as a prisoner.



Upon his return to Rome, Regulus delivered the Carthaginians' message, but
(outside the hearing of the ambassadors) told the Romans to persevere in the
war and not to exchange prisoners because it would give the Carthaginians
the advantage.  He also claimed that the Carthaginians had given him a slow
poison and that he would die shortly.



The Romans decided to reject the terms offered by the Carthaginians, and
begged Regulus not to go back to Carthage.  However, Regulus insisted on
returning (even though he expected the Carthaginians to torture him to
death) because he would not break the terms of his deal with the
Carthaginians.  "Slave as I am to Carthage, I have still the spirit of a
Roman.  I have sworn to return.  It is my duty to go."  Reports later
reached Rome that he had been tortured to death, using various means which
were not spelled out in the story.  His wife, who had two Carthaginians as
slaves, avenged his death by treating the captives "with savage cruelty."



Did JKR know this story?  Did she follow it?  It sounds pretty close to me:



   1. Regulus Black was lured to join the DEs, and thereby became
   Voldemort's slave.
   2. He was given a task in connection with the locket (or, at least
   that's a reasonable bit of speculation).  Having figured out what the
   locket was and the advantage Voldemort's whorecruxes would give him, he
   engineered the switch.  To accomplish this, he must have had to drink
   the liquid in the basin, as Dumbledore did, even though he suspected it was
   a poison that would kill him.  He likely had an assistant or witness
   with him (the ambassador), who either didn't see the switch or (if it was
   Kreacher) was ordered not to tell.
   3. Voldemort had Regulus killed.  If Regulus Black's story accurately
   follows the Roman Regulus' story, then Regulus would not have actually
   attempted to back out, as Sirius claims.  He would have obeyed
   Voldemort, but without the fawning devotion that Voldemort seems to crave
   and that so many others ::cough Malfoys cough:: are happy to give him.

This sounds pretty consistent with the story we've already pieced together.
And Regulus would be, in fact, a 'right little hero.'


One other thought.  Regarding #1 on the list above, who would have lured
Regulus to join the DEs?  He was younger than Sirius and therefore wouldn't
have been a direct contemporary of Snape and his gang.  However, he may have
been the same age as Barty Crouch Jr.  As another son of a pureblood, they
seem like logical companions.  Crouch joined to spite his father, and
because he was twisted enough to enjoy it.  Regulus, perhaps unduly
influenced by his family's pureblood mania, must have thought it was a good
idea at the time, but figured out quickly that Voldemort wasn't worth his
true allegiance.

Perhaps the question isn't whether Regulus is alive to convey the truth
about Harry; who will be the agent by which we learn the truth about
Regulus?



Debbie

Who once subscribed to the Stubby Boardman theory, but whom JKR has managed
to convince that Regulus is most sincerely dead


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




From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 02:27:24 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 02:27:24 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <ekih78+usnt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eklfic+f866@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162171

>Amiable Dorsai:
>> Sorry Betsy, for the ridiculous wait.

> Betsy Hp:
> Eep! Just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water... 
> <g>

<snip>

> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > Ginny wasn't involved at all in Hermione's attempt to save
> > > Buckbeak, even after Ron and Harry bowed out for a bit.
> 
> > >>Amiable Dorsai:  
> > Too early.  Ginny and Hermione won't have had a chance to spend a   
> > lot of time together until the summer of the Quidditch World Cup.  
> > Their rather extensive knowledge of each other's lives only
> > becomes apparent after that.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Huh.  See, I didn't think Ginny and Hermione spent all that much
> time together during the QWC (not even a full night, right?).

Amiable Dorsai:
Pippin beat me to it, I see, but they had at least a week, according
to the Lexicon's timeline.  Yeah, the Quidditch World Cup debacle took
only a day and a night, but they went back to The Burrow afterwards
and had some time before school.  It may have been longer, Hermione
was already there when Harry came out the Floo from the Dursleys.

Betsy Hp:
>  And I don't see any evidence that Ginny has "extensive knowledge"
of Hermione's 
> life.

Amiable Dorsai:
She knew about Viktor, she knew (or claimed to know) that Hermione and
Viktor "snogged".  Hermione told her enough about Harry that she
eventually got her man.  Can you imagine Hermione (Hermione, now, not
some other girl--I'm talking about the girl who figured out that one
her teachers was a *werewolf* and didn't spill.) telling anybody who
was not a close friend these things?

And there's no point in pretending that the Ball was of no importance
to Hermione, whatever she may have said about it, her actions tell the
tale.
> 
> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > I'm not arguing that there's only one way of writing close
> > > female friendship.  What I am saying is that I don't see
> > > evidence that Hermione and Ginny are *close* female friends.
> > > Whatever the manner or means.  In many ways I'd label them
> > > "friendly" rather than "friends". 
> 
> > Amiable Dorsai:
> > Hmmm.  I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.  I can't help
> > but notice this largish anvil of Hermione's trust of Ginny with
> > information she apparently shares with no one else, though.  
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I agree that this is where we're falling down.  You see this as an 
> example of Ginny's closeness to Hermione.  While I think it comes 
> down to Hermione's date for the Yule Ball not being that important a 
> bit of information.  I doubt anyone other than Ron cared.  Annoying 
> Ron was the only apparent reason for secrecy, and Ginny knew about 
> Krum before Hermione decided to keep it a secret.

Amiable Dorsai:
You keep saying that Hermione thought this was no big deal, when her
behavior, (as opposed to her words) indicates that it was a very big 
deal indeed--more on that in a bit.

<Snip>
> > >>Amiable Dorsai:
> > I am so badly confused: Either it was a big enough deal that she
> > radically changed her normal behavior for it, or it was no big
> > deal at all to her.  How do you manage to have both propositions  
> > be true at the same time?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I blame JKR.  Realistically, you're correct.  A girl with no
> interest in hair, make-up, and fashion does not suddenly, with no
> help whatsoever, turn out as poised and pressed as JKR has Hermione.

Amiable Dorsai:
So you're saying that Hermione does, in fact, have friends who will
help her?  Who will tell her about Sleekeazy, perhaps teach her a few
makeup charms?  Could I go out on a limb here, and suggest that one of
them has red hair?

Betsy Hp:
> But JKR wrote the belle of the ball scene without any suggestion
> that older Gryffindors girls (or other sort of fairy godmother)
> helped Hermione in anyway.  JKR also has Hermione poo-poo the
> whole effort as far too much time wasted on a rather silly goal.
> So we have a girl who, as you put it, radically changes her normal
> behavior while maintaining that it was all no big deal.  Do I smell
> shenanigans?  
> Damn straight.  Personally, I think JKR sacrificed character for 
> a "think of the children!" moment.

Amiable Dorsai:

<Blink>

<Blink>

Uhm, Betsy, this *is* characterization.  Hermione is somewhat
embarrassed about the "girly" side of her personality, but she clearly
has one.  She may, by her words, deprecate the ball, but her
actions...  well, her actions tell a different story.

I feel a little presumptuous--I'm a middle-aged guy telling a woman
how a teenaged girl thinks--but I'm going to claim superior knowledge
here.  My high school was what is now called a "magnet" school; the
student body was made up of kids who were high achievers in grade
school.  We had an abundance of girls who were more like Hermione than
like Lavender or Parvati.  They were the girls my buddies and I hung
out with, lusted after, and dated.  Hermione would have been right at
home, trust me.

It was the seventies, an outside observer would have concluded that
the school uniform was jeans and sweatshirts and that those girls were
all allergic to lipstick.

Until the Prom.

Let me just say that the Yule Ball scene, where Harry does not, at
first, recognize his female best friend, had a certain resonance for
me.  I remember being particularly astonished at how much... profile a
girl could hide under a sweatshirt.

Maybe this is why I like Hermione so much: warts and all, she feels
like an old friend.

Betsy Hp:
> But since there's no hint of Krum as Hermione's burning love 
> interest, since Hermione doesn't turn over a new leaf and become 
> interested in the WW's fashions, I believe the contradiction stands.  
> Hermione is "above" girlish things like appearance and boys.  But 
> whenever she's forced to enter that particular arena, she 
> effortlessly rules.

Amiable Dorsai:
Oh, come on Betsy, be fair, this is Hermione we're talking about--she
would have put out whatever effort was necessary to achieve her goal;
I picture her filling out a notebook or two on the subject of beauty
charms.

Amiable Dorsai





From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Nov 30 02:05:18 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 21:05:18 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
References: <ekl58d+nib5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <020301c71423$fc5fdbe0$49ba400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 162172

> inufan625:
> I agree. Harry has lived up to his responsibilty as owner of Kreacher
> in providing him with life's basic needs. As you said he could have
> easily ordered Kreacher to hold himself up in a hole in the ground or
> something and had Dobby throw him down table scaprs once a week, but
> he didn't. Harry didn't want a slave, just as he doesn't like the way
> Dobby practically whorships him, but he has to make the best of those
> situation, just as we all do.
>
Magpie:
For me, that's why the strange moment is when Harry calls on Kreacher to 
follow Malfoy. I can certainly see why he does it for plot purposes--it's 
funny and it's part of a theme in HBP where we see all these other people 
having totally different reactions to Malfoy than the ones we've seen 
throughout the books.  Kreacher's just one more person who seems favorably 
disposed to him, even potentially caring about him.

But still, I was brought up short by Harry calling on his slave when he 
needed the job done, especially with another Elf offering to do it as a 
friend. Like I said, plotwise I could see why it was better to have the two 
of them working together, and maybe Kreacher will have some part in the next 
book as well that was set up here.  But I agree with a_svirn that it's a 
moment where Harry crosses the line into active slaveowner where before he 
was just doing what he had to do to protect his own interests.  He couldn't 
free Kreacher because of the danger to his side, so putting him at Hogwarts 
was a pretty good compromise.  I was totally surprised when he then assumed 
his rights as Kreacher's personal owner--and even more surprised at 
Hermione's being fine with that.

> inufan625:
> Actually if I remember correctly Kreacher actually enjoyed the
> prospect of being told to follow Malfoy arround and did in fact enjoy
> it as his report consisted mostly of kissing Malfoy's rear end. So in
> a way the task Harry assigned him was a kind one. The only part he
> didn't like was having to 'tattle' on Malfoy, which he ended up not
> doing anyway as Dobby proved more useful.

Magpie:
It wasn't really kind at all, any more than it would be kind for Lucius to 
order Dobby to follow Harry to get information to hurt him.  Harry himself 
knows this, which is why he knows to give Kreacher orders to keep him from 
doing what he really wants to do, which is serve Malfoy and protect him. 
That's another reason why to me this scene shows that whatever the 
House-Elves situation, Harry is assuming his place in things as a Wizard and 
so rightful owner of House-Elves.

-m 





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 30 03:32:51 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:32:51 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekl1na+uo3d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekljd3+mqh5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162173

Betsy Hp:
>Why on earth would you equate domestic work with slavery? (Why not 
accounting? Or building? Or banking? Or teaching?) House-elves like 
to cook (apparently), so they could live up to their nature and get a 
job as a cook. *(snip)*

Ceridwen:
I was equating domestic work with slavery because house elves are 
domestic slaves.  I mentioned earlier, in the part that I snipped, 
that it seems that elves have no options in the WW than to become or 
remain slaves.  Their talents, perhaps their interests and passion, 
lies in domestic work from what we've seen.  Aside from Harry telling 
Kreacher to follow Draco (and Dobby going along, of course), have we 
seen house elves acting in anything other than a domestic setting?  I 
don't recall that, but others are better at remembering than I am.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > I think the house-elf solution is simply give the house-elves to 
ability to quit. 

> >>Ceridwen then:
> *(snip)* But at the same time, for full-time employment, there 
would be primarily the same old masters to serve, the wizards and 
witches who already own house elves. This is a small pool to choose 
from.  
<snip>

Betsy Hp:
> Not necessarily. There's the entirety of wizarding Britian to 
choose from (and possibly the Continent depending on house-elf 
language skills). There are young up and comers graduating from 
Hogwarts every day (I'd imagine the Weasley twins wouldn't mind a 
house-elf), and there are tons of businesses that might like the idea 
of a house- elf on the staff. The Leaky Cauldron, that ice-cream shop 
on Diagon Alley Harry loves so much, various pubs and hotels and 
resaurants would probably find work for an eager house-elf. St. 
Mungo's could be a source of quite a few jobs.

Ceridwen:
Shops would be able to pay, but the ordinary citizen would probably 
find employing an elf full-time, if wages were set, to be too 
expensive.  It would be like having another family member as far as 
pay is concerned.  Wages, a room, food, clothes or money to get 
clothes, medical, shoes or money to get shoes.  (By the way, would 
the elves go home from the Leaky Cauldron etc. at night, or board 
there?  Sounds like an interesting proposition)

> >>Ceridwen then:
> Harry would also be able to work the prisoner. Nothing cruel and 
unusual, and nothing that could compromise security, but work.
 <snip>

Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, I suppose it could be argued that in ordering Kreacher to 
follow Draco, Harry was just giving Kreacher a simple task. But I 
think the cruelty was in making Kreacher work against his side. Which 
I've seen prisoner's of war have to do (in various WWII movies <g>), 
but for some reason I saw this as Harry crossing the line from guard 
to slave owner. Maybe because he took such advantage of a magical 
bond?

