From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com Thu Oct 12 23:29:03 2006 From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (Kayla Pittillo) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:29:03 -0500 (Central Daylight Time) Subject: Identifying with Muggles - The Dursley and 'Terrifying' Abuse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158221 > On 9/12/06, Steve wrote: > > ...edited... > > > > First and foremost, the Dusleys have a legal and > > social obligation to look after Harry. Yes, is is a > > legal and social obligation they can legally and > > socially refuse, I don't know the case in the U.K. but in Texas, in the United States; blood relatives and guardians have a legal obligation to save the life of family members in harm's way, while friends and non guardians do not. i.e. if a mother or aunt sees their child/nephew in danger, they have to try to save that child's life or be held legally negligent. Simply put, if the Dursley's lived in Texas, and they didn't attempt to save Harry from say Snape on a motorcycle, they'd be held criminally accountable if they witnessed the act, simply because they didn't try to save Harry. I don't know if that's the case in G.B., but for the sake of argument, I'll assume that it is. Therefore, from my p.o.v. Petunia, and by extension, Vernon, were legally obligated to take in Harry because she's his closest blood relative, and therefore legally obligated in both the W.W. and in the Muggle world, as Harry would have certainly been killed had they not taken him in. for you Snape fans, I don't say him because he's ESE, but because he was the first one to come to my mind. Personally, I don't know and I don't really care to know what state of mind Snape has, I'll be more than willing to find out in the last installment. that's what makes the books fun for me :) Kayla aka McGonigallFan [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Oct 1 00:59:06 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:59:06 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158934 Pippin, quoting: > > "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned--" Hickengruendler: > Yes, but Dumbledore did not say, why Snape turned because Voldemort > was targetting the Potters. Ceridwen: I answered this several hours ago and my post hasn't shown up yet. If it hits after I click the send button on this one, I apologize. Dumbledore doesn't say that Snape's remorse was because of the Potters at all. He only says that Snape felt remorse "when he realized how Lord Voldemort interpreted the prophecy". Some people suggest that this means his remorse was because LV planned to kill an infant or two of them (the prophecy infants). Even in Real Life, hardened criminals don't care for child killers. Ceridwen, hoping that one or another of her posts gets through, apologizing if both make it. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 1 01:32:10 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:32:10 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Barty Crouch Jr. (was More thoughts on the Cloak) References: Message-ID: <00f401c6e4f9$6adf5a50$0472400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158936 > Abergoat responds: > > Neither of us can say definitely that Barty was guilty or innocent of > torturing the Longbottoms. His actions in GoF do not prove anything. > Just because one person is guilty of murder doesn't mean you can blame > all unsolved cases on this person. Barty may have tortured half the > wizards in his county by the time he was 19, but that still isn't > proof he tortured the Longbottoms. Magpie: No, I can't prove it, but storywise it seems like the more logical conclusion. I mean, this isn't pinning a random case on him, it's pinning the case he was brought to trial for on him--a crime for which he was brought in with Bellatrix who was guilty. What's to be gained from Barty being not quite so guilty upon going into prison if it's not revealed as something that's driven him to be so loyal to Voldemort now? It seems to just take away from Barty Crouch as Voldemort's most loyal follower and add nothing in return. (It also changes the story of Crouch Sr.'s breaking him out of prison.) How exactly did he turn from a young boy who was a DE but not a really committed one to the guy we see in GoF who loves Voldemort more than anything and would do anything for him, who hates DEs who *didn't* seek Voldemort after he was defeated and has sadistic moments, and why don't we hear about it? It's true Barty never specifically confesses to the Longbottom murder either, but it seems like he'd be far more likely to not need to mention the crime if he were guilty rather than innocent. His dealings with Neville in the book have more weight if he's guilty. Aberforth:> > And I don't know if this is important enough to be resolved in book > 7...although if Lucius and Rufus set up Barty Jr to take out Barty Sr > it might get a passing mention. Magpie: I don't really consider it a hanging question that we're supposed to be waiting for the answer to in Book VII. We might hear about somebody being the one to send the group to the Longbottoms but saying Lucius was behind Crouch's murder seems again to dilute the drama, not intensify it. Barty's conflict with his father seems like the root of the whole tragedy of the family; it made him a loyal follower of substitute-dad Voldemort. Lucius setting him up is just chess-playing. And how could Lucius have set Barty up to take out his father--am I not understanding how that would work? Of course if we learn in Book VII that Barty was innocent I'll see I was wrong, but until I have that information I consider the case closed. -m From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Oct 1 01:33:59 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 01:33:59 -0000 Subject: JKR site update SPOILERS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158937 Tinktonks: > I think JKR is more sneaky. Ok so we know Snape wasn't under the IC at GH but we don't know he wasn't under the IC anywhere else. Ceridwen: We do know he wasn't under the IC anywhere: >From JKR's site: Q: Snape was hiding under the Invisibility Cloak on the night the Potters died. A: No, he wasn't. Tihnktonks: We don't know he wasn't at GH. We don't even know that he wasn't invisible some other was at GH just not under IC. Ceridwen: Right. JKR was slick with this answer. Snape wasn't under the IC. Period. She doesn't say he was or wasn't at GH. She doesn't say he wasn't hiding. She just says he wasn't hiding under the IC on that night. Ceridwen. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 02:40:51 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:40:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158940 "The truth." Dumbledore sighed. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution." (PS/SS US, p.298) Dumbledore warned us in the very first book that the truth is not always the best road to follow. And, true to his words here, Dumbledore treats the truth with great caution. Which means if he has to lie He Will. The first time that I know of for certain that Dumbledore lied (on stage) happens in OotP US, p. 618: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv "Well, the game is up," he said simply. "Would you like a written confession from me, Cornelius -- or will a statement before these witnesses suffice?" ...... "Statement?" said Fudge slowly. "What--I don't--?" "Dumbledore's Army, Cornelius," said Dumbledore, ... "Not Potter's Army. *Dumbledore's Army*." "But--but--" ......... "You organized this?" "I did," said Dumbledore. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There it is plain as day, Dumbledore LYING. Of course, Dumbledore is doing it to protect Harry. He knows, in this scene, that he can't allow Harry to be expelled. But still he's lying to the Minister of Magic, no less. This tells us that Dumbledore will lie to protect the people he feels need protecting. Keep this in mind. Now, let's look at the whole prophesy scenario. (I credit Red Hen with the main thesis of the following theory). After Harry hears the prophesy and he and Dumbledore discuss the meaning of the words, Harry asks DD why Voldemort had chose him in such a hurry, why he didn't wait. This is where DD explains the situation he found himself in with Trelawney, then adds: vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv "My--our--one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was detected only a short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building." "So he only heard...?" "He heard only the first part, the part foretelling the birth of a boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. ..." (OotP US, p.842) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ We didn't know who the eavesdropper was a this time so we don't take particular note of the fashion in which only part of the prophesy escaped. But we can now note that DD told us that this eavesdropper was discovered before the prophesy was finished. The implication in his words is that the eavesdropper was immediately expelled, didn't get the chance to hear the second half of the prophesy. Think back, when you read this the first time, did you not get the impression that the eavesdropper was hauled away from the door, down the steps and into the street, and his forcible removal precluded any chance that he heard the second half of the prophesy? That was my impression based on DD's words of explanation. But that's not what happened. We now know a few more details about exactly what happened that night. Granted, they come from Sibyll, but I see no reason to believe she's lying about events. She doesn't even know that she made a prophesy that night. Besides, JKR is using her to introduce Severus Snape as the eavesdropper. It would be too confusing if we are to believe she is telling both the truth about Snape and lying about Snape, all within the same paragraph, when she doesn't even know the significance of the circumstances she is revealing to Harry and us. So, what does she tell us? Here's Sibyll (HBP US, p.545): vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv "Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was the rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, ..." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sibyll goes into a trance-like state during her prophesy telling, she is unaware that she even made them. She is unaware of what is happening until *after* she comes out of her trance. There is no way she can know Snape was there unless he was there *after* Sibyll *completes* the prophesy. (I'm not buying that Sibyll could be aware of her surroundings, but not hear her own words). Therefore, Snape certainly could have heard the entire prophesy, or if he heard only part, it would have been the last part. And there is no way that Dumbledore could state positively that Snape didn't hear the whole prophesy. But, Dumbledore told us that he only heard the first part. He could have told Harry that Snape only heard the last part, the last sentence is essentially a repeat of the first sentence (it wouldn't include the "thrice defied" part, though). But Dumbledore didn't!?! Was Dumbledore telling Harry the truth here? It doesn't seem so, IMO. Why not? I think this all goes to, *when and why will Dumbledore lie?* He lies to protect those he feels need protecting. In this case, he feels that Snape's actual actions (and by extension, his own) need to be kept secret, even from Harry. > In message #158904 Hickengruendler wrote: > > First of all, we have to assume that Dumbledore didn't lie. He > might withhold some information or make some unwise decisions, > but I believe we have to take his word for the truth, as far as > he knows it. Meaning he might be mistaken about something (as in > possibly about Snape's loyalties) but he does not deliberatly > lie. Mike: I'm not picking on Hickengruendler here, this is just one post that is typical of a lot of people's opinion of Dumbledore. My counterpoint here is that Dumbledore *does* lie to protect others. And, IMO, Dumbledore lied about what Snape knew about the prophesy. The only person to protect Snape from is Voldemort. (He doesn't need protection from Harry). Put it together. What might really have happened that, if Voldemort found out the truth about, would put Snape in danger? I envision two possibilities. 1) Snape heard the whole prophesy but only told LV the first part. (Was DD lying back in the Weasley's broomshed when he said that he and Harry were the only ones that knew the whole prophesy). 2) Snape heard none of the prophesy (or only the last sentence) and still only told Voldemort the first part. (Maybe DD was just lying about Snape hearing any of the prophesy at all. Maybe Snape wasn't actually listening at the door and only came up the stairs and into the room when DD called him and Abeforth. Maybe Dumbledore was the only one who heard any of the prophesy and decided which part he wanted released.) (Alla, you might want to stop reading right here ) Either of these scenarios requires that Snape was DDM *right now*, at the time of the prophesy. Because Dumbledore is not going to be lying about what happened that night if Snape is *really* still working for Voldemort at this time. If everything happened (Snape only hearing the first part. Snape still in Voldemort's and only Voldemort's employ) like we were told, Dumbledore wouldn't need to lie about it. But Dumbledore does lie about what happened. Ipso facto, everything *didn't* happen like we were told. > Hickengruendler continued: > And he told Harry, that Voldemort going after the Potters was the > reason for Snape's turning, therefore I am sure this is what > Dumbledore really believes, and Snape had to make it somehow > believable in front of him. Mike: Or, this is what Dumbledore wants Harry (and us) to believe. Dumbledore does not want it to get out that Snape had already come back to the side of light (if he ever left) before the time of the prophesy. This *likely story* of Snape's regret is the story Dumbledore wants out there in order to protect Snape. With this story Snape can claim he spun his story of regret to Dumbledore, playing on DD's "greatest weakness", and tell this to Voldemort and the DEs (see Spinner's End). If you follow to this point, you are left with some sure pieces of knowledge. Snape *turned* long before Godric's Hollow. Snape *turned* before the prophesy. Snape *turned* for some other reason than regret over what happened, was going to happen, could possibly happen to the Potters (including Lily. LOLLIPOPS you were fun while you lasted). So, what did *turn* Snape? Here are two recent posts that IMO come the closest: Abergoat offers: If so, Snape would have grown up believing his mother was murdered by someome other than Voldemort...but perhaps Lily helped him uncover the truth. And perhaps Petunia overheard a boy discussing his determination to kill Voldemort in revenge by entering the Death Eaters to get close to him. This is information Voldemort would love to have if he knew Petunia had it...explaining Petunia's personal fear of Voldemort and Dumbledore's possible subject of prior correspondence. Jazmyn: Also. Snape might have turned because Dumbledore offered him a chance for real respect based on his talent and not just 'being part of a gang who didn't really care about him'. Maybe he wanted a real family as much as Harry. Maybe Snape was forced by Voldemort to kill his parents or his parents were killed by other DEs for being in a mixed marrage? vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, "I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely." (HBP US, p.549) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Mike: When did Snape *turn*? Well, we were told by JKR that we will hear more about the *werewolf caper*, weren't we? And with only one book left, with all the things that have happened between, what could we possibly *learn* from the werewolf caper that would mean anything to us by now? Could there be something about James or Sirius that Dumbledore does not want Harry to know, something that would tarnish the memories of one or both of them? Or is it simply that he doesn't want Harry to know *when* Snape *turned*, for Snape's protection? Just a few open questions, out of a long list of open questions. Mike From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 1 02:58:17 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:58:17 -0000 Subject: SecrtKeeperEvidence/Chapter21questions/GhostsVsInferii/GH Attack/InvisiCloaks Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158941 Leah wrote in : << What is not explained is why James and Lily refused the offer of Secret Keeping from 'the only one Voldemort ever feared'. >> Dumbledore would not have been able to go into hiding, because he had too many other responsibilities. Perhaps he would have been safe from LV ordering DEs to catch him and torture the Secret out of him, due to LV fearing him, but the Potters atill would not have liked to add that risk to the risks he already bore. They were 21 or 22 years old, and I will be 49 next month (November) so I suspect they had a strong unconscious desire to take care of themselves instead of having grown-ups take care of them. zgirnius wrote in : << Sirius strikes me as someone who would believe he could withstand torture. >> Sirius's 'clever' plan *depended* on his ability to withstand torture. If he were caught (and I believe that he intended to be careless about hiding, so as to act as bait) and tortured to give up the Secret, he couldn't give up the Secret AND he also WOULD NOT tell that Peter was the real Secret Keeper. So if he died or went mad fromm the torture, the DEs would think the Secret was lost in him forever and give up. I don't believe he was planning: "If they catch me, if I break under torture and tell them that Peter is the Secret Keeper, they'll never believe me, so it'll be okay if I break." Alla wrote in : << [Dumbledore] took it upon himself (unless you would argue that Fudge somehow forced him to come forward) to step up with the **evidence** that Sirius was a Secret Keeper, and just as Sherry said I am not sure I remember stellar cannon support that James told him about Sirius being secret keeper (even if he did, I think DD had to investigate further, but I am not sure that he did). Dumbledore took it upon himself to help condemn Sirius as far as I am concerned and before he did that, he IMO should have been absolutely sure that the evidence he had was a strong one. >> The Department of Magical Law Enforcement (at least they aren't hypocritical enough to call it the Department of Justice) was investigating two serious crimes: the murder of James and Lily Potter, and the murder of 12 Muggles and Pettigrew. I think they called Dumbledore as a witness rather than him volunteering. If he had refused to testify on the grounds that "This Department is too corrupt and incompetent to catch the right criminal, so only I can be trusted to carry out an honest investigation", many more people would think he was arrogant. (Like Tonks_op in : << In RL if you are called into court to testify you must tell what you know. >>.) Even if he volunteered to give information to the investigation, that is behavior that is generally considered right behavior for modern Muggles in democratic countries. Tell the authorities what you know about a crime that they have announced that they are investigating. Marianne Kiricat summarized Chapter 21 in with questions: << 1. Harry increasingly turns to his Potions book when he is at a loss. Why has he come to rely on the Prince as his major source of inspiration or guidance, even for things outside the field of Potions? >> I believe that young Snape charmed his book to repel most people (Hermione hates it and Ron can't read the writing) but to attract Lily, and the result of Harry having Lily's eyes is that the book attracts and seduces Harry. I think Lily might have been more resistant to seduction, having had practise resisting being seduced by people. << 2. Harry doesn't know the effects of Sectumsempra. What does his eagerness to try it tell us about him? >> Being seduced by Sectumsempra was just part of being seduced by the book. Btw I, even seeing that 'sectum-sempra' means 'cut forever', thought it was a spell for turning a pair of friends into a pair of enemies, and was surprised that it was a virtual knife. << 3. Harry thinks Snape will mark him down on the Dementor essay. Does Hogwarts strike you as a place that encourages thinking in alternative ways? Or do classes seem geared towards rote learning? >> I think Harry's thought is only about Snape, that Snape is so arrogant and rigid that he can't stand anyone to disagree with him. << 4. Do you think SPEW will be back in Book 7? >> It had *better* be, or all that page-time it got in GoF was a waste. << 5. Why do elves never Apparate with a soft pop, but always with a loud "crack?" >> As Eddie HarryP wrote in : << So their masters know when they are there. No sneaking up allowed. >> (Hey, Eddie, I saw the extra-points joke.) << 6. Do you think it's likely that MWPP did not know of the Room of Requirement, or is Hermione right in assuming that the room is Unplottable? >> As Zgirnius wrote in : << I very much doubt they knew about the ROR. Nobody suggested it to Harry as a good place to hold the DA meetings - didn't Sirius suggest the Shrieking Shack, which would require getting out of the castle at night? >> And Sirius suggested the little room behind the mirror on the fourth floor, which not only had been made inaccessible by a recent rockfall, but was only big enough for four people. If so many students over the years have known about the RoR, so as to have a HUGE warehouse of items hidden and never retrieved, I don't understand how MWPP didn't, but Fred & George knew of it only as a small closet in which they hid from Filch. << 8. After 5-plus years at Hogwarts, is Ron really clueless on how to use a wand to clean up spilled ink? >> Maybe that spell is more difficult than we think. << 12. How much of Myrtle's description of sensitive, bullied, lonely Draco is her own imagination? >> I think JKR was making fun of Draco fangirls there, like Potioncat in : << Just like all the other Draco-fans, she's confused him with the actor. Sorry, I mean, it's mostly her imagination. >> But I also agree with Magpie in : << we see it just as she described it in the Sectumsempra scene. Draco is showing his feelings, being sensitive, crying. And he's being bullied - by Voldemort. >> (There have been posts in the past explaining how Draco could believe that he was being bullied by Harry (that he started it himself having slipped his mind), but I believe his current realistic fear for his life and his parents' lives put that right out of his mind.) So Myrtle was believing Draco's self-image rather than her own imagination. << 13. Is Hermione's puzzlement regarding Tonks' activities a clue that something sinister is going on, or is this a red herring that is later explained away by Tonks' love for Remus? >> I still can't believe all that Tonks stuff was just red herrings. I still think it must be clues that 'Tonks' who can't metamorph and isn't clumsy is someone else Polyjuiced into Tonks. Which side is the fake Tonks on? She saved Harry in the train and perhaps was guarding him in this scene. If only she were Polyjuiced Sirius! << 14. If Tonks' underlying concern was for news on the whereabouts or well-being of Remus, is this sufficient reason for her to leave her post? >> No, of course not, and why would she expect to find news of Remus in the corridor outside the RoR? Was she intending to go into the Room while thinking 'I need news of Remus'? If she did that, how would the news come to her? << 15. Do you find it strange that Dumbledore would not alert those guarding Hogwarts, especially those who are members of the Order, to his own absences from the school? >> Yes. Maybe he did, but the fake Tonks wasn't one of the guards or Order members. << 16. Hermione insists on at least four different occasions in this chapter that Harry is wrong to try to think of a magically-induced way to pry Slughorn's memory from him. Yet, Harry does end up using a potion on himself. Is Hermione wrong in her opinion that the key to unlocking Slughorn is something innate in Harry? >> I think Rowling meant for the Felix Felicis potion to be a mere placebo that only gives Harry confidence, not abilities. Because of the conversation the Trio has about it: <<"It's a great feeling when you take it," said Ron reminiscently. "Like you can't do anything wrong." "What are you talking about?" said Hermione, laughing. "You've never taken any!" "Yeah, but I thought I had, didn't I?" said Ron, as though ex-plaining the obvious. "Same difference really ..." >> But the description of Harry' experience sounds like FF potion really is magic, something akin to Divination but more reliable: <> and so on. Tonks_op wrote in : << The other thing is that Ghosts are souls that are still on this side of the veil. The Inferni do not have a soul that is in this world. They seem to be just animated corpses. >> I agree about Inferii, but according to Snape in that very chapter, Ghosts are not souls: "A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth". A *departed* soul. No, I don't claim to understand how 'the imprint of a soul' can have opinions and desires and actions and free will, which Sir Nick certainly seems to display. << The evil wizard calls upon the `demons' to do his bidding. They, like Rowling's inferni, have no free choice. The work is done in the spiritual world. >> Now I must disagree. Snape said: ""The Inferius is a corpse that has been reanimated by a Dark wizard's spells. It is not alive, it is merely used like a puppet to do the wizard's bidding." It is a PUPPET made of meat, NOT a being with a mind or will that is overpowered by something like Imperius. The demons have enough minds of their own to complain about their enslavement and try to trick the enchanter into releasing them. Ceridwen wrote in : << If [Snape] was in on [the Godric's Hollow attack], he must have known that Peter Pettigrew was the SK, yet in PoA he seems to sincerely believe that Sirius was the cause of all this trouble. I've suggested a note, a la Dumbledore's note to Harry in OotP, but no one likes that idea. >> Am I no one? But in addition to having been told the secret without knowing that Pettigrew was telling the Secret, he also would have had to not know that Pettigrew was a member of the attack party. I think the attack party consisted of Voldemort, Pettigrew, Snape, and Lucius Malfoy, because of Harry's dream the night after being Sorted: "-- and there was Malfoy, laughing at him as he struggled with it -- then Malfoy turned into the hook-nosed teacher, Snape, whose laugh became high and cold -- there was a burst of green light and Harry woke,sweating and shaking." That part of the dream is a memory. The high cold laughter is LV, the burst of green light is AV, Draco Malfoy is Lucius Malfoy, whom Harry had not yet met, but who looks and sounds so very much like his son. Snape is Snape. Therefore Lucius and Snape were present during the attack. As for Pettigrew, who did not appear in the dream, I believe that JKR answered some where that he picked up LV's wand from the wreckage and hid it somewhere and retrieved it when he brought LV back to Britain (even tho' I can't find the quote). Until it was stated in OoP that Voldemort is a Legilimens, I thought all that talk about Lord Voldemort being able to tell when anyone is lying was itself a lie. So then it made sense that LV would bring Pettigrew with him, in fact make Pettigrew walk in front of him, in case Pettigrew was leading him into an ambush. But once I knew that LV really could read minds, he could know that Pettigrew was telling him the truth without resorting to such a crude tactic. So why bring him? Just to make readers wonder how Snape could fail to know that Sirius was innocent? Rebecca Brown asked in : << Via Ron, we're told IC's are rare- where did Moody's 2 (I think he has 2 - it's confusing to me) come from? Where did James get his? Where did Barty Crouch get his to cover Jr in GoF? >> As I quoted in : says: <> I feel pretty sure that Real!Moody's second cloak is the Crouches' cloak. Both Crouches were gone (one dead, one Demented) by the time Real!Moody was rescued, and hadn't Fake!Moody packed his cloak in Real!Moody's trunk of seven insides? It was at one time suggested that Invisibility Cloaks were given to Aurors to use in their job and then keep. (Or buying, or otherwise acquiring one, could be a job requirement for Aurors. Maybe Aurors who aren't from rich families pay on an installment plan.) That could be how both Moody and Crouch Sr got cloaks -- it is not unlikely that Crouch Sr started as an Auror before working up to Head of Magical Law Enforcement. It might even be how James's father or ancestor got their cloak. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 03:24:22 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 03:24:22 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158942 > > > Neri: > > > Are you saying you don't think Snape owed a life debt to James at all? > > > Or that he did, but that this wasn't the reason he "turned"? > > > > > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > The later. > > Neri: > In this case Snape would have *two* motivations to "turn" ? Lily and > his life debt to James. So even assuming we will find in Book 7 that > he was in love with Lily, how can we ever know for sure what was the > relative importance of each of these two motivations in his decision? > > LOLLIPOPS+Life Debt seems to be a good option for JKR if she wants to > leave us with an ambiguous Snape even *after* the end of the series. > It's possible, of course, that this is what she means to do. But if, > as she once promised, after Book 7 we will know everything we need to > know and won't have any need for prequels, then shouldn't she give > Snape a single motivation to "turn"? zgirnius: We have very little canon on how a life debt works. If LOLLIPOPS is presented in Book 7 as the answer, it will BE the answer. Because we'll never get any details on how the life-debt made Snape do it, and we will therefore have no reason to suppose that it did, even if at the present time such a speculation seems a reasonable extension of things we arleady know. If all we ever get, Snape's life-debt to James-wise is the explanation Dumbledore gave Harry in PS/SS, I don't see how this will make Snape ambiguous. From monalila662 at earthlink.net Sun Oct 1 13:34:54 2006 From: monalila662 at earthlink.net (dillgravy) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:34:54 -0000 Subject: Dementors Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158945 I was hoping to start a discussion on Dementors and their possible origins. Do we know how they came to be? Were they ever human? They aren't "beasts" because they're not mentioned in the "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". I apologize if this has been discussed at length. I've looked on The Floo Network and only found extensive descriptions but nothing referring to how they came to be. Maybe someone has a really good speculation... it's a good topic with Halloween approaching!!! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 14:32:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:32:11 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158946 > zgirnius: > We have very little canon on how a life debt works. If LOLLIPOPS is > presented in Book 7 as the answer, it will BE the answer. Because > we'll never get any details on how the life-debt made Snape do it, > and we will therefore have no reason to suppose that it did, even if > at the present time such a speculation seems a reasonable extension > of things we arleady know. > > If all we ever get, Snape's life-debt to James-wise is the > explanation Dumbledore gave Harry in PS/SS, I don't see how this will > make Snape ambiguous. > Neri: I'll have to disagree. Unless the life-debt issue is clarified, and clarified also in regard Snape and James specifically, the readers will continue to wonder about it. JKR has to be consistent. If Dumbledore says in SS/PS that Snape tried to save Harry because of his "debt" to James, and in PoA he says that the life-debt is the deepest magic, then the obvious implication is that his life-debt to James must have played a part in Snape's motivation to "turn". Especially since both the event of James saving Snape's life and Snape's hate for James are brought up throughout the series in such dramatic ways. Readers continued to wonder, years after CoS, even about Ginny owing a life-debt to Harry: **************************************************************** http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm MA: Does she have a life debt to Harry from book two? JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you know, I honestly would. **************************************************************** Readers rightly wonder about it, and JKR seems to acknowledge in her answer that the issue of the life-debt has to be explained in Book 7. If for some reason Snape *didn't* have a life-debt to James then JKR has to be clarify it, preferably in a way that doesn't contradict Dumbledore's words in SS/PS. But simply not mentioning the life-debt at all would leave a big hole in the plot and a big hole in our understanding of Snape's motivations. Neri From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 1 14:36:56 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:36:56 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158947 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > > > Carol wrote: > > > > > > ... regarding the interaction between Dumbledore and > > > Mrs. Cole. Dumbledore had to hide the fact that the > > > school he was recruiting Tom Riddle for was a school > > > of magic from Mrs. Cole because of the Statute of > > > Secrecy, so in order to send Tom to the school ..., > > > Dumbledore had no choice but to trick her into > > > thinking that the blank paper she was looking at was > > > an official document. ... > > > > > > > Ken: > > > > ...I think that Dumbledore reveals himself as a conniver > > in this scene. He was not *forced* to do anything, he > > *chose* to do what he did. The things he did were small > > ethical infractions and they have their Muggle > > equivalents. .... A wizard or Muggle who wanted to act > > properly would have gotten an official document > > authorizing Tom's attendance at a boarding school and > > would have realized that Mrs. Cole could have been > > charmed into revealing the background information > > necessary understand young Tom. ... This wasn't > > Dumbledore's finest moment. > > bboyminn: > > Exactly what is Dumbledore's great ethical crime here? He > didn't use magic to compel Mrs. Cole to act. He simply > used magic to side-step awkward questions about the exact > nature of the school. Awkward questions that he must > avoid if he doesn't want to seem like some kind of > crackpot. > > As to your suggestion that he should go to the muggle > government and get an offical document stating that Tom > must attend Hogwarts, that would certainly be unethical. > It is up to Mrs. Cole, as Tom's guardian, to determine > whether Tom will go to any particular school, not the > government. Picture the police arriving at your door one > day with a document telling you which school your kids > will go to; not a pretty sight. > Ken: Great ethical crime? I don't believe I said it was a great ethical crime just that it was unethical and a violation of an older Dumbledore's statement of his personal principles. My point is that Mrs. Cole has a problem with Tom and she knows it. She would have been open to a legitmate suggestion on how to deal with it. No magically forged documents or gin were needed. Just perhaps a little more of Dumbledore's time and famous charm. And I don't see how you can consider forgery to be anything less than unethical. I am sure the British government would consider it to be a crime. The MoM has relations with the Muggle PM and it would have been a simple matter to discuss the need for magically gifted children to have a proper education with him. A Hogwarts education seems to be offered at no cost to students like Tom, a Hogwarts education *should* enable young wizards and witches to fit into Muggle society, it is a win-win-win situation for the WW, the Muggle world, and people like Mrs Cole. It is a good thing that Dumbledore and Hogwarts are offering to do here, there was no need to do it in a shabby fashion. I used the word authorizing, not compeling or ordering. Maybe it was a bad choice but I only meant that DD should have been provided with an offical, legal document that identified Hogwarts as a legitimate school that was capable of dealing with children like Tom and which was offering him an education on financial terms that Mrs. Cole would hardly refuse. Mrs. Cole is not Tom's mother, she runs an orphange with some kind of sanction from the state. The state has a little more say in the disposition of her charges than it would when children live with parents or guardians who are blood relatives. In any event parents in the US have indeed been told by local governments, courts, and school districts which schools their children must attend. This is not even unusual although parents do often complain bitterly about it and opt for private schooling if they can afford it. > Steve: > Note again, that Dumbledore did not compel or alter Mrs. > Cole's decision. He did not magically force her to give > a specific decision on Tom. She reached that conclusion > on her own, as it should be. All he did was sidestep > questions about certain unusual aspects of Hogwarts. He > diverted the converstation into more productive and more > relevant territory. > > Also, note that it is MRS. COLE who offers Dumbledore a > drink of Gin, not the other way around. Nor did > Dumbledore force Mrs. Cole to drink; she drank quite > freely and quite liberally of her own choice. > > If Dumbledore had used magic to coerce or force or trick > some decision or action from Mrs. Cole, I would agree > with you, but all he did was avoid some awkward questions. > Ken: The issue isn't the use of magic, the issue is that Dumbledore in this scene is doing the same things that any conniving Muggle schemer would do. He uses a forged document and makes sure that plenty of gin is on hand to help seal the deal. He knew what Mrs. Cole's weakness was and he explited it. He did not have to resort to either tactic, he chose to to that. In short he chose what was easy over what was right. Remember that I brought this up because I think it is a scene where Dumbldore truly does show that he is human after all. I don't mean to discredit him. I believe that he does not have to be perfect to be the epitome of goodness. A perfect Dumbledore would be boring, unbelievable, and would have solved all the WW's problems by now. I do not accept that his scenes with the Dursley's tell us anything significant about his character mostly because they are so one dimensional that I regard them as strawmen or cartoons instead of as real characters. If you try to see them as "real" you have to deal with their extreme obstinance and prejudice. You cannot deal with a badger the same way you can deal with a housecat. The Dursley's are angry badgers and I believe that the other characters in this story are simply dealing with them in the best fashion that they can devise under the circumstances. I don't believe that normal ethical judgments of their behaviour can or should be made on the basis of their dealings with the Dursleys. Mrs. Cole is a housecat though and there was no need to treat her like a badger. Ken From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 1 15:34:44 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:34:44 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158948 Carol: > Voldemort's reasons for not killing Lily, OTOH, are clearly accounted > for. In the first place, unlike James, she wasn't fighting him and he > had no reason to kill her. Pippin: She'd defied him three times, she'd mothered one prophecy child, and could conceivably (no pun intended) have had more. If he didn't want her dead because it would interfere with his plans in any way, she could have been stunned, frozen, or pushed out of the way. IMO, he didn't expect her to stand aside; after all, she'd already defied him three times. But it's like the graveyard; he had a little game to play. I think he was being cruel to the DE who wanted her alive, to punish him for daring to bargain with his master. It was a sincere offer, in a way, ie he would have spared her if she'd stepped aside. But he knew she wouldn't, just as he knew Harry would come for Sirius. Snape is the obvious person to have proposed such a bargain, so I think he's the red herring. I agree that he has an important role in the books, but IMO it's Helper In Disguise, not reluctant Agent of Evil. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 1 15:44:01 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:44:01 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158949 > > Carol responds:. > > In short, once she chooses the Statute of Secrecy as the reason for > our lack of knowledge of the WW, she needs means to implement it > (memory charms, etc.) and her law-abiding characters are obliged to > obey it. Possibly she could have come up with a better reason and/or > means of keeping the WW (largely) secret from the RW, but once she's > chosen this reason/means, she has to follow through with it. Whether > she was aware of the problems the Statute would cause for her > characters and her readers when she first conceived of it, I don't > know. All I'm saying is that once she's committed to that concept, > both she and her characters are stuck with it. Pippin: Any means she came up with would necessarily be flawed, because it's a flawed world she's writing about, more flawed than Dumbledore knows. (Hey, even the calendar doesn't work ) In a world so flawed and damaged, the choice between good and evil must often present itself as a choice between bad and worse. But how cruel to say, "I see no difference!" Pippin From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 07:28:34 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 02:28:34 -0500 Subject: Dahl and the Dursleys - Harry's Present In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610010028xf88d6adg43dac6a823b477ba@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158950 > > bboyminn: > > I have always suspected that the reason Harry gets a > present from the Dursleys is because, near the holidays, > Hedwig shows up and pesters them until the put something > in a envelope and send it off just to get Hedwig out of > their hair. montims: that's an interesting theory, but I believe (yet cannot check, not having my books with me just now) that in fact the Dursleys had given Harry mouldy presents before he became 11 and acquired Hedwig. Can someone with access to canon confirm or deny this at all? I like the idea of it being part of the "pact"... From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 1 16:39:20 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 16:39:20 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158951 Ken: > > The issue isn't the use of magic, the issue is that Dumbledore > in this scene is doing the same things that any conniving > Muggle schemer would do. He uses a forged document Pippin: AFAIK, it's not forgery if there's no intent to defraud. Mrs. Cole is not cheated of anything. That the same methods could have used to cheat Mrs. Cole is irrelevant. It's Mrs. Cole's decision to drink while on duty, also. We don't even know that it's against the rules of the orphanage. Probably not, things were looser in those days. Ken: > > Remember that I brought this up because I think it is a scene > where Dumbldore truly does show that he is human after all. > I don't mean to discredit him. I believe that he does not have > to be perfect to be the epitome of goodness. A perfect > Dumbledore would be boring, unbelievable, and would have > solved all the WW's problems by now Pippin: But JKR called him the epitome of goodness because she was making the point that she doesn't consider goodness boring. He is not boring, IMO, not because of his flaws but because he is forced to cope with the flawed world. Of course if there were closer cooperation between Muggles and Wizards then there would be an official procedure for dealing with cases like Tom's. But there's not, so Dumbledore improvises. I guess there's a feeling that if Dumbledore were wholly good he would be able to solve everyone's problems, but even if he can see a better solution, that doesn't mean he has the power to implement it. While we readers know that Dumbledore is supposed to be the epitome of goodness and everyone else would be better off if they just did what he said, the characters don't know it. Even Dumbledore does not know it. He does not have the moral force in his own world that JKR has given him in ours. They are not going to repeal the statute of secrecy or implement the rules you suggest just because Dumbledore thinks it might be a good idea. He could magic them into it, maybe. But that is what you object to in his treatment of Mrs. Cole, is it not? Pippin From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 1 16:57:47 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 1 Oct 2006 16:57:47 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/1/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1159721867.59.16062.m28@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158952 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 1, 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: From random832 at gmail.com Sun Oct 1 17:35:25 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:35:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update SPOILERS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610011035r3d451eefo3681796d765dd7e0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158954 > Ceridwen: > JKR was slick with this answer. Snape wasn't under the IC. > Period. She doesn't say he was or wasn't at GH. She doesn't say he > wasn't hiding. She just says he wasn't hiding under the IC on that > night. For that matter, she doesn't even say that he wasn't under _an_ IC, if we take _the_ IC to mean the one belonging to James which had been left in Dumbledore's posession. She implies a lot without really saying anything at all. -- Random832 From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 1 17:31:37 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 13:31:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Statute of Secrecy References: Message-ID: <005001c6e57f$73865ab0$0b86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158955 > Pippin: > But JKR called him the epitome of goodness because she > was making the point that she doesn't consider goodness > boring. He is not boring, IMO, not because of his flaws > but because he is forced to cope with the flawed world. Of > course if there were closer cooperation between Muggles > and Wizards then there would be an official procedure > for dealing with cases like Tom's. But there's not, so > Dumbledore improvises. Magpie: I think the point is that he improvises, and his improvisation isn't more concerned with what is right rather than what is easy. He may be coping with a flawed world, but I don't see him as always apart from that world. The flaws of his world, imo, have shaped him the same way they shape all wizards. Sometimes he seems to genuinely share the same ideas he criticizes. And that's not unusual--many people criticizing their own society do that. Pippin: > > I guess there's a feeling that if Dumbledore were wholly > good he would be able to solve everyone's problems, but > even if he can see a better solution, that doesn't mean he > has the power to implement it. While we readers know that > Dumbledore is supposed to be the epitome of goodness > and everyone else would be better off if they just did what > he said, the characters don't know it. Even Dumbledore > does not know it. He does not have the moral force > in his own world that JKR has given him in ours. Magpie: I don't know it either, actually. In fact, I think the fact that all too many characters do think that Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness and everyone else would be better if they just did what he said is one of the bad things about the universe as they know it. Not because he's bad, or I think he's never right, but because that seems to be exactly the kind of attitude JKR doesn't want in general (I don't like it myself), so why on earth does Dumbledore seems to encourage it? The DEs are so childish the way they center around Voldemort and his personality cult, and you'd think the good side would be more grown-up, not just substituting one personality for another. If Dumbledore is good he should be able to be more transparent, explaining things to people to show them what he's doing. Instead, by JKR's own description, he's this lone figure too wise to speak to anyone so everybody else just trusts him personally (at least that's what we're told--so far he's never actually demonstrated it). Whether this usually works out or not (obviously I think Dumbledore really did have a good reason for trusting Snape and that they others were correct to accept him as a spy, for instance) it's a stunted way of choosing right and wrong. Given his situation there's plenty of reason that Dumbledore does have to be careful with the truth--I think it was Churchill who said the truth must have a bodyguard. But there's a lot of room between making everyone just trust one person's orders because it's that person and loose lips sinking ships. I hope JKR is moving beyond that by killing Dumbledore off. For instance, I hope it's important that in the Tower Harry finally sees the type of thing that would usually be hidden--he sees for himself that Malfoy isn't actually a killer, for instance, and holds on to the memory of his wand going down. So he doesn't have to just trust that Dumbledore knows best, he's got his own evidence for what's going on. He can explain this to people so that they can trust the logic and agree to a fully-informed risk and not just do something because they trust Harry's instinct because they're loyal to Harry. Pippin: > They are not going to repeal the statute of secrecy or > implement the rules you suggest just because Dumbledore > thinks it might be a good idea. He could magic them into > it, maybe. But that is what you object to in his treatment of > Mrs. Cole, is it not? Magpie: I can't speak for Ken, but I thought he was acknowledging that the Statute of Secrecy was a factor, but denying that this made Dumbledore's actions much different. The problem with the scene may come simply from JKR thinking that the scene is far more entertaining done this way--just as it's entertaining to watching Harry display cunning by getting Hagrid and Slughorn drunk. It sometimes seems like it may just be a conflict of interests between the ideals DD supports and just liking to watch Muggles looking silly. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 18:04:39 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:04:39 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158957 > a_svirn: > The easiest explanation is that one went off the > > mark, surely? Even if they thought the scar suspicious it's a big leap > > to conclude that the Dark Lord was vanquished and lost his body. Not > > to mention, that it's not professional for the Law Enforcement > > officers to share their speculations with general public right after > > the murder was discovered. > > Pippin: > > Not if everyone knows that Voldemort is missing and Harry is alive. > Those rumours would spread from the DE's and the aurors to everyone > else, unprofessional or not. a_svirn: And just how does everybody know that Voldemort is missing? Aurors wouldn't have known anything on the matter, as for death eaters why on earth would they want to spread any rumours? To what purpose? Surely without Voldemort they are less fearsome and more vulnerable. If anything, they would want to keep his disappearance in secret for as long as possible. And how do you think did they set about spreading rumours without compromising themselves? > Pippin: The WW is too small to keep secrets like > that. It's like living in a village. Would you have liked the DE's story, > that Harry survived because he was a greater Dark Wizard than > Voldemort, to be the only one out there? a_svirn: Yeah? It was big enough to keep secrets like Lilly's sacrifice, Barty Crouch Jr. early release, the Prophesy No1 and No2. > Pippin: > It was hard on Harry to be greeted as a hero, but at least he > didn't have to face everybody thinking he was a dark wizard > all his life. a_svirn: I don't think it was hard on Harry to be hailed at the Leaky Cauldron etc. Unless you mean Snape's welcoming speech, Harry took all the greetings in his stride. Well, maybe he wasn't what you'd call blas?, but he certainly didn't mind them. > Pippin: > Harry was removed from the wizarding world because that's where his > only blood relation was living. Everything else is secondary. a_svirn: You are just restating Dumbledore's reasons instead of defending them. Yes, he placed Harry where he did because that's where Lilly's blood dwelt. Yes, he thought that everything else was secondary. However, from the way the events unfolded it looks like he was wrong. Because Harry came close to dying several times and his survival owes nothing to the blood protection. > Pippin: >Dumbledore > explains why he does not want to draw attention to the blood protection. > Voldemort knows of it, but he always discounts it, and this is a weakness > that Dumbledore believes he can exploit. a_svirn: I seem to remember that Voldemort underestimates *love* not *blood*. He has a very healthy respect to blood in general, and to Harry's blood in particular. > > a_svirn: > > As I said, Harry does not spend all his time indoors. > > Pippin: > And he would if he was being protected by, say, Sirius and Lupin?? a_svirn: Between being safe indoors and abused and safe indoors and loved I'd say Harry would choose the latter. Who wouldn't? > Pippin: > If Lucius wanted to harm Harry for reasons totally unrelated to his > service to Voldemort, you mean? Why would he? a_svirn: Funny you should ask that. It so happened that Lucius planted the diary for the reasons totally unrelated to Voldemort and it almost got Harry killed. Again. And he didn't survive because of the blood protection. Again. > > a_svirn: > > My version is: > > (1) There are *ways* the child can be protected. > > (2) The protection Dumbledore chose is flawed. > > (3) Ergo he could have chosen another protection, less flawed. > > > > Pippin: > For your premises to be valid, a less flawed means of protection > must exist. a_svirn: I'd say Fidelius is no more flawed, than the blood protection. If Dumbledore had problems with trusting people he could make himself a secret-keeper. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 18:23:04 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:23:04 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158958 > Pippin: > AFAIK, it's not forgery if there's no intent to defraud. Mrs. Cole is > not cheated of anything. That the same methods could have > used to cheat Mrs. Cole is irrelevant. a_svirn: That's interesting. So if I show a fake id to an immigration officer do I cheat him of anything? It's not like I deprive them of money or property. > Pippin: > While we readers know that > Dumbledore is supposed to be the epitome of goodness > and everyone else would be better off if they just did what > he said, the characters don't know it. a_svirn: Actually, the events of HBP demonstrated that that's exactly the wrong attitude. It's no thanks to Dumbledore that his students are still alive. It's because Harry didn't do as he was bid and took necessarily precautions. > Pippin: >Even Dumbledore > does not know it. a_svirn: He acts as if he does, though. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Oct 1 18:30:16 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 18:30:16 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158959 Carol wrote: > You've ignored my point about the chains on the chair binding Barty > Jr. ("the chained boy") as they bound Karkaroff but did not bind Ludo > Bagman (or Harry in OoP). Abergoat responds: I didn't mean to ignore anything - but I don't view how Barty was chained to mean anything other than he did not have powerful friends, unlike Ludo. Just because Stan Stunpike is in jail doesn't make him guilty, so just because Barty was in chains and Ludo wasn't doesn't make Barty guilty and Ludo innocent. Carol wrote: And Bellatrix, who would never credit > someone who wasn't a loyal DE with helping her to find Voldemort and > torture the Longbottoms, says "We alone were faithful. The Dark Lord > will reward us above all others" (quoted from memory). "We" seems to > include not only the Lestrange brothers but Barty Jr. If Barty > weren't one of the people who accompanied her and helped her torture > the Longbottoms, surely she would have excluded him from her claim > to "glory." Aberogoat writes: I see it differently. I see Bella thinking it was a badge of honor to go to jail for having been a Death Eater. She wouldn't give Barty's innocence of the Longbottoms crime a second thought. He was a Death Eater and he shouldn't be wimpering about innocence, he should go to jail proud of what his 'leader' stood for. Abergoat From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 1 19:30:04 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 19:30:04 -0000 Subject: SecrtKeeperEvidence/Chapter21questions/GhostsVsInferii/GH Attack/InvisiCloaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158960 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Being seduced by Sectumsempra was just part of being seduced by the > book. Btw I, even seeing that 'sectum-sempra' means 'cut forever', > thought it was a spell for turning a pair of friends into a pair of > enemies, and was surprised that it was a virtual knife. Geoff: I'm mildly surprised you came to that conclusion. I could possibly see 'cut' in the context of 'cutting someone dead' or breaking the ties between friends but to turn them into enemies? Besides, we are told that the spell was marked 'for enemies' /not/ 'for making enemies'. I'm not sure that the Romans would have used 'seco' in that sense anyway. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 20:23:37 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:23:37 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158961 > Neri: > If for some reason Snape *didn't* have a life-debt to James then JKR > has to be clarify it, preferably in a way that doesn't contradict > Dumbledore's words in SS/PS. But simply not mentioning the life-debt > at all would leave a big hole in the plot and a big hole in our > understanding of Snape's motivations. zgirnius: The language used by Dumbledore in PS/SS in no way suggests there was magic involved in Snape's sense of indebtedness to James, and its motivating him to save Harry. We are using the term 'life-debt' and thinking of it in magical terms because of Dumbledore's comments regarding Harry and Peter in PoA. We could get lots and lots of clarification on Peter and how that debt worked (as promised in the interview snipped), without getting anything more on Snape's sense of indebtedness. Then we could conclude that, in fact, that is all it was. Or Rowling could do the whole fancy LID deal with the debt passing on to Harry, I am not arguing she won't. I am just saying that if she does not want to go there, she has drawn a clear enough distinction in how Dumbledore spoke of Snape/James and Peter/Harry, that she does not *need* to go there. As far as Snape's hate for James, we already have some good reasons for it, and LOLLIPOPS would just add on another. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 21:15:17 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:15:17 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158962 > > Pippin: > > > While we readers know that > > Dumbledore is supposed to be the epitome of goodness > > and everyone else would be better off if they just did what > > he said, the characters don't know it. > > a_svirn: > Actually, the events of HBP demonstrated that that's exactly the > wrong attitude. It's no thanks to Dumbledore that his students are > still alive. It's because Harry didn't do as he was bid and took > necessarily precautions. Alla: Yes, a_svirn, I agree and I still keep hoping and keeping my fingers crossed that one of the lessons of the books would be that second hand trust, even in the wise and powerful leader is wrong, that people should be thinking for themselves. I am preparing the discussion for chapter 25 and I so laughed through tears when I reread this quote ( I would have said Duh!, if Dumbledore would not be so dead and would not have paid the highest price). "Do you think that I have once left the school unprotected during my absences this year? I have not. Tonight, when I leave there will be additional protection in place. Please do not suggest that I do not take the safety of my students seriously, Harry." - HBP, p.550, paperback. Rrrrright, Headmaster - very seriously indeed. :( In any event - there is actually a question I want to ask here instead of saving it for this chapter discussion. I know we discussed this one over and over, but I am drawing a blank, what were the suggestions about the *additional protection** Dumbledore is talking about? Help me or send me a link to relevant post, pretty please? :) > Magpie: > I don't know it either, actually. In fact, I think the fact that all too > many characters do think that Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness and > everyone else would be better if they just did what he said is one of the > bad things about the universe as they know it. Not because he's bad, or I > think he's never right, but because that seems to be exactly the kind of > attitude JKR doesn't want in general (I don't like it myself), so why on > earth does Dumbledore seems to encourage it? > If Dumbledore is good he should be able to be more transparent, explaining > things to people to show them what he's doing. Alla: Okay, I again randomly cut off your post, hoping to leave the main idea in, that is that this is the kind of attitude JKR does not want. Absolutely, as I said above I hope so and I so like your example about Harry seeing for himself that Draco did not kill Dumbledore and not relying on anybody else later on. This is perfect and just may come into play. Now, I am of course not saying that trust in Dumbledore words is always wrong, but yeah, we do disagree about whether his trust in Snape was wrong or not :) JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 21:44:13 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:44:13 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158963 a_svirn: > > Actually, the events of HBP demonstrated that that's exactly the > > wrong attitude. It's no thanks to Dumbledore that his students are > > still alive. It's because Harry didn't do as he was bid and took > > necessarily precautions. > > > Alla: > > Yes, a_svirn, I agree and I still keep hoping and keeping my fingers > crossed that one of the lessons of the books would be that second > hand trust, even in the wise and powerful leader is wrong, that > people should be thinking for themselves. a_svirn: So do I! > Alla: > > I know we discussed this one over and over, but I am drawing a > blank, what were the suggestions about the *additional protection** > Dumbledore is talking about? a_svirn: Well, obviously Dumbledore stationed guards somewhere in the castle. "'Perhaps you ought to get on with the job alone,' suggested Dumbledore. 'What if your back-up has been thwarted by my guard? As you have perhaps realised, there are members of the Order of the Phoenix here tonight, too." The problem is not that Dumbledore did not protect his school, but that his protection was not good enough. Just like the blood protection was not good enough. Worse even, he placed entirely too little trust in other people's judgment and entirely too much in his own. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 1 22:01:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:01:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy References: Message-ID: <007f01c6e5a5$2b02dbd0$0b86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158964 > Alla: > In any event - there is actually a question I want to ask here > instead of saving it for this chapter discussion. > > I know we discussed this one over and over, but I am drawing a > blank, what were the suggestions about the *additional protection** > Dumbledore is talking about? Magpie: Does he mean the Order posted around the halls? They definitely tell Harry that they were on guard duty that night in the school. He may have meant them (though Snape interestingly isn't among the ones on duty, it seems). And of course that protection didn't really cover what was needed--though he might have provided that kind of protection had he taken Harry's information about Draco and the RoR more seriously (underestimating both boys in a different way). > Alla: > Now, I am of course not saying that trust in Dumbledore words is > always wrong, but yeah, we do disagree about whether his trust in > Snape was wrong or not :) Magpie: Heh--and I could very well be wrong about my thinking they're right on that one! But regardless, since nobody has any idea *why* they trust Snape except that Dumbledore did, they all look really stupid once Dumbledore is dead even if Snape was DDM. They are practically paralyzed, and given what they say trust in Snape sounds absurd--well, of course we all wondered since Snape was a DE, but we figured Dumbledore had his reasons... And when Harry claims Dumbledore thought Snape had changed sides because he felt about killing Harry's parents Lupin jumps in with Harry's pov, that Snape hated James so would never have felt sorry (forgetting that, as we learned in the first book, hating someone doesn't necessarily mean wanting them dead). It's like none of them can begin to deal with what's happened because Snape was never someone they understood to begin with. And sure, maybe they didn't all need to understand him completely. But it seems like their perfectly reasonable questions about Snape were handled the same way Harry's always were--DD had his reasons. Dumbledore seemed to feel his word was most important and as of now it seems like all of Dumbledore's special knowledge has died with him. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 22:44:15 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 22:44:15 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: <007f01c6e5a5$2b02dbd0$0b86400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158965 > Magpie: > Heh--and I could very well be wrong about my thinking they're right on that > one! But regardless, since nobody has any idea *why* they trust Snape > except that Dumbledore did, they all look really stupid once Dumbledore is > dead even if Snape was DDM. They are practically paralyzed, and given what > they say trust in Snape sounds absurd--well, of course we all wondered since > Snape was a DE, but we figured Dumbledore had his reasons... And when Harry > claims Dumbledore thought Snape had changed sides because he felt about > killing Harry's parents Lupin jumps in with Harry's pov, that Snape hated > James so would never have felt sorry (forgetting that, as we learned in the > first book, hating someone doesn't necessarily mean wanting them dead). > It's like none of them can begin to deal with what's happened because Snape > was never someone they understood to begin with. And sure, maybe they > didn't all need to understand him completely. But it seems like their > perfectly reasonable questions about Snape were handled the same way Harry's > always were--DD had his reasons. Dumbledore seemed to feel his word was > most important and as of now it seems like all of Dumbledore's special > knowledge has died with him. a_svirn: I agree, though I must say that the whole "Dumbledore's trust in Snape" thing doesn't bother me the way other things about Dumbledore do. In this case I'd say Dumbledore's reasons for secrecy are more understandable. Obviously, when Snape turned from his death eating to Dumbledore they made some kind of a deal. Since it was between the two them ? well, it was between the two of them. Snape trusted Dumbledore with some confidences that Dumbledore wasn't at liberty to disclose. A deal's a deal. On the other hand, since the rest of the Resistance didn't know Dunbledore's reasons they didn't trust Snape. Tolerated him (or, in Sirius's case, barely tolerated him) but didn't trust. Which was fair enough. However, the blood projection thing, or, say, that wonderful Voldemort-baiting plan in OOP was another matter entirely. Here Dumbledore again didn't share his plans and intentions with other phoenixes, and he didn't have the same excuse as with Snape. Yet, it didn't seem to occur to anyone to question his dictatorial style. (Except, probably, for Sirius ? again). They all adopted an attitude that can be summed up in Lupin's words "It isn't our business to know, it's Dumbledore's business". And it's just, well, weak. To say the least. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 1 22:51:17 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:51:17 EDT Subject: JKR site update SPOILERS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158966 > Carol responds: When have we seen Snape outside the school grounds except during Christmas or summer vacation or the one meeting with Voldemort after the graveyard incident in GoF? His excuse for not fighting in the MoM battle is essentially that he has to stay at Hogwarts to avoid arousing DD's suspicion. And his job as a DE is to spy on Dumbledore, which he can't do if he's at a meeting. (Also, of course, you can't Apparate from Hogwarts or Hogwarts grounds.) I think (and this is just my opinion) that one of the reasons Dumbledore keeps him on as a teacher (aside from his extensive knowledge of Potions and DADA) is to keep him safe, which would include an excuse not to attend DE meetings. Or maybe there were no meetings between September 1 and October 31 of the year he was hired. I doubt that large meetings occurred very often. Probably he met or corresponded one on one with the DEs most of the time since, as Karkaroff said, he likes to operate in secrecy and many of the DEs didn't even know each other's names. At any rate, when we see Snape at night, he's always prowling the hallways--and he has essays to mark. I can't see him leaving Hogwarts for any reason during the school year (except on that one special occasion at the end of GoF). Julie: I would think Voldemort planning to kill the Potters that night (if Snape had some inkling of that fact) would be a "special occasion." I'm not saying this happened, I'm just saying I don't think the fact that Snape hasn't left Hogwarts during the school year (that we KNOW OF), except on that one occasion, is a valid argument against Snape being gone from Hogwarts at some point or for some reason during that fateful night. Carol: And I believe that he showed Dumbledore his Dark Mark on the night of Godric's Hollow, which is how Dumbledore knew that Voldemort was (almost) destroyed. I don't think that either dumbledore or Snape knew the secret of Godric's Hollow (I think DD knew the location until the secret was placed inside PP and then he magically forgot it, just as Bellatrix and Narcissa no longer know that Kreacher lives at 12 GP, which they must have known when they were younger. I don't think that PP told Dumbledore, much less Snape, by note or any other means. so IMO, Snape did not know the secret and could not have been at Godric's Hollow that night.) Even if, by some chance, Snape did know the secret without knowing the identity of the SK (it would have to be a note that DD showed him, and I don't believe that happened), how could he hide at Godric's Hollow? Voldemort wouldn't know that he knew the secret, so he wouldn't invite him to come as a DE. There's no evidence that any DE except Peter was there (in rat form so James and Lily couldn't see him). As I said in another post, James says, "He's here," not "They're here." And we know that Snape wasn't hiding under the Invisibility Cloak. I think that if he did try to warn James against Sirius Black in person (instead of referring to DD trying to warn him, as we know he did), it must have been before the Fidelius Charm was cast. Julie: I did say that I don't believe Snape was in the house at Godric's Hollow *during* Voldemort's attack on the Potters, so we don't disagree there. I just leave open the possibility that Snape was in the vicinity (perhaps following Voldemort) or arrived directly after the events (if he received some sort of notification via the Dark Mark or other magic of Voldemort's demise and Harry's survival). Again, I'm just considering it a *possibility* that hasn't been ruled out yet. My central suspicion is that Snape played a pivotal role in the events of that night, more pivotal than simply showing Dumbledore his fading Dark Mark. I think there may be a stronger tie between Snape and Harry than we know at this point, something that might explain both why Snape resents Harry and why he protects him from harm, and it would something beyond the Life Debt he owed James. Something probably tied to why Dumbledore really trusts him completely, and perhaps why Hagrid also seemed to trust the surly-natured, ex-DE Slytherin, three things that should raise Hagrid's hackles. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 1 23:23:15 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:23:15 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158967 > > Neri: > I'll have to disagree. Unless the life-debt issue is clarified, and > clarified also in regard Snape and James specifically, the readers > will continue to wonder about it. JKR has to be consistent. If > Dumbledore says in SS/PS that Snape tried to save Harry because of his > "debt" to James, and in PoA he says that the life-debt is the deepest > magic, then the obvious implication is that his life-debt to James > must have played a part in Snape's motivation to "turn". Especially > since both the event of James saving Snape's life and Snape's hate for > James are brought up throughout the series in such dramatic ways. > > Readers continued to wonder, years after CoS, even about Ginny owing a > life-debt to Harry: > > **************************************************************** > http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet- anelli-3.htm > > MA: Does she have a life debt to Harry from book two? > > JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would > just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you > know, I honestly would. > **************************************************************** > > Readers rightly wonder about it, and JKR seems to acknowledge in her > answer that the issue of the life-debt has to be explained in Book 7. > If for some reason Snape *didn't* have a life-debt to James then JKR > has to be clarify it, preferably in a way that doesn't contradict > Dumbledore's words in SS/PS. But simply not mentioning the life-debt > at all would leave a big hole in the plot and a big hole in our > understanding of Snape's motivations. > > Neri > Julie: It's more a matter that for some readers Snape's life-debt to James was basically *resolved* in PS/SS when Dumbledore said Snape's attempt to save Harry was because of that owed debt. For me that is true partly because this particular life-debt isn't brought up again as a reason why Snape continues to protect Harry ("Professor Snape is still trying to pay off that pesky life-debt to James!"). So there's no indication that this life-debt is still owed, or in any way playing a role in Snape's later actions. I do agree there is interest in whether Ginny might also have a life-debt to Harry, and in how Peter's life-debt to Harry may affect the outcome of Book 7 (and JKR seems to confirm above that it will have some effect). But those are two different life-debts. It's canon that Snape *did* have a life-debt to James, as we were told in both PS/SS and POA, and it probably did play some role in Snape informing Dumbledore about Voldemort's plans. But if we get another deeper reason for Snape turning (he loved Lily, he couldn't stomach the killing of innocents, he wanted revenge on Voldemort for the death of his parents, etc, etc), I won't be bothered if this particular life-debt is never brought up again, and plays no role beyond what it has already played. After all, an emotionally-charged reason for a life- altering switch in loyalties is far more interesting and character-defining than a forced switch in loyalties due to the compulsion of magic! Julie, who will be disappointed if the life-debt plays any larger role in Snape's change of loyalties than we have already learned. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 1 23:20:22 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 19:20:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy References: Message-ID: <008b01c6e5b0$2ba81b80$0b86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 158968 a_svirn: I agree, though I must say that the whole "Dumbledore's trust in Snape" thing doesn't bother me the way other things about Dumbledore do. In this case I'd say Dumbledore's reasons for secrecy are more understandable. Obviously, when Snape turned from his death eating to Dumbledore they made some kind of a deal. Since it was between the two them - well, it was between the two of them. Snape trusted Dumbledore with some confidences that Dumbledore wasn't at liberty to disclose. A deal's a deal. On the other hand, since the rest of the Resistance didn't know Dunbledore's reasons they didn't trust Snape. Tolerated him (or, in Sirius's case, barely tolerated him) but didn't trust. Which was fair enough. Magpie: Yes, I agree. The Snape situation is believably a secret between the two of them--and people at least do know that. Everyone knew they were trusting that there was information they didn't have that made it make sense. I mention it more because it's not unique--as you quoted, we've heard the "we shouldn't question DD," even where Dumbledore's blatantly making a mistake by not listening to others or letting people in on the plan. In Snape's case he's at least protecting Snape's confidences. In other cases he's not. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 1 23:39:32 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:39:32 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: <007f01c6e5a5$2b02dbd0$0b86400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158969 > > Alla: > > I know we discussed this one over and over, but I am drawing a > > blank, what were the suggestions about the *additional protection** > > Dumbledore is talking about? > > Magpie: > Does he mean the Order posted around the halls? They definitely tell Harry > that they were on guard duty that night in the school. He may have meant > them (though Snape interestingly isn't among the ones on duty, it seems). Alla: Oh, thanks ( and to a_svirn as well), so there is nothing extra I was unaware of, meaning some kind of extra spell, etc. Good to know I am not forgetting something obvious, that it was just Order staying Guard. > > Alla: > > > Now, I am of course not saying that trust in Dumbledore words is > > always wrong, but yeah, we do disagree about whether his trust in > > Snape was wrong or not :) > > Magpie: > Heh--and I could very well be wrong about my thinking they're right on that > one! But regardless, since nobody has any idea *why* they trust Snape > except that Dumbledore did, they all look really stupid once Dumbledore is > dead even if Snape was DDM. They are practically paralyzed, and given what > they say trust in Snape sounds absurd--well, of course we all wondered since > Snape was a DE, but we figured Dumbledore had his reasons... Alla: Yeah, hehe, I am soo looking forward to chanting loudly after book 7 - I was wrong about Snape, soooo wrong. In any event, yes, they do look absolutely stupid, I agree, but I was actually really dissapointed in Mcgonagall. I love her, I absolutely love her as a character, and especially after her arguing with DD in book 1 over leaving Harry at Dursleys, I so did not expect that the only reason she trusted Snape was the same as everybody else - that DD had his reasons. I mean for some reason I thought that Minerva had her own reasons to trust Snape, sigh. I think actually that I loved Slughorn's reaction the most ( I thought I knew him - very lovely, not I thought DD had his reasons and then Ooops). JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 1 23:42:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 23:42:18 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158970 > a_svirn: > That's interesting. So if I show a fake id to an immigration officer > do I cheat him of anything? It's not like I deprive them of money or > property. > Pippin: Well, you'd be cheating everyone in the country including the officer by depriving them of the ability to regulate their borders. But if you are the immigration officer, and you know that the foreign and uneducated people you're dealing with would be bewildered by your actual credentials but will understand a fake tin star, would you be defrauding them by using it? > > Pippin: > > > While we readers know that > > Dumbledore is supposed to be the epitome of goodness > > and everyone else would be better off if they just did what > > he said, the characters don't know it. > > a_svirn: > Actually, the events of HBP demonstrated that that's exactly the > wrong attitude. It's no thanks to Dumbledore that his students are > still alive. It's because Harry didn't do as he was bid and took > necessarily precautions. Pippin: Huh? Who's to say that the Order wouldn't have been able to stop the DE invasion in its tracks if they hadn't had students to defend? They might never have needed to send for Snape. > a_svirn: > He acts as if he does, though. Pippin: No, he acts as if he's got 150 years of knowledge and experience behind him. Pippin From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 2 01:50:07 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 01:50:07 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158971 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > Ken: > > > > The issue isn't the use of magic, the issue is that Dumbledore > > in this scene is doing the same things that any conniving > > Muggle schemer would do. He uses a forged document > > Pippin: > AFAIK, it's not forgery if there's no intent to defraud. Mrs. Cole is > not cheated of anything. That the same methods could have > used to cheat Mrs. Cole is irrelevant. Ken: That is an interesting attitude but I am quite certain that forging an official document is in itself a criminal offense in most cases. Dumbledore uses his forged document to deceive Mrs. Cole into releasing a minor child into his guardianship. How is that not fraudulent? How is that not a serious crime? As it happens Dumbledore is a real teacher at a real school that really is offering Tom an education but that does not justify the means he used to obtain Mrs. Cole's assent. He is using the methods a pedophile might use to gain access to a child. > > It's Mrs. Cole's decision to drink while on duty, also. We don't > even know that it's against the rules of the orphanage. Probably > not, things were looser in those days. Ken: I am well aware that Mrs Cole bears the greater share of the blame for her drinking problem. Dumbledore used her problem to his advantage and that is simply shabby. A man of his intellect and charm does not have to use such a method to present a win-win proposal to Mrs Cole. A man of his moral standing should not use such methods. > > Ken: > > > > Remember that I brought this up because I think it is a scene > > where Dumbldore truly does show that he is human after all. > > I don't mean to discredit him. I believe that he does not have > > to be perfect to be the epitome of goodness. A perfect > > Dumbledore would be boring, unbelievable, and would have > > solved all the WW's problems by now > > Pippin: > But JKR called him the epitome of goodness because she > was making the point that she doesn't consider goodness > boring. He is not boring, IMO, not because of his flaws > but because he is forced to cope with the flawed world. Of > course if there were closer cooperation between Muggles > and Wizards then there would be an official procedure > for dealing with cases like Tom's. But there's not, so > Dumbledore improvises. Ken: I shifted gears here slightly without making that plain I suppose. When I said a perfect Dumbledore I meant a *perfect* Dumbledore. The entire conflict with LV that we see playing out in the HP books is predicated on the fact the DD took no effective action against him during those long years he was in limbo. There really is no plausible reason why LV would have any horcruxes left at the time we meet Harry in the first book except DD's failings to deal with the matter. Convincing Slughorn to part with the crucial memory surely would have been easier while LV was apparently gone from the scene for an indefinite time. A perfect DD would have done all that and left us without the central conflict of the series. He had LV at his complete mercy for a decade and did very little with the advantage. Goodness isn't boring but perfection is. > Pippin: > They are not going to repeal the statute of secrecy or > implement the rules you suggest just because Dumbledore > thinks it might be a good idea. He could magic them into > it, maybe. But that is what you object to in his treatment of > Mrs. Cole, is it not? > Ken: No repeal of the statute is necessary and I have never proposed it. I never suggested that DD would have solved his ethical dilemma by acting unethically towards the officials of the WW either. DD may or may not have had an official MoM policy he could have used to accomplish his mission with Mrs. Cole. We simply do not know and I rather doubt the author has thought much about the issue. We don't have to know to say that he acted unethically and possibly criminally in this situation. DD could have tried to convince Mrs Cole to release Tom to Hogwarts' care without using a forged document or a bottle of gin. He certainly could have obtained an offical document from Hogwarts making the offer. Such a document did not have to mention anything about magic. If the attempt failed, it failed. DD could have reported the failure to the MoM and suggested that cooperation with the PM's office would be helpful in such cases. They may or may not have taken his suggestion. It is entirely plausible that they would follow up on a good idea from a field agent. This is common practice in many organizations. But if they didn't a perfectly good DD would have left the matter in their hands and refused to violate his personal ethics if asked. DD did not *have* to act unethically, he *chose* to act unethically. He did not force Mrs Cole to drink gin at wand point, true, but no one forced *him* at wand point to forge the document or conjure the gin either. Ken From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 2 02:50:53 2006 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 02:50:53 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: snip> > Ken: > > I am well aware that Mrs Cole bears the greater share of the > blame for her drinking problem. Dumbledore used her problem > to his advantage and that is simply shabby. A man of his > intellect and charm does not have to use such a method to > present a win-win proposal to Mrs Cole. A man of his moral > standing should not use such methods. imamommy: I didn't read it that way at all. First, as far as we know, DD could have conjured a legal document. Just because he conjured it in Mrs. Cole's office instead of his own doesn't necessarily make it less valid or legal. Actually, he doesn't do anything of the sort. He shows her a blank piece of paper. It's still blank when he shows it to her, but the spell he casts is on her. "Mrs. Cole's eyes slid out of focus and back again as she gazed intently at the back of the paper for a moment." HBP, Scolastic p.265 So, maybe unethical if memory modification is not to your taste, but not forgery. Secondly, I never read it as DD exploiting Mrs. Cole's drinking to get her to release Tom Riddle. She's already said "'That seems perfectly in order'" to the blank piece of paper. He gets her liquored up to get information. He wants some insight into this new, unknown student's character, and he correctly perceives that she will not want to present TR in an unflattering light, when she is so close to sending him off, unless her tongue is loosened a bit. Also, consider that when DD wants or needs information, a little gin isn't such a horrible thing, when you consider what a skilled legilimans he is. He may have just invaded her mind with a spell, but at least this way he gave her a chance to be on reasonable footing. > > Ken: snip There really is no plausible reason why LV would have any horcruxes left at the time we meet Harry in the first book except DD's failings to deal with the matter. snip imamommy: Except that I don't think DD absolutely knew about the horcruxes until CoS: "'Four years ago, I received what I considered proof that Voldemort had split his soul.' snip 'A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere memory, sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had fallen? No, something more sinister had lived inside that book....a fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it. The diary had been a Horcrux.'" HBP, Scholastic p.500 DD goes on to say how concerning it was that a horcrux should show up in this way, to be cast so lightly about, and how this brought him around to thinking that there must be more horcruxes of LV around. So no, DD could not have hunted down all of the horcruxes before Harry came to Hogwarts, because he didn't yet know of their existence. Perhaps he had suspicions, but he didn't yet know. imamommy From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 03:20:42 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:20:42 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158973 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > > Ken: > > > > > > The issue isn't the use of magic, the issue is that Dumbledore > > > in this scene is doing the same things that any conniving > > > Muggle schemer would do. He uses a forged document > > > > Pippin: > > AFAIK, it's not forgery if there's no intent to defraud. Mrs. > > Cole is not cheated of anything. That the same methods could > > have used to cheat Mrs. Cole is irrelevant. > > > > Ken: > > That is an interesting attitude but I am quite certain that > forging an official document is in itself a criminal offense > in most cases. Dumbledore uses his forged document to > deceive Mrs. Cole into releasing a minor child into his > guardianship. How is that not fraudulent? How is that not > a serious crime? As it happens Dumbledore is a real > teacher at a real school that really is offering Tom an > education but that does not justify the means he used to > obtain Mrs. Cole's assent. He is using the methods a > pedophile might use to gain access to a child. Mike: Whoa, Dumbledore didn't forge anything. He used magic to convince Mrs. Cole that he had proper authorization to offer Tom a place at "his school", which he *did*. He used his magic to keep from revealing that "his school" was a school for witchcraft and wizaredry. Not to defraud anyone. You may call it being lazy. You may say that he should have convinced the current Minister of Magic to go to the present Prime Minister (would that have been Chamberlain? haha) to produce a different *false* document that claimed that Hogwarts is just an ordinary boarding school in Scotland. You may also blame Dumbledore for taking the easy way out for not affecting an endemic change between the WW and their RW. Sorry I'm not convinced that was or is a realistic expectation and, make no mistake, that is the scale of correction you are asking for. All to replace a little "confundus" (or the like) spell to protect the secrecy and, yes, to expedite matters. I just don't get this distaste for the use of magic by wizards. It's who they are, it's what they do, and if they aren't using it illegally or for dasterdly purposes, why do people find so much fault? This is the Potterverse after all, and although I'm sure JKR wants us to draw parallels to our world, I don't think it needs to be literal. > Ken: > > I am well aware that Mrs Cole bears the greater share of the > blame for her drinking problem. Dumbledore used her problem > to his advantage and that is simply shabby. A man of his > intellect and charm does not have to use such a method to > present a win-win proposal to Mrs Cole. A man of his moral > standing should not use such methods. Mike: Yeah, I can see your point here. This may have been a little underhanded on DD's part. I was thinking of what the norms of the time were and taking those into account I'd excused DD's method. I believe it is only fair to allow for differences in societal norms in how people acted in 1938, or maybe unfair to hold people of 1938 to our current standards. We may know better now, but maybe back then it was acceptable to have a few drinks over business. > > Pippin: > > > > They are not going to repeal the statute of secrecy or > > implement the rules you suggest just because Dumbledore > > thinks it might be a good idea. He could magic them into > > it, maybe. But that is what you object to in his treatment of > > Mrs. Cole, is it not? > > Ken: > > No repeal of the statute is necessary and I have never proposed > it. I never suggested that DD would have solved his ethical > dilemma by acting unethically towards the officials of the WW > either. DD may or may not have had an official MoM policy he > could have used to accomplish his mission with Mrs. Cole. We > simply do not know and I rather doubt the author has thought much > about the issue. Mike: Just for the record, I didn't think you were proposing this either. :-) > Ken: > We don't have to know to say that he acted unethically and > possibly criminally in this situation. DD could have tried > to convince Mrs Cole to release Tom to Hogwarts' care without > using a forged document or a bottle of gin. He certainly could > have obtained an offical document from Hogwarts making the > offer. Such a document did not have to mention anything about > magic. If the attempt failed, it failed. DD could have reported > the failure to the MoM and suggested that cooperation with the > PM's office would be helpful in such cases. > > They may or may not have taken his suggestion. It is entirely > plausible that they would follow up on a good idea from a field > agent. This is common practice in many organizations. But if they > didn't a perfectly good DD would have left the matter in their > hands and refused to violate his personal ethics if asked. > > DD did not *have* to act unethically, he *chose* to act > unethically. He did not force Mrs Cole to drink gin at wand point, > true, but no one forced *him* at wand point to forge the document > or conjure the gin either. Mike: I give you the gin (well not literally, it would make a mess of my keyboard). But, I disagree that DD was acting unethically and disagree that he forged documents. I find it both unrealistic and overly critical to expect DD to not use magic and to instead attempt to propagate all that you are suggesting above. From caaf at hotmail.com Sun Oct 1 21:10:18 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 21:10:18 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection - DD's best option In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158974 > a_svirn: > And just how does everybody know that Voldemort is missing? Aurors > wouldn't have known anything on the matter, as for death eaters why > on earth would they want to spread any rumours? To what purpose? > Surely without Voldemort they are less fearsome and more vulnerable. > If anything, they would want to keep his disappearance in secret for > as long as possible. And how do you think did they set about > spreading rumours without compromising themselves? Cyril: As I mentioned in my last post (#158847), the reason that the WW knows of the quick downfall of LV is because he leaves his *dead* body behind. > > > > Pippin: > > For your premises to be valid, a less flawed means of protection > > must exist. > > a_svirn: > I'd say Fidelius is no more flawed, than the blood protection. If > Dumbledore had problems with trusting people he could make himself a > secret-keeper. > Cyril here... Well, I also thought of the Fidelius being a better option. Esp if DD was the Secret Keeper. But DD's objective was to provide Harry a life protected as well as normal, as normal as he was able to provide. With these objectives - the FC has a couple of difficulties. a) If DD uses the Fidelius, then instead of Harry being away from the WW, he would be away from all worlds, WW and RW, hidden from everyone. b) Sure, DD could always tell those close to James and Lily (people expected to be Harry's wellwishers) the secret - therefore allowing him only a small circle of friends. However, I do not see this as a better option for Harry in any way. First - it means that he would not have a life of his own - it would be completely controlled by DD, without any choices. Second - there is always the threat that one of these friends would be the Spy and be able to hurt or kill Harry. James was betrayed by a friend. So, the FC surely does not seem like a better option, with these flaws inherent within it. So, DD use the Blood Protection to provide Harry a level of safety from LV and his DE's. It was not used to provide protection from other's (both from WW and RW). At the same time - DD does what he can to provide Harry with as normal a life as he can till he turns 11. What do we know about the protection? IMO, very little really. a) That LV or his followers (e.g. Quirell) cannot touch Harry without being themselves hurt. b) It provides protection as long as he can call Privet Drive his home. The proof here is in the pudding so to speak. Given that LV or his DE's have never ever tried to harm Harry at this location is proof enough for me that it works. LV himself says that even he cannot touch HP at Privet Drive. And as someone else posted earlier, them means that not him or his DE's can harm Harry here. c) IMO, there are other demonstrations of the Blood Protection. THe Blood Protection is based on Love as much if not more that it is based on blood. And this LOVE provides Harry more protection than probably even he knows. LV cannot possess Harry because of the Love within him, as LV found out to his surprise in the MoM battle. Is this a facet of the Blood Protection - just speculation on my part, but more likely than just a general power of love that anyone may have, and would not be unique to Harry. We have also seen Harry getting protected from Vernon who got quite a shock when he was holding Harry around the neck. Another example of this power being demonstrated is when Harry faced the Dementors in PoA, near the lake. He know he had done it and was therefore able to drive the Dementors away. But. IMO, the root of that ability was LOVE, which enabled a 13-year wizard to drive away numerous dementors. Sure there have been events that placed Harry in mortal danger over the last six years (at least), and Blood Protection did not provide him with any help there. But I do not see what other magic DD has which could have guaranteed Harry 100% safety, when DD could not provide the same to Harry's parents or even to himself. All we know is that the sacrifice that Lily made was so great that the AK cuse which had no countercurse was in fact rebounded onto its originator. That is surely very strong magic, something that even DD cannot beat, as demonstrated by Fawkes having to swallow the AK curse fired by LV on DD in the MoM. As of now, I have not seen any viable option provided to DD other than the Blood Protection. Cyril - who truly believes that DD had very few cards to play with that hight... and decided to play his Aces. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Mon Oct 2 04:52:07 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:52:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158975 Mike wrote: > And there is no way that Dumbledore could state positively that > Snape didn't hear the whole prophesy. But, Dumbledore told us that > he only heard the first part. He could have told Harry that Snape > only heard the last part, the last sentence is essentially a repeat > of the first sentence (it wouldn't include the "thrice defied" part, > though). Abergoat writes: This is the only part I take issue with. We saw a spell used in OotP that seals a room from Harry and the Weasley children listening in on an Order meeting. It is conceivable that Dumbledore, after the seventh month bit, realizes that the prophecy cannot refer to Snape and thus Snape is now an eavesdropper, not an involved party. Hence Dumbledore seals the room after the completion of this phrase. If true, Dumbledore can say with absolute certainty in HBP's spider filled broomshed that he and Harry are the only two people that know the full contents of the prophecy. I tried to get the Red Hen interested in this idea but no luck. Perhaps if I can get some of you interested then Red Hen will consider it ;) Abergoat From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 06:20:14 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:20:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158976 > Mike wrote: > > > And there is no way that Dumbledore could state positively that > > Snape didn't hear the whole prophesy. But, Dumbledore told us that he only heard the first part. He could have told Harry that Snape only heard the last part, the last sentence is essentially a repeat of the first sentence (it wouldn't include the "thrice defied" part, though). > Abergoat writes: > > This is the only part I take issue with. We saw a spell used in OotP that seals a room from Harry and the Weasley children listening in on an Order meeting. It is conceivable that Dumbledore, after the seventh month bit, realizes that the prophecy cannot refer to Snape and thus Snape is now an eavesdropper, not an involved party. Hence Dumbledore seals the room after the completion of this phrase. > > If true, Dumbledore can say with absolute certainty in HBP's spider > filled broomshed that he and Harry are the only two people that know the full contents of the prophecy. > Tonks: There are different possibilities here: This could just be a mistake on the part of the author. Remember that JKR said there was a small detail that she wished that she had done differently and that it caused some problems later. I think she was talking about something else, but it could have been this. Or as you say, maybe DD used a spell to seal the room. Lets say that it took DD a few seconds to realize what was happening to Sybil and how important it was. He would have realized that he was not in the most secure location and sealed the room and maybe did a muffeotus spell so anyone outside would not hear. In that way it would be possible for someone to hear the first part, but not the rest and still be just outside the room. Tonks_op From technomad at intergate.com Mon Oct 2 08:53:28 2006 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 03:53:28 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore's decisions---and Harry's, and everybody else's Message-ID: <001f01c6e600$3bf665f0$64560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 158977 One thing that I think a lot of us on this list tend to forget is that, _in the books,_ Dumbledore doesn't have endless hours to ruminate over the best possible decision to make in a particular situation. Neither does Harry. They have to act _now,_ not after chewing the whole thing over for hours, and getting input from several thousand obsessive fans. On this list, we have endless time to think things through, and what one of us doesn't think of, several (dozen) others will. The characters in the book don't have this luxury. They often have to improvise on the fly, and don't have our advantage of knowing what's going on in other places. I will admit, Dumbledore could have handled Mrs. Cole better. However, I wonder how often _this_ particular situation (magical child raised in a Muggle orphanage) has come up? I'd guess that most, if not all, magical children are raised by their parents, (Muggle or magical) and that being abandoned as thoroughly as Young Tom was is extremely unusual. Dumbledore could also have been operating on experience that was decades out of date---he was already nearly a century old when he went to get Young Tom Riddle, and what he knew of orphanages might well have dated from the time when Queen Victoria was newly widowed. One big, big disadvantage of the cloistered lives that the magical folk lead is that their knowledge (if any; I do remember Archie at the QWC) of how the Muggle world operates can get very dated if they don't make a conscious effort to keep up with the times. I've known of Americans who were startled upon visiting Britain to find that it wasn't really much like the Britain they were expecting---they were expecting something like the Agatha Christie books, or Peter Wimsey, if not (at least subconsciously) the Sherlock Holmes stories. Within my own lifetime, Britain has changed hugely (and, I would say, mostly for the worse, but that's neither here nor there) so imagine how much change someone like Dumbledore has seen. And Dumbledore _should have_ kept a closer eye on the Dursley situation. While I will not defend his neglect (he does not do so himself) let's keep in mind that he did have quite a few other things on his plate. Right after Harry was dropped off, he had to deal with "Lord Voldemort's followers," many of whom he admits were almost as powerful and evil as their master. I imagine that a good percentage of those people didn't want to come along quietly and would have scorned to use the "I was Imperiused!" defense---think Bella Lestrange, only more so. The Wizengamot must have been running on triple overtime to sort these cases out, and many of the defendants would have had powerful influence to bring to bear to keep from conviction, as well as a lot better knowledge of how WW "trials" operate than poor Harry did in OotP. (Incidentally, I am still slightly shocked at how such trials seem to be run---Rumpole of the Bailey would go absolutely spare at the thought of allowing a defendant to appear without a barrister!) In addition, he had a school to run, which would be a full-time job in itself, and I expect that he had to deal with the effects of Voldemort War I on the school---for all we know (oh! for a copy of _Hogwarts: A History!_) some of the teachers might have been implicated and need to be defended and/or replaced, quite a few students may have lost family members, and so on and so forth. He may have hoped that the Dursleys would bond with Young Harry. Their failings with Dudley do not come from malice, after all, so much as from misplaced and excessive love. Personally, I would have said that if they _had_ bonded with little Harry, he might well _have_ arrived at Hogwarts a "pamepered young prince,"---I have had fun imagining how Dudley would have done at Hogwarts, what with his bullying tendencies. A Dursleyized Harry could have out-Draco Malfoy'd Draco Malfoy, and tyrannized the school to an extent that made his father's worst excesses look like nothing at all. He should have had a closer eye on the situation _chez_ Dursley, but I don't know what he could do, particularly if Harry _had to_ stay with them to come under the blood protection. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 10:15:04 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:15:04 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158978 > a_svirn: > That's interesting. So if I show a fake id to an immigration officer > do I cheat him of anything? It's not like I deprive them of money or > property. > Pippin: Well, you'd be cheating everyone in the country including the officer by depriving them of the ability to regulate their borders. a_svirn: And Dumbledore cheated Mrs. Cole of her ability to regulate her orphanage. Pippin: But if you are the immigration officer, and you know that the foreign and uneducated people you're dealing with would be bewildered by your actual credentials but will understand a fake tin star, would you be defrauding them by using it? a_svirn: Setting aside the underlying arrogance of that example and its doubtful relevance to the Dumbledore-Cole situation, would you mind explaining just what an immigration officer could use a tin star for? Then I could decide whether such actions can be qualified as defrauding. Although, to be accurate, we where discussing forgery, not defrauding. Pippin: Who's to say that the Order wouldn't have been able to stop the DE invasion in its tracks if they hadn't had students to defend? They might never have needed to send for Snape. a_svirn: I don't remember from canon that members of the order defended students in HBP. I remember that they were fighting together as equals. Better even, thanks to Harry's forethought (I guess, Bill could use the lucky potion that night). And from what Tonks said they were rather relieved to see Snape at first. Besides, whether or not phoenixes could stop the invasion, surely, Dumbledore's place should have been in his school when the invasion occurred. If only he listened to Harry he would have been there. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 10:23:06 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:23:06 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158979 Cyril: As I mentioned in my last post (#158847), the reason that the WW knows of the quick downfall of LV is because he leaves his *dead* body behind. a_svirn: That's possible, but not likely, I'd say. No one has ever mentioned anything about the body. And, surely, that would have been the most obvious argument for Fudge and Co to use. And Rowling is careful to use "he's gone" instead he "died". She used the same formula for Sirius and in that case a body was also absent. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Oct 2 10:50:32 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 10:50:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158980 > > Mike wrote: > > > > > And there is no way that Dumbledore could state positively that Snape didn't hear the whole prophesy. But, Dumbledore told us > that he only heard the first part. He could have told Harry that > Snape only heard the last part, the last sentence is essentially a > repeat of the first sentence (it wouldn't include the "thrice > defied" part, though). > > > Abergoat writes: > > > > This is the only part I take issue with. We saw a spell used in > OotP that seals a room from Harry and the Weasley children listening in on an Order meeting. It is conceivable that Dumbledore, after the seventh month bit, realizes that the prophecy cannot refer to Snape and thus Snape is now an eavesdropper, not an involved party. Hence Dumbledore seals the room after the completion of this phrase. > > > > If true, Dumbledore can say with absolute certainty in HBP's spider filled broomshed that he and Harry are the only two people that know the full contents of the prophecy. > > > > Tonks: > This could just be a mistake on the part of the author. > Or as you say, maybe DD used a spell to seal the room. Dungrollin: Personally I think everyone's forgotten the most obvious thing, which is that we don't know when Snape learned Occlumency, nor do we know who taught him (though I think most people would agree it comes down to a choice between DD and Voldy, and probably how you answer this question tells us which side of the DDM/ESE fence you sit.) It's also possible that as Snape is listening at the door, Aberforth interrupts and challenges him, preventing Snape from hearing the end of the prophecy. Aberforth is unsatisfied with Snape's stammering that he came the wrong way up the stairs (and let's face it, how un- Snapeish is that pathetic excuse? - it suggests to me that he's *not* used to all this cloak and dagger stuff yet, he really is just a young naive DE) and just as Sybil finishes the prophecy, Aberforth flings open the door, revealing Snape to Trelawney and DD. DD tells Aberforth to hold onto Snape until his interview with Trelawney is finished, and it is then that DD realises with the help of Legilimency that Snape is not lying when he says he only heard the first part of the prophecy, or alternatively DD can tell that Snape *is* lying when he claims to have heard all of it and would be rushing off to tell his master directly. A year (or whatever) later, when Snape returns to DD to convince him that he's really genuinely not on Voldy's side any more, DD says "ok you can spy for me, but first we've got to do something about your appallingly amateurish ability to lie. Now close your eyes and empty your mind..." Well, I like it, anyway. Dung From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 2 11:00:21 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:00:21 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158981 > Alla: > I mean for some reason I thought that Minerva had her own reasons to > trust Snape, sigh. Potioncat: Well, keep in mind, it wasn't that they were all blindly trusting Snape for 15 years. They only found out in GoF (2 years ago) that Snape had been a DE. by the time they find out, he is already back in LV's fold and reporting LV's plan to them. Let's say that while they may have felt uncomfortable with the idea, they had no real reason to distrust him until Harry announces that he saw Snape kill DD. They may have wondered among themselves, but we don't know if any of them point blank asked DD what made his trust Snape 15 years prior. I'm certain that during career advice when Minerva smiles at Harry's discomfort over having to take potions, that she does not have any real doubts about Snape. Alla: > I think actually that I loved Slughorn's reaction the most ( I > thought I knew him - very lovely, not I thought DD had his reasons > and then Ooops). Potioncat: It is just now that I realise Slughorn may not know Snape ever was a DE. The Order members know, Fudge knows. Who else does? I've been wondering which Snape Slughorn thought he knew? The one who became a DE after Hogwarts or the one who was loyal to DD? This is the same Slughorn who was encouraging Riddle to to into the MoM and would have written letters for him. Slughorn knew Riddle was interested in the most horrible of Dark Magic. Yet he would have spoken up for him. What did he know about Snape? Does he really know anything about his students? He doesn't know Ron's name. He thinks Harry really is good at potions. No, I thought Slughorn was trying to cover his---asphodel. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 2 11:14:02 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:14:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158982 > Dungrollin: snip - it suggests to me that he's > *not* used to all this cloak and dagger stuff yet, he really is just > a young naive DE) and just as Sybil finishes the prophecy, Aberforth > flings open the door, revealing Snape to Trelawney and DD. > > DD tells Aberforth to hold onto Snape until his interview with > Trelawney is finished, and it is then that DD realises with the help > of Legilimency that Snape is not lying when he says he only heard > the first part of the prophecy, or alternatively DD can tell that > Snape *is* lying when he claims to have heard all of it and would be > rushing off to tell his master directly. Potioncat: Yes. I like it. > Dung: > A year (or whatever) later, when Snape returns to DD to convince him > that he's really genuinely not on Voldy's side any more, DD says "ok > you can spy for me, but first we've got to do something about your > appallingly amateurish ability to lie. Now close your eyes and empty > your mind..." Potioncat: The only problem with this part is that Snape would have had to be an Occlumens already. I doubt he could have survived while he was learning Occlumency from DD. LV would have picked it up just like Snape did with Draco. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Oct 2 12:03:47 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:03:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158983 > > Dung: > > A year (or whatever) later, when Snape returns to DD to convince > him that he's really genuinely not on Voldy's side any more, DD > says "ok you can spy for me, but first we've got to do something about your appallingly amateurish ability to lie. Now close your eyes and empty your mind..." > > Potioncat: > The only problem with this part is that Snape would have had to be an Occlumens already. I doubt he could have survived while he was > learning Occlumency from DD. LV would have picked it up just like > Snape did with Draco. > Dungrollin: Not necessarily, since the timing of Snape's conversion is still up in the air. We know that Snape was teaching Potions at Hogwarts before Voldy fell, and we know that it was Voldy himself who sent him to try to secure the DADA job so that he could spy on DD. At the time of the prophecy, I reckon DD must have realised that Snape was a DE, even if nobody else did (and apparently nobody else *did*). I think DD was unlikely to give Snape a job knowing that he was a spy, I think the potions job came at the same time as his conversion. Which would have given Snape a good excuse to not visit Voldy while he was honing his Occlumency skills. (Got to stay at Hogwarts to keep his cover.) In fact, he may not even have seen Voldy between his decision to turn spy for DD and the graveyard after Voldy's rebirth, over a decade later. So the DE Voldy sent to spy on DD and the double agent Voldy was running throughout OotP and HBP could have been very different people. Just saying it's possible, that's all. Dung. From foodiedb at optonline.net Mon Oct 2 03:18:15 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 03:18:15 -0000 Subject: Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158984 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dillgravy" wrote: > > I was hoping to start a discussion on Dementors and their possible origins. Do we know how > they came to be? Were they ever human? They aren't "beasts" because they're not mentioned > in the "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". David writes: I think I remember JKR saying something like they grow like fungi in the darkest, dankest places, and that their growth creates a thick cold fog. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 15:56:58 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 15:56:58 -0000 Subject: More thoughts on the Cloak In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158985 Carol earlier: > > > You've ignored my point about the chains on the chair binding Barty Jr. ("the chained boy") as they bound Karkaroff but did not bind Ludo Bagman (or Harry in OoP). > > Abergoat responds: > I didn't mean to ignore anything - but I don't view how Barty was > chained to mean anything other than he did not have powerful friends, unlike Ludo. Just because Stan Stunpike is in jail doesn't make him guilty, so just because Barty was in chains and Ludo wasn't doesn't make Barty guilty and Ludo innocent. > > Carol wrote: > And Bellatrix, who would never credit someone who wasn't a loyal DE with helping her to find Voldemort and torture the Longbottoms, says "We alone were faithful. The Dark Lord will reward us above all others" (quoted from memory). "We" seems to include not only the Lestrange brothers but Barty Jr. If Barty weren't one of the people who accompanied her and helped her torture the Longbottoms, surely she would have excluded him from her claim to "glory." > > Aberogoat writes: > I see it differently. I see Bella thinking it was a badge of honor to go to jail for having been a Death Eater. She wouldn't give Barty's > innocence of the Longbottoms crime a second thought. He was a Death > Eater and he shouldn't be wimpering about innocence, he should go to > jail proud of what his 'leader' stood for. Carol responds: "We alone were loyal. We alone tried to find him" includes Barty Jr., as does "We will be honored above all others." Bella would have said "*This* little scum didn't go with us to get information from the Longbottoms" if he hadn't been with them and participated in the crime--as his subsequent actions (the prolonged Crucio of the Longbottomw and his cruel anticipation of Neville's reaction so he could give him tea and the book after class) also indicate that he did. How do you explain his otherwise unaccountable cruelty to Neville--knowing that the Longbottoms were Cruciod'd into insanity and using that knowledge to upset the boy so badly that he'd need tea and sympathy (and a book on magical water plants) afterwards if he didn't actually participate in that horrendous action? (Note that he was afterwards found in the company of the Lestranges--why, if he wasn't their follower, equally loyal to Voldemort and equally determined to find them? the other DEs were busy making themselves look innocent and disassociating themselves with LV.) As for the chairs, they bind people Karkaroff, the Lestranges, and Barty Jr. They don't bind Ludo Bagman nor do they bind Harry during his hearing (though they do rattle menacingly, presumably because he did cast the Patronus Charm). I take this to mean that the chains magically sense who is guilty and who is not. I could be wrong, of course, by why wouldn't the chains magically bind everyone if they couldn't sense guilt or even degrees of guilt, as in Harry's case? (The action of the chains is independent of Ludo Bagman's "powerful friends," by which I assume you mean the jury, who were more like fans than powerful protectors. And you seem to think that Bagman is guilty of something more than innocently passing information to someone he thought was on the good side, but the only evidence for that is Mr. Crouch's opinion of him. The real Mad-Eye doesn't think he's guilty, only rather dim-witted.) Also, you haven't explained how Barty could have learned the Unforgiveable Curses (I don't just mean the words but whatever else is needed to cast them) while he was under the Invisibility Cloak. He must have learned and practiced them as a DE. Notice that he tells his students that he isn't going to tell them how to cast the spells, yet he uses the words right in front of them. Something beyond the incantation or even power and will is required to do it right, including, for Crucio, the enjoyment of inflicting pain--which he clearly demonstrates in inflicting the curses on the spiders in Harry's class and in controlling the students. (It's interesting that Snape, IMO the best DADA teacher Harry ever had, didn't find it necessary to cast the spells on the students. He just showed them the effects of Dark Magic through posters and made them read and research the topic and write essays.) Carol, noting that JKR would surely have objected to the film depiction of Barty Jr. as guilty if she meant him to be viewed as an innocent victim of injustice like Stan Shunpike From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 2 15:48:23 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 10:48:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: References: <007f01c6e5a5$2b02dbd0$0b86400c@Spot> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610020848t36f6e2a1h3d912af05ee8c72e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158986 > > > a_svirn: > > However, the blood projection thing, or, say, that wonderful > Voldemort-baiting plan in OOP was another matter entirely. Here > Dumbledore again didn't share his plans and intentions with other > phoenixes, and he didn't have the same excuse as with Snape. Yet, it > didn't seem to occur to anyone to question his dictatorial style. > (Except, probably, for Sirius ? again). They all adopted an attitude > that can be summed up in Lupin's words "It isn't our business to > know, it's Dumbledore's business". And it's just, well, weak. To say > the least. montims: but he was, wasn't he, the commander of their (unofficial) army? That being (if so) the case, you don't question your commander's decisions or actions or orders - it's not a democracy, it's a chain of command. And yes, he should have an appointed second in command, but even that person is supposed to obey without question. He was considered, rightly or wrongly, to be the greatest wizard of his time, and he had defeated Grindelwald. He was also charismatic - kind of the WW Winston Churchill. With hindsight, we can criticise Winston, but at the time he was instrumental in keeping Britain free, and upholding morale. Leading myself off on to a digression - assuming DD didn't actually kill Grindelwald, could he be in Azkaban now or in the past? Would he have been Kissed? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 16:01:34 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:01:34 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158987 > zgirnius: > The language used by Dumbledore in PS/SS in no way suggests there was > magic involved in Snape's sense of indebtedness to James, and its > motivating him to save Harry. We are using the term 'life-debt' and > thinking of it in magical terms because of Dumbledore's comments > regarding Harry and Peter in PoA. We could get lots and lots of > clarification on Peter and how that debt worked (as promised in the > interview snipped), without getting anything more on Snape's sense of > indebtedness. Then we could conclude that, in fact, that is all it was. > Neri: Even assuming that there was nothing magical about Snape's sense of indebtedness to James, Dumbledore does say that it motivated Snape to save Harry in SS/PS. This was about 15 years or more after James had saved Snape's life. So it would be very strange for JKR to claim that it wasn't a motivation in Snape's trying to save James just about five years after James saved him. And Dumbledore does use a general statement in PoA. He says "when one wizard saves the life of another, a certain bond is created between them". He could have easily said "when you saved Pettigrew's life, a certain bond was created between you", but he didn't. And both statements, the one in SS/PS about Snape's debt and the one in PoA about Peter's debt, were made in Dumbledore's end-of-the-year lectures. This isn't just usual canon, it's high-grade canon. The best there is. Let me ask it this way: why has JKR needed at all that part in her plot where James saves Snape's life? If we have LOLLIPOPS then James saving Snape's life seems completely redundant plotting. Even if JKR still wanted to have "the prank" as another reason for Snape to hate the Marauders, she could have easily made Snape save himself, by running away and escaping werewolf!Lupin in a nick of time. Why did she make James go down there and save him? Just so that 15 years or so after that Snape would suddenly remember it and think: "yes, I did turn because my love of Lily, but just this year I'm going to save Harry in order to be quit with James, and next year it's business as usual, back to saving Harry because I loved Lily"? > Julie: > > > It's canon that Snape *did* have a life-debt to James, as we > were told in both PS/SS and POA, and it probably did play some > role in Snape informing Dumbledore about Voldemort's plans. Neri: This is exactly my point. Even if we are told in Book 7 that Snape loved Lily, we won't know what part each of the two motivations ? the debt and his love ? played in his decision to tell Dumbledore about Voldemort's plans (assuming he did). We wouldn't even know after the end of the series, since we don't get to look into Snape's head. We already have the debt motivation, so if you add the Lily motivation Snape will always stay ambiguous. The only way to solve the ambiguity would be if JKR would tell us outside the books: "it was mainly his love of Lily and the debt was only secondary" or something like that, and this doesn't strikes me like very good writing. > Julie: > But if we get another deeper reason for Snape turning (he loved > Lily, he couldn't stomach the killing of innocents, he wanted > revenge on Voldemort for the death of his parents, etc, etc), > I won't be bothered if this particular life-debt is never > brought up again, and plays no role beyond what it has already > played. After all, an emotionally-charged reason for a life- > altering switch in loyalties is far more interesting and > character-defining than a forced switch in loyalties due to > the compulsion of magic! > Neri: Erm the debt plot *is* emotionally-charged. JKR has been charging it devotedly throughout the series. She *hasn't* been emotionally charging LOLLIPOPS, except for that single "mudblood". And a life-altering switch that happened off page 17 years ago would be backstory. Would it be more interesting than a life-altering switch that happens in real time, on page in Book 7? Neri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 16:10:41 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:10:41 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610020848t36f6e2a1h3d912af05ee8c72e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158988 > montims: > but he was, wasn't he, the commander of their (unofficial) army? That being > (if so) the case, you don't question your commander's decisions or actions > or orders - it's not a democracy, it's a chain of command. And yes, he > should have an appointed second in command, but even that person is supposed > to obey without question. He was considered, rightly or wrongly, to be the > greatest wizard of his time, and he had defeated Grindelwald. He was also > charismatic - kind of the WW Winston Churchill. With hindsight, we can > criticise Winston, but at the time he was instrumental in keeping Britain > free, and upholding morale. Alla: Mmmm, Dumbledore is their leader,yes, leader of the resistance,yes, again, but I thought that the fact that Order is not an official army adds a lot of ambiguity as to obey without question attitude. I would think that if we see so clearly that Voldemort requires that very attitude from his DE IMO, that is something that Light side would not want to follow? I mean, certainly unquestionable orders should be obeyed I suppose, but the orders that do raise questions? I don't know. And here we see again how Dumbledore different hats get in conflict IMO. He is not only Leader of the resistance, he is also Headmaster of the school, and his constant absences from school that theoretically leave his students more open to attacks are IMO meant to be questioned. Him keeping the events of the prophecy from Harry in OOP is done because he wanted to spare Harry from extra pain supposedly, so it is meant to be questioned as well ( and as we see Sirius wanted to do the very thing Dumbledore admitted he needed to do - tell Harry). I mean, I suppose if the only Hat Dumbledore wore was the leader of the resistance, I guess more of his orders were supposed to obey without question ( still not all, I would say, I don't have much experience with the army, basically none :), but won't the soldier be excused if he refused to obey stupid order, order that will harm him and/or his comrades for no reason? I don't mean the order to fight, obviously, but something really stupid and unnecessary?) I am not sure if Dumbledore wanted to be a dictator and IMO him stepping aside on other occasions as Headmaster,etc and letting people make their own choices shows that, but IMO yes, his orders should had been questioned much much more than Churchill's were, because being a prime minister was his only hat, no? > Leading myself off on to a digression - assuming DD didn't actually kill > Grindelwald, could he be in Azkaban now or in the past? Would he have been > Kissed? > Alla: I don't think that Grindelwald was killed either. I think the word **defeated** was used on purpose, but where is he now, I have no clue. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 2 16:03:42 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:03:42 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? (and a bit of GoF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158989 Carol wrote in Post 157954: (snip) > It seems to me that we've said all we can say for the moment about HBP > and it might be fun to look at a different book, one for which the > mystery (Voldemort's "weapon") seems to be fully resolved, and see > what's introduced there that might prove important. Kreacher, for one. > And maybe Tonks' abilities as a Metamorphmagus. And how about Ragnok > the goblin? Potioncat: Inspired by this post, I began re-reading OoP. It's hard to stay focused; I still get caught up in the story and have those "Wow, I didn't catch that before!" moments. To add to my confusion (and you know I don't need any additions to my confusion) I'm reading OoP myself and listening to GoF with my son. Not sure about sub-plots. JKR did say that she had to move Harry around and that took time. So she wasn't content to just say, "DD sent for Harry and he arrived by broom the next day." She had the entire chapter about the Advance Guard and we learn a bit about Andromeda and Ted and so on. So it will be hard to say how much of OoP is just for the mechanics of OoP, and how much is for the overall plot of the series. By chapter 15 a few things have jumped out at me. First is another parallel between Snape and Harry. By chp 13 Harry is upset because no one seems to believe he fought LV. Hermione is explaining that they hadn't seen what happened in the maze. "We just had DD's word for it that You-Know-Who had come back and killed Cedric and fought you." Harry insists it's true and Hermione says she knows it. So here it is, DD's word for Harry and DD's word for Snape. The other thing is that Draco knows a lot. He makes the "dog your steps" comment--indicating he knows about Sirius. He later says Hagrid took on something too "big" for him. which I think means he knows Hagrid went to the giants. It seems he's more in his father's confidence than I would have thought and in retrospect indicates he was nearing membership in the DE. Is anyone else reading OoP? Any other catches? And--I'll toss a GoF catch in. Sirius and Harry are discussing Karkaroff before the first challenge. Sirius says Karkaroff is a good actor--he would have to be to convince the MoM to let him off. It reminded me quite a bit about Snape's comment about knowing how to act. Does JKR have something against actors? The funny thing is, Sirius says Karkaroff put lots of DEs in prison and they were very mad at him. Yet we didn't see that in the Pensieve. He only came up with one new name. So--is Sirius wrong? Did someone else name names that Karkaroff was credited/blamed for? From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 2 16:14:44 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 11:14:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610020914n69542290kf72862c94848743c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 158990 > a_svirn: > > Besides, whether or not phoenixes could stop the invasion, surely, > Dumbledore's place should have been in his school when the invasion > occurred. If only he listened to Harry he would have been there. montims: and isn't it ironic that the night planned for the invasion was the night DD just HAD to go along and retrieve the horcrux (which wasn't going anywhere, and in fact turned out not to be the genuine article, although he couldn't have known that). I do wonder how that night would have played out if Harry and DD hadn't left Hogwarts... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 16:22:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:22:52 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158991 > > a_svirn: > > Actually, the events of HBP demonstrated that that's exactly the > > wrong attitude. It's no thanks to Dumbledore that his students are > > still alive. It's because Harry didn't do as he was bid and took > > necessarily precautions. > > > Alla: > > Yes, a_svirn, I agree and I still keep hoping and keeping my fingers > crossed that one of the lessons of the books would be that second > hand trust, even in the wise and powerful leader is wrong, that > people should be thinking for themselves. > > I am preparing the discussion for chapter 25 and I so laughed > through tears when I reread this quote ( I would have said Duh!, if > Dumbledore would not be so dead and would not have paid the highest > price). > > "Do you think that I have once left the school unprotected during my > absences this year? I have not. Tonight, when I leave there will be > additional protection in place. Please do not suggest that I do not > take the safety of my students seriously, Harry." - HBP, p.550, > paperback. > > Rrrrright, Headmaster - very seriously indeed. :( > > In any event - there is actually a question I want to ask here > instead of saving it for this chapter discussion. > > I know we discussed this one over and over, but I am drawing a > blank, what were the suggestions about the *additional protection** > Dumbledore is talking about? > > Help me or send me a link to relevant post, pretty please? :) Carol responds: True, Harry had his friends take Felix Felicis and watch the RoR, but what good did it do except to involve them unnecessarily in the battle? Granted, since they werre there, it's a good thing they took the Felix, but did they actually need to be there? Luna (who, IIRC, didn't even take the potion) and Hermione merely took the Stunned Flitwick up to the hospital wing (I don't believe for a moment that Snape would have killed them if Hermione hadn't taken the potion). Ron, Ginny, and Neville (who was injured) did fight in the battle, but I'm not sure how much difference their contribution made. Draco tossed the Peruvian darkness powder so that they couldn't follow him, but theb DEs encountered the Order members, which delayed their going up on the tower but had little to do with Harry's friends (who would might have been killed or injured by the DEs if they hadn't taken the Felix, but again didn't need to be there). Neither the Order members nor Harry's friends could penetrate the spell that blocked the stairs to the tower. So what did Harry's precautions accomplish besides endangering his friends? Even the death of the DE who cast the Dark Mark was the result of a fellow DE's clumsy incompetence (or maybe we can credit that one to Felix Felicis). But as far as I can see, the presence of Harry's friends made no difference to the outcome. It didn't save Dumbledore or even prevent Hagrid's house from being burned. As for extra precautions, we know that the Order members were where they needed to be to fight the Death Eaters (Snape excepted--IMO, DD didn't want him involved in the fighting because it would blow his cover). And we know that he had an anti-flying spell placed on Hogwarts that he had to (temporarily?) remove so that he and Harry could get to the tower. There may be additional protections like the ones that Snape mentions in OoP protecting the students and staff of Hogwarts. It's interesting that Bill Weasley, no longer a student and not a teacher, is the only one on the good side who's seriously injured. (Neville's and Flitwick's injuries are minor.) And I assume that the locks on the gates are still in place--either they don't prevent people from leaving, only from entering, or Snape released the locks so that he and the DEs and Draco could get off the grounds. I don't know how much Dumbledore anticipated, but I do know that he knew Draco was planning to kill him, and he knew what Harry had told him, that Draco had accomplished whatever he was trying to do in the RoR. I'm guessing that Dumbledore knew there would be only one death that night, and it would be his. Carol, who agrees with Dumbledore that he would not leave the school unprotected--he knew that Draco's target, and that of the DEs, was himself and not the students (except Draco and maybe Harry) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 16:53:25 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 16:53:25 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158992 Ken wrote: > > That is an interesting attitude but I am quite certain that > forging an official document is in itself a criminal offense > in most cases. Dumbledore uses his forged document to > deceive Mrs. Cole into releasing a minor child into his > guardianship. How is that not fraudulent? How is that not > a serious crime? As it happens Dumbledore is a real > teacher at a real school that really is offering Tom an > education but that does not justify the means he used to > obtain Mrs. Cole's assent. He is using the methods a > pedophile might use to gain access to a child. Carol responds: Sorry to snip the rest of your post, but I just want to point out that there's no forged document, only a spell on a piece of paper that causes Mrs. Cole to see what she thinks should be there for the documents to be in order. There's really no other way that I can see for Dumbledore to get Tom to Hogwarts, where he has to be so he can learn to control his magic, especially if there's evidence that he's been using it to abuse other children. Since DD has no choice but to prevent Mrs. Cole from knowing the truth (I see no way that he could obtain genuine documents. Fudge isn't MoM yet, so there may not even be any communication between the MoM and the Muggle Prime Minister), and she probably wouldn't believe official documents authorizing Tom's attendance at the Hogwarts School for witchcraft and Wizardry, anyway, it seems to me that Dumbledore's "crime" here is pretty minor. In this case, whethe Dumbledore and JKR generally approve the principle or not, the end justifies the means. No harm came to Mrs. Cole, and it was certainly for the good of the children in the orphanage to get Tom away from there for ten months of each year. Carol, not trying to get into an OT philosophical discussion, only to state once again that DD in this instance had no choice (and could have been much more forceful if he were less respectful of Muggles than he is) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 17:30:18 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:30:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158993 > Dungrollin: > Not necessarily, since the timing of Snape's conversion is still > up in the air. > > We know that Snape was teaching Potions at Hogwarts before Voldy > fell, and we know that it was Voldy himself who sent him to try to > secure the DADA job so that he could spy on DD. > > At the time of the prophecy, I reckon DD must have realised that > Snape was a DE, even if nobody else did (and apparently nobody else > *did*). I think DD was unlikely to give Snape a job knowing that he > was a spy, I think the potions job came at the same time as his > conversion. > > Which would have given Snape a good excuse to not visit Voldy while > he was honing his Occlumency skills. (Got to stay at Hogwarts to > keep his cover.) In fact, he may not even have seen Voldy between > his decision to turn spy for DD and the graveyard after Voldy's > rebirth, over a decade later. So the DE Voldy sent to spy on DD and > the double agent Voldy was running throughout OotP and HBP could > have been very different people. > > Just saying it's possible, that's all. > > Dung. > Carol responds: I agree that Dumbledore taught Snape Occlumency (or helped him refine Occlumency skills he already possessed so that he could become a "superb Occlumens" rather than an ordinary on), but I disagree that he became a spy for Dumbledore at the same time he became a teacher. The spying must have come first, beginning at about the time that Snape found out "how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy" and that LV intended to come after either one or two innocent babies (and their parents). Otherwise, young Snape could not have spied on Voldemort "at great personal risk." He had to be outside of Hogwarts, risking his very life among the DEs for that statement to make sense. Once he was Potions master, the risk was greatly diminished and spying on the DEs and LV was impossible. He was supposed to be spying on *Dumbledore* for LV. Carol, again stating her view that one reason Dumbledore hired young Snape as Potions Master (but not for the cursed DADA position) was for Snape's own protection, pulling him out of the dangerous role as spy, through which he had already proved his loyalty and courage) From caaf at hotmail.com Mon Oct 2 17:51:23 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:51:23 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158994 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > Cyril: > As I mentioned in my last post (#158847), the reason that the WW knows > of the quick downfall of LV is because he leaves his *dead* body behind. > > a_svirn: > That's possible, but not likely, I'd say. No one has ever mentioned > anything about the body. And, surely, that would have been the most > obvious argument for Fudge and Co to use. And Rowling is careful to > use "he's gone" instead he "died". She used the same formula for > Sirius and in that case a body was also absent. > Cyril: LV himself mentioned that he was ripped from his body, after his rebirthing. He never said his body was destroyed. At the time, nobody know how LV had gone - but they know he was gone. The simplest and most logical explanation I can find which has some canon support is that his body was there. I believe Rowling uses her words very carefully, because she knows that he is not dead. But as far as the WW knows (with few exceptions), they believe him to be dead. Even many of his faithful DE's believed him to be dead. IMO, with Sirius, the picture is very different. Siring was not AK's, given the red light he was hit with, instead of green light. It is also not clear if it was the curse that killed him, or because he went behind the veil. The reason we do not have a body is because he passed through the veil - and given our little knowledge about that, we cannot equate it to what happened to LV. Cyril. From caaf at hotmail.com Mon Oct 2 18:08:31 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 18:08:31 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610020914n69542290kf72862c94848743c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158995 > > a_svirn: > > > > Besides, whether or not phoenixes could stop the invasion, surely, > > Dumbledore's place should have been in his school when the invasion > > occurred. If only he listened to Harry he would have been there. > > > montims: > and isn't it ironic that the night planned for the invasion was the night DD > just HAD to go along and retrieve the horcrux (which wasn't going anywhere, > and in fact turned out not to be the genuine article, although he couldn't > have known that). I do wonder how that night would have played out if Harry > and DD hadn't left Hogwarts... > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Cyril, I think the ironic part was that Draco has cracked the puzzle of the cabinet that night. He already had everything else ready, including Rosmerta letting him know when DD had gone further than just Hogsmeade. So, if not that night, Draco could probably have waited for the next instance. This brings me to another thought (and this may already have been covered earlier) - maybe the reason that the DE's that came to Hogwarts that night were second-grade particularly because they were on all-time notice to be ready to go to Hogwarts at the drop of a hat, and were currently not beng dedicated to other DE activities. Just speculation on my part. Cyril. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 2 19:05:08 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:05:08 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158996 Alla: > I mean, I suppose if the only Hat Dumbledore wore was the leader of the resistance, I guess more of his orders were supposed to obey without question ( still not all, I would say, I don't have much experience with the army, basically none :), but won't the soldier be excused if he refused to obey stupid order, order that will harm him and/or his comrades for no reason? I don't mean the order to fight, obviously, but something really stupid and unnecessary?) Ceridwen: It used to be that orders were followed, period. But that has changed. A soldier in the U.S. Military does not have to follow an "unlawful order", something that goes against the Geneva Convention, for instance. That soldier would be remiss for following it and 'but, he ordered me to do it' is not an excuse. Soldiers are supposed to learn the rules of engagement and other restrictions. They even have handbooks with those conventions spelled out. I don't know how this sort of thing would work in a paramilitary group like a resistance movement. They may think they have more to lose than an actual army. They are operating outside of the government - the Order has no ties to the MoM, the French Resistance had ties to the ousted French government, but not to the Viche (sp?) government in power - they do not have government resources, they have nothing to fall back on. In such a case, orders from commanders may carry more weight and be less negotiable than orders in a regular army. Dumbledore told Harry to follow his instructions exactly, not to waffle or whine, to do exactly as he was told, period, end of discussion. And, this makes sense, because something untoward might have happened that could have cost Harry his life if he didn't jump when Dumbledore said to jump (and, don't stand there asking 'how high', jump, then ask 'is this high enough?'). But, if Dumbledore expected the same out of the other adult Order members, then any order or instruction could have been non-negotiable, if only to keep the secret of their existence. Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 19:14:54 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:14:54 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610020914n69542290kf72862c94848743c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158997 --- Janette wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > > > Besides, whether or not phoenixes could stop the > > invasion, surely, Dumbledore's place should have been > > in his school when the invasion occurred. If only he > > listened to Harry he would have been there. > > > montims: > and isn't it ironic that the night planned for the > invasion was the night DD just HAD to go along and > retrieve the horcrux (which wasn't going anywhere, and > in fact turned out not to be the genuine article, > although he couldn't have known that). I do wonder how > that night would have played out if Harry and DD hadn't > left Hogwarts... > > bboyminn: Off on a slighty tangental subject, didn't the 'invasion' occur /because/ Dumbledore was gone. Just my interpretation but I was under the impression that the fact that Draco fixed the cabinet and Dumbledore being gone occurring on the same night was coincidental. Draco fixed the cabinet (Wha-Hoo) and then recieved word that Dumbledore had left the castle, that created the perfect opportunity to summon the DE's that had been assigned to the project and the plan went forward from there. And it does seem as if indeed there was a plan. They knew in advance that they were going to set off the Dark Mark to lure Dumbledore back to the castle, and that was how they were going to lure him to his death. Draco fixing the Cabinet was the first opportunity the DE's had to even consider implementing /their plan/, and just coincidentally, that was the very night Dumbledore left the castle. Which, Dumbledore leaving the castle, in turn opened the door to initiating /the plan/. As to the previous assertion that Dumbledore's rightful place was at the castle defending it, not out gallivanting about on wild-goose chases, I think that is dead wrong. Dumbledore is doing important work in chasing the Horcruxes. Further Dumbledore is a human being, not a robot. He has a right to a life, and going to the village for a drink, which was his pretense for leaving the castle and what the DE's took his actions to be, was well within his right to have a life. It is unreasonable to think that Dumbledore or any other school administrator should be a prisoner in his own school just on the off chance that it might be attacked. Even in wartime, life goes on. Note that Dumbledore did have extra guards in the castle, and since several teachers were involved in the fight, he probably had assigned them to patrol the hallway acting as additional guards to aid the Aurors and Order members on Duty. Harry, unknown to Dumbledore, had set his own guard to watch specific strategic locations which as it turned out was a wise thing to do. So, Dumbledore did not leave the castle unprotected in his absents, and his absents WAS important to the greater good and safety of every one. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From scarrie5 at verizon.net Mon Oct 2 17:07:38 2006 From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:07:38 -0000 Subject: Follow the owls: Hedwig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158998 Eddie: > Since Hedwig could find Sirius when the MoM couldn't, then Hedwig > could probably find Voldemort too. So when Harry is ready to find > Voldemort, he could write a letter to Voldy, give it to Hedwig to > deliver, and then follow Hedwig on his broom. I'm sure if Harry > explains what needs to be done that Hedwig won't get his feathers all > ruffled when Harry tries to follow him. > > Maybe the same technique can be adapted to find the horcruxes? In the F.A.Q. at JKR's website there is a question similar to this about following owls to find Sirius. IMO I don't think that Harry will have a hard time finding LV when he needs to. They are linked through the scar, and blood. Harry has been sensing LV since he entered Hogwarts and looked at Snape (who was sitting next to Quirrell). (PS ch7 The Sorting Hat) Carrie From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 20:55:06 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 20:55:06 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610020848t36f6e2a1h3d912af05ee8c72e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 158999 > > a_svirn: > > > > However, the blood projection thing, or, say, that wonderful > > Voldemort-baiting plan in OOP was another matter entirely. Here > > Dumbledore again didn't share his plans and intentions with other > > phoenixes, and he didn't have the same excuse as with Snape. Yet, it > > didn't seem to occur to anyone to question his dictatorial style. > > (Except, probably, for Sirius ? again). They all adopted an attitude > > that can be summed up in Lupin's words "It isn't our business to > > know, it's Dumbledore's business". And it's just, well, weak. To say > > the least. > > > montims: > but he was, wasn't he, the commander of their (unofficial) army? That being > (if so) the case, you don't question your commander's decisions or actions > or orders - it's not a democracy, it's a chain of command. And yes, he > should have an appointed second in command, but even that person is supposed > to obey without question. He was considered, rightly or wrongly, to be the > greatest wizard of his time, and he had defeated Grindelwald. He was also > charismatic - kind of the WW Winston Churchill. With hindsight, we can > criticise Winston, but at the time he was instrumental in keeping Britain > free, and upholding morale. a_svirn: Yes, of course, you are right? to a point. The big difference between Dumbledore and Churchill is that Churchill, being as he was an *official* leader of a democratic country, was ultimately accountable for his actions. Sure enough, his orders meant to be obeyed, but couldn't afford to do as he pleased and keep everyone in the dark as long as he please. Nor could he have made as far as he did, had he possessed the same mile-wide authoritative streak as Dumbledore. I don't think that his colleagues and friends would have appreciated to be ignored and/or deliberately misled on important issues. Now, Dumbledore, he had a much nicer deal. He was the law onto himself and loved it. Actually he had a better deal than any Minister for Magic too. Just think ? a big family scandal and Crouch is out of the running. One major screw-up ? and Fudge is out of his office. But Dumbledore failed time after time, year after year, and, although he got fired from Wizengamot and lost twice his headmastership (after all those were *official* offices), his position as a leader of the Order was untouchable and unshakable, and the style of his leadership wasn't supposed to be criticized. And why? Because other phoenixes simply abjured all responsibility. They were content to leave the whole "business of knowing" to him. Personally, I don't think much of this kind of attitude. I agree with Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 21:25:31 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:25:31 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Dumbledore and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159000 >Cyril: > > LV himself mentioned that he was ripped from his body, after his > rebirthing. He never said his body was destroyed. a_svirn: He never said that it got left behind either. Nor did anyone else. Which is strange, considering that it would have been the most obvious argument for those who believed that he left for good. And wouldn't it be more logical to use his own remains for his reincarnation? >Cyril: > IMO, with Sirius, the picture is very different. Siring was not AK's, > given the red light he was hit with, instead of green light. It is > also not clear if it was the curse that killed him, or because he went > behind the veil. The reason we do not have a body is because he passed > through the veil - and given our little knowledge about that, we > cannot equate it to what happened to LV. a_svirn: I don't equate it to what happened to Voldemort, I just point out that when a body is absent Rowling tend to use "gone" instead of "died". From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 21:16:53 2006 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Snape's Witch) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:16:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: SecrtKeeperEvidence Message-ID: <20061002211653.15182.qmail@web50113.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159001 Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: >Dumbledore would not have been able to go into hiding, because he had >too many other responsibilities. Snape's Witch replies: There is no canon that an SK must go into hiding, only that SB told PP to hide because he thought PP was weak and would spill the secret to Voldie. Dumbledore was the SK for the Order headquarters and wasn't in hiding at all. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 21:18:04 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:18:04 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159002 > Carol responds: > True, Harry had his friends take Felix Felicis and watch the RoR, but > what good did it do except to involve them unnecessarily in the > battle? But as far as I can see, the > presence of Harry's friends made no difference to the outcome. It > didn't save Dumbledore or even prevent Hagrid's house from being burned. a_svirn: It did this good: there was a battle in the school. Had Dumbledore's guard been able to stop the death eaters alone and without help they would have done it. Obviously, they failed. Since they failed, Harry's guard joined in. I doubt that the death eaters would have restricted their hunt to Dumbledore. Grayback definitely had his own agenda, and I suppose that others would have loved to have some fun too. Instead they stumbled on a group of determined, well-trained and extremely lucky young people who spoiled their well laid plans. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 19:17:58 2006 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:17:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159003 Mike: So, what does she tell us? Here's Sibyll (HBP US, p.545): vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv "Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and there was the rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, ..." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Sibyll goes into a trance-like state during her prophesy telling, she is unaware that she even made them. She is unaware of what is happening until *after* she comes out of her trance. There is no way she can know Snape was there unless he was there *after* Sibyll *completes* the prophesy. (I'm not buying that Sibyll could be aware of her surroundings, but not hear her own words). Therefore, Snape certainly could have heard the entire prophesy, or if he heard only part, it would have been the last part. Montavilla: Here's an alternate scenario. Trelawney is giving her interview. Snape is listening at the door for whatever reason. Aberforth catches him and flings open the door. Trelawney is appalled, Dumbledore concerned, Snape sputtering excuses. At that moment, Trelawney starts going into her trance. Dumbledore tells Aberforth to throw Snape out. Aberforth does, but Snape has heard the first part of the prophecy. Trelawney comes out of her trance. "Where did that rude boy go?" "Never mind," Dumbeldore says. "I'd like to offer you a position at Hogwarts. Starting tonight." She says she felt strange before Snape came in--but does that mean she went into the trance? When she went into the trance with Harry she didn't seen to notice it at all. She could have easily gone into the trance after Snape entered the room, and the strange feeling was simply a prelude to her trance state. Montavilla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 21:41:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:41:42 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159004 > Mike: > So, what does she tell us? Here's Sibyll (HBP US, p.545): > > Sibyll goes into a trance-like state during her prophesy telling, > she is unaware that she even made them. She is unaware of what is > happening until *after* she comes out of her trance. There is no way > she can know Snape was there unless he was there *after* Sibyll > *completes* the prophesy. (I'm not buying that Sibyll could be aware > of her surroundings, but not hear her own words). Therefore, Snape > certainly could have heard the entire prophesy, or if he heard only > part, it would have been the last part. > Alla: Not necessarily, Montavilla offered alternative scenario and I have another (not mine, Rebecca's I think), but the one which I really like because it is so simple and Dumbledore is telling an absolute truth here. Snape hears the first part of the prophecy and Aberworth catches him at that moment, but the first thing that Aberworth does is casts "Muffliato" ( spelling?), so Snape is here, but does not hear anything else and only after Aberworth casts it, then he opens the door and pushes Snape for Dumbledore to see and Sybill comes out of her trance now and sees Snape who is indeed there, but only heard the first part because of Aberworth quick thinking. I mean, I think it is perfectly logical IMO that the first thing Aberworth would be concerned with is to protect his brother's privacy and then smack Snape. Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 2 23:43:39 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 23:43:39 -0000 Subject: OoP clues? (and a bit of GoF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159005 > >>Potioncat: > > The other thing is that Draco knows a lot. He makes the "dog your > steps" comment--indicating he knows about Sirius. He later says > Hagrid took on something too "big" for him. which I think means he > knows Hagrid went to the giants. It seems he's more in his > father's confidence than I would have thought and in retrospect > indicates he was nearing membership in the DE. > Betsy Hp: So, focusing in on this tiny little part of your post (I seem to be doing that a lot... ) rather than Draco being in on Lucius's confidences I suspect that he's what my grandmother would have called a little pitcher with big ears. Because Draco has always known a bit more than he should. It's never the full story. (Or at least, if it *is* the full story, he doesn't share it.) But Draco generally seems to have a piece of a puzzle at his fingertips. Personally, I think he's made quite a habit of secretly listening in on his father's conversations. I suspect that this will be important in book 7. Draco will have information to bring to the table. Information that no one (especially Voldemort) realizes he could possible have. Just a thought. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 00:36:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:36:48 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159006 Alla wrote: > > Not necessarily, Montavilla offered alternative scenario and I have > another (not mine, Rebecca's I think), but the one which I really > like because it is so simple and Dumbledore is telling an absolute > truth here. > > Snape hears the first part of the prophecy and Aberworth catches him > at that moment, but the first thing that Aberworth does is > casts "Muffliato" ( spelling?), so Snape is here, but does not hear > anything else and only after Aberworth casts it, then he opens the > door and pushes Snape for Dumbledore to see and Sybill comes out of > her trance now and sees Snape who is indeed there, but only heard the first part because of Aberworth quick thinking. > > I mean, I think it is perfectly logical IMO that the first thing > Aberworth would be concerned with is to protect his brother's privacy and then smack Snape. Carol responds: Ones slight problem: Muffliato is Snape's own spell and I doubt that many people know it, certainly not people as far removed from his generation as Aberforth. He might have cast an Imperturbable charm like the one that Mrs. Weasley puts on the kitchen door of 12 GP in OoP (I'm guessing that's what Snape puts on the door to keep Wormtail from listening in "Spinner's End" as well). As for Aberforth's quick thinking, we have yet to see what he's capable of, and I doubt that he could "smack Snape," who was probably already very good at duelling (knew more hexes than most seventh years when he was eleven). (We can't judge his abilities by a two-on-one attack when he was caught unawares.) What I don't understand is how Dumbledore (Albus, not Aberforth) could just let Severus go if he suspected that he was a Death Eater and might reveal the Prophecy (or part of it) to Voldemort, and yet Trelwaney says that she saw him standing with "the uncouth bartender" outside the door. And certainly, Snape does not seem to have been kicked out before the Prophecy was completed whether he heard all of it or not. Also I don't see how Trelawney could think he was eavesdropping for job hunting tips when surely it was October or later and the teaching positions for that year had been filled months before (except for the sudden vacancy in Divination, presumably resulting from the former teacher's death). At any rate, Severus Snape wasn't hired as Potions Master until almost two years later, when Harry was about a year old (say, July of the year of Godric's Hollow, judging from the date that the booklists usually come out). Actually, I don't understand any of it, and I hope that the two versions can be reconciled somehow without our having to chalk it all up to "oh, dear, maths" again. At any rate, I don't see how both Dumbledore and Trelawney can be telling "the absolute truth" here, but I'm willing to accept the possibility that Trelawney's memory is muddled by time and cooking sherry. Carol, who thinks that Snape and Aberforth have been working together for years as part of Dumbledore's spy network and that Aberforth was Snape's source for bezoars when he was Potions Master From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 00:47:16 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:16 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159007 > a_svirn: < HUGE SNIP> > Now, Dumbledore, he had a much nicer deal. He was the law onto > himself and loved it. Alla: Blink. Aren't you describing the dictator like Stalin here? I mean, this is not exactly disagreement with substance since as I mentioned some time ago, you forced me to see DD's mistakes in much harsher way than I did before, but more like disagreement with the degree of the DD dictatorial style. Could you point me to canon where DD **loves** what he does, namely making all those terrible decisions? Where he enjoys ruling people, etc. A_svirn: But Dumbledore failed time after time, year after year, and, > although he got fired from Wizengamot and lost twice his > headmastership (after all those were *official* offices), his > position as a leader of the Order was untouchable and unshakable, > and the style of his leadership wasn't supposed to be criticized. Alla: But did he lose his Headmastership for something truly wrong that he did? I mean, first time Lucius' bribery and second time, well, we know - Dolores dear. Or are you thinking of other occasions? And what did he fail year after year, if you don't mind? I mean, don't get me wrong, I do think that he failed Harry, and I think he should have felt guilty about it, but are you saying that he deserves to not be Headmaster because of that? On the other hand, I just realised that you may have a point ( unfortunately) due to DD refusing MOM position. I used to think that this is because he prefers to be a teacher and teach young people noble things, etc,etc, but maybe this is indeed because that as MoM he would be accountable for what he does and as a Leader of OOP , he really does not. a_svirn: > And why? Because other phoenixes simply abjured all responsibility. > They were content to leave the whole "business of knowing" to him. > Personally, I don't think much of this kind of attitude. I agree > with Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except > for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." > Alla: Yeah, absolutely, me too. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 00:57:40 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:57:40 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159008 > Alla wrote: > Snape hears the first part of the prophecy and Aberworth catches him > at that moment, but the first thing that Aberworth does is > casts "Muffliato" ( spelling?), so Snape is here, but does not hear > anything else and only after Aberworth casts it, then he opens the > door and pushes Snape for Dumbledore to see and Sybill comes out of > her trance now and sees Snape who is indeed there, but only heard the > first part because of Aberworth quick thinking. Goddlefrood: The spelling of Muffliato is spot on. That Aberforth would use the spell may not be. The reason I say this is that it is a spell Harry picked up from the Advanced Potions textbook in HBP, one of the Prince's own spells. Snape, being the Prince would almost certainly know a counter even if Aberforth knew the spell at all, which I doubt. Not to say the thinking is necessarily wrong, just the method of execution as it were. On the subject of what part of the prophecy Snape heard, if he actually heard any at all, I suggest that he may very well have heard the entire thing. The reasoning behind this is that while a Pensieve memory can be limited to show only one aspect (as was done by Albus when showing the Prophecy to Harry) I do not think, unlike some Muggle technology, that extraneous sounds can be edited out. If there had been a fuss close to where the Prophecy was being made (as indicated by Dumbledore's account) then some interference of sound at least would have been noticed when the Prophecy was played back in the Pensieve. Goddlefrood who looks forward to severe contortions being suggested to explain why the Prophecy was spoken with no other sounds whatever on the Pensieve From peckham at cyberramp.net Tue Oct 3 01:24:52 2006 From: peckham at cyberramp.net (luna_loco) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 01:24:52 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > Eddie: > I think this touches on a question I've been having: What turned Snape > against Voldemort? (If you think Snape was _NOT_ turned, then > rephrase the question as "What excuse did Snape give Dumbledore as to > why he turned against Voldemort?") > > My literary sense is that the dramatic tension would be hightened by > Snape being turned by some event(s) he witnessed at Godrick's Hollow > on the night of Harry's parents' deaths. Some have suggested that > Snape was in love with Lily, and was horrified that Voldy killed her. > Yet another reason to have lots of anxiety about Harry. > > But if my memory serves me right, Snape returned to Hogwarts BEFORE > the Godrick's Hollow incident. What excuse would Snape have given > then? (I think Snape tells Narcissa and Bellatrix that he was already > spying on Dumbledore by that time.) > > Sorry if this has been answered in other threads, but my search didn't > find it. At least not this exactly. > > TIA, > Eddie > Instead of turned or playing a complicated role, another option is that Snape was maneuvered into some type of magical obligation that forces certain actions. Consider the following: 1) Snape had a life-debt to James 2) Snape overheard part of the first prophesy and reported this to Voldemort. 3) Voldemort killed Lilly and James as part of his response to the prophecy. Thus, Snape played a direct and significant part in causing the death of a person to which he owed a life-debt. While there is much that we do not know about life-debts and how they work, it seems that playing a part in causing the death of person owed a life-debt is very likely to have serious side effects. One possible side effect to being magically forced to avenge the death in some fashion. It is thus possible that Snape is magically bound to somehow see that justice is obtained for James. A magical obligation imposed on Snape against his will could also explain a number items. Dumbledore's trust in Snape could be due to the knowledge the Snape is magically forced to work towards Voldemorts destruction by the obligation. Snape's sorrow over Lilly and Jame's deaths can likewise be explained by Snape realizing that he must now take a long-term course of action that he might otherwise wished to avoid, followed by years of bitterness at being bound to this new path in life. All in all, a magical obligation would have the power to create a resentful and conflicted character that is unable to do what he really wishes but must instead dedicate his life to avenging one of the people he hated most. Allen From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Tue Oct 3 02:24:53 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 02:24:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159010 Dungrollin wrote: > It's also possible that as Snape is listening at the door, Aberforth > interrupts and challenges him, preventing Snape from hearing the end > of the prophecy. Aberforth is unsatisfied with Snape's stammering > that he came the wrong way up the stairs (and let's face it, how un- > Snapeish is that pathetic excuse? - it suggests to me that he's > *not* used to all this cloak and dagger stuff yet, he really is just > a young naive DE) and just as Sybil finishes the prophecy, Aberforth > flings open the door, revealing Snape to Trelawney and DD. Abergoat writes: But we've already seen that a pensieve gives more than the viewer originally knew about (JKR has verified this) and what is Legilimency but using the mind as a pensieve in place? Dumbledore could not say with complete certainty that no one else had the prophecy unless he had done something to the room. Snape has had a pensieve in his possession, Dumbledore must know that even if Snape had extracted his own memory he couldn't put an ear to the door and hear what Trelawney was saying. Besides, she speaks in a booming voice. It would be rather hard not to pick up at least some of it. Aberforth had to stop to inhale during his tirade. It seems like the simplest solution, and JKR's 'problems' where probably made in the earlier books, not book five and six. Abergoat From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 3 03:59:31 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 23:59:31 EDT Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159011 > Julie: > > > It's canon that Snape *did* have a life-debt to James, as we > were told in both PS/SS and POA, and it probably did play some > role in Snape informing Dumbledore about Voldemort's plans. Neri: This is exactly my point. Even if we are told in Book 7 that Snape loved Lily, we won't know what part each of the two motivations ? the debt and his love ? played in his decision to tell Dumbledore about Voldemort's plans (assuming he did). We wouldn't even know after the end of the series, since we don't get to look into Snape's head. We already have the debt motivation, so if you add the Lily motivation Snape will always stay ambiguous. The only way to solve the ambiguity would be if JKR would tell us outside the books: "it was mainly his love of Lily and the debt was only secondary" or something like that, and this doesn't strikes me like very good writing. Julie: For me it would only require that JKR reveal Snape's *main* motive for turning from Voldemort/spying for DD/protecting Harry, whether via Dumbledore's portrait, Pensieve, or Snape himself. Once this is revealed and it becomes the "AHA!" moment everyone has been waiting for in regards to Snape, and sufficient angst (Snape) and/or comprehension/pity/empathy (Harry) follows, then the whole life debt motivation will *automatically* become secondary. No need for JKR to spell that out if the primary motivation is sufficiently bangy. And I think it will be, otherwise why has JKR allowed the entire fanbase to become so obsessed with Snape's enigmatic nature--in fact encouraged it, and not subtly--and why has Snape's role only grown from book to book (and grown more enigmatic in the process)? All because she wants to stick it to us all--"Never mind about all that build up, Snape's motivations are based on nothing more than that life debt brought up so casually in BOOK ONE, if only you'd noticed. Ha ha ha, gotcha!"--with her writing? > Julie, previously: > But if we get another deeper reason for Snape turning (he loved > Lily, he couldn't stomach the killing of innocents, he wanted > revenge on Voldemort for the death of his parents, etc, etc), > I won't be bothered if this particular life-debt is never > brought up again, and plays no role beyond what it has already > played. After all, an emotionally-charged reason for a life- > altering switch in loyalties is far more interesting and > character-defining than a forced switch in loyalties due to > the compulsion of magic! > Neri: Erm? the debt plot *is* emotionally-charged. JKR has been charging it devotedly throughout the series. She *hasn't* been emotionally charging LOLLIPOPS, except for that single "mudblood". And a life-altering switch that happened off page 17 years ago would be backstory. Would it be more interesting than a life-altering switch that happens in real time, on page in Book 7? Julie: I disagree that JKR has been charging it devotedly throughout the series. Snape's life debt to James came up twice (I think it came up in POA), and Snape himself has never mentioned it that I can recall. Dumbledore all but dismissed it as relatively trivial--and perhaps played out--in PS/SS. It is *Peter's* life debt that has received much more attention, from JKR off the page (noting how Harry saving Ginny is different, and that Peter's life debt to Harry will play a role in Book 7). Could JKR being playing her cards very close to her vest? I suppose so, but my argument here is that she hasn't been emotionally charging Snape's life debt to James. That life debt has already been assigned its relative importance and emotional impact (as something that weighed heavily on Snape's mind, being indebted to the person he most hated). Admittedly we will find out more about the Prank in Book 7, but most fans have assumed (and has JKR indicated?) it will focus on how the relationship between the Marauders and Snape deteriorated to that point and why Dumbledore didn't punish Sirius much more severely for nearly getting Snape killed. There's no real clue that these revelations will shed any further light on the life debt, not from JKR or the text. In short, I don't believe JKR made her major revelation about Snape in the *first book,* then proceeded to trick us by implying Snape's patronus was too revealing to reveal (no pun intended), having Dumbledore refuse to fully answer Harry's questions about his complete trust in Snape (when if it was about the life-debt, he could have just said "It's that life-debt, remember?"), etc, if those matters were to be essentially rendered meaningless in the end by it being all about the life-debt after all. That doesn't strike me as good writing. But we can agree to disagree :-) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 04:15:23 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:15:23 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159012 > a_svirn: > Now, Dumbledore, he had a much nicer deal. He was the law onto > himself and loved it. Actually he had a better deal than any > Minister for Magic too. Just think ? a big family scandal and Crouch is out of the running. One major screw-up ? and Fudge is out of his office. But Dumbledore failed time after time, year after year, and, although he got fired from Wizengamot and lost twice his > headmastership (after all those were *official* offices), his > position as a leader of the Order was untouchable and unshakable, > and the style of his leadership wasn't supposed to be criticized. > And why? Because other phoenixes simply abjured all responsibility. They were content to leave the whole "business of knowing" to him. Personally, I don't think much of this kind of attitude. I agree with Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." > Tonks: I don't understand all of this "DD is a dictator" talk. I do not see him that way at all. DD is the most intelligent, most knowledgeable, greatest wizard of his time and has personal charisma that makes most of us love him. He is the natural leader. He is not a dictator. LV is. McGonagall doesn't seem to have any problem asking DD about his decisions, such as when she questions his decision to put Harry with the Dursleys. She is able to talk freely to him. Do you think for a moment that any of LV's followers could do that? They would be dead on the spot. LV is a dictator. DD is not. DD allows people like Snape to argue with him. That would never happen with LV. LV's word is law, period. DD is very easy going, he doesn't sweat the small stuff. There is a joke about the redemption of the world that says "thank God that he didn't send a committee". The idea being that sometimes a liberal democracy is not the most efficient manner to get the job done. The whole idea of "questioning authority" has gone a bit overboard. And it is a new idea in the past 30 years. It is not how most of the world or even the U.S. was run up until that time. Families, businesses, government, etc. were run with a chain of command, do as you are told style of leadership. And the WW is in that era, not in the 21st century. We seem to keep forgetting that. And I don't see DD "failing time and time again" either. He gets a A from me. I think that the members of the Order have a lot of respect for DD. He it the founder and the leader. If I founded an Order I would expect to be the leader too. And I would *lead* it!! Tonks_op From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 04:23:34 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:23:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" wrote: > > Montavilla: > Here's an alternate scenario. Trelawney is giving her interview. > Snape is listening at the door for whatever reason. Aberforth > catches him and flings open the door. > > Trelawney is appalled, Dumbledore concerned, Snape sputtering > excuses. > > At that moment, Trelawney starts going into her trance. Dumbledore > tells Aberforth to throw Snape out. Aberforth does, but Snape has > heard the first part of the prophecy. > > Trelawney comes out of her trance. "Where did that rude boy go?" > > "Never mind," Dumbeldore says. "I'd like to offer you a position > at Hogwarts. Starting tonight." > Mike: With regards to some of the other counter-theories: I seriously doubt 'muffliato' was known by either Albus or Aberforth as it was an HBP spell, not something disseminated at all AFAIK. Neither do I believe Aberforth catching Snape part way in and causing him to not hear the rest (but waiting until Trelawney finishes before he throws him into the room) would allow DD to state definitively that Snape didn't hear the rest of the prophesy. This (Montavilla's) scenario or Albus putting an 'Impurturbable' on the door part way through would work if that's what happened. But neither conform to what DD *told* us did happen. DD didn't say that he was the one that caught the eavesdropper part way into the prophesy and he certainly didn't say that he cast a spell to stop Snape from hearing any more. DD also told us that the eavesdropper was caught part way into the prophesy, not before the prophesy got started. This also doesn't gibe with Sibyll's version. The whole point is that the version DD told Harry in OotP was *not* what happened. Any alternate theories that don't match completely with what DD told Harry still confirm that DD was lying (or shall we say not disclosing the whole truth). Remember, DD isn't under a time constraint like he was when he explained about giving evidence against Sirius in PoA. This discussion, specifically this part of the discussion, wasn't at all rushed. And there is little doubt in my mind that DD had long since decided how he was going to explain the eavesdropper scene to Harry. No, he told Harry the likely story that he and Snape (and probably Aberforth) had long since agreed upon. This version that we got from Sibyll was meant as information (Snape was the eavesdropper) and as a clue (Snape was already working for Dumbledore). JKR chooses her words and what she has her characters tell us very carefully (of course, that's if the she's trying to convey something important). When we find an anomaly in an important plot point like this, she's done it for a reason. I also think the line about "Voldemort used Nagini to kill the old muggle" (from memory, not exact) when we *know* that's not what happened, is also a clue. I just can't figure out what that one means. But this one is plain to me. DD instructed/allowed Snape to tell Voldemort the first part and only the first part of the prophesy. Dumbledore was taking a big risk here since prophesies are dicey things to let loose (look where and what the Ministry does with them). But he was gaining two things. He knew Riddle/LV and therefore knew LV would act on it. This gave DD some degree of predictability in the battle to neutralize LV. This was also the chance to leapfrog a young Snape up into LV's inner circle. Plus this enhances Snape's spying credentials. And Snape now knew something that Voldemort most likely doesn't want known by anyone else, especially his other DEs. He doesn't want his invincibility questioned. This scenario sets up book 7 to echo an important book 3 plot. Snape takes on the Sirius Black role (on the run from the law, wrongly accused of releasing the prophesy to LV) and Dumbledore takes on the Pettigrew role (the dead hero who instead really was the one who ensured LV heard the prophesy). I don't know how we are going to be told this, I'll let JKR write that part. Mike From sherlocksridhar at fastmail.fm Tue Oct 3 06:25:51 2006 From: sherlocksridhar at fastmail.fm (sridharj_ap) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 06:25:51 -0000 Subject: Dementors In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159014 >>dillgravy" wrote: > > > > I was hoping to start a discussion on Dementors and their possible > origins. Do we know how > > they came to be? Were they ever human? They aren't "beasts" > because they're not mentioned > > in the "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them". > > > David writes: > I think I remember JKR saying something like they grow like fungi in > the darkest, dankest places, and that their growth creates a thick > cold fog. I think Dementors are one of the good but subtle "implementations" of JKR's philosophy. Rather thna considering them as beasts/ghosts/whatever, consider what they do? They take away happiness and joy and leave you finally mad (Demented?). Their kiss is said to suck the soul away. Consider the parallel: Fear and Despair suck joy out of all life. They grow on you; you start looking at your life as a failure and do not know the purpose of life. If happiness and *hope* is taken away, most people would soon become mad. And when you finally allow Fear and Despair to completely dominate your life, what good is your soul? It is as good as dead. I am also wondering if there are any similar creatures in other fantasies. The Nazgul (RingWraiths) in LOTR come to mind. Regards Sridhar From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 07:05:22 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 00:05:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610030005u6ac1b13fq8405b44cdd1ee74f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159015 a_svirn: Funny you should ask that. It so happened that Lucius planted the diary for the reasons totally unrelated to Voldemort and it almost got Harry killed. Again. And he didn't survive because of the blood protection. Again. Lynda: Actually, that's not right. Lucius planted the diary with Ginny's stuff because he wanted it to go back to Hogwarts and (presumably) to be the catalyst to reopening the Chamber of Secrets--he knew it was Voldemort's old diary. As for Harry's survival at that point, since the blood/family protection is only in force when Harry is at the Dursleys the lack of blood protection at Hogwarts for Harry is not relevant. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Oct 3 07:47:24 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:47:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4522158C.6000305@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159016 luna_loco wrote: (snip) > > Instead of turned or playing a complicated role, another option is > that Snape was maneuvered into some type of magical obligation that > forces certain actions. > > Consider the following: > 1) Snape had a life-debt to James (snip) Why does everyone say this? Dumbledore stated that saving another wizards life created a 'bond'.. At NO time does he ever say there is s 'life debt'.. That assumption is purely fan-created. A bond can be as little as just an acknowledgment that the other person saved your life. If doesn't mean you have to DO anything at all about it. Its not like a wizard's oath. Snape was not obligated to do anything based on James saving his life at all. As we have no definition of any bonds created by life-saving other then Dumbledore being happy about Harry sparing Wormtail's life, we can not assume there is a 'life-debt'. Saving Wormtail's life certainly never stopped him from taking Harry's blood, after all.. nor has Wormtail made any move whatsoever to 'repay' him for sparing his life. I do not accept the 'life-debt' thing as Dumbledore never stating is was a life-debt (just fans do), only some undefined 'bond'. Jazmyn From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 08:59:28 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 08:59:28 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: <4522158C.6000305@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159017 > Why does everyone say this? Dumbledore stated that saving another > wizards life created a 'bond'.. At NO time does he ever say there is s > 'life debt'.. That assumption is purely fan-created. Finwitch: I recall him telling Harry it's magic at it's deepest when Harry said he didn't want any bond with Pettigrew. For another, why should Voldemort be unhappy of getting a servant 'in debt of Harry Potter', if the bond of life-debt has NO magical effects at all. I suppose the effect could be like the Felix Felicis makes you lucky -- to benefit the one you owe your life to, despite your intention. Like er -- Pettigrew being involved with the Moody-business -- Harry learned to resist Imperius. Anyway, we ARE talking about wizards' bonds -- of course they're magical. Some ancient magic, I expect. Finwitch From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Oct 3 09:25:22 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:25:22 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159018 > Carol responds: > What I don't understand is how Dumbledore (Albus, not Aberforth) could > just let Severus go if he suspected that he was a Death Eater and > might reveal the Prophecy (or part of it) to Voldemort, Hickengruendler: No proof? Listening on doors is not a crime. Although listening to Dumbledore's conversations might seem very suspicious, particularly at this time. Still, it's probably not enough to keep him imprisoned or something. (Though he could at least have modified Snape's memory, admittingly). Or of course the other possibility is, that Snape simply escaped. Maybe he overpowered Aberforth while Albus was talking to Trelawney. Albus is powerful, but Bellatrix managed to escape from him as well. Carol: > Also I don't see how Trelawney could think he was eavesdropping for > job hunting tips when surely it was October or later and the teaching > positions for that year had been filled months before (except for the > sudden vacancy in Divination, presumably resulting from the former > teacher's death). At any rate, Severus Snape wasn't hired as Potions > Master until almost two years later, when Harry was about a year old > (say, July of the year of Godric's Hollow, judging from the date that > the booklists usually come out). Hickengruendler: Maybe it was well known, that Slughorn wanted to retire in one or two years. Or Trelawney simply didn't know, that the Potions Teacher's post wasn't vacant at this time, even if it was in the middle of the year. Or maybe she didn't know, for which position Snape wanted to apply. Maybe she thought he was a rival for the post as Divination teacher, or the next in line for the post as DADA teacher, since it was likely that the current candidate would leave as well. After all, she might not necessary have known him him at this time and didn't know, which subjects he excels at. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 3 11:06:07 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:06:07 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159019 > Hickengruendler: r maybe she didn't know, for which position Snape wanted to > apply. Maybe she thought he was a rival for the post as Divination > teacher, or the next in line for the post as DADA teacher, since it > was likely that the current candidate would leave as well. After all, > she might not necessary have known him him at this time and didn't > know, which subjects he excels at. Potioncat: If Trelawney's comments in OoP are accurate, she was hired in October. So we're talking about 4--6 weeks into term. (I've forgotten now, why I think it's the first part of October.) If she is applying for a new opening, then perhaps something had recently happened to the previous teacher. There's a chance that he had simply not replaced the teacher who retired at the end of the previous year. Was she trying to convince him to restore the subject? It's remotely possible that the DADA position had not been filled at all. The war with LV had started and perhaps people were too fearful to apply; or really good DADA types were occupied with fighting LV. It's possible that both teachers had been killed in the fight with LV. I think LV wanted Snape at Hogwarts and had him apply every year until he got in. It would explain how Snape was able to slip out of some DE work. He had to keep his reputation clean. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 00:21:39 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 19:21:39 -0500 Subject: Draco leavesdropping on Lucius WAS: Re: OoP clues? (and a bit of GoF) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610021721k236130c7y2b5f126e22db71e4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159021 Betsy Hp: Personally, I think he's made quite a habit of secretly listening in on his father's conversations. I suspect that this will be important in book 7. Draco will have information to bring to the table. Information that no one (especially Voldemort) realizes he could possible have. montims: And it seems the Malfoys never really expect to be overheard - Dobby, after all, heard a lot of stuff he thought worrying enough to pass on... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 11:59:57 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:59:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159022 Mike: > > With regards to some of the other counter-theories: I seriously > doubt 'muffliato' was known by either Albus or Aberforth as it was > an HBP spell, not something disseminated at all AFAIK. Alla: Um, Levicorpus is also HBP's spell and as Lupin says half of the school was using it at some point. I see no reason why Snape would not have done it in public once and sone saw it and adopted it and somehow it reached DUmbledore or Aberworth or both. But of course it is just speculation. Mike: Neither do I > believe Aberforth catching Snape part way in and causing him to not > hear the rest (but waiting until Trelawney finishes before he throws > him into the room) would allow DD to state definitively that Snape > didn't hear the rest of the prophesy. Alla: Again, why not if Albus talked to Aberworth afterwards and he told him exactly how much Snape heard? Mike: > But this one is plain to me. DD instructed/allowed Snape to tell > Voldemort the first part and only the first part of the prophesy. > > Dumbledore was taking a big risk here since prophesies are dicey > things to let loose (look where and what the Ministry does with > them). But he was gaining two things. He knew Riddle/LV and > therefore knew LV would act on it. This gave DD some degree of > predictability in the battle to neutralize LV. This was also the > chance to leapfrog a young Snape up into LV's inner circle. Plus > this enhances Snape's spying credentials. And Snape now knew > something that Voldemort most likely doesn't want known by anyone > else, especially his other DEs. He doesn't want his invincibility > questioned. Alla: I would not put anything past Dumbledore recently, but I am going to still hoping that what you describe is not what happened :-) Sorry, Mike, but Dumbledore who deliberately puts under the threat of possible death **unknown** couple and their baby for **any** purpose, including placing Snape in Voldemort's inner circle is no different than Voldemort to me. IMHO of course. And besides that would disseminate one of the major things Harry has to forgive Snape for IMO - contributing to his parents death. But I do understand the attractiveness of this theory for those who argue DD!M Snape, after all that makes another evil action that Snape did ( in my book evil of course) just something else done under Dumbledore command and again Snape seems to bear no blame, since he acted under Dumbledore orders. As I said, unfortunately, I am of much lower opinion of Dumbledore's manipulativeness lately, so this is of course possible, but I hope that Dumbledore is better than that and would not deliberately put two people and their baby under Voldemort's radar, especially if these two people have no choice in that matter. JMO, Alla, who hopes that the events in HH went exactly like Dumbledore described. ETA: Just had a thought. If this is what happened and Dumbledore was concerned with putting Snape in, etc, but did not really want Potters and their child to die, I can see him offering to be their secret keeper out of the sense of guilt first and foremost. I can also see James learning about it and telling him something along the lines - you hypocritical bastard, you put us and our son in danger in the first place and now you are offering to be our secret keeper? Go jump in the lake or something like that. That would be a perfect reason for Potters to refuse DD offer as far as I am concerned and I would have refused that too, but as I said, I am hoping that this scenario did not happen From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 3 15:02:31 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:02:31 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610030005u6ac1b13fq8405b44cdd1ee74f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159023 > a_svirn: > Funny you should ask that. It so happened that Lucius planted the > diary for the reasons totally unrelated to Voldemort and it almost > got Harry killed. Again. And he didn't survive because of the blood > protection. Again. > > > Lynda: > > Actually, that's not right. Lucius planted the diary with Ginny's stuff > because he wanted it to go back to Hogwarts and (presumably) to be the > catalyst to reopening the Chamber of Secrets--he knew it was Voldemort's old > diary. Magpie: It is right. Lucius was trying to discredit Arthur to make his own life easier. He wasn't giving Ginny the diary for anything having to do with Voldemort, he wanted the Chamber opened for strictly his own reasons. (Reasons which in fact went against not only Voldemort's wishes but which worked against his immortality and helped the good side tremendously.) So a_svirn is absolutely right to say Lucius planted the diary for reasons unrelated to Voldemort (even if the 16-year-old memory of Voldemort got used) and even unrelated to trying to get Harry killed. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 15:13:06 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:13:06 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159024 > Finwitch: > > I recall him telling Harry it's magic at it's deepest when Harry said he didn't want any bond with Pettigrew. For another, why should > Voldemort be unhappy of getting a servant 'in debt of Harry Potter', if the bond of life-debt has NO magical effects at all. > > I suppose the effect could be like the Felix Felicis makes you lucky -- to benefit the one you owe your life to, despite your intention. Like er -- Pettigrew being involved with the Moody- business -- Harry > learned to resist Imperius. > > Anyway, we ARE talking about wizards' bonds -- of course they're > magical. Some ancient magic, I expect. Tonks: Here is what the Lexicon says: "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 connection 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 very glad you saved Pettigrew's life." (PA There does seem to be some type of magic involved that goes far beyond what wizards can do on their own. I wonder if this means that a wizard 'in debit' would not be able to kill the other one? Or as I have suggested before, as in Snape's case, if the saved wizard did something to cause the death of his savior, he would be damned in some way. For the sake of this discussion, I too am a Snape loved Lily fan, but also the debit he had to James was also a factor, but not the biggest one. Tonks+op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 15:20:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:20:45 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159025 Goddlefrood: > On the subject of what part of the prophecy Snape heard, if he actually heard any at all, I suggest that he may very well have heard the entire thing. The reasoning behind this is that while a Pensieve memory can be limited to show only one aspect (as was done by Albus when showing the Prophecy to Harry) I do not think, unlike some Muggle technology, that extraneous sounds can be edited out. If there had been a fuss close to where the Prophecy was being made (as indicated by Dumbledore's account) then some interference of sound at least would have been noticed when the Prophecy was played back in the Pensieve. > > Goddlefrood who looks forward to severe contortions being suggested to > explain why the Prophecy was spoken with no other sounds whatever on > the Pensieve > Carol responds: But we already have our answer. Dumbledore can cause just the person speaking (Bertha Jorkins, Trelawney, Caractacus Burke in HBP) to rise up from the Pensieve so that his or her words are heard without any context. He specifically chose this technique with Harry and the Prophecy, perhaps to save time but more likely because he didn't want Harry to see Snape as the eavesdropper. If Harry had entered the memory, he would have seen the whole thing and we would know how much of the Prophecy Snape heard. Perhaps we can still see that memory since three living people were present--Snape, Trelawney, and Aberforth. All we need is to have someone somehow remove the memory from one of their heads (Snape can remove it from his own) and place it in a Pensieve and have Harry enter the Pensieve. He could wander around in the memory, perhaps even walk through a closed door, and both see and hear what really happened, more than the person whose memory it is knew at the time because the Pensieve shows the memory as an objective, and complete, record. It probably wouldn't matter which side of the door the person who witnessed or spoke the Prophecy was on because their subconscious mind would have recorded the other sounds and perhaps the actions around them. Carol, wondering how Harry can acquire the necessary memory and whether the closed door would present a problem From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 15:44:28 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 15:44:28 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159026 Allen wrote: > Instead of turned or playing a complicated role, another option is > that Snape was maneuvered into some type of magical obligation that > forces certain actions. > > Consider the following: > 1) Snape had a life-debt to James > 2) Snape overheard part of the first prophesy and reported this to > Voldemort. > 3) Voldemort killed Lilly and James as part of his response to the > prophecy. > > Thus, Snape played a direct and significant part in causing the death of a person to which he owed a life-debt. > > While there is much that we do not know about life-debts and how they work, it seems that playing a part in causing the death of person owed a life-debt is very likely to have serious side effects. One possible side effect to being magically forced to avenge the death in some fashion. It is thus possible that Snape is magically bound to somehow see that justice is obtained for James. > > A magical obligation imposed on Snape against his will could also > explain a number items. Dumbledore's trust in Snape could be due to > the knowledge the Snape is magically forced to work towards Voldemorts destruction by the obligation. Snape's sorrow over Lilly and Jame's deaths can likewise be explained by Snape realizing that he must now take a long-term course of action that he might otherwise wished to avoid, followed by years of bitterness at being bound to this new path in life. All in all, a magical obligation would have the power to create a resentful and conflicted character that is unable to do what he really wishes but must instead dedicate his life to avenging one of the people he hated most. Carol responds: But Snape "returned to our side" before Godric's Hollow and was spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" before he was hired as Potions Master several months before the Potters died (probably in July or August of that year; he would have begun teaching September 1.) So the life debt doesn't explain why he turned against Voldemort or why Dumbledore trusts him. All it explains is why he would regret James's death and try to save Harry in Book 1. It doesn't explain all the other attempts to save Harry's life, or the spying at great risk to his life, or the loyalty to Dumbledore. I'm not arguing for LOLLIPOPS here. I think that the idea that Voldemort would go after a baby and his family, people that young Snape knew even though he didn't like James, may have been sufficient to make him turn to Dumbledore and the spying certainly contributed to Dumbledore's trust in him--though I see no reason why Dumbledore would not divulge that to Harry. Maybe there's a connection with Regulus Black, or maybe young Snape did something to contribute to Harry's protection on the night he was found in the ruins of Godric's Hollow. (I can see him at least examining the baby to determine that he wasn't possessed, for example.) But Dumbledore values choice and IMO he would not trust Snape because Snape was under some compulsion. He somehow knows (or believes, if you don't accept DDM!Snape) that Snape, of his own free will, has chosen to be loyal to Dumbledore rather than Voldemort, to serve the leader of the Light side rather than the leader of the Dark side (though he must still seem to do so). Consider Snape's words to Quirrell about "where your loyalties lie," which imply strongly that Snape's, unlike Quirrell's, lie with Dumbledore. Also "If you are ready, if you are prepared" implies that Snape has been working for a long time, partly on his own and partly with Dumbledore, to prepare for the dreaded confrontation with Voldemort. He isn't being compelled to do so. He's choosing to serve Dumbledore--and that's one more reason why Dumbledore trusts him and values him (note his prolonged silence after Snape goes off into danger in GoF), as he would not trust and value someone who was compelled into false loyalty. There is no indication in the books (unless we count Snape's half-truths to Bellatrix in "Spinner's End," which we can easily show to be incomplete and slanted to make him appear loyal or provide acceptable excuses) that Snape is loyal to Voldemort. It's possible that he's out for himself, but most likely Dumbledore had some real and valid reason to trust him *completely* and to know that Snape's loyalties lay with him. Carol, who thinks that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is personal and therefore more intense than the loyalty of someone who had always opposed Dark magic (like, say, James Potter or Sirius Black), who fought for the Order rather than for Dumbledore himself From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 17:44:03 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 17:44:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159027 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > Um, Levicorpus is also HBP's spell and as Lupin says half of the > school was using it at some point. I see no reason why Snape would > not have done it in public once and some saw it and adopted it and > somehow it reached DUmbledore or Aberworth or both. But > of course it is just speculation. Mike: Well, Alla, we're all speculating. ;-) But from what we know of Aberforth, does he appear to you to be someone who would have picked up an insignificant, recent student manufactured spell that was, in your own speculation, probably only known by a few wizards at the most? Does Aberforth seem to you to be someone *in tune* with current trends, someone that would pick up on a prank spell recently released (if it was) out into the WW? This seems so much less likely to the point of making it unbelievable. Still, read on, I have more on both. > > Mike previously: > > Neither do I believe Aberforth catching Snape part way in and > > causing him to not hear the rest (but waiting until > > Trelawney finishes before he throws him into the room) > > would allow DD to state definitively that Snape didn't hear > > the rest of the prophesy. > > Alla: > > Again, why not if Albus talked to Aberworth afterwards and he told > him exactly how much Snape heard? Mike now: But if Snape is still around after Sibyll finishes the prophesy, how would either Aberforth or Albus be able to say definitively at what time Snape was stopped from hearing the prophesy? There is a sequencing problem here. Aberforth is not listening to the prophesy, he doesn't know how far into it Sibyll is. Albus is inside the room, he didn't catch Snape, he can't know at what point Aberforth showed up. This scenario and 'muffliato' have the same time line problem, to wit: how far into the prophesy was Snape's eavesdropping interrupted? Remember, the very next line of the prophesy was the "powers the dark lord knows not", and this is the specific line that DD tells Harry that LV didn't get wind of. Not knowing this line is the reason LV didn't wait to see which of them (Harry or Neville) looked more dangerous, according to DD's explanation to Harry. Both of these alternate scenarios still have the same problem. Albus told us that the eavesdropper was caught part way into the prophesy and expelled from the building. If it had happened this way, Sibyll wouldn't have even known there was an eavesdropper, much less that it was Snape. Instead Snape is still around at the end of the prophesy. Either Snape actually heard the whole prophesy (or more than DD can be sure of), or he heard none of it (Snape and Aberforth enter the room after being summoned by Albus, as in firing off his *message patronus* to the two of them who are downstairs in the bar at the time). But neither of these scenarios match Albus Dumbledore's carefully thought out scenario/story that he told Harry in OotP. That's the problem. DD's story in OotP *does not* match the further information we received in HBP. And if Albus Dumbledore is caught in a prevarication it must have been for a darned good reason. And remember, the lie is not *who* the eavesdropper is. The lie is *what* the eavesdropper heard. > Alla: > > I would not put anything past Dumbledore recently, but I am going > to still hoping that what you describe is not what happened :-) > > Sorry, Mike, but Dumbledore who deliberately puts under the threat > of possible death **unknown** couple and their baby for **any** > purpose, including placing Snape in Voldemort's inner circle is no > different than Voldemort to me. IMHO of course. > Mike: I understasnd how you feel Alla. My take on it is that DD was taking a chance, yeah, but he also couldn't know that it would result in two deaths. He maybe realized he was putting unknown people in danger but thought he could prevent any damage and capture LV in the bargain. I dunno what his plan was or if he had a plan at all. This would have been a spur of the moment decision, he would have to send Snape to LV right away. He probably didn't have time to consider all of the ramifications before making his decision. > Alla cont.: > And besides that would dissipate one of the major things Harry > has to forgive Snape for IMO - contributing to his parents death. Mike: Yep, but an even bigger BANG. Albus did it!! Besides, Snape was still complicit in the prophesy release. He can't claim ignorance. And Harry still blames him, so the motivation to track down Snape will still be there until Harry learns the whole story. > Alla, who hopes that the events in HH went exactly like Dumbledore > described. > > ETA: > > Just had a thought. If this is what happened and Dumbledore was > concerned with putting Snape in, etc, but did not really want > Potters and their child to die, I can see him offering to be their > secret keeper out of the sense of guilt first and foremost. I can > also see James learning about it and telling him something along > the lines - you hypocritical bastard, you put us and our son in > danger in the first place and now you are offering to be our > secret keeper? > > Go jump in the lake or something like that. That would be a > perfect reason for Potters to refuse DD offer as far as I am > concerned and I would have refused that too, but as I said, I am > hoping that this scenario did not happen. Mike: I hadn't thought of this, excellent!! This ties up another loose thread. Thanks Alla, you may be hoping that this isn't the real story but you just gave it another point in it's favor. :-D From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Tue Oct 3 18:23:40 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:23:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159028 Hickengruendler: >snip< > "My--our--one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was > detected only a short way into the prophesy and thrown from the > building." > > "So he only heard...?" > > "He heard only the first part, the part foretelling the birth of a > boy in July to parents who had thrice defied Voldemort. ..." > (OotP US, p.842) > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >snip< > vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv > "Yes, there was a commotion outside the door and it flew open, and > there was the rather uncouth barman standing with Snape, who was > waffling about having come the wrong way up the stairs, ..." > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Mike: > I'm not picking on Hickengruendler here, this is just one post that > is typical of a lot of people's opinion of Dumbledore. My > counterpoint here is that Dumbledore *does* lie to protect others. > And, IMO, Dumbledore lied about what Snape knew about the prophesy. > The only person to protect Snape from is Voldemort. (He doesn't need > protection from Harry). > > Put it together. What might really have happened that, if Voldemort > found out the truth about, would put Snape in danger? I envision two > possibilities. > > 1) Snape heard the whole prophesy but only told LV the first part. > (Was DD lying back in the Weasley's broomshed when he said that he > and Harry were the only ones that knew the whole prophesy). > > 2) Snape heard none of the prophesy (or only the last sentence) and > still only told Voldemort the first part. > (Maybe DD was just lying about Snape hearing any of the prophesy at > all. Maybe Snape wasn't actually listening at the door and only came > up the stairs and into the room when DD called him and Abeforth. > Maybe Dumbledore was the only one who heard any of the prophesy and > decided which part he wanted released.) > Laurawkids: I'm not really going to argue about DD lying, doesn't every organizer of a top-secret plan to rid the world of a horribly dangerous and powerful loony have to keep a few things to himself? I really want to say that there is a third way that Snape can hear just the first half of the prophesy: 3) Snape has his ear or spell to the door and hears the first half. He hears the bartender coming and has to straighten up, thus losing the ability to hear what ST is saying. Bartender asks a few questions (and is loud enough to drown out ST) and Snape gives inappropriate answers, thus angering the bartender who then decides to let DD know that he is being spied upon by shoving Snape into DD's room. By this time Sybil is done, it really does not take long to speak the prophesy, and conscious of what is going on. Then Snape is questioned and thrown out by DD. It could happen that way. I think this is the plain vanilla way to interpret what is said about the incident. I'm not saying it has to. But it would be a way for Snape to only hear the first half of the Pr., be the one to tell LV as LV's man, and then turn to DD when he hears how LV interprets the Pr. That would leave less lies/cover-ups to deal with. I do like the more complex theories about DD and Snape setting it all up, but have to also consider the plainer way. Laurawkids hoping that if Snape were still a baddie he got dragged thru the goat section of the bar. PS - How about Snape being an animagus as a Thestral? The same batty clues can still support the Thestrals' huge bat-like wings, "...vast, black leathery wings that looked as though they ought to belong to giant bats." OotP There is no listing for Thestrals in Fantastic Beasts, is the ommision telling? OOOOHHHHHHH, might also explain Snape's tendency for ripping the wounded. He has a bloodlust and Harry is damaged and bleeding. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 18:41:02 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:41:02 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159029 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Mike: > > So, what does she tell us? Here's Sibyll (HBP US, > > p.545): > > > Sibyll goes into a trance-like state during her > > prophesy telling, she is unaware that she even made > > them. She is unaware of what is happening until > > *after* she comes out of her trance. There is no way > > she can know Snape was there unless he was there > > *after* Sibyll *completes* the prophesy. ... > > Alla: > >Not necessarily, Montavilla offered alternative scenario > and I have another ..., ... > > Snape hears the first part of the prophecy and Aberworth > catches him at that moment, but the first thing that > Aberworth does is casts "Muffliato" ..., so Snape ... > does not hear anything else ..., then he opens the > door and pushes Snape for Dumbledore to see and Sybill > comes out of her trance now and sees Snape who is indeed > there, ... > > I mean, I think it is perfectly logical IMO that the > first thing Aberworth would be concerned with is to > protect his brother's privacy and then smack Snape. > > Alla > bboyminn: I'm afraid I won't be able to add much to the discussion; perhaps just a few minor points. First and foremost, I think Montavilla's idea is brilliant. Being the linear thinker that I am, it would never have occurred to me that Snape could have been caught first and the Prophecy started after he was caught, then he was thrown from the room. I think that fits the information we have perfectly. Though as I said, it is a sequence that would never have occurred to me. Alla's idea also works. It is possible that Aberforth caught Snape and cast some type of silencing or sound masking/blocking charm between Snape and the room. However, how necessary is that silencing charm really? I think one thing that people are forgetting is that as shabby and run down as it is, the Hogs Head has still stood for something approaching 1,000 years. This is not a building built like the cracker boxes we muggles, primarily USA muggles, call houses. In general, in Europe, even a modest house is built with the intent that it will last 500 years. The typical Wood, and even stucco or brick, American house is only intended to last 100 years. And a few modern suburban houses will be very very luck to even last 100 years. So, it is very unlikely that the door Snape was listening at was not a flimsy hollow veneered door like that found in most interiors of modern houses. It was probably solid very thick English Oak. So, all Aberforth has to do is pull Snape away from the door and it is unlikely that he would have been able to make anything out of the very little sound that was escaping from the room. Note that when Harry is eavesdropping on Draco and Snape, he has to literally press his ear to the keyhole to be able to hear anything. The keyhole is probably the only route of escape for any sound coming from behind a very substantial castle door. So, I think if Snape was prevented from pressing his ear firmly to the door or the keyhole, and was futher distracted by Aberforth yelling at him, that would have been sufficient to prevent him from hearing the rest of the Prophecy. I think the fact that the Hog's Head has stood for many many centuries should tell us something about how solidly constructed it is, and that solid construction would very likely have prevented Snape from hearing any details without very substantial effort on his part. So, in view of all this, I really don't see what the problem is. We have expressed here three very logical and reasonable ways in which the events could have unfolded; three scenarios that fit the available facts. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Tue Oct 3 18:32:03 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 18:32:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159030 > PS - How about Snape being an animagus as a Thestral? The same batty > clues can still support the Thestrals' huge bat-like wings, "...vast, > black leathery wings that looked as though they ought to belong to > giant bats." OotP There is no listing for Thestrals in Fantastic > Beasts, is the ommision telling? > > OOOOHHHHHHH, might also explain Snape's tendency for ripping the > wounded. He has a bloodlust and Harry is "damaged" and "bleeding". > I am just noting that I am not the first to hold this idea, and I should have made a better search. Would Snape be the Thestral that DD rides when he is going very long distances? Talk about a reason to trust him, Snape has never thrown DD off! : ) Laurawkids From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Oct 3 18:50:21 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:50:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159031 >Laurawkids: > >I'm not really going to argue about DD lying, doesn't every organizer >of a top-secret plan to rid the world of a horribly dangerous and >powerful loony have to keep a few things to himself? > >I really want to say that there is a third way that Snape can hear >just the first half of the prophesy: > >3) Snape has his ear or spell to the door and hears the first half. >He hears the bartender coming and has to straighten up, thus losing >the ability to hear what ST is saying. Bartender asks a few >questions (and is loud enough to drown out ST) and Snape gives >inappropriate answers, thus angering the bartender who then decides >to let DD know that he is being spied upon by shoving Snape into DD's >room. By this time Sybil is done, it really does not take long to >speak the prophesy, and conscious of what is going on. Then Snape is >questioned and thrown out by DD. > >It could happen that way. I think this is the plain vanilla way to >interpret what is said about the incident. wynnleaf I completely agree. If you wanted to stage this scenario it would be *so simple* to block this little scene out and make it completely believable. In fact, my guess it this is exactly what JKR was invisioning and it has simply been we typically suspicious readers that have made into something complex. Snape is listening at the door and the prophecy begins. At the same time Sybil starts the prophecy, the bartender is coming up the stairs. About halfway through the prophecy, the bartender comes into the hallway and surprising Snape who backs away from the door, thereby missing the rest of the prophecy. The bartender demands an explanation. Snape stumbles with a few lines of excuses. By that time the prophecy is done and the bartender doesn't want to hear any more excuses. The bartender opens the door revealing Snape at the same time as Sybil returns to her senses. Then the bartender throws Snape out of the building. DD knows that Snape only heard half the prophecy because he heard the bartender and Snape start arguing in the hallway about halfway through the prophecy, and because he later questioned the bartender and knew that Snape backed away from the door when the bartender entered the hallway. This is such a simple explanation. DD didn't lie in this case (although, yes, he does lie some other times). Snape only heard half the prophecy. Sybil saw Snape. Snape got thrown out. It all fits quite easily. wynnleaf, who wrote this explanation to Red Hen, but has no idea what she made of it. _________________________________________________________________ Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 13:55:17 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 08:55:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610030005u6ac1b13fq8405b44cdd1ee74f@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0610030005u6ac1b13fq8405b44cdd1ee74f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610030655x14d0bc14l8297aaba0395045@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159032 > > a_svirn: > Funny you should ask that. It so happened that Lucius planted the > diary for the reasons totally unrelated to Voldemort and it almost > got Harry killed. Again. And he didn't survive because of the blood > protection. Again. > > Lynda: > > Actually, that's not right. Lucius planted the diary with Ginny's stuff > because he wanted it to go back to Hogwarts and (presumably) to be the > catalyst to reopening the Chamber of Secrets--he knew it was Voldemort's > old > diary. As for Harry's survival at that point, since the blood/family > protection is only in force when Harry is at the Dursleys the lack of > blood > protection at Hogwarts for Harry is not relevant. montims: So Harry is protected at home, and protected at Hogwarts. LV has been seen in PS, and DD fears he will target Harry. So why, when Ron and Harry are blocked at the barrier in CoS, and spend all those many hours flying in the car, does DD not send out a search party, and Order members to bring them in safely? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 3 19:29:11 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:29:11 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159033 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Mike: > > Whoa, Dumbledore didn't forge anything. He used magic to convince > Mrs. Cole that he had proper authorization to offer Tom a place > at "his school", which he *did*. He used his magic to keep from > revealing that "his school" was a school for witchcraft and > wizaredry. Not to defraud anyone. > > You may call it being lazy. You may say that he should have > convinced the current Minister of Magic to go to the present Prime > Minister (would that have been Chamberlain? haha) to produce a > different *false* document that claimed that Hogwarts is just an > ordinary boarding school in Scotland. You may also blame Dumbledore > for taking the easy way out for not affecting an endemic change > between the WW and their RW. Sorry I'm not convinced that was or is > a realistic expectation and, make no mistake, that is the scale of > correction you are asking for. > Ken: I see that there are at least three of you who make what I consider to be an error. You are confusing the *technology* that is used to create a forgery with the act of forgery itself. What Dumbledore needs in this instance is a document or documents that convince Mrs. Cole that Hogwarts is a school accredited by the UK government to educate students with Tom's "problems" and that Hogwarts is offering that education gratis. Dumbledore has no such documents on his person, he creates them out of thin air. The fact that the piece of paper is physically blank and remains blank is immaterial. The key is that Dumbledore has created *something that appears to be an official document* when he in fact has no official document. That is forgery. The fact that magic was used is immaterial. The fact that the document itself was only an illusion is immaterial. *All forgeries are illusions!* So I will make your counter argument for you. It certainly is *possible* that Dumbledore was authorized to have such documents from both the state and from Hogwarts. I'd say it is certain that he had Hogwart's official blessing to make the offer of a free education. If Hogwarts also is accredited by the state and has a blanket authorization to offer a magical education to magically gifted orphans then the fact that Dumbledore conjured the documents out of thin air rather the presenting preprinted documents is also immaterial. If what Dumbledore did in this scene was offically sanctioned then it was not forgery. If it was not offically sanctioned then it was. How do you read the scene? As far as I can tell everyone reads this as a case of Dumbledore doing something on the sly and that is how I think the author intended it. But Cannonically I suppose it is impossible to decide the matter since Dumbledore did not address his apparent deception. All I am saying is that the MoM has an official relationship with the British government in these stories. In another post Carol questions how far back it goes and fair enough, we don't know that it goes this far back, we don't know that it does not. My guess is that it goes back nearly to the founding of Hogwarts but that is only my opinion. Assuming that this relationship was in place at the time of the "Cole incident" then there was no reason for Dumbldore or anyone else to have done anything illegal or to use any false documentation. I would think that a matter like this could easily fall within the executive authority of the PM's office and certainly would have been within the executive authority of the direct monarchy that preceeded Britian's present parlimentary democracy. I am not questioning the ends, I believe I have previously indicated that the ends are honorable and in the best interest of all parties, including the children. I am questioning the means. Alternate, legal means would appear to have been available. We can look at this scene and still see Dumbledore as epitomizing goodness precisely because his ends are honorable. I cannot look at this scene and say that Dumbldore is acting properly. He is not perfect. Ken From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 14:18:17 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:18:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610030718u3350b39fh4f5a50ae1e1b8ee0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159034 Potioncat: > If Trelawney's comments in OoP are accurate, she was hired in October. > So we're talking about 4--6 weeks into term. (I've forgotten now, why I > think it's the first part of October.) If she is applying for a new > opening, then perhaps something had recently happened to the previous > teacher. > > It's remotely possible that the DADA position had not been filled at > all. The war with LV had started and perhaps people were too fearful to > apply; or really good DADA types were occupied with fighting LV. It's > possible that both teachers had been killed in the fight with LV. > > I think LV wanted Snape at Hogwarts and had him apply every year until > he got in. It would explain how Snape was able to slip out of some DE > work. He had to keep his reputation clean. montims: I've missed something. Why was Snape there at all? OK, he was following DD around, and spying for LV. OK, he was told by LV to get a job at Hogwarts, and maybe this didn't displease him. But why, actually, was he listening (or trying to listen) to DD interviewing Sybill? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 20:12:01 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:12:01 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610030655x14d0bc14l8297aaba0395045@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159035 montims: > So Harry is protected at home, and protected at Hogwarts. LV has been seen in PS, and DD fears he will target Harry. So why, when Ron and Harry are blocked at the barrier in CoS, and spend all those many hours flying in the car, does DD not send out a search party, and Order members to bring them in safely? Carol responds: No need for a search party. Snape knows where they are and is waiting for them, having deduced that the Flying Ford Anglia in the Daily Prophet is their mode of transportation. If Snape knows, it's likely that DD knows as well. Possibly they know that the car belongs to Mr. Weasley or the Weasleys have sent an owl to inform Dumbledore that Ron and Harry must have taken the car because it's missing along with the boys. At any rate, the Order hasn't been reformed yet (Voldemort has returned to vapor form and does not present an immediate danger), but Dumbledore's man is there waiting to escort them into the school (and give them an earful about rule-breaking in the process). Carol, again wondering what DD meant by "you've been watched more closely than you know" From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 20:08:07 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:08:07 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610030005u6ac1b13fq8405b44cdd1ee74f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159036 > a_svirn: > Funny you should ask that. It so happened that Lucius planted the > diary for the reasons totally unrelated to Voldemort and it almost > got Harry killed. Again. And he didn't survive because of the blood > protection. Again. > > > Lynda: > > Actually, that's not right. Lucius planted the diary with Ginny's stuff > because he wanted it to go back to Hogwarts and (presumably) to be the > catalyst to reopening the Chamber of Secrets--he knew it was Voldemort's old > diary. a_svirn: And that beats my argument how? Lucius planted Voldemort's old diary because he wanted stir trouble in Hogwarts, yes. But his reasons had nothing to do with Voldemort. > Lynda: As for Harry's survival at that point, since the blood/family > protection is only in force when Harry is at the Dursleys the lack of blood > protection at Hogwarts for Harry is not relevant. a_svirn: Yeah, right. It's not relevant in Hogwarts and in any other place where Harry can find himself in mortal danger, and only relevant in one place, where he does not belonged and is not wanted. As protections go it looks rather pointless. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 20:27:49 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:27:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Steve wrote: > > So, I think if Snape was prevented from pressing his ear > firmly to the door or the keyhole, and was futher > distracted by Aberforth yelling at him, that would have > been sufficient to prevent him from hearing the rest of > the Prophecy. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laurawkids wrote: > > I really want to say that there is a third way that Snape can hear > just the first half of the prophesy: > > 3) Snape has his ear or spell to the door and hears the first > half. He hears the bartender coming and has to straighten up, thus > losing the ability to hear what ST is saying. Bartender asks a few > questions (and is loud enough to drown out ST) and Snape gives > inappropriate answers, thus angering the bartender who then decides > to let DD know that he is being spied upon by shoving Snape into > DD's room. By this time Sybil is done, --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wynnleaf wrote: > > Snape is listening at the door and the prophecy begins. At the > same time Sybil starts the prophecy, the bartender is coming up > the stairs. About halfway through the prophecy, the bartender > comes into the hallway and surprising Snape who backs away from > the door, thereby missing the rest of the prophecy. The bartender > demands an explanation. Snape stumbles with a few lines of > excuses. By that time the prophecy is done and the bartender > doesn't want to hear any more excuses. The bartender opens the > door revealing Snape at the same time as Sybil returns to her > senses. Then the bartender throws Snape out of the building. > Mike: I would refer all three to my post upthread. The problem with all three of these is that Aberforth (the bartender) does not know where Sibyll is at in the telling of the prophesy, he doesn't even know there is a prophesy being told. In what way would Albus deduce when an eavesdropping Snape stopped hearing the prophesy? How can Albus know how far along Sibyll was when Aberforth started-yelling-at- Snape / came-into-the-hallway / Snape-moves-away-from-the-keyhole? The timing is just too close for DD to be as certain as he was in his OotP explanation. We know that LV received the "thrice defied" line and that LV did not get the very next line, "marking him as equal" and "power the Dark Lord knows not" (all in the next sentence). Without Aberforth knowing where Sibyll was at, Albus cannot know when Aberforth interrupted Snape. > wynnleaf cont: > DD knows that Snape only heard half the prophecy because he > heard the bartender and Snape start arguing in the hallway > about halfway through the prophecy, and because he later > questioned the bartender and knew that Snape backed away from the > door when the bartender entered the hallway. Mike again: I just don't think you can have it both ways. You can't say that Snape needs to have his ear to the keyhole in order to hear the prophesy, but Albus can hear everything going on outside the door while standing up in the room (and, mark you, still listening to what Sibyll is saying). If Albus doesn't need to be listening at the keyhole to hear what's going on outside, then Snape doesn't need to be listening at the keyhole to hear the prophesy. Anything in between means that DD cannot be as certain as he was as to how much of the prophesy was overheard. And DD was very specific in OotP as to exactly how much of the prophesy was overheard. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 20:29:25 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:29:25 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610030718u3350b39fh4f5a50ae1e1b8ee0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159038 montims: > I've missed something. Why was Snape there at all? OK, he was following DD around, and spying for LV. OK, he was told by LV to get a job at Hogwarts, > and maybe this didn't displease him. But why, actually, was he listening > (or trying to listen) to DD interviewing Sybill? > Carol responds: Especially when it wasn't even the normal time of year for an interview. How could he have known that Trelawney would be interviewing for the post of Divination teacher that night or that she'd be staying at the Hogs' Head? Most likely he didn't. And, IMO. Voldemort hadn't asked him to apply for the DADA post yet. I think that happened *after* snape had told him part of the Prophecy, and the opportunity wouldn't occur until the following summer. I'm betting that's when Snape went to Dumbledore, shortly after Harry's birth, with his information about Voldemort had interpreted the Prophecy. At that time, DD would have turned him down for a teaching position but it would be the perfect opportunity to make him a spy and test his loyalty and courage. The following year, when he tried again (still on LV's orders), he would have been given the Potions position (Slughorn having conveniently resigned) instead of DADA. But IMO, and I realize that others disagree with me, Trelawney is mistaken about young Snape being there to get job interviewing tips (as if he'd do that by listening to Trelawney, anyway!). The time frame is wrong, but her mind is muddled by hindsight and cooking sherry when she unwittingly reveals the identity of the eavesdropper. At any rate, I don't think that young Snape was spying for anybody at that time, though DD says he was a loyal DE. I think he was simply curious and followed DD upstairs. Alternatively, he was in league with Aberforth and Dumbledore all along, but why they would stage an eavesdropping, I have no clue. I agree with Mike that the eavesdropper being thrown out halfway through the Prophecy does not match Trelawney's version, and garbled as that version may be in terms of Snape's motive for eavesdropping and the timing of his teaching appointment in relation to hers (my point, not Mike's), it's clear that she did actually see him--after the Prophecy was complete. There's no way to reconcile that with "ejected from the building halfway through the Prophecy." No way at all, my precious. (Sorry. Wrong book.) Carol, not sold on any alternative version at this point and fearing that here as elsewhere JKR just doesn't see the inconsistencies From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 20:25:31 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:25:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610031325p7c27aa26m86ddebc29b254d2a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159039 > Ken: > > So I will make your counter argument for you. It certainly is > *possible* that Dumbledore was authorized to have such documents from > both the state and from Hogwarts. ... > If Hogwarts also is accredited by the state Random832: I think that is the fundamental question - it's certain that it's "accredited" [or what passes for it] by the MoM. The issue, then, is whether the MoM is a legitimate organ of the british state. > Ken: > As far as I can tell everyone reads this as a case of > Dumbledore doing something on the sly and that is how I think the > author intended it. It's 100% clear that getting her drunk to get information about Tom was intended as that. It's a lot less clear that the 'forgery' is intended as such - to me, it certainly "smells like" what we've been shown as being standard operating procedure for dealing with muggles other than immediate relatives of muggleborn children. -- Random832 From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 3 20:44:24 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:44:24 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159040 > Carol responds: > Sorry to snip the rest of your post, but I just want to point out that > there's no forged document, only a spell on a piece of paper that > causes Mrs. Cole to see what she thinks should be there for the > documents to be in order. There's really no other way that I can see > for Dumbledore to get Tom to Hogwarts, where he has to be so he can > learn to control his magic, especially if there's evidence that he's > been using it to abuse other children. Since DD has no choice but to > prevent Mrs. Cole from knowing the truth (I see no way that he could > obtain genuine documents. Fudge isn't MoM yet, so there may not even > be any communication between the MoM and the Muggle Prime Minister), > and she probably wouldn't believe official documents authorizing Tom's > attendance at the Hogwarts School for witchcraft and Wizardry, anyway, > it seems to me that Dumbledore's "crime" here is pretty minor. In this > case, whethe Dumbledore and JKR generally approve the principle or > not, the end justifies the means. > > No harm came to Mrs. Cole, and it was certainly for the good of the > children in the orphanage to get Tom away from there for ten months of > each year. > > Carol, not trying to get into an OT philosophical discussion, only to > state once again that DD in this instance had no choice (and could > have been much more forceful if he were less respectful of Muggles > than he is) > Ken: Snipping my posts is not necessarily a bad thing. You would not believe how many I have typed and then snipped in their entirety before posting them. ;-) As I said in another post I see no difference between using magic to create the illusion that one has an official document and using pen and ink to create the illusion that one has an official document. Both are forgeries. The use of magic is immaterial and neither magnifies nor diminishes the crime. You justify Dumbldore's decision by presuming that he has to succeed. He does not have to succeed. The Statute of Secrecy certainly does not force him to succeed, it forces him to keep a secret. If Dumbldore fails then the Ministry has to deal with the problems that result. If the Ministry has to deal with these problems then it might take the matter up with the PM's office (if it has not already). If people like Dumbledore deal with problems like these on the sly as we seem to agree that he is doing, then the problem is never brought to a legtimate resolution. Dumbledore's ad hoc "solution" merely helps to perpetuate the problem. I see no reason that official documents for Hogwarts would have to identify it as a school for wizards and witches. The documents only have to identify it as a state accredited boarding school with the financial standing to make the offer of a free education. For this purpose it could simply be identified as Hogwarts Academy. The University of Illinois is simply that, its name does not specifiy all the fields of study that are taught there. Now there is a way to view this scene that allows Dumbledore to beat the forgery rap which I have outlined in a previous post. It is not canonical, and so far as I can tell I am the only one to mention it. But then I usually can see both sides of an issue, I only argue the side that is the most fun to defend. It is possible that Dumbledore did have official sanction from both the state and Hogwarts and in that case he did nothing wrong by conjuring the illusion of an official document since Mrs Cole did not perceive that magic was being used. The Statute of Secrecy is a tough, tough law to enforce and obey, I grant that. It does not *force* anyone to act unethically. Individual witches and wizards and the Ministry collectively *choose* convenience over ethics. I won't let them off the hook for that. Ken From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 20:55:34 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 20:55:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159041 > > Alla: > > > > I would not put anything past Dumbledore recently, but I am going to still hoping that what you describe is not what happened :- ) > > > Mike: > I understasnd how you feel Alla. My take on it is that DD was taking a chance, yeah, but he also couldn't know that it would result in two deaths. He maybe realized he was putting unknown people in danger but thought he could prevent any damage and capture LV in the bargain. I dunno what his plan was or if he had a plan at all. This would have been a spur of the moment decision, he would have to send Snape to LV right away. He probably didn't have time to consider all of the ramifications before making his decision. > > > Alla cont.: > > And besides that would dissipate one of the major things Harry > > has to forgive Snape for IMO - contributing to his parents death. > > Mike: > Yep, but an even bigger BANG. Albus did it!! Besides, Snape was > still complicit in the prophesy release. He can't claim ignorance. > And Harry still blames him, so the motivation to track down Snape > will still be there until Harry learns the whole story. > Tonks: DD is so real to me that I feel I know him well. We have been old friends for many years. ;-) And Hagrid will probably agree with me when I say that DD would never do what you are suggesting. DD would never put anyone in danger, unless it was their will to be in such a position. We are talking about the epitome of goodness, remember? Not the Dark Lord. DD is `wise as a serpent' as we are all advised to be, but he is not a true Slytherin. I see nothing wrong with his ability to think like the enemy to win the game. That does not make him *like* the enemy. Also DD would not make a decision on the fly as you suggests, he would not make a decision of that magnitude without careful thought. I am sure when he tells Harry that only Harry and he know the whole prophesy, DD is telling the truth. DD does not lie. I understand that he did to save Harry, but that was very rare for him. That was out of character for DD, and he did it because the stakes were high. He did it for a higher, noble purpose. I can't say why the events don't jive, but I believe DD. I trust him, just as Hagrid does. As Harry does. I am sure that DD is not involved in anyway in the death of James and Lily. And I am a bit surprised that anyone would suggest it. Tonks_op DD's most loyal, most faithful. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 21:01:07 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:01:07 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159042 > > a_svirn: > < HUGE SNIP> > > Now, Dumbledore, he had a much nicer deal. He was the law onto > > himself and loved it. > > Alla: > > Blink. Aren't you describing the dictator like Stalin here? I mean, > this is not exactly disagreement with substance since as I mentioned > some time ago, you forced me to see DD's mistakes in much harsher > way than I did before, but more like disagreement with the degree of > the DD dictatorial style. > > Could you point me to canon where DD **loves** what he does, namely > making all those terrible decisions? > > Where he enjoys ruling people, etc. a_svirn: Blink-blink. What terrible decisions? Why Stalin? I said Dumbledore loved being a law onto himself ? that is, being above and beyond the law. There are plenty examples in canon of him showing a fine disregard to the matters legal. > Alla: > > But did he lose his Headmastership for something truly wrong that he > did? I mean, first time Lucius' bribery and second time, well, we > know - Dolores dear. Or are you thinking of other occasions? > > And what did he fail year after year, if you don't mind? I mean, > don't get me wrong, I do think that he failed Harry, and I think he > should have felt guilty about it, but are you saying that he > deserves to not be Headmaster because of that? a_svirn: Well, fist of all, I mentioned those occasions just to illustrate that his *official* positions were more vulnerable than the unofficial one. I didn't mean that he was rightly fired from Wizengamot or should have been replaced as a leader of the Order. But I do think that it is very dangerous for anyone, even essentially a good guy, to wield as much power ? total and unconditional power ? as Dumbledore did in his "unofficial" capacity. At least, his above-board political activity, so to speak, could be (and was) checked ? there are established mechanisms of doing so. As for him failing year after year ? yes, I do mean that he failed Harry. This probably does not concern his headmastership as much as his leadership of the order. Whether or not he deserved to be replaced I am not sure. I do think, however, that his style of leadership was dictatorial at best, and his mistakes were numerous. Maybe phoenixes on the whole deserved such a leader, since they were content to leave all the responsibility of decision-making to Dumbledore. But Harry deserved better. Second, as for him being wronged by the Ministry. Lucius may have bribed and threatened the board of governors but don't you think they had a point when they suspended him? I mean, there were several attacks on Muggle-borns and not only the culprit wasn't found, the great headmaster didn't have a fist idea where to look for him. What they were supposed to? Share a firewhisky with Dumbledore and commiserate? And two years later there was that Tournament and the whole bunch of scandals, including embarrassing international ones. And in the end a student was killed, and three others attacked. Imagine such situation in real life, how long do you think any headmaster would retain their office after a disaster of such monumental proportions? > Alla: > On the other hand, I just realised that you may have a point ( > unfortunately) due to DD refusing MOM position. I used to think that > this is because he prefers to be a teacher and teach young people > noble things, etc,etc, but maybe this is indeed because that as MoM > he would be accountable for what he does and as a Leader of OOP , he > really does not. > a_svirn: Yep, that's exactly what I think. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 21:09:43 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:09:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159043 --- "Mike" wrote: > ...edited previous quotes... > ...edited partial response... > > > > wynnleaf cont: > > DD knows that Snape only heard half the prophecy > > because he heard the bartender and Snape start > > arguing in the hallway about halfway through the > > prophecy, ... > > Mike again: > I just don't think you can have it both ways. You can't > say that Snape needs to have his ear to the keyhole in > order to hear the prophesy, but Albus can hear > everything going on outside the door while standing up > in the room ... bboyminn: I think you are taking a very all-or-nothing approach that is not entirely realistic. It is possible that Albus heard /something/ going on outside the door without know the details until some later time. It is also possible that while Snape was in conversation with Aberforth, he was aware that whatever Trelawney was saying on the other side of the door was still indeed going on, but again was not able to discern the details. It's the difference between the awarenss of a vague muffled sound occurring in some other location, and the hearing of clearly define speech. You can be aware that something is going on without being aware of precisely what is going on. Just passing it a along. Steve/bboyminn From katbofaye at aol.com Tue Oct 3 21:03:24 2006 From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:03:24 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159044 I was re reading SS and again came across what I think is a joke in Chapter 10. Flitwick is teaching Wingardium Leviosa and tells them to be careful how they pronounce it or like the Wizard Baruffio they may end up on the floor with a Buffalo on their chest. He says that a s replaced an f. I do not get it. Can someone help me. What did the Wizard really want to happen? katssirius From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 21:31:42 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:31:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159045 > Mike again: > I just don't think you can have it both ways. You can't say that > Snape needs to have his ear to the keyhole in order to hear the > prophesy, but Albus can hear everything going on outside the door > while standing up in the room (and, mark you, still listening to > what Sibyll is saying). If Albus doesn't need to be listening at the > keyhole to hear what's going on outside, then Snape doesn't need to > be listening at the keyhole to hear the prophesy. Anything in > between means that DD cannot be as certain as he was as to how much > of the prophesy was overheard. And DD was very specific in OotP as > to exactly how much of the prophesy was overheard. > Tonks: OK, let put it all together. The door is thick wood. DD and Sybil are in the room. For some reason Snape is at the door, listening. (We don't know if he was following DD or just trying to see who was there. But this doesn't matter.) Snape hears the first part. The barman comes up the stairs. Starts talking to Snape which takes Snape away from hearing the rest. DD knows nothing about what is going on, because again the door is thick. Then the barman and Snape bust into the room. DD uses Legimency on Snape to see what he knows. This is how DD knows how much Snape has heard. Snape is still young and not the expert Occumens that he is now. End of story. Now if you don't belive this, the other option is that when Snape defected from the DE, he told DD what he had heard. And since DD trust Snape, that is why he says that Snape overheard only the first part. Tonks_op From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 21:37:31 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:37:31 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159046 > Tonks: > McGonagall doesn't seem to have any problem asking DD about his > decisions, such as when she questions his decision to put Harry with > the Dursleys. She is able to talk freely to him. Do you think for > a moment that any of LV's followers could do that? They would be > dead on the spot. LV is a dictator. DD is not. DD allows people > like Snape to argue with him. That would never happen with LV. > LV's word is law, period. DD is very easy going, he doesn't sweat > the small stuff. a_svirn: Yes, McGonagall sought him out and asked for explanations. And did Dumbledore give them? No, he didn't. Instead he deliberately misled her. First, about what really happened at Godric Hollow, and second, why he left Harry to the Dursleys. By HBP she certainly knew that Dumbledore wasn't what you might call forthcoming with her, but does she resent it? Nope, she still thinks that Dumbledore is above reproach. Of course, as a reprisal for insubordination being lied to definitely beats being tortured and killed, but it still leaves a lot of space for improvement. > Tonks: > There is a joke about the redemption of the world that says "thank > God that he didn't send a committee". The idea being that sometimes > a liberal democracy is not the most efficient manner to get the job > done. a_svirn: Maybe not. But efficiency isn't everything. Besides, Dumbledore hadn't even the excuse of being efficient. > Tonks: The whole idea of "questioning authority" has gone a bit > overboard. And it is a new idea in the past 30 years. a_svirn: Well, you are quite wrong about that. Democracy goes back muuuuch farther than 30 years. > Tonks: It is not how > most of the world or even the U.S. was run up until that time. > Families, businesses, government, etc. were run with a chain of > command, do as you are told style of leadership. And the WW is in > that era, not in the 21st century. We seem to keep forgetting that. a_svirn: Yes, well, it's only the late 20th century in the WW. So what? They have all the necessary institutions, haven't they? Well, the judicial branch of government probably leaves something to be desired but even so it's hardly the Dark Ages. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 22:11:09 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:11:09 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159047 > Ken: > The Statute of Secrecy is a tough, tough law to enforce and obey, I > grant that. It does not *force* anyone to act unethically. Individual > witches and wizards and the Ministry collectively *choose* convenience > over ethics. I won't let them off the hook for that. a_svirn: Although I agree with you on the question of forgeries I think that stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Because memory charms *are* unethical and it's impossible to maintain secrecy without them. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 22:29:33 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:29:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159048 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > I think you are taking a very all-or-nothing approach that > is not entirely realistic. It is possible that Albus heard > /something/ going on outside the door without know the > details until some later time. It is also possible that > while Snape was in conversation with Aberforth, he was > aware that whatever Trelawney was saying on the other side > of the door was still indeed going on, but again was not > able to discern the details. > > It's the difference between the awarenss of a vague muffled > sound occurring in some other location, and the hearing of > clearly define speech. You can be aware that something is > going on without being aware of precisely what is going on. Mike: Well, my next line in the previous post was about anything in between. So, I'm not really taking an all or nothing position. My take on this scenario is simply that without any coordination between Albus and Aberforth that Albus could not be as sure, as he was, when Snape got cut off from overhearing the prophesy. Albus is sure Snape overheard everything up until "...as the seventh month dies" but not not a word of "and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal..." If you are sure that Albus could draw a definite line of demarcation based on muffled noises, then I'm not going to convince you otherwise. Something else to explore: Tonks: OK, let put it all together. The door is thick wood. DD and Sybil are in the room. For some reason Snape is at the door, listening. (We don't know if he was following DD or just trying to see who was there. But this doesn't matter.) Mike: I think it does matter. montims: I've missed something. Why was Snape there at all? OK, he was following DD around, and spying for LV. OK, he was told by LV to get a job at Hogwarts, and maybe this didn't displease him. But why, actually, was he listening (or trying to listen) to DD interviewing Sybill? Mike: Another point to answer. (Thank you montims) Instead of reaching to try to figure out how to reconcile the two versions of events, we should be asking why Snape would be eavesdropping on a teachers job interview. IMO, it is so much more logical to consider that Snape didn't hear any of the prophesy and only appeared at the door with Aberforth after Albus summoned both of them up from the bar. I just think that JKR was trying to send a message with the difference between DD's explanation and ST's reveal. JKR may be indefinite about some of her other minor points, but do you really think she was being casual about Snape overhearing "The prophesy"? This was *the* penultimate reveal of the entire series, IMO. She's not going to approach the *what happened* casually and when she slips in this anomaly between the two versions, it wasn't an accident and it wasn't a *I-can explain-that* moment. It means something. Let me be clear here. IMO Dumbledore lies to protect Snape. If Voldemort ever knew that Snape heard none or all of the prophesy, but only reported the first two sentences, Snape - dead man! Even if you want to say that DD was only protecting Snape's identity as the eavesdropper from Harry in OotP, now that Snape is going into deep cover close to Voldemort is not the time for DD to tell anyone the true story, especially Harry. And, if my prediction that Snape was already working for Dumbledore by the time of the prophesy, it makes perfect sense that Dumbledore does not tell anyone the true story, that he and Snape stick to their *likely story* to protect Snape's position vis-a-vis Voldemort. JMO Mike From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Oct 3 23:29:21 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:29:21 -0000 Subject: How much of the Prophecy Snape heard WAS: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610030718u3350b39fh4f5a50ae1e1b8ee0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159049 montims: > I've missed something. Why was Snape there at all? OK, he was following DD around, and spying for LV. OK, he was told by LV to get a job at Hogwarts, and maybe this didn't displease him. But why, actually, was he listening (or trying to listen) to DD interviewing Sybill? Ceridwen: My speculation. In more than one part. Snape is either spying for LV at this time, or he wants to discover something that will please LV and move himself up in the DE ranks. This excludes a scenario where Snape is DDM before the prophecy, btw, I'm leading up to answering the question. So, Spy!Snape, either on LV's payroll and following DD on orders, or freelance and following DD because he is the best bet for impressive information, sees that his quarry has a closed-door meeting with an outside character. Since his quarry is in an apparently secret meeting, it makes sense for a spy to try and find out what the quarry and his companion are discussing. This may have some bearing on his master, whether he has been ordered to spy or is doing it on his own. So, he spies. DD isn't exactly young here, so there is no question of something untoward going on between him and the obviously down-and-out younger woman. But, if there was something, it could be used against DD. Something like this alone would be beneficial to LV. Spying is constant observation of a target. Most times, it's boring. Sometimes it cashes in. Since something relevant to LV crops up, Snape's mission is a success. Now, when did he turn? Here? Before? Or after, when he discovered how LV had interpreted the portion of the prophecy that he heard? Ceridwen. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 3 23:40:00 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:40:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159050 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > Tonks: > DD is so real to me that I feel I know him well. We have been old > friends for many years. ;-) And Hagrid will probably agree with > me when I say that DD would never do what you are suggesting. DD > would never put anyone in danger, unless it was their will to be > in such a position. We are talking about the epitome of goodness, > remember? ----------------------------------------------------------------- "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy?" (DD in OotP, p839, US) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Mike now: Sorry to burst your bubble Tonks. There's more of that in the previous paragraph. :-( > Tonks cont: > Also DD would not make a decision on the fly as you suggests, he > would not make a decision of that magnitude without careful > thought. Mike: But what if he didn't have the time to consider all options? I suppose you could say he would choose inaction, but does that really speak better of him? What if he got a *this is it* moment and the thought of doing nothing was more repugnant than taking the chance? > Tonks cont: > I am sure when he tells Harry that only Harry and he know the > whole prophesy, DD is telling the truth. DD does not lie. I > understand that he did to save Harry, but that was very rare for > him. That was out of character for DD, and he did it because the > stakes were high. > He did it for a higher, noble purpose. Mike: Well, in my believed scenario, DD and Harry are still the only ones that know the entire prophesy because Snape wasn't there to hear it. He showed up after it was over. And DD is lying to Harry for a noble purpose. He's protecting Snape, not himself. And the stakes are much higher than expulsion from school, these are life or death stakes. > Tonks cont: > I can't say why the events don't jive, but I believe DD. I trust > him, just as Hagrid does. As Harry does. I am sure that DD is > not involved in anyway in the death of James and Lily. And I am > a bit surprised that anyone would suggest it. > > Tonks_op > DD's most loyal, most faithful. Mike, afraid that Tonks_op is having a Narcissa moment: "Don't you dare -- don't you dare blame my husband!" From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 3 23:51:40 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 23:51:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159051 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > I just think that JKR was trying to send a message with the > difference between DD's explanation and ST's reveal. JKR may be > indefinite about some of her other minor points, but do you really > think she was being casual about Snape overhearing "The prophesy"? > This was *the* penultimate reveal of the entire series, IMO. She's > not going to approach the *what happened* casually and when she > slips in this anomaly between the two versions, it wasn't an > accident and it wasn't a *I-can explain-that* moment. It means > something. > > Let me be clear here. IMO Dumbledore lies to protect Snape. If > Voldemort ever knew that Snape heard none or all of the prophesy, > but only reported the first two sentences, Snape - dead man! Even if > you want to say that DD was only protecting Snape's identity as the > eavesdropper from Harry in OotP, now that Snape is going into deep > cover close to Voldemort is not the time for DD to tell anyone the > true story, especially Harry. Quick_Silver: Is it even safe to assume that Trelawney or Snape even have the right memories of that event? HBP is full of people getting their memories modified so that they have a different version of events that actually happened (Morfin, Horkey). Dumbledore could easily have altered Trelawney's memory which would also explain why he keeps her in the castle...we were told in GoF that memory charms can be broken. Or maybe Dumbledore tried to modify Snape's memory, and Snape, because of his budding Occlumency skills was able to partly resist the attempt (resulting in only part of the prophecy reaching Voldemort). Although I suppose Snape's memory couldn't have been modified because Voldemort could detect that (or would he write it off as a result of Occlumency)? It's interesting that I get the impression from foreshadowing and JK quotes that we might be seeing Aberforth Dumbledore in the last book. Is he the only remaining person that remembers what truly went down that night or does he have a memory from his brother to give to Harry? Quick_Silver From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 01:05:25 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:05:25 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159052 > > Carol responds: > But Snape "returned to our side" before Godric's Hollow and was spying > for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" before he was hired as Potions > Master several months before the Potters died (probably in July or > August of that year; he would have begun teaching September 1.) So the > life debt doesn't explain why he turned against Voldemort or why > Dumbledore trusts him. All it explains is why he would regret James's > death and try to save Harry in Book 1. Neri: This sounds strange. Dumbledore says that Snape's debt to James is what made Snape try saving Harry in SS/PS. So you think his debt to James would make Snape try to save Harry but *not* James? I don't get your logic here. Although the discussion "what turned Snape" is a lot of fun and also a great TBay tradition, after HBP we can't even be sure that Snape had turned at all. What we do know is that Voldemort himself sent Snape to Hogwarts to spy after Dumbledore (and this isn't just a Spinner's End "half-truth" because Bellatrix had known about it before). So Snape "returning to our side... at great personal risk" might be exactly what Voldemort had ordered him to do in the first place ? to pretend that he turned and feed Dumbledore with worthless information. It appears that Snape was then already a double and possibly triple agent, slithering out of action on the Dark Lord's orders, playing both sides against the other and somehow managing to stay alive by the end of the war and even secure a nice post, while many of his comrades (on both sides!) ended up dead, feeding the dementors in Azkaban, permanently insane, merely unemployed and cast out, retiring with their remaining body parts or going underground as a rat. We only know about one true piece of information Snape apparently told Dumbledore about Voldy before GH (and even this one is only an assumption, not canon): that Voldy knows the first half of the prophecy and is after the Potters. So in fact the only thing we can be moderately sure of is that Snape did try to save the Potters, and the Potters specifically. > Carol: > But Dumbledore values choice and IMO he would not trust Snape because > Snape was under some compulsion. Neri: Hmm. I think you have to listen more carefully to what Dumbledore has to say about choices. It's quite an interesting coincidence that Harry asks him this very question in the most thematic part of HBP: ******************************************************* HBP, Ch. 23, p.511: "But, sir," said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound argumentative, "it all comes to the same thing, doesn't it? I've got to try and kill him, or ?" "Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you've tried! Ibid, p. 512: But he understood at last what Dumbledore had been trying to tell him. It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew ? and so do I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents ? that there was all the difference in the world. ******************************************************* Dumbledore knows that Harry "got to" try and defeat Voldemort. Harry is *compelled* to fight Voldemort, in the sense that Voldemort is forcing him to do it or die. But still, Dumbledore wants Harry to choose to fight Voldemort from his own free will. I suspect that this is exactly the critical part that Snape doesn't understand, and the part Dumbledore had hoped all along that he would. Dumbledore had hoped for genuine remorse. He hoped that Snape would save Harry from his own free will, not because he "got to". I think this is what Dumbledore pleaded for Snape to do on the tower, for Snape's sake and not for Dumbledore's or Harry's sake. But Snape had thought he could repay the debt without genuine remorse and still keep all his options open. Which, since this is magic "in its deepest, most impenetrable", practically ensured that Snape would fail throughout the series in getting rid of the blasted debt. But at the very least Dumbledore had known all along that Snape "got to" save Harry, in the same sense that Harry got to face Voldemort. To use the terms that Harry prefers to put it in, if Snape won't choose to enter this arena with his head held high, then he *will* be dragged into it. It's the nature of the magic and the nature of JKR's main theme. So Dumbledore at least could trust Snape to arrive at his fated arena on time and do what he got to, by his own choice or not. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 4 01:49:41 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:49:41 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159053 > a_svirn: > Yes, McGonagall sought him out and asked for explanations. And did > Dumbledore give them? No, he didn't. Instead he deliberately misled > her. First, about what really happened at Godric Hollow, and second, > why he left Harry to the Dursleys. By HBP she certainly knew that > Dumbledore wasn't what you might call forthcoming with her, but does > she resent it? Nope, she still thinks that Dumbledore is above > reproach. Of course, as a reprisal for insubordination being lied to > definitely beats being tortured and killed, but it still leaves a > lot of space for improvement. Pippin: McGonagall was not in Moody's picture and we have no reason to think she was a member of the Order at that time. Why should she be told more than any other member of the wizarding public? I am sure she understands that. Nor did Dumbledore lie about organizing the DA. Unless you think Mundungus reported to Sirius and Molly but not Dumbledore, he knew all about the plans to form an illegal group. As Headmaster, that would make him responsible for its organization. There's no reason Dumbledore couldn't have put Snape's memories of the Hogshead incident in his pensieve and found out for himself how much of the prophecy Snape could hear. I am sure he told the story the way he did because he didn't want Harry asking him who the eavesdropper was, not because he and Snape were conspiring to feed information to Voldemort. But it sets things up so that if Voldemort turns out to have learned more of the prophecy than we suppose, it will look like Snape told him. DDM!Snape is bound to look worse before he looks better. Because Dumbledore is regarded as the moral authority in the books by the good characters, and by JKR herself, I think JKR has to be unambiguous about his failures. IMO, if the reader sees moral failings in Dumbledore where Dumbledore does not, it reflects a split between the reader's values and the author's rather than a moral weakness yet to be revealed. Dumbledore does admit to responsibility for the moral failures of the WW as a whole: "We wizards have mistreated and abused our fellows for too long" but I don't think he himself mistreats Mrs. Cole, for example. I fail to see why should be worse to ply her with alcohol than with charm. Are you saying an appetite for flattery and attention is okay, but an appetite for alcohol is shameful? Pippin From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 01:55:15 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 18:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: a question on PS/SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061004015515.57066.qmail@web39506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159054 I am unsure if this was raised before, but I was listing to an MP3 of PS/SS and a question did strike me.....what DID happen to those letters Hagrid said he sent to Harry? Hagrid did state to Harry that he sent letters to Harry over the years and it did strike to me as to what happend to them and if they were swiped, who did the swiping? laurie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 02:17:39 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 02:17:39 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159055 > Pippin: >> There's no reason Dumbledore couldn't have put Snape's memories > of the Hogshead incident in his pensieve and found out for himself > how much of the prophecy Snape could hear. I am sure he told > the story the way he did because he didn't want Harry asking him > who the eavesdropper was, not because he and Snape were conspiring > to feed information to Voldemort. Alla: Yes, that is another good explanation. I mean, Dumbledore who conspires with Snape to feed information to Voldemort looks like a monster to me. I don't want him to look like a monster :( Whether he lies afterwards to protect Snape or not as Mike suggested ( which in itself is understandable) would not change the fact that Dumbledore suggested for prophecy to be fed and Dumbledore who does not figure out what is going to happen to prophecy couple and their baby looks IMO really stupid. I will have same question as I had when it was suggested that Snape did not understand the meaning of the prophecy that he reported. What did Dumbledore think Voldemort will do to prophecy couple? Invite them for afternoon tea or something? Pippin: But it sets things up so that if > Voldemort turns out to have learned more of the prophecy than > we suppose, it will look like Snape told him. DDM!Snape is bound > to look worse before he looks better. Alla: Huh? Are you suggesting that this is another evil deed of Lupin? Please clarify if you mean somebody else. If you mean Lupin, you don't have to clarify :) > > Tonks cont: > > Also DD would not make a decision on the fly as you suggests, he > > would not make a decision of that magnitude without careful > > thought. > > Mike: > But what if he didn't have the time to consider all options? I > suppose you could say he would choose inaction, but does that really > speak better of him? What if he got a *this is it* moment and the > thought of doing nothing was more repugnant than taking the chance? Alla: Erm.... inaction in a sense that two people and their baby should not be put in danger rather than should be put in danger? Um, yes, honestly I would think much better of him if the thought of this action did not come in his head :) > > Tonks_op > > DD's most loyal, most faithful. > > Mike, afraid that Tonks_op is having a Narcissa moment: > "Don't you dare -- don't you dare blame my husband!" > Alla: LOLOLOL. > Neri: > Although the discussion "what turned Snape" is a lot of fun and also a > great TBay tradition, after HBP we can't even be sure that Snape had > turned at all. Alla: MAHAHAHA again. Yes, Neri precisely just wanted to stuck in my me too with this and loved your post as usual. Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 4 03:09:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 03:09:08 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159056 > > Carol: > > But Dumbledore values choice and IMO he would not trust Snape because > > Snape was under some compulsion. > > Neri: > Hmm. I think you have to listen more carefully to what Dumbledore has > to say about choices. It's quite an interesting coincidence that Harry > asks him this very question in the most thematic part of HBP: > > ******************************************************* > HBP, Ch. 23, p.511: > "But, sir," said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound > argumentative, "it all comes to the same thing, doesn't it? I've got > to try and kill him, or ?" > > "Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! But not because > of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you've > tried! > > Ibid, p. 512: > But he understood at last what Dumbledore had been trying to tell him. > It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the > arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with > your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was > little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew ? and so do > I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents ? > that there was all the difference in the world. > ******************************************************* > > Dumbledore knows that Harry "got to" try and defeat Voldemort. Harry > is *compelled* to fight Voldemort, in the sense that Voldemort is > forcing him to do it or die. But still, Dumbledore wants Harry to > choose to fight Voldemort from his own free will. Pippin: Dumbledore warned Sirius that Kreacher was dangerous, even though Kreacher was bound to serve his master and Sirius had put all sorts of compulsions on him. I don't think he would be saying he trusted Snape if he thought Snape was only serving him because of a compulsion. He would expect someone as clever as Snape to find a way out, no matter how mighty the magic that bound him. Nor do I think that Dumbledore would say that Harry had no idea of Snape's remorse and that he believed it was the greatest regret of Snape's life and the reason he returned, if Dumbledore didn't think it was genuine. I understand the reluctance to believe that Snape could be on Dumbledore's side when he treats Harry so poorly. But this is the cruel fallacy Snape himself demonstrated when he said, "I see no difference." Pippin From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Oct 4 04:01:34 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 00:01:34 -0400 Subject: Blood Protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159057 "a_svirn: Yeah, right. It's not relevant in Hogwarts and in any other place where Harry can find himself in mortal danger, and only relevant in one place, where he does not belonged and is not wanted. As protections go it looks rather pointless. " It worked for ten years or so, didn't it? Harry's alive when he gets to Hogwarts--and that's a distinct improvement over the alternative. BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Wed Oct 4 06:06:24 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 06:06:24 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159058 > Tonks: > Here is what the Lexicon says: > > "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 connection 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 very glad you saved > Pettigrew's life." (PA Laurawkids: I like the fact that LV now has blood which is *set* to protect Harry, even if only by self-preservation and not magic, and flesh - from PP's hand -which owes Harry a life-debt. If PP had not been saved by Harry, would there have even been someone who would cut off his hand for LV?! Harry does not want a connection to PP or LV, but now his blood is feeding PP's flesh to house LV's bit of soul and intelligence. Enough to make me sick, if I were Harry. LV may be ignoring old cannibal belief that you gain the qualities of those you internalize. No, strike that, LV does not know all of the qualities of the parts he has used. There are people who have had transplants who realize that they have cravings for foods they hated before, and those were favorite foods of the donor. Given that PP has lived as a rat for years, and given that rats are copraphagic... sorry, I worked with rats and have observed all sorts of things. ; ) *Death* Eater? Laurawkids up too late again From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Oct 4 06:52:03 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:52:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610032352r5e56bca5h257ac374fa997a27@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159059 Lynda: > > Actually, that's not right. Lucius planted the diary with Ginny's stuff > because he wanted it to go back to Hogwarts and (presumably) to be the > catalyst to reopening the Chamber of Secrets--he knew it was Voldemort's old > diary. a_svirn: And that beats my argument how? Lucius planted Voldemort's old diary because he wanted stir trouble in Hogwarts, yes. But his reasons had nothing to do with Voldemort. Lynda: Ah! But i disagree with that reading of the text and think that Lucius knew that the diary was the key to opening the CoS which he knew had everything to do with Voldemort. Not only did that advance Lucius personal ambitions, but it had everything to do with Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy knew it. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherlocksridhar at fastmail.fm Wed Oct 4 11:04:41 2006 From: sherlocksridhar at fastmail.fm (sridharj_ap) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:04:41 -0000 Subject: LV, Nagini and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159060 Hi, I was rereading OOP and was struck by a question I couldn't answer. A quick search here revealed some discussions which only increased my curiosity further, so I thought I would ask it anyway. Why is Harry able to "see" only when LV possesses Nagini? Otherwise, he is only able to feel LV's mood (again, only if it is intense). Is it somehow related to the fact that Harry can understand Parseltongue? Another related question is if Nagini is a young Basilisk, but that somehow does not fit in. If Nagini is one, then biting Arthur should have killed him, since the bite was severe and there was a considerable time before Arthur was in St. Mungo's. Any answers/theories/opinions? Regards Sridhar P.S: I am wondering if this has been discussed and closed before. If so, kindly point me to the thread. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 13:01:35 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:01:35 -0000 Subject: LV, Nagini and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159061 --- "sridharj_ap" wrote: > > Hi, > > I was rereading OOP and was struck by a question I > couldn't answer. ... Why is Harry able to "see" only > when LV possesses Nagini? Otherwise, he is only able to > feel LV's mood (again, only if it is intense). > > Is it somehow related to the fact that Harry can > understand Parseltongue? > bboyminn: Not quite true, there is one other scene that comes to mind when Harry sees through Voldemort's eyes that doesn't involve Nagini. It is the scene where Voldemort is talking to Rookwood. At the end Voldemort with Harry seeing through his eyes walks to a mirror and looks at himself. The vision Harry sees in that mirror wakes him up. I think what the books is showing us is that Harry is able to get deeper into Voldemort's mind. Notice in the beginning Harry generally senses Voldemort strongest feelings, but later he is able to sense more subtle feeling and understand them more precisely. Initially he senses Voldemort's anger and hatred, but later he is able to sense and understand joy as well as anger. Obviously since the 'scar connection' has been there since the beginning of the series, I think it will in some way become important to the final outcome; though it's significant could be either major or minor. > Sridhar continues: > > Another related question is if Nagini is a young Basilisk, > but that somehow does not fit in. If Nagini is one, then > biting Arthur should have killed him, since the bite was > severe and there was a considerable time before Arthur > was in St. Mungo's. > > Any answers/theories/opinions? > > Regards > Sridhar bboyminn: Based on our best analysis of Nagini in previous discussions she is not any known snake, nor by any analysis can we conclude that she is a Basilisk. So, for now the best we can come up with is that she is a purely fictional snake. JKR in her book 'Magical Beast and Where to Find Them' and in the HP series has not defined any snake or snake like creature that matches Nagini. So, again for now, we can only conclude that she is a real-life but fictional snake; if that makes any sense. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 4 13:09:57 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:09:57 -0000 Subject: Tropical Birds Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159062 We found out in OOTP that Sirius had a nice safe hiding place in Grimauld Place. Did he go there straight after leaving Harry in POA? SB sent messages to Harry , not with owls, but with tropical birds. (personally, I hoped they came from Australia to forshadow a DADA teacher that wrestled Crocodiles) But in light of OOTP, I am wondering if that was a decoy. By sending tropical birds, it would seem Sirius was on another continent, while he could have really just been arguing with Kreatcher all along. The Tropical Birds may have been transfigured owls or Buckbeak even. Too imaginative? - were the tropics mentioned for a purpose? aussie From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Wed Oct 4 13:43:18 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 13:43:18 -0000 Subject: LV, Nagini and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159063 > > Sridhar > > Another related question is if Nagini is a young Basilisk, > > but that somehow does not fit in. If Nagini is one, then > > biting Arthur should have killed him, since the bite was > > severe and there was a considerable time before Arthur > > was in St. Mungo's. > bboyminn: > Based on our best analysis of Nagini in previous discussions > she is not any known snake, nor by any analysis can we > conclude that she is a Basilisk. So, for now the best we can > come up with is that she is a purely fictional snake. JKR > in her book 'Magical Beast and Where to Find Them' and in > the HP series has not defined any snake or snake like > creature that matches Nagini. So, again for now, we can only > conclude that she is a real-life but fictional snake; if that > makes any sense. Dungrollin: My best guess is a Bushmaster (latin name: Lachesis muta, which means 'silent fate') in message 115333, here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/115333 but not everyone agrees with me; see: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/124046 and the related threads. Dung From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 14:09:03 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:09:03 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159064 > Pippin: > Dumbledore warned Sirius that Kreacher was dangerous, even > though Kreacher was bound to serve his master and Sirius had > put all sorts of compulsions on him. I don't think he would be > saying he trusted Snape if he thought Snape was only serving > him because of a compulsion. He would expect someone > as clever as Snape to find a way out, no matter how mighty > the magic that bound him. > Neri: I think you are mixing concepts here. The house-elves geis and the life-debt magic are completely different things. There is no comparison between them at all. The first one is a form of magical slavery and therefore can be subverted and tricked by the strong willed. The second one is "magic in its deepest, most impenetrable". This makes it natural law, part of the basic cosmology of the Potterverse, like ancient magic (maybe it's an aspect of ancient magic). There's no subverting it, no matter how clever you are, like there's no subverting (in this or other literary cosmologies) the Gods, Fate, Love or Death. He who tries to subvert such things will pay dearly. Dumbledore doesn't want Snape to be compelled, no more than he wants Harry to be compelled to face Voldemort. Dumbledore didn't put the compulsion on Snape in the first place, and he would gladly free him of it if he could, like he'd gladly free Harry. Harry's compulsion is even worse than Snape's, in the sense that he didn't do anything to deserve it. It was just forced on him when he was one year old, like some sort of terminal illness (JKR is no stranger to terminal illness). Snape's compulsion is at least a result of his own choices. He chose to be a DE and thought he could pass information to an evil master without being troubled by the consequences. Of course he got clobbered by the Author and saddled with a magical compulsion. He can still free himself of it, the same way that Harry freed himself of his own compulsion, by recognizing that this is something worth doing willingly and proudly, but Dumbledore can't free Snape of it. He can hope that Snape will free himself. He can even trust Snape with his own life to do it, but he can't free Snape. Only Snape can free Snape. > Pippin: > Nor do I think that Dumbledore would say that Harry had no > idea of Snape's remorse and that he believed it was the greatest > regret of Snape's life and the reason he returned, if Dumbledore > didn't think it was genuine. > Neri: It may be true. I'm sure it *is* the greatest regret of Snape's life. He could have easily avoided all of this if only he didn't run to tell "his master" about the prophecy. As for the remorse, I won't be surprised if the life-debt is so terrible because it compels you to fill your own remorse even when you insist on denying it. See JKR's explanation on why people who deny and shut their own feelings are naturals at Occlumency. See also Carol's post about remorse that haven't reached the stage of penitence. Neri From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 4 14:08:08 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:08:08 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159065 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Ken: > > The Statute of Secrecy is a tough, tough law to enforce and obey, I > > grant that. It does not *force* anyone to act unethically. Individual > > witches and wizards and the Ministry collectively *choose* > convenience > > over ethics. I won't let them off the hook for that. > > a_svirn: > Although I agree with you on the question of forgeries I think that > stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Because memory > charms *are* unethical and it's impossible to maintain secrecy without > them. > Ken: I don't think we can say that for sure since we are never given the text of the statute. I agree that memory charms are unethical, I think they are as bad as the unforgivable curses and should be numbered among them. It certainly is true that the statute is frequently used to justify the casual use of memory charms on Muggles and I agree that this is unethical. Whether or not the statute itself mandates the use of memory charms is unknowable, or else I just missed the reference in canon that states this. In this scene Dumbledore did not appear to use a memory charm on Mrs. Cole. The gin was at least sleazy and the document may have been a forgery. There is nothing that I know about the statute that *required* Dumbldore to use either. Ken From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 16:04:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:04:52 -0000 Subject: What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159067 Carol earlier: > > But Snape "returned to our side" before Godric's Hollow and was spying for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" before he was hired as Potions Master several months before the Potters died (probably in July or August of that year; he would have begun teaching September 1.) So the life debt doesn't explain why he turned against Voldemort or why Dumbledore trusts him. All it explains is why he would regret James's death and try to save Harry in Book 1. > > Neri: > This sounds strange. Dumbledore says that Snape's debt to James is > what made Snape try saving Harry in SS/PS. So you think his debt to > James would make Snape try to save Harry but *not* James? I don't get your logic here. > Carol: Huh? I must have been extremely unclear or assumed something that I left unstated. Of course I think that snape tried to protect James. He told Dumbledore about Voldemort's interpretation of the Prophecy and that LV was going after the Potters (and possibly the Longbottoms). Since Snape resents James's "arrogance" in refusing to believe that Sirius Black was the spy, he either tried to warn James himself and was rejected or he knows that James rejected Dumbledore's SK offer. Since I believe that neither he nor Dumbledore were told the Secret (I think they knew it earlier because DD owned the cottage at Godric's Hollow but magically "forgot" it after Peter became SK), that was all he could do until, IMO, he woke up with his Dark Mark burning him and then disappearing. He may also have woken up knowing the secret, as I think DD also did, and I think he was in on the plans for saving Harry, having failed to save James. But I don't think that James was his sole concern. I think he also wanted to protect James's innocent wife and child--and failed to do so. Hence, the life debt to James is only partial motivation. Whether it was paid off in SS/PS or not, I don't know. It may simply have been one of the half truths that DD is always telling, a true but incomplete explanation of Snape's motivation in attempting to save Harry, one that Harry would understand and that would not violate Snape's confidence. My point is that the life debt cannot fully account for Snape's becoming Dumbledore's Man and spying for him "at great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow. I think he felt troubled and guilty over his failure to save Lily and remorse for orphaning Harry and Snapelike anger at James for daring to die when he had not yet repaid his life debt. I think that his sense of honor (yes, he has one) caused him to transfer the life debt over to Harry. But once he's saved Harry's life in SS/PS, why does he keep on saving or trying to save it (in PoA and OoP, at least) and keep on risking his life (from the end of GoF onward) if the life debt is his only motivation? At any rate, I think that James was only one factor in Snape's decision to "return to our side" and not necessarily the primary one, which may have been the desire to protect an innocent child from death or revulsion at Voldemort's true goals and methods (e.g., the murder of Regulus Black, who may have been a friend of Severus's). I'm snipping the rest of your post as I still believe that Snape is DDM, though I concede that JKR has made it look otherwise (unless we read carefully) in HBP. And even though Dumbledore wants people (Snape and Harry before the cave episode) to keep their promises, he won't compel them to act until they've given their word. And IMO, he would never resort to magical compulsion (Imperio, Unbreakable Vow, etc.) and he would never *trust* someone *completely* based on such magical compulsion. No, I think there's some understanding between Snape and Dumbledore related to the glance they exchanged on the tower and to the reasons for trusting Snape that DD concealed from Harry. As someone else has mentioned, Dumbledore has already told Harry that James saved Severus's life when they were both sixteen; Harry knows about the life debt concept because of Wormtail. If that's all there is to it, why did Dumbledore remain silent about his *reasons* and merely state that he trusts Snape completely? Carol, hoping that her position is clearer now From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 16:30:00 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:30:00 -0000 Subject: LV, Nagini and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159068 "sridharj_ap" wrote: > > > I was rereading OOP and was struck by a question I > > couldn't answer. ... Why is Harry able to "see" only > > when LV possesses Nagini? Otherwise, he is only able to > > feel LV's mood (again, only if it is intense). > > > > Is it somehow related to the fact that Harry can > > understand Parseltongue? > > bboyminn responded: > > Not quite true, there is one other scene that comes to mind > when Harry sees through Voldemort's eyes that doesn't > involve Nagini. It is the scene where Voldemort is talking > to Rookwood. At the end Voldemort with Harry seeing through > his eyes walks to a mirror and looks at himself. The vision > Harry sees in that mirror wakes him up. > > I think what the books is showing us is that Harry is able > to get deeper into Voldemort's mind. Notice in the beginning > Harry generally senses Voldemort strongest feelings, but > later he is able to sense more subtle feeling and understand > them more precisely. Initially he senses Voldemort's anger > and hatred, but later he is able to sense and understand joy > as well as anger. > > Obviously since the 'scar connection' has been there since > the beginning of the series, I think it will in some way > become important to the final outcome; though it's > significant could be either major or minor. Carol adds: There's also the dream in which, oddly, he's seeing from Frank Bryce's perspective and another in which he's flying on the eagle owl and then, IIRC, sees Voldemort. These scenes are not presented from LV's point of view or from that of someone or something he's possessed. Somehow the scar connection makes them possible, but they have no direct connection to Nagini or Parseltongue. The dreams of the DoM are, I think, from LV's pov. Certainly they're his dreams that Harry is sharing (and thinks are his own). As for the scene in which he sees from Nagini's pov, it's because, as Snape tells Harry, "the Dark Lord was possessing the snake." > Sridhar continued: > > > > Another related question is if Nagini is a young Basilisk, > > but that somehow does not fit in. If Nagini is one, then > > biting Arthur should have killed him, since the bite was > > severe and there was a considerable time before Arthur > > was in St. Mungo's. > > bboyminn: > > Based on our best analysis of Nagini in previous discussions > she is not any known snake, nor by any analysis can we > conclude that she is a Basilisk. So, for now the best we can > come up with is that she is a purely fictional snake. JKR > in her book 'Magical Beast and Where to Find Them' and in > the HP series has not defined any snake or snake like > creature that matches Nagini. So, again for now, we can only > conclude that she is a real-life but fictional snake; if that > makes any sense. Carol adds: I agree that she's not a young basilisk, but I think the magical properties of her venom are clearly demonstrated both in its effects on Mr. Weasley and in its uses and sustaining Voldemort's rudimentary fetal form. IMO, whatever else she may be (a Horcrux, a familiar, an unusually devoted pet who's almost as evil as her master), she's clearly magical. No, she's not one of the fantastic beasts, but neither are the magical rats in the pet store in Diagon Alley or the post owls that know where to find the recipient without an address. Some animals are magical; some are common garden rats or ordinary snakes or owls (or rabbits like Binky). Carol, who still thinks that Nagini was made a Horcrux before Godric's Hollow From drdara at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 16:32:56 2006 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:32:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] a question on PS/SS In-Reply-To: <20061004015515.57066.qmail@web39506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061004163256.21616.qmail@web60719.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159069 Were you listening to the british version or american? They are different. However, in PS/SS I think Hagrid was referring to the letters that were sent from Hogwarts about Hogwarts. Because I listened to the British version and the only letters mentioned were the ones from Hogwarts. Now in COS, Hagrid sent Harry letters over the summer and those were never replied to because Dobby swiped those letters. Dobby swiped those letters plus the ones Ron and Hermione sent as well. Danielle --- laurie goudge wrote: > I am unsure if this was raised before, but I was > listing to an MP3 of PS/SS and a question did strike > me.....what DID happen to those letters Hagrid said > he > sent to Harry? Hagrid did state to Harry that he > sent > letters to Harry over the years and it did strike to > me as to what happend to them and if they were > swiped, > who did the swiping? > > laurie > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Oct 4 14:21:13 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:21:13 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159070 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Ken: > > The Statute of Secrecy is a tough, tough law to enforce and obey, I > > grant that. It does not *force* anyone to act unethically. > a_svirn: > Although I agree with you on the question of forgeries I think that > stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Because memory > charms *are* unethical Tesha: I disagree, from the legal Encyclopedia: "Aristotle was one of the first great philosophers to study the subject. To him, ethics was more than a moral, religious, or legal concept. He believed that the most important element in ethical behavior is knowledge that actions are accomplished for the betterment of the common good." Where is the harm in DD making it easier on Mrs. Cole to agree? And my goodness, a document? Do wizards actually need legal documents - pre-printed and carried along in a nasty old briefcase?? I can make a check on a coctail napkin... make a confession with my dying breath... and I live in a MOST muggle sort of place! Really, looking to make DD a bad guy here is just silly. From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Wed Oct 4 17:42:15 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:42:15 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159071 > Pippin >I fail to see why should be worse to ply her with alcohol than with > charm. Are you saying an appetite for flattery and attention > is okay, but an appetite for alcohol is shameful? > > Pippin > Laurawkids: Have you all already discussed how a bit of veritaserum in that gin (which DD never drank with her) could have been useful to get her to tell what see had seen Tom doing? Even if Tom was nice, she would not admit to the reality of him doing magical things. DD may have just wanted to see how far it had gone, if anyone was suspecting magic. I suppose if Tom had made a real show of his abilities to the kids, DD would have some obliviating to do. Laurawkids From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 4 18:14:09 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 13:14:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV, Nagini and Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610041114l1d7e0df6ne03fccb33c417509@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159072 > > Carol, who still thinks that Nagini was made a Horcrux before Godric's > Hollow montims: so you think Nagini was LV's pet before the Potter attack - do I understand you correctly? In that case, where would she have been all those years that LV was vapour in Albania or wherever? At the Riddle house? And whose murder would have led to her horcrux? And assuming that she follows normal laws of mortality, she is bound to die sometime, however much magic is invested in making her long-lived. If she died, would her dead body remain a horcrux I wonder? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From grich277080 at aol.com Wed Oct 4 11:07:37 2006 From: grich277080 at aol.com (grich277080 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 07:07:37 EDT Subject: Blood Protection Message-ID: <565.764f320.3254eff9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159073 a_svirn: And that beats my argument how? Lucius planted Voldemort's old diary because he wanted stir trouble in Hogwarts, yes. But his reasons had nothing to do with Voldemort. Lynda: Ah! But I disagree with that reading of the text and think that Lucius knew that the diary was the key to opening the CoS which he knew had everything to do with Voldemort. Not only did that advance Lucius personal ambitions, but it had everything to do with Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy knew it. AnnR: I'm sure from memory that Lucius Malfoy put the diary into Ginny's bag to discredit Arthur Weasley via his daughter - to cause trouble for Arthur. Dumbledore said that he thought Voldemort would not be pleased to lose one of his horcruxes and that Lucius should have took better care of his old school things. But also it helped Voldemort by opening the COS by helping the basillisk to kill the 'mudbloods' and the fact that TR changed track and went after Harry instead. what do you think? From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 19:39:20 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:39:20 -0000 Subject: Blood, Life Debt, and LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159074 Blood, Life Debt, and LV If what we call the `life debt' is part of the ancient magic or part of the fabric of the universe and can not be tampered with, perhaps we need to look at LV and Harry's blood again. It does seem that LV is in a bad place with a hand from PP and the blood of HP. Now I think that JKR has said that the life debt does not kick in when someone saves a friend or someone that they like. I think it kicks in when there is some `enemy' component to the relationship. Perhaps it also kicks in when one forgives an enemy. With all of this in mind, I do not think that Harry has to kill to destroy LV. I have always said that Harry will not kill. I think we are going to see the "other ways to destroy a man". When I heard that phrase, I assumed some horrible method know to Wizards and Muggles alike, but now I am starting to wonder if DD was referring to something else that like the ancient magic LV has forgotten or overlooked. Let's look at this bit by bit and then find someway to put it all together. I am not professing to have an answer, just stirring the cauldron for others to contemplate. I am just thinking as I go here "The hand of the other". Does this have anything to do with PP's hand? I know this has been brought up before. Now look at Harry's blood. It is not only the blood with Lily's protection in it, it is the blood of the one who spared PP. There must be some twist to the `bond' and life debt idea that we have not been told yet that will be a big "ah-ha!" once we hear about it. That little bit of knowledge is what put the gleam in DD's eye. This is as far as I can take this thought for now The other thing that I am pondering is this. What will happen if in someway the horcruxes are destroyed and LV is at Harry's mercy and Harry lets him go? I know this seems crazy. Yes LV can make more horcruxes later, but in that moment he can't so he will be stuck at Harry mercy. What will happen if Harry spares LV's life? Harry's greatest asset is his ability to Love. Love also implies other things as well. Love has the ability to have mercy, to have forgiveness. Thoughts? Tonks_op From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 4 19:43:43 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:43:43 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: <565.764f320.3254eff9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159075 > a_svirn: > And that beats my argument how? Lucius planted Voldemort's old diary > because he wanted stir trouble in Hogwarts, yes. But his reasons had > nothing to do with Voldemort. > > Lynda: > > Ah! But I disagree with that reading of the text and think that Lucius knew > that the diary was the key to opening the CoS which he knew had everything > to do with Voldemort. Not only did that advance Lucius personal ambitions, > but it had everything to do with Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy knew it. Magpie: Of course he knew it was the key to opening the CoS but that still doesn't make his reasons anything to do with Voldemort in terms of his being an ex-DE working for his master. It having to do with Voldemort doesn't make Lucius' reasons Voldemort-centered. In fact Lucius' actions were directly against Voldemort's wishes and helped the good side tremendously. The Chamber of Secrets is Slytherin's more than Voldemort's. -m From CliffVDY at juno.com Wed Oct 4 19:58:53 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 19:58:53 -0000 Subject: Snakes able to eat people? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159076 This set of images is now circulating on the internet. You be the judge of its accuracy. It does bring up the question of Nagini versus Bertha Jorkins or Frank Bryce. A comment from justcarol67 is included. http://pm-publications.rrhistorical-2.com/Snake.htm From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 20:43:42 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:43:42 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159077 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > "a_svirn: > Yeah, right. It's not relevant in Hogwarts and in any other place > where Harry can find himself in mortal danger, and only relevant in > one place, where he does not belonged and is not wanted. As > protections go it looks rather pointless. " > > It worked for ten years or so, didn't it? Harry's alive when he gets to > Hogwarts--and that's a distinct improvement over the alternative. > > BAW > a_svirn: It worked because to the best of our knowledge no one tried to did him in for the first ten years. Voldemort was in no shape to cause a serious trouble back than. Literally. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 20:40:36 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:40:36 -0000 Subject: Trust in Dumbledore WAS: Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159078 > Pippin: > McGonagall was not in Moody's picture and we have no reason to > think she was a member of the Order at that time. Why should she > be told more than any other member of the wizarding public? > I am sure she understands that. a_svirn: Which brings back the question of why was any other member of the wizarding public deliberately misled? > > Nor did Dumbledore lie about organizing the DA. a_svirn: You appear to argue with someone else's post. I never said a word about DA. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Oct 4 20:44:34 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:44:34 -0000 Subject: Snakes able to eat people? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159079 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Clifford Vander Yacht" wrote: > > This set of images is now circulating on the internet. You be the > judge of its accuracy. It does bring up the question of Nagini versus > Bertha Jorkins or Frank Bryce. A comment from justcarol67 is included. > > http://pm-publications.rrhistorical-2.com/Snake.htm > Hickengruendler: Eeeewww. Awful. About the general question: Of course snakes can eat people. They can eat much bigger things, than people, (though it depends on the snake). Just as an example, think about Kaa the snake in the Disney version of the Jungle Book. (In the book she's Mowgli's friend). However, I'm not sure, if Nagini can, because I have no idea, what kind of snake Nagini is meant to be. From the description in the book, I got the distinct impression, that she's at least a Boa, and therefore very well able to eat a man. In fact, I was sure she ate at least Frank Bryce's body, and didn't Voldemort want to feed Harry at her at the graveyard? But the Easter Egg on JKR's website, which gave us the structure and plan for OotP, mentioned that Nagini was the snake, which wounded Arthur at the ministry. And this was a venomous Snake. In this case, I am pretty sure she couldn't have eaten any humans, since venomous snakes are much smaller, and I have never heard of a venomous snake being able to eat a human. The biggest venomous snake on the world is the Cobra, and if a Cobra had bitten Arthur, he would have been dead before Harry even entered Dumbledore's office. Therefore it must have been a smaller one. On the other hand, in the book itself the snake was never named as Nagini, it was just a random snake, and Harry did not seem to have recognized her. (Of course I have no idea, how easy it is to recognise a snake). Therefore maybe JKR changed the species while writing GoF and made Nagini a bigger snake. In this case, yes, I assume she ate Frank and probably Bertha. (And it makes it even more of a relief, that Harry managed to safe Cedric's body). From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 20:53:35 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 20:53:35 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159080 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > And that beats my argument how? Lucius planted Voldemort's old > diary > > because he wanted stir trouble in Hogwarts, yes. But his reasons > had > > nothing to do with Voldemort. > > > > Lynda: > > > > Ah! But I disagree with that reading of the text and think that > Lucius knew > > that the diary was the key to opening the CoS which he knew had > everything > > to do with Voldemort. Not only did that advance Lucius personal > ambitions, > > but it had everything to do with Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy > knew it. > > Magpie: > Of course he knew it was the key to opening the CoS but that still > doesn't make his reasons anything to do with Voldemort in terms of > his being an ex-DE working for his master. It having to do with > Voldemort doesn't make Lucius' reasons Voldemort-centered. In fact > Lucius' actions were directly against Voldemort's wishes and helped > the good side tremendously. The Chamber of Secrets is Slytherin's > more than Voldemort's. > > -m > a_svirn: I can only add a quotation from CH 23 to illustrate the point: "But I thought he meant Lucius Malfoy to smuggle it into Hogwarts?" "Yes, he did, years ago, when he was sure he would be able to create more Horcruxes, but still Lucius was supposed to wait for Voldemorts say-so, and he never received it, for Voldemort van?ished shortly after giving him the diary. No doubt he thought that Lucius would not dare do anything with the Horcrux other than guard it carefully, but he was counting too much upon Lucius's fear of a master who had been gone for years and whom Lucius believed dead. Of course, Lucius did not know what the diary really was. I understand that Voldemort had told him the diary would cause the Chamber of Secrets to reopen because it was cleverly enchanted. Had Lucius known he held a portion of his mas?ters soul in his hands, he would undoubtedly have treated it with more reverence ? but instead he went ahead and carried out the old plan for his own ends. By planting the diary upon Arthur Weasleys daughter, he hoped to discredit Arthur and get rid of a highly incrim?inating magical object in one stroke. Ah, poor Lucius . . . what with Voldemorts fury about the fact that he threw away the Horcrux for his own gain, and the fiasco at the Ministry last year, I would not be sur?prised if he is not secretly glad to be safe in Azkaban at the moment." From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 21:04:57 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:04:57 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159081 > > a_svirn: > > Although I agree with you on the question of forgeries I think that > > stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Because memory > > charms *are* unethical > > Tesha: > I disagree, from the legal Encyclopedia: > "Aristotle was one of the first great philosophers to study the > subject. a_svirn: I beg you pardon, you disagree with what? Did Aristotle study the subject of forgeries? > Tesha: To him, ethics was more than a moral, religious, or legal > concept. He believed that the most important element in ethical > behavior is knowledge that actions are accomplished for the betterment > of the common good." a_svirn: Well, sure. He said many things, Aristotle did. For instance, he was of the opinion that some people are slaves by nature and it is better for the common good that they should stay that way. You don't have to agree with a guy just because he was a celebrity. > Tesha: > Where is the harm in DD making it easier on Mrs. Cole to agree? And > my goodness, a document? Do wizards actually need legal documents - > pre-printed and carried along in a nasty old briefcase?? a_svirn: No, of course they don't. They can always turn muggles into slugs if muggles don't cooperate. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Oct 4 21:12:01 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:12:01 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159082 > a_svirn: > It worked because to the best of our knowledge no one tried to did > him in for the first ten years. Voldemort was in no shape to cause a > serious trouble back than. Literally. > Hickengruendler: Voldemort said on the graveyard, that he isn't able to get Harry at the Dursleys, and had to find another way to capture him. He even mentions Dumbledore's protection during his chapte rlong monologue. That's Canon. The reason Voldemort didn't even try to attack Harry at the Dursleys, is because he knew it was senseless. It's there black and white in GoF in the chapter "The Death Eaters". Of course given that Dumbledore told the Dursleys, that the protection spell will cease to work once Harry turns 17, I expect Voldie will appear on the Dursleys' doorstep before Uncle Vernon can say "Voldiethings". From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 21:23:18 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:23:18 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159083 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > > a_svirn: > > It worked because to the best of our knowledge no one tried to did > > him in for the first ten years. Voldemort was in no shape to cause a > > serious trouble back than. Literally. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > Voldemort said on the graveyard, that he isn't able to get Harry at the > Dursleys, and had to find another way to capture him. He even mentions > Dumbledore's protection during his chapte rlong monologue. That's > Canon. The reason Voldemort didn't even try to attack Harry at the > Dursleys, is because he knew it was senseless. It's there black and > white in GoF in the chapter "The Death Eaters". Of course given that > Dumbledore told the Dursleys, that the protection spell will cease to > work once Harry turns 17, I expect Voldie will appear on the Dursleys' > doorstep before Uncle Vernon can say "Voldiethings". > a_svirn: I know what he said. It was the night of his great show, his homecoming and he was spinning his tale the way he wanted. The fact is, however, that Harry did not stay indoors all the time for the first ten years. He attended school; he played in the yard and so on. In other words, he wasn't completely protected. As for Voldemort, having lost all his powers, except one, he couldn't have caused any harm to Harry even if wasn't protected. To cause harm Voldemort needed to obtain a body first. As soon as he did, he caused harm. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 21:35:09 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:35:09 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159084 > a_svirn: As for > Voldemort, having lost all his powers, except one, he couldn't have > caused any harm to Harry even if wasn't protected. To cause harm > Voldemort needed to obtain a body first. As soon as he did, he > caused harm. > Alla: And don't forget that Voldemort is the only character AFAIK that JKR officially called a liar so far, so yeah, I would tend to double and triple check for corroborating story before accepting his version of the events, IMO of course. From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Oct 4 21:38:38 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:38:38 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection References: Message-ID: <000701c6e7fd$744b1e60$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 159085 > a_svirn: > And that beats my argument how? Lucius planted Voldemort's old diary > because he wanted stir trouble in Hogwarts, yes. But his reasons had > nothing to do with Voldemort. > > Lynda: > > Ah! But I disagree with that reading of the text and think that Lucius knew > that the diary was the key to opening the CoS which he knew had everything > to do with Voldemort. Not only did that advance Lucius personal ambitions, > but it had everything to do with Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy knew it. Magpie: >>Of course he knew it was the key to opening the CoS but that still doesn't make his reasons anything to do with Voldemort in terms of his being an ex-DE working for his master. It having to do with Voldemort doesn't make Lucius' reasons Voldemort-centered. In fact Lucius' actions were directly against Voldemort's wishes and helped the good side tremendously. The Chamber of Secrets is Slytherin's more than Voldemort's.<< Marion: My two cents: Arthur Weasley and his Ministry buddies were razzia-ing the homes of Old Families, including the Malfoys (Lucius says this in Borgin and Burkes? when he tries to sell certain objects that might or might not be classified 'Dark') He clearly wants to rid himself of any object that might sully his reputation; he's a Law Abiding Citizin now, and he likes to keep it that way. But pesky Arthur Weasley has a personal feud against Malfoy (there's a story there, I'm sure) so what better place to plant an object that once belonged to Voldemort in the bag of one of those Weasley pests. The youngest, no less, and the only daughter! Talk your way out of *that*, Arthur Weasley! There is no reason to believe that Lucius knows what the diary will do. He most likely never wrote in it, so the diary never gets 'triggered' in the Malfoy home. If you ask me, Lucius was a young, ambitious man when he got sweet talked into the Death Eaters. He has a ruthless streak, to be sure, but I personally think he danced a jig with Narcissa when Voldemort 'died' that Halloween night in 1981. Now he could live the way a Malfoy was supposed to live: get richer, love his family, lobby for political clout. The reason Draco is kept out of his fathers business, is protected, doesn't understand death and therefor cannot see Thestrals all point to this: he doesn't want his son to be a DE and probably curses the day he ever got that Dark Mark. But he got it, and once a DE, always a DE. Alas. The DE are a dead-end street, after all, and no self-respecting Slytherin would enjoy being the slave/servant of a petty dictator. No, Lucius was glad to be out of it, and he planted that diary on Ginny to a) get rid of it, and b) to incriminate the Weasleys. And then it bit him on the @rse when Voldemort returned from the dead and it turned out to be a horcrux. Oops. And now Voldemort tries to punish Lucius by setting up his only son. Draco would've been doomed either way if not for Snape AK-ing Dumbledore. If Draco had killed Dumbledore, he would've been a marked man, a murderer and destined to Azkaban. If he had failed, Voldemort would've been justified in killing him (and probably Narcissa as well), which Voldemort intended in the first place. How sweet his revenge on Lucius. Lucius, sitting in Azkaban, knowing that his family, the one thing he cares about, is doomed.... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Oct 4 21:34:58 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:34:58 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159086 > a_svirn: To cause harm > Voldemort needed to obtain a body first. As soon as he did, he > caused harm. > Hickengruendler: Not at the Dursleys, no. He didn't. And are you sure, that Harry is only safe inside the house? I thought he's safe as along as he was around his relations. Meaning in school he couldn't be attacked by Voldemort because of Dudley, (sadly, this did not protect him *from* Dudley), and when he was shopping with Aunt Petunia, he couldn't be attacked either. Of course this still didn't protect him *all* the time, but at least more than just when he's in the house. I know that it is left open so far, and that your interpretation could just as well be true, but that's how I understood it. The Dementors where not sent by Voldemort, and therefore they don't count as an counter-example for Harry being endangered when a blood relative was around. Dumbledore could not have forseen, that a ministry offical, who is not connected to Voldemort, of all people would try to assinate Harry. But anyway, both Dumbledore and Voldemort, basically the leaders of the two sides, tell us that the reason Voldie didn't harm Harry at the Dursleys was the protection spell. Therefore you cannot simply ignore it, just because it doesn't fit with your interpretation. Like I said, Voldemort did not cause any harm at Privet rive so far. Not even after his return. I am sure this will change in book 7, when the protection spell doesn't work anymore, but so far the new powerful Voldie did not visit Little Whinging, and neither did any of his hechmen. Hickengruendler From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Oct 4 21:47:43 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:47:43 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159087 > Alla: > > And don't forget that Voldemort is the only character AFAIK that JKR > officially called a liar so far, so yeah, I would tend to double and > triple check for corroborating story before accepting his version of > the events, IMO of course. > Hickengruendler: I already posted a reply to a_svirns post, which did not appear. Maybe it will later, therefore I apologize if my statement appears twice. But I must admit, I have a really hard time following this reasoning, because isn't the fact, that Voldemort didn't attack Harry at Privet Drive even after his return already a proof for his statement? He was now back in full shape and full power, and yet neither him nor any of his henchmen harmed Harry while he was around a Dursley in OotP or HBP. The Dementors do not count, as their appereance was completely unrelated from Vodlemort (as far as we know). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 21:58:53 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 21:58:53 -0000 Subject: LV, Nagini and Harry In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610041114l1d7e0df6ne03fccb33c417509@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159088 > > Carol, who still thinks that Nagini was made a Horcrux before Godric's > > Hollow > > > montims: so you think Nagini was LV's pet before the Potter attack - do I understand you correctly? In that case, where would she have been all those years that LV was vapour in Albania or wherever? At the Riddle house? And whose murder would have led to her horcrux? And assuming that she follows normal laws of mortality, she is bound to die sometime, however much magic is invested in making her long-lived. If she died, would her dead body remain a horcrux I wonder? > Carol responds: Good questions. I don't have time to elaborate on my theory now, but you can always do a search for "Carol" and "Nagini" as search terms to bring up old posts. Obviously, I don't know whose murder was used, but since Grindelwald. a prime candidate for the other wizard known to have made a Horcrux, was defeated in 1945 by Dumbledore but not killed by him, I consider him a possibility. (Tom finds the secret to Horcrux-making, then kills Grindelwald after Dumbledore destroys his Horcrux. How's that for an important murder to create a Horcrux with?) And I have a feeling that she found Voldemort in Albania and was brought back along with Voldemort by Quirrell. Perhaps Voldemort was possessing her at the time. That would account for Quirrell's managing to bring LV from Albania to England before LV began possessing him. All speculative, of course. Carol, who has to leave her post unproofread as she's running late! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 22:09:00 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:09:00 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159089 > > Alla: > > > > And don't forget that Voldemort is the only character AFAIK that JKR > > officially called a liar so far, so yeah, I would tend to double and > > triple check for corroborating story before accepting his version of > > the events, IMO of course. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > I already posted a reply to a_svirns post, which did not appear. Maybe > it will later, therefore I apologize if my statement appears twice. But > I must admit, I have a really hard time following this reasoning, > because isn't the fact, that Voldemort didn't attack Harry at Privet > Drive even after his return already a proof for his statement? He was > now back in full shape and full power, and yet neither him nor any of > his henchmen harmed Harry while he was around a Dursley in OotP or HBP. > The Dementors do not count, as their appereance was completely > unrelated from Vodlemort (as far as we know). > Alla: Oh, but I was remarking specifically in response to Voldemort statement in GoF whether to take it on faith. What you are saying **may be** true, but the stone that stops me is that we do not know whether Harry was not attacked because Voldemort could not, or because he had more grandier plans, if that makes sense? Basically I am back to my initial standing - I want to see **failed** attack to be sure that indeed this blasted protection indeed works. Statement by Voldemort **could be** true, although I would say it make perfect sense for him to say the reasons that make him look better, not that he could not try without body, but that he could not because of such powerful protection. JMO, Alla From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Oct 4 22:31:59 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:31:59 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159090 > Alla: > > Oh, but I was remarking specifically in response to Voldemort > statement in GoF whether to take it on faith. > > What you are saying **may be** true, but the stone that stops me is > that we do not know whether Harry was not attacked because Voldemort > could not, or because he had more grandier plans, if that makes sense? Hickengruendler: Yes, I see what you mean. But wouldn't killing Harry be pretty much near the top of his list of priorities? Well, maybe not in OotP, when he tried to learn the rest of the Prophecy. But at least after this eliminating Harry must have been of extreme importande for him. Instead he kills Madam Bones, crahes a few bridges and bewitches a muggle politician. > > Basically I am back to my initial standing - I want to see **failed** > attack to be sure that indeed this blasted protection indeed works. > Statement by Voldemort **could be** true, although I would say it > make perfect sense for him to say the reasons that make him look > better, not that he could not try without body, but that he could not > because of such powerful protection. Hickengruendler: Won't happen, I fear. With the blood protection stopping to work now, the attack will probably pretty much work in causing harm. I fully expect a minor battle at the Dursleys at the beginning of book 7. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 4 22:25:07 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:25:07 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159091 > > > Ken: > > > The Statute of Secrecy is a tough, tough law to enforce and obey, I > > > grant that. It does not *force* anyone to act unethically. Individual > > > witches and wizards and the Ministry collectively *choose* > > convenience > > > over ethics. I won't let them off the hook for that. > > > > a_svirn: > > Although I agree with you on the question of forgeries I think that > > stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Because memory > > charms *are* unethical and it's impossible to maintain secrecy without > > them. > > Pippin: The Statute of Secrecy might as well be called the Muggle Manipulation Act, because that's what it requires. It just does. Attempting to influence people for an ulterior motive *is* manipulation, pure and simple. Whether it's ethically justified would depend on whether the secrecy itself is justified, IMO. In RL, European society began to persecute witches about the same time it began to persecute Jews. I don't think any wizard familiar with current events at the time Dumbledore invited Tom to Hogwarts could be persuaded that wizardkind had made the wrong choice. The sad irony, of course, is that the wizards withdrew from the muggle world only to create a persecuting society of their own. I find all this effort put into ways Dumbledore could have come up with an official document to show Mrs. Cole amusing. Would this document give an address, phone number and contact person for Hogwarts? If Mrs. Cole followed up on this information, as she should if she is to show due diligence, would her questions be answered truthfully? If not, then Dumbledore would be handing her a document that he knows is not what it purports to be, and his hands would be no cleaner than they were before. Nor does a_svirn's concern about misuse of the credential seem to be addressed. Not only would this muggle-friendly Hogwarts credential still be subject to abuse by wizards, it could be abused by unscrupulous Muggles as well! Pippin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 22:54:34 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:54:34 -0000 Subject: Blood, Life Debt, and LV In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159092 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > > > Tonks: > With all of this in mind, I do not think that Harry has to kill to > destroy LV. I have always said that Harry will not kill. I think > we are going to see the "other ways to destroy a man". When I heard > that phrase, I assumed some horrible method know to Wizards and > Muggles alike, but now I am starting to wonder if DD was referring > to something else that like the ancient magic LV has forgotten or > overlooked. Mike: When I read the "other ways to destroy" line (which followed DD's spell that made Harry's hair stand on end), I immediately thought of the "Love Room" in the DoM. My inclination was towards some very powerful spell that uses Love as it's compelling/magical force akin to casting an effective 'crucio' needing a desire to cause pain. DD must already know that he can't kill LV by this time, but this spell could be something that infuses so much love that the target stops fighting. Like a love potion only stronger and encompassing more than a singular desire. I still think Harry is going to have to get into that *Love Room* and quite possibly figure out what that spell was. IIRC, JKR said we are still going to learn more about both the spell and the *Love Room*. > > Tonks again: > Now look at Harry's blood. It is not only the blood with Lily's > protection in it, it is the blood of the one who spared PP. Mike again: This maybe out there, but what the hey. Lily's sacrafice was what DD used to give Harry protection from LV when Harry is with someone (Petunia) that has Lily's blood in her. LV uses Harry's, and thereby Lily's blood for his regeneration. Doesn't that mean that when Harry is in LV's presence that he is protected just like he is when he is in Petunia's presence? Was that the reason for the "gleam" in GoF? OK, DD's blood protection with Petunia (and LV himself?) expires on Harry's 17th birthday. But when does Lily's sacrificial protection expire? Did we ever hear that it does expire? Since GH, LV has cast two AKs at Harry and both of them were blocked (one by Priori and one by DD enchanting a statue to intercede). Is this some kind of clue? Is Lily's protection still in place, just manifesting in different methods? Not strong enough anymore to directly block the AK like it once did, but acting like 'Felix Felicious' which causes something to happen, that appears to be luck, to still protect Harry. > > Tonks: > The other thing that I am pondering is this. What will happen if in > someway the horcruxes are destroyed and LV is at Harry's mercy and > Harry lets him go? I know this seems crazy. Yes LV can make more > horcruxes later, but in that moment he can't so he will be stuck at > Harry mercy. What will happen if Harry spares LV's life? Harry's > greatest asset is his ability to Love. Love also implies other > things as well. Love has the ability to have mercy, to have > forgiveness. Mike: What if this is when Harry casts DD's *Love Spell* and separates the "Lord Voldemort" part from Tom Riddle? What if it removes all the bad from the soul/Main soul piece, leaving a decent wizard named Tom Riddle? I just thought of this: what if DD's spell separates the Main soul piece in Voldemort's body from the Horcrux soul pieces? This would explain DD casting it in the MoM when he knows he can't kill LV. This would certainly be the first step to "destroy a man" if that man is Lord Voldemort. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 00:07:56 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:07:56 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159093 --- "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- "a_svirn" wrote: > > > > > Ken: > > > The Statute of Secrecy is a tough, tough law to > > > enforce and obey, I grant that. It does not *force* > > > anyone to act unethically. Individual witches and > > > wizards and the Ministry collectively *choose* > > > convenience over ethics. I won't let them off the > > > hook for that. > > > > a_svirn: > > Although I agree with you on the question of > > forgeries I think that stature of secrecy does force > > one to act unethically. Because memory charms *are* > > unethical and it's impossible to maintain secrecy > > without them. > > > > Ken: > > I don't think we can say that for sure since we are > never given the text of the statute. I agree that > memory charms are unethical, I think they are as bad as > the unforgivable curses and should be numbered among > them. It certainly is true that the statute is > frequently used to justify the casual use of memory > charms on Muggles and I agree that this is unethical. > ... > bboyminn: One small problem with your assumption and that is ethics are not absolute, they are subjective. Take Bush for example, his actions imply that it is alright for /us/ to torture /them/, but it is not alright for /them/ to torture /us/. We can torture Islamic Terrorists because they are the bad guys and we are the good guys, and any objective analysis would agree with that. But, the Islamic Terrorist 'claim' that we are the spawn of Satan and that they are the soldiers of God, and that makes them, in their minds, the good guys which in turn makes us the bad guys. In the Potterverse, from a muggle perspective, the various actions including memory modification, are horribly unethical, but to the wizard world, these actions are a necessity. The muggle world, over the course of a few thousand years, has consistently proven that it is incapable of getting along with anyone it thinks is better than them. I mean, don't you watch movies? What is the first thing they do when superior aliens land on the earth; they call out the Army, Navy, and Air Force and very quickly and with little provocation attack the aliens ('The Day the Earth Stood Still'). Look at the uproar that was created over the Harry Potter books, can you imagine how 'up in arms' the Christian Right would be if it turn out that Harry Potter was history instead of fiction? Can you imagine how the Lex Luthor's of the world would be plotting and scheming to get control of the wizards so they could use them for their own greedy and nefarious ends? If it wasn't all out literal war, it would certainly be all out social and economic war. If you want a good example of how the world is likely to treat superior beings, read the continuation of the 'Shadow' Series by Orson Scott Card, were the kids from Battle School were controlled and manipulated by various people vying for control. How they are used as pawns in a game played for greed and power. It's not a pretty sight. Eventually all the Battle School graduates choose to leave earth rather than spend their lives ensnared in the political and power machinations. The Wizard World needs to protect itself from that. History has proven that the only way they /can/ exist is for them to exist in secret. The alternative, certainly in their minds and most probably in reality, is for them to go the way of the giants, to be driven to the brink of extinction by outside forces. So, they do what they must, and in their mind, in their frame of reference, they are doing what must ethically be done to continue to exits. Note this quote from Post# 159070 by Tesha. Tesha quotes a legal encyclopedia that says - "Aristotle ... believed that the most important element in ethical behavior is knowledge that actions are accomplished for the betterment of the common good." Note the reference to 'the common good'. As far as wizards are concerned they are acting for the common good. If muggles knew that wizards existed, the stock market would crash, society would be in chaos, and the very existance of wizards and witches would be threatened. To prevent that, wizard do what they ethically (in their minds) and logically must do, and that is, keep the wizard world a secret at all cost. Dumbledore did not /forge/ a document, he created a false preception that side stepped awkward questions about the nature of himself and his school, but he did not manipulate Mrs. Cole's decision. Further, it seems that it was more Tom's decision more than anyones. Mrs. Cole was probably happy to have any relief should could get from carrying the load of responsibility for the orphanage. Neither do I think Dumbledore compelled Mrs. Cole to drink, as I pointed out before, it is Mrs. Cole who offers Dumbledore a drink, not the other way around. Mrs. Cole most likely told him what she would have eventually told him anyway, and further made the only real decision she could. She had one kid, at least, who would get a good education, and a one is better than none. I do agree that Dumbledore was being somewhat lazy. But on the other hand, are you saying if you could use magic that you wouldn't? You would stuggle to peel your sprouts with a knife rather than give a wave of your wand? If you were stuck in traffic, would you grin and bear it, or would you, with the flick of a wand and twinkling of an eye, move to the front of the que as the Ministry cars do? You can say the actions of Wizards are wrong, but I think it pales compared to the all out war and horrendous persecution wizards would suffer if they revealed themselves. Again, it is a question of the 'greater good' for all, not the short term good of one. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Oct 4 22:05:52 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 22:05:52 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159094 > > > a_svirn: I think that stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Tesha: I believe that the most important element in ethical behavior is knowledge that our actions are based on the common good. Do you really believe that "truth" is paramount - always? Haven't you ever told your mum that dinner was good, when you really meant "Thanks for trying, I know you love me."? Has anyone ever asked you, "Does this make my butt look big?"? Secrecy and ethics, sometimes we as adults simply have to choose the lesser of two evils, or hurt those all around. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 01:03:45 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 01:03:45 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection/Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159095 > > Alla: > > > > Oh, but I was remarking specifically in response to Voldemort > > statement in GoF whether to take it on faith. > > > > What you are saying **may be** true, but the stone that stops me is > > that we do not know whether Harry was not attacked because > Voldemort > > could not, or because he had more grandier plans, if that makes > sense? > > Hickengruendler: > > Yes, I see what you mean. But wouldn't killing Harry be pretty much > near the top of his list of priorities? Well, maybe not in OotP, when > he tried to learn the rest of the Prophecy. But at least after this > eliminating Harry must have been of extreme importande for him. > Instead he kills Madam Bones, crahes a few bridges and bewitches a > muggle politician. Alla: Hehe, for some reason when I read your post the first time I read **becomes Muggle politician** instead of bewitches. :) Fancy that. Anyways, that is again not quite what I meant, I mean close but not exactly :) Sorry for being unclear. I agree with you that killing Harry is on the top of his priorities somewghere, although as you said in OOP he sure tried to learn the prophecy. What I meant was not that he has grandier plans per se ( although that too), but grandier plans for killing Harry. I mean, really he did not kill Harry, who was tied up, no? Noooo, he wanted the duel for everybody to see. I was just thinking that maybe (if one believes that it is at least possible Voldemort could touch Harry on Privet Drive, but did not want to) to kill Harry on Privet Drive,where nobody sees it would be not grande enough for his Evil Overlordness? But I am pretty sure that JKR intended for blood protection to be it, I just wish she showed instead of telling :), it is just to me Harry endured too much because of it and I want to **see** that it was worth it. Makes sense? > Hickengruendler: > > Won't happen, I fear. With the blood protection stopping to work now, > the attack will probably pretty much work in causing harm. I fully > expect a minor battle at the Dursleys at the beginning of book 7. > Alla: Too bad if you ask me :) > bboyminn: > > One small problem with your assumption and that is ethics > are not absolute, they are subjective. Alla: There is an element of subjectivity in ethics, sure, but I think that there are some rather huge common elements, which in many system of ethics are considered rather objective. bboyminn: Take Bush for > example, his actions imply that it is alright for /us/ > to torture /them/, but it is not alright for /them/ to > torture /us/. We can torture Islamic Terrorists because > they are the bad guys and we are the good guys, and any > objective analysis would agree with that. Alla: I am sorry, but I disagree. Any objective analysis will agree that it is Okay for us to torture terrorists? Sorry again, but no, **not** any objective analysis will agree with that and I would say thanks goodness for that. IMO of course. I cannot express the hatred I feel for the people who did to the city I love with all my heart what they did on 9/11, but us torturing them to me means us becoming them. And I do not want that to happen. For **our sake**, not for **them**. Yes, back to Harry Potter and funnily enough I sort of agree with Potterverse related part of your argument. bboyminn: > In the Potterverse, from a muggle perspective, the > various actions including memory modification, are > horribly unethical, but to the wizard world, these > actions are a necessity. The muggle world, over the > course of a few thousand years, has consistently proven > that it is incapable of getting along with anyone it > thinks is better than them. Alla: Well, yes I think everybody pretty much understands WW need for secrecy and that is why for that reason memory charms do not bother me terribly, even though in itself, I think they are horrible, but I just think that something else can be invented, if Wizards try. I think somebody brought as an example the natural forgetfullness by non - magical people of the magical world from some other book, which is I guess similar, but sort of sounds better to me, since it does not involve violating your memory and changing it at will. I don't know, as I said, I get it, it is just the element of violation is too great, but precisely because of the danger for wizards if they show themself, it does not bother me too much. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 5 02:30:45 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 02:30:45 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159096 > a_svirn: > I know what he said. It was the night of his great show, his > homecoming and he was spinning his tale the way he wanted. The fact > is, however, that Harry did not stay indoors all the time for the > first ten years. He attended school; he played in the yard and so > on. In other words, he wasn't completely protected. > Pippin: Soooo... the third little pig was an idiot? He shouldn't have worn himself out with toil and trouble building a brick house because when he was outside it he was in just as much danger as his brothers? a_svirn: As for Voldemort, having lost all his powers, except one, he couldn't have > caused any harm to Harry even if wasn't protected. Pippin: If Quirrellmort hadn't been so close that Harry could touch him, he would have killed Harry with the deadly curse he was about to cast in PS/SS. Naginimort nearly killed Arthur at the MoM. I'd say that was proof enough that Voldemort's one remaining power could be deadly. Pippin From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 06:58:37 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:58:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610042358l7992a3abp31fb2f38f89df553@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159097 Magpie: Of course he knew it was the key to opening the CoS but that still doesn't make his reasons anything to do with Voldemort in terms of his being an ex-DE working for his master. It having to do with Voldemort doesn't make Lucius' reasons Voldemort-centered. In fact Lucius' actions were directly against Voldemort's wishes and helped the good side tremendously. The Chamber of Secrets is Slytherin's more than Voldemort's. Lynda: Of course LM was working toward his own ends. He is (for the purposes of the story) a not unintelligent and powerful man in the wizarding world. Did he know that V was definately coming back? When he sent Draco to Hogwarts no, but when things started happening at Hogwarts that year, the whole Vapomort thing, my guess is that his ear went more closely to the ground to watch for signs of Voldie's return. From the general outline of the stories, many people (more than likely both the good and the evil) did not think that Voldemort was gone for good. In Lucius mind I would think the diary was both to advance his agenda and if there was any "hope" for initiating V's return through "trouble being caused at Hogwarts" to do exactly that. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 11:31:01 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 07:31:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610042358l7992a3abp31fb2f38f89df553@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0610042358l7992a3abp31fb2f38f89df553@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610050431v29f3b63ctf0c9640d42fb3e2c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159098 On 10/5/06, Lynda Cordova wrote: > Magpie: > Of course he knew it was the key to opening the CoS but that still > doesn't make his reasons anything to do with Voldemort in terms of > his being an ex-DE working for his master. It having to do with > Voldemort doesn't make Lucius' reasons Voldemort-centered. In fact > Lucius' actions were directly against Voldemort's wishes and helped > the good side tremendously. The Chamber of Secrets is Slytherin's > more than Voldemort's. > > Lynda: > > In Lucius mind I would think the > diary was both to advance his agenda and if there was any "hope" for > initiating V's return through "trouble being caused at Hogwarts" to do > exactly that. Except Lucius doesn't operate that way - it's safer for him to let Voldemort stay dead, and let his DE past stay in the past. There's a reason he never looked for him. (and the theories that he's responsible for putting Bellatrix safely in prison where _she_ couldn't look for him sound pretty good). It's quite probable IMO that if he had any idea that the diary held a significant chance of causing V's return, he'd have left it alone. There's no evidence in the books that Lucius "hopes" (rather than fears) that Voldemort will come back. -- Random832 From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 12:24:18 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:24:18 -0000 Subject: Snakes able to eat people? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159099 "hickengruendler": > > > Of course snakes can eat people. They can eat much bigger things, > than people, (though it depends on the snake). Just as an example, > think about Kaa the snake in the Disney version of the Jungle Book. > (In the book she's Mowgli's friend). > > However, I'm not sure, if Nagini can, because I have no idea, what > kind of snake Nagini is meant to be. Finwitch: Well - Nagini *is* venomous (Wormtail had to milk her)-- and also a very BIG snake. King Cobra maybe. But as for Voldemort feeding people and other things to Nagini: Who says they don't shrink these people (or turn them into mice) by magic? We just can't think of size like that with magic involved -- not where trunks etc. are commonly expected to hold as much stuff as needed... Who knows, maybe Nagini can do magic like that... Snakes do swallow their prey as whole, you know... ah the wonders of nature. Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 12:48:16 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 12:48:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159100 > Abergoat writes: > > But we've already seen that a pensieve gives more than the viewer > originally knew about (JKR has verified this) and what is Legilimency > but using the mind as a pensieve in place? Dumbledore could not say > with complete certainty that no one else had the prophecy unless he > had done something to the room. Snape has had a pensieve in his > possession, Dumbledore must know that even if Snape had extracted his > own memory he couldn't put an ear to the door and hear what Trelawney > was saying. Finwitch: Indeed. But somehow his wording made me wonder. He said that those who know the full contents are standing *in this spidery shed*... Granted, this is interpreted as Harry&Dumbledore - question is, was there someone else there as well -- disguised as a spider/invisible -- to Dumbledore's knowledge, but not Harry's -- one more to know the entire prophecy. And if, then who? Aberforth? Snape? You know, Dumbledore does go on his way to use words literally -- so that he can speak words of truth to conceal as well as to reveal. I think that's what he means with 'treating truth with great caution.' Even when he sacrifised himself, his wording - how he pointed out that it said in the paper that the group was called Dumbledore's Army. Not Potter's Army. This was, in itself, true - of course, to Fudge this *implies* something non-true (which Dumbledore wants him to think, of course), but that's yet another matter. We all know how Albus Dumbledore can be - see his idea of *a few words* - I think he greatly enjoys playing with words like that. Finwitch From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 13:08:38 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:08:38 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159101 > > a_svirn: > To cause harm > > Voldemort needed to obtain a body first. As soon as he did, he > > caused harm. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > Not at the Dursleys, no. He didn't. And are you sure, that Harry is > only safe inside the house? I thought he's safe as along as he was > around his relations. Meaning in school he couldn't be attacked by > Voldemort because of Dudley, (sadly, this did not protect him *from* > Dudley), and when he was shopping with Aunt Petunia, he couldn't be > attacked either. Of course this still didn't protect him *all* the > time, but at least more than just when he's in the house. I know that > it is left open so far, and that your interpretation could just as well > be true, but that's how I understood it. The Dementors where not sent > by Voldemort, and therefore they don't count as an counter-example for > Harry being endangered when a blood relative was around. Dumbledore > could not have forseen, that a ministry offical, who is not connected > to Voldemort, of all people would try to assinate Harry. a_svirn: I've got a counter-question: are you sure that Dementors couldn't have harmed Harry if they had been sent by Voldemort? Suppose Umbridge weren't acting as a free agent, but, say, under imperio? We know she wasn't but at first everyone in the Order seemed to believe that Voldemort was the one behind the attack, so, apparently, it wasn't outside the realm of the possible. > Hickengruendler: > But anyway, both Dumbledore and Voldemort, basically the leaders of the > two sides, tell us that the reason Voldie didn't harm Harry at the > Dursleys was the protection spell. Therefore you cannot simply ignore > it, just because it doesn't fit with your interpretation. a_svirn: But I do not ignore it. I take it at face value that Harry can't be harmed where his mother's blood dwells. But I am saying a) that he can be harmed elsewhere and could have been even during his first years with the Dursleys; b) Voldemort was too preoccupied with his own survival at the time to cause him harm ? and that's canon too! c) as soon, as Voldemort found himself a body, and I mean a body-carrier (Quirrel) he caused him harm elsewhere. Besides, what do you mean Dumbledore couldn't have anticipated that someone else would try to assassinate Harry? He *should* have anticipated something like this. As Pippin pointed out there were lots of former DE on the loose. All in all the protection seems both ineffective and pointless. Rather like the infamous Age Line. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 13:33:25 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:33:25 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159102 Pippin: The Statute of Secrecy might as well be called the Muggle Manipulation Act, because that's what it requires. It just does. Attempting to influence people for an ulterior motive *is* manipulation, pure and simple. a_svirn: On that we agree. Pippin: I find all this effort put into ways Dumbledore could have come up with an official document to show Mrs. Cole amusing. Would this document give an address, phone number and contact person for Hogwarts? If Mrs. Cole followed up on this information, as she should if she is to show due diligence, would her questions be answered truthfully? If not, then Dumbledore would be handing her a document that he knows is not what it purports to be, and his hands would be no cleaner than they were before. a_svirn: There is that. Pippin: Nor does a_svirn's concern about misuse of the credential seem to be addressed. Not only would this muggle-friendly Hogwarts credential still be subject to abuse by wizards, it could be abused by unscrupulous Muggles as well! a_svirn: You are putting words in my mouth. With regard to the Dumbledore-Cole situation I never said a word about Dumbledore's credentials. I did doubt his credentials when we discussed his high-handed way of deciding Harry's fate, but that's another matter entirely. Concerning Mrs Cole, I only stated that what he did was forgery. I am, however, not going to throw a stone at him for this. Between forgery and memory charms I'd say the Obliviate is considerably more unethical. > > > a_svirn: I think that stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Tesha: I believe that the most important element in ethical behavior is knowledge that our actions are based on the common good. a_svirn: Where does it leave Dumbledore, I wonder? The best thing for the common good would have been for Riddle to stay in the orphanage. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 5 13:35:43 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:35:43 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159103 > a_svirn: > I've got a counter-question: are you sure that Dementors couldn't have > harmed Harry if they had been sent by Voldemort? Hickengruendler: No, I'm not. That's what I meant with this quote from my previous post: >> I know that > > it is left open so far, and that your interpretation could just as well > > be true, but that's how I understood it. Sorry, rereading it, I realise how unclear I expressed myself, particularly because of the context from this quote. It's just the way how I interpreted it. I am aware that your interpretation is possible as well, but it's just not how *I* understood it. :-) > a_svirn: > But I do not ignore it. I take it at face value that Harry can't be > harmed where his mother's blood dwells. But I am saying a) that he can > be harmed elsewhere and could have been even during his first years > with the Dursleys; b) Voldemort was too preoccupied with his own > survival at the time to cause him harm ? and that's canon too! c) as > soon, as Voldemort found himself a body, and I mean a body-carrier > (Quirrel) he caused him harm elsewhere. Hickengruendler: But I do not understand, what point c) has to do with the Dursley blood protection. Yes, Voldemort is able to cause Harry harm elsewhere. That's why Harry has to live at the Dursleys (according to Dumbledore). That Voldemort was able to harm Harry elsewhere, is rather a point in favour of Dumbledore's decision. About a): Yes, during his years at the Dursleys Harry could have been harmed elsewhere as well. That's why I prefer to understand Dumbledore's words, as I wrote in my previous post, that Harry is not only safe from Voldemort as long as he's in the house, but also as long as AUnt Petunia and Dudley are around. I know that this isn't the only possible reading of it, but it is still a possible one. There's nothing in Dumbledore's monologue, or anywhere else, to contradict it. a_sbvirn: Besides, what do you mean > Dumbledore couldn't have anticipated that someone else would try to > assassinate Harry? He *should* have anticipated something like this. > As Pippin pointed out there were lots of former DE on the loose. > Hickengruendler: I mean, that he couldn't have anticipated, that someone completely unrelated to Voldemort would try to kill Harry. Dumbledore said, that the Death Eaters still at large were one of the reasons, why he gave Harry to the Dursleys. Therefore I assume that they, being Voldemort's servants, wouldn't be able to harm Harry at the Dursleys either, even if they are not directly acting under his Orders but where trying to find Voldemort, like the Lestranges did. Umbridge however has nothing to do with Voldemort, therefore the protection doesn't work against the Dementors sent by her. But I want to add, that even if my reading is wrong, and Harry is really only safe in the house, than it still is at least better than nothing. At least it makes him safe during the nights. Hickengruendler From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 5 14:06:51 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:06:51 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610042358l7992a3abp31fb2f38f89df553@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159104 > Lynda: > > Of course LM was working toward his own ends. He is (for the purposes of> the story) a not unintelligent and powerful man in the wizarding world. Did> he know that V was definately coming back? When he sent Draco to Hogwarts> no, but when things started happening at Hogwarts that year, the whole> Vapomort thing, my guess is that his ear went more closely to the ground to> watch for signs of Voldie's return. From the general outline of the> stories, many people (more than likely both the good and the evil) did not> think that Voldemort was gone for good. In Lucius mind I would think the > diary was both to advance his agenda and if there was any "hope" for> initiating V's return through "trouble being caused at Hogwarts" to do> exactly that. Magpie: That isn't backed up by canon at all. Lucius detonated the diary because he thought Voldemort was *gone.* If he thought Voldemort would come back he would be less inclined to do it because he was supposed to wait for Voldemort's signal. The diary plot depends on Lucius' not wanting Voldemort back particularly; it can't be part of his agenda to bring Voldemort back. Why would it be, after all? According to DD Lucius was only told that the diary would open the Chamber of Secrets, not that it would resurrect Voldemort himself should he ever be Vaporized. -m -m From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Thu Oct 5 15:37:52 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:37:52 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Blood Protection References: <4525258A.000001.01748@D33LDD51> Message-ID: <452526D0.000004.01748@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 159105 > > a_svirn: > To cause harm > > Voldemort needed to obtain a body first. As soon as he did, he > > caused harm. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > Not at the Dursleys, no. He didn't. And are you sure, that Harry is > only safe inside the house? I thought he's safe as along as he was > around his relations. Meaning in school he couldn't be attacked by > Voldemort because of Dudley, (sadly, this did not protect him *from* > Dudley), and when he was shopping with Aunt Petunia, he couldn't be > attacked either. Of course this still didn't protect him *all* the > time, but at least more than just when he's in the house. I know that > it is left open so far, and that your interpretation could just as well > be true, but that's how I understood it. The Dementors where not sent > by Voldemort, and therefore they don't count as an counter-example for > Harry being endangered when a blood relative was around. Dumbledore > could not have forseen, that a ministry offical, who is not connected > to Voldemort, of all people would try to assinate Harry. Donna: I'm going by memory but it seems to me that Dumbledore said that as long as Harry could call the Dursleys' house (location of Harry's blood relation) he was protected until he reached the age of majority - 17. That was the reason Harry had to return to the Dursleys every year. Recent Activity 28New Members Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS Harry potter hat Harry potter scarf Harry potter half-blood prince Harry potter book Harry potter party supply Yahoo! News Odd News You won't believe it, but it's true Yahoo! TV Staying in tonight? Check listings to see what is on. Y! GeoCities Share Photos Put your favorite photos online.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elanor.isolda at googlemail.com Thu Oct 5 15:20:02 2006 From: elanor.isolda at googlemail.com (Elanor Isolda) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:20:02 +0100 Subject: New Positions Available on Sectus Committee Message-ID: <6493bc80610050820i7d56832djba2cff0f1a67e9e0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159106 Want to be involved with the biggest Harry Potter conference ever held in the UK? We've created some new committee positions, so now's the time to step forward. The Sectus committee is a fantastic, friendly team consisting entirely of fans wanting to create the best possible event for other fans. The positions available are as follows: Publications Editor Reporting to: Chair Liaising with: Graphics Designer, Concept Artist, all committee for contributions You'll be working on our newsletter, The Snake's Quill and ultimately our Event Programme. On The Snake's Quill, your role will be to write and/or collate news and features for each issue. You will be responsible for deciding upon the content of each issue, delegating to other committee members where necessary and ensuring that everything is sent to the Graphics Designer to a set deadline. You'll also be in charge of putting together the Event Programme. You'll need to decide what goes in the programme, delegate to other committee members and collate all text to be sent to the Graphic Designer to a deadline. You will also be responsible for selling advertising space, so you will need to be proactive and For this position, you will need to have good written communication skills, be organised, proactive and able to work to a deadline. You will need a fair amount of free time to dedicate to this position on a regular basis. You would preferably be able to attend bi-monthly committee meetings in London, though this is not essential. Venue Liaison Reporting to: Chair Liaising with: Programming Your role will be to liaise with the conference venue, keeping them up to date with our requirements and keeping the committee informed of theirs. You will also be required to liaise with the conference hotels and take accommodation bookings and provide room lists to the hotels. You may also be required to negotiate contracts with new hotels should this be needed. You will preferably be UK-based as a lot of communication will be required by telephone, and ideally you would be able to visit the venue. The ability to attend bi-monthly committee meetings in London is desired but not required. Merchandising Officer Reporting to: Chair Liaising with: Booking Officer, Graphic Designer, Concept Artist, Webmistress, Venue Liaison Your job will be to source, design and order merchandise (though once you've decided on the technical specifications, the artwork will be designed by our Graphic Designer). As well as deciding on our requirements, obtaining quotes and placing orders, you will be responsible for pre-conference sales via the website. This will require you to receive and process orders, so you will need to be UK-based and able to post parcels regularly; this may mean that you need to be able to get to a Post Office during working hours frequently. You will also be responsible for selling space to vendors at the conference. This will involve proactive contact as well as fielding enquiries, and informing Venue Liaison of space requirements. Vice Chair Reporting to: Chair Liaising with: All Your job will be to keep track of progress, to be the point of contact for any issues that arise and to collate reports to be made to the Chair. You will also be responsible for delegating tasks set by the Chair to ensure that all requirements are met and all ideas are followed through. You will need to be exceptionally well organised and there is a lot of nagging and diplomacy required in this position, so applications should not be made lightly. The ability to attend bi-monthly committee meetings in London is strongly desired. Notes and Application Procedure All out of pocket expenses incurred in your work for Sectus will be covered, but you should note that there is no financial reward for any of these positions. All Sectus committee members are required to pay for their own conference registration, travel and accommodation as for any other attendee. Your application should contain the following information: Name: Email: LiveJournal Username (if applicable): Age as of 19 July 2007: Location (city/state/country): Will you be attending Sectus 2007? What position/s are you applying for? Education/Employment/Experiences: (Please tell us a little about your educational background, areas of study, relevant experience (employment or voluntary) etc.) Other relevant skills, interests and experiences and important information: Why do you feel you would be suited to the position? Applications should be made in writing to Elanor at chair at sectus.org by Friday, October 20th. All applications will be held in the strictest confidence. Should you have any questions, please feel free to email me directly. Regards Elanor Isolda Conference Chair Sectus 2007 -- http://elanor-isolda.livejournal.com Celebrate the 10th anniversary of Harry Potter in London! Register now for Sectus 2007 at http://www.sectus.org [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 16:20:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 16:20:20 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159107 a_svirn: > Where does it leave Dumbledore, I wonder? The best thing for the common good would have been for Riddle to stay in the orphanage. > Carol responds: The best thing for the WW, possibly. At least he would never have learned to make Horcruxes and would not have killed the Potters or given Harry the powers required to destroy him. But what about the Muggle world? What about the children he tortured at the orphanage? What about his power to control animals, including snakes? He was already lying, stealing, torturing animals and children. He could perform wandless magic without even knowing any spells? What might he have done when his powers developed further, along with his intelligence, physical strength, strength of will, and ability to charm and manipulate people? Would the Muggle world have been safe? Would the Muggle authorities have been able to capture him? I think not. Again, I think Dumbledore made the best decision possible--teach Tom to control his magic and keep an eye on him. True, Myrtle died and Hagrid was framed, but matters could have been much, much worse during Riddle's school days--and terrible for the Muggles afterwards. If only he hadn't somehow found out about Horcruxes (he knew of their existence, though not how to make them, before he talked to Slughorn). Sorry to snip so much of your post, but I just wanted to address this one point. Carol, noting that DD could not possibly guess what Tom Riddle would become From timothymclain at yahoo.com Wed Oct 4 18:30:28 2006 From: timothymclain at yahoo.com (Timothy John McLain) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:30:28 -0000 Subject: Lumos 2006: Session Audio Recordings & Wands & T-Shirts+ Available Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159108 Earlier this summer, Lumos 2006 took place in Las Vegas, NV -- more than 1,200 HP fans helped make the symposium a great success, and we look forward to Prophecy coming to Toronto in August 2007. http://hp2007.org Now that Lumos is history, we wanted to alert you to some opportunities to keep the spirit of this incredible event alive. Read all about the event here: http://www.lumos2006.org -- FULL SET OF AUDIO RECORDINGS AVAILABLE (DVD) Miss a session with Steve Vander Ark? Have a friend who couldn't make it to Vegas? You and your friend still have a chance to use a virtual time-turner to attend -- there's a lot to learn from our presenters and panelists. Lumos has taken ownership of the recordings of nearly every educational panel and presentation -- more than 65 in all. These were sold at the symposium for $10 USD each or $595 USD for a full set, and we're happy to combine the files and offer them to you and the HP community for far less. We've just finished converting everything to high-quality MP3s and are happy to offer you -- and the entire community -- access to a copy of the full collection saved onto a single DVD-R data disk. We're thrilled to have such pristine, great-sounding recordings of these amazing sessions; the content presented and the fun everyone had shines through so clearly, it's like you're there (again?)