Ceridwen:
If Harry was keeping Kreacher as a POW, then it would have been wrong 
to force him to work against his side.  But the way that Harry 
decided to call on Kreacher to do this seems more like Harry looking 
at Kreacher as his slave than as a POW.  He knew he could order 
Kreacher to do it, and he needed it to be done.  He didn't think that 
Dobby might do it willingly, though by calling Kreacher he got both 
for the expense of one summons.

Yes, POWs were given some back-breaking work.  So are prisoners in 
criminal detention facilities.  They have to do jobs they don't care 
for, too.  No, Harry doesn't sit and stew over this, but the way he 
behaves, just summoning Kreacher and giving him the task, makes me 
think he does think of Kreacher as his slave and not as a POW.

Ceridwen, hoping house elves all decide to fly to the moon, or set up 
a house-elf-exclusive colony in the Marianas Trench.




From kmalone1127 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 01:59:54 2006
From: kmalone1127 at yahoo.com (kmalone1127)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 01:59:54 -0000
Subject: A couple of little theories!
In-Reply-To: <ekf4ko+916p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekldur+8cce@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162174

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca Hillary"
<rebeccahillary82 at ...> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
> First of all, in GoF;c33 Voldemort says that his most faithful
> servant has already entered his service, is at Hogwarts and it was
> through his efforts that Harry was in the graveyard at all. So it's
> Snape? That's what you think reading that. Yet in GoF;c35 Barty
> Crouch Jr says that he was the one who did everything. This is under
> the influence of the Veritaserum, so it has to be true. Yet Snape is
> in the room while Barty takes said truth serum, and it is always
> possible that Snape (who is quite capable of casting spells
> wordlessly) could have had him under the Imperius curse, couldn't he?
> Well, no, because Snape wasn't in the room when 'Moody' told Harry he
> was the one who put Harry's name in under a different school, that he
> gave him the clues, and turned the cup into a portkey. We also know
> that if JKR has to tell us anything really important it is said in
> dialogue by Dumbledore or Hermione. Hermione very frequently and very
> insistently keeps telling us that 'Dumbledore trusts Snape', as does
> Dumbledore himself. So what I see here is incontrovertible proof that
> Snape cannot possibly be working for Voldemort, and is therefore not
> evil. (And I'm not just saying this as a lifelong fan of Alan
> Rickman, because I like him best as baddies!)
<SNIP>


This is my first post in a long while, so I hope I did everything right.
  In regards to Snape's allegiance, in GoF there is one thing that I
think is, if not incontrovertable still very good, evidence that Snape
is a good guy.  The Foe-Glass.  It shows the enemies of whom ever is
in possession of the mirror, and if I may quote the american ed.:
"Harry, still staring at the place where Moody's face had been, saw
Albus Dumbledore, Professor Snape, and Professor McGonagall looking
back at him out of the Foe-Glass."  And:
"Snape followed him, looking into the Foe-Glass, where his own face
was still visible, glaring into the room."  Pg. 679, Am. Paperback Ed.

Now, some might argue that Snape was indeed, at that time, an enemy of
Voldemort's servant, but changed after he went back to his old master.
 However, later on in the book, DD says to him, "You know what I must
ask of you."  To which he replies, "I do."  He also talked to DD about
the Dark Mark.  It had been growing clearer all year, both he and
Karkaroff knew V was coming back.  He would have had plenty of time to
choose sides.  If he was still on V's side, he would not have shown up
in the mirror.  I do not believe that he could have faked his
allegiance to the mirror, because mirrors, in the books, are very
powerful, and cannot be fooled.  I.E. the Mirror of Erised.  I believe
that JKR uses mirrors to reflect the true nature of things.  So, Snape
is a good guy in my book, vindicated by the Foe-Glass.  By the way, I
apologise for the rambliness of this post and if this has been brought
up before.

kmalone1127



From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Nov 30 04:09:24 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:09:24 -0000
Subject: A couple of little theories!
In-Reply-To: <ekjkol+crfs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekllhk+u46a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162175


Brothergib wrote:
> If Harry then chooses not to kill 
> Voldemort, do we think that Snape will try himself....'The one with 
> the power to defeat the Dark Lord approaches'....Yes, he's standing 
> outside listening to this actually!!>

Abergoat writes:

I really love your idea that Snape will (after a few choice words
directed at Harry) try to kill Voldemort himself. And I too have
wondered if everyone is focusing on the wrong end of the prophecy for
JKR's 'worded the prophecy very carefully'. I suspect Dumbledore let
Snape hear the first part because it wasn't clear the prophecy DIDN'T
refer to Snape until the seventh month part...exactly where Snape's
knowledge ends (Dumbledore sealed the room at that point? We see this
in OotP with Order meetings...). And if Snape didn't register the
seventh month bit because the barman yelled over it (even though the
seventh month bit would be in Snape's memory for Legilimens Voldemort)
did Snape think the prophecy DID refer to him because he didn't
register the 'born as the seventh month dies'? Is that why he was
surprised to learn how Voldemort 'interpreted' it? 

> Brothergib again:
> JKR once said that the 
> events at Godric's Hollow are the key to the series, and I have to 
> admit that I haven't heard a satisfactory answer yet.
> Evidence suggests that it was the AK spell that Voldemort fired at 
> Harry. But if it rebounded and 'killed' Voldemort, how did it destroy 
> the house? 

What about the idea that the house was destroyed by James's
'courageous' (to use Voldemort's own word in PS/SS) fight? I agree
that there are many puzzles from that night.

Abergoat





From Elvishooked at hotmail.com  Thu Nov 30 04:21:53 2006
From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 04:21:53 -0000
Subject: Quiditch
In-Reply-To: <ekl0pq+k1qo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eklm91+r3sn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162176

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" <dragonkeeper012003 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I don't know if this had been talked about but there is something I 
> wondered about and maybe I missed this but when a team scores; how is 
> the quaffle put back into play? 
> 
> dragonkeeper


Inge:
As for Quiditch - I find the entire game totally pointless...
The game always ends as soon as the Snitch has been caught - and in 99% 
of the time - (well, that's just my lucky guess of course, could be 
slightly less) - the team catching the Snitch wins the game.
So what exactly IS the point of the quaffle other than scoring some 
useless points and keeping the game going, while waiting for the Snitch 
to be caught? 
Makes very little sense to me....






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov 30 08:07:49 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 08:07:49 -0000
Subject: Quiditch
In-Reply-To: <eklm91+r3sn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekm3gl+jqru@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162178

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" <Elvishooked at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" <dragonkeeper012003@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if this had been talked about but there is something I 
> > wondered about and maybe I missed this but when a team scores; how is 
> > the quaffle put back into play? 

> Inge:
> As for Quiditch - I find the entire game totally pointless...
> The game always ends as soon as the Snitch has been caught - and in 99% 
> of the time - (well, that's just my lucky guess of course, could be 
> slightly less) - the team catching the Snitch wins the game.
> So what exactly IS the point of the quaffle other than scoring some 
> useless points and keeping the game going, while waiting for the Snitch 
> to be caught? 
> Makes very little sense to me....

Geoff:
(1) Reading between the lines of the books and also allowing a little for
possible contamination by the media that "dare not speak its name" I
get the feel that play continues straight on. Certtanly in the film, Madame
Hooch starts the game by throwing the Quaffle into the air and to return
it to the ground each time would waste time.

(2) It is possible for a team to win without catching the Snitch. This
happens in the World Cup in GOF where the Irish win when Krum catches
the Snitch:

'"IRELAND WIN!" shouted Bagman, who, like the Irish. seemed to have been
taken aback by the sudden end of the match. "KRUM GETS THE SNITCH -
BUT IRELAND WIN - good Lord, I don't think any of us were expecting that!"

"What did he catch the Snitch for?" Ron bellowed, even as he jumped up
and down, applaudng with his hands over his head. "He ended it when
Ireland were a hundred and sixty points ahead, the idiot!"

"He knew they were never going to catch up," Harry shouted back over all
the noise, also applauding loudly, "the Irish Chasers were too good... he
wanted to end it on his terms, that's all..."'
(GOF "The Quidditch World Cup" p.103 UK edition)

This points up that the scoring from the Quaffle can make catching the
Snitch a tactical matter; there are other games in the books where
the score lines force a Seeker to try to hold their opposite number off
without catching it themselves.

One could say that any sport is pointless. What is the value of football, 
cricket or Rugby Union or a myriad other games?

I am a fan of the last two I mentioned above and am anxiously following 
the current Test series in Australia but that won't solve the world's 
problems or reduce global warming. But it will bring me enjoyment and 
a measure of satisfaction when the team I support wins.

Being iconoclastic for a moment, what's the point of the HP books? Other 
than creating a huge amount of pleasure to millions of people and 
generating 162000+ messages on the Internet? If everything in life was 
practical and down to earth, wouldn't it be boring? 





From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 10:44:18 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:44:18 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekkqmr+b1n6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekmcm2+b1p9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162179

> > a_svirn:
> > I am aware that it's Dobby's oxymoron. But you seem to overlook the
> > fact that being an oxymoron it negates the meaning of `obey'. What
> > Dobby actually says is that doesn't want to obey. He wants to do
> > whatever he chooses. <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> And what he chooses is to obey Harry. He says "Dobby is a free
> house-elf and can obey anyone he likes, followed by "Dobby will do
> whatever Harry Potter wants him to do!" (HBP 421) (HBP Am. ed. 421).
> IOW, he does not say that he doesn't want to obey. 

a_svirn:
Sure, he does. If we are told that fair is foul, we know that it's
anything but fair. If Dobby obeys by his own volition he doesn't
really obey at all. Obedience requires compulsion. 

> Carol:
He says that he
> wants to obey Harry. Oxymoron or no, obedience is his choice--

a_svirn:
Now you are the one who express yourself in oxymorons. 

> Carol:
just as
> a child chooses to obey or not obey a parent. 

a_svirn:
That's just it ? children don't have that much of a choice in the
matter of obedience. They can rebel against their parents, but the
compulsion is there. 

> Carol:
And you don't obey your
> equal. 

a_svirn:
Exactly. But I can render services to my equal. If I choose to do so.

> Carol:
You obey your superior, or someone you regard as your superior. 
> You can't disregard the word "obey" in the quotation or make it go
> away because you don't want it to be there. 

a_svirn:
I don't disregard it. I am saying that it is rendered meaningless by
using the oxymoron. Moreover, I think it's really very telling that
Dobby expresses himself that way. He uses the only language he knows ?
the only language he was taught. And language is the most powerful
instrument of indoctrination. As Whorf said "We dissect nature along
lines laid down by our native languages". And it is very significant
that even with all the limitations imposed on him by the elivine
pidgin Dobby manages to convey his desire for independence and
abhorrence of compultion. 
 
> > a_svirn:
 His relationship with Harry is reciprocal. Harry
> > bestowed a gift of freedom on Dobby, and Dobby wants to return the
> > favour by only way he knows ? render him services. JKR even stressed
> > the reciprocity of their relationship by the symbolic exchange of
> socks. 
> >
> Carol:
> An employee can give his employer a Christmas present. a servant can
> give his master a Christmas present. That does not make their
> relationship reciprocal. Nor have I ever heard that an exchange of
> socks symbolizes equality. Maybe it symbolizes the right to have warm
> feet.

a_svirn:
Yes, it does. You relationships with employer *are* reciprocal. You
can even be friends with your employer. The owner-slave relationships,
however, aren't reciprocal. And considering that cloths in general are
symbol or ("mark" in Dobby's words) of elves' enslavement, while socks
in particular marked for Dobby his liberation, I'd say the exchange is
symbolic. You exchange gifts of equal value (including symbolic value)
with your equals. 

> 
> Carol:
> Not that it's relevant, but I don't see any of us as free, actually.
> We all have to earn a living. 

a_svirn:
Why isn't it relevant? You take considerable pains to prove that elves
aren't really like us humans when it comes to freedom, that they don't
really want or understand freedom. And then go and say that none of us
are really free. If we, human, aren't really free, and they, elves,
aren't really free, how come we are so different in that respect? 

> Carol:
We--and wizards--just have more freedom
> of choice in our occupations than house-elves do, primarily because
> our talents and inclinations are more varied. 

a_svirn:
Huh. Is it slaves' fault that their interests aren't as refined as
their master, then? 
 
> Carol:
> That's not what Dobby said, though, is it? It's more like "Your wish
> is my command." 

a_svirn:
You make it sound like he is courting Harry. 

> Carol:
He says that he'll obey whoever he chooses and that
> he'll do whatever Harry wants him to do. 

a_svirn:
Because he wants to repay Harry the favour Harry did to him. Dobby
resented his slavery, he wanted to be free, and Harry gave him his
heart's desire. Not surprisingly he wants to thank Harry in the only
he knows. 

> Carol:
What, aside from freeing him (hardly an act that an
> equal can perform) and giving him socks has Harry done for Dobby that
> would make you see them as equals? Has he knitted him clothes or
> washed his clothes or cooked his food? Has he accompanied him on his
> adventures? The relationship is still that of servant to master, with
> Harry giving the orders and Dobby following them. The only difference
> between that relationship and the normal house-elf/human relationship
> is that Dobby has offered his services, and specifically his
> obedience, to his idol, Harry Potter. (Where is the evidence that
> Harry idolizes Dobby? They're not equals.)

a_svirn:
They were well on the way on being equals in GOF and OOP. In the last
book, Harry treats Dobby more like inferior. Hardly surprising,
considering he's become a slave owner and rather enjoys the experience. 

> > a_svirn:
> > Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? Freedom for Kreacher is the
> freedom to choose his own master.  Freedom for Dobby is to be free and
> obey "anyone he likes", that is to say no one.
> 
> Carol:
> That is to say, "Harry Potter, sir." Dobby, the free house-elf, has
> chosen Harry, just as Kreacher would choose Narcissa or Bellatrix if
> he were free.

a_svirn:
Dobby did NOT choose Harry as his master. Even living aside the
difference of our interpretations of "choose to obey", you are
building an awful lot on one dubious utterance. Completely ignoring at
the same the time more straightforward statements like "Dobby likes to
be free", "Dobby wants to get paid", "Dobby wants employment"  etc.
And there is another simple fact you ignore. Dobby had been unemployed
for two years. Never once during that time did he approach Harry,
though. If he wanted to be Harry's servant why on earth didn't he
apply for the position?


> > a_svirn:
 I am guessing house-elves need human houses to live, just
> > like gnomes need human gardens to live. Unlike gnomes, elves were
> > prepared to work to justify their presence in the human houses, and
> > humans took advantage of that.
> >
> Carol:
> Excellent! It's their *nature* to live in human houses and do house
> work. 

a_svirn:
No, but human residence is (or may be) their natural habitat. 

> Carol:
They *like* working for humans who treat them well. 

a_svirn:
How one does follow from another? 

> 
> Carol, noting that it would be against a gnome's nature to compel it
> to work even if it could, whereas elves require no such compulsion

a_svirn:
Or maybe gnomes simply don't have enough magic to be useful. 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 11:15:47 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 11:15:47 -0000
Subject: Harry and the house-elves---another view
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50611291301m7b1ad84cxaee69bd8c02c8fbb@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekmeh3+k2jg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162180

> > Alla:
> > They may or they may not. Till enchantment is lifted, we do not have
> > the complete picture IMO.
> 
> Random832:
> The textual evidence for this 'enchantment' and particularly that it
> was imposed on them by wizards, is unconvincing.

a_svirn:
That's what Dumbledore says. Granted he's not always the most truthful
of wizards, but he usually lies by omission, not outright. 






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Nov 30 12:29:31 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:29:31 -0000
Subject: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of the Children!")
In-Reply-To: <ekl52o+dkpe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekmirb+e9at@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162181

Betsy HP:
> 
> Harry, on the other hand, will enjoy a book about his interests now 
> and again.  But if you were going to buy him a gift, would you buy 
> him a book or a quidditch kit?  When he's in Diagon Alley do you 
> think he'd lose himself in the bookstore, or the quidditch shop (or 
> the joke shop, for that matter)?

Potioncat:
I've narrowed it down. Most of us, whether we know it or not, 
consider "loving books" to be an important character trait, and feel 
something is lacking in one's character, if one does not love to 
read. That's why we are (were) scrambling to show that Harry "reads". 
Someone upthread pointed out that Harry reading the quidditch book 
shows how much he loves quidditch, (not how much he loves to read). 
To Harry, reading is a useful skill, not a recreational activity. 

And I think Betsy is right, JKR decided to make him a boy of action, 
not of reading. Now, JKR has also said that the trio have found their 
answers in books and libraries. We see her love of the written word. 

Let's be honest. A person can love books too much. Spending too much 
time reading can be almost as bad as spending too much time watching 
TV, at least in terms of other health issues. 


In Post 162138 Carol closed with:
> Carol, who agrees with Betsy that the WW needs some good literature
> and thinks they'd benefit from a dose of Shakespeare, Austen, 
Dickens,
> and Melville for starters

Potioncat:
I've always suspected that Shakespeare and Dickens were wizards who 
chose to also publish in the Muggle world--or perhaps a nefarious 
Muggleborn stole the works and had them published in the Muggle 
world. 








From mros at xs4all.nl  Thu Nov 30 12:12:23 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:12:23 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and the house-elves---another view (LONG)
References: <00cb01c71383$3e092a20$ca570043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <000c01c71478$cab94900$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 162182

Eric Oppen wrote:

>>>One thing that a lot of posters on this point forget, again and again, is 
that _house-elves are NOT human!!!_ They are another race entirely. Humans 
hate being enslaved. House-elves may well see their situation as the 
highest and noblest calling available to them. Dobby is not a typical 
example, and the other house-elves seem to consider him to be on the same 
level as the sort of harmless mentally-disturbed person one sees 
sometimes---not dangerous, but not to be emulated.<<<<


Marion:

I wanted to stay out of discussions for a while (I'm busy trying to find a subject for my thesis) but I did have my thoughts on the matter. And because my thoughts coincided with yours, I wanted to say 'hear, hear!'

JKR seems to have moulded her 'house elves' on the brownies and hobs of folklore. 
When I was small, I read 'Hobberdy Dick' by Katherine Briggs and that book (and others about myths and folklore) sealed my idea of the 'house elf' for me.
In traditional folklore they are not slaves, but 'spirits of place': bound to the place they care for, not so much the people (since mortals come and go, but the place stays) When a house is build on the place of a hob, the hob will consider that house as *his*. He is the helpmeet of the domestic servants, but he will taunt and torment the lazy maid or farmhand rather like a poltergeist (the word 'misschief', which is often used for hobgoblin behaviour, used to have a far more nastier meaning in ye olden days!)
The hobgoblin expects (and recieves if the family wants to keep in the good graces of a hob) a bowl of fresh milk every day and a specially baked cake. The worst thing you could do, however, was offer it clothes. It would take offense and leave.

JKR had her house elves bound to the House instead of the house (or has she? It might be that the old wizard families that have house elves might have had their physical houses on the same spot for thousands of years. Grimmauld Place was probably once a wizard's house a few miles outside a Roman encampment town called Londinium) and she - seemingly, in the case of Dobby - has changed the power balance in the favour of the wizards. Maybe the house elves that live in the houses of Muggles (if they have survived the Enlightement and it's non belief in magic) still have supremacy in the home, and wizards, being able to see them for a start, simply have gained the 'upper hand' because they have magic as well as the hobs.

Incidently, it is my opinion that the behaviour of Dobby, Winky and Kreacher is not so much the behaviour of slaves who either want their freedom or not, but more of religious people. 

Dobby constantly states things in the trend of "I'm not worthy". He appearantly switched from his old religion to a new on (Harry is clearly his Messiah) wanting to prostrate himself for and obey his new religious leader, but feeling the need to be a flaggelant from time to time because in following the new religion he has sinned against the old.

Winky has been excommunicated and is devastated, wailing and gnashing her teeth is Limbo Hogwarts.

Kreachur is being forced to recant his religion. The house is being stripped off it's relics and artifacts. The mounted elfheads, which horrify Harry just as much as a wooden carving of a semi-naked, bleeding, tortured man, nailed to a piece of wood horrifies me (I'm not a Christian and I hope nobody is offended when I say that what is a sacred image to one is totally incomprehensible to others who don't share their beliefs) are being ripped off the wall and destroyed. Kreacher feels as deeply about those elfheads as a devout Roman Catholic would about his crucifix.
Try to imagine the following: during the Reformation, Protestant Iconoclasts destroyed many a beautiful old masterpiece, spitting on them, defeacating on them, calling them 'works of the devil' and 'craven images'. If a Catholic sneaked out to meet other Catholics, perhaps even plotting to overthrow the Protestant government (as many did in 16th and 17th century England) we would condemn them (because religious/political murder is a no-no in these times) but we would understand, or try to understand, that for people in less enlightened days it was a matter of Live or Death. They believed that not being able to celebrate the eucharist by the hands of an ordained priest would mean that there souls would burn for all eternaty in Hell.
Yet, somehow, people consider Kreacher 'evil' and 'insane'. If Kreacher is 'insane', then so are Dobby and Winky, as are all other house elves. They are all 'religious'. They just belong to different, conflicted, 'churches'.

JKR has therefor given a new, strange twist to the old hobgoblin and hobberdy dick. They are, in my opinion, more a 'fantasy version' of a religious group than a parable of slavery.


To finish; I pulled the following off the web for those who are interested in the book 'Hobberdy dick' by Katharing Briggs and hobgoblins in general:



http://ww2.wizards.com/books/Wizards/default.aspx?doc=main_classicshobberdy

"[Brownies] are generally described as small men, about three feet in height, very raggedly dressed in brown clothes, with brown faces and shaggy heads, who come out at night and do the work that has been left undone by the servants. They make themselves responsible for the farm or house in which they live . . . 
A brownie will often become attached to one member of the family . . .  he has a right to a bowl of cream or best milk and to a specially good bannock or cake . . . 
Any offer of reward for its services drove the brownie away . . .
Where he was well treated, however, and his whims respected, a brownie would be wholly committed to the interests of his master."
-- Katharine Briggs, A Dictionary of Fairies
Of Hobs, Lobs, and Hobgoblins

Dick is, as his name suggests, a hob -- a type of friendly faerie creature variously called a hob, a lob, or a brownie (i.e., little brown man). Hobs, unlike goblins, are solitary, shy, helpful creatures, so long as they are not crossed; a house-hob will mend items, sweep floors, churn butter, and generally help out by completing unfinished chores if treated well (the "elves" in the Brothers Grimm tale "The Shoemaker and the Elves" are clearly hobs). Wise homeowners will reward him with a saucer of milk or small cakes spread with honey left out for him at night. But, like many of "the fair folk", they have a sinister side; a hob who was offended would either abandon its post or, worse, turn into a boggart or bogle (the English folklore equivalents of a poltergeist), spoiling work instead of completing it. Those who fell between the helpful and the malicious were generally called hobgoblins, like Shakespeare's Robin Goodfellow, better known as Puck; the Irish pooka (known to American audiences via the Jimmy Stewart movie Harvey) is a similar creature, and some have even suggested that the Robin Hood legend began as a hob story (Rob [or Hob] -in-the-Woods). Aside from being the probable inspiration for Tolkien's "hobbit", hobs have largely failed to make the transition from folklore into modern fantasy, unlike other faerie creatures such as elves and dwarves, mythological beings like sphinxes and dragons, fairytale favorites like witches and ogres, or even fellow folktale creatures such as giants and goblins. 

Perhaps one reason for their dropping out of sight is that hobs, unlike the aristocratic elves, master-craftsmen dwarves, scheming witches, or huge lumbering giants, were neither the heroes of stories nor the monstrous foes overcome by heroes. Their lot was humbler; they were very much the supernatural helpers of servants, not companions of lords and ladies -- and before Tolkien few fantasy authors expressed much sympathy or interest in the "Downstairs" side of the Upstairs/Downstairs equation. Morris's, Dunsany's, and Eddison's heroes tend to be princes and lords, and the same is true of most other fantasies of the times; even the apparently ordinary protagonists of novels like Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions (1953) and Fletcher Pratt & L. Sprague de Camp's Land of Unreason (1941/42) turn out to be reincarnations of Ogier the Dane and Frederick Barbarossa, respectively. And while working class "proletarian" heroes were a well-established folktale tradition, their stories -- Jack the giant killer, the tailor who killed seven with one stroke, etc. -- were far more active and dramatic than those who, in Milton's phrase, "stand and wait". Briggs achieves what J. K. Rowling more recently tried and failed at with her Dobby and Kreature: take a nearly forgotten class of folklore creature, personalize a single member of that group, and imbue his steadfast attempts to protect his home and adopted family in troubled times with a heroism of its own.



A Time and a Place

The second distinctive feature of Briggs' book, aside from her choosing an almost forgotten folklore creature as its title character, is the time and place in which she chooses to tell her story -- a country house near Oxford in the year 1652, during the upheaval that followed upon England's Civil War (1642-1651) and the establishment of Cromwell's Puritan Commonwealth. Vague, idealized medieval settings have been the default for fantasy since William Morris's day, with modern-day tales the recognized alternative. Fantasy set in other periods, especially when the author is specific about when and where, were a rarity until quite recently (cf. the Tor "Fairy Tale series" launched the late '80s, which started a vogue that has continued to the present day). Briggs is not only very specific, having her characters visit many real-world sites (such as the famous Rollright Stones, a neolithic stone circle that also appears briefly in Tolkien's Farmer Giles of Ham), but grounds her book in the events of the time. The story begins when the traditional owners of Widford Manor leave, ruined by supporting the losing side in the war, and new owners arrive, a family of London merchants from Cheapside who aspire to become landed gentry. Dick almost leaves with the last of the old family at the beginning of the story, but decides to stay behind: 

Dick had half a mind to . . . scramble into the cart . . . before running water parted them. The Culvers had been good friends to him, and he would  have liked to share their fortunes a little longer . . . But he had been at Widford time out of mind and had only known the Culvers for a little over two centuries. He would stay with the old place a little longer and give it a chance of life; it would soon fall into ruin if he left it.

The opening chapter, describing the hob in the empty house, conveys vividly how desperately a hob needs people about him and things to take care of (as Briggs puts it, "hobs fare ill without [human company]"), and the touching degree to which he becomes attached to the only living thing left at the desolate house, a little red hen who escaped being rounded up after the auction. When the new family comes, not only are they city folk who know nothing of country ways and customs, they are Puritans who scorn old superstitions as ungodly. Briggs is very good at portraying unsympathetic characters without villainizing them. Mr. Widdison, the father, is a stern man with little use for any point of view but his own, yet he is redeemed for the reader by a fundamental core of decency, a determination to do the right thing as he sees it, and his devotion to his ailing mother-in-law, the mother of his first wife who he makes sure has a comfortable home with him to her dying day. Mrs. Widdison, the second wife, is a selfish and self-important woman, but Briggs always shows how her occasionally cruel treatment of others is partly due to vanity, party to thoughtlessness; she is not a "wicked stepmother" but simply a bad parent and worse employer, something far more believable. The eldest son (and only child from the first marriage) and the young woman who comes to serve as Mrs. Widdison's lady-maid (the last living member of the deposed family who once lived there), quickly come to be the main human characters, along with some of the servants; it's hard to deal with a large cast, some of whom play very minor roles in the story, and keep their personalities distinct, but Briggs pulls it off.

Most difficult of all, perhaps, is her treatment of the mother-in-law, old Mrs. Dimbleby. Here we have a person so good that she is actually surrounded by a kind of halo that Hobberdy Dick can see, though her fellow humans cannot ("Dick was rather frightened of her because of a luminous cloud in which she often sat, but he was fascinated, and she looked so mild and quiet that he could not think her dangerous"). The difficulty of presenting genuinely good characters who are both likable and believable is well-known, and very few writers of fiction can pull it off -- most prefer to create a good villain, which is much easier. Charles Williams tried several times to create such a numinous character and failed, as did C. S. Lewis (cf. Ransom in That Hideous Strength); Tolkien managed it with Faramir and Elrond, but witness those characters' fates at the hands of Peter Jackson, where all the character traits that make them admirable are stripped away. And every gamer is familiar with paladins who come off as sanctimonious and self-righteous rather than living examples to admire and inspire. That Briggs is able to believably present the story from a whole range of points of view, getting inside of good and bad people alike and showing how events look from their perspective, is one of the greatest strengths of her work, and a fine example for other authors to follow.



The Way of the Hob

A final strength of the book is the degree to which it is specific, not generalized. So much contemporary fantasy of the last three decades derives from synthesized stuff such as the writings of Joseph Campbell, Northrup Frye, or Carl Jung, rather than the actual stories these critics boiled down to construct their theories from. Briggs, by contrast, was probably the leading folklore scholar of her generation (her colleagues recently issued a thirteen-volume set of her Collected Works), and she draws inspiration directly from the original stories and tales collected over the last two centuries or so, many of which she published in collections such as British Folktales (1977), which includes the hob story "The Brownie". She also wrote several highly respected works on folklore: A Dictionary of Fairies: Hobgoblins, Brownies, Bogies and Other Supernatural Creatures (1976, also published under the variant title An Encyclopedia of Fairies) is undoubtedly her masterpiece, and probably the definitive work identifying and describing various folklore creatures, often accompanied by brief versions of the original stories in which they occur. Also significant are The Vanishing People: Fairy Lore and Legend (1978), The Fairies in Tradition and Literature (1967), Pale Hecate's Team (1962, a book on Elizabethan beliefs on witchcraft), The Anatomy of Puck (1959, which does the same for Elizabethan fairy lore), and Abbey Lubbers, Banshees & Boggarts: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of Fairies (1979, a sort of Dictionary of Fairies lite).

Out of this expertise, Briggs has focused on a very specific part of all this lore; her plot is new, but the creatures and traditions are all authentic, and all drawn from English folklore of the period in which her story is set. This wealth of actual knowledge gives the tale a distinct flavor and realism more eclectic fantasies often lack. Nor do her self-imposed limitations hinder the story; she includes not just hobs (Long George, the Taynton Lob, Patch of Iccomb, Lull of Kingstanding, Hairy Tib of Bruern, the Shining Boy of Widley Copse, and Hobberdy Dick himself) but ghosts (the evil one in the West Attic and the miser's ghost haunting the bed from London), witches (Mother Darke) and their familiars, a will-o'-the-wisp (Willy Wisp), the old Grim of Stow churchyard (an ancient spirit that was once a god and is now a Hound of the Baskervilles-ish black dog), an Abbey Lubber (whose presence foretells doom for the house it haunts), and more. In short, she vividly recreates a now-lost folklore and, in a tour-de-force, presents it from inside, from the point of view of the supernatural creatures, with all their fascination of humankind. Nor does she make the mistake of listing off all Dick's powers at the onset; the reader finds out what he can do only by reading along -- a triumph of "show, don't tell."

Once, when they were both unawares, he caught a moment's glimpse of Dick  and stopped, startled and almost frightened; but Dick rallied all his powers,  and thought of a clump of ferns  with a rabbit peering out of it until he looked like one, and Joel went on, reassured.

In the end, Briggs' book is as satisfying a fairy tale as any of the ones she draws inspiration from. In the best fairy tale/fantasy tradition, everything works out the way it should. She ends with a particularly poignant final note, with a Eucatastrophe Tolkien could be proud of. In the final chapter, her newly united lovers present Hobberdy Dick with a choice: They lay out three presents for him. If he chooses the green suit they have made for him, he can enter the hollow hills and fairyland, becoming a member of the seely court. If he chooses the red suit, his time on earth is at an end and he can follow the humans he loves into the afterlife. And if he chooses the little broom, he can remain as he has always been, and witness what the next few centuries will bring to his beloved house and its people. I will not reveal his choice here, other than to say that it is both moving and entirely fitting -- the culmination of the entire book in its final pages.


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




From rapid_white_wolf at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Nov 30 12:24:34 2006
From: rapid_white_wolf at yahoo.co.uk (rapid_white_wolf)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:24:34 -0000
Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make?
Message-ID: <ekmii2+pa5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162183

Dumbledore assumed Voldermort made six horcruxes, but could Voldermort
have made more?  Also if there is a limit what would happen if you
made too many Horcruxes?

White_Wolf




From rduran1216 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 09:11:41 2006
From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:11:41 -0000
Subject: Cohesion
Message-ID: <ekm78d+ajkk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162184

I've been mulling over the situation at where Half-Blood Prince ends,
and it seems to me there's something seriously wrong, and/or there is
something Dumbledore didn't share with anyone (except maybe Snape)
regarding the horcruxes and how it is that he seems to know the
future.  The implied clues dictate that Dumbledore planned what
happened, but at the same time, it doesn't seem like anyone besides
Snape was in on it as well.  My biggest proof for this is the way
Dumbledore acts all year long, especially towards the Dursleys, and
the subtle lines laced throughout.  So my question is, let's assume
the opposite, that Snape really is an instrument of Voldemort's, how
can the story possibly be brought together, given that Rowling has
said no new major characters will be introduced?

rduran1216



From aratchford at gmail.com  Thu Nov 30 06:03:52 2006
From: aratchford at gmail.com (mandrina_q)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:03:52 -0000
Subject: Quiditch
In-Reply-To: <eklm91+r3sn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekls88+3ne4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162185

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" <Elvishooked at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "David" <dragonkeeper012003@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know if this had been talked about but there is something 
I 
> > wondered about and maybe I missed this but when a team scores; 
how is 
> > the quaffle put back into play? 
> > 
> > dragonkeeper
> 
> 
> Inge:
>.
> So what exactly IS the point of the quaffle other than scoring some 
> useless points and keeping the game going, while waiting for the 
Snitch 
> to be caught? 
> Makes very little sense to me....
>

If I recall correctly, the Quaffle is put back in to play by the 
person officiating the match after the goal has been called as good.  
There are penalties that can be called on a goal, so it has to be 
officially recognized before it counts.  The point of the scoring (by 
the chasers) is that a team with great chasers can dictate to a team 
with a less-than-stellar seeker how well the game is going to go.  If 
you look back at GOF; the Irish win the world cup by virtue of their 
superior chasers even though Viktor Krum catches the Snitch for 
Bulgaria.  Although the Golden Snitch is worth so many points; in a 
professional or international level match, it is not always worth 
enough points to make the difference in the won or the loss.  Some 
seekers may even choose to pursue the Snitch with only his eyes and 
not his broom if there is a possibility for his team to score enough 
points to make it so the Snitch will make the difference between the 
win and the loss... because the Snitch will always end the game, even 
if it doesn't change who will win.

-MQ





From tenorone2000 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 06:43:23 2006
From: tenorone2000 at yahoo.com (Rashi)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 06:43:23 -0000
Subject: A thought..
In-Reply-To: <ekkj8f+5itf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekluib+m5el@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162186

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melanie Hensley"
<mhensley7 at ...> wrote:
>
> I was reading the Prisoner of Azkaban for the 400th : ) time the
> other day and came across something I never gave much thought too
> before.  In one of the last Chapter's Dumbledore told Harry he may
> one day be grateful he saved Wormtail's life.. He said once you save
> a wizard's life, they tend never to forget that no matter how dark a
> wizard they may be...  Could this be a omen for #7??  What is anyone
> else's view on this??

Melanie in Indiana

Hi Melanie:

Cool. What an idea. My only response or comment is, Dumbledore must be
wrong in this case. In addition to his deep devotion to "you know
who", he is far too much a weasel and a rat to give back to Harry,
even if Harry saved his very life.

Rashi Rosenzweig
Ra'anana, Israel



From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 13:10:10 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:10:10 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekkqmr+b1n6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekml7i+6ttf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162187

> > a_svirn:
> > I am aware that it's Dobby's oxymoron. But you seem to overlook the
> > fact that being an oxymoron it negates the meaning of `obey'. What
> > Dobby actually says is that doesn't want to obey. He wants to do
> > whatever he chooses. <snip>
>
> Carol:
> And what he chooses is to obey Harry. He says "Dobby is a free
> house-elf and can obey anyone he likes, followed by "Dobby will do
> whatever Harry Potter wants him to do!" (HBP 421) (HBP Am. ed. 421).
> IOW, he does not say that he doesn't want to obey.

a_svirn:
Sure, he does. If we are told that fair is foul, we know that it's
anything but fair. If Dobby obeys by his own volition he doesn't
really obey at all. Obedience requires compulsion.

> Carol:
He says that he
> wants to obey Harry. Oxymoron or no, obedience is his choice--

a_svirn:
Now you are the one expressing yourself in oxymorons.

> Carol:
just as
> a child chooses to obey or not obey a parent.

a_svirn:
That's just it ? children don't have that much of a choice in the
matter of obedience. They can rebel against their parents, but the
compulsion is there.

> Carol:
And you don't obey your
> equal.

a_svirn:
Exactly. But I can render services to my equal. If I choose to do so.

> Carol:
You obey your superior, or someone you regard as your superior.
> You can't disregard the word "obey" in the quotation or make it go
> away because you don't want it to be there.

a_svirn:
I don't disregard it. I am saying that it is rendered meaningless by
using the oxymoron. Moreover, I think it's really very telling that
Dobby expresses himself that way. He uses the only language he knows ?
the only language he was taught. And language is the most powerful
instrument of indoctrination. As Whorf said "We dissect nature along
lines laid down by our native languages". And it is very significant
that even with all the limitations imposed on him by the elivine
pidgin Dobby manages to convey his desire for independence and
abhorrence of compultion.

> > a_svirn:
His relationship with Harry is reciprocal. Harry
> > bestowed a gift of freedom on Dobby, and Dobby wants to return the
> > favour by only way he knows ? render him services. JKR even stressed
> > the reciprocity of their relationship by the symbolic exchange of
> socks.
> >
> Carol:
> An employee can give his employer a Christmas present. a servant can
> give his master a Christmas present. That does not make their
> relationship reciprocal. Nor have I ever heard that an exchange of
> socks symbolizes equality. Maybe it symbolizes the right to have warm
> feet.

a_svirn:
Yes, it does. You relationships with employer *are* reciprocal. You
can even be friends with your employer. The owner-slave relationships,
however, aren't reciprocal. And considering that the absence of cloths
in general is 
symbol or ("mark" in Dobby's words) of elves' enslavement, while socks
in particular marked for Dobby his liberation, I'd say the exchange is
symbolic. You exchange gifts of equal value (including symbolic value)
with your equals.

>
> Carol:
> Not that it's relevant, but I don't see any of us as free, actually.
> We all have to earn a living.

a_svirn:
Why isn't it relevant? You take considerable pains to prove that elves
aren't really like us humans when it comes to freedom, that they don't
really want or understand freedom. And then go and say that none of us
are really free. If we, human, aren't really free, and they, elves,
aren't really free, how come we are so different in that respect?

> Carol:
We--and wizards--just have more freedom
> of choice in our occupations than house-elves do, primarily because
> our talents and inclinations are more varied.

a_svirn:
Huh. Is it slaves' fault that their interests aren't as refined as
their master, then?

> Carol:
> That's not what Dobby said, though, is it? It's more like "Your wish
> is my command."

a_svirn:
You make it sound like he is courting Harry.

> Carol:
He says that he'll obey whoever he chooses and that
> he'll do whatever Harry wants him to do.

a_svirn:
Because he wants to repay Harry the favour Harry did to him. Dobby
resented his slavery, he wanted to be free, and Harry gave him his
heart's desire. Not surprisingly, he wants to thank Harry in the only
he knows.

> Carol:
What, aside from freeing him (hardly an act that an
> equal can perform) and giving him socks has Harry done for Dobby that
> would make you see them as equals? Has he knitted him clothes or
> washed his clothes or cooked his food? Has he accompanied him on his
> adventures? The relationship is still that of servant to master, with
> Harry giving the orders and Dobby following them. The only difference
> between that relationship and the normal house-elf/human relationship
> is that Dobby has offered his services, and specifically his
> obedience, to his idol, Harry Potter. (Where is the evidence that
> Harry idolizes Dobby? They're not equals.)

a_svirn:
They were well on the way on being equals in GOF and OOP. In the last
book, Harry treats Dobby more like inferior. Hardly surprising,
considering he's become a slave owner and rather enjoys the experience.

> > a_svirn:
> > Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? Freedom for Kreacher is the
> freedom to choose his own master. Freedom for Dobby is to be free and
> obey "anyone he likes", that is to say no one.
>
> Carol:
> That is to say, "Harry Potter, sir." Dobby, the free house-elf, has
> chosen Harry, just as Kreacher would choose Narcissa or Bellatrix if
> he were free.

a_svirn:
Dobby did NOT choose Harry as his master. Even leaving aside the
difference of our interpretations of "choose to obey", you are
building an awful lot on one dubious utterance. Completely ignoring at
the same the time more straightforward statements like "Dobby likes to
be free", "Dobby wants to get paid", "Dobby wants employment" etc.
And there is another simple fact you ignore. Dobby had been unemployed
for two years. Never once during that time did he approach Harry,
though. If he wanted to be Harry's servant why on earth didn't he
apply for the position?


> > a_svirn:
I am guessing house-elves need human houses to live, just
> > like gnomes need human gardens to live. Unlike gnomes, elves were
> > prepared to work to justify their presence in the human houses, and
> > humans took advantage of that.
> >
> Carol:
> Excellent! It's their *nature* to live in human houses and do house
> work.

a_svirn:
No, but human residence is (or may be) their natural habitat.

> Carol:
They *like* working for humans who treat them well.

a_svirn:
How one does follow from another?

>
> Carol, noting that it would be against a gnome's nature to compel it
> to work even if it could, whereas elves require no such compulsion

a_svirn:
Or maybe gnomes simply don't have enough magic to be useful.






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov 30 13:09:38 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:09:38 -0000
Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make?
In-Reply-To: <ekmii2+pa5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekml6i+3q50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162188

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rapid_white_wolf" <rapid_white_wolf at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Dumbledore assumed Voldermort made six horcruxes, but could Voldermort
> have made more?  Also if there is a limit what would happen if you
> made too many Horcruxes?

Geoff:
I think he is basing it on the fact that Tom Riddle seemed to favour
having a soul in seven pieces....

'"How do you split your soul?"

"Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the 
soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of 
violation, it is against nature."

"But how do you do it?"

"By an act of evil - the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. 
Killing rips the soul apart The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux 
would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn 
portion -"

"Enaase? But how -?"

"There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" said Slughorn...

~~~~

"Yes, sir," said Riddle. "What I don't understand, though - just out 
of curiosity - I mean, would one Horcrux be much use? Can you only 
split your soul once? Wouldn't it be better, make you stronger, to 
have your soul in more pieces? I mean, for instance, isn't seven the 
most powerfully magical number, wouldn't seven -?"'

(HBP "Horcruxes" pp.465-66 UK edition)

Obviously, if he wanted to split his soul into seven pieces, this would 
entail creating six Horcruxes. I suspect that, since this was forefront 
in his thinking at this point, he went for that option and Dumbledore, 
perhaps knowing him well, realised that this was the likely scenario.




From unicornspride at centurytel.net  Thu Nov 30 13:59:45 2006
From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 07:59:45 -0600
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A thought..
References: <ekluib+m5el@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001601c71487$cb29c040$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride>

No: HPFGUIDX 162189




  Melanie wrote:
  >
  > I was reading the Prisoner of Azkaban for the 400th : ) time the 
  > other day and came across something I never gave much thought too 
  > before. In one of the last Chapter's Dumbledore told Harry he may 
  > one day be grateful he saved Wormtail's life.. He said once you save
  > a wizard's life, they tend never to forget that no matter how dark a 
  > wizard they may be... Could this be a omen for #7?? What is anyone 
  > else's view on this??

  >Rashi wrote:
  Cool. What an idea. My only response or comment is, >Dumbledore must be 
  wrong in this case. In addition to his deep devotion to >"you know 
  >who", he is far too much a weasel and a rat to give back >to Harry, 
  >even if Harry saved his very life.



  Lana writes:

  I am not sure that I completely agree with Rashi. I think this may come into play at the end or close to it.  You have to remember that Wormtail is on the winning side.  He will choose whatever will keep him alive and safe.  

  If there is a point where he feels his security with LV is compromised, he will change sides.  We know this.  He hid as a rat for 12 years.  He was scared of both sides.  He then went back to LV because he was scared of the dementors as well as Sirius and Lupin.

  So.. Keeping his past actions in mind, he may very well come to Harrys aid in the end.  Maybe in his warped brain as a tribute to James and Lily.  Maybe just in hopes of surviving.

  Lana


  . 
   

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




From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com  Thu Nov 30 14:54:45 2006
From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:54:45 -0000
Subject: A couple of little theories!
In-Reply-To: <ekllhk+u46a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekmrbl+7mcd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162190

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Brothergib wrote:
> > If Harry then chooses not to kill 
> > Voldemort, do we think that Snape will try himself....'The one 
with 
> > the power to defeat the Dark Lord approaches'....Yes, he's 
standing 
> > outside listening to this actually!!>
> 
> Abergoat writes:
> 
> I really love your idea that Snape will (after a few choice words
> directed at Harry) try to kill Voldemort himself. And I too have
> wondered if everyone is focusing on the wrong end of the prophecy 
for
> JKR's 'worded the prophecy very carefully'. I suspect Dumbledore let
> Snape hear the first part because it wasn't clear the prophecy 
DIDN'T
> refer to Snape until the seventh month part...exactly where Snape's
> knowledge ends (Dumbledore sealed the room at that point? We see 
this
> in OotP with Order meetings...). And if Snape didn't register the
> seventh month bit because the barman yelled over it (even though the
> seventh month bit would be in Snape's memory for Legilimens 
Voldemort)
> did Snape think the prophecy DID refer to him because he didn't
> register the 'born as the seventh month dies'? Is that why he was
> surprised to learn how Voldemort 'interpreted' it? 
>

AmanitaMuscaria now - Agreed, the idea of Snape doing for Voldemort, 
as you say, with a few choice words to Harry, has its appeal. But I 
can't go with Abergoat's idea - why would Snape g to Voldemort, or 
think Dumbledore was sending him to Voldemort, if he believed the 
prophecy referred to himself? If he knew the 7th month part, then he 
knew it didn't refer to himself, if he didn't know that part, he'd 
think DD was sending him to his death. So I can't see that logic, I 
fear.
 
> > Brothergib again:
> > JKR once said that the 
> > events at Godric's Hollow are the key to the series, and I have 
to 
> > admit that I haven't heard a satisfactory answer yet.
> > Evidence suggests that it was the AK spell that Voldemort fired 
at 
> > Harry. But if it rebounded and 'killed' Voldemort, how did it 
destroy 
> > the house? 
> 
> What about the idea that the house was destroyed by James's
> 'courageous' (to use Voldemort's own word in PS/SS) fight? I agree
> that there are many puzzles from that night.
> 
> Abergoat
>

AmanitaMuscaria now - Has to be Lily's courageous fight - if it were 
James' fight, Voldy'd be clambering through the rubble to find Lily 
and Harry ... 
There's definitely things we haven't been told, though!





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 15:25:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:25:13 -0000
Subject: Snape's allegiance (Was: A couple of little theories!)
In-Reply-To: <ekldur+8cce@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekmt4p+d50k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162191

kmalone1127 wrote: 
<snip>
>   In regards to Snape's allegiance, in GoF there is one thing that I
think is, if not incontrovertable still very good, evidence that Snape
is a good guy.  The Foe-Glass.  It shows the enemies of whom ever is
in possession of the mirror, and if I may quote the american ed.:
"Harry, still staring at the place where Moody's face had been, saw
Albus Dumbledore, Professor Snape, and Professor McGonagall looking
back at him out of the Foe-Glass."  And: "Snape followed him, looking
into the Foe-Glass, where his own face was still visible, glaring into
the room."  Pg. 679, Am. Paperback Ed.
> 
> Now, some might argue that Snape was indeed, at that time, an enemy
of Voldemort's servant, but changed after he went back to his old
master. However, later on in the book, DD says to him, "You know what
I must ask of you."  To which he replies, "I do."  He also talked to
DD about the Dark Mark.  It had been growing clearer all year, both he
and Karkaroff knew V was coming back.  He would have had plenty of
time to choose sides.  If he was still on V's side, he would not have
shown up in the mirror.  I do not believe that he could have faked his
allegiance to the mirror, because mirrors, in the books, are very
powerful, and cannot be fooled.  I.E. the Mirror of Erised.  I believe
that JKR uses mirrors to reflect the true nature of things.  So, Snape
is a good guy in my book, vindicated by the Foe-Glass.  By the way, I
 apologise for the rambliness of this post and if this has been
brought up before.

Carol responds:
No need to apologize for bringing up arguments that have been
presented before. It's difficult not to do so on a list with in excess
of 162,000 posts, and besides, we're always acquiring new members who
haven't read our old posts and providing links to them (out of the
goodness of our hearts, you know, but also to avoid reiterating old
arguments). As for citing the American edition, some of us have no
alternative (I'm one), and in most instances, the differences are
minuscule. (And the notorious "he can't kill you if you're already
dead" has been omitted from the American paperback edition of HBP, so
that they now match in that respect.)

I agree with you about the mirror. There's other evidence of Snape's
loyalty to Dumbledore in GoF as well, starting with "returning to our
side" and spying "at great personal risk" before Voldemort's fall (and
clearly before he began teaching at Hogwarts, as well, since spying
would be difficult if not impossible once he was inside Hogwarts's
walls). Dumbledore's words, "If you are ready, if you are prepared,"
indicate that he and Snape have been planning his return to Voldemort
for some time, probably from the time that Snape revealed to
Dumbledore that his Dark Mark was returning and perhaps for much longer. 

For me, the most convincing evidence that Snape is on Dumbledore's
side is his rolling up his sleeve and showing his Dark Mark to Fudge
as incontrovertible proof that Voldemort is back--in front of HRH,
McGonagall, Madam Pomfrey, and Molly and Bill Weasley, none of whom,
as far as he knew, knew that he had been a Death Eater before that
time. (Nor did Sirius Black, whose presence he's not aware of since
he's still in dog form.) Fudge's shock and revulsion indicate that he
didn't know, either. That action required courage and conviction.
Snape didn't have to do it; it was his choice to try to persuade the
recalcitrant fudge and demonstrate solidarity with Dumbledore. 

His return to Voldemort, on Dumbledore's orders but also part of a
long-standing plan, is also an act of remarkable courage, whose danger
only Dumbledore fully appreciates. He stands silent, aparently unable
to speak, for several minutes after Snape leaves. I think he's
concerned for Snape as a person, a friend for whom he feels real
affection, not just for his chief spy and ally, who serves his
purposes in a way no one else can.

At any rate, those are some of the reasons that I believe Snape is
Dumbledore's man through and through, regardless of the curves that
HBP throws at us. I could cite other evidence from other books, but
you get the picture.

Carol, who will be severely disappointed if Harry doesn't learn in
Book 7 that Snape's loyalties, like his own, lie with Dumbledore




From rapid_white_wolf at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Nov 30 15:47:14 2006
From: rapid_white_wolf at yahoo.co.uk (rapid_white_wolf)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:47:14 -0000
Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make?
In-Reply-To: <ekml6i+3q50@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekmue2+s95l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162192

 Geoff Wrote
> I think he is basing it on the fact that Tom Riddle seemed to favour
> having a soul in seven pieces....

>
> Obviously, if he wanted to split his soul into seven pieces, this
> would entail creating six Horcruxes. I suspect that, since this was
> forefrontin his thinking at this point, he went for that option and
 > Dumbledore,  perhaps knowing him well, realised that this was the
>likely scenario.

I understand that it seems from the conversation that Voldermort was
only planning to make seven horcruxes, however isn't it possible that
he was just using the number seven as an example, to lead into his
question about multiple Horcruxes..  IMHO It might look a bit suspicious
to ask Slughorn what is the maximum number of Horcruxes that can be
made.  In that situation Tom would have to be very careful not to
arouse Slughorn's suspicions.  If he had possibly Slughorn would have
gone to the Headmaster, Slughorn may be politically minded but I don't
think he would support Tom if he knew Tom was making a Horcrux.

rapid_white_wolf









From xcpublishing at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 16:22:35 2006
From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (Cheryl)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:22:35 -0000
Subject: Resurrection (sort of)
Message-ID: <ekn0gb+3svq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162193

The "Is Quirrell alive?" post got me thinking about just how 
many "dead" wizards have been brought back so far in this series.  No 
wonder there are so many of us hoping Sirius and Dumbledore will 
return!

Lord Voldemort - presumed dead, alive through Horcrux

Peter Pettigrew - presumed dead, alive through Animagus ability

Barty Crouch, Jr. - presumed dead, alive through Polyjuice

Regulus Black - presumed dead, likely alive?

Sirius Black - presumed dead, hopefully alive!

Albus Dumbledore - definitely dead.  Probably.  Maybe.

Did I miss any?

Cheryl








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 16:28:01 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:28:01 -0000
Subject: Snape as "the One"? (Was: A couple of little theories!)
In-Reply-To: <ekllhk+u46a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekn0qh+8n3i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162194

Abergoat writes:
> 
> I really love your idea that Snape will (after a few choice words
directed at Harry) try to kill Voldemort himself. And I too have
wondered if everyone is focusing on the wrong end of the prophecy for
JKR's 'worded the prophecy very carefully'. I suspect Dumbledore let
Snape hear the first part because it wasn't clear the prophecy DIDN'T
refer to Snape until the seventh month part...exactly where Snape's
knowledge ends (Dumbledore sealed the room at that point? We see this
in OotP with Order meetings...). And if Snape didn't register the
seventh month bit because the barman yelled over it (even though the
seventh month bit would be in Snape's memory for Legilimens Voldemort)
did Snape think the prophecy DID refer to him because he didn't
register the 'born as the seventh month dies'? Is that why he was
surprised to learn how Voldemort 'interpreted' it? 

Carol responds:

As a faithful DDM!Snaper who trusts that Dumbledore's faith in Snape
will be validated in Book 7, I would love to believe this hypothesis,
and as I've already said, I'm not convinced by any explanation that
I've read so far that the discrepancies in the two versions of the
eavesdropping incident that we've encountered so far can be
reconciled. (Please, JKR, don't let them be mere careless
inconsistencies!)

However, Dumbledore says that Snape heard only the first half of the
Prophecy, which means that the first of two lines about the seventh
month would be included in what he heard. Not to be pedantic, as I've
been accused of being for sticking to canon, but here's the Prophecy
as Harry hears it in OOP:

"The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... Born
to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies
... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have
power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of
the other for neither can live while the other survives.... The one
with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh
month dies...." (OoP Am. ed. 841).

If we take Dumbledore's version of events at face value, Snape would
have heard at least the first two lines, up to "born as the seventh
month dies." Technically, the first half of the Prophecy would end
with "power the Dark Lord knows not" (or somewhere in that sentence,
if we're really getting nitpicky, but neither JKR nor DD seems to be
when it comes to fractions or numbers in general). It seems unlikely
that Snape heard (or at any rate reported to Voldemort) the part about
marking "the one" as his equal or Voldie would have been much more
cautious about approaching "the one with the power," but he must have
heard more than the first sentence (or rather clause) which is more
like an eighth than a half of the Prophecy.

Snape almost certainly heard at least the first two lines of the
Prophecy, regardless of whether the rest was blocked out by the
struggle with the barman (surely Aberforth) or by and Impervius Charm
or whatever else could have kept him from hearing it. (Needless to
say, being kicked out by the barman doesn't fit with Trelawney's
version of events and nothing can persuade me that it does.) As for
hearing it but not registering it, how can you not register "born as
the seventh month dies"? Young Snape might not have realized, in his
excitement and haste, that the words referred to an unborn infant, or
at any rate that Voldemort would resort to infanticide rather than
waiting for the one to reveal himself, but surely he would have
realized that that "born to those who have thrice defied him, born as
the seventh month dies" didn't apply to himself. And if he did think
*he* was the on, why on earth would he report that line of the
prophecy to Voldemort?

Abergoat: 
> What about the idea that the house was destroyed by James's
> 'courageous' (to use Voldemort's own word in PS/SS) fight? I agree
> that there are many puzzles from that night.

Carol responds:
I don't think that's possible, either. According to JKR, Harry was in
his cot (crib, in American English) when Lily was killed, which
occurred after James's death. Also, IIRC, Harry hears a door opening
in one of his Boggart!Dementor memories. The house must still have
been intact, or at least, the upstairs bedroom was still undamaged,
when Lily died.

My own view is that the blocked AK burst *out* of Harry's forehead,
creating the lightning-shaped cut that later became his scar, with
such explosive force that Voldemort was blown apart, his fragmented
excuse for a soul forced out of the mutilated body. Either the force
of the expelled curse or the secondary explosion caused when Voldemort
burst into fragments blew up the house. (A normal AK doesn't damage a
body, but this deflected one isn't normal. It acts more like the
missed spells, some of them far less powerful than an AK, that destroy
the Fountain of Magical Brethren in OoP or the so-called bathroom in
"Sectumsempra" in HBP.)

I do agree that there are many unsolved puzzles related to Godric's
Hollow and, as you didn't say but did imply, the eavesdropping scene
as well.

Carol, still in shock from the below-freezing temperatures in Tucson
this morning




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 17:35:54 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:35:54 -0000
Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)
In-Reply-To: <ekmcm2+b1p9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekn4pq+7mou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162195

Carol earlier:
> > And what he chooses is to obey Harry. He says "Dobby is a free
> > house-elf and can obey anyone he likes, followed by "Dobby will do
> > whatever Harry Potter wants him to do!" (HBP 421) (HBP Am. ed. 421).
> > IOW, he does not say that he doesn't want to obey. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Sure, he does. If we are told that fair is foul, we know that it's
> anything but fair. If Dobby obeys by his own volition he doesn't
> really obey at all. Obedience requires compulsion. 

Carol again:
I hate resorting to definitions, but here goes:

obey
transitive verb
1 : to follow the commands or guidance of
2 : to conform to or comply with <obey an order> <falling objects obey
the laws of physics>
intransitive verb : to behave obediently 

Dobby *chooses* to follow the commands or guidance of Harry Potter. No
one compelled him to do it. As a free elf, he will obey the human of
his choice. (He also chooses to obey his employer, Dumbledore, AFAWK.)

Humans like you and me also have a choice whether to obey or not. If
we disobey the "request" of an employer, we'll be fired, so generally
we choose to obey. Nevertheless, it's our choice. We also choose to
obey the laws of our state and country, mostly because we're good
citizens and consider the laws (for the most part) to be reasonable
(income tax laws perhaps less so than, say, traffic laws) but also
partly because the consequences for disobeying the laws are
unpleasant. Similarly, a person who enlists in the armed services
*chooses* to obey his superior officer. And Snape chooses to obey
Dumbledore, his superior at Hogwarts. 

The only difference between Dobby's case and these human examples is
that the consequences of the choice to disobey Harry (or fail to carry
out his orders satisfactorily) would be largely imaginary and would
consist chiefly of Harry's disappointment or displeasure. The
consequences of obeying Harry and serving him well consist of giving
him pleasure, or at least satisfaction. That satisfaction from service
well performed is Dobby's reward, the only reward he wants from Harry.
He does not want paying from Harry Potter, sir (and as little as
possible from Dumbledore). Dobby receives no such service or offers of
obedience from Harry, who would no more think of obeying Dobby than he
would think of inviting him to have tea with himself and Aunt Petunia.

Carol:
> And you don't obey your
> > equal. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Exactly. But I can render services to my equal. If I choose to do so.

Carol:
I suppose it's possible to render services to your equal, but in most
instances your equal could and would perform them for himself. You
render services to someone in need who can't perform them for him or
herself for whatever reason or for a superior who has some claim over
you (authority or a paycheck). Even the equal has the claim of
friendship and would expect favors in return if the need arose. But
Dobby isn't offering his services to, or as, an equal. He is offering
them to his chosen human, whom he chooses to obey, as he said himself.
He neither asks nor expects services in return. Imagine the reaction
if Harry offered to help Dobby with his elfly duties in the kitchen.
Or "I'll make my own bed and wash my own laundry, Dobby. You don't
need to do that." "But Dobby wishes to be of service to Harry Potter,
sir. Please tell Dobby what else he can do to help Harry Potter, sir."

a_svirn:
>  His relationship with Harry is reciprocal. Harry bestowed a gift of
freedom on Dobby, and Dobby wants to return the favour by only way he
knows ? render him services. 

Carol:
Such an exchange is not reciprocal. Only a superior can offer freedom,
and the offer of services is the offer to become his unpaid servant.
(Note the etymology: "Servant" and "service" are both dreived from
"serve": Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French servir, from
Latin servire to be a slave, serve, from servus slave, servant.) If
the socks are symbolic, as you suggest, they reiterate Harry's gesture
in giving Dobby the clothes that freed him (or rather, tricking Lucius
Malfoy into doing so). They reenact a gesture that only a superior
could have performed. Freeing Dobby did not, in Dobby's mind, make him
Harry's equal. It only enabled him to work for pay (actually a
hardship in a world that expects house-elves to work for free) and to
choose his own employer (Dumbledore, the one wizard in the entire WW
who will actually pay him). Once he has a job and his need for food,
shelter, and work is met, he then chooses to *serve* and *obey* Harry
Potter, who does not pay him or reciprocate by offering his own services.

Carol earlier:
> > That's not what Dobby said, though, is it? It's more like "Your
wish is my command." 
> 
> a_svirn:
> You make it sound like he is courting Harry. 

Carol:
LOL. And yet the analogy isn't that far off. Dobby does love Harry in
a worshipful sort of way, rather like an old-fahioned lover who kneels
at his beloved's feet. His attitude toward Harry is not the friendship
of an equal. It's idolatry.

> a_svirn:
> They were well on the way on being equals in GOF and OOP. In the
last book, Harry treats Dobby more like inferior. Hardly surprising, 
considering he's become a slave owner and rather enjoys the experience. 

Carol:
I see no evidence of equality in the other books. The offer to help is
entirely on Dobby's side. Harry buys him socks (without perhaps
realizing that they symbolize his release from bondage to Lucius
Malfoy), but nowhere do I see him offering his services to Dobby. In
HBP, Harry finally requests the services that Dobby has been offering
all along, but in Dobby's view, he asks the wrong house-elf--the one
who belongs to him aand serves him unwillingly rather than the one
who, paradoxically or not, *wants* to serve and obey him.

Carol, who is tired of this topic and intends to resist the compulsion
to answer any further posts relating to it, particularly the one that
called her pedantic for reading the text closely and expecting others
to do the same




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Nov 30 17:48:31 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:48:31 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <eklftd+9dm3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekn5hf+jduu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162196

Betsy_HP
> 
> I flipped through GoF just to get a feel for Ginny and Hermione's 
> relationship during that time.  And they do hang for a bit (Hermione 
> shows up with Ginny when Harry arrives at the Burrow, for example).  
> But the sticking point, for me, is the ease with which Ginny is 
> excluded from the "Trio" talk.  I cannot accept a true, deep 
> friendship between Hermione and Ginny when Hermione excludes Ginny 
> from such a large part of her life.  It just doesn't follow for me.  
> YMMV, of course.
> 
Pippin:
As has already been pointed out, Hermione didn't tell her best friends
that one of their teachers was a werewolf! She would never have revealed
that, or told Harry about the time-turner, if it hadn't become
a matter of life or death. Ginny is excluded from Trio business in
GoF explicity because the kids need to talk about Sirius, and it isn't
their secret to reveal. In real life, people who do secret work can't 
share it with their friends and families, but that doesn't mean those
relationships aren't as close as can be.



> > >>Pippin:
> > ROTFL! Hermione's date may have been a matter of no importance
> > to anyone but Ron, but Viktor Krum's date would have been news on
> > the international level.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> So?  I'm talking about how greatly *Hermione* values the 
> information.  I just never got the sense that this was a deep, only 
> my best friend shall know, sort of secret. 

Pippin:
Erm, but if it wasn't, then wouldn't the whole school have known?
Ginny was obviously sworn to secrecy and trusted enough to be 
given a piece of information that Rita Skeeter would have killed
to get her feelers on.
> 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I feel like I'm going with canon rather than assuming.  I mean, sure 
> it's based on a lot of negatives, but I'm just going with what JKR 
> gave me (or didn't give me, as the case may be). <g>
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > But I see no reason that Hermione, and all the other students
> > at the school, could not have had the benefit of professional
> > or magical fashion advice, not to mention that Hermione
> > is perfectly capable of seeking that out for herself.  (One
> > might guess that Ron would be too embarrassed to complain
> > about his dress robes, and that Ginny secured hers by
> > threatening to take advantage of whatever funds are available
> > for indigent students if Mum and Dad didn't cough up.) 
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Now see, this is what I'd call an assumption.  I mean, it makes 
> perfect sense, but there's nothing in canon to suggest such a thing.  
> (We'd have to assume McGonagall was talking about embarrassing 
> fashion faux-pas as well as spiking the punch and getting caught half-
> naked with that cute guy from DADA in the bushes.)

Pippin:

It's a question of how the students would interpret it. Obviously they
interpreted it as meaning they should look their very best and
though canon doesn't tell us how they managed it, we can assume
that most of them did, since only Ron feels embarrassed about his
appearance. Canon doesn't say that Hermione's appearance, 
dress or hairdo were more elegant  or more stunning than the rest, 
only that she looked like "a pretty girl in blue robes."  It's not as if she
turned herself into a veela.

And I certainly didn't see Hermione of HPB as too perfect to be
believed, not with that killer canary tantrum and her wrongheaded
insistence that the HBP was a girl, not to mention that someone
should inform her of LeGuin's dictum that heroes never say
'I told you so.'

Pippin




From jenniferbtate at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 18:20:13 2006
From: jenniferbtate at yahoo.com (jenniferbtate)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:20:13 -0000
Subject: "Stand aside, girl!"
In-Reply-To: <20010516193640.37131.qmail@web11107.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ekn7ct+6gkg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162197

> Dave Hardenbrook <DaveH47 at ...> wrote:
> > Why does Voldemort tell Lily to "stand aside" and later
> > tell Harry "She didn't have to die"?  Since when does V
> > make an effort to avoid killing someone if he can (Cedric)?
>
> Magda:
> Well, how about this for the Snape/Lily fans?  Lord V.
> promised Snape that he wouldn't kill Lily because it was
> Snape's price for helping him with potions or whatever.
>
> I still think that Snape was the spy who warned Dumbledore
> what was going to happen but Snape might want to hedge his
> bets, as it were.


Jennifer:
I'm new here, but I am reminded of the "unbreakable vow" spell
that we are introduced to in HBP.  Could this vow somehow have
been cast between LV and Snape (or maybe someone else), promising
that LV would spare Lily's life?  And then when he did end up
killing her instead, his breaking the vow caused the death curse
to rebound back to him as a consequence.  It's just an idea, and
I know that JKR's very brief introduction to the vow has to mean
something more.








From bartl at sprynet.com  Thu Nov 30 19:08:40 2006
From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 14:08:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers in the WW (was: JKR and "Think of
 the Children!")
Message-ID: <9838184.1164913720340.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 162198

Potioncat:
>I've narrowed it down. Most of us, whether we know it or not, 
>consider "loving books" to be an important character trait, and feel 
>something is lacking in one's character, if one does not love to 
>read. That's why we are (were) scrambling to show that Harry "reads". 
>Someone upthread pointed out that Harry reading the quidditch book 
>shows how much he loves quidditch, (not how much he loves to read). 
>To Harry, reading is a useful skill, not a recreational activity. 

Bart:
However, looking at the negative trait, those who don't read are generally considered to be dull and ignorant. Harry doesn't fit into either camp; he certainly does not love reading, but certainly sees it as a useful and important skill, to be used and not avoided. What he does not do, generally, is read for pleasure. He reads for information, and, because he is so obsessed with his assigned tasks, he generally does not have time for reading for pleasure. I know the syndrome; I spent several months learning new skills, and avoided any Internet activity not related to the learning activity. Not enough time for everything, and after cutting out non-necessities, there was nothing left.

Bart



From rduran1216 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 18:30:38 2006
From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:30:38 -0000
Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make?
In-Reply-To: <ekmii2+pa5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekn80e+1pv9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162199

> White_Wolf:
> Dumbledore assumed Voldemort made six horcruxes, but could
> Voldemort have made more?  Also if there is a limit what
> would happen if you made too many Horcruxes?

rduran1216:
Given how Tom Riddle thought, and that he's the only one ever
to make more than one (according to Dumbledore) I think it's
fair to say that maybe more could have been made, but not in
the context of this story.  Seven parts was chosen by Voldemort
for a reason, and so for the sake of this story, that is all
there is to it.




From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com  Thu Nov 30 20:09:22 2006
From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:09:22 -0000
Subject: Hi Carol - question about your DADA curse theory
Message-ID: <ekndpi+e1q0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162200

I've been in my coma so long that I'm behind the times on previous 
threads on the DADA curse.

Part of my thesis is that that the "DADA curse" was a distraction 
(lie!) on the part of Dumbledore specifically to cover up the 
continued animatory status of Quirrell. The curse is fishy to me 
because first, there is no comment about it in Book 1. One would 
expect something like "Dumbledore has been having quite a bit of 
trouble over the past 40 years keeping someone in this post." You 
would think such a multi-decade pattern would be noticed, no?

Secondly, there is no notice of Quirrell being new or new to an 
assignment in the first book. One must believe that he occupied that 
position for at least the previous year. Quirrell can not have been 
subject to the DADA curse, if there even was such a thing.

I've come to believe that Dumbledore, who has promised that he would 
never lie, did exactly that in reference to Quirrell because Quirrell 
is such an important secret to keep. Dumbledore is such an inexpert 
fibber that he posted a whopper that is easily debunked. And yet, he 
seems to have gotten away with it.

Thanks for responding to my post!

CV




From rduran1216 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 18:39:57 2006
From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:39:57 -0000
Subject: The Regulus Story
In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0611291834nf6d2bd7k34b958b4de450917@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ekn8ht+qecs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162201

Debbie <elfundeb at ...> wrote:
> While we're on the topic of Regulus, I stumbled across
> an interesting short story over the holiday weekend
> (in a multivolume collection of "Children's Classics"
> published way back in 1920) entitled "Bravery of
> Regulus."  <snip>
>
> Did JKR know this story?  Did she follow it?  <snip>
>
>    2. He was given a task in connection with the locket
>    (or, at least that's a reasonable bit of speculation).
>    Having figured out what the locket was and the advantage
>    Voldemort's whorecruxes would give him, he engineered
>    the switch.  To accomplish this, he must have had to
>    drink the liquid in the basin, as Dumbledore did, even
>    though he suspected it was a poison that would kill him.
>    He likely had an assistant or witness with him (the
>    ambassador), who either didn't see the switch or (if it
>    was Kreacher) was ordered not to tell. <snip>


rduran1216:
There have been theories in the past that drew on historical
references and their associations with given characters.  There
is no reason to believe that any of this is false, although I
would say that it's far more likely Regulus had an accomplice
of some sorts (SNAPE ANYONE?) who has hidden away the secrets
about this for a long time running.  I'd look for a relationship
between Regulus and Snape to be the glue that brings the story
together.





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 20:40:09 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:40:09 -0000
Subject: "Stand aside, girl!"
In-Reply-To: <ekn7ct+6gkg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eknfj9+7qf8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162202

> Jennifer:
> I'm new here, but I am reminded of the "unbreakable vow" spell
> that we are introduced to in HBP.  Could this vow somehow have
> been cast between LV and Snape (or maybe someone else), promising
> that LV would spare Lily's life?  And then when he did end up
> killing her instead, his breaking the vow caused the death curse
> to rebound back to him as a consequence.  It's just an idea, and
> I know that JKR's very brief introduction to the vow has to mean
> something more.
>
Carol responds:
Hi, Jennifer. Wouldn't such an arrangement take away from Lily's
self-sacrifice, which is what we've been told caused the AK to
rebound? That wouldn't necessarily eliminate some sort of arrangement
between Snape and dumbledore involving Lily (I don't subscribe to
LOLLIPOPS myself, but many people do).

Another possibility, suggested a long time ago on this list, is that
by offering to let Lily step aside and then accepting her offer of
herself in Harry's place, Voldemort was committing himself to an
unwritten but nevertheless binding magical contract, much as Harry was
bound to compete in the TWT after the Goblet of Fire chose him as a
contestant even though he never put his name in the goblet. By trying
to murder Harry after implicitly promising to spare him by killing
Lily "instead," Voldemort violated the terms of the contract and the
AK not only failed to kill Harry (as a result of Lily's sacrifice) but
rebounded on Voldemort as well (as a result of the broken contract)
but failed to kill him (as a result of the Horcruxes).

I can't remember who originally proposed the theory (I thought it was
Kneasy, but he attributes the theory to someone named
jodel_from_aol.com) and then argues against it:

"A much more interesting theory has been detailed by jodel_from_aol.
This is incorporated in his 'Changeling' essay (link below) that is
well worth reading. He theorises that "Take me, kill me instead.."
constitutes a binding magical contract when Voldy does just that. And
that by the implied terms Voldy is then considered in breach of
contract if he attempts to kill Harry *after* he has killed Lily.
Presumably the penalty for such an act would be proportionate to the
attempted breach, i.e. death. The spell rebounds on the caster." 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/108664

More recently, Amiable Dorsai posted a not very detailed version of
the contract theory:

"I'm begining to see it this way: Lily, in effect, offered
Voldemort a magical contract--kill me, let Harry live. That is, she
paid for Harry's life with her own. When Voldemort killed Lily, he
accepted the contract. When he then tried to kill Harry, he violated
his "agreement", and paid the penalty."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140414

but not, apparently, with any great conviction of its truth since he
immediately presents the objections to the theory. 

I originally argued against the contract theory because I believed
that Lily had cast some sort of protective charm on Harry that would
be activated by her self-sacrifice, but JKR shot down my theory. Now
that we've seen the Unbreakable Vow, symbolized by ropes of fire
binding him to Narcissa, I'm more willing to consider this particular
variation on the binding magical contract theme (as opposed to another
UV involving Snape). An unwittingly made and broken magical contract
would explain how Lily's sacrifice is different from that of so many
other parents, particularly mothers, who must have given their lives
to protect their children, all too often in vain, from Voldemort and
his Death Eaters. (JKR has said that the same circumstances might not
have occurred if Voldemort had gone after Neville first, but surely
Alice Longbottom would have tried to protect her son and would have
been as willing as Lily to die for him.)

If anyone has bookmarked and can link us to a detailed discussion of
the broken contract idea, I'd be grateful. 

Carol, not sure whether she believes the theory but interested in
exploring it further 






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 21:02:56 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:02:56 -0000
Subject: Quiditch
In-Reply-To: <ekl0pq+k1qo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ekngu0+r3v6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162203

---  "David" <dragonkeeper012003 at ...> wrote:
>
> I don't know if this had been talked about but there 
> is something I wondered about and maybe I missed this
> but when a team scores; how is the quaffle put back 
> into play? 
> 
> dragonkeeper
>

bboyminn:

The Quaffle itself is enchanted so that it falls slowly 
rather than dropping like a stone. That allows time to 
recover the ball and put it back into play. I suspect,
after the goal or attempted goal, the Keeper or one of 
the other team members catches the ball out of bound, 
and throws it back in bound to a fellow play. Seem very
much like basketball or soccer to me. 

The ball can be captured because it falls slowly, then
it is just a matter of putting the ball back into play.

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 21:14:27 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:14:27 -0000
Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make?
In-Reply-To: <ekmii2+pa5m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eknhjj+10bcc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162204

---  "rapid_white_wolf" <rapid_white_wolf at ...> wrote:
>
> Dumbledore assumed Voldermort made six horcruxes, but 
> could Voldermort have made more?  Also if there is a 
> limit what would happen if you made too many Horcruxes?
> 
> White_Wolf
>


bboyminn:

Voldemort made SEVEN because seven is a magically powerful
number. Note he also used Magically Powerful objects, and
hide them in locations that were magically significant to 
him. So, seven was important because of its magical 
power, but I don't think it was limited to seven.

Certainly you could make 100 horcruxes, but to do it you 
would have to MURDER 100 PEOPLE, then separate yourself 
from 100 pieces of your soul. We can see how Voldemort
damaged himself by separating himself from 6 pieces. 
Imagine the loss of humanity that would accompany the
separation of 100 pieces of your soul. It's unthinkable.

In Voldemort's mind, Seven is more powerful that 100
because seven is a magically powerful number. To have
more or less, is less magically powerful to his way of 
thinking. So, seven's the number.

Steve/bboyminn




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 21:31:56 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:31:56 -0000
Subject: Cohesion
In-Reply-To: <ekm78d+ajkk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eknikc+c4nb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162205

---  "rduran1216" <rduran1216 at ...> wrote:
>
> ... The implied clues dictate that Dumbledore planned
> what happened, but at the same time, it doesn't seem 
> like anyone besides Snape was in on it as well. ...
>
> So my question is, let's assume the opposite, that 
> Snape really is an instrument of Voldemort's, how
> can the story possibly be brought together, given 
> that Rowling has said no new major characters will be
> introduced?
> 
> rduran1216
>

bboyminn:

Well, you've warped the question by forcing an 
assumption. That assumption could be considered 
straying from canon.

As to whether Dumbledore 'planned what happened', my 
answer is yes and no. Dumbledore certainly had many
plans, general and specific, for what was happening
and for what might happen. These plans were constantly
being refined base on more information becoming 
available and circumstances changing. 

I believe his general plan for Snape was for Snape to
always act for the greater good, even if in the 
moment, the greater good seemed to be outweighed by 
an immediate need. 

It was a great good for Snape to continue to be in 
Voldemort's good graces, and that outweighed Dumbledore's
life in the moment. Nothing could be gain, and everything
could be lost, if Snape had chosen to stand and fight, 
but if he killed and left then he remained in a 
strategically advantagious place at a critical and crucial
time in the war.  Dumbledore simply became a casualty of 
war, a soldier lost in a battle that hopefully will lead
to winning the greater war.

As to your assumed question, we could ask is Snape 
really working for Voldemort, and of course the only
answer is yes. Yes, because that is the nature of the
spy. Dumbledore knows that at some point Snape will
have to betray him to Voldemort. But that doesn't
eliminate Snape working for Dumbledore. Voldemort 
knows that Snape at some point will have to betray
him to Dumbledore because that is the nature of a spy.
The hope is that you can control the various betrayals,
and gain far more valuable information. Information that
hopefully greatly outweighs the various betrayals.

A spy will alway have to betray everyone, because that
is what spies do. Considering this nature of spies, 
Snape can be an instrument of Voldemort, and still
have his storyline resolved as a good guy, because
Snape is also an instrument of Dumbledore. The real
question is, in his heart, who is Snape truly loyal
to - Dumbledore or Voldemort or out-for-himself? 

I say Dumbledore.

Steve/bboyminn




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 21:18:59 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:18:59 -0000
Subject: Hi Carol - question about your DADA curse theory
In-Reply-To: <ekndpi+e1q0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eknhs3+51qc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162206

ConstanceVigilance wrote:
<snip> 
> Part of my thesis is that that the "DADA curse" was a distraction 
> (lie!) on the part of Dumbledore specifically to cover up the 
> continued animatory status of Quirrell. The curse is fishy to me 
> because first, there is no comment about it in Book 1. One would 
> expect something like "Dumbledore has been having quite a bit of 
> trouble over the past 40 years keeping someone in this post." You 
> would think such a multi-decade pattern would be noticed, no?
> 
> Secondly, there is no notice of Quirrell being new or new to an 
> assignment in the first book. One must believe that he occupied that 
> position for at least the previous year. Quirrell can not have been 
> subject to the DADA curse, if there even was such a thing.
> 
> I've come to believe that Dumbledore, who has promised that he would
never lie, did exactly that in reference to Quirrell because Quirrell
is such an important secret to keep. Dumbledore is such an inexpert
fibber that he posted a whopper that is easily debunked. And yet, he
seems to have gotten away with it.

Carol responds:
Hi, CV. Good to have you back! My DADA theory originated as a way of
exonerating Harry from any guilt in Quirrell's death. (I do think he's
dead, but if I'm wrong, I'll be the first to congratulate you on your
brilliant anticipation of JKR's use of him in Book 7. Every character
needs a defender, right? Well, maybe not Umbridge.) I also, as always,
wanted to at least partially exonerate Snape, or at any rate to help
explain how he became involved in that accursed vow.

It seems to me that JKR has tantalized us with the DADA jinx (more
like a curse) for ages now, and HBP verified its existence. We
suspected from the moment that Snape was announced as the DADA teacher
that he wouldn't last the year, especially after all the ominous
imagery at the end of the "Spinner's End" chapter, and that was
confirmed, IMO, when Dumbledore stated that he hadn't been able to
keep a DADA teacher since Tom Riddle applied for the job and was
turned down. (We also have the wand twitch to show him casting it.) We
also have what may be the moment when the curse falls into place,
biding its time till somewhere near the end of the school year. IMO,
the first chapters of HBP take place on the same night at around the
same time. If that's the case, the moment that Slughorn accepts the
Potions position, after midnight on what's now Saturday morning, is
the moment that Snape becomes DADA teacher. Could it also be the
moment when Narcissa is inspired to make the Unbreakable Vow and Snape
trapped by fate or some flaw himself or a prior agreement with
Dumbledore to protect Draco at all costs trapped into taking it?

It seems to me that all of the DADA teachers, including one who taught
the class but wasn't hired to do the job because he was an imposter,
have fallen victim to the DADA curse, either because of some flaw in
their character or because they're concealing some secret or both.
Quirrell's secret is obvious: he's concealing Voldemort under his
turban. But how to account for his first term as DADA teacher, which
must have lasted only one year because DD says he's never been able to
keep a teacher for longer than that time. A reasonable explanation,
IMO, is that he was seized with a sudden desire to go looking for
Vampires and other Dark creatures to supplement his book knowledge
with practical experience, rather like a Muggle suddenly remembering a
previous engagement when he gets too near the TWT grounds. But the
curse, it seems to me, works in its own sinister way, and would have
led him, along with his own desire to see Dark creatures firsthand,
straight to either Nagini or whatever creature Voldemort was
possessing at the time.

I realize that my theory is imperfect (any theory is), but I don't
think it's antithetical to yours. Quirrell could still have survived
(though I don't think he did), but he certainly didn't come back to
teach DADA again. And it's hard to explain the annual vacancies for a
single position without the DADA curse ("jinx") being real.

In case you haven't already read it, here's the link to my original
post (again):

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961?threaded=1&l=1

(Do me a favor and substitute "instrument" for "agent," since "agent"
should refer to a human being.) You might want to follow the thread as
far as it relates to Quirrell, at least. I'm most interested in its
application to Snape and Lupin, but Quirrell with his two separate
turns in the post had to be carefully fit in.

Carol, hoping you'll reconsider the compatibility of the DADA
jinx/curse with your own theory and maybe help me to revise mine as it
regards Quirrell




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Nov 30 23:01:44 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:01:44 -0000
Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make?
In-Reply-To: <eknhjj+10bcc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eknnso+ku5g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162207

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "rapid_white_wolf" <rapid_white_wolf@> wrote:
> >
> > Dumbledore assumed Voldermort made six horcruxes, but 
> > could Voldermort have made more?  Also if there is a 
> > limit what would happen if you made too many Horcruxes?
> > 
> > White_Wolf
> >
> 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Voldemort made SEVEN because seven is a magically powerful
> number. Note he also used Magically Powerful objects, and
> hide them in locations that were magically significant to 
> him. So, seven was important because of its magical 
> power, but I don't think it was limited to seven.
> 
> Certainly you could make 100 horcruxes, but to do it you 
> would have to MURDER 100 PEOPLE, then separate yourself 
> from 100 pieces of your soul. We can see how Voldemort
> damaged himself by separating himself from 6 pieces. 
> Imagine the loss of humanity that would accompany the
> separation of 100 pieces of your soul. It's unthinkable.
> 
> In Voldemort's mind, Seven is more powerful that 100
> because seven is a magically powerful number. To have
> more or less, is less magically powerful to his way of 
> thinking. So, seven's the number.

Geoff:
I think we are both in agreement that, as I wrote in an earlier 
post, Voldemort sees seven as the most powerful number.

However, it would therefore follow that he has made SIX 
Horcruxes; the seventh soul fragment remains in him and 
is thus not a Horcrux.





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 23:21:41 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:21:41 -0000
Subject: Resurrection (sort of)
In-Reply-To: <ekn0gb+3svq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eknp25+h71m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162208

---  "Cheryl" <xcpublishing at ...> wrote:
>
> The "Is Quirrell alive?" post got me thinking about 
> just how many "dead" wizards have been brought back so
> far in this series.  No wonder there are so many of us
> hoping Sirius and Dumbledore will return!
> 
> Lord Voldemort - presumed dead, alive through Horcrux
> 
> Peter Pettigrew - presumed dead, alive through Animagus
> ability
> 
> Barty Crouch, Jr. - presumed dead, alive through 
> Polyjuice
> 
> Regulus Black - presumed dead, likely alive?
> 
> Sirius Black - presumed dead, hopefully alive!
> 
> Albus Dumbledore - definitely dead.  Probably.  Maybe.
> 
> Did I miss any?
> 
> Cheryl
>

bboyminn:

One key point you are overlooking, these people did not
return from the 'dead', they returned from the 'PRESUMED
Dead'. That is quite a different thing.

Quirrel is absolutely dead. While we aren't given the
details, there is no reason to think that Dumbledore 
didn't find Quirrel's body in the last chamber when he
found Harry there. So, DEAD, no presumption about it.
Plus, what possible purpose could he now serve in an 
already over complicated plot with far far far too
many subplots to resolve. None, I say.

Voldemort was truly /presumed/ dead, but we now know
how and why he didn't really die.

Peter, also /presumed/ dead, but with no proof, only 
logical supposition. He didn't return from the dead,
he simply made himself known again.

Barty Jr, same, his death was a reasonable assumption
given the apparent circumstance, but we learn that 
circumstances were not as they seemed, and he was alive
all along.

Regulus Black, now that is a stretch. We have no 
indications or even hints that he might still be alive.
All indications are that he is dead and buried. It seems
reasonable that his family accepted him as dead because
they had his body and buried it. Of course, that is an
assumption, but a reasonable one. So, no Regulus 
returning from the dead.

Sirius Black is not presumed dead, he is unequivocally
behind the Veil. Now it is possible he is alive back 
there, he did go through alive and with his body in tact.
But none the less he is in the land of the dead and 
trapped there, and that is where he will spend eternity
unless by some magical happenstance, someone can go in 
and bring him out. (Something I'm not completely denying,
by the way.) So, while all hope is not lost, it 
is EXTREMELY thin and very unlikely. For all intent and
purpose, Sirius is gone.

Albus, admitedly there is some ever so small teeny tiny
element of ambiguity in his death. But JKR flat out said
he is dead, and twist it and turn it any way you want;
dead is dead. So, says god in this universe (JKR).

I know lots of people are hoping for one character or 
another to return from the dead, or technically dead,
and I am hoping for it too, but I think the chances are
very very very very very very very slim.

You heard it here first.

Steve/bboyminn





From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 23:28:41 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:28:41 -0000
Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)
In-Reply-To: <eklfic+f866@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eknpf9+stkv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162209

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> <snip>
> Can you imagine Hermione (Hermione, now, not some other girl--I'm   
> talking about the girl who figured out that one her teachers was a 
> *werewolf* and didn't spill.) telling anybody who was not a close   
> friend these things?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
If it got her something she wanted? Yeah.  Hermione wanted 
(apparently) for Ginny and Harry to get together.  And to achieve 
that goal she had to get close enough to Ginny to give her dating 
advice.  So yeah, I do see her sharing something not all that 
important to her, that would *seem* important and thereby get Ginny 
sharing in return. (Cold?  Calculating? Cruel?  Sounds like our girl.)

But the fact that these two girls talk about nothing else, and the 
major fact that Ginny is not a part of the inner-circle, means that I 
really, really don't see them as an example of two close friends.  
Especially since, if they have a choice, they don't hang.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Ginny is excluded from Trio business in GoF explicity because the   
> kids need to talk about Sirius, and it isn't their secret to       
> reveal. In real life, people who do secret work can't share it with 
> their friends and families, but that doesn't mean those            
> relationships aren't as close as can be.

Betsy Hp:
But it does mean that Hermione's relationship with Ginny is not as 
close as it can be.  Because Ginny isn't just excluded in GoF.  She's 
excluded period.  She's on the level of Neville and Luna.  And just 
as Neville and Harry aren't close friends (or Luna and Ron for that 
matter), Hermione and Ginny aren't close friends.

> >>Amiable Dorsai:
> <snip>
> Uhm, Betsy, this *is* characterization.  Hermione is somewhat
> embarrassed about the "girly" side of her personality, but she     
> clearly has one.  She may, by her words, deprecate the ball, but her
> actions...  well, her actions tell a different story.
> <snip>

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> And I certainly didn't see Hermione of HPB as too perfect to be
> believed, not with that killer canary tantrum and her wrongheaded
> insistence that the HBP was a girl, not to mention that someone
> should inform her of LeGuin's dictum that heroes never say
> 'I told you so.'

Betsy Hp:
God, I *wish* I could read the books this way.  For a while, I did, I 
really did.  But now I'm to the point that I really dislike Hermione 
and Ginny (and I honestly have my doubts about JKR as a person).  I 
think OotP started it, but HBP and JKR's infamous "girl rant" turned 
the distaste to out and out dislike.

Before, I'd have agreed with you all that Hermione just researched 
her little heart out to look beautiful for her big day, and that her 
apparent disdain was a cover for the boys.  But now, with HBP 
Hermione's certainty that she's just a tiny bit better than God, and 
JKR's desire that all her little girl readers try and be just like 
Hermione, I feel like I'm supposed to assume that Hermione is just 
naturally and effortlessly beautiful and suave, but super-cool enough 
to raise above it.

I am hopeful the next book will fix the problems I'm having with the 
series so far.  Hermione may well end up with egg on her face and 
realize she has to come down a peg or five hundred.  But, given some 
of JKR's comments, I'm not holding my breath.

It's funny you bring up LeGuin, Pippin, because wasn't she the one 
who said the Potter books were a bit cruel, or mean, or something 
like that?  It was the sort of thing I scoffed at for a long while.  
At this point, I tend to agree.

I doubt I'll say more on this topic.  I'm confident my mind won't be 
changed, and I can also tell I'm not doing much to promote my view.  
Plus, it's encouraging me to dig deep into the non-character that is 
Ginny and the bitch that is Hermione.  I'm ceasing to enjoy myself.

(Not to throw a sour-grapes type wrench at all.  But I really do 
dislike JKR's take on women as women, or as friends, wives, or 
mothers.  All you all who disagree, please talk amongst yourselves.  
I'm going to just lie on the beach for a while.  Wait till the water 
gets a bit... warmer, I guess. <g>)

Betsy Hp




From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com  Thu Nov 30 23:28:41 2006
From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:28:41 -0000
Subject: Hi Carol - question about your DADA curse theory
In-Reply-To: <ekndpi+e1q0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eknpf9+f136@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 162210

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Constance Vigilance"
<ConstanceVigilance at ...> wrote:
>
> I've been in my coma so long that I'm behind the times on previous
> threads on the DADA curse.
>
> Part of my thesis is that that the "DADA curse" was a distraction
> (lie!) on the part of Dumbledore specifically to cover up the
> continued animatory status of Quirrell. The curse is fishy to me
> because first, there is no comment about it in Book 1. One would
> expect something like "Dumbledore has been having quite a bit of
> trouble over the past 40 years keeping someone in this post." You
> would think such a multi-decade pattern would be noticed, no?
>
> Secondly, there is no notice of Quirrell being new or new to an
> assignment in the first book. One must believe that he occupied
> that position for at least the previous year. Quirrell can not
> have been subject to the DADA curse, if there even was such a
> thing.

Mitchell:
HEY HP-Land people. Me and a friend had a conversation regarding
this. I think JKR is VEEEERY good at wording DD's words. I believe
that when he said that he's never been able to hold a teacher in
the DADA position, he never said that he could have never hold one
at the school. I've always been under the impression that Quirrell
had been at Hogwarts for a while. I believe that Quirrell may have
been the DADA for a year then for whatever reason, taught another
subject a differnt year then returned to the post of DADA the next.
Just my view.