! You can purchase a full set of all 65 recordings on a single DVD-R for just $69.75 USD -- just 69 and 3/4, get it? -- ;) -- which includes shipping to any U.S. address. The price will rise to $99 and 3/4 USD ($99.75) on 1/1/07. Please send payment via Paypal (www.paypal.com) to info at lumos2006.org. (For international shipping, send an email to us so we can quote you an exact shipping/handling price for where the CD will be shipped.) You can review the list of all available sessions here: http://www.lumos2006.org/Lumos2006AudioDVD.pdf Important usage notes: Your computer must be able to read DVD-R discs in order to use this item. Most newer PCs and Macs have CD ROM drives that can read this format. If your computer can't read it, there's a great chance you have a helpful friend or colleague who can help you manipulate the files. Once you get your DVD, copy it to a folder on your PC or Mac. Load iTunes (or any CD burner software like Nero) to transfer the files to your MP3 player/iPod (or burn each class onto its own CD-R) for listening in your car, etc. -- ALIVAN'S LUMOS LIMITED EDITION WANDS Alivan's (www.alivans.com) was a major sponsor of Lumos 2006 and created fabulous limited edition wands just for Lumos. Any "leftover" wands are destroyed so that the special edition wands retain their "special" status. There are a few dozen of these wands left! This is your last chance to own one. Contact Dave at Alivan's at 850.215.1333 or finneas at alivan.com to take advantage of the deal. -- LUMOS T-SHIRTS, TOTES, CD-ROMs & MORE Lumos T-shirts (size XL and 2X only), totebags, yearbooks, and CD- ROMs of the proceedings are also still available for sale. You can purchase a full set (one of each) for just $25 USD, which includes shipping to US addresses. Individually, T-shirts are $12 USD, Totebags are $8 USD, Yearbooks are $6 USD, and CD-ROMs are $3 USD. Please send payment via Paypal (www.paypal.com) to info at lumos2006.org. For international shipping, send an email to info at lumos2006.org for a quote. -- MISSING PAPER FOUND Retrieve a copy of Phyllis Morris' paper, The Wisdom of Fearing Only Fear. It was inadvertantly excluded from the CD ROM of papers (which is still available for sale, see above.) Enjoy! http://lumos2006.org/Phyllis_Morris___The_Wisdom_of_Fearing_Only_Fear .pdf Thanks again for your interest in Lumos 2006 -- presented by fans, for fans. Lumos 2006 Organizers & HPEF http://www.lumos2006.org info at lumos2006.org From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 19:01:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:01:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159109 --- "finwitch" wrote: > > > > Abergoat writes: > > > > But we've already seen that a pensieve gives more > > than the viewer originally knew about ... and what > > is Legilimency but using the mind as a pensieve in > > place? bboyminn: Well, it is a very minor side point to the discussion but I don't think Legilimency is 'the mind as a pensieve in place'. We know the Pensieve is very objective since it allows you to observe a memory as a neutral third party viewer. The minute details of the Pensieve is due to the minds ability to pick up many many details of an event that go directly into subconscious memory. To some extent, you can consciously make the real world vanish, to make it disappear completely, replace by purely imagined events. It's called a daydream. Haven't you ever been so deeply in thought that you were completely distracted from the world around you. Haven't you ever been pulled back to reality by someone shaking you and saying 'Hey! Hey! I'm talking to you.' Now more importantly, do you think your ears stopped functioning while you were lost in thought or deep in a daydream? Of course they didn't. They continued to receive information, the continued to convert that information into brain waves, and that information was stored in your brainm but it was done subconsciously because you conscious awareness was elsewhere. Legilimency accesses the conscious mind, in my view, and therefore if it probed the depths of your mind for information obtained during a boring class in which you were daydreaming, it would get the daydream, but if your memory of the class were put into a Pensieve, I think it would be the whole event; daydream plus subconscious reality. Though I admit that would probably be one confusing memory to sort out. (That's actually kind of fun to try to imagine.) So, when Harry is in Snape's memory, he is able to hear and see things that Snape was only vaguely aware of because even as it happens in real-time real-life, Snape is constructing the event from past memories and from a lot of subconscious input. For example, Snape doesn't have to examine the beech tree in detail at that time because Snape has seen the tree countless times. One quick glance and the details of it are filled in with information from stored memories. He doesn't have to be consciously aware of the specifics of the Marauder's conversation for that information to be there in his subconscious memory. In the Pensieve we have both conscious and subconscious details pulled together to reconstruct the event in full 3D reality. I don't really think that is how Legilimency works. I won't say the Legilimency works /totally/ on a conscious level, only that it works mostly on a conscious level, and does so to a far greater degree than the Pensieve. > > ...edited... > > Finwitch: > > Indeed. But somehow his wording made me wonder. He said > that those who know the full contents are standing *in > this spidery shed*... Granted, this is interpreted as > Harry&Dumbledore - question is, was there someone else > there as well -- ....edited... > > Finwitch > bboyminn; Now to the topic at hand. I think this goes back to our previous and current discussions in which it was asserted that (admitedly overstated here by me) Dumbledore should tell everyone everything. Some people seem to object to Dumbledore /not/ constantly explaining everything he does and everything he says to everyone around him. But, whether in business or war or daily life, everything and everyone operates on the concept of 'need to know'. Dumbledore tell people what he feels they need to know and does so when he feels they need to know it. He is under no obligation, and indeed would be foolish to do so, to tell everyone everything. As to the Prophesy, certainly Dumbledore operated on a need to know basis. NO ONE, other that Harry, needed to know EXACTLY what the Prophesy said. Other people needed to know that it existed and what, in general, it was about; the Ministry for example. Some needed to know more, some needed to know less, but no one needed to know exactly what it said. That was an act of Strategic Wisdom on Dumbledore's part; the fewer who know, the few who can inadvertently tell. So, when Dumbledore says only he and Harry know the Prophecy, I think he is literally correct, but that doesn't, by any means, mean that others don't know /about/ the Prophecy, and again, each knowing only what they need to know to do their job. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 19:14:52 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:14:52 -0000 Subject: LV, Lucius and the Diary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Lynda: > > > > Of course LM was working toward his own ends. He is (for the > > purposes of the story) a not unintelligent and powerful man in > > the wizarding world. Did he know that V was definately > > coming back? When he sent Draco to Hogwarts no, but when things > > started happening at Hogwarts that year, the whole Vapomort > > thing, my guess is that his ear went more closely to the ground > > to watch for signs of Voldie's return. From the general outline > > of the stories, many people (more than likely both the good and > > the evil) did not think that Voldemort was gone for good. > > > > Magpie: > That isn't backed up by canon at all. Lucius detonated the diary > because he thought Voldemort was *gone.* If he thought Voldemort > would come back he would be less inclined to do it because he was > supposed to wait for Voldemort's signal. The diary plot depends > on Lucius' not wanting Voldemort back particularly; it can't be > part of his agenda to bring Voldemort back. Why would it be, > after all? According to DD Lucius was only told that the diary > would open the Chamber of Secrets, not that it would resurrect > Voldemort himself should he ever be Vaporized. Mike: These posts have brought up two intertwined points of interest. The first: Who thought that LV wasn't dead, that he could come back? DD gives us the impression that he and now Harry are in the priviledged position of knowing about LV's Horcruxes to the exclusion of everyone else besides LV himself. "Do not forget that Lord Voldemort believes that he alone knows about his Horcruxes" (DD in HBP, p.569) Specifically about the diary, DD told us: "Of course, Lucius did not know what the diary really was." (HBP p. 508). But we now know that DD was mistaken. At least one more person knew about at least one of LV's Horcruxes, and he was a wet behind the ears, budding DE. Also, from her words in "Spinner's End" it's possible that Bellatrix understood what "his most precious" really was. We also have LV's words to contemplate. "I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal -- to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it qppeared that one or more of my experiments had worked ..." (GoF, p.653). So, LV's DEs know his goal to conquer death. The question, in my mind, is who all figured out what these experiments were? It seems Regulus did and he might have figured it out on his own or he may have learned it from his cousin Bella. Both of them had access to the kind of 'Dark Arts Library' that would have a book, like Tom Riddle must have found, that would tell one what a Horcrux is and how to make one. And Lucius would also have access to similar books at Malfoy Manor. And Lucius seems to me to be at least as sharp as Bella, giving me pause to wonder if Lucius hadn't also figured out what the diary really was. He had the diary for at least ten years. Might he have tried his own "specialis revelio" on the diary? Or, might he at least openned it and wrote in it, when he found it blank? Lucius Malfoy seems sharp enough to me to have showed some curiosity about a blank diary and to have put it all together. Killed but not dead leader, determined to conquer death, waxy appearance, handing out precious heirlooms which have special powers to his most trusted DEs for safe keeping. So, yeah, I think Lucius just as capable and with just as much oppurtunity as Regulus could have figured out that he had a Horcrux. Which brings us to the second point: what was LV's intended purpose for the diary? Is *simply* openning the CoS important enough to LV to be "remarkedly blase" about one of his "magic number 7" soul pieces? Or did he have more in mind and that was why "When Voldemoret discovered that the diary had been mutilated and robbed of all it's powers, I am told his anger was terrible to behold." (DD in HBP, p. 508) Why? If his diary was only for openning the CoS, well, it did that. If "Lucius was supposed to wait for Voldemort's say-so, and he never received it, ..." (HBP, p.508) that indicates that Voldemort had more in mind than *simply* openning the Chamber. The diary can and did open the chamber without Voldemort's "say-so". So, what could LV have had in mind for the diary? What did the diary do when it was unleashed? The soul piece possessed Ginny after tricking her to pour out her soul to Tom. In the end, a 16 year old Tom Riddle was taking human form, becoming a sentient being. How can this help Lord Voldemort? Let's listen to the man himself: "But I was willing to embrace mortal life again, before chasing immortality. I set my sights lower . . . I would settle for my *old body* back again, and my old strength." (GoF, p.656, emphasis mine) Settling for his old body was *not* his plan to achieve immortality, even with his Horcruxes. Interesting. Did he plan to get a *new body* with the diary? Could he have transferred his main soul piece into the diary revenant!Tom to get that *new body*? And, is it possible that the diary revenant does not age, does the body always stay as a 16 year old? So he would only have to safeguard the diary in some unassailable location and *Now* Voldemort/Tom would be immortal. What do you think? Mike From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 19:18:23 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 19:18:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159111 > > bboyminn; > Some people seem to object to Dumbledore /not/ constantly > explaining everything he does and everything he says to > everyone around him. But, whether in business or war or > daily life, everything and everyone operates on the > concept of 'need to know'. Dumbledore tell people what > he feels they need to know and does so when he feels > they need to know it. He is under no obligation, and > indeed would be foolish to do so, to tell everyone > everything. Alla: That's sort of true, but only sort of IMO, because Dumbledore is not on equal footing with other people. He can decide to hold off information from everybody and nobody can hold off information from him, no? I guess I would say that **need to know** should be decided mutually, it should not be strictly up to Dumbledore to decide that. Let me stress again, I realise plot based reasons that Dumbledore withholds information because JKR cannot reveal it yet obviously, but very often it makes Dumbledore looks extremely arrogant in my eyes and wrong too. > As to the Prophesy, certainly Dumbledore operated on a > need to know basis. NO ONE, other that Harry, needed to > know EXACTLY what the Prophesy said. Other people needed > to know that it existed and what, in general, it was > about; the Ministry for example. Some needed to know > more, some needed to know less, but no one needed to > know exactly what it said. That was an act of Strategic > Wisdom on Dumbledore's part; the fewer who know, the > few who can inadvertently tell. Alla: Um, yeah, Harry needed to know ASAP IMO. And did Dumbledore tell him during OOP? No. Now, I understand how hard it is for Dumbledore to tell Harry about that burden, etc. On the other hand, it also shows IMO how very patronising Dumbledore was being. It is not like before OOP Harry did not know that Voldemort was after him, and lead happy childhood and if Dumbledore told him , Harry would have suddenly learned about the burden he carries. Granted, it would have added to Harry's burden, but Voldemort killed his parents, Voldemort already tried to kill him several times. Do I think that Dumbledore needed to tell him fast? Um, totally, I do. Do I think he was being wise? Um, sorry, no. As I said, I understand his reluctance, but certainly don't think that was wise. bboyminn: > So, when Dumbledore says only he and Harry know the > Prophecy, I think he is literally correct, but that > doesn't, by any means, mean that others don't know > /about/ the Prophecy, and again, each knowing only > what they need to know to do their job. Alla: Well, I also think that only Dumbledore and Harry know about prophecy, but who gave Dumbledore a right to decide what other people need to know to do their jobs? JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 20:11:59 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:11:59 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159112 > a_svirn: > > Where does it leave Dumbledore, I wonder? The best thing > for the common good would have been for Riddle to stay in the orphanage. > > > Carol responds: > The best thing for the WW, possibly. At least he would never have > learned to make Horcruxes and would not have killed the Potters or > given Harry the powers required to destroy him. But what about the > Muggle world? What about the children he tortured at the orphanage? > What about his power to control animals, including snakes? He was > already lying, stealing, torturing animals and children. a_svirn: Well, sure, it would have been even better ? for the common good I mean ? if somebody had strangled him in his cradle. Still, even for the muggle world it would have been better if he hadn't received magical education. As we have learned from HBP the consequences for muggles were every bit as dreadful as for wizards. > Carol > Again, I think Dumbledore made the best decision possible--teach Tom > to control his magic and keep an eye on him. a_svirn: Yeah, that worked, didn't it? Dumbledore kept an eye on Riddle while Riddle kept practicing the Dark Arts, killing people left right and centre and so on. > Carol True, Myrtle died and > Hagrid was framed, but matters could have been much, much worse during > Riddle's school days--and terrible for the Muggles afterwards. If only > he hadn't somehow found out about Horcruxes (he knew of their > existence, though not how to make them, before he talked to Slughorn). a_svirn: There wouldn't have been any consequences at all if he stayed away from the WW. > Carol, noting that DD could not possibly guess what Tom Riddle would > become a_svirn: Of course he couldn't. And it follows that he couldn't possibly know what was the best for the common good, does it not? None of us can ? that's why we are taught to play fair and respect the law. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 20:31:03 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:31:03 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159113 > > a_svirn: > I take it at face value that Harry can't be > > harmed where his mother's blood dwells. But I am saying a) that he > can > > be harmed elsewhere and could have been even during his first years > > with the Dursleys; b) Voldemort was too preoccupied with his own > > survival at the time to cause him harm ? and that's canon too! c) as > > soon, as Voldemort found himself a body, and I mean a body- carrier > > (Quirrel) he caused him harm elsewhere. > > Hickengruendler: > > But I do not understand, what point c) has to do with the Dursley > blood protection. a_svirn: It has to do the same thing as point a) and point b) ? it shows the limitations of the blood protection. Add to that the dubious legalities and Harry's stolen childhood, and the whole thing will look more than a little questionable. > Hickengruendler: > > Dumbledore said, that > the Death Eaters still at large were one of the reasons, why he gave > Harry to the Dursleys. Therefore I assume that they, being > Voldemort's servants, wouldn't be able to harm Harry at the Dursleys > either, even if they are not directly acting under his Orders but > where trying to find Voldemort, like the Lestranges did. Umbridge > however has nothing to do with Voldemort, therefore the protection > doesn't work against the Dementors sent by her. a_svirn: But they weren't anyone's servants at that point. They were cut loose after Voldemort's downfall (remember, their marks vanished) and might have ideas of their own. As Lucius did with the diary. > Hickengruendler > But I want to add, that even if my reading is wrong, and Harry is > really only safe in the house, than it still is at least better than > nothing. At least it makes him safe during the nights. a_svirn: Sure, he's safe at nights. But he's also safe at the Grimauld place. And even at the Burrow, although the Weasleys aren't under the Fidelius charm. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 5 20:53:05 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:53:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159114 > Alla: > > That's sort of true, but only sort of IMO, because Dumbledore is not > on equal footing with other people. He can decide to hold off > information from everybody and nobody can hold off information from > him, no? Pippin: Are you talking about legilimency, or do you just mean that people feel they have to tell Dumbledore whatever he wants to know? Because I don't get that at all. Harry certainly keeps information back from Dumbledore, the Marauders kept information from Dumbledore and continued to do so as Order members, and so on. Alla: > I guess I would say that **need to know** should be decided mutually, > it should not be strictly up to Dumbledore to decide that. Pippin: Er, how would that work? Dumbledore and whoever discuss things, and then Dumbledore obliviates that person if they mutually decide that there's something that person shouldn't have known? :) In Harry's case, adults have a responsibility to decide what information would be harmful to a child. It isn't fair to the child to let the child decide. Dumbledore was wrong not to realize that Harry had grown up enough that this sort of protection was doing more harm than good, but he wasn't wrong to think it was his responsibility to decide. Alla: > Now, I understand how hard it is for Dumbledore to tell Harry about > that burden, etc. On the other hand, it also shows IMO how very > patronising Dumbledore was being. It is not like before OOP Harry did > not know that Voldemort was after him, and lead happy childhood and > if Dumbledore told him , Harry would have suddenly learned about the > burden he carries. Pippin: But it was like that. Harry knew that Voldemort wanted him dead, but he preferred not to think about it. Remember his reaction to the dream he had in GoF? He thought it would sound overly dramatic to say that Voldemort had been talking about killing him. I agree that Dumbledore waited too long to tell him, but not by all that much. He wanted to wait until Harry could understand his explanation of how the prophecy works and not feel that he was being dragged into the arena by fate. > Alla: > > Well, I also think that only Dumbledore and Harry know about > prophecy, but who gave Dumbledore a right to decide what other people > need to know to do their jobs? Pippin: Dumbledore makes need to know decisions for the Hogwarts staff and the Order because managing information is one of the things the boss does. Nobody is being forced to work for him. If they don't like his style, they can quit. There's also a bit of a contradiction between wanting Dumbledore to be more transparent and wanting him to make people think for themselves. If Harry questions what Dumbledore is up to, it's because Dumbledore *hasn't* explained himself fully. Many people are perfectly happy to let someone else do the thinking for them. It's not all Dumbledore. When Hermione comes up with a plan, do Ron and Harry doubt her? No, they just follow along, even though she's led them into trouble in the past, because it's easier than thinking for themselves. Pipppin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 21:56:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 21:56:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159116 > > Alla: > > > > That's sort of true, but only sort of IMO, because Dumbledore is not > > on equal footing with other people. He can decide to hold off > > information from everybody and nobody can hold off information from > > him, no? > > Pippin: > Are you talking about legilimency, or do you just mean that people > feel they have to tell Dumbledore whatever he wants to know? Because > I don't get that at all. Harry certainly keeps information back from > Dumbledore, the Marauders kept information from Dumbledore > and continued to do so as Order members, and so on. Alla: Both, actually. Harry certainly does not **tell** everything to Dumbledore, but Dumbledore looks in his eyes way too often for my taste to be sure that Harry indeed witholds information from him. As to Marauders, well, yeah, they managed to kept something from Dumbledore, AFAIK - once, which DD himself calls extraordinary achievement, I still would not call that equal footing - meaning that usually Dumbledore gets the information he needs, whether other person wants him to or not. > Alla: > > I guess I would say that **need to know** should be decided mutually, > > it should not be strictly up to Dumbledore to decide that. > > Pippin: > Er, how would that work? Dumbledore and whoever discuss things, > and then Dumbledore obliviates that person if they mutually decide that > there's something that person shouldn't have known? :) Alla: Er, no - I meant that if person asks him question and feels really strongly that she needs to know the answer, the question should be answered, IMO. Pippin: > In Harry's case, adults have a responsibility to decide what > information would be harmful to a child. It isn't fair to the > child to let the child decide. Dumbledore was wrong not to > realize that Harry had grown up enough that this sort of protection > was doing more harm than good, but he wasn't wrong to > think it was his responsibility to decide. Alla: I am glad we agree that Dumbledore was wrong at least partially. > Pippin: > But it was like that. Harry knew that Voldemort wanted him dead, but > he preferred not to think about it. Remember his reaction to the dream > he had in GoF? He thought it would sound overly dramatic to say that > Voldemort had been talking about killing him. I agree that Dumbledore > waited too long to tell him, but not by all that much. He wanted to > wait until Harry could understand his explanation of how the prophecy > works and not feel that he was being dragged into the arena by fate. Alla: Not to dragged by fate explanation comes in HBP AFAIK and DD already gives explanation in OOP where he mentions nothing about not being dragged, no? > Pippin: > Dumbledore makes need to know decisions for the Hogwarts staff > and the Order because managing information is > one of the things the boss does. Nobody is being forced to work > for him. If they don't like his style, they can quit. Alla: That's easy to say that they can quit IMO. Because they do not just **work** for Dumbledore, they fight for the Light, for all that's good, no? So, if they quit where does that lead them? To Voldemort? I disagree that if they don't like his style, they can quite ( I mean Order of Phoenix fighters), because IMO there is nowhere else to go. Pippin: There's also > a bit of a contradiction between wanting Dumbledore to be > more transparent and wanting him to make people think > for themselves. If Harry questions what Dumbledore is up > to, it's because Dumbledore *hasn't* explained himself fully. Alla: I lost you here :) Actually lost the meaning of the word "transparent"? Does it mean explain more fully? Then what is the contradiction between explaining fully and making people think for themselves? I'd say there is no contradiction at all. Unless Dumbledore gives all information, people cannot make informed decisions IMO. Pippin: > Many people are perfectly happy to let someone else do the > thinking for them. It's not all Dumbledore. When Hermione > comes up with a plan, do Ron and Harry doubt her? No, they > just follow along, even though she's led them into trouble > in the past, because it's easier than thinking for themselves. Alla: Um, yes of course. It is not all Dumbledore. Did I mention how much I wanted to smack all members of OOP at the end of HBP? Like all of them? Yeah, I did :) ETA: As to not doubting Hermione, well yes way too often they also rely on her too much, but I already see the improvements in younger generation over the older one. Harry also comes up with plans and they do doubt Hermione,whether it is for good or bad, so I would say they already show independent thinking, again, maybe that comes out wrong sometimes, but I find it so much better than what older Members did in regard to Dumbledore. On another hand, Harry calls himself Dumbledore man through and through, so I have a strongest suspicion that except Snape thing, JKR would not let him doubt Dumbledore too much in book 7. Too bad if you ask me. JMO, Alla From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 22:37:20 2006 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (Cheryl) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 22:37:20 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Draco_Unredeemed_and_the_Cabinet_That_Won=92t_Die_(long)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159117 I've been reading the Draco/Vanishing Cabinet posts all afternoon and I'm glad to see Draco finally getting some controversy. He was such a cardboard bully in the first five books that it was nice to see him growing some character. My question is this: Will Draco be redeemed in the final book? I hope so, because I am a hopeless romantic that always seeks to find the good in people. I also hope not, because I am a Gemini, which means that the realist in me tends to stomp the hopeless romantic flat whenever she becomes annoying. Based on JKR's many comments on the subject of bad boys and the fact that she has daughters that she firmly hopes do not grow up to be "stupid girls" I fear that Draco will be a lost cause. In real life, stupid girls are ever attracted to the bad boys, the selfish, the cruel, the bitter, the unrepentant, because they believe they can "fix" them. They believe the pure, unselfish power of their love will heal the scars of the bad boy and make them anew. In real life, this never happens. They only grow more selfish, more cruel, more bitter, and they suck the life out of the one that is trying to fix them. This either destroys the stupid girl's self esteem until she the soulless shell of her former self, or she wakes up and finally realizes she is wasting her time on someone that will never change and wisely flees to find herself a nice, stable Harry or Ron to settle down with. Only in fiction do the bad boys ever change. So I ask: Will JKR redeem Draco, or is Draco doomed? And on the subject of Draco's mission, I never saw anyone with my particular take on it, which is that the Vanishing Cabinet was never intended to bring anyone into Hogwarts. I never had much of a problem with LV recruiting Draco to kill LV, after all, who better to infiltrate Hogwarts than someone who is already there? The "plant a teacher" scheme didn't work out too well. Draco was cock-of-the-walk at the beginning of the book. He was a junior DE, he had a secret mission ? he was running with the big dogs. Then reality set in. He was supposed to kill the one man that even LV was afraid of. How was he supposed to do that? And how was he supposed to GET OUT of Hogwarts once he had accomplished the mission? He'd be dead meat if anyone saw him do it. Thus, the vanishing cabinet scheme was born. I don't think it was initially intended to bring anyone into Hogwarts. I think it was supposed to get Draco OUT. Draco then cooks up the wine scheme and the necklace scheme because, one, he won't be getting his hands dirty with any actual murdering, and two, he won't need to flee unless someone manages to trace the scheme back to Draco, and three, he's never been shown to be extraordinarily clever. LV is obviously distracted with something else at the time because he allows these lame plans to be tried. When both fail, Draco runs out of options. His plans have failed, LV threatens him, he's upset, and he has no choice but to confront DD openly and then try to get out of Hogwarts alive. Then, he astonishingly manages to fix the cabinet and LV steps in to help him, seeing how The Plan might now actually have a chance of working. The DEs could not possibly have expected a weak, mostly- dead Dumbledore to return to Hogwarts. They were expecting a fully functional, probably enraged, super-powered wizard to return to Hogwarts. I think they were supposed to take on DD as a group the instant he returned, as a distraction. Does anyone actually think that group of misfits could take on Dumbledore and win? They barely succeeded against a couple of Order members and some kids! No, I think they were supposed to distract DD long enough for Draco to administer the coupe de grace. "I'll help you, Professor!" Blam blam blam! Avada Kedavra, mission accomplished. That was The Plan. But the alarm was raised and instead of fighting DD, they were fighting before DD even returned. Draco amazingly still got his chance to kill DD, except that he discovered killing someone with poison when you were conveniently out of the room was a far different thing from looking them in the eye when you smashed the life out of them. Would Draco have done it? JKR says not, but I think he would. What choice did he have? Kill DD and live up to the rhetoric you've been spouting your entire life, or throw your lot in with the other side? He would have handed over Lucius's life to LV, probably killed his mother from the shock of it, and placed himself on the LV Hit List right next to his arch-nemesis, Harry Potter. I think not. Now Draco is on the run with Snape and the DEs, and I fear he'll have a minimal part in the next book and will be forever unredeemed because that's just the way it is for boys like him, even in fiction sometimes. Nicky Joe, Draco Hater/Draco Lover From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 5 23:02:44 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 23:02:44 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159118 --- In message # 158965, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: However, the blood projection thing, or, say, that wonderful Voldemort-baiting plan in OOP was another matter entirely. Here Dumbledore again didn't share his plans and intentions with other phoenixes, and he didn't have the same excuse as with Snape. Mike: What canon support do you have for this assertion? There is none AKAIK and it appears that DD has very much shared his plans with the Order. They are guarding the DoM entrances and I'm sure DD has told them why they are doing this. BTW, all of the Order members sure seem to know what's going on re the after dinner talk at 12 GP in Ch six of OotP. They are trying awfully hard to fill Harry in without saying too much. > a_svirn: Yet, it didn't seem to occur to anyone to question his dictatorial style. (Except, probably, for Sirius ? again). They all adopted an attitude that can be summed up in Lupin's words "It isn't our business to know, it's Dumbledore's business". And it's just, well, weak. To say the least. Mike: This is intellectually dishonest. That quote of Lupin's is in reference to DD not divulging why he trusts Snape, which you agree with in your preceding paragraph. And it was in HBP, it has nothing to do with what's going on during OotP. IMO you depiction of a dictatorial DD is unwarranted and unfounded. Being the leader and director of the Order required him to take certain decisions upon himself. But you have no support for your position that he doesn't open up the floor for debate during meetings. --- In message # 158978, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: > I don't remember from canon that members of the order defended > students in HBP. I remember that they were fighting together as > equals. > > Besides, whether or not phoenixes could stop the invasion, > surely, Dumbledore's place should have been in his school when > the invasion occurred. Mike: Harry's friends are not the only students. There is an entire school full of students that DD sets the Order to defend. True, Ginny and Ron were fighting as equals, but they seem to be mostly dodging spells with the help of the 'Felix'. But they helped by occupying at least 2 of the DEs, so that was something. As to DDs place being at the school, did you not hear Draco on the tower? They were to wait until DD was away from the school before they staged the invasion. If DD hadn't left, no invasion. And it is a remarkable coincidence that the exact time that Draco gets the cabinet fixed, DD summons Harry to go out on the cave adventure, don't you think? Like maybe there is more going on here than we have been told. Like maybe DD staged this whole affair to occur on his timetable. --- In message # 158978, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: > And Dumbledore cheated Mrs. Cole of her ability to regulate > her orphanage. Mike: This was discussed at length. Pippin and I brought up presenting a made up document that Mrs. Cole couldn't follow up on anyway. But more importantly, Mrs. Cole is at the end of her rope trying to deal with Tom. She has neither the means nor the knowledge to deal with him and DD very well knew this would be the case. He is there to present what is the most logical solution, take Tom to Hogwarts and teach him to control his magic and to become a proper wizard. To suggest that Mrs. Cole could have come to this conclusion, that she should know that young wizards should be enrolled in a school of magic, is preposterous. --- In message # 159047, "a_svirn" wrote: > a_svirn: Although I agree with you on the question of forgeries I think that stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Because memory charms *are* unethical and it's impossible to maintain secrecy without them. Mike: Well, maybe your opinion as a Muggle is that "we can all handle it" and that there isn't any reason for JKR's statute of secrecy. Putting aside the fact that this is the paradigm JKR set up, I find that wishful thinking in the extreme. The idea that there aren't Muggles that would exploit and/or destroy the WW defies logic and denies reality (reality of the Potterverse, that is). --- In message # 159112, "a_svirn" wrote: > > a_svirn: > Well, sure, it would have been even better ? for the common good I > mean ? if somebody had strangled him in his cradle. Mike: Curious that someone that is so disgusted with the wizards using Memory Charms, would even suggest this. I guess that explains why the wizards have chosen to hide in their own world, with these attitudes in the *minds of Muggles*. > a_svirn: > Still, even for the muggle world it would have been better if he > hadn't received magical education. As we have learned from HBP the > consequences for muggles were every bit as dreadful as for wizards. > a_svirn: > Yeah, that worked, didn't it? Dumbledore kept an eye on Riddle > while Riddle kept practicing the Dark Arts, killing people left > right and centre and so on. Mike: Wow, your hindsight is 20/20, just like everyone else. Or maybe you're suggesting that Dumbledore should have known what Tom Riddle was going to grow into being and just strangled him in his crib. Yeah, that wouldn't have been unethical at all. > a_svirn: > There wouldn't have been any consequences at all if he stayed away > from the WW. Mike: And your basis for this contention is?? You know that without being offered a formal education, Tom would never have figured out that he was a wizard, do you? As powerful, as advanced and as intelligent as Tom was, I have no doubt that he would have figured out that he was a wizard and, being shunned by his kind, started practicing *wild magic* which might have destroyed much more than he's done so far. > a_svirn: > And it follows that he couldn't possibly know what was > the best for the common good, does it not? None of us can ? > that's why we are taught to play fair and respect the law. Mike: I found something that I can agree with you on. ;-) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 01:22:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 01:22:30 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159119 > > a_svirn: > However, the blood projection thing, or, say, that wonderful > Voldemort-baiting plan in OOP was another matter entirely. Here > Dumbledore again didn't share his plans and intentions with other > phoenixes, and he didn't have the same excuse as with Snape. > > Mike: > What canon support do you have for this assertion? There is none > AKAIK and it appears that DD has very much shared his plans with the > Order. They are guarding the DoM entrances and I'm sure DD has told > them why they are doing this. BTW, all of the Order members sure > seem to know what's going on re the after dinner talk at 12 GP in Ch > six of OotP. They are trying awfully hard to fill Harry in without > saying too much. Alla: So hesitant to speak for other people, but I am sure a_svirn will correct me if I misunderstood her. I thought she was not suggesting that other members of the Orders did not know about Prophecy involving Harry, I also think that this bit of information was known, but I am not quite sure actually whether it was thanks to Dumbledore. I have a suspicion that as close friend of Potters Sirius knew that and shared. Now, this is nothing more than a speculation and it is entirely possible that Dumbledore chose to share this one, but for some reason it seems plausible to me. But I thought that what a_svirn was saying is that Dumbledore did not share with anybody the reasons why Dumbledore was avoiding Harry all summer and why he decided that Harry needs to study Occlumency, so if you have canon support to the contrary, could you please refer me to it? > > a_svirn: > Yet, it didn't seem to occur to anyone to question his dictatorial > style. (Except, probably, for Sirius ? again). They all adopted an > attitude that can be summed up in Lupin's words "It isn't our > business to know, it's Dumbledore's business". And it's just, well, > weak. To say the least. > > Mike: > This is intellectually dishonest. That quote of Lupin's is in > reference to DD not divulging why he trusts Snape, which you agree > with in your preceding paragraph. And it was in HBP, it has nothing > to do with what's going on during OotP. Alla: I thought a_svirn was summarising the general attitude of the members of OOP, not just Lupin,so why is it intelectually dishonest, I am wondering? Mike: > IMO you depiction of a dictatorial DD is unwarranted and unfounded. > Being the leader and director of the Order required him to take > certain decisions upon himself. But you have no support for your > position that he doesn't open up the floor for debate during > meetings. Alla: Oh, I don't know. I had a rather strong feeling for example that Lupin was feeling pretty bitter that he was to go to werewolves. That Sirius would really really prefer to tell Harry what was going on ( Ooops, turns he was indeed right). That Sirius would really really prefer to fight instead of being locked in the House where he escaped from in his youth and which gave him an awfully big depression, if you ask me. I had an impression that Mcgonagall really wanted to debate whether Harry should go to Dursleys or not. That Weasleys would prefer Harry to spend more time with them, not with Dursleys. The problem IMO is that they are all good soldiers and if Dumbledore says that this is the best thing to do that means to then that this is the best thing to do for common good, so they **choose** the option Dumbledore wants them to choose, which is often indeed the necessary option, but I really do not get the impression that Dumbledore allows them much of the debate. In case of Snape Dumbledore **reasons** for protecting him maybe warranted, but I absolutely think that the attitudes that members of OOP adopted indeed means to show us the general attitude they have about Dumbledore's word. Also Lupin really really did not struck me as someone who had his say about whether he wants to go to werewolfes, but more like someone who convinced himself that he is indeed the only option and it just had to be so. > > > > a_svirn: > > Well, sure, it would have been even better ? for the common good I > > mean ? if somebody had strangled him in his cradle. > > Mike: > Curious that someone that is so disgusted with the wizards using > Memory Charms, would even suggest this. I guess that explains why > the wizards have chosen to hide in their own world, with these > attitudes in the *minds of Muggles*. Alla: Um, maybe I am being really really slow, but I thought that A_svirn was being very ironic here, starting with the whole ethics are what matters for the common good theme. I was pretty sure that she was being ironic. JMO, Alla From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 02:10:18 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:10:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie (Re: What turned Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159120 > Finwitch wrote: > > [DD] said that those who know the full contents are standing *in this spidery shed*... Granted, this is interpreted as Harry&Dumbledore - question is, was there someone else there as well -- disguised as a spider/invisible -- to Dumbledore's knowledge, but not Harry's -- one more to know the entire prophecy. And if, then who? Aberforth? Snape? hpfan_mom now: The actual quotation is, "There are only two people in the whole world who know the full contents of the prophecy made about you and Lord Voldemort, and they are both standing in this smelly, spidery broom shed." (HBP, p. 78) If DD had said, "the only people who know . . ." then I'd be right there with you, assuming that someone who could take the form of a spider was in the shed too. But because JKR chose the phrasing she did, I think there are really only *two* people who know the full prophecy, Harry and DD. Which leads me to another question. Doesn't the Keeper of the Hall of Prophecies know it too? So was DD, in addition to all his other titles, the Keeper? If so, who will be the Keeper now? Will the new person be able to hear the full prophecy if they choose? hpfan_mom From h2so3f at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 02:16:30 2006 From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:16:30 -0000 Subject: Snakes able to eat people? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159121 CH3ed: Hello folks! I know it is entertaining to speculate on little details like what kind of snake Nagini is. But it shouldn't escape us that this series is fiction, afterall. So Nagini doesn't have to be consistent with any real snake at all. She is a fictional magical poisonous snake of a very large size.... conjured up by the imagination of one JK Rowling. To try to categorize or identify her as one of the real snake seems rather a futile practice, isn't it? CH3ed ... is glad that my curtains aren't inhabited by pixies. :O) From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 6 03:12:26 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:12:26 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159122 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > > I find all this effort put into ways Dumbledore could have come up > with an official document to show Mrs. Cole amusing. Would this > document give an address, phone number and contact person for > Hogwarts? If Mrs. Cole followed up on this information, as she > should if she is to show due diligence, would her questions be > answered truthfully? If not, then Dumbledore would be handing her > a document that he knows is not what it purports to be, and his > hands would be no cleaner than they were before. > My only response is why not??? Something like half their student population is Muggleborn, showing proper credentials to Muggles can't be an uncommon request for Hogwarts. They have plenty of graduates with the proper background to establish an office with a telephone to handle enquiries like this. From the opening chapter of HBP we know that the relationship with the PM's office goes back to previous Minister's of Magic and previous PMs. Kingsley Shacklebolt is not necessarily the first wizard or witch to serve in the Muggle government or even the only one currently doing so. A much better question would be why bother to have a relationship with the Muggle government if you do no use it to handle the routine details that have to arise on a regular basis? It is an enormous risk to reveal your existence to the PM. Why would you do that unless it served some practical, essential purpose? This is not rocket science just good bureacratic attention to detail and the Ministry of Magic seems perfectly capable of dealiing with *that*. Ken From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 03:34:28 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (aceworker) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:34:28 -0000 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159123 DA Jones here: The following was a plot outline/challenge posted by one of the young writers on Harry Potter Fan Fiction, where I'm one of the prefects. Reading through it I was struck by how right in felt. I have a feeling that this young kid might have hit on the plot for book 7. What do you think? I've left 99% of the post on the HPFF intact. Here is the link to the actual post: http://www.fictioncentral.net/hpforum/index.php?showtopic=15746 But here it is below: ------------------------------------------------------------------- This is Amerison's challenge but because no one seems to notice it and I think it's actually a pretty good challenge I decided to post it on this site too. Basically, Harry was Horcrux #7. Lily's protective charm may have kept Harry's body alive, but not his soul - that passed on. Riddle knowlingly or unknowingly left a piece of his soul in Harry, his soul ready to split from the double murder of Harry's parents. The soul came along with parseltounge and general appearance from Riddle. Time goes on... The Scorceror's Stone - The hat knew... Chamber of Secrets - By blood, he is Gryffindor, by Soul, Slytherin. That is how he could summon the Gryffindor soul and still speak Parseltounge. Destroying the Diary may have destroyed the Horcrux, but Harry, being another soul fragment, aquired the peice of the soul. Harry is now 2/7 of the original Voldemort soul. This explains the power boost in the third book (Hundred Dementors). Also, how did Harry know to impale the book? These seemingly innocent bouts of luck could be attributed to the former memories of Voldemort. Prisoner of Azkaban - How is it Harry is so quick on the uptake on the Patronus? Power Boost... Goblet of Fire - Harry beat Voldemort in the Priori Incantatem because he has more of the original Voldemort soul - 2/7 vs. 1/7. Order of the Phoenix - How did Harry manage to keep his own against the Inner Circle? The Cruciatus? While not correctly cast, he still had the raw power and darkness to try... Your Fic - Harry goes Horcrux hunting at some point in time after the 5th book (or 6th). With each destruction, his scar burns and he sees memories, growing stronger with each Horcrux removed. What's happening? Harry is reabsorbing the pieces of Voldemort's soul, 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5, and six. Somewhere along the line, he realizes whats happening. Harry Potter never existed. There was only Tom Riddle. So, set out on reaquiring his wayward soul, (it has gone insane in it's ten year tenure of nothingness, explaining Voldemort's seemingly lack of sanity and grotesque features) he kills Voldemort and becomes him. The original Voldemort. The Real One. Not some snake faced monster, but a man of true power. With each soul, he gets stronger. And then, Harry fully becomes the man that tried to attack Harry Potter at his birth. Evil!Harry. -------------------------- DA Again: I find I agree with all of this except with evil Harry at the end. In the end I think the love of Harry/Voldy's friends will have redemed Tom Riddle, esp if he was willing to sacrifice himself to save one of his friends from remainder Voldy. This even makes sense if you consider COS. Ginny was beg' to fall in love with Tom Riddle and in fact that is who she is in love with now. What do you think? ----------- DA Jones From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 6 03:37:21 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:37:21 -0400 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_Draco_Unredeemed_and_the_Cabinet_T?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?hat_Won't_Die_=28long=29?= References: Message-ID: <002d01c6e8f8$bbf46f90$0980400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159124 Cheryl: Based on JKR's many comments on the subject of bad boys and the fact that she has daughters that she firmly hopes do not grow up to be "stupid girls" I fear that Draco will be a lost cause. Magpie: I know JKR's got a bit of a thing about that subject, but I don't think Draco's not having a change of heart is necessary to make that point. If he is redeemed, for lack of a better word, he'll have changed due to things far more serious than the love of a good woman, and JKR is free to continue to warn against him as a potential boyfriend as she does Snape (who may have switched sides). She does like the story of the reformed DE, it seems to me. Ironically, of course, she shows us James as a jerk whom Lily is attracted to anyway (you know what we're like, girls!) who later grew up and changed. Obviously he was always a very different character than her Death Eaters, but still. Cheryl: Thus, the vanishing cabinet scheme was born. I don't think it was initially intended to bring anyone into Hogwarts. I think it was supposed to get Draco OUT. Draco then cooks up the wine scheme and the necklace scheme because, one, he won't be getting his hands dirty with any actual murdering, and two, he won't need to flee unless someone manages to trace the scheme back to Draco, and three, he's never been shown to be extraordinarily clever. Magpie: I don't see how the Vanishing Cabinet is so helpful to Draco there. He doesn't need it to get out of Hogwarts himself. I think the book tries to make it plain that the idea is that Draco was breaching the defenses by getting DEs in. Cheryl: LV is obviously distracted with something else at the time because he allows these lame plans to be tried. When both fail, Draco runs out of options. Magpie: LV doesn't need to be distracted to allow the lame plans to fail--lame plans failing *is* LV's plan. He wants Draco to try, fail, and get killed for it. Draco's options don't actually run out after they fail. He could always try something else (still hasn't used that Polynesian native with the blow dart!). He chooses to just focus on the Cabinet (the first plan we saw him working on to begin with). Cheryl: No, I think they were supposed to distract DD long enough for Draco to administer the coupe de grace. Magpie: Yes, I think that was definitely the idea. They have orders that Draco has to do it. Cheryl: Would Draco have done it? JKR says not, but I think he would. Magpie: If JKR says not, then the answer is not, isn't it? Cheryl: What choice did he have? Kill DD and live up to the rhetoric you've been spouting your entire life, or throw your lot in with the other side? He would have handed over Lucius's life to LV, probably killed his mother from the shock of it, and placed himself on the LV Hit List right next to his arch-nemesis, Harry Potter. I think not. Magpie: But that's pretty much what he was choosing when he started to put his wand down--Dumbledore's offer was for protection for Draco as well as his parents. (Draco himself was already on Voldemort's hit list.) Draco's not being a killer is central to the story. That's the one choice he can't make no matter how logical it seems to be (he's not Peter Pettigrew, for instance, who always makes that choice). The unknown factor is what he will do instead. In HBP he was frozen and unable to act since he couldn't kill. Dumbledore's offer would in a way have allowed him to stay that way, being protected and opting out. That was taken away, so he'll have to choose something else. Cheryl: Now Draco is on the run with Snape and the DEs, and I fear he'll have a minimal part in the next book and will be forever unredeemed because that's just the way it is for boys like him, even in fiction sometimes. Magpie: I hope not. HBP ends with Harry thinking that his feelings about the character have changed in a small way, and given that the houses need to reunite and heal the split I'd think anything that moves Harry towards the Slytherin characters is important. Plus Dumbledore spent pretty much his whole last scene talking to the kid. It's the first time we see Dumbledore in philosophical action. I'd be surprised if JKR just tossed that away. (She might find some other way to use it, I suppose, but I'd hope Draco would have a significant reaction.) -m From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 6 03:44:03 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 03:44:03 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159125 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > Ken: > > > > I don't think we can say that for sure since we are > > never given the text of the statute. I agree that > > memory charms are unethical, I think they are as bad as > > the unforgivable curses and should be numbered among > > them. It certainly is true that the statute is > > frequently used to justify the casual use of memory > > charms on Muggles and I agree that this is unethical. > > ... > > > > bboyminn: > > One small problem with your assumption and that is ethics > are not absolute, they are subjective. Ken: So you are saying that if I actually had the ability to erase your memory and did so that it would not necessarily be unethical of me? That it would be ok as long as *I* felt it was necessary?? I'm sorry but I just find that astounding. Really, *I* can decide what you should and should not remember from your life? You cannot be serious. > Steve: > I mean, don't you watch movies? What is the first thing > they do when superior aliens land on the earth; they call > out the Army, Navy, and Air Force and very quickly and > with little provocation attack the aliens ('The Day the > Earth Stood Still'). > > Look at the uproar that was created over the Harry Potter > books, can you imagine how 'up in arms' the Christian > Right would be if it turn out that Harry Potter was > history instead of fiction? Can you imagine how the Lex > Luthor's of the world would be plotting and scheming to > get control of the wizards so they could use them for > their own greedy and nefarious ends? If it wasn't all > out literal war, it would certainly be all out social > and economic war. > > If you want a good example of how the world is likely to > treat superior beings, read the continuation of the > 'Shadow' Series by Orson Scott Card, ... Ken: I read books much more often than I watch movies and there is a reason for that. Books tend to be far more intelligent. I've read dozens if not hundreds of SF stories that depict first contact between humans and aliens. SF writers envision a wide range of possible responses. I do not accept that widespread panic would ensue if the WW were revealed to be factual. Human populations have faced real threats that were far worse without social breakdowns. The Black Death was devestating, frightening, and completely real. The US development of nuclear weapons at the end of WWII was an astounding development. Neither one caused massive panics like those seen in Hollywood movies. I am a member of this much feared, much maligned, and completely misunderstood Christian Right. Radio signals from an alien culture, the sudden appearance of aliens in our midst, or the sudden revelation that Harry Potter is real would not distrub me in the least. I have enough faith in the human race to believe that the rest of you could deal well with these events too. > Steve: > You can say the actions of Wizards are wrong, but I think > it pales compared to the all out war and horrendous > persecution wizards would suffer if they revealed > themselves. Ken: I think it far more likely that St. Mungo's would be deluged with Muggles seeking treatement for diseases we cannot cure. I think it far more likely that Hogwarts woul be deluged with physicists wanting to study the relationship between magic and the rest of physics. I think it far more likely that energy companies would vie for the rights to the limitless, non-polluting energy source the WW taps into. The WW seems to have the solutions for many of our problems, isn't it extremely selfish of them to keep these wonderful technologies from a world that needs them so desperately? Ken From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Oct 6 03:35:42 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 23:35:42 -0400 Subject: Alternatives to magic. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159126 It occurs to me that if Harry does kill Voldie, it might not be by magic. Think about it. Voldie has probably warded himself against any possible magical attack, and Harry is certainly not up to taking him on in a duel arcane. But Voldie probably, given his utter conviction of Muggle inferiority, not considered Muggle methods. Harry is a tall, strong, athletic young man. What if he went upside Voldie's head with a cricket bat? I'm sure that Aunt Petunia has lots of knives in her kitchen, and as conscientious a housekeeper as she is, I'm sure she keeps them very sharp. I'm speculating that Harry kills LV by a very mundane Muggle means---and that it will not be instantaneous, but will take enough time that LV knows that he was done in by a completely nonmagical means. That knowledge, given his utter contempt for Muggles and their ways, would be more bitter than death itself for him. BAW From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 04:05:17 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 04:05:17 -0000 Subject: Tropical Birds In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: > > We found out in OOTP that Sirius had a nice safe hiding place in > Grimauld Place. Did he go there straight after leaving Harry in POA? > > SB sent messages to Harry , not with owls, but with tropical birds. > (personally, I hoped they came from Australia to forshadow a DADA > teacher that wrestled Crocodiles) > > But in light of OOTP, I am wondering if that was a decoy. By sending > tropical birds, it would seem Sirius was on another continent, while > he could have really just been arguing with Kreatcher all along. The > Tropical Birds may have been transfigured owls or Buckbeak even. zanooda: I think that, as Sirius' mother died when he was in Azkaban, there is a chance that he didn't even know about it. If so, he wouldn't go to GP thinking she still lives there. Even if Sirius found out about his mother's death (through Fudge, for example), he couldn't be sure that she left the house to him, considering their mutual animosity. As Sirius turned out to be the owner after all, we can only assume that she didn't leave any will or maybe she just didn't hate her son as much as he thought she did. Anyway, even if Sirius found out that he inherited 12 GP, he hated this house so much he would prefer any other hiding place, IMO. It's fun to imagine Sirius in Australia with Buckbeak disguised as a kangaroo :-), but I hope it was Canary Islands, that's where I would go! Besides, isn't Australia too far for a hippogriff to fly to? From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 05:09:49 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:09:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610052209g75a6962k61ac6f2ece93d437@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159128 Random832 Except Lucius doesn't operate that way - it's safer for him to let Voldemort stay dead, and let his DE past stay in the past. There's a reason he never looked for him. (and the theories that he's responsible for putting Bellatrix safely in prison where _she_ couldn't look for him sound pretty good). It's quite probable IMO that if he had any idea that the diary held a significant chance of causing V's return, he'd have left it alone. There's no evidence in the books that Lucius "hopes" (rather than fears) that Voldemort will come back. Lynda: Of course its safer for him to let Voldemort stay dead. And you're right, my theory is 'my' theory, but I still speculate on this. It simply makes sense to me. No. Lucius did not expect Voldie's return, but I'm sure that once the evidence started building he began to put two and two together. He certainly didn't waste any time showing up at the graveyard on GoF or raising his son to have a healthy "respect" for not only the dark arts but Voldemort actions and memory. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 07:36:51 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 07:36:51 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Draco_Unredeemed_and_the_Cabinet_That_Won=92t_Die_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159129 --- "Cheryl" wrote: > > ... My question is this: Will Draco be redeemed in > the final book? I hope so, because I am a hopeless > romantic that always seeks to find the good in people. > I also hope not, because I am a Gemini, which means > that the realist in me tends to stomp the hopeless > romantic flat whenever she becomes annoying. > bboyminn: I have no problem with Draco being redeemed as long as people are clear about what 'redeemed' means in this context. Too many people think it means that Draco becomes Ron-II; Harry's best buddy and all-time friend. Sorry, but that is simply not going to happen. Draco will always be selfish, self-centered, and self-serving. I suspect he will realize that supporting Voldemort is not the wise thing to do, but again, that decision will come, not because he wants to help the good guys, but because he sees how hopeless it is to continue to support Voldemort. Now if Draco's actions in someway help the good guys that is fine and it will probably weigh in Draco's favor, but short of some incredably heroic act on his part, it doesn't offset his greed, stupidity, or cowardice. Right now I'm leaning in favor of Draco working against Voldemort, but being against Voldemort doesn't mean Draco will ever be good or nice. His actions will always be for purely self-serving reasons. I do agree with your wise comments on 'good girls and bad boys'. 'Ladies love outlaws like babies love stray dogs, and ladies take to outlaws like banker takes to gold.' > Nicky Joe continues: > > So I ask: Will JKR redeem Draco, or is Draco doomed? > bboyminn: So I answer: I think both. I think Draco will do whatever he can to quit Voldemort, but that in itself is reason for 'doom'. > Nicky Joe continues: > > Now Draco is on the run with Snape and the DEs, and I > fear he'll have a minimal part in the next book and > will be forever unredeemed because that's just the way > it is for boys like him, even in fiction sometimes. > > Nicky Joe, Draco Hater/Draco Lover > bboyminn: Draco has step much to far into the front of the plot for his fate not to be resolved in the books. I think JKR has laid enough hints to indicate that Draco is not satisfied with his life as a DE and with what he is being asked to do. As I've said many times before, I hope as some point he sees that a future world with Voldemort is a doomed world. For any wizard who wants prosperity and stability, Voldemort is the last possible leader to fulfill the role. Voldemort may be well capable of making war and creating chaos, but I don't think he is even remotely capable of creating and running a stable and productive country, and if Draco wants to get rich and stay rich, stability is the most critical element for long term success. I think right now as the last book (book 6) left us, the most critical story lines needing to be resolved are Harry, Snape, and Draco primarily, and as secondary characters, Neville, Ginny, Hermione, and Ron. (Of course, Voldemort too, but he is more the McGuffin, the catalyst that makes the other characters act.) So, I feel that absolutely we will get more Draco in the final book. I suspect Snape and Draco will come to some accord where they each understand what the other wants and needs, and will start working to bring down Voldemort from the inside. Somehow, in the process, Snape and Draco are going to have to work with Harry, and that will be the resolution of their plotlines in the seventh book. I can't imagine how that will come about, but it seems that somehow it must come about. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 6 10:21:10 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 10:21:10 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Draco_Unredeemed_and_the_Cabinet_That_Won=92t_Die_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159130 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cheryl" wrote: > > I've been reading the Draco/Vanishing Cabinet posts all afternoon and > I'm glad to see Draco finally getting some controversy. He was such > a cardboard bully in the first five books that it was nice to see him > growing some character. My question is this: Will Draco be redeemed > in the final book? I hope so, because I am a hopeless romantic that > always seeks to find the good in people. I also hope not, because I > am a Gemini, which means that the realist in me tends to stomp the > hopeless romantic flat whenever she becomes annoying. > Now Draco is on the run with Snape and the DEs, and I fear he'll have > a minimal part in the next book and will be forever unredeemed > because that's just the way it is for boys like him, even in fiction > sometimes. > > Nicky Joe, Draco Hater/Draco Lover Geoff: Having read this post and Steve's reply in 159129, I was reminded to look up previous posts on this topic. The most recent discussion was, I think, back in March when I came in on a thread "Defecting Draco". To save copying pasting sizeable chunks of old posts, perhaps if I direct readers to the group of posts concerned, It might be of interest to read what was said then. The relevant messages were: 149543, 149592, 149602 and 149627. From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Oct 6 13:45:55 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:45:55 -0400 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF Message-ID: <24DD3558-6253-4B79-873B-51BE266F647F@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159131 Isn't that WONDERFUL! except for Evil!Harry at the end..... because I think that Love will overcome and change the character.... but I could be wrong. There must be some reason why 7 is the last book... Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Oct 6 14:05:44 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:05:44 -0400 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF Message-ID: <2A7213FA-E8A3-4A50-B6E5-271264F86E25@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159132 Can you provide a link that works? Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 16:09:34 2006 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 16:09:34 -0000 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159133 I used the same elements to come up with the Harry's scar is a Horcrux - I posted this on potterplots and Mugglenet a while back: 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. I have one myself above my left knee that is a perfect map of the London Underground " 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. 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 harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 6 17:07:14 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:07:14 -0000 Subject: Alternatives to magic. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159134 >BAW: > It occurs to me that if Harry does kill Voldie, it might not be by magic. Eddie: I love the irony. Still, I think Harry won't kill Voldemort. He's no more a killer than Draco is, and we saw Draco hesitate and lower his wand. We also saw Harry prevent the murder of Wormtail/Pettigrew. Harry's not a killer. As I've speculated before on this forum, I think Lord Voldemort will be vanquished/killed while Tom Riddle survives. The weapon will be found in the Room of Love. Eddie From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 6 17:08:08 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:08:08 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Draco_Unredeemed_and_the_Cabinet_That_Won=92t_Die_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159135 > bboyminn: > > I have no problem with Draco being redeemed as long as > people are clear about what 'redeemed' means in this > context. Too many people think it means that Draco > becomes Ron-II; Harry's best buddy and all-time friend. > Sorry, but that is simply not going to happen. Draco will > always be selfish, self-centered, and self-serving. I > suspect he will realize that supporting Voldemort is not > the wise thing to do, but again, that decision will come, > not because he wants to help the good guys, but because > he sees how hopeless it is to continue to support > Voldemort. > > Now if Draco's actions in someway help the good guys that > is fine and it will probably weigh in Draco's favor, but > short of some incredably heroic act on his part, it > doesn't offset his greed, stupidity, or cowardice. > > Right now I'm leaning in favor of Draco working against > Voldemort, but being against Voldemort doesn't mean Draco > will ever be good or nice. His actions will always be for > purely self-serving reasons. Magpie: I think this is a stingy way to look at it, pre-emptively saying Draco doesn't get to change even if he does change because he's got so much to make up for he'll always be comfortably in the red when it comes to badness. I have no idea where JKR will go with him, but I just don't think she shares fandom's desire for political defections from the bad side, where the person gets to retain all their former beliefs but work against Voldemort. I just don't think you can do that in her world. She came close in HBP with Dumbledore's offer to protect Draco and so allow him to be neutral, and she took it away. Sirius says lots of Purebloods agreed with Voldemort's ideas until they found out what he was really about; but I think the Pureblood ideals *are* always about this. There's nothing about Draco as a character (just as there isn't anything about Snape) that says he couldn't genuinely choose the side of good ever or ever act out of the right impulses, that he must always be purely self-serving and bad. It's not like many of Draco's motivations in HBP weren't familiar from our good guys. If asked to describe the things that separated him from the good guys in HBP, I don't think self-serving, self-centered and selfish would be the things I'd come up with, even if he can be all of these things. His story was a lot about wanting to grow up, so he couldn't just be those things. Peter Pettigrew is a fundamentally self-serving character, often demonstrated by the way he always chooses to kill when threatened. Like I said, I have no idea where the character would go, but I do see hints that a rift between the houses must be healed, and to me that suggests the new generation has to learn something significant in order to meet Gryffindor halfway to work with them. Not the familiar fandom story where Harry gets to rack up the required Slytherin points by working with them while everything remains comfortingly black and white. Also, I think JKR has been careful about just how much Draco "owes" to anyone--it's really not much. He's been consistently unpleasant, but suffers for it in every book, doesn't get off without punishment (often coming immediately), doesn't cause lasting damage. As I believe Geoff said in some of the posts he linked to, no one is beyond redemption. If you change your mind, you change your mind. From then on, you are changed. -m From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 6 17:21:26 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:21:26 -0000 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159136 > KathyO wrote: > > 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? Eddie: The diary is a Horcrux created (and presumably protected) by Riddle/Voldemort when he was only 16. I would expect that the older, more expert Riddle/Voldemort would create later Horcruxes with more better protections. This, of course, presumes that the protections are created at the same time as the Horcruxes, and there is no canon for that or for much of what we speculate on in this forum. Eddie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 17:35:17 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:35:17 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159137 Ken: > > I think it far more likely that St. Mungo's would be deluged > with Muggles seeking treatement for diseases we cannot > cure. I think it far more likely that Hogwarts woul be > deluged with physicists wanting to study the relationship > between magic and the rest of physics. I think it far more > likely that energy companies would vie for the rights to > the limitless, non-polluting energy source the WW taps > into. The WW seems to have the solutions for many of our > problems, isn't it extremely selfish of them to keep these > wonderful technologies from a world that needs them > so desperately? Carol responds: I'm not so sure. Wizards can mend broken bones and broken noses with a spell (wonder why Dumbledore's and Ludo Bagman's weren't mended?), but Mad-Eye Moody can't regrow his missing parts and the school still seems to suffer an annual outbreak of flu. I don't see any cures for cancer or other familiar diseases in the WW, not even the common cold. They use quill pens and parchment like Muggles in the Middle Ages and candles for lighting (ever try grading essays or doing homework by candlelight?). Hogwarts is so cold in winter that kids wear cloaks and gloves in the corridors. (Durmstrang must be nearly unbearable.) They don't have computers or telephones or even cars.) Yes, some of them can Apparate, but they can't teach that skill to Muggles even if they wanted to. Carol, who likes the WW *because* it doesn't have modern technology but thinks that Wizards have as much to learn from us as we do from them From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 6 17:47:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 17:47:18 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159138 Pippin: > > I find all this effort put into ways Dumbledore could have come up > > with an official document to show Mrs. Cole amusing. Would this > > document give an address, phone number and contact person for > > Hogwarts? If Mrs. Cole followed up on this information, as she > > should if she is to show due diligence, would her questions be > > answered truthfully? If not, then Dumbledore would be handing her > > a document that he knows is not what it purports to be, and his > > hands would be no cleaner than they were before. > > Ken: > My only response is why not??? Something like half their student population > is Muggleborn, showing proper credentials to Muggles can't be an uncommon > request for Hogwarts. They have plenty of graduates with the proper > background to establish an office with a telephone to handle enquiries > like this. Pippin: Are you kidding? Why do you think a pure blood like Arthur has a job that would be a natural for a Muggleborn? Muggleborns aren't trusted enough, would be my guess. As it is, wizards can't even manage a reasonable attempt at Muggle clothing. Dumbledore shows up in 1930's Britain in his flamboyantly cut plum-colored velvet suit, long hair and beard, and expects Mrs. Cole to believe he's a teacher. And you think they can manage a whole department turning out false ID's, answering phone calls and multiplying Dumbledore's flimflam a thousand-fold, all without rousing any suspicion? And what for? Is hiding the truth with paperwork somehow more ethical than hiding it by magic? I suspect the liason with the Prime Minister was never much use. I would imagine it arose as a political compromise, a sop to idealists. But Rowling has said the breach between Wizards and Muggles is permanent. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm Pippin wondering how many times a day Shacklebolt has to obliviate someone From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 18:02:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:02:52 -0000 Subject: Blood Protection In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610052209g75a6962k61ac6f2ece93d437@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159139 Random832 wrote: > > Except Lucius doesn't operate that way - it's safer for him to let > Voldemort stay dead, and let his DE past stay in the past. There's a > reason he never looked for him. (and the theories that he's > responsible for putting Bellatrix safely in prison where _she_ > couldn't look for him sound pretty good). It's quite probable IMO that if he had any idea that the diary held a significant chance of causing V's return, he'd have left it alone. There's no evidence in the books that Lucius "hopes" (rather than fears) that Voldemort will come back. > > Lynda: > > Of course its safer for him to let Voldemort stay dead. And you're right, my theory is 'my' theory, but I still speculate on this. It simply makes sense to me. No. Lucius did not expect Voldie's return, but I'm sure that once the evidence started building he began to put two and two together. He certainly didn't waste any time showing up at the graveyard on GoF or raising his son to have a healthy "respect" for not only the dark arts but Voldemort actions and memory. > Carol responds: I don't think we know exactly what is in Lucius's mind when he plants the diary. To some extent, I agree with Lynda that Lucius is to some degree a true Voldemort supporter, which does not mean that he isn't also out for himself. I don't think that the quick return to the graveyard proves anything beyond fear of retribution, but at least he didn't stay away like Snape or flee like Karkaroff, which suggests that he's resigned to supporting Voldemort now that he's returned. He certainly does his best to retrieve the Prophecy and keep the DEs under control at the DoM. Voldemort's wrath to the contrary, it's not Lucius's fault that the Prophecy orb gets broken (or that the Order and Dumbledore arrived to fight them, which is, of course, Snape's doing). And there's no question that the whole Malfoy family hates Muggles, Muggleborns, and "Mudblood lovers," the pureblood ethic that Voldemort supposedly espouses, or that Draco has been taught to believe that Voldemort will triumph and that it's wise to be on his side. As for the Chamber of Secrets, we do know that he's getting rid of incriminating Dark artifacts, which explains the timing, and we know that he wants to frame the Weasleys and get Dumbledore in trouble, but we also know who gave him the diary in the first place and told him what it would do (setting aside the Horcrux part). IMO, Lucius *wants* Muggleborns to die, and not only to get rid of Dumbledore. After all, he'd prefer that his son went to Durmstrang, where Muggleborns aren't allowed (and students are taught the Dark Arts). Lucius *must* know who opened the Chamber of Secrets last time, and he knows that Riddle was/is a Parseltongue, which suggests that the monster in the Chamber is a Basilisk. So Lucius would be, in his own mind, doing the Dark Lord's work, doing the will of his "dead" master, just as Tom was continuing Salazar Slytherin's "noble work." Had he known that his master was alive, or that the diary was a Horcrux, he would have acted differently, but I think he was trying to act as a loyal follower of a Dark Lord he thought was dead or permanently defeated as well as following his own agenda. And when it comes to killing "Mudbloods" or getting them out of Hogwarts, those agendas overlap. Carol, who thinks that Voldemort's intended retribution against Lucius will backfire and that Snape will fan the flames of his friend's resentment against the Dark Lord From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 18:37:39 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:37:39 -0000 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159140 Eddie wrote: > The diary is a Horcrux created (and presumably protected) by > Riddle/Voldemort when he was only 16. I would expect that the older, more expert Riddle/Voldemort would create later Horcruxes with more better protections. > > This, of course, presumes that the protections are created at the same time as the Horcruxes, and there is no canon for that or for much of what we speculate on in this forum. Carol responds: Although tom placed the memory of himself in the daiary when he was sixteen, it's original purpose was apparently the one Voldemort told Lucius Malfoy about--continuing Salazar Slytherin's "noble work" by releasing the monster in the Chamber of secrets and killing "Mudbloods." Tom clearly didn't know how to create a Horcrux when he talked to Slughorn in his sixth year, *after* he'd killed his father and grandparents. I doubt that he created any Horcruxes while he was still at Hogwarts. He had apparently done so by the time he visited Hepzibah Smith a few years later (Harry notes a few changes in his appearance and, IIRC, he's no longer wearing the ring. But definitively state that he made any Horcruxes at sixteen, or even eighteen. Possibly he learned what he wanted to know by visiting Grindelwald before his death in 1945, or maybe he found the needed information in books owned by Borgin and Burke. As for the protections on the diary, I don't think they're weak because he was young so much as because the diary is designed to be interactive. It must be read to be used. Quite probably, it could have been burned as well as stabbed. The ring was protected more fiercely, hidden and then cursed so that anyone who destroyed it would suffer horribly and probably die. The protections on the locket were admittedly more elaborate and cunning, but perhaps the locket was rehidden by Bellatrix accompanied by Kreacher (who, IMO, was Regulus's source of information--he'f be magically bound to tell Regulus what he knew). As for the protections being created at the same time as the Horcruxes, it makes sense that the protective curse on the ring was placed on it from the beginning, but I suspect that elaborate protections like the green potion (poisoned memory?) and the Inferi came about after Voldemort heard the Prophecy and started fearing for the safety of his precious Horcruxes. The diary, however, was another matter. He still wanted it to be available for use against Mudbloods at some point, so he only gave it to Lucius Malfoy rather than hiding it. The other Horcruxes serve the sole purpose of encasing his soul bits and would have been more carefully protected. Carol, just speculating but sure that Tom created no Horcruxes at sixteen From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 19:12:33 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:12:33 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159141 I thought Dumbledore was taking a real beating on this thread and needed a little defending. I picked on a_svirn because in my view she was taking the most swings and using the biggest club, nothing personal I assure you. :-) Mike. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > However, the blood projection thing, or, say, that wonderful > > Voldemort-baiting plan in OOP was another matter entirely. Here > > Dumbledore again didn't share his plans and intentions with other > > phoenixes, > > > > Mike: > > They [Order members] are trying awfully hard to fill Harry in > > without saying too much. > > Alla: > > > I thought she was not suggesting that other members of the Orders > did not know about Prophecy involving Harry, I also think that > this bit of information was known, but I am not quite sure > actually whether it was thanks to Dumbledore. > > I have a suspicion that as close friend of Potters Sirius knew > that and shared. Now, this is nothing more than a speculation and > it is entirely possible that Dumbledore chose to share this one, > but for some reason it seems plausible to me. Mike: I'm not sure how you arrived at this speculation. Dumbledore is obviously the one most likely to have told the Order about the prophesy. IMO, neither Sirius nor anyone else besides Snape knew the prophesy existed before Dumbledore told them, if he told them. > Alla: > But I thought that what a_svirn was saying is that Dumbledore did > not share with anybody the reasons why Dumbledore was avoiding > Harry all summer and why he decided that Harry needs to study > Occlumency, so if you have canon support to the contrary, could > you please refer me to it? Mike: Reading a_svirn's critique, this is not what she was questioning, but I'll answer anyway ;-) Dumbledore admits it was a mistake to avoid Harry when he admits that he should have told Harry the prophesy sooner. Why he's avoiding Harry is part and parcel with not telling him the prophesy but doesn't seem to have anything to do with the other Order members. That said, Sirius and Lupin both know what's going on between Harry and LV, are fully in favor of Harry receiving Occlumency lessons (even from Snape), and don't seem to be in the dark in any way. > > a_svirn: > > > > They all adopted an attitude that can be summed up in > > Lupin's words "It isn't our business to know, it's > > Dumbledore's business". > > > > Mike previously: > > This is intellectually dishonest. That quote of Lupin's is in > > reference to DD not divulging why he trusts Snape, which you > > agree with in your preceding paragraph. And it was in HBP, it > > has nothing to do with what's going on during OotP. > > Alla: > > I thought a_svirn was summarising the general attitude of the > members of OOP, not just Lupin,so why is it intelectually > dishonest, I am wondering? Mike now: It is intellectually dishonest to use a quote about something you agree with, to prove a point about something *different* that you disagree with. It's like if I said "I prefer peaches over plums", then you say "Mike doesn't like plums". That may or may not be true, but it would be unfair to infer that from what I said. > Mike previously: > > IMO you depiction of a dictatorial DD is unwarranted and > > unfounded. Being the leader and director of the Order > > required him to take certain decisions upon himself. But > > you have no support for your position that he doesn't open > > up the floor for debate during meetings. > > Alla: > > Oh, I don't know. I had a rather strong feeling for example that > Lupin was feeling pretty bitter that he was to go to werewolves. > That Sirius would really prefer to tell Harry what was going > on ( Ooops, turns he was indeed right). That Sirius would really > prefer to fight instead of being locked in the House where he > escaped from in his youth and which gave him an awfully big > depression, if you ask me. Mike: No doubt that Lupin and Sirius would *prefer* to be leading free lives uncomplicated by the war with Voldemort, and Sirius would *prefer* not to be a wanted man. But Dumbledore asking Lupin to spy on the werewolves isn't any reflection on Dumbledore being *dictatorial*. And Dumbledore telling Sirius to stay hidden in 12 GP is not for Dumbledore's sake. Dumbledore's effort against Voldemort does not hinge on whether Sirius gets caught by the Ministry. It is Dumbledore trying to protect Sirius for Sirius' sake. Sirius can ignore Dumbledore and go out, which he did, and look what happened. Sirius was spotted and the Ministry knew he was hiding somewhere in London. How does any of this help or hurt Dumbledore's war effort? It doesn't affect it at all. > Alla: > > I had an impression that Mcgonagall really wanted to debate > whether Harry should go to Dursleys or not. Mike: She did air her views. Dumbledore heard her but disagreed. This is irrespective of whether Harry *should* have gone to the Dursleys. > Alla: > > That Weasleys would prefer Harry to spend more time with them, not > with Dursleys. Mike: We know the answer to that. Harry himself, at the end of OotP, says that he wasn't looking forward to going back to the Dursleys, even though he now understood why. And at the end of HBP, Harry is going back to the Dursleys again, willingly, in full agreement with Dumbledore's wishes. > Alla: > > The problem IMO is that they are all good soldiers and if > Dumbledore says that this is the best thing to do that means to > then that this is the best thing to do for common good, so they > **choose** the option Dumbledore wants them to choose, which is > often indeed the necessary option, but I really do not get the > impression that Dumbledore allows them much of the debate. Mike: Like I said above, Dumbledore makes certain decisions as the head of the order that are his to make, no debate on these decisions. But every leader makes certain decisions by her/himself, that does not make them *dictators*, that makes them leaders. This is where I disagreed with a_svirn's interpretation of the dynamic. > Alla: > > In case of Snape Dumbledore **reasons** for protecting him maybe > warranted, but I absolutely think that the attitudes that members > of OOP adopted indeed means to show us the general attitude they > have about Dumbledore's word. > > Also Lupin really really did not struck me as someone who had his > say about whether he wants to go to werewolves, but more like > someone who convinced himself that he is indeed the only option > and it just had to be so. Mike: See above. Also, what is wrong with the Order following Dumbledore's lead? He has the reputation of being the greatest wizard of his times as well as being a genious. I don't necessarily agree with these assessments, but I'm not an Order member living in the Potterverse. Critiquing from outside the Potterverse, I question a lot of Dumbledore's decisions. I don't see the point of having Lupin spying on the werewolves. But the important point is that Lupin thinks spying on the werewolves should be done, and as distasteful as the job is to him, he knows he is the best man for the job. > > > a_svirn: > > > Well, sure, it would have been even better ? for the common > > > good I mean ? if somebody had strangled him in his cradle. > > > > > > > Mike: > > Curious that someone that is so disgusted with the wizards using > > Memory Charms, would even suggest this. I guess that explains > > why the wizards have chosen to hide in their own world, with > > these attitudes in the *minds of Muggles*. > > Alla: > > Um, maybe I am being really really slow, but I thought that > A_svirn was being very ironic here, starting with the whole > ethics are what matters for the common good theme. > > I was pretty sure that she was being ironic. Mike: I think a_svirn was being flippant. I was being ironic, or at least I was trying. I was stringing together a_svirn's posts, to wit: it's unethical for a wizard to use memory charms on Muggles for the common good, yet not unethical to commit murder for the common good? Of course that's absurd. Likewise, I consider it absurd to critisize a Potterverse wizard for using a Memory Charm legally (in their world) to protect their world and, by extension, the Muggles from being thrown into the sanitarium for believing in magic. Please note that I use the term "Muggles" not human beings, to distinguish between the Potterverse and the RW. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 19:57:19 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:57:19 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy -Strategic Management In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159142 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > a_svirn: > > However, the blood projection thing, or, say, that > > wonderful Voldemort-baiting plan in OOP was another > > matter entirely. Here Dumbledore again didn't share > > his plans and intentions with other phoenixes, and he > > didn't have the same excuse as with Snape. > > > > Mike: > > What canon support do you have for this assertion? > > There is none AKAIK and it appears that DD has very > > much shared his plans with the Order. They are > > guarding the DoM entrances and I'm sure DD has told > > them why they are doing this. BTW, all of the Order > > members sure seem to know what's going on re the > > after dinner talk at 12 GP in Ch six of OotP. They > > are trying awfully hard to fill Harry in without > > saying too much. > > Alla: > > ... > > I thought she was not suggesting that other members of > the Orders did not know about Prophecy involving Harry, > I also think that this bit of information was known, > but I am not quite sure actually whether it was thanks > to Dumbledore. > > I have a suspicion that as close friend of Potters > Sirius knew that and shared. Now, this is nothing more > than a speculation and it is entirely possible that > Dumbledore chose to share this one, but for some reason > it seems plausible to me. > > But I thought that what a_svirn was saying is that > Dumbledore did not share with anybody the reasons why > Dumbledore was avoiding Harry all summer and why he > decided that Harry needs to study Occlumency, so if you > have canon support to the contrary, could you please > refer me to it? > > bboyminn: I think this brings us back to my 'Need to Know' idea. Keep mind that 'Need to Know' is not a social or psychological need to know, but a strategic need to know. Let's start with the Prophecy. Dumbledore tells Harry that it is OK to tell Ron and Hermione about the Prophecy, but does Harry do that? Does it happen 'on screen', is it implied as happening in the background? From what I read Harry doesn't tell them THE PROPHECY, that is, he doesn't quote it, he explains it to them, and he seems to think that that is sufficient. He tell them what he thinks they 'need to know'. Now he certainly may be wrong in that choice. I fully expect Hermione at some critical point to force Harry to quote the Prophecy word-for-word to the best of his ability to recall. At some point, word-for-word may indeed be strategically critical. I suspect Dumbledore /explains/ the Prophecy to a lot of people, people who have a /strategic/ need to know, and he explains it to a degree and in a level of detail in proportion to his preceived sense of their degree of 'need to know'. But, so far, he hasn't quoted the Prophecy to anyone but Harry. That is just wise strategic management, which is quite different from withholding information. I'm sure many people /want/ to know, I'm sure many people think they need to know, but, for Dumbledore, that is part of the burden of leadership. He must decide just who knows what, how much of 'what' they know, and just when they are allowed to know it. This isn't Dumbledore being a social jerk; this is Dumbledore making strategic decisions that have far greater importance and impact than any person's /desire/ to know. Sure, Dumbledore could tell the Ministry LITERALLY everything and thereby releave himself of the whole responsibility, dropping it all in the Ministry's lap and letting them deal with it. But we have consistently seen that the Ministry, like most governments, are a load of glory seeking, people pacifying, image conscious bunglers. Who do you have greater trust in when it comes to making sound strategic decisions regarding Harry, Dumbledore or the Ministry? Personally, as flawed as he is, I take Dumbledore over anyone and everyone. I think somewhere in this thread mentioned the example of 'Occlumency' regarding whether Dumbledore had bothered to explain the why's and wherefore's of the existance and need for Harry to learn Occlumency. Someone asked for a quote, well I don't have a quote handy, but I think I have a scene that will be sufficiently recognisable that a quote won't be needed. When Harry uses Umbridges fire to talk to Remus and Sirius about what he, Harry, had seen in Snape's Penseive Memory, they react very strongly when Harry tells them that Snape has stopped giving him Occlumency lessons. They react so strong, and equally strongly tell Harry to go back to Snape and tell him that under no circumstances is he to stop the Occlumency lessons. They seem to understand the urgent need for these lessons. They seem to understand the need and have a sense of urgency that strongly implies that Dumbledore has explained the situation to them. Dumbledore may not have explained every minute detail to them, but he explained it enough to impress on them the urgency and necessity of these lessons. As I said before, in life, in business, and in strategic situations, the leader is under no obligation to explain everything to everyone. He decide what to tell whom and when, and he does so out of stragegic necessity. Yes, socially and psychologically, lots and lots of people want to know, and even think they should know, but it is up to the leader to made that decision. Dumbledore may get it right, but he may also get it wrong (as we have seen) but being the leader means that the full weight and responsibility for his choices falls squarely on his shoulders. If Harry wins, Dumbledore gets some credit for having chosen wisely; if Harry dies, then Dumbledore shoulders a substantial burden of blame for his own strategic failures. That is true of all great leaders. So, my point is that it is clear that Dumbledore does explains some things to some people, and he does explain some things to all people, but he is selective, as any great leader must be, in only telling people what he has deemed they need to know in that moment. Sometimes he is right, and sometimes that choice is wrong, but the burden of choice does fall on him. > > Alla: > > Oh, I don't know. I had a rather strong feeling for > example that Lupin was feeling pretty bitter that he > was to go to werewolves. That Sirius would really > really prefer to tell Harry what was going on .... That > Sirius would really really prefer to fight instead of > being locked in the House where he escaped from in his > youth and which gave him an awfully big depression, if > you ask me. > > ... > bboyminn: But doesn't every solder feel pretty bitter about being used as cannon fodder by generals who are sipping tea back at their nice safe headquarters and moving toy soldier and tanks around on a map with little /apparent/ concern for the fact that real men are wasting their lives? Yet, they go and they do. They go where they are told to go and they do their duty, and they hope and pray that there is some greater good to it all. Sometimes the Generals are right, sometimes the Generals are wrong, but either way, the Generals are almost always safe. No Lupin did not like going and living amoung the very aspect of Werewolves that he had been trying to escape his whole life. But he knew there was a strategic importance and, as much as he didn't like it, he did his duty just like every other soldier who is asked to serve. Regardless of whether Lupin is literally a soldier or not, he has none the less given himself up to the greater good. He has voluntarily put himself at Dumbledore's command, and as a secondary aspect of that, he knows he has given himself up to the protection and support of Harry. He does this willingly, and having done so has accepted that as functional commander and chief, he must trust that Dumbledore knows what he is doing to the extent that is humanly possible, and that Dumbledore may be making his strategic decisions on information that is not currently available to Lupin or other volunteers. That is all part of the price that is paid for being a player in this dark and dangerous game. While not on the same page, I think this position puts me in close accord with Alla. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 21:21:38 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:21:38 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159143 > Mike: >There is none > AKAIK and it appears that DD has very much shared his plans with the > Order. They are guarding the DoM entrances and I'm sure DD has told > them why they are doing this. BTW, all of the Order members sure > seem to know what's going on re the after dinner talk at 12 GP in Ch > six of OotP. They are trying awfully hard to fill Harry in without > saying too much. a_svirn: No one in the order knew why they were guarding the Prophesy. They didn't know what the prophesy is about. We know it because Dumbledore specially warned Harry not to disclose this information to anyone including the members of order. We also know that no one had known why he placed Harry at the Dursleys. When McGonagall asked he lied to her. We know that no one in the order has a clue about horcruxes. In other words, we know -- and it's canon -- that when it comes to something really important, even crucial, the phoenixes leave the "business of knowing" to Dumbledore. Or Dumbledore keeps the "business of knowing" to himself. It comes to the same thing. Yes, I acknowledged ? quite openly ? that Snape's case is special, but it looks like with Dumbledore every case is special and all information is privileged. > Mike: > This is intellectually dishonest. > > IMO you depiction of a dictatorial DD is unwarranted and unfounded. > Being the leader and director of the Order required him to take > certain decisions upon himself. But you have no support for your > position that he doesn't open up the floor for debate during > meetings. a_svirn: IMO your rudeness is unwarranted and uncalled for. As for the debates at the meetings, whatever they were about the most important things ? like Dumbledore's plans for Harry, the horcruxes, the reason behind all that "guarding duty" weren't discussed there. (As well, as why he trusted Snape.) In Dumbledore's opinion the members of the order weren't entitled to know the most important stuff. > Mike: > But > more importantly, Mrs. Cole is at the end of her rope trying to deal > with Tom. She has neither the means nor the knowledge to deal with > him and DD very well knew this would be the case. He is there to > present what is the most logical solution, take Tom to Hogwarts and > teach him to control his magic and to become a proper wizard. To > suggest that Mrs. Cole could have come to this conclusion, that she > should know that young wizards should be enrolled in a school of > magic, is preposterous. a_svirn: Indeed it is. That why I never suggested it. > Mike: > Well, maybe your opinion as a Muggle is that "we can all handle it" a_svirn: And you are representing wizards on this list, I take it? From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 21:51:38 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 21:51:38 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159144 > Mike: > I think a_svirn was being flippant. I was being ironic, or at least > I was trying. I was stringing together a_svirn's posts, to wit: it's > unethical for a wizard to use memory charms on Muggles for the > common good, yet not unethical to commit murder for the common good? > Of course that's absurd. Likewise, I consider it absurd to critisize > a Potterverse wizard for using a Memory Charm legally (in their > world) to protect their world and, by extension, the Muggles from > being thrown into the sanitarium for believing in magic. Please note > that I use the term "Muggles" not human beings, to distinguish > between the Potterverse and the RW. a_svirn: Except that I never said that it's not unethical to commit a murder for the common good. I said it would have been *the best* for the common good if someone killed Riddle in his cradle. Appreciate the difference. I am pretty sure, however, you were not being intellectually dishonest here, just a bit inaccurate. The sort of thing that can happen to everyone. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 6 22:53:01 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 22:53:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159145 > Alla: > > Both, actually. Harry certainly does not **tell** everything to > Dumbledore, but Dumbledore looks in his eyes way too often for my > taste to be sure that Harry indeed witholds information from him. Pippin: Does Dumbledore ever use legilimency on Harry when Harry hasn't tried to lie to him first? I think not, otherwise he would have known about Trelawney being attacked and things might have fallen out very differently. Whooping is not a crime, attacking a teacher is. Too bad Harry didn't remember to tell him about it. Alla: > As to Marauders, well, yeah, they managed to kept something from > Dumbledore, AFAIK - once, which DD himself calls extraordinary > achievement, I still would not call that equal footing - meaning that > usually Dumbledore gets the information he needs, whether other > person wants him to or not. Pippin: You mean that they were animagi? What about the secret keeper switch, the marauder's map, and the monthly outings with the werewolf? What about the secret entrance through the one-eyed witch? > Alla: > > Er, no - I meant that if person asks him question and feels really > strongly that she needs to know the answer, the question should be > answered, IMO. Pippin: So it is all about Dumbledore's subjective judgement of how much the person is being emotionally tortured by not knowing? I guess Lupin would never be told anything then :) Harry probably wouldn't either. I mean, most of the questions that burn up the bandwidth around here haven't received even a first thought from Harry. > Alla: > > Not to dragged by fate explanation comes in HBP AFAIK and DD already > gives explanation in OOP where he mentions nothing about not being > dragged, no? Pippin: Dumbledore does not tell Harry how to feel, he waits till Harry tells him how he feels, then tries to deal with it. I'm sure Dumbledore thought Harry would think he had enough to do with classes and homework and adolescence generally without being expected to save the world from Voldemort singlehanded. > Alla: > > That's easy to say that they can quit IMO. Because they do not just > **work** for Dumbledore, they fight for the Light, for all that's > good, no? > > So, if they quit where does that lead them? To Voldemort? I disagree > that if they don't like his style, they can quite ( I mean Order of > Phoenix fighters), because IMO there is nowhere else to go. Pippin: There's the Ministry, there's what we might call the Fred and George route, there's lone resisters like Regulus. If Dumbledore's group is the most effective, well, that speaks for itself, IMO. > Alla: > > I lost you here :) Actually lost the meaning of the > word "transparent"? Does it mean explain more fully? Pippin: It means to be obvious and straightforward and complete. Nothing hidden. The thing is, I don't think Harry would make informed decisions if Dumbledore explained all his reasoning. He'd just accept that Dumbledore is way good at figuring things out. It's the reason Hermione doesn't altogether like doing the boys' homework for them. It's the reason Harry is getting a good potions grade from Slughorn but he doesn't really understand what he's doing. Harry is a bit lazy, and doesn't think things out unless he's forced to. And there are some things that younger Harry just wasn't ready to know. There is a lot of challenging of received wisdom going on in the books, but there is also an insistence that sometimes, as frustrating as it is, the old guys really do know stuff that they can't explain to you because you don't yet have the background or the experience to understand it. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 00:13:04 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:13:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159147 > > Alla: > > > > Both, actually. Harry certainly does not **tell** everything to > > Dumbledore, but Dumbledore looks in his eyes way too often for my > > taste to be sure that Harry indeed witholds information from him. > > Pippin: > Does Dumbledore ever use legilimency on Harry > when Harry hasn't tried to lie to him first? I think not, otherwise > he would have known about Trelawney being attacked and > things might have fallen out very differently. Whooping is not > a crime, attacking a teacher is. Too bad Harry didn't remember > to tell him about it. Alla: Huh? Are you arguing that we should praise Dumbledore for not using Legilimency on Harry like every minute when they talk? I mean, of course Dumbledore does not use Legilimency on Harry every single time, of course he uses it on him when he suspects Harry lies to him. Does it make the use of Legilimency more appropriate? Does Dumbledore has sense of entitlement to know truth every time Harry wants to conceal it from him? Not in my book. ETA: Not that I think that it has any relevance to the ethics of Dumbledore and Snape using Legilimency on Harry and other students, but I am wondering what are you basing your assertion on that if Harry told him that in addition to celebrating Draco attacked Trelawney. Do you think that Dumbledore for some reason behaved differently? Why? Supposedly he gets ( that is if he knows as much about Draco activities as he claims) that Draco celebrating means that he finished the cabinet and he still decides to leave. Are you saying that If he knew that in addition to celebrating Draco threw Trewlaney out he would not have gone after horcruxes? Why? Just curious. > Alla: > > As to Marauders, well, yeah, they managed to kept something from > > Dumbledore, AFAIK - once, which DD himself calls extraordinary > > achievement, I still would not call that equal footing - meaning that > > usually Dumbledore gets the information he needs, whether other > > person wants him to or not. > > Pippin: > You mean that they were animagi? > What about the secret keeper switch, the marauder's map, > and the monthly outings with the werewolf? What about > the secret entrance through the one-eyed witch? Alla: I group Marauders Map and monthly outings with the werewolf in **they were animagi** topic. :) As to Secret Keeper switch, I am not sure I remember any proof that Dumbledore **tried** to find out that information. In fact, via his behaviour towards Sirius, I think there are hints to the contrary. I said originally ( paraphrasing or maybe clarifying myself) that barred very few exceptions Dumbledore can always find out information he wants to and I think that if he wanted to find out that information, he could have. IMO of course. > Pippin: > So it is all about Dumbledore's subjective judgement of how much > the person is being emotionally tortured by not knowing? I guess > Lupin would never be told anything then :) Harry probably wouldn't > either. I mean, most of the questions that burn up the bandwidth > around here haven't received even a first thought from Harry. Alla: I don't know the exact answer to that, frankly. I would say - common sense on Dumbledore behalf maybe? >> Pippin: > Dumbledore does not tell Harry how to feel, he waits till Harry tells > him how he feels, then tries to deal with it. Alla: Except maybe with information given by Dumbledore Harry would have felt differently on different topics. Pippin: > I'm sure Dumbledore thought Harry would think he had enough to do > with classes and homework and adolescence generally without being > expected to save the world from Voldemort singlehanded. Alla: Harry was already doing that by the time of OOP with Ron and Hermione and by himself too, all that he would have learned is why he is doing that. As I said, it was significant burden to add, I get it, but not as significant as for any **normal** child, who did not encounter Voldemort yet IMO. > > > Alla: > > > > That's easy to say that they can quit IMO. Because they do not just > > **work** for Dumbledore, they fight for the Light, for all that's > > good, no? > > > > So, if they quit where does that lead them? To Voldemort? I disagree > > that if they don't like his style, they can quite ( I mean Order of > > Phoenix fighters), because IMO there is nowhere else to go. > > Pippin: > There's the Ministry, there's what we might call the Fred and George > route, there's lone resisters like Regulus. If Dumbledore's group > is the most effective, well, that speaks for itself, IMO. Alla: LOLOLOL. Most effective? No, that is not what I meant. I meant that it is quite clear to me and it is of course IMHO that according to books Dumbledore's views are morally right and whoever does not support him, does not support the morally right side. Therefore suggesting that the fighters who agree with Dumbledore's general morals, but disagree with his leadership style ( which yes, I think of as dictatorial) have somewhere else to go does not ring true to me. Ministry? JKR beats us over the head IMO that Ministry is morally corrupt. So, should members of OOP who think that Dumbledore has right goals in mind but wrong ways to achieve them maybe or at least not always right, go and join morally corrupt people? I don't think so personally. Regulus' way? I mean I love Regulus' character without even properly meeting him, but he joined DE before figuring out that this is not the way to go. Are you suggesting that members of OOP who do not like how Dumbledore leads, should go to DE first and then return to the right side? Um, we already have one, I don't think I want to see any more Snape like behaviour, frankly. IMO of course. So, yeah, I stand by my assertion that people who do not like Dumbledore's leadership style did not have much choice, that is if they fully support Dumbledore's side of course. Pippin: > There is a lot of challenging of received wisdom going on in > the books, but there is also an insistence that sometimes, as > frustrating as it is, the old guys really do know stuff that they > can't explain to you because you don't yet have the background > or the experience to understand it. Alla: Well, I agree with the first part and of course second part is true to RL, but I think we are still to see whether in the books old guy was right in a major way ( to trust Snape I mean) For now I think Dumbledore was rather clear that his wisdom isolated him from other people and made him to make rather monumental mistakes. He knows stuff yes, but he failed so many times because he forgot about how youth feels IMO > > Alla: > > > > Oh, I don't know. I had a rather strong feeling for > > example that Lupin was feeling pretty bitter that he > > was to go to werewolves. > bboyminn: > > But doesn't every solder feel pretty bitter about being > used as cannon fodder by generals who are sipping tea back > at their nice safe headquarters and moving toy soldier > and tanks around on a map with little /apparent/ concern > for the fact that real men are wasting their lives? > > Yet, they go and they do. They go where they are told to > go and they do their duty, and they hope and pray that > there is some greater good to it all. Sometimes the > Generals are right, sometimes the Generals are wrong, but > either way, the Generals are almost always safe. > > No Lupin did not like going and living amoung the very > aspect of Werewolves that he had been trying to escape > his whole life. But he knew there was a strategic > importance and, as much as he didn't like it, he did his > duty just like every other soldier who is asked to serve. Alla: Well, yes I think on this part we are pretty much in agreement. I think this would be as good place as any to go off some other Dumbledore leadership tangent. I mean, there is no doubt in my mind that JKR intends to portray Dumbledore as moral authority on major issues ( I will not be surprised that till she heard some outcries from the fandom, she intended Dumbledore to be a moral authority on all issues, but people were not buying it, so we got blood protection, chasticising Dursleys etc. In my speculative opinion of course), but what I am not comfortable with is the means Dumbledore uses to do it. I mean on one hand he supposedly lets people make their own choices on the other hand, it seems that he drags people to better future even if people do not really want to. Suddenly I am having flashbacks of "let's go and build comunism" slogans in my former homecountry. As I said, I am sure Dumbledore had better future for WW in mind, I just don't think that dragging people there is necessarily the way to go. Although I have a rather strong feeling that JKR approves of that way and this is what matters, I suppose. Just look at Hermione and STEW. Do House elves, erm... want to be freed? Does not look so to me. But JKR came out and said that this is slavery, no? Sorry, Steve, I am not buying that elves are born to serve humans as I think you postulated in the past. I think JKR means for the enchantment to be broken whether elves want that or not and eventually they realise the wisdom of dear Hermione and be grateful for that. Okay, must stop rambling. To make a long story short - yeah, I don't like Dumbledore leadership style a la ** I am the only one who knows and you lot must just follow me to the better future**. I realise that during the war he must have felt that necessary, do not feel obliged to like it though. JMO, Alla, who really tries hard to remember Dumbledore as he was in HBP, at his best IMO. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 00:17:10 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:17:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159148 --- "Mike" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > bboyminn: > > > > ...edited... > > > > It's the difference between the awarenss of a vague > > muffled sound occurring in some other location, and > > the hearing of clearly define speech. You can be > > aware that something is going on without being aware > > of precisely what is going on. > > Mike: > > ... My take on this scenario is simply that without any > coordination between Albus and Aberforth that Albus > could not be as sure, as he was, when Snape got cut off > from overhearing the prophesy. Albus is sure Snape > overheard everything up until "...as the seventh month > dies" but not not a word of "and the Dark Lord will > mark him as his equal..." If you are sure that Albus > could draw a definite line of demarcation based on > muffled noises, then I'm not going to convince you > otherwise. > bboyminn: One small thing that you seem to be overlooking, and that is that what Dumbledore is saying now today is not based on his instantaneous realization in the moment his interview of Trelawney was interupted. He has had well over a decade of time to research the matter, to gather information, and to get his story straight. It is perfectly possible that in the moment Dumbledore didn't know what Snape had or hadn't heard. He pieced that information together over time. When he explains it to Harry, he is not explaining instantaneous realization but accumulated information. /Then/ he suspected that Snape might have overheard something, /now/ because he has had years of access to Snape and trusts Snape, he thinks he knows exactly what Snape overheard. I leave an element of doubt because we don't really know for a fact that Snape can be trusted, but Dumbledore thinks he can, and so he takes his statement of what he heard as fact. > ...edited... > > montims: > I've missed something. Why was Snape there at all? OK, > he was following DD around, and spying for LV. ... But > why, actually, was he listening (or trying to listen) > to DD interviewing Sybill? > > Mike: > Another point to answer. (Thank you montims) Instead > of reaching to try to figure out how to reconcile the > two versions of events, we should be asking why Snape > would be eavesdropping on a teachers job > interview. ...edited... bboyminn: But that is assuming Snape knew who Dumbledore was meeting and why. Snape can't possibly know if something worth hearing would occur unless he heard it and made a determination. Dumbledore was having a private meeting, and private meeting are usually private because something 'private' is being discussed. Snape has no way of knowing if it will be interesting or boring, significant or insignificant until he listens and finds out. I suspect in real-life spies spend countless boring hours listening to tediously mundane conversations before they hit upon that one conversation that is significant. I think the same it true of Snape, Dumbledore was going somewhere to do something, and it was Snape's job to find out what it was and if it was significant. I suspect to him it was just one more boring tedious day in the life of a spy. Only as it turned out, it was the most significant day of his life, but again, there is no way he can know that in advance. > Mike: > I just think that JKR was trying to send a message with > the difference between DD's explanation and ST's reveal. > ... > bboyminn: Here's the thing, I don't think the two version are inconsistent. Each is in a conversation, each is relating detail that the individually feels are relevant to the conversation at hand. Neither is intent on giving a precise detailed minute-by-minute historical account. Further, there is very likely a third set of details that neither of them are relating because they are not relevant to the conversation at hand. I have no problem piecing together the two version, and until something in that third set of unknown details appears to contradict it, I take both to be true in the context in which they were spoken. > Mike: > > Let me be clear here. IMO Dumbledore lies to protect > Snape. If Voldemort ever knew that Snape heard none or > all of the prophesy, but only reported the first two > sentences, Snape - dead man! Even if you want to say > that DD was only protecting Snape's identity as the > eavesdropper from Harry in OotP, now that Snape is > going into deep cover close to Voldemort is not the > time for DD to tell anyone the true story, especially > Harry. > > And, if my prediction that Snape was already working > for Dumbledore by the time of the prophesy, it makes > perfect sense that Dumbledore does not tell anyone the > true story, that he and Snape stick to their *likely > story* to protect Snape's position vis-a-vis Voldemort. > > JMO > Mike > bboyminn: On this last part, we, surprisingly, are in agreement. Independant of what Snape really heard, it is critical that in this now critical moment, Snape and everyone else believe the story Dumbledore is telling. Certianly, the resolution of the Snape storyline is going to be one of the most interesting in the book. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 7 00:55:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 20:55:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Statute of Secrecy References: Message-ID: <005501c6e9ab$4da9a240$c986400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159149 a_svirn: No one in the order knew why they were guarding the Prophesy. They didn't know what the prophesy is about. We know it because Dumbledore specially warned Harry not to disclose this information to anyone including the members of order. We also know that no one had known why he placed Harry at the Dursleys. When McGonagall asked he lied to her. We know that no one in the order has a clue about horcruxes. In other words, we know -- and it's canon -- that when it comes to something really important, even crucial, the phoenixes leave the "business of knowing" to Dumbledore. Or Dumbledore keeps the "business of knowing" to himself. It comes to the same thing. Yes, I acknowledged - quite openly - that Snape's case is special, but it looks like with Dumbledore every case is special and all information is privileged. Magpie: While I'm sure the reasons are all plot-dependent, sometimes one can't help but be amazed at how much Dumbledore does keep secret. For instance--why keep Voldemort's secrets for him? Bellatrix was furious at the idea that he was a Half-blood, but for some reason nobody knows who he really is. Yet it seems like a great thing for people to know given that he's attempted to make himself into a sort of demonic figure. It would probably be a good thing for people to understand that he started off as just another Wizard. But it's not like Dumbledore's teaching his history in school. By doing that he adds to the exact same power Voldemort has cultivated for years. The Horcruxes are even more arbitrary. DD has a crack team of adults sworn to fight Voldemort, and yet they can't be told about the steps needed to destroy Voldemort. The only people who can know about that are Harry and his two best friends? I know it's important for the plot to have the kids doing it themselves, but it's actually pretty funny. Dumbledore says the prophecy only has meaning because Voldemort made it so, yet he actually seems to be working just as hard as Voldemort to that end, making sure everything is focused on Harry, who now feels he's not only got to destroy all the Horcruxes completely alone (Ron and Hermione refuse to let him go that far), but seems to feel he has to guard *Dumbledore's* secret about the Horcruxes to the grave. We don't know enough about the Order to be sure, but at this point I wonder how they hold together without DD. Harry doesn't seem to feel there's any adults in it he could enlist to work on the Horcrux problem. (Maybe this will change in the next book.) -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 02:43:41 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 02:43:41 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159150 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Mike: > > I think a_svirn was being flippant. I was being ironic, or at > > least I was trying. I was stringing together a_svirn's posts, > > to wit: it's unethical for a wizard to use memory charms on > > Muggles for the common good, yet not unethical to commit murder > > for the common good? Of course that's absurd. > > a_svirn: > Except that I never said that it's not unethical to commit a > murder for the common good. I said it would have been *the best* > for the common good if someone killed Riddle in his cradle. > Mike now: Yep, you're right, I apologize. I should have made clear the *not unethical" did NOT from your post. I should have made it clear that it was me that added that, and that you only said it would be "the best" for the common good. In fact, I should have left off the whole explanation, and left it at "flippant" and "ironic", which is where I had originally stopped. So, once again, I apologize for adding words that you did not post. Mike From indysgirlfriday at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 00:29:29 2006 From: indysgirlfriday at yahoo.com (Roxanne) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 00:29:29 -0000 Subject: Alternatives to magic. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159151 BAW: "It occurs to me that if Harry does kill Voldie, it might not be by magic.... That knowledge, given his utter contempt for Muggles and their ways, would be more bitter than death itself for him." A newbie to the group and saw this post. I agree with this theory. Remember also that the wands cannot work against each other; when they are used, previous spells are 'regurgitated'. Harry has to find a means other than magical and a thoroughly Muggle way is very probably the only way to finish off LV - and he would definitely be bitter about that. Roxanne From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 03:01:11 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 03:01:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Secrecy WAS:Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: <005501c6e9ab$4da9a240$c986400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159152 > Magpie: > While I'm sure the reasons are all plot-dependent, sometimes one can't help > but be amazed at how much Dumbledore does keep secret. Alla: During the course of this thread ( or threads about Dumbledore, but feels as one longest thread - I think this one is our longest non- stop character slapping threads to date. I mean Snape comes and goes all the time, but at least we are taking breaks, lol. This one seems to be non-stop, and of course I am laughing at myself first and foremost since I seem to like slapping Dumbledore lately) I begin to understand fully what Renee had been saying in the past, that sometimes the strings which JKR moves to move the characters are sometimes too visible.( Sorry, Renee if I misstated you). I mean, what you said - all this stupid secrecy is for plot related reasons, but it is getting ridiculous. So, yeah, I agree with you, kind of, although read on. Magpie: For instance--why > keep Voldemort's secrets for him? Bellatrix was furious at the idea that he > was a Half-blood, but for some reason nobody knows who he really is. Yet it > seems like a great thing for people to know given that he's attempted to > make himself into a sort of demonic figure. It would probably be a good > thing for people to understand that he started off as just another Wizard. > But it's not like Dumbledore's teaching his history in school. By doing > that he adds to the exact same power Voldemort has cultivated for years. Alla: Yes, I agree again - it would make a perfect sense to show people that the **king is naked** so to speak. To unglorify Voldemort, to show that he is just a half-blood psycho, nothing more and Dumbledore does not do it. To be fair though, he at least tries to dissipate the fear of the name and insists people call him Voldemort, I think that one will go long way ( Wow, I am still able to admire some things Dumbledore does), but yeah, he should have screaming from the roof about Voldemort heritage, IMO. Magpie: > The Horcruxes are even more arbitrary. DD has a crack team of adults sworn > to fight Voldemort, and yet they can't be told about the steps needed to > destroy Voldemort. The only people who can know about that are Harry and > his two best friends? I know it's important for the plot to have the kids > doing it themselves, but it's actually pretty funny. Alla: It is very funny, although let's pretend for a second that Pippin does not hear us ;) If Dumbledore seriously thinks that he is dying from the ring curse or if he simply plans in case of his death during the fight, there is one reason why him insisting Harry not telling anybody about Horcruxes would make sense - traitor in the Order, IMO. Magpie: Dumbledore says the > prophecy only has meaning because Voldemort made it so, yet he actually > seems to be working just as hard as Voldemort to that end, making sure > everything is focused on Harry, who now feels he's not only got to destroy > all the Horcruxes completely alone (Ron and Hermione refuse to let him go > that far), but seems to feel he has to guard *Dumbledore's* secret about the > Horcruxes to the grave. Alla: Oh, and don't forget that this explanation about prophecy only important because Voldemort believes in it comes in HBP and AFAIK there was nothing like that in OOP, it seemed like Dumbledore also believed in the Prophecy just because it existed, to me anyways. Magpie: We don't know enough about the Order to be sure, > but at this point I wonder how they hold together without DD. Harry doesn't > seem to feel there's any adults in it he could enlist to work on the Horcrux > problem. (Maybe this will change in the next book.) Alla: Want to bet that Order is not holding very well, oh and also want to bet that none of the Order members will give Harry significant help in Horcruxes hunt in book 7? I predict all the important help will come from kids or from unsuspecting adult sources - like Regulus, maybe ( and that also be minor) ;) JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 7 03:41:16 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 23:41:16 -0400 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? Message-ID: <00c701c6e9c2$72454f70$c986400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159153 I just finished re-reading HBP and the last chapter brought up a question--I hope it hasn't been brought up already. The Trio is talking about Snape being the Half-Blood Prince and I think it's Ron who asks why Snape didn't turn Harry in when he realized Harry was using his old book. I may be remembering it wrong (I read it earlier today but don't have the book in front of me now) but I think Harry even wonders if Snape suspected him of having the book much earlier, like after Slughorn praised Harry's Potions skills at the Christmas party. Hermione says Snape didn't want Dumbledore to know about his own connection to the book and some of the spells in it, but that sounds wrong to me. It's not like Dumbledore doesn't know the kind of kid Snape was, right? He knows he was a DE, which was even worse--the book was before he worked up to as bad as he could be. Snape's not Lupin trying to hide schoolboy indiscretions. He's an ex-DE. The fact that the question is asked, and Hermione's answer doesn't sound very convincing, and Harry himself says that he should have shown the book to Dumbledore because it was "proof" that Snape was evil at school "just like Voldemort" (Harry's even less objective about the book once he knows it was Snape's) makes me wonder if there is some more important reason Snape didn't turn Harry in. Was there something in the book Snape wanted Harry to have? Did Dumbledore know of it too and also want Harry to have it? Was it information that Snape wanted Harry to have access to without Dumbledore knowing or agreeing? Is there something in it that will help Harry later--Harry did make a point of hiding the book so he can still get it when he wants. Was that scene only to give us a chance to see the Vanishing Cabinet was in the RoR, or will we return to it? Or perhaps Hermione's explanation was right, but it sure didn't seem right to me--I especially doubt that DDM!Snape would be hiding something like that from Dumbledore. Or is there some obvious answer to this in the book that I've completely missed or forgotten? -m [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From felix_the_cat776 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 7 04:26:03 2006 From: felix_the_cat776 at hotmail.com (jadeey776) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 04:26:03 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: <00c701c6e9c2$72454f70$c986400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159154 I think you are right. I think Snape wanted Harry to learn something from the book, something he is going to need in his fight with Voldemort. It may be something he has already learnt or, more likely, something he will learn in book 7. I imagine Harry will go back for the book. Seeing the vanishing cabinet was important but I can't help feeling that he will get it back during book 7. The book was too vital and mentioned too many times to not be a very important plot point. jadeey776 From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Oct 7 06:44:00 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 06:44:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Secrecy WAS:Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159155 > Alla: > > It is very funny, although let's pretend for a second that Pippin > does not hear us ;) If Dumbledore seriously thinks that he is dying > from the ring curse or if he simply plans in case of his death > during the fight, there is one reason why him insisting Harry not > telling anybody about Horcruxes would make sense - traitor in the > Order, IMO. Hickengruendler: Yes, that's what I thought as well. This also explains, why he didn't tell anybody except Harry the exact wording of the prophecy. He still plays with the possibility, that there's a traitor in the Order, and that's why he keeps the really big things as secret as possible. Of course the decisions have some negative aspects, like that less people are able to help Harry destroy the Horcruxes, or that if Dumbledore had died earlier (say, because of the curse on the ring), Harry wouldn't have known about them at all. But I can also the Dumbledore's reasonong and why he did it in this case, which is more than I can say about him secret about Tom's true identity. (As far as this one is a secret. At least Slughorn knows). Of course this also means, that Dumbledore probably isn't quite as trusting, as Harry made him out to be in HBP. ;-) From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sat Oct 7 10:51:26 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 06:51:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159156 In case you hadn't checked lately, WOMBAT results are in. I actually did better than I expected - Exceeded Expectations (theirs AND mine!) Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 7 13:52:48 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 13:52:48 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: <00c701c6e9c2$72454f70$c986400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159157 Magpie: > Hermione says Snape didn't want Dumbledore to know about his own > connection to the book and some of the spells in it, but that > sounds wrong to me. It's not like Dumbledore doesn't know the > kind of kid Snape was, right? He knows he was a DE, which was > even worse--the book was before he worked up to as bad as he could > be. Snape's not Lupin trying to hide schoolboy indiscretions. > He's an ex-DE. Jen: I took that one at face value at the time even though it seemed a little childish. Now I'm wondering about it. Hermione is assuming Snape was a betrayer when she said that and therefore would also assume the story Snape told Dumbledore was a lie. Seeing the spells that were later used by DE's (Levicorpus) in Snape's book would give away the lie in her mind. *If* this was her logic it rings false to me. Like Magpie said, Dumbledore was aware what kind of kid Snape was in school and likely knew about the injury James sustained with the cut on his face or that Levicorpus was used by many of the students and later by DE's. Magpie > The fact that the question is asked, and Hermione's answer doesn't > sound very convincing, and Harry himself says that he should have > shown the book to Dumbledore because it was "proof" that Snape was > evil at school "just like Voldemort" (Harry's even less objective > about the book once he knows it was Snape's) makes me wonder if > there is some more important reason Snape didn't turn Harry in. Jen: Part of it may have been embarassment. I still don't get the whole "It was I who invented them--I, the Half-blood Prince!" scene, but it seemed like something Snape was able to keep to himself as a schoolboy. The nickname, but more importantly all it stood for, was one secret he kept from the Marauders and Dumbledore. Likely it had nothing to do with betrayl so much as what that alter-ego meant to Snape personally. Magpie: > Was there something in the book Snape wanted Harry to have? Did > Dumbledore know of it too and also want Harry to have it? Was it > information that Snape wanted Harry to have access to without > Dumbledore knowing or agreeing? Is there something in it that > will help Harry later--Harry did make a point of hiding the book > so he can still get it when he wants. Was that scene only to give > us a chance to see the Vanishing Cabinet was in the RoR, or will > we return to it? Jen: Many of us keep waiting for Harry to realize he's learned something from Snape along the way--could this finally be it? Actually, I think it may go deeper than Harry pulling a spell or potion out of the Half-Blood Prince's pocket at the last moment. The whole "you can't judge a book by it's cover" scenario that played out when Harry changed the book covers seemed like a meaningful JKR moment. I could see Harry learning the truth of who Snape was and retrieving the book to muse about how he only saw the snarling, bitter, & resentful side of Snape (and truly that's the only side Snape ever revealed to Harry). Maybe the good parts of the Half- Blood Prince will live on in a new Potions Master at Hogwarts, as I think Slughorn's days are numbered. Another thought--the book may never be retrieved. That room was...well, it was sort of a graveyard. Maybe the Half-Blood Prince died that night. If it was a symbolic moment, then either Snape's secret alter-ego died, the part of him which later blossomed into a DE, or else whatever good was left in him. Jen From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 7 09:35:12 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:35:12 -0000 Subject: DIARY was(Re: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159158 KathyO wrote: 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? Tinktonks: I can see where you're coming from on this but personally I dont think there was anything 'easy' about having your arm pierced by a highly poisonous fang of a creature that can kill you without even getting close. I don't think its fair to say it was easy. The basilisk was even described as 'Voldemort' beast. Any beast that LV associates would have to be the most poisonous inescapable creature possible. Therefore the potency of the poison very high - not suprising a horcrux should succumb to this. The entire situation in which the diarycrux was destroyed was totally unpredictable and not entirely at Harry's will. I don't think that makes it easy. I have actually been wondering about this for a while now. Excuse me if my paraphrasing is terrible but at the point doesn't it say something along the lines of 'Harry picked up like the Basilisk fang as hough he had always intended to do it' Does this suggest to anyone that maybe HARRY didn't intend to do it, someone else did. Like it wasn't his though at all. I've been working on theory that you guys will probably rip to shreds (But have fun doing it!!!!) but what if LV was intending to create a horcrux with Harry but when the spell reversed he didn't create his own horcrux - but Lily's? Any takers? Tinktonks From iowagirl681 at mchsi.com Sat Oct 7 10:01:58 2006 From: iowagirl681 at mchsi.com (girl_loves_her_coffee) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:01:58 -0000 Subject: LV, Nagini and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159159 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sridharj_ap" wrote: > > Hi, > > I was rereading OOP and was struck by a question I couldn't answer. > A quick search here revealed some discussions which only increased > my curiosity further, so I thought I would ask it anyway. Why is > Harry able to "see" only when LV possesses Nagini? Otherwise, he is > only able to feel LV's mood (again, only if it is intense). Harry saw through Voldemort's eyes and had Voldemort visions at other times that were not through Nagini - at the begining of GoF, Harry saw the babymort that killed Frank Bryce and he was seeing through Voldemort, the use of the cruciatus curse on one of the D.E.'s (Rookwood?). The attack on Mr. Weasley was seen through Nagini's eyes specfically (as Dumbledore says) because "that is where Voldemort was at the time" - he was possessing Nagini. Harry was merely seeing through Voldemort's eyes what Voldemort was seeing through Nagini's eyes. It seems that Harry gets the waves of really intense emotion from Voldemort at any time, but he only gets the "visions" when he is sufficiently relaxed - very tired and deeply asleep. > Is it somehow related to the fact that Harry can understand > Parseltongue? I don't think so - other than the fact that both the "visions" and Harry's ability to speak parseltongue are as a result of whatever connection to Voldemort exists because of that scar. (Whatever power Voldemort transferred to Harry gave Harry both the ability to see into Voldemort's mind and the ability to speak parseltongue.) > Another related question is if Nagini is a young Basilisk, but that > somehow does not fit in. If Nagini is one, then biting Arthur should > have killed him, since the bite was severe and there was a > considerable time before Arthur was in St. Mungo's. Correct - not to mention that Nagini's stare would be lethal. Voldemort would have dead D.E. bodies all over the place. She's not a Basilisk I don't think. > Any answers/theories/opinions? I do have a theory! Although this is about the LV, Nagini and Harry connection, it shoots off in a different direction with regard to Nagini: I personally think that Dumbledore is mistaken - Nagini is not a Horcrux at all, although she and Voldemort are quite close. Voldemort gained his rudimentary body through a spell or potion of "his own design" that included (amonst other things) the venom provided by Nagini. Remember - Voldemort was having Peter milk her and feed it to him well before the murder of Frank Bryce. Maybe - and this is so icky and strange - that Voldemort having been somewhat "nursed" by Nagini, the relationship between the two is now like that of a mother and child. (Gag) Now, although Voldemort had gained a rudimentary body (babymort) and was strong enough to commit a murder (Frank Bryce) I don't know that he necessarily was strong enough at that point to even make a horcrux. (Although there is no evidence either way.) Also - Dumbledore felt that Voldemort reserved the process of making Horcruxes for significant murders. Frank Bryce, as far as I can tell, held no significance to Voldemort. Finally - Voldemort doesn't seem to me to be the type to compromise on his plans. Ever. He planned (we think) to create his final horcrux using Harry's murder and some unknown object (perhaps an item belonging to one of the founders.) Voldemort has been absolutely set on killing Harry himself throughout the series. He would not let the Death Eaters do it in the graveyard, the Death Eaters seems to be giving off the vibe that THEY were not to kill Harry in the DoM and Snape specifically said "Leave him! Potter belongs to the Dark Lord!" (Which does not necessarily mean Snape is "good" or "bad" - because he could still be either.) I believe that Voldemort still wants to kill Harry for the same reason he always has; he sees Harry as a threat because of what he knows of the prophecy AND he wants to kill Harry himself because he wants to make that final Horcrux. Now, it's likely that he did not have Nagini at the time of the original attack on Harry at Godric's Hollow, but he may have had another object - and he either still has it and intends to make it a Horcrux when Harry is killed OR the object has since been lost - recovered from the cottage by Merlin-knows-who and VOldemort no longer has access to it. Perhaps in this case, he would make Nagini a Horcrux - but only upon his murder of Harry. He did have Nagini in the graveyard after all, and he was telling her "just a little longer" and planned to let her eat Harry. (disgusting, I know.) Not that eating him would have made her a Horcrux in any way - I just think it was an little something extra he wanted to do one he killed Harry and made Nagini that Horcrux. In summary - I think Harry's job gets a little easier in book 7 as I think there is one less horcrux out there to deal with - as Nagini is just a big old snake that perhaps thinks of Voldemort as one of her children. Sorry this is so long! iowagirl681 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 14:36:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:36:28 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159160 > Jen: I took that one at face value at the time even though it seemed > a little childish. Now I'm wondering about it. Hermione is assuming > Snape was a betrayer when she said that and therefore would also > assume the story Snape told Dumbledore was a lie. Seeing the spells > that were later used by DE's (Levicorpus) in Snape's book would give > away the lie in her mind. > > *If* this was her logic it rings false to me. Like Magpie said, > Dumbledore was aware what kind of kid Snape was in school and likely > knew about the injury James sustained with the cut on his face or > that Levicorpus was used by many of the students and later by DE's. Alla: I reread Magpie's post again and still not hundred percent sure whether she asked the question allowing for Evil or OFH! Snape or only for DD!M Snape. Sorry! Because if Snape is not as faithful to Dumbledore, hehe, I see no problem with Hermione's answer, but with some clarification. Absolutely, I think Dumbledore knew what kind of kid Snape was, well mostly anyways. But let's imagine for a second two possibilities: one there could be something in the book ( spell or potion) that somehow connected with why Dumbledore trusts Snape. What if this spell or potion would reveal to Dumbledore that he really should not have trusted Snape when he came back, like I don't know - Snape lied to him as to what this potion or spell does or something like that? That is not Snape hiding his youthful in discretions, that would be revealing something connected to pivotal lies, if that makes sense? Second possibility IMO would be something in the book connected to the Prank, which Dumbledore may not have known and which would make Snape look complicit? I mean, I doubt that, I think *my memory is as good as ever* means that Dumbledore knows a lot more than we do about that night, on the other hand he really did not know that they were animagi, so who knows? And we know that we will learn more about that night in book 7. Why would Snape want to hide it from DD, even if he is DD!M? Well, ego, I'd say, and that it much nicer to parade in front of Dumbledore that Sirius Black tried to kill HIM than erm... not. Jen: > Another thought--the book may never be retrieved. That room > was...well, it was sort of a graveyard. Maybe the Half-Blood Prince > died that night. If it was a symbolic moment, then either Snape's > secret alter-ego died, the part of him which later blossomed into a > DE, or else whatever good was left in him. Alla: Oh, my God, LOVE it, Jen. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 14:53:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:53:06 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Secrecy WAS:Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159161 Alla wrote: > > It is very funny, although let's pretend for a second that Pippin does not hear us ;) If Dumbledore seriously thinks that he is dying from the ring curse or if he simply plans in case of his death > during the fight, there is one reason why him insisting Harry not > telling anybody about Horcruxes would make sense - traitor in the > Order, IMO. Carol responds: Although you seem to be joking (and I'm not an ESE!Lupin fan, either), I think you've hit on the primary reason for Dumbledore's request for secrecy regarding the Horcruxes. VW1 (and Wormtail) showed that it's best to trust as few people as possible with really important secrets. Also, the one (former) Order member who can possibly help Harry with the Horcruxes probably already knows about them--good thing, too, since Harry thinks he's evil and wouldn't tell him under any circumstances! > Alla wrote: > > Oh, and don't forget that this explanation about prophecy only > important because Voldemort believes in it comes in HBP and AFAIK > there was nothing like that in OOP, it seemed like Dumbledore also > believed in the Prophecy just because it existed, to me anyways. Carol responds: Oddly enough, I agree with you. The question is why Dumbledore presented it this way and what he really believes. I don't think it's JKR tinkering with the plot to make Dumbledore look better (though her decision to make Alice Longbottom an Auror in OoP when she wasn't one in GoF shows that she's not above making small adjustments to placate fans). I think that Dumbledore's actions from placing the blood protection on the Dursley's home onward show that he does believe the Prophecy. After all, a child born "as the seventh month dies" to Order members who presumably have "denied [Voldemort} three times" has survived an AK cast by the Dark Lord himself. Best to assume that the Prophecy is true, especially since he has reason to believe that Voldemort isn't dead. And, as you say, he certainly seems to believe at the end of OoP that "either must die at the hand of the other." I think that he's telling the truth in implying that Voldemort activated or validated the Prophecy by acting on it and that it might not otherwise have been (at this point partially) fulfilled. But Harry does have powers that Voldemort gave him, powers that apparently reside in his scar, so "mark him as his equal" has come true in two senses ("mark" = scar; "equal" = powers like Parseltongue, a particular type of Legilimency that works only with Voldemort, and IMO the power of possession, the only other power peculiar to Voldemort that we've seen). It must have seemed like to Dumbledore from Godric's Hollow onward that the rest of the Prophecy could come true. And Voldemort believes it, which insures that he'll come after Harry and won't rest until Harry dies. But I also think, and here I'm only guessing, that Dumbledore is using psychology on Harry (and in RL, psychology is the best way of getting a teenager to do what he needs to do for his own good) in explaining that the Prophecy is only valid because Voldemort acted on it and that he, Harry, has the choice not to fight Voldemort. The rest of it can go unfulfilled (but with, presumably, dire consequences for the WW). I believe that the Prophecy *is* true to the extent that only Harry can kill or otherwise permanently destroy Voldemort and that Dumbledore knows it. Only Harry, apparently, can destroy the Horcruxes without suffering irreparable damage to himself (though I think Harry will need Snape's help either to learn the spell that destroys them or to find a Horcrux or to heal someone hurt by a Horcrux curse). But Harry must do it willingly, not as a victim of fate who has no choice in the matter. (Granted, fight Voldemort or allow him to take over the WW forever is not much of a choice, but at least Harry sees it as fighting in the arena rather than weakly submitting to death. That's something.) Alla wrote: > > Want to bet that Order is not holding very well, oh and also want to > bet that none of the Order members will give Harry significant help > in Horcruxes hunt in book 7? I predict all the important help will > come from kids or from unsuspecting adult sources - like Regulus, > maybe ( and that also be minor) ;) Carol responds: I, OTOH, am certain that he'll require help from ex-Order member Snape and quite possibly from Lupin, Bill Weasley (the curse breaker), and Tonks. (Her metamorphmagus abilities have to play a more significant part than they've played so far, surely.) Carol, hoping that the Dumbledore bashing has come to an end From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 7 14:53:17 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 14:53:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Secrecy WAS:Re: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159162 > Hickengruendler: But I can also the > Dumbledore's reasonong and why he did it in this case, which is more > than I can say about him secret about Tom's true identity. (As far as > this one is a secret. At least Slughorn knows). Of course this also > means, that Dumbledore probably isn't quite as trusting, as Harry > made him out to be in HBP. ;-) Pippin: In the first place, making an issue of Voldemort's lies about his race would make race itself an issue, and Dumbledore is fighting against that. Also, anti-Muggle prejudice is far more prevalent in the WW than out and out Voldemortism. IMO the number of people who would be turned away from Voldemortism by this knowledge would be far offset by the number who would think worse of halfbloods for knowing that Voldemort is one of them. Dumbledore wouldn't want to encourage that either. In any case, that vanishingly small group of people who actually trust Voldemort would be sure that Dumbledore was lying. Everyone else already knows that Voldemort is a liar. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 7 14:57:19 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 10:57:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? References: Message-ID: <002d01c6ea20$e3903650$b5b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159163 > Alla: > > I reread Magpie's post again and still not hundred percent sure > whether she asked the question allowing for Evil or OFH! Snape or > only for DD!M Snape. Sorry! Magpie: Sorry! I did mean to allow for ESE!Snape as well, definitely. I couldn't think of a good reason for him to hide the book from DD either, since all Snapes' crimes of the past are pretty much known. I suppose one could say Dumbledore told Snape to destroy the book and he didn't, only if that's the case Snape's just not nearly so concerned about it as he should be. He shouldn't be leaving it behind in his classroom or letting Harry hide it. Alla:> > Because if Snape is not as faithful to Dumbledore, hehe, I see no > problem with Hermione's answer, but with some clarification. > But let's imagine for a second two possibilities: > > one there could be something in the book ( spell or potion) that > somehow connected with why Dumbledore trusts Snape. What if this > spell or potion would reveal to Dumbledore that he really should not > have trusted Snape when he came back, like I don't know - Snape lied > to him as to what this potion or spell does or something like that? Magpie: That's a good possibility--though again, if that's the case why was Snape careless enough to leave the book behind in his classroom? And why let Harry get away with hiding it? Harry might have taken the book to Dumbledore at any time. Obviously once ESE!Snape has "outed" himself on the Tower (and killed DD) it wouldn't matter, but there'd be a danger before that with the book in Harry's hands. Alla: > Second possibility IMO would be something in the book connected to > the Prank, which Dumbledore may not have known and which would make > Snape look complicit? I mean, I doubt that, I think *my memory is as > good as ever* means that Dumbledore knows a lot more than we do > about that night, on the other hand he really did not know that they > were animagi, so who knows? Magpie: Ooh--that's kind of cool. Though wouldn't he want the book out of Harry's hands if that was the case? That's sort of the conundrum with the whole thing. Snape's got to both care about something enough to not turn Harry in to Dumbledore, but casual enough that he left the book unguarded and didn't do much to get it back when he realized Harry had it. > Jen: > >> Another thought--the book may never be retrieved. That room >> was...well, it was sort of a graveyard. Maybe the Half-Blood > Prince >> died that night. If it was a symbolic moment, then either Snape's >> secret alter-ego died, the part of him which later blossomed into > a >> DE, or else whatever good was left in him. > > > Alla: > > Oh, my God, LOVE it, Jen. Magpie: Me too! Awesome! -m From penhaligon at gmail.com Sat Oct 7 16:41:39 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 09:41:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <014901c6ea2f$7cc11930$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 159164 Sherrie said: > > > In case you hadn't checked lately, WOMBAT results are in. I > actually did better than I expected - Exceeded Expectations > (theirs AND mine!) > Thanks for the tip! I got an Exceeds Expectations too. But now I know just how Hermione felt ... What didn't I answer correctly? What kept me from getting an Outstanding? I had to laugh at myself. Panhandle, who shares a birthday with Hermione From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 16:42:38 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 16:42:38 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, MadameSSnape at ... wrote: > > In case you hadn't checked lately, WOMBAT results are in. I > actually did better than I expected - Exceeded Expectations > (theirs AND mine!) > > Sherrie Mike: Can you get your actual score (18 out of 30 or whatever)? Does anyone know how to get this? I also got an "E" which seems high, based on my feelings on how I was doing during the test. Unless I'm a really good guesser :) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 16:58:11 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 16:58:11 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159166 > Mike: > Can you get your actual score (18 out of 30 or whatever)? Does anyone > know how to get this? > > I also got an "E" which seems high, based on my feelings on how I was > doing during the test. Unless I'm a really good guesser :) Tonks: I got my first Exceeds Expectations too! The answers are on the OT board. Tonks_op From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 7 17:06:26 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 13:06:26 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS References: <014901c6ea2f$7cc11930$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> Message-ID: <006b01c6ea32$ed0acc10$b5b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159167 > Sherrie said: > >> >> >> In case you hadn't checked lately, WOMBAT results are in. I >> actually did better than I expected - Exceeded Expectations >> (theirs AND mine!) >> Panhandle: > Thanks for the tip! I got an Exceeds Expectations too. But now I know just > how Hermione felt ... What didn't I answer correctly? What kept me from > getting an Outstanding? I had to laugh at myself. Magpie: I was a total Hermione on this one. I covered up the screen and read the result one letter at a time. -m (Outstanding!! Bo-yeah!!!) From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 7 17:07:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 13:07:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore and Secrecy /Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 References: Message-ID: <006c01c6ea33$16fd2b80$b5b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159168 Pippin: > > In the first place, making an issue of Voldemort's lies about his > race would make race itself an issue, and Dumbledore is fighting > against that. > > Also, anti-Muggle prejudice is far more prevalent in the WW than > out and out Voldemortism. IMO the number of people who would > be turned away from Voldemortism by this knowledge would > be far offset by the number who would think worse of halfbloods > for knowing that Voldemort is one of them. Dumbledore wouldn't > want to encourage that either. Magpie: That seems like a stretch to make it seem like Dumbledore needs to do this odd thing for good. It's assuming an awful lot about the way the Wizarding World will act in defense of keeping a secret Voldemort himself wants kept secret. His being a Half-blood is hardly the issue-the issue is that he's a guy named Tom Riddle, an ordinary guy, not some god-like superbeing no one has a chance against. Why keep all this information from the world at large when they're too afraid to even speak his name? Because they can't be trusted to not go postal on Half-bloods and Muggles if they knew? Why? Right now everyone thinks he's a Pureblood and don't seem to hold it against Purebloods. You can make Voldemort's past public without making blood the focus. Pippin:> > In any case, that vanishingly small group of people who actually > trust Voldemort would be sure that Dumbledore was > lying. Everyone else already knows that Voldemort is a liar. Magpie: Those people aren't the most important. It's the general public that could do to know this stuff about Voldemort. And even that vanishing number might care--though we'll never know if it's kept secret. I just can't see any good reason (beyond liking it for the plot) to keep this secret. Saying that Dumbledore has just pre-emptively decided that he's got to keep it secret because otherwise it brings blood into it or will make the WW act out against Half-bloods is would be ridiculously paternalistic on his part, certainly going far beyond being on the lookout for spies in his Order. -m From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sat Oct 7 17:14:08 2006 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 10:14:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4527E060.10203@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159169 Tonks wrote: > > > > I got my first Exceeds Expectations too! The answers are on the OT > board. > > Tonks_op > Interesting.. I got an Outstanding. So does this get me into the advanced potions class? ;) Jazmyn From tomriddledarklord at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 08:53:49 2006 From: tomriddledarklord at yahoo.com (tomriddledarklord) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 08:53:49 -0000 Subject: Name of Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159170 Hi guys, This is my first, try read this and give your thoughts. Till now whatever I have read there are 2 things common in JK Rowling's writing: 1. unexpected twists 2. using the weakest link to finally wrap up at last So just a few remainders like: There are two kids dealing with prophecy - Harry and Neville. One can see that other than Harry, Ron, Hermione and other Weasleys, one student who gets a little more attention is Neville. One can see that Neville has no big contribution but I can see he is dragged well but with few references as now and then. So one can see from book 1 to 6 Neville is side by side with Harry but not coming to the limelight. Now coming to the point, as Albus Dumbledore says to Harry "your mother had a choice". That's where a very, very weak link is present. No mother will leave her infant to the hands of death and I think that there is no choice left to Mrs. Potter other than to die rather seeing her child die. So where is the choice? ? ? ? ? ? . Here I take a wild guess that if Harry is used as a scapegoat for Neville. I.e Neville is the son of Potters and Harry the son of Longbottoms. Here is the plot - as soon as the prophecy is revealed everyone points out that the son of Potters in danger, Black comes to risk by being the key. But Mr. potter gives the key to Peter Pettigrew. I cannnot see Dumbledore to sit as a dumb and dumber to take chance on the weakest of all: Peter Pettigrew. So he must have interchanged the kids so that the chosen one, i.e Neville, be still safe and Harry could be made a scapegoat and also fooling Voldemort and JKR has very cleverly put the Longbottoms into a situation of insanity so there be no doubt to anyone save Voldemort but including the readers. Given this piece of information now recall the same sentence "your mother had a chance" i.e., she could have walked away from the kid just like that to save her life, but she chose the other way. One point of argument is that Dumbledore has given importance of the lesson, mainly w.r.t the horocruxes to Harry and not to Neville. Well there is no reference that Neville knows about horocruxes, but that does not mean that Dumbledore has not given the same details to Neville and JKR has well good reasons to save this as a last trump card against Lord Voldemort. By the end of the book 6 Neville should have known who he is and Dumbledore must have asked to keep this secret so that Voldemort's concerns are against Harry and get always distracted. Recall that Neville is afraid of Snape "the half blood prince" and he is raisen to villainous stardom by killing the famous wizard Albus Dumbledore. So I think that as Harry vs. Voldemort fight is going to be there, there is another important fight of Neville vs. Snape. Now let me summarize this in one sentence: Harry is ordinary wizard and Neville the chosen one. Then why all the cry and what the book is about? Well this book is about Harry an ordinary peace-loving wizard who is forced into the hands of Voldemort as scapegoat. But this ordinary wizard cannot be killed by the greatest of the wizards, well not once, but thrice. And Harry being an ordinary wizard beats Voldemort thrice and in fact Voldemort in book 5 wants to know what the whole prophecy is because his confidence in himself is diminished after the escape of Harry in book 4. And Harry remains at large for Voldemort. Recall Dumbledore says Voldemort has brought this chaos against him by transferring his powers to Harry who is not the chosen one. Dumbledore always says that Voldemort is fool enough to bring this present situation unnecessarily. Which supports my point that Albus is talking with double meaning. And finally it is Voldemort the greatest wizard who goes on hiding where Harry is still available at open. Based on this I think the last book title will be HARRY POTTER AND THE CHOSEN ONE -tomriddledarklord From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 7 17:15:56 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:15:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159171 > Alla: > > Huh? Are you arguing that we should praise Dumbledore for not using > Legilimency on Harry like every minute when they talk? I mean, of > course Dumbledore does not use Legilimency on Harry every single > time, of course he uses it on him when he suspects Harry lies to him. > > Does it make the use of Legilimency more appropriate? Does > Dumbledore has sense of entitlement to know truth every time Harry > wants to conceal it from him? Not in my book. Pippin: I don't think Dumbledore needs legilimency to know when Harry is lying to him. I think that's obvious from body language, vocal inflection and common sense. He uses legilimency *after* Harry's lied to him, when the lie itself proves there's something Harry thinks Dumbledore has a right to know. Otherwise, Harry could just refuse to answer the question. Alla: > Are you saying that If he knew that in addition to celebrating Draco > threw Trewlaney out he would not have gone after horcruxes? > > Why? Just curious. Pippin: Trelawney and Harry could have given evidence that Draco was involved in an attack. That's what Dumbeldore was waiting for, because without proof he knew he wouldn't be able to get Draco to accept the Order's protection or else send him to Azkaban to keep him from being murdered. Harry, meanwhile, was so anxious to get Dumbledore to agree that Draco was plotting something that he neglected to report what Draco had actually done. > Pippin: > > I'm sure Dumbledore thought Harry would think he had enough to do > > with classes and homework and adolescence generally without being > > expected to save the world from Voldemort singlehanded. > > Alla: > > Harry was already doing that by the time of OOP with Ron and > Hermione and by himself too, all that he would have learned is why > he is doing that. As I said, it was significant burden to add, I get > it, but not as significant as for any **normal** child, who did not > encounter Voldemort yet IMO. > Pippin: There is a huge difference between knowing that Stalin is after you and thinking that you are the only one who can stop Stalin. Through OOP, Harry was only trying to stay alive. He never thought he had to hunt down Voldemort and destroy him. > Alla: > So, yeah, I stand by my assertion that people who do not like > Dumbledore's leadership style did not have much choice, that is if > they fully support Dumbledore's side of course. Pippin: But it's the things you don't like about Dumbledore, his aloofness and his uncompromising nature, that let him hold the Order to a higher standard. If he just did what would make his followers happy, he'd be no better than Scrimgeour or Fudge. He doesn't try to justify his positions because at bottom they're not based on logic -- you either feel in your heart that what he wants you to do is right, or you don't. I don't get what you mean about Dumbledore dragging people to a better future. He hasn't got a gulag, and nobody is being dragooned into the Order. He waited as long as he could to tell Harry about the prophecy because he didn't want Harry to feel that he *had* to be the one to destroy Voldemort even though the prophecy predicted it. He'd already said in PoA that even genuine predictions weren't necessarily meaningful, so I can't fault him too much for not reminding Harry of this immediately in OOP, where the main point he was trying to get across was that Harry need not blame himself for Sirius's death. Pippin From e2fanbev at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 17:04:14 2006 From: e2fanbev at yahoo.com (e2fanbev) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:04:14 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159172 > > Sherrie: > > In case you hadn't checked lately, WOMBAT results are in. I > > actually did better than I expected - Exceeded Expectations > > (theirs AND mine!) > > Mike: > Can you get your actual score (18 out of 30 or whatever)? Does > anyone know how to get this? > > I also got an "E" which seems high, based on my feelings on how I > was doing during the test. Unless I'm a really good guesser :) e2fanbev: After the first test I heard there are no right answers, just best answers. I think that's true. P.S. How many posts do you have to make to get off moderation? I know someone who gave up and left the group because his answers were getting posted a day after the topic was over! From enlil65 at gmail.com Sat Oct 7 17:43:03 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 12:43:03 -0500 Subject: More to Petunia than meets the eye Message-ID: <1789c2360610071043k3f08d20ep17d139fcfc82cef1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159173 Here is some speculation about Petunia that fits a few things we know about her. She's a Muggle and according to JKR has never performed magic. She's nosy, so she imposes herself where she doesn't belong. She seems envious of her parents' fawning over Lily, the witch in the family. She seems to be irrationally afraid of magic. She is acquainted with Dumbledore, and has corresponded with him. Dumbledore has some unknown thing he leverages to get her cooperation. It seems likely that we'll find out in Book 7 what circumstances account for all of these things. For your entertainment, here is a wacky proposal... quite wacky, but interesting, I think. What if ... as a girl, when she and Lily were at home, Petunia somehow got ahold of or was given Polyjuice Potion to take on Lily's appearance. The idea here is that she could then go back to Hogwarts in Lily's place. This little deception would have required the deliberate assistance of another witch or wizard in order to keep her supplied with Potion; it would have also required the real Lily to be stashed away somewhere, just like Crabbe/Goyle and Moody had to be stashed away when they were Polyjuiced. Of course the deception would have been doomed to eventual failure since Petunia would have been unable to practice magic in the classroom. Without further assistance from someone in her classes, she would be very rapidly found out. What if, like Hermione in COS, Petunia eventually got some bad Polyjuice which transformed her into a partial something-or-other, perhaps a cat like Hermione, or some other Hogwarts pet. As we saw with Hermione, it was quite difficult to undo. Imagine how mortified Petunia would have been; and her deception would certainly be uncovered to the point that it would become a disciplinary matter for the school, involving headmaster Dumbledore. If word got out, it would be a big scandal. So the idea is this: Petunia and the student colluding with her to carry out the deception would both be in BIG trouble. Petunia herself could have needed some enchantment to return her normal appearance if she couldn't otherwise be "cured". The student should have been expelled; but perhaps with Dumbledore's generous nature he or she was given a second chance. If Dumbledore's enchantment were ever lifted--or maybe it needs to be performed regularly--or maybe she needs to take a potion regularly--Petunia could return to her unpleasantly morphed state (thus--more to her than meets the eye). Imagine Vernon's dismay, especially after he found out that it was due to Petunia's own actions. This could give Dumbledore a very useful bargaining chip with Petunia: if she didn't choose to help him, her "cure" could be withdrawn. What an interesting idea, because it could explain Petunia's terror about magic, why she resented Lily so much, and also her correspondence with Dumbledore and the hold he could have over her. And there is also the interesting matter of which student was supplying the Polyjuice, and why. It would have to be someone in Lily's class. Snape? James? -- Peggy Wilkins "We Kingly Pigs" enlil65 at gmail.com From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 17:58:34 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 17:58:34 -0000 Subject: Name of Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159174 tomriddledarklord wrote: > No mother will leave her infant to the hands of death and I think > that there is no choice left to Mrs. Potter other than to die rather > seeing her child die. > > So where is the choice? > ? (Snip) > Now let me summarize this in one sentence: > > Harry is ordinary wizard and Neville the chosen one. > Tonks: First LV gave her a choice. And a choice between two evils is still a choice. Next, I think that it is true that we are to see Harry as one of us. He is an ordinary wizard, and what he can do we all can do. On the other hand I don't think that DD would risk 2 children in the way that you are suggesting. And the savior of the WW must be a half-blood. This fits with what I think the underlying theme of the books is about. And with all of the negative talk about purity of blood, it would make no sense to have Neville who is a pure blood to be the real Chosen One. The Chosen One is Harry. I think the next book will be: Harry Potter and the Return of the Phoenix. Tonks_op From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 18:56:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:56:49 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: <00c701c6e9c2$72454f70$c986400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > > I just finished re-reading HBP and the last chapter brought up a question--I hope it hasn't been brought up already. > > The Trio is talking about Snape being the Half-Blood Prince and I think it's Ron who asks why Snape didn't turn Harry in when he realized Harry was using his old book. I may be remembering it wrong (I read it earlier today but don't have the book in front of me now) but I think Harry even wonders if Snape suspected him of having the book much earlier, like after Slughorn praised Harry's Potions skills at the Christmas party. > > Hermione says Snape didn't want Dumbledore to know about his own connection to the book and some of the spells in it, but that sounds wrong to me. It's not like Dumbledore doesn't know the kind of kid Snape was, right? He knows he was a DE, which was even worse--the book was before he worked up to as bad as he could be. Snape's not Lupin trying to hide schoolboy indiscretions. He's an ex-DE. > > The fact that the question is asked, and Hermione's answer doesn't sound very convincing, and Harry himself says that he should have shown the book to Dumbledore because it was "proof" that Snape was evil at school "just like Voldemort" (Harry's even less objective about the book once he knows it was Snape's) makes me wonder if there is some more important reason Snape didn't turn Harry in. Was there something in the book Snape wanted Harry to have? Did Dumbledore know of it too and also want Harry to have it? Was it information that Snape wanted Harry to have access to without Dumbledore knowing or agreeing? Is there something in it that will help Harry later--Harry did make a point of hiding the book so he can still get it when he wants. Was that scene only to give us a chance to see the Vanishing Cabinet was in the RoR, or will we return to it? > > Or perhaps Hermione's explanation was right, but it sure didn't seem right to me--I especially doubt that DDM!Snape would be hiding something like that from Dumbledore. Or is there some obvious answer to this in the book that I've completely missed or forgotten? > > -m Carol responds: I intend to bring up a question along these lines in the chapter discussion for "Sectumsempra" in November, but for now I'll point out that Snape not only didn't tell Slughorn that Harry was cheating, he didn't expel him, or request his expulsion, for using a potentially deadly spell. I can only conclude that Snape is trying to help Harry somehow, to keep him safely in school, for one thing, but he may also want him to use the book. (Note that he didn't identify himself as the author of the spells and potions hints at that point, as he could have done.) Maybe if Harry had told him the truth about where he found the spell, Snape would have told the truth in return? Seems like yet another missed opportunity for understanding to me. Carol, who doesn't want to say any more on the topic right now From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Oct 7 18:44:39 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 13:44:39 -0500 Subject: Name of Book 7 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610071144u9734f8buf34861b7e970a971@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159176 On 10/7/06, tomriddledarklord wrote: > > Here I take a wild guess that if Harry is used as a scapegoat for > Neville. I.e Neville is the son of Potters and Harry the son of > Longbottoms. > montims: and yet everybody keeps saying how Harry is the spitting image of James, but with Lily's eyes, so how would that work? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 19:49:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:49:13 -0000 Subject: LV, Nagini and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159177 iowagirl681 wrote: > other than the fact that both the "visions" and > Harry's ability to speak parseltongue are as a result of whatever > connection to Voldemort exists because of that scar. (Whatever power > Voldemort transferred to Harry gave Harry both the ability to see > into Voldemort's mind and the ability to speak parseltongue.) Carol responds: I agree completely with this part (we know that the powers were transferred to Harry via the cut in his forehead and they probably reside in the scar, which does not necessarily indicate that a soul bit also resides there). > iowagirl681: > > Another related question is if Nagini is a young Basilisk, but that somehow does not fit in. If Nagini is one, then biting Arthur > should have killed him, since the bite was severe and there was a considerable time before Arthur was in St. Mungo's. Carol responds: Not necessarily. If Nagini is a Horcrux, any protective spell on her would presumably kick in only if she's killed, as the curse that attacked Dumbledore when he destroyed the ring attacked him either after or simultaneously with the destruction of the ring. (I think that cracking it open to release the soul bit also released the curse.) Nagini's venom is natural to her, not part of her nature as a Horcrux, if she is one. It serves a role more like that of the green potion (poisoned memory?) and Inferi protecting the (supposed) locket Horcrux than the curse on the ring Horcrux, IMO. iowagirl681: > I personally think that Dumbledore is mistaken - Nagini is not a > Horcrux at all, although she and Voldemort are quite close. > Voldemort gained his rudimentary body through a spell or potion > of "his own design" that included (amonst other things) the venom > provided by Nagini. Remember - Voldemort was having Peter milk her > and feed it to him well before the murder of Frank Bryce. > > Maybe - and this is so icky and strange - that Voldemort having been > somewhat "nursed" by Nagini, the relationship between the two is > now like that of a mother and child. (Gag) Carol responds: I agree with you about the surrogate mother/child relationship between Voldemort and Nagini, which I discussed in my post number 155602: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155602 I think that the fetal Voldemort is her "child," born from her "milk" (venom) mixed with unicorn blood, and that she "nurses" him like a mother even though it's Wormtail who actually has to "milk" Nagini and feed this repulsive infant. Surely this imagery is deliberate on JKR's part, an evil parody of the mother/child bond seen in so many manifestations (and violated by Merope's death in childbirth?) elsewhere in the book. Whether the relationship is intended to be more than symbolic remains to be seen, but it's clear that Nagini is the only creature or being for whom Voldemort feels anything like affection. > Carol: Even if Dumbledore is wrong about the timing of Nagini being made a Horcrux, she may still be one. As I've argued elsewhere, she could have been made a Horcrux before Godric's Hollow. Voldemort's snakelike appearance predates his fetal form, and his dependence on her venom suggests a soul-bond between them that makes it possible for him to use her venom to create and sustain that fetal body. (Certainly it would simplify matters for Harry if Nagini and not his scar is the sixth Horcrux!) And I still wonder if Quirrell smuggled Voldemort into England while LV was possessing Nagini, which I don't think he could do without killing her if she weren't a Horcrux. (BTW, it was Snape, not Dumbledore, who made the remark about the Dark Lord seeing through the snake's eyes because he was possessing it at the time.) iowagirl681: > In summary - I think Harry's job gets a little easier in book 7 as I > think there is one less horcrux out there to deal with - as Nagini > is just a big old snake that perhaps thinks of Voldemort as one of > her children. Carol responds: Funny thing: I think his job will be much easier if he "just" has to kill Nagini (probably with the Sword of Gryffindor, which previously killed the Basilisk) rather than having to figure out how to destroy the last Horcrux if it turns out to be in his own forehead. How can he destroy that Horcrux without killing himself or being killed by someone else, and how can he kill Voldemort without merely revaporizing himself if the last Horcrux is still in his forehead? Nope. Unless Snape destroys the Scar!Horcrux or Voldemort attempts to AK him in the same place and the AK rebounds again, I see no way out for Horcrux!Harry. I much prefer Nagini!Horcrux (and Dumbledore being mostly right). But even if Nagini isn't a Horcrux, she's a lot more than a "big old snake," IMO. She's a magical snake with deadly venom that nearly killed Mr. Weasley, and Voldemort has promised Nagini that she'll have a chance to eat Harry ("Never mind, Nagini. there is still the boy.") She's Voldemort's closest ally, a deadly enemy that Harry will have to face before destroying Voldemort, whether or not she's a Horcrux. Carol, hoping that Dumbledore is only wrong about the timing and not about her being a Horcrux From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 19:54:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:54:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159178 > Alla:> > > one there could be something in the book ( spell or potion) that > > somehow connected with why Dumbledore trusts Snape. What if this > > spell or potion would reveal to Dumbledore that he really should not > > have trusted Snape when he came back, like I don't know - Snape lied > > to him as to what this potion or spell does or something like that? > > Magpie: > That's a good possibility--though again, if that's the case why was Snape > careless enough to leave the book behind in his classroom? And why let > Harry get away with hiding it? Harry might have taken the book to > Dumbledore at any time. Alla: Sure, that's a good point - Evil Snape obviously takes risk with Harry taking a book to DD, on the other hand, Snape knows that Harry for example did not report to DD about what happened in Occlumency lessons, right? If Snape himself did not do it. SO, maybe Snape is banking on Harry keeping a book a secret, but yes, it is a big risk. Alla: > > Second possibility IMO would be something in the book connected to > > the Prank, which Dumbledore may not have known and which would make > > Snape look complicit? Magpie: > Ooh--that's kind of cool. Though wouldn't he want the book out of Harry's > hands if that was the case? Alla: Here I am not so sure, because if Snape hides the book to make his past look better only for narcisistical reasons, etc, why would he care if book is in Harry's hands? I mean, Snape is not of high opinion of Harry's intellect, right? For all I know, Snape may think that Harry will never figure out what is in the book relates to Prank, he is too stupid for that, Dumbledore on the other hand will understand that. But of course anything is possible. Magpie: > That's sort of the conundrum with the whole thing. Snape's got to both care > about something enough to not turn Harry in to Dumbledore, but casual enough > that he left the book unguarded and didn't do much to get it back when he > realized Harry had it. Alla: The more I think about it, the more I am loving symbolysm Jen suggested and I love it even more because it works either way. > Carol responds: > I intend to bring up a question along these lines in the chapter > discussion for "Sectumsempra" in November, but for now I'll point out > that Snape not only didn't tell Slughorn that Harry was cheating, he > didn't expel him, or request his expulsion, for using a potentially > deadly spell. I can only conclude that Snape is trying to help Harry > somehow, to keep him safely in school, for one thing, but he may also > want him to use the book. (Note that he didn't identify himself as the > author of the spells and potions hints at that point, as he could have > done.) Maybe if Harry had told him the truth about where he found the > spell, Snape would have told the truth in return? > > Seems like yet another missed opportunity for understanding to me. Alla: Eh, going back to speculating, if Snape indeed wants to hide the book from Dumbledore then **of course** he would not complain about Harry cheating, because erm... then he would reveal himself as the author and if there is something in the book that is damaging to him, then why would he want to do it? Seems like totally possible self-serving reason to me. Now, not saying that another **noble** reason is not possible, but just don't see the fact that Snape did not tell anybody about Harry cheating as definite proof that he was helping Harry. > > Alla: Does > > Dumbledore has sense of entitlement to know truth every time Harry > > wants to conceal it from him? Not in my book. > > Pippin: > I don't think Dumbledore needs legilimency to know when Harry is > lying to him. I think that's obvious from body language, vocal inflection > and common sense. He uses legilimency *after* Harry's lied to him, > when the lie itself proves there's something Harry thinks Dumbledore > has a right to know. Otherwise, Harry could just refuse to answer > the question. Alla: Still don't see Dumbledore entitled to know the truth every time Harry wants to conceal it, but as to Harry could just refuse to answer the question. My books are still packed except HBP, but didn't Harry refuse to answer question In CoS about voices and didn't DD look into his eyes anyways? I find Legilimency extremely disturbing, extremely. > Alla: > > Are you saying that If he knew that in addition to celebrating Draco > > threw Trewlaney out he would not have gone after horcruxes? > > > > Why? Just curious. > > Pippin: > Trelawney and Harry could have given evidence that Draco was > involved in an attack. That's what Dumbeldore was waiting > for, because without proof he knew he wouldn't be able to get > Draco to accept the Order's protection or else send him to > Azkaban to keep him from being murdered. > > Harry, meanwhile, was so anxious to get Dumbledore to agree that > Draco was plotting something that he neglected to report what > Draco had actually done. Alla: Thanks for clarifying, but where do you get that if Dumbledore had evidence he would have moved on it? Didn't he claim that he knew plenty about Draco's activities, etc and as we debated earlier he sure did not do anything when Ron and Katie were hurt? I mean, Harry of course forgot to tell him that, canon is clear, I just don't see it as a something that would have changed anything. IMO Dumbledore was set on leaving the school and he did not change his mind after learning that Draco done the job ( fixing the cabinet), that is what crucial isn't it in order for the attack to start, not whether Draco pinched Trelawney? IMO of course. > > Alla: As I said, it was significant burden to add, I get > > it, but not as significant as for any **normal** child, who did not > > encounter Voldemort yet IMO. > > > > Pippin: > There is a huge difference between knowing that Stalin is after > you and thinking that you are the only one who can stop Stalin. > Through OOP, Harry was only trying to stay alive. He never > thought he had to hunt down Voldemort and destroy him. Alla: I am not inclined to argue substance here, as I said repeatedly, I get the burden to add, I only argue the degree of the burden, that's all. > Pippin: > But it's the things you don't like about Dumbledore, his aloofness > and his uncompromising nature, that let him hold the Order to a > higher standard. If he just did what would make his followers happy, > he'd be no better than Scrimgeour or Fudge. He doesn't try to > justify his positions because at bottom they're not based on logic -- > you either feel in your heart that what he wants you to do is right, > or you don't. Alla: Yes, precisely - if I feel in my heart that Dumbledore end goals are right, why should I necessarily swallow the means by which he does it? Pippin: > I don't get what you mean about Dumbledore dragging people to > a better future. He hasn't got a gulag, and nobody is being dragooned > into the Order. Alla: I only mean his leadership style used to lead people in future without Voldemort, but we have to agree to disagree on this, because you seem to believe that people who want the same as Dumbledore but want to do things differently have choice, I do not think so personally. JMO, Alla From kennclark at btinternet.com Sat Oct 7 18:19:10 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:19:10 -0000 Subject: Name of Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159179 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: > I think the next book will be: Harry Potter and the Return of the > Phoenix. > Ken says: And the Phoenix will be Dumbledore. From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 19:33:03 2006 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 12:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Name of Book 7 Message-ID: <20061007193303.88480.qmail@web30911.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159180 -tomriddledarklord says Kimberly here: Her choice was in dying so that her son could live. She knew that she had magic in place that would protect Harry from being killed by LV. Had she chosen to fight, remain alive, not sacrifice herself, then that protection would not have been activated and Harry could have been killed. It is because Lily's blood runs through Harry's veins that he has been protected, not Neville. If you believe Dumbledore to have been lying through out the books, it is certainly proved as truth in SS when Quirrel can't touch Harry. -tomriddledarklord says: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159181 Panhandle wrote: > Thanks for the tip! I got an Exceeds Expectations too. But now I know just how Hermione felt ... What didn't I answer correctly? What kept me from getting an Outstanding? I had to laugh at myself. > Carol responds: Uh oh! I got an Exceeds Expectations, too! Does that mean that everybody did? Or was this test just easier than the first one (on which I got an Acceptable)? I wonder if the answer that kept me from getting an Outstanding was a "true" for "hags eat children"? What does everyone think? Do they or don't they? Carol, who wonders if JKR wants to redeem hags from their child-eating reputation in "Hansel and Gretel" and similar tales From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Oct 7 20:57:32 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:57:32 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS/hags In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159182 > Carol responds: > Uh oh! I got an Exceeds Expectations, too! Does that mean that > everybody did? Or was this test just easier than the first one (on > which I got an Acceptable)? > > I wonder if the answer that kept me from getting an Outstanding was a > "true" for "hags eat children"? What does everyone think? Do they or > don't they? > > Carol, who wonders if JKR wants to redeem hags from their child-eating > reputation in "Hansel and Gretel" and similar tales Hickengruendler: Most did indeed get an E, at least according to a poll on Leaky- Cauldron, (which I assume is relatively reliable, given how much visited the site is). But all the other graders were awarded as well, though I think one has to have 0 points to actually get a T, at least that's how I understood the text on the Troll certificate mentioned here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/post? act=reply&messageNum=159181 I did not vote for the hags one in the first querstion, but for the Inferi one. At least all the Inferi in the Cave were silent, though maybe Voldemort bewitched it. I did the test twice and got one E and one O. But I don't know anymore which answers I changed the second time around. From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 20:44:18 2006 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 13:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS/hags Message-ID: <20061007204419.10122.qmail@web30905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159183 Carol: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159184 > > bboyminn: > > > > I have no problem with Draco being redeemed as long as > > people are clear about what 'redeemed' means in this > > context. Too many people think it means that Draco > > becomes Ron-II; Harry's best buddy and all-time friend. > > Sorry, but that is simply not going to happen. Draco will > > always be selfish, self-centered, and self-serving. > > Right now I'm leaning in favor of Draco working against > > Voldemort, but being against Voldemort doesn't mean Draco > > will ever be good or nice. His actions will always be for > > purely self-serving reasons. > > Magpie: > I think this is a stingy way to look at it, pre-emptively saying > Draco doesn't get to change even if he does change because he's got > so much to make up for he'll always be comfortably in the red when > it comes to badness. > > There's nothing about Draco as a character (just as there isn't > anything about Snape) that says he couldn't genuinely choose the > side of good ever or ever act out of the right impulses, that he > must always be purely self-serving and bad. > I have no idea where the character would go, but I do > see hints that a rift between the houses must be healed, and to me > that suggests the new generation has to learn something significant > in order to meet Gryffindor halfway to work with them. Not the > familiar fandom story where Harry gets to rack up the required > Slytherin points by working with them while everything remains > comfortingly black and white. Also, I think JKR has been careful > about just how much Draco "owes" to anyone--it's really not much. > He's been consistently unpleasant, but suffers for it in every book, > doesn't get off without punishment (often coming immediately), > doesn't cause lasting damage. As I believe Geoff said in some of > the posts he linked to, no one is beyond redemption. If you change > your mind, you change your mind. From then on, you are changed. Renee: As long as we don't know what exactly it is that changes, changing your mind is a rather vague concept, and it doesn't automatically mean you're a changed person. The change can be partial, from black to grey, so to speak. Or you can have a less than stellar motive for changing your mind. It's not a matter of black and white... What if, for instance, Regulus Black (assuming he's RAB) turned against Voldemort because he discovered the purebloods were merely used as tools, and this angered him? We don't know why exactly he tried to thwart Voldemort, but it doesn't have to be because he suddenly realised racism is wrong. Maybe he did, but this doesn't necessarily follow from the fact that he changed his mind about Voldemort. Likewise, Draco can very well go on believing that purebloods are several notches above the rest of the WW, yet come to the conclusion this conviction is not worth damaging your soul by killing people. This is commendable, but it doesn't make him a wonderful guy. And he doesn't have to be. (I'd even go as far as saying that he has a right to go on considering himself superior to halfbloods and muggleborns. Though I'm not sure JKR will let him.) The interesting thing about Slytherin House is that it is a necessary part of the whole, as JKR has pointed out, while stil representing less desirable traits (it *is* the Pureblood house, unless you think the Hat is singing nonsense). Like Harry will have to come to terms with the negative impulses within himself, Hogwarts, or rather, the other three Houses, will have to learn to accept Slytherin *despite* its less pleasant aspects. What will have to disappear, is the scapegoat function of Slytherin, the attitude personified by Hagrid in PS/SS when he says all dark wizards come from this House. If Draco is a true representant of Slytherin - and I believe he is - he does not have to change all that much, personality-wise. As long as he changes allegiances. Ren?e From flutterby4490 at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 7 18:12:38 2006 From: flutterby4490 at sbcglobal.net (Gina Ayars) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 11:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Name of Book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061007181238.26184.qmail@web81506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159185 tomriddledarklord wrote: There are two kids dealing with prophecy - Harry and Neville. Here I take a wild guess that if Harry is used as a scapegoat for Neville. I.e Neville is the son of Potters and Harry the son of Longbottoms. So he must have interchanged the kids so that the chosen one, i.e Neville, be still safe and Harry could be made a scapegoat and also fooling Voldemort and JKR has very cleverly put the Longbottoms into a situation of insanity so there be no doubt to anyone save Voldemort but including the readers. Recall Dumbledore says Voldemort has brought this chaos against him by transferring his powers to Harry who is not the chosen one. Dumbledore always says that Voldemort is fool enough to bring this present situation unnecessarily. Which supports my point that Albus is talking with double meaning. Gina: Well, except for one thing, Harry looks like his father. He is obviously a POTTER. However, Neville may have been the chosen one originally but Voldemort is the one that created the situation with Harry, by choosing of the two, Harry. So there could indeed be a plot twist involving Neville, but I doubt that it is that Harry is a Longbottom, and Neville a Potter. Gina I am new btw, HI :) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Oct 7 21:25:08 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 21:25:08 -0000 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "aceworker" wrote: DA Jones: > The following was a plot outline/challenge posted by one of the young > writers on Harry Potter Fan Fiction, where I'm one of the prefects. > > Reading through it I was struck by how right in felt. I have a feeling > that this young kid might have hit on the plot for book 7. What do you > think? Geoff: My first reaction on reading this post was to go cold all over. I have always been of the opinion that Harry is not a Horcrux and this theory, that Harry would turn into Voldemort, absolutely horrifies me. I believe that for JKR to do so would defeat certain plot lines which I believe have developed over the course of the books. In Voldemort and Harry, we have two people who share similarities. As Tom Riddle himself points out: "So. Your mother died to save you. Yes, that's a powerful counter-charm. I can see now ? there is nothing special about you. I wondered, you see. Because there are strange likenesses between us, Harry Potter. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself. We even look alike But after all, it was merely a lucky chance that saved you from me. That's all I wanted to know." (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.233 UK edition) In Riddle's comment, JKR makes him encapsulate the core link of similarities - and differences ? between them. We have two people who have been disadvantaged, have suffered abuse of one form or another and are of "mixed race". One of them has become embittered, self-centred, power-hungry and a megalomaniac. The other, so far, seems to be fairly outgoing, friendly, unselfish and unpresuming. I think that JKR must be on the path to showing that these are the two routes which folk from such backgrounds can choose to take, as Dumbledore has indirectly pointed out. I cannot see what would be ultimately the point of a story dynamic where she allows Harry to go down the same route as Tom Riddle. It would leave all the problems of the Wizarding World totally unresolved. This also throws up various questions raised by the scenario we have been shown. If Harry is becoming Voldemort by acquiring extra bits of his soul, surely these pieces of soul could communicate in some way so why does Voldemort attempt on several occasions to kill Harry ? as the possessed Quirrell, as the memory Tom Riddle, as the reincarnated Voldemort in the graveyard and at the Ministry? Until I possibly see it in writing from the lady in question, I cannot subscribe to the ideas that Harry is a Horcrux or will die in Book 7 because I feel that the effect it will have on so many of her readers who identify with Harry as an everyman would be devastating. The aim of a fantasy story, if I might use that term of the books, is not to parrot the real world, which we can simply follow by turning on our televisions, but to allow us to exercise the "willing suspension of disbelief" so that we may enter into the specific fantasy world, identify and interact with it in our imagination, hopefully to our satisfaction. From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sat Oct 7 22:02:10 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 22:02:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159187 > > Alla: > > During the course of this thread ( or threads about Dumbledore, but > feels as one longest thread - I think this one is our longest non- > stop character slapping threads to date. > I begin to > understand fully what Renee had been saying in the past, that > sometimes the strings which JKR moves to move the characters are > sometimes too visible.( Sorry, Renee if I misstated you). > Renee: No, you didn't. :) I don't recall the exact wording, but I recognise the sentiment. It's still there, though I'm more inclined now to ascribe it to the fact that I'm perhaps looking too closely. I doubt - and others have made similar statements - that any book would be able to withstand the amount of scrutiny, analysing and dissecting to which the HP books are subjected, not only on this list but also elsewhere. And as far as I'm concerned, the books are threatening to collapse under it. Occasionally, some analysis or other increases my appreciation for the HP series, but the occasions when the opposite is true, are becoming more and more frequent. There seem to be more and more instances where plot and characterisation do not harmonise, or where both have been wrenched into the narrow channel of JKR's advance planning. That doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to the last book - it's just that an almost morbid expectation to see a train run out of the rails has added itself to my desire to enjoy myself and satisfy my curiosity. Makes me yearn back to the naive anticipation with which I read the first five books... But it's too late now - I've become addicted to reading all those analyses. Ren?e From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 23:26:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:26:30 -0000 Subject: Our analyses of the books WAS: Re: Dumbledore and Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159188 Renee: > That doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to the last book - it's just > that an almost morbid expectation to see a train run out of the rails > has added itself to my desire to enjoy myself and satisfy my > curiosity. Makes me yearn back to the naive anticipation with which I > read the first five books... But it's too late now - I've become > addicted to reading all those analyses. Alla: Oh, those were the times, heeee. If I think really hard, I can still remember when I opened PS/SS for the first time and could enjoy Snape's speech for poetic monologue it is, when I listened to Dumbledore leaving Harry at Dursleys with holded breath and was looking forward to Harry's journey in the new world, when I met Sirius and Lupin for the first time and those guys occupied the place in my heart ( that is still true, heeeee) When I was not scrutinising every action, every word of every character and unavoidably often find something wrong with it. Those times had its pleasant moments, I agree, but I am with you I became addicted to reading analysises and sometimes participating too. What saves it for me, despite increased scrutiny is enormous sympathy I still feel for many characters and first and foremost for Harry ( but not only), so I am still looking forward to book 7, because I want to see how it ends and hopefully that he will make out of it alive and well. Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 8 01:06:10 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 01:06:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159189 > Alla: My books are still packed except HBP, but > didn't Harry refuse to answer question In CoS about voices and > didn't DD look into his eyes anyways? Pippin: No, there's nothing about Dumbledore looking into his eyes. Alla: > I find Legilimency extremely disturbing, extremely. Pippin: But wizards don't. It's a natural ability for them. Nobody thinks it's creepy. Well, Harry does, but only when it's Snape. > > Pippin: > > Trelawney and Harry could have given evidence that Draco was > > involved in an attack. That's what Dumbeldore was waiting > > for, because without proof he knew he wouldn't be able to get > > Draco to accept the Order's protection or else send him to > > Azkaban to keep him from being murdered. > > > > Harry, meanwhile, was so anxious to get Dumbledore to agree that > > Draco was plotting something that he neglected to report what > > Draco had actually done. > > > Alla: > > Thanks for clarifying, but where do you get that if Dumbledore had > evidence he would have moved on it? Didn't he claim that he knew > plenty about Draco's activities, etc and as we debated earlier he > sure did not do anything when Ron and Katie were hurt? Pippin: Because Dumbledore did move on it once Draco confronted him. He didn't have to try to persuade Draco to lower his wand, he could have frozen him as easily as he froze Harry. What DD says is he was sure, but being sure is not the same as having proof. Dumbledore could know that Draco had been given the assignment to kill him, that Draco was being pressured by Voldemort to fulfill his assignment and bring the DE's into the castle, and that Draco was showing signs of stress. All that would make Dumbledore sure that Draco had attacked Katy and Ron, but it wouldn't be proof of anything. Draco denied to Snape that he had anything to do with it. The only witness to Draco's assignment and Draco being pressured was Snape, whom Dumbledore cannot use for obvious reasons. Alla: > IMO Dumbledore was set on leaving the school and he did not change > his mind after learning that Draco done the job ( fixing the > cabinet), that is what crucial isn't it in order for the attack to > start, not whether Draco pinched Trelawney? IMO of course. Pippin: Huh? If Dumbledore didn't know anything about the cabinet, how could he know that the whoops meant Draco had fixed it? DD thought there was no way DE's could enter the school. Presumably Dumbledore checked before leaving that all his protective charms were in place, so he would think that whatever Draco was whooping about, it couldn't be the arrival of Death Eaters. > > Alla: > > Yes, precisely - if I feel in my heart that Dumbledore end goals are > right, why should I necessarily swallow the means by which he does > it? > > Pippin: Nobody's asking *you* to join the Order But you cannot decide what is right for Sirius or Harry, either. If they feel in their hearts that Dumbledore's methods are ethical and get results and they're willing to trust him on that basis, why should you feel that they're being forced to do something against their will? All soldiers grumble about their lot, but it doesn't mean that they think they should be running the war instead. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 02:08:11 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:08:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159191 > > Alla: > My books are still packed except HBP, but > > didn't Harry refuse to answer question In CoS about voices and > > didn't DD look into his eyes anyways? > > Pippin: > No, there's nothing about Dumbledore looking into his eyes. Alla: Okay, thanks. > Alla: > > I find Legilimency extremely disturbing, extremely. > > Pippin: > But wizards don't. It's a natural ability for them. Nobody thinks > it's creepy. Well, Harry does, but only when it's Snape. Alla: Yes, I understand about natural ability, not sure I agree that Harry does find it creepy only when it's Snape. I am not sure that before HBP Harry knew for sure that anybody else reads his mind besides Snape. He may have suspected ( looked at him as if he read his mind), but AFAIK did not know for sure and suspicion is not enough to think of something that may not be happening as creepy. > Pippin: > Huh? > If Dumbledore didn't know anything about the cabinet, how > could he know that the whoops meant Draco had fixed it? DD > thought there was no way DE's could enter the school. Presumably > Dumbledore checked before leaving that all his protective charms > were in place, so he would think that whatever Draco was whooping > about, it couldn't be the arrival of Death Eaters. Alla: I snipped everything else, because it is agree to disagree moment, but if Dumbledore did not get that whoops meant that Draco finished the job - you know, seems quite logical to me - celebrating when something is done, how would he get that Draco pinching Trelawney indeed means that? > > > > Alla: > > > > Yes, precisely - if I feel in my heart that Dumbledore end goals are > > right, why should I necessarily swallow the means by which he does > > it? > > > > Pippin: > Nobody's asking *you* to join the Order > > But you cannot decide what is right for Sirius or Harry, either. If they feel > in their hearts that Dumbledore's methods are ethical and get results > and they're willing to trust him on that basis, why should you feel that > they're being forced to do something against their will? All soldiers > grumble about their lot, but it doesn't mean that they think they > should be running the war instead. Alla: Yes, I cannot decide what's right for Sirius and Harry, I can have the opinion on that though :) And I do have that opinion precisely because I do not get the feeling that they think that Dumbledore's methods are always right ( maybe not unethical, but not right sometimes) - as a support of course see Sirius wanting to tell Harry about Prophecy. I do not get a sense that Sirius does not tell him because he feels it is right, in fact he does tell him something till Molly basically interrupts him in effect with Dumbledore said not to, something that Dumbledore quite acknowledged at the end that was a mistake. As far as I am concerned Sirius did not finish precisely because he forced himself to follow the orders, not because he thought those were the right orders. IMHO of course. And as to Harry, sure, he is Dumbledore man ( still keeping my fingers crossed that I am my own man line will appear some where in book 7, but not holding my breath), I understand him trusting DD in general, he does not though trusts DD on everything thanks God. JMO, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 02:34:38 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:34:38 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS- Question about answers In-Reply-To: <20061007204419.10122.qmail@web30905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159192 > > Kimberly: As for the hag question... I'm not sure > although the Lexicon defines hags as "Hags are what one might refer to as "fairy tale witches". Hags are wild in appearance, and they have been known to eat children." Tonks: I got that one wrong. I thought that maybe the bad reputation of Hags was not true so I said that Inferi can not speak. I do have a question about a couple of the other questions on the test. If someone got an Outstanding does that mean that they got them all right? Or could they have missed one or two? Because I am questioning a couple of the answers from the person that got the Outstanding. I mean what do we know about Giants? I thought that they were a bit nearsighted. Are we sure that they are cannibals? Where does it say either of those things? I checked at Lexicon, but could not find anything definite. And are there no male veela? I guess common sense would be that there must be to continue the race, but we never hear about them, do we? what do we know about the feet of a hag? And the biggest concern for me is the one about House Elves I thought that they were bound to the family, not to the building. Can't a master order an elf to kill himself? IF the false answer has to be one of these and the second answer was give by someone who got an Outstanding, where does that leave us with house elves? How can their allegence be to the house? Is this some sort of British usage of the word? That `house' means family or something? I think of it as just the building, which does not make sense to me. And if it is the house, what happens to an elf when the house is distroyed and the family is still around? Tonks_op From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 8 02:35:40 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:35:40 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159193 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Ken: > > > > I think it far more likely that St. Mungo's would be deluged > > with Muggles seeking treatement for diseases we cannot > > cure. I think it far more likely that Hogwarts woul be > > deluged with physicists wanting to study the relationship > > between magic and the rest of physics. I think it far more > > likely that energy companies would vie for the rights to > > the limitless, non-polluting energy source the WW taps > > into. The WW seems to have the solutions for many of our > > problems, isn't it extremely selfish of them to keep these > > wonderful technologies from a world that needs them > > so desperately? > > Carol responds: > I'm not so sure. Wizards can mend broken bones and broken noses with a > spell (wonder why Dumbledore's and Ludo Bagman's weren't mended?), but > Mad-Eye Moody can't regrow his missing parts and the school still > seems to suffer an annual outbreak of flu. I don't see any cures for > cancer or other familiar diseases in the WW, not even the common cold. > They use quill pens and parchment like Muggles in the Middle Ages and > candles for lighting (ever try grading essays or doing homework by > candlelight?). Hogwarts is so cold in winter that kids wear cloaks and > gloves in the corridors. (Durmstrang must be nearly unbearable.) They > don't have computers or telephones or even cars.) Yes, some of them > can Apparate, but they can't teach that skill to Muggles even if they > wanted to. > > Carol, who likes the WW *because* it doesn't have modern technology > but thinks that Wizards have as much to learn from us as we do from them > Ken: Ah, but the WW is being victimized by their author's lack of science education. The amount of enery a Quidditch team expends in a match is quite astounding really. It is totally free and causes no apparent pollution. I know that the Red Hen is on record as saying that this energy comes from Harry's breakfast but he simply does not eat that much. You are looking at the solution to both the world's energy dilemma and global warming here and you don't realize it because the author does not realize what she has created and you are not trained in the right field to recognize it. As for medicine, I grant that I may have overstated the case as presented in canon but surely as you yourself hint above the WW and the Muggle world could both benefit by comparing medical notes. Physicists would *love* having magic to study. It's existence would totally overturn the apple cart and the young turks among them, at least, love it when that happens. Dozens and dozens of Nobel Prizes almost free for the taking! As I've said before some of the multi-dimensional theories of modern physics could, in the hand waving sense that is the essence of willing suspension of disbelief, explain how a wizard's trunk, car, or house can be larger inside than outside. These theories are the current best guess as the basis for a Theory of Everything, the Holy Grail of physics. This would be very big news in the world of physics. So, with some groundwork by Muggle and Ministry politicians and some assitance from Madison Avenue and Holywood types, I believe that properly presented there would be no massive social disruption if it were suddenly announced that the WW was in fact real. With a modest amount of emphasis on the fact that wizards and witches are otherwise normal, decent humans with knowledge of a completely different kind of science that could one day help make life better for everyone I just don't see people reacting negatively to the news. There are times when I am charmed by the backwardness of the WW and there are times when it just seems too "Flintstone-ish" to me. They do everything we do, they have everything we have, it's just that theirs are all powered by little dinosaurs. It doesn't work for me as a critical examination of modern conveniences because the WW just mimics everything we do with a technolgy that is different but still a technology. It might seem greener, it might be greener than ours but that is a reason to share it not to condemn what we do. Ken From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Oct 8 02:44:22 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 22:44:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS- Question ab... Message-ID: <304.e12c11e.3259c006@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159194 In a message dated 10/7/2006 10:36:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tonks_op at yahoo.com writes: And are there no male veela? I guess common sense would be that there must be to continue the race, but we never hear about them, do we? ============================= IIRC, there are no male veela (wila, in Slavic myth, vilia in Celtic). There are also no female centaurs in mythology (STAR TREK convention costumes notwithstanding). Both mythological races reproduced by breeding with humans of the, erm, appropriate gender. (Though in some myths, the "Willies" are spirits of young girls who die before their wedding day - cf. Giselle). Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 8 02:51:23 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2006 22:51:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS- Question about answers References: Message-ID: <010801c6ea84$a6480c00$b5b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159195 Tonks: Because I am questioning a couple of the answers from the person that got the Outstanding. I mean. what do we know about Giants? I thought that they were a bit nearsighted. Are we sure that they are cannibals? Where does it say either of those things? I checked at Lexicon, but could not find anything definite. Magpie: Don't know if this was directed at me, but I got an Outstanding and I didn't think the answer to that question came from canon. I can't remember which answer I picked, but I looked at it through the eyes of the kind of prejudice JKR writes about. Oh wait--I remember what I picked. I said the females were bigger than the males. I figured we'd seen them led by a male in canon so they couldn't be led by females, and didn't remember anything about their being nearsighted. But saying Hagrid and Grawp were cannibals sounded more the kind of unfair myths that grow up around "primitive" cultures without being true. Tonks: And are there no male veela? I guess common sense would be that there must be to continue the race, but we never hear about them, do we? Magpie: We don't hear about them that I recall. It seems like Veela were all women, but I didn't know whether JKR kept that bit of the mythology. I think that might have been the question I answered by saying that it was false that freshwater merpeople were less fierce than saltwater ones, so I'm still not sure about male Veela. Tonks: what do we know about the feet of a hag? And the biggest concern for me is the one about House Elves. I thought that they were bound to the family, not to the building. Can't a master order an elf to kill himself? IF the false answer has to be one of these and the second answer was give by someone who got an Outstanding, where does that leave us with house elves? How can their allegence be to the house? Magpie: I thought that House Elf allegiances were to families, not houses, and based whatever answer there was on that. Clearly it's the person since Kreacher belongs to Harry whether he's at Grimmauld Place or Hogwarts. So I don't think that's a problem--House Elves are definitely (imo) bound to the family, not the house. I think that was a question that said one of the things were false and I chose House Elves being loyal to the house rather than the family as being false. -m From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 02:56:56 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 02:56:56 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS- Question ab... In-Reply-To: <304.e12c11e.3259c006@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159196 > Sherrie: > IIRC, there are no male veela (wila, in Slavic myth, vilia in Celtic). > There are also no female centaurs in mythology (STAR TREK convention costumes notwithstanding). Both mythological races reproduced by breeding with humans of the, erm, appropriate gender. (Though in some myths, the "Willies" are spirits of young girls who die before their wedding day - cf. Giselle). > Tonks: Ouch.. Well, anyway this presents a problem on our test. UNLESS... more than one statement could be true. Do you think that is possible? When taking a test we assume that when asked which statement is true that only one is true. It is possible that more than one is true and anyone that said 'hags eat children' or 'there are no female Centaurs' would both be counted as correct??? This is driving me crazy!!!! Tonks_op who will not rest till I know the correct answer to each question with proof that it is correct. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 8 03:09:47 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:09:47 -0000 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159197 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "aceworker" wrote: > > DA Jones here: > > The following was a plot outline/challenge posted by one of the young > writers on Harry Potter Fan Fiction, where I'm one of the prefects. > > Reading through it I was struck by how right in felt. I have a feeling > that this young kid might have hit on the plot for book 7. What do you > think? > Ken: I think it is a brilliant theory, exactly where many authors would go with this story. He only leaves out the part at the end where Ron and Hermione have to kill Harry and "watch horrfied as his body slowly fades and dissolves until for a last few awful moments the only thing left visible was his scar." I don't think that JKR is going there. Also, at one time Dumbledore tells Harry about the incomparable power of his whole and untarnished soul. That would seem to preclude a conclusion where Harry has never had a soul, only one of Riddle's soul fragments. As Geoff said that is a very chilling way to conclude the series. In some ways I love it and I think it would work for many adult readers. I don't see it as a good way to conlude a story written for children and adolescents. I think the story is already too dark for them and this would take it straight into the darkest depths of Hell. Actually the more I think about it the more it feels like the way "Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell" plays out, at least in tone. It's plausible, it's artistic, I wouldn't bet on it. Ken From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 03:21:05 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 03:21:05 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS- Question about answers In-Reply-To: <010801c6ea84$a6480c00$b5b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159198 > Magpie: > Don't know if this was directed at me, but I got an Outstanding and I didn't think the answer to that question came from canon. I can't remember which answer I picked, but I looked at it through the eyes of the kind of prejudice JKR writes about. Oh wait--I remember what I picked. I said the females were bigger than the males. I figured we'd seen them led by a male in canon so they couldn't be led by females, and didn't remember anything > about their being nearsighted. But saying Hagrid and Grawp were cannibals sounded more the kind of unfair myths that grow up around "primitive" cultures without being true. > (Snip) I think that might have been the question I answered by saying that it was false that freshwater merpeople were less fierce than saltwater ones, so I'm still not sure about male Veela. > (Snip) I think that was a question that said one of the > things were false and I chose House Elves being loyal to the house rather than the family as being false. Tonks: Maybe we should compare the answers of all of the people who got an Outstanding, because so far some of them do not match. Sorry, it is the Auror in me. On the OT board Quibbler posted the answers that she gave. They don't match what I gave (with EE) or what you gave. I would like to get to the bottom of this so we can be ready for the next test. I mean normally a teacher tells you the correct answer so that you can learn the correct information. Quibbler said that Hags eat children, and that giants are cannibals, and the double negative question that confused me that House-elves can not be ordered to kill themselves, which is false, which makes it true that they can be ordered to kill themselves. But this leaves us with the Elf being loyal to the house which both you and I said was false. Again I am back to the possibility that there can be more than one correct answer to the questions. Or maybe I am just losing my mind Tonks_op From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 8 05:55:32 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 01:55:32 EDT Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? Message-ID: <278.58bb0523.3259ecd4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159199 > Alla: > > I reread Magpie's post again and still not hundred percent sure > whether she asked the question allowing for Evil or OFH! Snape or > only for DD!M Snape. Sorry! Magpie: Sorry! I did mean to allow for ESE!Snape as well, definitely. I couldn't think of a good reason for him to hide the book from DD either, since all Snapes' crimes of the past are pretty much known. I suppose one could say Dumbledore told Snape to destroy the book and he didn't, only if that's the case Snape's just not nearly so concerned about it as he should be. He shouldn't be leaving it behind in his classroom or letting Harry hide it. Julie: That is exactly my problem with the theory that Snape was hiding the book, from Dumbledore or anyone. Who hides a book in plain sight, in a cupboard where anyone can get to it? If Snape wanted to hide it, he could have actually HIDDEN it. Instead it's more like he simply forgot about it. And once he realizes Harry has it, he really doesn't try very hard to confiscate it. He lets Harry get away with the very lame Roonil Wazlib ploy, and allows Harry to keep the book. This is the way a guy--and a very clever guy at that--protects something? Um, I don't think so. I can't really imagine there is anything in the book that would hurt Snape, or he would have taken better care of it. Certainly he would have gotten it back from Harry. It's still more suspicious to me that Harry just *happened* to receive that particular book in the first place. Providential coincidence it may be, but if it turns out that someone deliberately arranged for the book to fall into Harry's hands, I won't be surprised. (And I also won't be surprised if that someone was Dumbledore.) Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 06:58:20 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 06:58:20 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159200 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > Mike previously: > > This is intellectually dishonest. > > > IMO you depiction of a dictatorial DD is unwarranted and > > unfounded. Being the leader and director of the Order required > > him to take certain decisions upon himself. But you have no > > support for your position that he doesn't open up the floor for > > debate during meetings. > > a_svirn: > IMO your rudeness is unwarranted and uncalled for. Mike: Excuse me, I'm being rude for disagreeing with your opinion? Or could it be because I called your mis-use of a Lupin quote "intellectually dishonest"? Since that quote was about DD keeping his secrets regarding Snape, which you agree with, then in essence you agreed with the position that Lupin takes on this subject. But that was not what you used the quote for. You used that quote as your assessment of the entire Order's intestinal fortitude. IOW you agree with Lupin that "It isn't our business to know. It's Dumbledore's business. Dumbledore trusts Severus..." . If you want to call the whole Order "weak" for not challenging Dumbledore's *dictatorial* style, that's fine as your opinion. But to use that quote about DD and Snape's secrets, not about the Order members getting a say in DD's planning/decisions, is an improper use of a quote. It may have matched your opinion of the Order, but it was definitely out of context. > a_svirn: > And you are representing wizards on this list, I take it? Mike: So, since you have already called me 'rude', you no longer feel it necessary to show me the 'non-rude' way to reply? I have apologized when I have made a mistake. In fact, I posted an apology to you on this thread for mis-quoting you, after you called my attention to it. But when I point out your mis-use of a canonical quote, you call me 'rude'. I'll consider the source. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Oct 8 09:06:50 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 09:06:50 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS- Question about answers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159201 > Tonks: > Maybe we should compare the answers of all of the people who got an > Outstanding, because so far some of them do not match. Sorry, it is > the Auror in me. > Hickengruendler: I hope it is okay to do this here and not on the Off-Topic, since it does include speculation about Canon, after all. Like I said, I did the test twice and got one E and one O. And although I remember mostly which answers I chose, I am not sure which answers I chose on the first try and which on the second. My suspicion is, that she used a point system, where the best answer got maybe 4 or 5 points, and the second best or third best answers still got some points. But anyway: > 1. Which of the following statements is TRUE? > > -Hags eat small children > -Inferi cannot speak > -Goblins fear sunlight > -There are no female centaurs > -Vampire bites are curable nowadays Inferi cannot speak. The Goblins were in the Three Broomsticks in GoF interrogating Bagman during the day, and there was no mentioning that they were afraid of standing near the window or something. I don't know about the Vampire bites. We haven't seen any female centaurs, but maybe they are obliged to stay back. Like already mentioned during this thread, Steve from the Lexicon said, that Hags definitely eat children according to JKR, therefore I suppose this is the correct answer, but I chose the Inferi one, because I think they would loose a lot of their creepiness, if they suddenly started to talk. > 2. Which of the following statements is FALSE? > > -Ghosts can cause movement of both liquid and gas > -Freshwater merpeople are less warlike than salt > -The werewolf's snout is shorter than that of the true wolf > -There are no male veela > -Hags have four toes on each foot Myrtle caused water movement in CoS. And I know there's *some* difference between the snouts of a wolf and a werewolf. The Veela one sounded true to me. I had no idea about the other two. I chose once the merpeople one and once the Hags one. > 3. Which of the following are considered MOST dangerous by the > Ministry of Magic? > > -Dementors > -Hags > -Inferi > -Vampires > -Werewolves Inferi. It was just my gut feeling. The ministry underestimated the Dementors for quite a long time and thought, they could control them. They do not seem to think this about the Inferi, therefore that's what I chose. > 4. Which of the following are considered AMORTAL (have never died, > and can never die) by the Ministry of Magic? > > -Dementors > -Ghosts > -Inferi > -Poltergeists > -Vampires > Ghosts and Inferi can be ruled out. They died to became ghosts or Inferi. And normally Vampires a) were once human and died to become Vampires and b) can be killed. Granted, we don't know if this is the case in Potterverse as well, but I see no reason, why for example Sanguini could not die. And I surely hope the Dementors can be killed somehow. That leaves the Poltergeists. Peeves is definitely not a real ghost, and he never was a real person, therefore he did not die to become a Poltergeist. And given what he represents within Hogwarts, it makes sense to me that he cannot be killed. > 5. Which (still unresolved) issue do most historians believe > triggered the infamous goblin rebellion of 1612? > > -Lack of goblin representation on the Wizengamot? > -Wizard attempts to enslave goblins and use as house-elves? > -Wizard refusal to grant goblins the right to carry a wand? > -Attempt of wizards to regain control of Gringotts bank > -Series of brutal goblin-slayings by wizard murderer Yardley Platt The last one can be ruled out, I think. It's not unresolved. I haven't heard anything about wizards trying to use goblins as house- elves, and I think someone would have mentioned it. D sounds unlikely as well, IMO. I think I voted once for the Wizengamot one and once for the one with the wands, but I'm not sure anymore. It's also possible that I voted for one of them both times. > 6. Which of the following statements on giants is TRUE? > > -Giant clans are matriarchal (females in charge) > -Female giants are usually larger than males > -Giants' eyesight is very poor compared with that of humans > -Giants are nocturnal > -Many giants are cannibals Not the first one. And I think the second one goes hand in hand with the first. Didn't Hagrid say, that they often rip off each other's heads to become the Gurg. Therefore I assume the bigger ones areb in advance, and that if the female giants were bigger, the clans would be matriarchal. Grawp was at Dumbledore's funeral, which was during the day, and I think if the last one were true, Rita Skeeter would have mentioned it in her article about Hagrid, or Hagrid would have mentioned it during his tale in Ootp. That leaves the third option. > 7. Which of the following statements on house-elves is FALSE? > > -House-elves have an average life-expectancy of 200 years > -A house-elf's allegiance is foremost to its house (rather than to > the inhabitants of the house) > -House-elves cannot be ordered to kill themselves > -House-elf magic is sufficiently powerful to override wizards > enchantments > -House-elves breed infrequently and then only with their master's > permission Kreacher is bound to oblige Harry, even though Harry doesn't live in GP12. Therefore I chose the answer with the house. > 8. In a recent Ministry of Magic poll, what was identified as the > issue most concerning the wizarding community at the present time? > > -Insufficient information given by Ministry of Magic regarding the > return of Lord Voldemort > -Insufficient action taken by Ministry of Magic to fight Lord > Voldemort > -Inadequate Ministry of Magic resources devoted to the protection of > the wizarding community > -Over-reaction of the Ministry of Magic to the return of Lord > Voldemort, which is the best thing that has happened to the > wizarding community in many years I voted one time for the lack of information and one time for the lack of action. No specific reasons, but both seems very likely to me. > 9. According to a recent article in the Daily Prophet, which subject > at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry has been complained > about by parents more than any other (over 100 year period)? > > -Care of Magical Creatures > -Defense Against the Dark Arts > -History of Magic > -Muggle Studies Care of Magical Creatures. Didn't Hagrid's predecessor retire because he wanted to enjoy life with his remaining limbs? That does not sound as if the danger of the subject is *solely* Hagrid's fault. > 10. What percentage of wizards and witches believe that Weather- > Modifying Charms should be regulated due to their effect upon the > environment? (Figures collected by Committee for Experimental Charms) > - 3% > - 33% > - 53% > - 93% Don't know. I went with 33% on my first try and 53% on my second try, simply because they were in the middle. I've no idea, really. > 11. Which health scare at St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies > and Injuries has recently caused widespread panic? (Source: St. > Mungo's Admissions Department) > > -Suspected brain damage due to Imperius Curse > -Suspected death due to Thestral sightings > -Spate of suspected werewolf bits > -Uncontrollable bleeding due to 'Nosebleed Nougat' Werewolf bites. With Fenrir at large (even though he probably isn't after the end of HBP, but he was until then), this seems to be the most likely cause for panic. > 12. What change would 18% of wizards like to see to the requirements > for membership of the Wizengamot? (Source: Ministry of Magic poll) > > -Average age lowered from 87 > -Proof of pure-blood status > -Maximum of three years in post > -Goblin representation Really, it could be all of this, except the one about Goblin representation, IMO. I do not think that 18% of the wizarding society care about Goblin rights. It's IMO more likely, that these is the number of fanatic purebloods. But I still chose the first answer, because this is exactly the kind of ironic comparison to our real world JKR would make. I mean, doesn't the average age of those groups in our world sometimes seem like 87 as well? ;-) > 13. Assuming that you already have a wand, which THREE of the > following would you consider indispensable in case of trouble? I chose the cloak and the broom both times and once the sneakoscope and the other time the foe glass. In retrospective, the for glass might be more useful, since it warns you, when the enemy is approaching, while the Sneakoscope only rings, when he's around. > 14. Which of the following is the ONLY magical invention whose > effect has not yet been duplicated FULLY by Muggle ingenuity? > > -Flying broomstick > -Mrs. Skower's All-Purpose Magical Mess Remover > -Omnioculars > -"reparo" > -Self-ironing robes Reparo. > 15. Which of the following is the ONLY Muggle invention whose > effects cannot be duplicated FULLY by magic? > > -Aeroplane > -Car > -Computer > -Telephone > -Television The Computer. We haven't seen a Television either, but given what we know about the magic, it could easily be invented by a combination of a few wizarding items we know. > 16. The following beliefs are widely held in the wizarding world, > but only ONE is actually TRUE. (According to the latest research > from the Institute of Muggle Studies) Which is it? > > -Muggleborn witches/wizards are more likely to produce Squib > children than those who have one or more wizarding parents. > -Muggleborn witches/wizards usually have a witch or wizard ancestor > somewhere in their family tree, though s/he may be generations back. > -Muggleborn witches/wizards are generally less prone to certain > magical ilnesses than those who have one or more wizarding parent. > -Muggleborn witches/wizards are generally slower to show signs of > magic in childhood than those who have one or more wizarding parents. > -Muggleborn witches/wizards have great natural rhythm. I chose the one with the magical illnesses. Maybe the Muggle Gene can stop them from breaking out. > 17. Which of the following statements is FALSE? (According to the > latest research from the Institute of Muggle Studies) > > -It is possible for a Muggle to produce elementary magic if they > have access to a wand and a book of spells. > -It is possible for a Muggle to inadvertently stumble upon magically > protected areas such as Diagon Alley and St. Mungo's Hospital for > Magical Maladies and Injuries. > -It is possible for a Muggle to see and correctly identify magical > creatures. > -It is possible for a Muggle to see and yet deny the existence of > magical creatures, even without magical intervention. > -It is possible for a Muggle to believe in impossibilities I'm pretty sure the first one is false. Didn't JKR answer this recently? > 18. Muggle are: > > -Ignorant > -In danger > -Inferior to wizards > -Insensitive to their surroundings > -Interesting > -Irritating facts of life Muggles are in danger. Hickengruendler From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 09:09:17 2006 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 02:09:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Houseelves loyalty WAS: Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 Message-ID: <20061008090917.76909.qmail@web30901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159202 Tonks: >And the biggest concern for me is the one about House Elves? I >thought that they were bound to the family, not to the building. >Can't a master order an elf to kill himself? IF the false answer >has to be one of these and the second answer was give by someone who >got an Outstanding, where does that leave us with house elves? How >can their allegence be to the house? Is this some sort of British >usage of the word? That `house' means family or something? I think >of it as just the building, which does not make sense to me. And if >it is the house, what happens to an elf when the house is distroyed >and the family is still around? Kimberly: This is a good question, where does the loyalty of a houseelf truly lie. I had always derived that it was to the family but after listening to HBP (recently downloaded on my iPod, *whooo hoooo*) I am questioning whether or not that is actually true. Dumbledore explains to Harry that Kreacher is "showing signs of not wanting to pass into Harry's ownership". He demonstrates behavior that indicates he would like nothing less than to serve Harry, a filthy muggleborn in Kreacher's opinion. However, Dumbledore goes on to say that if Harry is the true owner of Grimmauld Place than he inherits as well, Kreacher. This gives me the feeling that it is not only loyalty to the person (Kreacher has to obey, he must...even though he doesn't want to) but also the house (because of loyalty to the house, he is forced into servitude of someone he loathes). Hmmm, it made more sense before I worked it out here, now it presents itself as quite tricky. Perhaps, the loyalty to the house and family go hand in hand and are inseparable. Magpie: I thought that House Elf allegiances were to families, not houses, and based whatever answer there was on that. Clearly it's the person since Kreacher belongs to Harry whether he's at Grimmauld Place or Hogwarts. So I don't think that's a problem--House Elves are definitely (imo) bound to the family, not the house. I think that was a question that said one of the things were false and I chose House Elves being loyal to the house rather than the family as being false. Kimberly here: This is where I think the allegiance to the house comes in. If Kreacher wasn't bound to the house but the family, then he would have passed on to the next blood line in the Black family, not the next owner of the house. It seems the ownership of the house takes precedant over the family. Whomever owns the house, gets Kreacher rather than whomever is next on the bloodline. It's like splitting a hair, it is a very fine line I believe. Kimberly From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 8 14:41:53 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 10:41:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS / House Elves loyalty References: Message-ID: <002001c6eae7$e5fb3b70$809e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159203 > Hickengruendler: > > I hope it is okay to do this here and not on the Off-Topic, since it > does include speculation about Canon, after all. Magpie: This might be interesting! I do remember what I answered for these: >> 1. Which of the following statements is TRUE? >> >> -Hags eat small children >> -Inferi cannot speak >> -Goblins fear sunlight >> -There are no female centaurs >> -Vampire bites are curable nowadays Magpie: I answered Inferi can not speak. It seemed to fit what they are and I also agree they'd lose their creepiness if they talked. >> 2. Which of the following statements is FALSE? >> >> -Ghosts can cause movement of both liquid and gas >> -Freshwater merpeople are less warlike than salt >> -The werewolf's snout is shorter than that of the true wolf >> -There are no male veela >> -Hags have four toes on each foot Magpie: I chose the merpeople one for this. >> 3. Which of the following are considered MOST dangerous by the >> Ministry of Magic? >> >> -Dementors >> -Hags >> -Inferi >> -Vampires >> -Werewolves Magpie: I chose Werewolves for this one. It seemed the way the Ministry would think and it's possibly the most wrong. They can infect people and they can "pass" so I thought that might make them more dangerous. >> 4. Which of the following are considered AMORTAL (have never died, >> and can never die) by the Ministry of Magic? >> >> -Dementors >> -Ghosts >> -Inferi >> -Poltergeists >> -Vampires Magpie: I said Poltergeists--Peeves is a ghost who was never a person. Dementors breed more Dementors, no death involved either, but I'd hope they could die. >> 5. Which (still unresolved) issue do most historians believe >> triggered the infamous goblin rebellion of 1612? >> >> -Lack of goblin representation on the Wizengamot? >> -Wizard attempts to enslave goblins and use as house-elves? >> -Wizard refusal to grant goblins the right to carry a wand? >> -Attempt of wizards to regain control of Gringotts bank >> -Series of brutal goblin-slayings by wizard murderer Yardley Platt Magpie: Goblins can't carry wands--still going on. >> 6. Which of the following statements on giants is TRUE? >> >> -Giant clans are matriarchal (females in charge) >> -Female giants are usually larger than males >> -Giants' eyesight is very poor compared with that of humans >> -Giants are nocturnal >> -Many giants are cannibals Magpie: I chose the females being bigger, but have no idea if it's the right one. I knew the first one wasn't true, neither do the last two seem true. >> 7. Which of the following statements on house-elves is FALSE? >> >> -House-elves have an average life-expectancy of 200 years >> -A house-elf's allegiance is foremost to its house (rather than to >> the inhabitants of the house) >> -House-elves cannot be ordered to kill themselves >> -House-elf magic is sufficiently powerful to override wizards >> enchantments >> -House-elves breed infrequently and then only with their master's >> permission Magpie: I chose the one about the allegiance to the house rather than the family as false. > >> 8. In a recent Ministry of Magic poll, what was identified as the >> issue most concerning the wizarding community at the present time? >> >> -Insufficient information given by Ministry of Magic regarding the >> return of Lord Voldemort >> -Insufficient action taken by Ministry of Magic to fight Lord >> Voldemort >> -Inadequate Ministry of Magic resources devoted to the protection > of >> the wizarding community >> -Over-reaction of the Ministry of Magic to the return of Lord >> Voldemort, which is the best thing that has happened to the >> wizarding community in many years Magpie: I chose insufficient action taken--which is why the Ministry is just doing random things like arresting Stan Shunpike. They need to look like they're doing something. People would rather have them doing stuff than giving them information, imo. >> 9. According to a recent article in the Daily Prophet, which > subject >> at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry has been complained >> about by parents more than any other (over 100 year period)? >> >> -Care of Magical Creatures >> -Defense Against the Dark Arts >> -History of Magic >> -Muggle Studies Magpie: I said DADA. I thought that subject would have always been a lightning rod for complaints for many reasons, even before the curse. >> 10. What percentage of wizards and witches believe that Weather- >> Modifying Charms should be regulated due to their effect upon the >> environment? (Figures collected by Committee for Experimental > Charms) >> - 3% >> - 33% >> - 53% >> - 93% > Magpie: I went with 33%--the main thing was I figured not many, because Wizards don't seem like they'd have that kind of clue about the environment. They seem more like they'd want the short-term satisfaction instead. I almost went with 3%. > >> 11. Which health scare at St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies >> and Injuries has recently caused widespread panic? (Source: St. >> Mungo's Admissions Department) >> >> -Suspected brain damage due to Imperius Curse >> -Suspected death due to Thestral sightings >> -Spate of suspected werewolf bits >> -Uncontrollable bleeding due to 'Nosebleed Nougat' Magpie: I said werewolf bites--not only is Fenrir at large but it's something that causes more of a panic, it seems, even when it's only one bite. It's contagious and shameful. >> 12. What change would 18% of wizards like to see to the > requirements >> for membership of the Wizengamot? (Source: Ministry of Magic poll) >> >> -Average age lowered from 87 >> -Proof of pure-blood status >> -Maximum of three years in post >> -Goblin representation Magpie: Proof of Pure-blood status, I said. >> 13. Assuming that you already have a wand, which THREE of the >> following would you consider indispensable in case of trouble? Magpie: I chose cloak, broom and Potions kit. That covered all the most major things I thought would help me if I were in danger. The first one's for escape, the other for hiding, the other for any number of things, including healing. >> 14. Which of the following is the ONLY magical invention whose >> effect has not yet been duplicated FULLY by Muggle ingenuity? >> >> -Flying broomstick >> -Mrs. Skower's All-Purpose Magical Mess Remover >> -Omnioculars >> -"reparo" >> -Self-ironing robes Magpie: Reparo. > >> 15. Which of the following is the ONLY Muggle invention whose >> effects cannot be duplicated FULLY by magic? >> >> -Aeroplane >> -Car >> -Computer >> -Telephone >> -Television Magpie: Computer. (They have a wireless so why not a tv?) >> 16. The following beliefs are widely held in the wizarding world, >> but only ONE is actually TRUE. (According to the latest research >> from the Institute of Muggle Studies) Which is it? >> >> -Muggleborn witches/wizards are more likely to produce Squib >> children than those who have one or more wizarding parents. >> -Muggleborn witches/wizards usually have a witch or wizard ancestor >> somewhere in their family tree, though s/he may be generations back. >> -Muggleborn witches/wizards are generally less prone to certain >> magical ilnesses than those who have one or more wizarding parent. >> -Muggleborn witches/wizards are generally slower to show signs of >> magic in childhood than those who have one or more wizarding > parents. >> -Muggleborn witches/wizards have great natural rhythm. Magpie: I was going to say the illnesses, but it seemed wrong (Wizarding children have more reason to build up a resistance--Muggle children might be more vulnerable.) I went with them having a wizard somewhere in their family tree. That makes a lot of sense to me (especially since both Creevey boys are Wizards when their parents are both Muggles.) >> 17. Which of the following statements is FALSE? (According to the >> latest research from the Institute of Muggle Studies) >> >> -It is possible for a Muggle to produce elementary magic if they >> have access to a wand and a book of spells. >> -It is possible for a Muggle to inadvertently stumble upon > magically >> protected areas such as Diagon Alley and St. Mungo's Hospital for >> Magical Maladies and Injuries. >> -It is possible for a Muggle to see and correctly identify magical >> creatures. >> -It is possible for a Muggle to see and yet deny the existence of >> magical creatures, even without magical intervention. >> -It is possible for a Muggle to believe in impossibilities Magpie: The first one. Muggles can't do magic, period. >> 18. Muggle are: >> >> -Ignorant >> -In danger >> -Inferior to wizards >> -Insensitive to their surroundings >> -Interesting >> -Irritating facts of life Magpie: Muggles are interesting, thank you very much. Kimberly here: This is where I think the allegiance to the house comes in. If Kreacher wasn't bound to the house but the family, then he would have passed on to the next blood line in the Black family, not the next owner of the house. It seems the ownership of the house takes precedant over the family. Whomever owns the house, gets Kreacher rather than whomever is next on the bloodline. It's like splitting a hair, it is a very fine line I believe. Magpie: Yes, but I thought the question was asking what the Elf was loyal to once it was owned. Sirius is able to leave Kreacher to whomever he pleases, along with the house itself. But whoever Kreacher is owned by, he is loyal to them, not their place of residence. It's like he's furniture in the house (literally--yuck). He's inherited with the house, but can be taken out and still be yours. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 8 14:46:30 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 14:46:30 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: <002d01c6ea20$e3903650$b5b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159204 Alla: > Second possibility IMO would be something in the book connected to > the Prank, which Dumbledore may not have known and which would make > Snape look complicit? I mean, I doubt that, I think *my memory is > as good as ever* means that Dumbledore knows a lot more than we do > about that night, on the other hand he really did not know that > they were animagi, so who knows? Magpie: > Ooh--that's kind of cool. Though wouldn't he want the book out of > Harry's hands if that was the case? That's sort of the conundrum > with the whole thing. Snape's got to both care about something > enough to not turn Harry in to Dumbledore, but casual enough that > he left the book unguarded and didn't do much to get it back when > he realized Harry had it. Jen: The Prank is a good idea, especially from the angle of 'what could possibly be left to be revealed?' Or maybe something about Lily, whether we like *that* storyline or not . Now about Snape appearing casual to retrieve the book from Harry. He seemed to very much want the book back during the bathroom scene and afterward. He chose a detention where he could keep his eye on Harry (hoping to get some information perhaps?), plus this bit: "He had not dared to return to the Room of Requirement to retrieve his book, and his performance in Potions was suffering accordingly [ ]. But Harry was sure that Snape had not yet given up hope of laying his hands on the Prince's book, and was determined to leave it where it was while Snape remained on the lookout." (chap. 25 p. 501 Bloomsbury). So Snape would know from a conversation with Slughorn that Harry was suddenly doing poorly in Potions and would know why. That's just my read of it, that Snape really wanted it back. (Although I'll admit the flaw in my reasoning is that Snape didn't take Harry personally to Gryffindor Tower when he asked for the book so that Harry didn't have time to hide it!) Whether he wanted it back to get it out of Harry's hands or to keep it from Dumbledore, I'm not sure. My sense is the latter. Snape wanted the book back before Harry discovered who the HBP was or something else personal. But then there's the problem that he told the information to Harry himself during the run across the grounds--is that a clue that with Dumbledore dead the book didn't matter anymore? *Head spinning*. Carol: > I intend to bring up a question along these lines in the chapter > discussion for "Sectumsempra" in November, but for now I'll point > out that Snape not only didn't tell Slughorn that Harry was > cheating, he didn't expel him, or request his expulsion, for using > a potentially deadly spell. Jen: I'm not sure you want to discuss this more, but my take is that Snape didn't tell Slughorn because he would have to give at least a little information about why Harry was doing well before. Even if Snape didn't go into details about the book or who owned it, Slughorn might ask Harry questions and Snape doesn't seem to want anyone else to know about the book. About the expulsion angle, even Snape wouldn't try that at this point in the game: Voldemort is on the loose and the Chosen one is meeting with Dumbledore for private sessions. I don't see that as altruism on Snape's part so much as something he would consider a waste of time. Carol: > I can only conclude that Snape is trying to help Harry somehow, to > keep him safely in school, for one thing, but he may also want him > to use the book. (Note that he didn't identify himself as the > author of the spells and potions hints at that point, as he could > have done.) Maybe if Harry had told him the truth about where he > found the spell, Snape would have told the truth in return? Seems > like yet another missed opportunity for understanding to me. Jen: I can't quite see this angle, that Snape witheld his identity at the time so Harry would continue using the book. He uses Legilimens and demands Harry get the Potions book. He could have just as easily moved right on to talking about a punishment. Instead Snape seems very intent on finding out how Harry knew that spell and verifying what he suspects using Legilimens. Also, it seems out of character to me that Snape might 'open up' to Harry if Harry had told the truth. There has to be some semblance of trust for that type of communication to occur and perhaps some event will occur for it to happen in the future, but so far it's completely lacking on both sides. Jen R. From enlil65 at gmail.com Sun Oct 8 16:35:56 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:35:56 -0500 Subject: More to Petunia than meets the eye In-Reply-To: <1789c2360610071043k3f08d20ep17d139fcfc82cef1@mail.gmail.com> References: <1789c2360610071043k3f08d20ep17d139fcfc82cef1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360610080935i3873eabfk3f2a91d07d398335@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159205 Yesterday I proposed: On 10/7/06, Peggy Wilkins wrote: > It seems likely that we'll find out in Book 7 what circumstances > account for all of these things. For your entertainment, here is a > wacky proposal... quite wacky, but interesting, I think. > > What if ... as a girl, when she and Lily were at home, Petunia somehow > got ahold of or was given Polyjuice Potion to take on Lily's > appearance. The idea here is that she could then go back to Hogwarts > in Lily's place. This little deception would have required the > deliberate assistance of another witch or wizard in order to keep her > supplied with Potion; it would have also required the real Lily to be > stashed away somewhere, just like Crabbe/Goyle and Moody had to be > stashed away when they were Polyjuiced. > > Of course the deception would have been doomed to eventual failure > since Petunia would have been unable to practice magic in the > classroom. Without further assistance from someone in her classes, > she would be very rapidly found out. > > What if, like Hermione in COS, Petunia eventually got some bad > Polyjuice which transformed her into a partial something-or-other, > perhaps a cat like Hermione, or some other Hogwarts pet. As we saw > with Hermione, it was quite difficult to undo. Imagine how mortified > Petunia would have been; and her deception would certainly be > uncovered to the point that it would become a disciplinary matter for > the school, involving headmaster Dumbledore. If word got out, it > would be a big scandal. > > So the idea is this: Petunia and the student colluding with her to > carry out the deception would both be in BIG trouble. Petunia herself > could have needed some enchantment to return her normal appearance if > she couldn't otherwise be "cured". The student should have been > expelled; but perhaps with Dumbledore's generous nature he or she was > given a second chance. And one day later I realize what is wrong with this: Dumbledore meets Petunia for the first time in HBP. They have corresponded previously, but have not met in person. I now have to consider that any scenario where Petunia could have gone to Hogwarts to be highly unlikely. Well, I knew it was unlikely anyway; but it was fun to think about. -- Peggy Wilkins "We Kingly Pigs" enlil65 at gmail.com From enlil65 at gmail.com Sun Oct 8 16:27:06 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:27:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS / House Elves loyalty In-Reply-To: <002001c6eae7$e5fb3b70$809e400c@Spot> References: <002001c6eae7$e5fb3b70$809e400c@Spot> Message-ID: <1789c2360610080927n2b74d36btb4c17345267c8ef7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159206 On 10/8/06, Magpie wrote: > >> 1. Which of the following statements is TRUE? > >> > >> -Hags eat small children > >> -Inferi cannot speak > >> -Goblins fear sunlight > >> -There are no female centaurs > >> -Vampire bites are curable nowadays > > Magpie: > I answered Inferi can not speak. It seemed to fit what they are and I also > agree they'd lose their creepiness if they talked. Peggy W: I thought that since Inferi are being controlled by someone else, if that person willed them to speak there's no reason they shouldn't be able to do so. My choice was, there are no female centaurs; but I certainly didn't pick that one with any confidence. > >> 2. Which of the following statements is FALSE? > >> > >> -Ghosts can cause movement of both liquid and gas > >> -Freshwater merpeople are less warlike than salt > >> -The werewolf's snout is shorter than that of the true wolf > >> -There are no male veela > >> -Hags have four toes on each foot > > Magpie: > I chose the merpeople one for this. Peggy W: I guessed that merpeople could live in either freshwater or saltwater, but not both, so the choice seemed intended to be misleading. However, I'm no expert on physiology. I can't remember which answer I actually chose, though. I seem to recall Snape discussing the werewolf's snout in class when he substituted for Lupin. I would have either chosen veela or hags. > >> 3. Which of the following are considered MOST dangerous by the > >> Ministry of Magic? > >> > >> -Dementors > >> -Hags > >> -Inferi > >> -Vampires > >> -Werewolves > > Magpie: > I chose Werewolves for this one. It seemed the way the Ministry would think > and it's possibly the most wrong. They can infect people and they can > "pass" so I thought that might make them more dangerous. Peggy W: I chose Inferi for two reasons: the Ministry specifically mentions Inferi in its list of now-that-Voldemort's-back pointers, but none of the others are mentioned; and also because they are being controlled by people who are presumed to be Death Eaters. > >> 7. Which of the following statements on house-elves is FALSE? > >> > >> -House-elves have an average life-expectancy of 200 years > >> -A house-elf's allegiance is foremost to its house (rather than to > >> the inhabitants of the house) > >> -House-elves cannot be ordered to kill themselves > >> -House-elf magic is sufficiently powerful to override wizards enchantments > >> -House-elves breed infrequently and then only with their master's permission > > Magpie: > I chose the one about the allegiance to the house rather than the family as > false. Peggy W: I thought that statement was true. In HBP "Will and Won't" chapter, Dumbledore says that Sirius passed on the ownership of his house to Harry and if Harry really did inherit the house, he has also inherited Kreacher. To me, that implies that Kreacher is bound to the house itself, as if he were part of the property forming the house. I am not 100% convinced though; I think the precise meaning is ambiguous. But certainly Harry isn't inhabiting the house: he lives at either Privet Drive or at Hogwarts, yet Kreacher still has to obey him. If the question had said "owner" of the house rather than inhabitants it would be a more clear choice. > >> 11. Which health scare at St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies > >> and Injuries has recently caused widespread panic? (Source: St. > >> Mungo's Admissions Department) > >> > >> -Suspected brain damage due to Imperius Curse > >> -Suspected death due to Thestral sightings > >> -Spate of suspected werewolf bits > >> -Uncontrollable bleeding due to 'Nosebleed Nougat' > > Magpie: > I said werewolf bites--not only is Fenrir at large but it's something that > causes more of a panic, it seems, even when it's only one bite. It's > contagious and shameful. Peggy W: I figured that many more people would get the nosebleeds from eating the joke candy than would get bitten by anything, werewolf or not. However now that I think of it after reading the question more carefully I think the werewolf answer is much better. Maybe that's why I only got an E... > >> 18. Muggle are: > >> > >> -Ignorant > >> -In danger > >> -Inferior to wizards > >> -Insensitive to their surroundings > >> -Interesting > >> -Irritating facts of life > > Magpie: > Muggles are interesting, thank you very much. Peggy W: I chose that one too. As for In danger, Muggles may be in danger, but so are Wizards. -- Peggy Wilkins "We Kingly Pigs" enlil65 at gmail.com From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 8 17:00:31 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 8 Oct 2006 17:00:31 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/8/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1160326831.23.16491.m41@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159207 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 8, 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: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 17:12:37 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:12:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of - Trelawney Attacked In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159208 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > ...edited... > > > > Pippin: > > Huh? > > If Dumbledore didn't know anything about the cabinet, > > how could he know that the whoops meant Draco had > > fixed it? ... so he would think that whatever Draco > > was whooping about, it couldn't be the arrival of > > Death Eaters. > > Alla: > > I snipped everything else, because it is agree to > disagree moment, but if Dumbledore did not get that > whoops meant that Draco finished the job - you know, > seems quite logical to me - celebrating when something > is done, how would he get that Draco pinching Trelawney > indeed means that? > > bboyminn: I think there might be a miscommunication here, either that or I've completely lost the flow of this aspect of the thread. >From Post# 159189 - > > Pippin: > > Trelawney and Harry could have given evidence that > > Draco was involved in an attack. That's what > > Dumbeldore was waiting for, because without proof he > > knew he wouldn't be able to get Draco to accept the > > Order's protection or else send him to Azkaban to > > keep him from being murdered. > Alla: > > Thanks for clarifying, but where do you get that if > Dumbledore had evidence he would have moved on it? > Didn't he claim that he knew plenty about Draco's > activities, etc and as we debated earlier he sure did > not do anything when Ron and Katie were hurt? Pippin: Because Dumbledore did move on it once Draco confronted him. - End #159189 - Again, I conceed that I may have lost the flow of the thread, but I think the point that was being made, relative to Draco's attack on Trelawney, is that there is no law against 'whooping', that is not a crime, but Draco attacked Trelawney and that IS a crime. Relative to this incident, fixing the cabinet for purposes of attacking Hogwarts is irrelavant. Not irrelevant in the larger scope but irrelevant relative to this isolated incidence and whether Dumbledore hasa motivation to take action. Since a clear 'crime' was commited, at teacher was physically attacked, that could have been the provocation Dumbledore needed to confront Draco. Now that that is cleared up, I have to point out that we the reader know it was Draco, Harry-The Suspicious knows it was Draco, but there is no proof it was Draco. Trelawney didn't see her attacker. Still, Dumbledore may have had enough background information or information unknown by others, that he could have reached the same conclusion as Harry, and as suggested, used that to confront Draco; thereby preventing the attack and perhaps drawing Draco into protective custody before things went as far as they did. So, Harry neglecting to mention this aspect, Trelawney attacked, to Dumbledore is significant. We can't say it would have altered things, but it is reasonably possible that in might have been enough to prompt Dumbledore to immediate action. Sorry, if I've misinterpreted the discussion of this aspect, but when reading about this in earlier posts, I had the same reaction that I have stated here. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 17:30:46 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:30:46 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159209 > Mike now: > Yep, you're right, I apologize. I should have made clear the *not > unethical" did NOT from your post. a_svirn: Yep, you should have. Of course, had you done that your own "irony" would have made no sense, but never mind. Apology accepted. From dontask2much at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 17:41:06 2006 From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (Rebecca) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:41:06 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Statute of Secrecy References: Message-ID: <02a901c6eb00$ef2ed8f0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> No: HPFGUIDX 159210 > Mike: > Excuse me, I'm being rude for disagreeing with your opinion? > > Or could it be because I called your mis-use of a Lupin > quote "intellectually dishonest"? Since that quote was about DD > keeping his secrets regarding Snape, which you agree with, then in > essence you agreed with the position that Lupin takes on this > subject. But that was not what you used the quote for. You used that > quote as your assessment of the entire Order's intestinal fortitude. > > IOW you agree with Lupin that "It isn't our business to know. It's > Dumbledore's business. Dumbledore trusts Severus..." . If you want > to call the whole Order "weak" for not challenging Dumbledore's > *dictatorial* style, that's fine as your opinion. But to use that > quote about DD and Snape's secrets, not about the Order members > getting a say in DD's planning/decisions, is an improper use of a > quote. It may have matched your opinion of the Order, but it was > definitely out of context. Rebecca: I am not sure about the notion that Dumbledore shared everything, his detailed plans and such, with the Order. It appears he did as Molly cautioned Sirius to do in OoP with Harry (which to me is telling): he informs them just what they need to know to do what they must do. Otherwise, there would not be any need for the Order to be so shocked when Snape kills Dumbledore, because had they known why Dumbledore trusted him, they would be able to reason what happened for themselves - they took it on blind faith in Dumbledore about why he trusted Snape. Their shock is real and palatable in HBP after Harry tells them Snape's deed. Furthermore, by the quote specified in Mike's snippet above, Order members do very much respect and value Dumbledore, whether they challenge for details or not. This "management" style is very consistent, to me, of The Resistance in WWII and in keeping with the way covert and intelligence missions are typically handled: no one has any more information than they need to know to protect the secrecy of the mission, the participants, and the outcome. This appears to be especially true to keep the "mystery" of the plot JKR has devised so that we keep squirming in our seats about the last book and it's revelations. :) The problem for me is that socially, I believe that blind faith and adulation in 1 person who appears to know all means any mistakes that person makes becomes the mistakes for all. In this perception, asirvn is, IMO, correct for questioning the fortitude of the other Order members - like I said above, if I were in the Order I know I'd ask about Snape just given his history. (I'd ask many questions, and Dumbledore would be so TOTALLY annoyed with me.) Snape doesn't exactly ooze "trust me", you know? To be in the Order is to risk your life and one would assume you'd want to know you can trust your fellow man. Additionally, the Snape-Dumbledore secret does not appear to be the only one he kept from other Order members: horcruxes, Tom Riddle's past, the prophecy as it relates to Harry....it's not clear in canon that he's ever shared any of these things with other Order members. The only one we see those being shared with *in detail* is Harry, who isn't even formally IN the Order. Therefore it will be interesting to see what exactly is shared by the Order with Harry in Book 7. Rebecca From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 17:43:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:43:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of - Trelawney Attacked In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159211 Steve: > Again, I conceed that I may have lost the flow of the > thread, but I think the point that was being made, > relative to Draco's attack on Trelawney, is that there is > no law against 'whooping', that is not a crime, but Draco > attacked Trelawney and that IS a crime. Relative to this > incident, fixing the cabinet for purposes of attacking > Hogwarts is irrelavant. Not irrelevant in the larger > scope but irrelevant relative to this isolated incidence > and whether Dumbledore hasa motivation to take action. > > Since a clear 'crime' was commited, at teacher was > physically attacked, that could have been the provocation > Dumbledore needed to confront Draco. > > Now that that is cleared up, I have to point out that we > the reader know it was Draco, Harry-The Suspicious knows > it was Draco, but there is no proof it was Draco. > Trelawney didn't see her attacker. Still, Dumbledore may > have had enough background information or information > unknown by others, that he could have reached the same > conclusion as Harry, and as suggested, used that to > confront Draco; thereby preventing the attack and perhaps > drawing Draco into protective custody before things went > as far as they did. > > So, Harry neglecting to mention this aspect, Trelawney > attacked, to Dumbledore is significant. We can't say it > would have altered things, but it is reasonably possible > that in might have been enough to prompt Dumbledore to > immediate action. Alla: Sorry Steve for confusing you. Yes, this is how I interpreted Pippin's original point too. Sorry for mudding the waters, but what I was trying to say is that judging by Dumbledore's general reaction to Draco's activities so far I see no definite proof that this would have triggered different reaction from Dumbledore. Maybe I misunderstood what Pippin was saying later, but I found *Dumbledore moved on it once Draco confronted him* to be confusing for example. It was way too late to do anything on the Tower IMO ( well, unless Dumbledore arranged all that, conspired with Snape, etc), but in regards to Draco, physically Draco indeed has the upper hand now, no? Dumbledore has an upper hand morally, he is in charge, sure ( my mercy that matters not yours), but to call what Dumbledore did on the Tower **moving on it** is not what I would say. Ugh, babbling again. Back to Harry not mentioning Draco's atatcking Trelawney. Yeah, that is a crime, just as preparing Dumbledore's assasination and in the process almost killing two students is a crime, where Dumbledore did not do anything. We may say he did not have enough proof, I am not so sure about it, I think he was hoping of Draco having a change of heart by himself or something, which if it is true, I find careless to the extreme. So, what I am trying to say in so many words is that I of course cannot exclude the possibility that Dumbledore would have done something about Draco, had he known that he attacked Trelawney, personally I don't find it very likely. What you said about maybe not having enough proof, maybe Dumbledore would have felt the same way, since he seemed to have more than enough proof of Draco trying to assasinate him before, that is unless he was bluffing. Hope that was clearer :) Ask again if it was not. Alla. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 18:00:56 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:00:56 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty WAS: Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 In-Reply-To: <20061008090917.76909.qmail@web30901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159212 > Magpie: > I thought that House Elf allegiances were to families, not houses, and based > whatever answer there was on that. Clearly it's the person since Kreacher > belongs to Harry whether he's at Grimmauld Place or Hogwarts. So I don't > think that's a problem--House Elves are definitely (imo) bound to the > family, not the house. I think that was a question that said one of the > things were false and I chose House Elves being loyal to the house rather > than the family as being false. > > Kimberly here: > This is where I think the allegiance to the house comes in. If Kreacher wasn't > bound to the house but the family, then he would have passed on to the next > blood line in the Black family, not the next owner of the house. It seems the > ownership of the house takes precedant over the family. Whomever owns > the house, gets Kreacher rather than whomever is next on the bloodline. > It's like splitting a hair, it is a very fine line I believe. a_svirn: Both the house and the elf were Sirius's *property*. He left his property to Harry. As Dumbledore explained, property in the Black family passed down through the male line. Since there were no male Blacks left, Sirius was free to pass it elsewhere. That's all there is to it. From mrnmrswatters at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 17:42:18 2006 From: mrnmrswatters at yahoo.com (Stephen and Angelique) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:42:18 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159213 Hey. I just joined this group today. Both my husband and I are Harry Potter fans. As are our children and even my dad! I have a few questions that I'm hoping somebody might be able to answer. First, I believe it's in the 5th book that the Thestrals are first mentioned. They say that only those who have witnessed death can see these creatures. Well, once you enter your 2nd year at Hogwarts you travel up to the school in these Thestral drawn carriages. In the 1st book, Harry has witnessed the death of not only his parents when he was a baby, but also the death of Professor Quirrell. Why does he not see the Thestrals until his fifth year? And, it is well-known that you cannot apparate inside of Hogwarts, so why can the house elves do it? I don't remember Rowling giving any reason behind this. Also, I think that Crookshanks the cat might turn out to be an animagi but my husband thinks not. Does anybody else think this cat might be something besides just a cat? mrnmrswatters From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Sun Oct 8 18:08:21 2006 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla (Ball) McCulley) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:08:21 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159214 I've been re-reading the books and came across a couple of things that might lead to the remaining horcruxes (sp). Don't want to give to many spoilers. Anyone interested in discussing? Carla From mkk69 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 8 18:00:00 2006 From: mkk69 at hotmail.com (woollybear_99) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:00:00 -0000 Subject: More to Petunia than meets the eye In-Reply-To: <1789c2360610071043k3f08d20ep17d139fcfc82cef1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159215 Peggy Wilkins wrote: > What if ... as a girl, when she and Lily were at home, > Petunia somehow got ahold of or was given Polyjuice Potion to > take on Lily's appearance. The idea here is that she could > then go back to Hogwarts in Lily's place. > > What if, like Hermione in COS, Petunia eventually got some bad > Polyjuice which transformed her into a partial something-or-other, > perhaps a cat like Hermione, or some other Hogwarts pet. As we > saw with Hermione, it was quite difficult to undo. Imagine how > mortified Petunia would have been; > > What an interesting idea, because it could explain Petunia's > terror about magic, why she resented Lily so much, and also her > correspondence with Dumbledore and the hold he could have over > her. woollybear_99: An interesting thought but can we even be sure that Polyjuice Potion would work on muggles? What if it just makes them sick or does nothing at all? And can muggles even see Hogwarts? But again it is an intersting thought. On a personal note I think my mother in law could be Petunia under the spell of Polyjuice Potion. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 18:19:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:19:18 -0000 Subject: The Statute of Secrecy In-Reply-To: <02a901c6eb00$ef2ed8f0$6501a8c0@MITRE.ORG> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159216 > Rebecca: > > I am not sure about the notion that Dumbledore shared everything, his > detailed plans and such, with the Order. The only one we see those being shared with *in detail* is Harry, who isn't > even formally IN the Order. Therefore it will be interesting to see what > exactly is shared by the Order with Harry in Book 7. > Alla: Snipped your whole post to say big, fat ** Me too** and also just to remark that 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. JMO, Alla. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 18:26:18 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:26:18 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty WAS: Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159217 > a_svirn: > Both the house and the elf were Sirius's *property*. He left his > property to Harry. As Dumbledore explained, property in the Black > family passed down through the male line. Since there were no male > Blacks left, Sirius was free to pass it elsewhere. That's all there > is to it. > This is the way I saw it too. So does this means that the correct answer to that question is indeed the one about the house-elf allegence? Where then does that leave us with house-elf suicide? I take it that this means that the Master/slave relationship extents to areas that might fit into the 'unforgiveables' such as suicide. A master can tell a house elf to kill themself and the elf would have to obey? Somehow that just doesn't seem right. Seems like there would be some fine print in the ancient magic guide on magicial contracts that might prevent this. ??? Tonks From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 18:21:56 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:21:56 -0000 Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159218 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > > Ken: > > > > > > I think it far more likely that St. Mungo's would > > > be deluged with Muggles seeking treatement for > > > diseases we cannot cure. I think it far more likely > > > that Hogwarts would be deluged with physicists > > > wanting to study the relationship between magic and > > > the rest of physics. I think it far more likely > > > that energy companies would vie for the rights to > > > the limitless, non-polluting energy source the WW > > > taps into. The WW seems to have the solutions for > > > many of our problems, isn't it extremely selfish of > > > them to keep these wonderful technologies from a > > > world that needs them> so desperately? > > > > Carol responds: > > I'm not so sure. Wizards can mend broken bones and > > broken noses with a spell (wonder why Dumbledore's > > and Ludo Bagman's weren't mended?), but Mad-Eye Moody > > can't regrow his missing parts and the school still > > seems to suffer an annual outbreak of flu. ... They > > don't have computers or telephones or even cars.) > > Yes, some of them can Apparate, but they can't teach > > that skill to Muggles even if they wanted to. > > > > Carol, ... > > > > Ken: > > Ah, but the WW is being victimized by their author's > lack of science education. The amount of enery a > Quidditch team expends in a match is quite astounding > really. It is totally free and causes no apparent > pollution. I know that the Red Hen is on record as > saying that this energy comes from Harry's breakfast > but he simply does not eat that much. You are looking > at the solution to both the world's energy dilemma and > global warming here and you don't realize it because > the author does not realize what she has created and > you are not trained in the right field to recognize it. > > As for medicine, I grant that I may have overstated the > case ... surely ... the WW and the Muggle world could > both benefit by comparing medical notes. > > Physicists would *love* having magic to study. It's > existence would totally overturn the apple cart ... As > I've said before some of the multi-dimensional theories > of modern physics could, ... explain how a wizard's > trunk, car, or house can be larger inside than outside. > These theories are the current best guess as the > basis for a Theory of Everything, .... This would be > very big news in the world of physics. > > ...edited... > > Ken > bboyminn: I've always said that magic is just science we haven't discovered yet. I also think the central general public would probably react well, OK moderately well, but it is not the general public we have to worry about, it is those 'off-center'. Again, look at the furor raised by a quaint book of fiction, now again imagine the reaction of those same people if that 'fiction' turns out to be 'history'. If Harry Potter turns out to be real. Do you really think those opposing Harry Potter would jump up and down saying 'Oh goody goody, everything we've fervently believed our whole lives, the very thing we have build our existance and self-worth around is now wrong - Whoo-Hoo!'. I don't think so. There is too much lust for power and wealth in the world. Those who have it definitely do not want to lose it, and those that want it, lust for it, will try to gain it at any cost. I do not see /these/ people reacting 'nicely'. There are far too many Lex Luthors in the world for the revelation of Magical People to go over 'nicely'. The Wizards are offering free power. They can create a branch of fire the burns evermore. How much Alcohol could you distill if you fueled the still by ever-buring fire? How much steam could those everburning branches generate? And really, you don't even need 'ever-burning branches'. It seems that Fire Spells are reasonably common. If you can conjure fire, they you don't evey need ever-burning branches. So, the power companies are going to take that lying down? The Oil Companies? The Natural Gas Companies? I don't think so. It's not about science and technology folks, it's about power and wealth, and those who have it, and want to keep it, that those that don't have it. As long as Power and Wealth are involved, and the interests of the powerful and wealthy need to be protected, there will be trouble right here in River City. As to the science and where the energy comes for to power brooms, for example. I suspect that we are seeing simple matter/energy conversion. One pound of matter is capable of producing unfathomable amounts of energy. It is possible that magic simply converts random insignificant matter into energy to power the brooms. It may simply convert the dust in the air into energy. The enegy expediture of a broom is insignificant compared to the energy potential of the dust in normal outside air. Further, our preceived physical world is really only about 20% of the actually world. No, I don't mean we are only aware of 20% of the stars and galaxies that are out there. I am speaking of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. And, please let us not, once again, get into a long and generally pointless debate over whether I fully understand Dark Energy or not. This is about speculative science in the fictional world, not about real applied science. In this case, let us not confuss 'DARK Energy' with DARK Magic. 'Dark' in this instance simply means unseen, though recently science has come much much closer to detecting Dark Matter. Extending this, 80% of the physical world is beyond our /normal/ comprehension. Even if we cataloged every existing Galaxy, star, planet, and moon, we would have still only catalogged 20% of the physical matter in existance, partly because the other 80% is normally unseen. So, who is to say that magic doesn't draw its energy from the huge massive amount to Dark Energy that permeates the universe? They are tapping a source of energy that is all around us, yet is something that we are only vaguely aware of in the scientific sense. So, while I can speculate perfectly logical reasons why magic could exist and why its knowledge would be infinitely valuable to modern science, I really fear the social and psychologial aspects of it. I still claim that those with financial, political, military, religious, and moral power and wealth would fight to control or attempt to destroy magic if it were discovered in our modern world. Further, those with finacial, political, military, religious, and moral power and wealth also have tremendous influence over the sheep that follow them. If religious fanatics can rally so much support against a quaint book of fiction, I shutter at their reaction to it being real. Chaos I tell you, chaos; social upheaval and riots in the streets. I know it is a sad thought, a sad commentary on human existance, and hopelessly pessimistic, but I think to deny it is naive. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 18:34:19 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:34:19 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159219 mrnmrswatters wrote: > First, I believe it's in the 5th book that the Thestrals are first > mentioned. They say that only those who have witnessed death can see > these creatures. Well, once you enter your 2nd year at Hogwarts you > travel up to the school in these Thestral drawn carriages. In the 1st book, Harry has witnessed the death of not only his parents when he was a baby, but also the death of Professor Quirrell. Why does he not see the Thestrals until his fifth year? > >sniped Elf apprating> Also, I think that Crookshanks the cat might turn out to be an animagi but my husband thinks not. Does anybody else think this cat might be something besides just a cat? > Tonks: Welcome to the group!! I can answer two of the questions. I can't remember about the second one. 1. I think we decided that Harry did not actually `see' his mother's death, he may have been asleep. And he was unconscious when Professor Quirrell died. 3. JKR has said on her website, or maybe in an interview, that Crookshanks is not an animagi, he is half Keneezel. Tonks_op From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Oct 8 18:41:52 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:41:52 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159220 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephen and Angelique" wrote: > > Hey. I just joined this group today. Both my husband and I are Harry > Potter fans. As are our children and even my dad! I have a few questions > that I'm hoping somebody might be able to answer. Hickengruendler: Hello and Welcome. :-) Angelique: > First, I believe it's in the 5th book that the Thestrals are first > mentioned. They say that only those who have witnessed death can see > these creatures. Well, once you enter your 2nd year at Hogwarts you > travel up to the school in these Thestral drawn carriages. In the 1st > book, Harry has witnessed the death of not only his parents when he was > a baby, but also the death of Professor Quirrell. Why does he not see > the Thestrals until his fifth year? Hickengruendler: 1.) Harry did not witness Quirell's death. That's how it happens in the movie, I suppose to make it more excepting. But in the book he's passed out before Quirrell dies. Therefore there is no inconsistency regarding Quirrell. 2.) The parents do not count either, I think. Harry was a baby, when they died and couldn't even remember it. He has a few flashbacks to the murder during PoA, but I still find it understandable that this is not enough for him to see the Thestrals. 3.) The biggest problem is with Cedric Diggory's death. Harry should have seen the Thestrals at the end of GoF, when he left Hogwarts for the summer holidays. JKR said a day or so after the release of Order, that the death has to sink in, for the Thestrals to be visible. Harry had time to come to terms with it in the holidays, while prior to this too much happened for him to register what it means. I find this a plausible explanation, and I am convinced that it wasn't made up on the stop, but that JKR did think this through. But I wish she had given this explanation in the actual book, instead of an interview afterwards. Angelique: > And, it is well-known that you cannot apparate inside of Hogwarts, so > why can the house elves do it? I don't remember Rowling giving any > reason behind this. Hickengruendler: House-Elves have different kinds of powers than wizards. Angelique: > Also, I think that Crookshanks the cat might turn out to be an animagi > but my husband thinks not. Does anybody else think this cat might be > something besides just a cat? > Hickengruendler: Crookshanks is a half-keazle. Kneazles are described in "Fantastic Beasts and where to find them", one of the two comic relief books Rowling wrote. To paraphrase: Kneazles look very similar than cats, and can breed with cats. They have the ability to spot suspicious persons and to lead the people they belong out of danger. I'm sure Crookshanks will be useful during the Horcrux search. By the way, if you haven't bought "Fantastic Beasts" and the "Quidditch through the ages" books, do it. They are fun to read. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 7 19:17:11 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 19:17:11 -0000 Subject: Something that caught my eye Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159221 Here is something that caught my eye in the last book and really made me wonder - is Dumbledore really dead (or for that matter any of the main characters)or is it all a ploy to foil Voldemort. HMMM Dumbledore tells Draco that Voldemort can not kill Draco if Draco is already dead. He then tells Draco that they (the Order, I guess) can hide him and his family so thoroughly they can never be found. This makes me really wonder if the Potters, Dumbledore himself and others that have supposedly died for the cause are really really gone. Also, JK said that she was going to kill Harry off in the 7th book so that no one could write more Harry Potter books later. I think that she made a major, HUGE mistake in incorporating the concept of time travel in her novels. Though the Ministry of magic's supply of time turners were destroyed in the 5th book, there are possibly more out there. And even if there are not, these are made by magic. There are wizards who are powerful and can create more of these objects. They (whoever the future author(s) is) can always go back and prevent Harry's demise and have many other adventures. JK really messed up with that one in my opinion! Jenni from Alabama From inyia at yahoo.es Sun Oct 8 18:31:38 2006 From: inyia at yahoo.es (inyia) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 20:31:38 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] newbie with questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159222 mrnmrswatters: >> They say that only those who have witnessed death can see these creatures. In the 1st book, Harry has witnessed the death of not only his parents when he was a baby, but also the death of Professor Quirrell. Why does he not see the Thestrals until his fifth year? And, it is well-known that you cannot apparate inside of Hogwarts, so why can the house elves do it? I don't remember Rowling giving any reason behind this. Also, I think that Crookshanks the cat might turn out to be an animagi but my husband thinks not. Does anybody else think this cat might be something besides just a cat? << Hey MrnMrsWatters, About the thestrals thing it's not only about witnessing death but also understanding. He witnessed his mother's death when he was one, and about Quirrell he doesn't kill him, it was a movie thing (if I remember correctly). About house elves is well known that they can perform magic that wizards can't. And Crookshanks, I don't like the option about him being an animagi because there would be too many of them in book 3, don't you think? And He is More than a Cat he is half kneazle (sp?), I don't have my book of beasts with me but there is a definition about them, they are very intelligent and all that jazz. inyia From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 19:00:32 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:00:32 -0000 Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159223 Steve said: > So, who is to say that magic doesn't draw its energy from > the huge massive amount to Dark Energy that permeates the > universe? They are tapping a source of energy that is all > around us, yet is something that we are only vaguely > aware of in the scientific sense. > > So, while I can speculate perfectly logical reasons why > magic could exist and why its knowledge would be > infinitely valuable to modern science, I really fear the > social and psychologial aspects of it. I still claim that > those with financial, political, military, religious, and > moral power and wealth would fight to control or attempt > to destroy magic if it were discovered in our modern > world. (Snip) > > Chaos I tell you, chaos; social upheaval and riots in the > streets. I know it is a sad thought, a sad commentary on > human existance, and hopelessly pessimistic, but I think > to deny it is naive. Tonks: I agree with Steve. Muggles can not know of the WW, for the safety of both worlds. Wizards draw their power from the power of the universe and from their own inner energy. As many of you know I have been studying Alchemy. At first when Hans said that the HP books were about Alchemy I thought he was a nut case, now I am beginning to think that he may be right. And as I explore this more and more, I see that Alchemy also explains things about energy. It especially explains about the energy of prayer (or the human mind and its ability to effect the material world) from a more `scientific' view. When I read about that my first reaction was "WOW!!", and my second was "I can not tell anyone about this". I understand why the WW keeps it's secrets just as the Alchemist kept theirs. What a very dangerous place the MW or RW would be, even more than it already is, if the secrets of the wizards were known to be true. So for all of you Muggles reading this, Alchemy is just an old science where some misguided fools thought that they could turn lead into gold, just like you have always been told in your Muggle schools. It is all fiction. Tonks_op winking at all the other wizards here. From mrnmrswatters at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 18:52:36 2006 From: mrnmrswatters at yahoo.com (Stephen and Angelique) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:52:36 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions -- "Fantastic Beasts" and "Quidditch through the Ages" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159224 > Hickengruendler: > Crookshanks is a half-keazle. Kneazles are described in "Fantastic > Beasts and where to find them", one of the two comic relief books > Rowling wrote. > > By the way, if you haven't bought "Fantastic Beasts" and the > "Quidditch through the ages" books, do it. They are fun to read. Angelique: Thanks guys for the help. And no, I haven't seen those other books yet but now I am interested. Can you just buy those at a bookstore? Or where do I get them? (Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch?) From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Oct 8 19:45:13 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (nashferr) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 19:45:13 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159225 wrote: > I have a few questions that I'm hoping somebody might be able to answer. > snip < montims: There are answers to all of these on JKR's website: Everyone has said to me that Harry saw people die before could see the Thestrals. Just to clear this up once and for all, this was not a mistake. I would be the first to say that I have made mistakes in the books, but this was not a mistake. I really thought this one through. Harry did not see his parents die. He was one year old and in a cot at the time. Although you never see that scene, I wrote it and then cut it. He didn't see it; he was too young to appreciate it. When you find out about the Thestrals, you find that you can see them only when you really understand death in a broader sense, when you really know what it means. 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. Then you have Cedric. With Cedric, fair point. Harry had just seen Cedric die when he got back into the carriages to go back to Hogsmeade station. You say that people cannot Apparate or Disapparate within Hogwarts and yet Dobby manages it, why is this? House-elves are different from wizards; they have their own brand of magic, and the ability to appear and disappear within the castle is necessary to them if they are to go about their work unseen, as house-elves traditionally do. Crookshanks, as anybody who has read Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them will have guessed, is half Kneazle. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 20:08:31 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:08:31 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159226 > Jen: > Snape wanted the book back > before Harry discovered who the HBP was or something else personal. > But then there's the problem that he told the information to Harry > himself during the run across the grounds--is that a clue that with > Dumbledore dead the book didn't matter anymore? *Head spinning*. zgirnius: That's not the motivation I read in that scene. Snape wants Harry to know he is the HBP at some point. Once he is forced to flee Hogwarts, it is his last chance to reveal this fact. As a DDM! Snape type, I tend to think the empathy Harry had for the Prince will help him to come to some accommodation with Snape in Book 7. > Jen: > Also, it seems out of > character to me that Snape might 'open up' to Harry if Harry had > told the truth. There has to be some semblance of trust for that > type of communication to occur and perhaps some event will occur > for > it to happen in the future, but so far it's completely lacking on > both sides. zgirnius: I agree, that's why I think he revealed it during his flight from Hogwarts. He is in a sufficiently desperate situation for his usual motives with regards to Harry to be overridden. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Oct 8 20:03:35 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:03:35 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions -- "Fantastic Beasts" and "Quidditch through the Ages" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159227 > Angelique: > Thanks guys for the help. And no, I haven't seen those other books > yet but now I am interested. Can you just buy those at a bookstore? > Or where do I get them? (Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch?) > Hickengruendler: Yes, you can buy them at bookstores or via Amazon. (At least I assume you still can). They are secondary books, written by JKR. They are thin and not very expensive either, but the money is for a good cause anyway. Like I said, they are fun to read, and I assume at least the about the Fantastic Beasts could held a few clues for what's going to come in book 7. It also mentione dthe Thestrals prior to book 5 (under winged horses), even though the entry was somewhat misleading. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 8 20:50:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:50:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of - Trelawney Attacked In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159228 bboy_mn: > > Now that that is cleared up, I have to point out that we > > the reader know it was Draco, Harry-The Suspicious knows > > it was Draco, but there is no proof it was Draco. > > Trelawney didn't see her attacker. Still, Dumbledore may > > have had enough background information or information > > unknown by others, that he could have reached the same > > conclusion as Harry, and as suggested, used that to > > confront Draco; thereby preventing the attack and perhaps > > drawing Draco into protective custody before things went > > as far as they did. Pippin: Harry overheard the attack and if Dumbledore had returned with him they could have trapped Draco in the RoR. It would be difficult for him to maintain that someone else had been in there and attacked Trelawney, especially if Draco were found with the hand of glory and the darkness powder on him. > Alla: > > Sorry Steve for confusing you. Yes, this is how I interpreted > Pippin's original point too. Sorry for mudding the waters, but what > I was trying to say is that judging by Dumbledore's general > reaction to Draco's activities so far I see no definite proof that > this would have triggered different reaction from Dumbledore. Pippin: What I meant by "Dumbledore moved on it" was that he offered protection to Draco. Why didn't he offer it sooner? I think we saw why in the scene with Snape; Draco denied that he needed help and wouldn't have agreed to it. If Dumbledore had accused him of being involved in the attacks on Katy and Ron, Draco, like his father in CoS, would have said, "Prove it! But AFAWK Dumbledore wouldn't have been able to, just as he couldn't prove Lucius was behind the attacks in CoS, even though he was sure that Lucius was involved. You would think if there was supposed to be direct evidence of Draco's involvement in either previous attack, JKR would have had Dumbledore tell us it existed. Then we could all wonder what it was. But AFAWK, no such evidence existed. None. Up till the attack on Trelawney, canon does not present us with even one piece of firsthand evidence that Draco is doing anything dangerous or illegal associated with the DE's. It's all hearsay and circumstantial. On what basis should Dumbledore have put Draco in protective custody? Talking big like Stan Shunpike? Being known to have monstrous sympathies, like Hagrid? Laughing while under suspicion and not acting like an innocent man, like Sirius Black? To say that Dumbledore did have other evidence and didn't use it would make these parallels, which line up far too conveniently to be coincidental, completely meaningless. Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 8 21:46:50 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:46:50 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stephen and Angelique" wrote: > > Hey. I just joined this group today. Both my husband and I are Harry > Potter fans. As are our children and even my dad! I have a few questions > that I'm hoping somebody might be able to answer. > > First, I believe it's in the 5th book that the Thestrals are first > mentioned. They say that only those who have witnessed death can see > these creatures. Well, once you enter your 2nd year at Hogwarts you > travel up to the school in these Thestral drawn carriages. In the 1st > book, Harry has witnessed the death of not only his parents when he was > a baby, but also the death of Professor Quirrell. Why does he not see > the Thestrals until his fifth year? > > And, it is well-known that you cannot apparate inside of Hogwarts, so > why can the house elves do it? I don't remember Rowling giving any > reason behind this. > > Also, I think that Crookshanks the cat might turn out to be an animagi > but my husband thinks not. Does anybody else think this cat might be > something besides just a cat? Geoff: Welcome to the madhouse. :-) With regard to the Thestrals, if you visit JKR's own website - www.jkrowling.com - she answers your question in the section FAQ>About the books. It's well down the list - the third (SPOILER WARNING). From CliffVDY at juno.com Sun Oct 8 21:56:08 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 21:56:08 -0000 Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159230 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" wrote: So for all of you Muggles reading this, Alchemy is just an > old science where some misguided fools thought that they could turn > lead into gold, just like you have always been told in your Muggle > schools. It is all fiction. > > Tonks_op > winking at all the other wizards here. > She's right, you know. ------- Cliff, the magical physicist From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 22:04:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 22:04:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159231 Carol earlier: > > I intend to bring up a question along these lines in the chapter discussion for "Sectumsempra" in November, but for now I'll point out that Snape not only didn't tell Slughorn that Harry was cheating, he didn't expel him, or request his expulsion, for using a potentially deadly spell. I can only conclude that Snape is trying to help Harry somehow, to keep him safely in school, for one thing, but he may also want him to use the book. (Note that he didn't identify himself as the author of the spells and potions hints at that point, as he could have done.) Maybe if Harry had told him the truth about where he found the > spell, Snape would have told the truth in return? > > > > Seems like yet another missed opportunity for understanding to me. > > Alla responded: > > Eh, going back to speculating, if Snape indeed wants to hide the > book from Dumbledore then **of course** he would not complain about > Harry cheating, because erm... then he would reveal himself as the > author and if there is something in the book that is damaging to > him, then why would he want to do it? > > Seems like totally possible self-serving reason to me. Now, not > saying that another **noble** reason is not possible, but just don't > see the fact that Snape did not tell anybody about Harry cheating as > definite proof that he was helping Harry. > Carol again: I din't say that it was proof (all proof is definite). I just suggested that Snape might be protecting Harry rather than himself. If it were only a matter of the book, I'd be more hesitant to draw even a tentative conclusion, but he could have expelled Harry, or at least suggested expulsion, and he didn't. No one would have known that the spell was his, so why didn't he suggest it? And there's no need for Slughorn to know that Sectumsempra is his own spell; all he needs to do is show him is force Harry to bring him his own book, show the book to Slughorn, including the notes for one or two potions that Harry would have made in that class (Slughorn would possibly recognize the handwriting and certainly have no reason to doubt the word of a man he knows to be a potions genius that the notes were his own) and yet he doesn't do so. He could have proven to slughorn that Harry was "a liar and a cheat," to use his own words, but he didn't do so. I have more to say on the subject, but this is enough for now. > Alla (to Pippin): > > Thanks for clarifying, but where do you get that if Dumbledore had > evidence he would have moved on it? Didn't he claim that he knew > plenty about Draco's activities, etc and as we debated earlier he > sure did not do anything when Ron and Katie were hurt? > > I mean, Harry of course forgot to tell him that, canon is clear, I > just don't see it as a something that would have changed anything. > > IMO Dumbledore was set on leaving the school and he did not change > his mind after learning that Draco done the job ( fixing the > cabinet), that is what crucial isn't it in order for the attack to > start, not whether Draco pinched Trelawney? IMO of course. Carol responds: I agree with Pippin. Harry prevented Trelawney from telling her story. Dumbledore would have had to stop what he was doing and deal with an assault on a teacher. As it is, Harry was upset about Snape's being the eavesdropper and implied that he was helping Draco do something in the RoR, which Dumbledore knew to be false. The unfortunate coincidence of finding out who the eavesdropper was at that moment caused Harry to forget a matter more important to the matter at hand, that Draco had kicked Trelawney out. That, more than the whoop, proved that Draco was up to something dangerous. At any rate, it seems to me that Harry handled the situation rather badly. His anger at Snape, which related to an incident that happened a long time before, affected his behavior in the present and his attitude may have prevented Dumbledore from taking him seriously. Carol, hoping that this post is coherent because she's being distracted by two visitning kids From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 23:12:49 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:12:49 -0000 Subject: House-elves loyalty - Explained ...sort of In-Reply-To: <20061008090917.76909.qmail@web30901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159232 --- Kimberly wrote: > > Tonks: > > > > And the biggest concern for me is the one about House > > Elves I thought that they were bound to the family, > > not to the building.... How can their allegence be to > > the house? Is this some sort of British usage of the > > word? That `house' means family or something? ... > > Kimberly: > This is a good question, where does the loyalty of a > houseelf truly lie. I had always derived that it was > to the family but after listening to HBP ... I am > questioning whether or not that is actually true. > Dumbledore explains to Harry that Kreacher is > "showing signs of not wanting to pass into Harry's > ownership". He demonstrates behavior that indicates > he would like nothing less than to serve Harry, ... > However, Dumbledore goes on to say that if Harry is > the true owner of Grimmauld Place than he inherits as > well, Kreacher. This gives me the feeling that it is > not only loyalty to the person ... but also the house > .... Hmmm, it made more sense before I worked it out > here, now it presents itself as quite tricky. Perhaps, > the loyalty to the house and family go hand in hand > and are inseparable. > > Magpie: > I thought that House Elf allegiances were to families, > not houses, and based whatever answer there was on that. > Clearly it's the person since Kreacher belongs to Harry > whether he's at Grimmauld Place or Hogwarts. So I don't > think that's a problem--House Elves are definitely (imo) > bound to the family, not the house.... > > Kimberly here: > This is where I think the allegiance to the house comes > in. If Kreacher wasn't bound to the house but the > family, then he would have passed on to the next blood > line in the Black family, not the next owner of the > house. It seems the ownership of the house takes > precedant over the family. ... > > Kimberly > Bboyminn: First I think we need to make the distinction that I have made many times before when discussing this, and that is the distinction between 'the house of Black' (a building) and 'the HOUSE of Black' (the entire family). I believe a house-elf's allegience is to the HOUSE of Black, that is the family of Black. Remember Sirius said Kreacher is suppose to obey everyone in the family, but he was refusing to obey Tonks because Tonk's parents had been blasted off the family tapestry. So, despite having to be loyal to the whole family, there is both an element of personal preference and a hierarchy of obedience. Kreacher holds his highest allegiance to his immediate family. He is more loyal to them than say the Malfoys or the LeStranges. Certainly personal preference come in in a limted way. Dobby certainly knowingly went against the family he serves when he went to warn Harry. Yet, he did so in a very indirect way, so I think, in his own mind, he could some how justify it. Kreacher, knowingly went against Sirius, his direct and immediate master, and the current patriarch of his immediate family, when he went to Narcissa Malfoy with information. Yet in his own mind he could justify it because he didn't reveal any information he was specifically forbidden to reveal. So, how does Harry come in to all this. Sirius was the last living /direct/ decendant of this Black family line. That makes him the supreme authority over Kreacher. In a sense, it makes Sirius the super-patriarch. As the family super-patriarch, Sirius Willed both 12 Grimmauld Place, all his money and possessions including Kreacher to Harry, that makes Harry the new Patriarch of Kreacher. It is, to some extent, as someone else said, Kreacher is property, and where Kreacher is order to go and who he is ordered to serve, he must obey. Consider for example, that Narcissa Black's father had (hypothetically) several House-Elves. When Narcissa married Lucius Malfoy, as part of her dowry or as a wedding gift, father-Black ordered an elf to go with Narcissa and serve her new family. For simplicity, let us assume that was Dobby. Dobby has now been ordered by the super-Patriarch of the family to serve a new family, and that is an order he can't refuse to obey. In a sense, he continues to serve the House of Black through serving Narcissa. Yet, he now belongs to the House of Malfoy and that is where his new loyalty must lie. Again it is a tranfer of property but more importantly it is a tranfer of loyalty. Certainly, it wouldn't erase the Black family loyalty, but the elf's first and moremost loyalty would now be to his new family. I suspect if the House of Malfoy were to commit a grave act against the House of Black, the elf's loyalty would be strongly divided and strongly tested. But offically, it would now belong to Malfoy. So, by order of the last remaining Super-Patriarch of that specific Black family line, Kreacher has been transferred to Harry. Whether Kreacher likes it or not his allegiance and his loyalty have now been transferred to the House of Potter, and along with that, should there sadly be any, so to are Kreacher's decendant bound by the magic of their kind to serve the House of Potter until they die, or until their ownership is offically transferred to someone else. Can I prove it? No, but remember, you heard it here first. Steve/bboyminn From hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 8 20:09:36 2006 From: hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk (Mark Hyder) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:09:36 -0000 Subject: WOMBAT Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159233 I was think if WOMBAT will be used in the Harry Potter book. I know it's on the JK Rowling web site. What's the origin of WOMBAT and how relate to Harry Potter? How did JK Rowling came up with the word? I also got an Acceptable on the WOMBAT test. Mark From Skywise91 at aol.com Sun Oct 8 22:04:41 2006 From: Skywise91 at aol.com (Skywise91 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 18:04:41 EDT Subject: Horcrux Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159234 Carla carla.mcculley at comcast.net writes: >> I've been re-reading the books and came across a couple of things that might lead to the remaining horcruxes (sp). Don't want to give to many spoilers. Anyone interested in discussing? << I am. I've heard the theory that Harry is a horcrux. It was clearly stated that some of Voldemort's "power" passed to Harry when Voldemort tried to kill him. Anyone think that a portion of Voldemort's spirit also passed to him? Opinions? Terri From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 23:17:27 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:17:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159235 > Carol responds: > At any rate, it seems to me that Harry handled the situation rather > badly. His anger at Snape, which related to an incident that happened > a long time before, affected his behavior in the present and his > attitude may have prevented Dumbledore from taking him seriously. Alla: Harry forgot to tell Dumbledore that Draco kicked Trelawney out - something that **may** have caused Dumbledore to do something about Draco or not, so I am not sure about handling situation badly. And his anger at Snape about **accident that happened long time before** I consider to be a righteous anger at someone who took part in his parents death, so if this anger is what prevented Dumbledore from taking him seriously, than Dumbledore is even lesser man than I think. IMO of course. I think that what prevented Dumbledore from taking him seriously is Dumbledore insistence that he knows better how to deal with Draco. Ooops. IMHO of course. From mrnmrswatters at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 23:10:41 2006 From: mrnmrswatters at yahoo.com (Stephen and Angelique) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:10:41 -0000 Subject: Thanks everybody for your help Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159236 I am a fairly new to the whole Harry Potter thing. I just got into it within the past 6 months. But I have now read all 6 books and going back rereading them now. (Currently working on GOF again) Thank you all so much for your help in answering my questions. I'm sure I'll have more. LOL. Ya'll have been great!!! mrnmrswatters From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Oct 8 23:28:53 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 16:28:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159237 Alla: Harry forgot to tell Dumbledore that Draco kicked Trelawney out - something that **may** have caused Dumbledore to do something about Draco or not, so I am not sure about handling situation badly. I think that what prevented Dumbledore from taking him seriously is Dumbledore insistence that he knows better how to deal with Draco. Ooops. Sherry now: This isn't a complete "me too" to Alla. I don't believe for one moment that Dumbledore would have paid any attention to Harry if he'd told about Trelawney. If DD really knew all along what Draco was up to, he let him run loose in the school, reeking havoc and plotting more deaths after the necklace incident. He did nothing to stop Draco after the poisoning of Ron. I don't have a lot of confidence that he'd have done anything any other way, if he'd known about Trelawney. He was too sure of himself, too certain he had it all under control and that he was right to let events play out. If he didn't take action after the near deaths of two students, why should we expect him to take more care after an assault on a teacher? Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 23:52:24 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:52:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159238 > Sherry now: > > This isn't a complete "me too" to Alla. I don't believe for one moment that > Dumbledore would have paid any attention to Harry if he'd told about > Trelawney. He was too sure of himself, too certain he > had it all under control and that he was right to let events play out. If > he didn't take action after the near deaths of two students, why should we > expect him to take more care after an assault on a teacher? Alla: Well, of course I cannot say for sure whether Dumbledore would have done something or not , although I am with you obviously based on the pattern of his behaviour through the book. What I am completely not buying is the idea that Harry is somehow to blame for Dumbledore not taking him seriously about Draco. Through the book Harry was the **only** one AFAIK who insisted over and over and over again that Draco is up to something. Harry went to everybody - kids and adults included, was dismissed by **everybody** - kids and adults included ( yes, I know Arthur checked, but IMHO not enough), went to Dumbledore when Draco was whooping, was dismissed **again** - really hope that he was not dismissed because Dumbledore thought that Harry was too angry about the person who contributed to him becoming an orphan and now the argument is made that if only Harry did not forget to tell him about Trelawney, Dumbledore would have behaved differently? I am very sorry, but I am not convinced. JMHO, Alla From jguaj74 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 00:08:21 2006 From: jguaj74 at yahoo.com (Jessica) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:08:21 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159239 Terri: > I am. I've heard the theory that Harry is a horcrux. It was clearly > stated that some of Voldemort's "power" passed to Harry when Voldemort > tried to kill him. Anyone think that a portion of Voldemort's spirit > also passed to him? Opinions?> Terri > I think that is gonna be the kicker in th last book. What better way to mark 'the chosen one' than with a piece of 'evil'. but I also think that finding all the horcruxes before Voldemort does is key as well. As far as where the remaining pieces are...Dumbledore hinted that it may be places that voldemort hold close to him. I was thinking somewhere in Sirius' home. where else go you think? Jessica From gwc22 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 23:53:32 2006 From: gwc22 at yahoo.com (Wayne Cochran) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 16:53:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Something that caught my eye/Time travel in JKR books Message-ID: <20061008235332.54759.qmail@web53615.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159240 Jenni from Alabama: Also, JK said that she was going to kill Harry off in the 7th book so that no one could write more Harry Potter books later. I think that she made a major, HUGE mistake in incorporating the concept of time travel in her novels. Though the Ministry of magic's supply of time turners were destroyed in the 5th book, there are possibly more out there. And even if there are not, these are made by magic. There are wizards who are powerful and can create more of these objects. They (whoever the future author(s) is) can always go back and prevent Harry's demise and have many other adventures. JK really messed up with that one in my opinion! Raven Heart: Not really, you have to look at the JKR theory of time travel. When an individual travels in time in the Potterverse, nothing is changed. All of the events that happened when Harry and Hermione time turned occured exactly as they did the first time they lived through those events. It's not like in some of the movies like Back to the Future and Terminator, where people travel in time and do something that screws up the whole space time continuum. In the version of time travel JKR uses, time travelling doesn't cause anything that changes the course of history, it only allows it to become the history that it already is. If someone goes back in time to prevent Harry's death after it has already happened, either they have no effect on the outcome, or they discover that it was their use of the time turner that causes Harry's death. Granted, that may not stop someone from trying to use this to continue the story of Harry Potter, but it would break JKR's rules, which would probably make it less believable for the faithful readers. The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each nonexisted in an entirely different way ... -- Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad" Visit Raven Heart's Nest @ http://www.waynecochran.net --------------------------------- Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cadtitanic at yahoo.com Sun Oct 8 23:25:52 2006 From: cadtitanic at yahoo.com (Mare Cad TITANIC) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 16:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: House-elves loyalty - Explained ...sort of// Re: Horcrux Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061008232552.57410.qmail@web34908.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159241 Tonks: > > And the biggest concern for me is the one about House > > Elves I thought that they were bound to the family, > > not to the building.... How can their allegence be to > > the house? Is this some sort of British usage of the > > word? That `house' means family or something? ... Marianne ( Mare ) CadTITANIC: Yes, I think "House" means the members within it. So they are "family-members" so to speak, thus having to be obeyed by the elves within those houses. Terri, on Horcruxes: > I've heard the theory that Harry is a horcrux. It was clearly > stated that some of Voldemort's "power" passed to Harry when Voldemort > tried to kill him. Anyone think that a portion of Voldemort's spirit > also passed to him? Opinions? Harry might be, but, gosh I hope not. Marianne ( Mare ) CadTITANIC From Scylla1958 at aol.com Mon Oct 9 00:35:33 2006 From: Scylla1958 at aol.com (scylla1958) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:35:33 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159242 Hi, I'm new and just found this group. I spent this past summer in the hospital, near death, and when I was finally able to read, the only books I could stand to read were the HP series. They pulled me through. I've read the series 3 times and every time I come up with new theories. Anyway, on to horcrux's. I can't be the only one to have noticed this but since I'm new I'll mention it anyway. Does anyone remember when Harry and the Weasleys were cleaning out Sirius' house? One of the objects they found was a heavy locket which no one could open. I'll betcha anything that's a horcrux and that Kreacher now has it. Kathy From aceworker at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 00:50:34 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF Message-ID: <20061009005034.99897.qmail@web30215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159243 <> DA Jones here: Good point Ken, yet JKR has Dumbledore admits that when he makes a mistake it is a big one. Maybe he has made a huge mistake. He may think Harry has his soul, but Harry may only have Tom Riddles's soul. (Which is different then Voldemort's. Riddle's is redemable. Voldemorts isn't. <>> Jonathon Strange & Mr. Norell is dark? I just finsihed reading it and it didn't seem thjat Dark too me. DA again: Will the 7th book truly be a children's book? I half feel JKR will publish it with a warning not to let very young children read it. Each book she has published has been darker and meant for older readers. HBP was foir older adolscents and the first two book for youg readers. I think JKR concept is that you give the first book to your child when they turn 11 and the last when the graduate high school. The idea is one book a year while they mature. The last book may really be an aduls book. It is going to be a 'war book' with deaths as she has already admitted. I agree with you and Geoff that It prob' won't end this way though. I think the kid who proposed this had the general idea but just missed the fimal theory a bit. So I've refined it. The ending is not dark. It is triumphant. It starts with this startling idea. Harry is mot a Horcrux, but Harry has horcruxes. As far as I know no one has ever asked JKR this question. Somehow Lily's protection spell caused Voldy's AK to backfire so it reversed the AK and killed Voldy. However, his soul split with the killing and the main one fled or was trapped in Harry and merged with his spirt, soul and body and the other split piece was somehow made into an air or vapor horocrux by whoever cast the horcrux spell (hidden behind the invisibilty cloak). Harry is proetced by the Horcruxes Riddle made as the main soul of Riddle is in his body and is in fact 'his soul.' Harry's Horcruxes are: : 1. Diary - destroyed by Harry 2. Ring - destroyed by Dumbedore 3. Locket - destroyed by RAB or at Grimmaauld place 4. Hufflepuff Cup 5. Vaportmort Voldy who has become the current Voldemort (instead of the snake) 6. Something of Ravenclaw or Gryffindor Plus Harry's main soul so there are still 7 pieces. I'm of the opinion that Dumbeldore just wants the snake dead and Harry needs something of Ravenclaw or Gryffindor, but maybe somehow the snake itself is something of Ravenclaw or Gyrffiindor. .Vapormort in HBP eventually reconmstituteed itself into Voldy. Harry has Voldy's "main soul" while the part split with Lily's death we can call split or remainder Voldy. 'Tom Riddle of the Diary may not be the the only animated Horcrux. Perhaps the ring also had one. Maybe each Horcrux thinks it is the real Voldy and will try to defeat the others and capture the soul piece to add it to its own. Perhaps the Locket Horcrux actually defeated RAB when he tried to destroy it is is free somewhere so that Harry has to fight 2 Voldy's. This means that instead of Voldy protecting the Horcruxes he and Harry are in a pursuit to destroy the horcruxes to gain power and Harry won't have to destroy all of them himself. Counting the orig' piece each started wth Harry appears to be up 3-1 at this point but this is a best of 7 series. The book may begin with Voldy destroying his horcruxes himself which would baffle the trio. This also explains why Voldy won't let the DE kill Harry. They can't. Harry can't die beause he has horcruxes (or his Tom Riddle self does) . Voldy may not have fully realized this until the end of OOP. Besides Dumbldore's commewnts aboyt his untarnished soul the only other flaws I see is it doesn't expalin all of the Lily's eyes comments or the gleam in DD eyes in GOF when Riddle used Harry's blood to reconstitute himself. But maybe someone can tie those in and also find a way that DD comments fit. In the end however even after Harry/Tom has all of his pieces back, he won't be evil. The love of Harry's/Tom's Tom will have redemmed the Tom bit of his soul and Harry/Tom will be as untarnished and powerful as Dumblesore and Ginny will have the two greatest loves of her life in one individual. Also, Sorry about the link not working on my orig post on this I didn't realie that the challenge was posted on a part of the forum where you have to be a registered member to visit. What do you think? DA Jones --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 00:49:12 2006 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Horcrux Theory Message-ID: <20061009004912.98981.qmail@web30915.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159244 Jessica: I think that is gonna be the kicker in th last book. What better way to mark 'the chosen one' than with a piece of 'evil'. but I also think that finding all the horcruxes before Voldemort does is key as well. As far as where the remaining pieces are...Dumbledore hinted that it may be places that voldemort hold close to him. I was thinking somewhere in Sirius' home. where else go you think? Kimberly here: I have a feeling that we're going to revisit the Riddle House from GoF. I can very easily see Tom/Voldemort making a Horcrux after he killed his father and grandparents. In fact, didn't he kill them just after he was at the Gaunts, when he took the ring. So yes, he probably made the ring a Horcrux with their murder. Kind of ironic, using his mother's family heirloom as a horcrux while killing his father's family. Creepy... I just think there's more to the Riddle House. I hope we end up back there and I hope we find out who "the wealthy man who owns the Riddle House these days", the one who "keeps it for tax reasons" (GoF, pg. 4, Amer. Ed.) is ! Kimberly From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 01:53:06 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:53:06 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS/hags In-Reply-To: <20061007204419.10122.qmail@web30905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159245 Carol wondered: > "true" for "hags eat children"? What does everyone think? Do they or > don't they? > > reputation in "Hansel and Gretel" and similar tales > > > Kimberly: > I too got an EE although I was pleasantly surprised. Some of the questions > seemed vague and quite ambiguous. As for the hag question... I'm not sure > although the Lexicon defines hags as "Hags are what one might refer to as > "fairy tale witches". Hags are wild in appearance, and they have been known > to eat children." Ginger adds the canon: In the Introduction to FB (p. xi, US edition), there is a sentance about "hags glided about looking for children to eat". I'll assume that if they were looking for them to eat, that this means that they do eat them. That's what I put anyway. Just for amusement, speaking of hags: Another group once asked if anyone could finish the joke DD started to tell about the hag, the troll and the leprechaun that went into a bar. I finished it as follows: A troll, a hag and a leprechaun went into a bar. The bartender looked at them and asked "How old are you?" The leprechaun answered brightly, "324". The troll concentrated, and grunted 27 times. The bartender asked the hag, "and you, ma'am?" The hag answered, "104, but why do you ask?" "We don't serve minors here." replied the bartender. "I see," said the hag, "in that case, I'll just have the raw liver." Ginger, who got an EE. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 9 02:00:18 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 02:00:18 -0000 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF In-Reply-To: <20061009005034.99897.qmail@web30215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159246 > > DA Jones here: > > Good point Ken, yet JKR has Dumbledore admits that when he makes a mistake it is a big one. Maybe he has made a huge mistake. He may think Harry has his soul, but Harry may only have Tom Riddles's soul. (Which is different then Voldemort's. Riddle's is redemable. Voldemorts isn't. > > > Jonathon Strange & Mr. Norell is dark? I just finsihed reading it and it didn't seem thjat Dark too me. > Ken: The problem with second guessing Rowling is that she lays clues pointing in every possible direction. Dumbledore could be wrong about Harry's soul, it just isn't how I would bet. I think there is a very deep darkness that runs through JS&MN. Most of the characters suffer quite a bit because of magic. The ending, while it promises the possibility of a brighter future, does not resolve the conflicts in the book with certainty. The duo are literally left under a dark cloud. I am impressed with the Harry has no soul idea. It could take the story in a very interesting direction. I give it long odds as being the direction JKR will take, that's all. The darkness in JS&MN seems to be an inescapable part of magic. Unlike the DE crowd the duo do not seek it out, it ensnares them unawares. One of the themes of the HP books is that we have a choice in this matter. I'm not sure I see a way to make soulless Harry compatible with that. Ken From dougsamu at golden.net Mon Oct 9 02:17:49 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 22:17:49 -0400 Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_ Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159247 Tonks: ... As many of you know I have been studying Alchemy. .... And as I explore this more and more, I see that Alchemy also explains things about energy. It especially explains about the energy of prayer (or the human mind and its ability to effect the material world) from a more `scientific' view. Doug: In my view, magic is projection, simply, perhaps over-simply, magic is imagination made real. Yes it requires a certain form and ritual. But this is what the Patronus is. A state of Body/Mind manifest as corporeal. In a sense , this is a technique also for Muggles to ward off depression - throw up a facade of happiness. It is about the ability of the human mind to affect the real world. Muggles do it in a psychosomatic/psychological way. Wizards do it 'for real'. Google submits to Chinese Gov't. Tibetan cybercafe warning: "Do not use Internet for any political or unintelligent purposes." ____________________ From sobernme at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 01:57:22 2006 From: sobernme at yahoo.com (sobernme) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:57:22 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159248 > zgirnius: > Snape wants Harry to know he is the HBP at some point. > Once he is forced to flee Hogwarts, it is his last chance to > reveal this fact. > > As a DDM! Snape type, I tend to think the empathy Harry had > for the Prince will help him to come to some accommodation > with Snape in Book 7. I don't think Snape is going to turn out to be a Deatheater after all, I think he killed Dumberdore only to protect Draco because of the vow he made with Draco's mother. And, I think he prevented Harry from doing an unforgivible curse to protect him. tim From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 02:34:25 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 21:34:25 -0500 Subject: Thanks everybody for your help In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610081934q7e262667n3ae18dcb6ed96f6d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159249 wrote: > > I am a fairly new to the whole Harry Potter thing. I just got > into it within the past 6 months. But I have now read all 6 > books and going back rereading them now. (Currently working on > GOF again) > > Thank you all so much for your help in answering my questions. > I'm sure I'll have more. LOL. Ya'll have been great!!! montims: I really recommend the lexicon - you can spend hours on it, just browsing and reading the essays. They have an answer for just about any canon question, leaving forums like this and TLC free to discuss the esoteric queries not covered in canon... http://www.hp-lexicon.org/ From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 02:39:45 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 21:39:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] WOMBAT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610081939j238902f2h4b91383c87a4e45e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159250 Mark Hyder wrote: > > What's the origin of WOMBAT and how relate to Harry > Potter? > > How did JK Rowling came up with the word? montims: "Wizards' Ordinary Magic and Basic Aptitude Test" and I hope I don't get into trouble for that being a 1 line answer... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Sun Oct 8 23:34:02 2006 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 19:34:02 -0400 Subject: Horcrux Theory References: Message-ID: <003601c6eb32$3dbe9470$0200a8c0@carlaathome> No: HPFGUIDX 159251 Terri: >> I've heard the theory that Harry is a horcrux. It was clearly stated that some of Voldemort's "power" passed to Harry when Voldemort tried to kill him. Anyone think that a portion of Voldemort's spirit also passed to him? Opinions? << Carla: Ok, what about Jenny? In the second book Tom Riddle clearly states that he passed part of his soul to Jenny Weasley. What do you think? From dougsamu at golden.net Mon Oct 9 03:28:06 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:28:06 -0400 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF Message-ID: <8355B5BB-7EDC-48E9-83AA-908344233C16@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159252 ken: I am impressed with the Harry has no soul idea. It could take the story in a very interesting direction. I give it long odds ... One of the themes of the HP books is that we have a choice in this matter. I'm not sure I see a way to make soulless Harry compatible with that. doug: I have always held one idea - among many - and that is that Harry as a baby was killed and inherited a fragment of Voldy's soul. It would be a very whole and complete soul for a baby body.... and held and transformed by a mothers love sacrifice, it would be pure. No soul or soul fragment in and of itself is inherently evil. It's a matter of choices as to which way it goes. One of the powerful underlying idea in the lad's 'New Voldemort/ Harry' theory seems to be an unarticulated but fairly complete understanding of Jung and the shadow self - which must be understood and accepted for a person to be complete. So, if in the final confrontation, Voldy and Harry are down each to one last piece of soul each... there will be a choice, even in a Christian kind of model of acceptance and forgiveness, Love forgiving all kind of thing and the power for Harry to accept what he actually is, and to take that last bit of Voldemorts soul, held by Voldy, into himself. Just one idea... Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 03:02:59 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:02:59 -0000 Subject: Time travel in JKR books In-Reply-To: <20061008235332.54759.qmail@web53615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159253 Raven Heart: > Not really, you have to look at the JKR theory of time travel. When an individual travels in time in the Potterverse, nothing is changed. All of the events that happened when Harry and Hermione time turned occured exactly as they did the first time they lived through those events. It's not like in some of the movies like Back to the Future and Terminator, where people travel in time and do something that screws up the whole space time continuum. In the version of time travel JKR uses, time travelling doesn't cause anything that changes the course of history, it only allows it to become the history that it already is. If someone goes back in time to prevent Harry's death after it has already happened, either they have no effect on the outcome, or they discover that it was their use of the time turner that causes Harry's death. Granted, that may not stop someone from trying to use this to continue the story of Harry Potter, but it would break JKR's rules, which would probably > make it less believable for the faithful readers. jdl3811220: Hi Raven Heart (I love that screen name by the way.) But they DID alter history when they undid Buckbeak's death. They HAD already killed Buckbeak before Harry and Hermione used the time turner. They altered time and undid it. They changed history, the space time continuum, whatever you want to call it. So, in theory, they could alter history and prevent/undo Harry's demise. I agree that faithful readers of Harry Potter wouldn't get as big of a thrill out of a Harry Potter series by another future author. I just think JK's plan is very flawed. HP won't be the same if they aren't written by JK!! Period. She is just so GENIUS! Harry is part of her, and to me someone adding to her works would be a slap in the face to her. BUT, in my opinion, she has exposed that cheek. "jdl3811220" From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 03:30:42 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 03:30:42 -0000 Subject: What about this theory? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159254 As I stated before in a previous post: In HBP (just before Snape comes out and kills Dumbledore) Dumbledore tells Draco that Voldemort can't kill Draco if Draco is already dead, meaning Voldemort would 'think' he was dead. Then he tells Draco that they (the Order) could hide Draco and his family so thoroughly that they could never be found. This gives me a tiny bit of doubt that the Potters, Dumbledore and the whole dang lot of them are really really gone. All the ones that supposedly gave their lives to the cause are "dead" but are they REALLY? HMMMM It's just a theory I'm kicking around. I really think that the Potters and Dumbledore ARE gone. And, like Dumbledore has told Harry time and time again, there is no spell that can reawaken the dead. But why would JK have Dumbledore say that to Draco unless it will have some significance in the 7th book? I also looked back at a previous post where someone suggested that Neville is the acutal Chosen One. I don't believe that. Dumbledore tells Harry that it is obvious that it IS him (Harry)in book 5. BUT look at that theory from this angle - Neville would have powers the Dark Lords knows not!! HMMM. Neville would be the secret weapon, the one to do Voldemort in! Now THAT would be cool, and downright sneaky of JK. Her books do have twists and turns:) "jdl3811220" From gwc22 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 04:03:32 2006 From: gwc22 at yahoo.com (Wayne Cochran) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 04:03:32 -0000 Subject: How to make a horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159255 I have a theory that could explain Harry!horcrux or Scar!horcrux, although I am going out on a limb here. Have we ever been told the ritual that is undertaken in creating a horcrux? I think that it is a complicated process that targets two separate things, the victim and the item the soul piece becomes attached to. So, under this theory, presumably, the ritual must begin before the murder takes place, and ends when the soul piece becomes encased in another object. Now, once a ritual like this starts, theoretically, it cannot be stopped until it is completed. What if LV began this ritual after getting James Potter out of the way? If all of this is so, then his plan was to go straight to Harry, AK him, and then encase his soul piece in whatever object he was planning on using. But, Lily steps in. He tells her to step aside, she refuses. Enraged at this silly girl, he AK's her instead. In his rage, he forgets that he must do something with this soul piece now, and instead goes right for Harry, who is now protected by the ancient magic of Lily's sacrifice. Here we have several possibilities. 1. As soon as LV points the wand at Harry, his soul fractures, leaving part of it in Harry or at least in the scar. Because of Lily's protective magic, as well as his own soul bit now with Harry, when the words Avada Kadavara are uttered, it is deflected back at LV, ripping the remaining part of his soul from his body, the combine force of the two soul pieces clashing magically destroying the house. 2. LV, realizing that he must encase this soul bit now, attempts to take care of that matter, but because Lily's death was a love sacrifice charm itself, caused the horcrux spell to not properly resolve, destroying his body, sending one soul bit into Harry, the other soul part in the other direction, the force destroying the house. There is also the possibility that LV had waited till Harry was before him unprotected before he began the ritual. At this point, Lily's sacrifice itself may have caused an interference in the horcrux creating spell, causing the whole thing to go off at once, AKing Harry while simultaneously encasing his soul bit in him. There is just so much we don't know about horcruxes. I think Slughorn will play a larger role in Book 7, giving Harry one more reason to make a short stop at Hogwarts. Feel free to expand on or tear apart any and all of these theories. Raven Heart, exhausted, and likely not making a whole lot of scents, cents, since, or scence. From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 04:42:11 2006 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 04:42:11 -0000 Subject: Something that caught my eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jdl3811220" wrote: > > Here is something that caught my eye in the last book and really > made me wonder - is Dumbledore really dead (or for that matter any > of the main characters)or is it all a ploy to foil Voldemort. HMMM > > Dumbledore tells Draco that Voldemort can not kill Draco if Draco is > already dead. He then tells Draco that they (the Order, I guess) can > hide him and his family so thoroughly they can never be found. > > This makes me really wonder if the Potters, Dumbledore himself and > others that have supposedly died for the cause are really really > gone. > Snape's Witch replies: In her August appearance in NYC Jo said that Dumbledore was definitely dead as she felt the speculation had gone on long enough and should stop. Earlier she has stated that dead is dead in Potterverse so no one is coming back to life: not the Potters, not Sirius, not Dumbledore. > Also, JK said that she was going to kill Harry off in the 7th book > so that no one could write more Harry Potter books later. Snape's Witch replies: No, what she actually said was that some authors kill off their main characters so that others wouldn't continue their stories after the original author had died. She must have been thinking of the dreadful (IMO) sequels to 'Gone with the Wind' and 'Rebecca'!! In fact, I believe she accidently let it slip at the above mentioned appearance that the Trio will indeed survive. I think the time turner question has been answered very well. Snape's Witch From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 05:12:11 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 05:12:11 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions - Cedric In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159257 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > The biggest problem is with Cedric Diggory's death. Harry should > have seen the Thestrals at the end of GoF, when he left Hogwarts for > the summer holidays. JKR said a day or so after the release of > Order, that the death has to sink in, for the Thestrals to be > visible. Harry had time to come to terms with it in the holidays, > while prior to this too much happened for him to register what it > means. I find this a plausible explanation, and I am convinced that > it wasn't made up on the stop, but that JKR did think this through. zanooda: I've read this interview, but didn't buy JKR's explanation. It sounds reasonable maybe, but she didn't have to mention the carriges at all in the end of GoF. It is the only book where she for some reason describes how the kids get to the station at the end of the year. I mean, we know that they get there in the carriges (first years by boats), but it is never actually shown. If she only kept it this way in GoF, there wouldn't be any controversy. I agree with you that JKR didn't invent this explanation right there during the interview, but I think she thought of it after GoF was out, when she noticed herself or someone told her, but it was too late to change anything. I'm not criticizing the way she writes her books and the way she explains them, I love them anyway. It's just I don't believe she really thought this one through :-) From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Oct 9 08:30:03 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:30:03 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Theory In-Reply-To: <003601c6eb32$3dbe9470$0200a8c0@carlaathome> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159258 > Carla: > Ok, what about Jenny? In the second book Tom Riddle clearly states > that he passed part of his soul to Jenny Weasley. What do you think? > So there is one seventh of LV's soul in the diary Horcrux. Yes he did put some of his soul into Ginny, but the implication is that he took most of it back as he tried to reform (and was trying to use Ginny's soul to assist him with this rebirth). Harry destroyed the Diary Horcrux which also then destroyed Tom Riddle. It seems logical to me, that the destruction of the diary Horcrux completely destroyed that piece of soul - whether it resided in Tom Riddle or Ginny. Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Mon Oct 9 08:40:46 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:40:46 -0000 Subject: LV & the Avada Kedavra Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159259 I am a little confused about something. The Avada Kedavra is the killing curse. Therefore, that would suggest that it targets and destroys the soul - Yes or no? To me it seems that the answer should be yes. If that is the case, then the rebounded Avada Kedavra should have destroyed that piece of LV's soul. To reform, he would then need to access one of his other Horcruxes. If that is the case, then only 3 Horcruxes remain plus the piece inside LV! Of course this also begs he question - Which Horcrux did he use? Now, I am not a great believer in the Harry Horcrux theory, but he is the only 'thing' used in the rebirthing ceremony that could have been a Horcrux. Might also explain DD's look of triumph - the knowledge that Harry was free of the Horcrux! Brothergib From random832 at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 11:29:29 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 07:29:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time travel in JKR books In-Reply-To: References: <20061008235332.54759.qmail@web53615.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610090429hc631000j2cbedd64843b0be5@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159260 > jdl3811220: > > Hi Raven Heart (I love that screen name by the way.) > > But they DID alter history when they undid Buckbeak's death. They > HAD already killed Buckbeak No. Harry and Hermione saw what they _thought_ was Buckbeak getting killed. It's very frustrating to explain, because the films explain it so much better so that people think it's something unique to the films which are of course off-topic here, but it IS the case in the books if you read it carefully. > jdl3811220: >So, in theory, > they could alter history and prevent/undo Harry's demise. Well, no, but maybe they could alter history and fake his death within the parameters of what was actually witnessed [there are some fanfiction stories with such a thing happening with his parents or with sirius] -- Random832 From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 9 11:54:40 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 11:54:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159261 > Sherry now: > > This isn't a complete "me too" to Alla. I don't believe for one moment that > Dumbledore would have paid any attention to Harry if he'd told about > Trelawney. If DD really knew all along what Draco was up to, he let him run > loose in the school, reeking havoc and plotting more deaths after the > necklace incident. He did nothing to stop Draco after the poisoning of Ron. Pippin: Thank you for illustrating the sort of pressure that got Sirius, Hagrid, Barty Jr, and Stan Shunpike thrown in jail regardless of the evidence because Something Must Be Done. Of course as Dumbledore says, the Ministry does occasionally nail the right person, if only by accident. But is that really the behavior you want held up as the epitome of goodness? I know Dumbledore didn't express any interest in Harry's suspicions of Draco. But that doesn't mean he didn't share them. We know Dumbledore was not sure of himself and did not think he had everything under control. Hagrid says he was worried sick after Ron was poisoned. Dumbledore told Snape to continue his investigations, so we know he was in fact doing something. So why not involve Harry? Think about it in terms of real life instead of a story; if there was an official investigation going on behind the scenes, would the authorities want a teenage boy with a grudge to help them with it? Well, Umbridge would, but the I-Squad was horrible, right? Now Harry forms his own little I-Squad, courtesy of Dobby and Kreacher, and you think the adults should cheer him on? Ick! Naturally they want to discourage him, which, as everyone who's dealt with a teenager knows, is often best done by ignoring the behavior you disapprove of rather than condemning it. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 9 12:20:58 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:20:58 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159262 I've been thinking about Draco's movements on the night of the Tower, and I've noticed a couple of curious things. One, JKR shows us in OOP that the Room of Requirement can be locked from inside, presumably keeping anyone else from entering even if they require it in its current form. Yet Draco must have left it unlocked, because Trelawney got in after him. Why? Was Draco expecting someone? Two, after he threw Trelawney out, Draco remained in the RoR until the DE's arrived. Ginny says it was about an hour after they started to keep watch. According to PoA, it takes an hour to walk to Hogsmeade. So, just moments after Draco heard from Rosmerta, the DE's arrived and the attack began. We know Voldemort can summon his servants instantly. So far, so good. But-- If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would be out of the castle that night, why wait for an hour in the RoR? Wouldn't he have gotten out of there in case Trelawney came back? The Order knew that Dumbledore would be gone that night. Did one of them tell Draco to stay put? Pippin From random832 at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 12:21:33 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 08:21:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV & the Avada Kedavra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610090521q23a32a5s4c51d99817f0119a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159263 Brothergib: > I am a little confused about something. The Avada Kedavra is the > killing curse. Therefore, that would suggest that it targets and > destroys the soul - Yes or no? To me it seems that the answer should be > yes. If that is the case, then the rebounded Avada Kedavra should have > destroyed that piece of LV's soul. To reform, he would then need to > access one of his other Horcruxes. If that is the case, then only 3 > Horcruxes remain plus the piece inside LV! Based on what we're told in the books, the AK does not destroy the soul of the target, it sends it to the afterlife (beyond the veil or wherever) - having a horcrux prevents _any_ part of the soul from leaving this plane (apparently even when separated the soul pieces "want" to stay together at least on the same plane of existence). So a horcrux isn't in any way "used up" either when LV 'dies' or is 'brought back to life' -- Random832 From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Oct 9 13:54:42 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:54:42 -0000 Subject: Time travel in JKR books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159264 > jdl3811220: > > Hi Raven Heart (I love that screen name by the way.) > > But they DID alter history when they undid Buckbeak's death. They > HAD already killed Buckbeak before Harry and Hermione used the time > turner. They altered time and undid it. They changed history, the > space time continuum, whatever you want to call it. So, in theory, > they could alter history and prevent/undo Harry's demise. Magpie: Actually, they didn't. They *thought* they undid Buckbeak's death, but the whole time what they had heard was their rescuing him. Though it's really not, imo, that they can't change history. It's that JKR writes it so that the history we see can't be changed. The way she writes Time Travel in her books, we know there won't be any Time Travel that changes what we saw the first time--it can reinterpret it, but it can't change it, because no one has any memory of times that were changed. It's actually not that different than Back to the Future. Marty's family has no memory of the lives they lived before he went back in time. When he returns they think they've always been this way, that things always went the way they did in the movie. Where there is a difference is that Marty himself recalls his original life even after he changes history. He has no memory of the altered history. Since no future people saved Sirius, for instance, we know they won't use the TT to save him. It's that they can't because they didn't, not they don't because they can't, if that makes sense. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Oct 9 14:35:40 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:35:40 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159265 > Pippin: > Thank you for illustrating the sort of pressure that got Sirius, Hagrid, > Barty Jr, and Stan Shunpike thrown in jail regardless of the evidence > because Something Must Be Done. Of course as Dumbledore says, > the Ministry does occasionally nail the right person, if only by accident. > But is that really the behavior you want held up as the epitome of > goodness? Magpie: But who said anything about throwing him in jail? Dumbledore does know that Draco is guilty--it's not like at the end he says anything about holding off until he got proof. He's not looking for proof-- he's not looking to act on Draco's "crime" in any way but to protect him and try to get him on a better path. He *does* share Harry's suspicions of Draco--they're actually more than suspicions for him. And Dumbledore's never been a particular mouthpiece for needing evidence to know what's going on. Pippin: > I know Dumbledore didn't express any interest in Harry's > suspicions of Draco. But that doesn't mean he didn't share > them. We know Dumbledore was not sure of himself and did > not think he had everything under control. Hagrid > says he was worried sick after Ron was poisoned. Dumbledore > told Snape to continue his investigations, so we know he was > in fact doing something. So why not involve Harry? Magpie Yes, but involving Harry isn't the point. The point is that Dumbledore dismisses Harry's suspicions because he knows more about the situation than Harry does, not because he just can't believe Draco's the one without physical proof. Acting on Harry's suspicions that final night wouldn't even have had to have anything to do with Malfoy, since Harry doesn't know for sure who was whooping. Seems to me Dumbledore's mistake is that he doesn't think anyone can get through the castle's defenses, not that he was hamstrung by suddenly not being sure of himself about what was going on, which is what he seems to say outright when the subject comes up. Hagrid's report of Dumbledore's state of mind is naturally flawed. He says Dumbledore is worried sick and doesn't know what's going on, but also says that Dumbledore says little about it--iow, this is Hagrid's projection. Hagrid is far more clueless than Dumbledore. He says Dumbledore's probably got "hundreds" of ideas about who is responsible for the attempted murders but doesn't know who did it because if he did know *they'd've been caught, wouldn' they?* But Dumbledore later tells us that of course he had a good idea of who did it--Draco. He says nothing about not being sure. Draco even challenges him on Hagrid's perception--why didn't he stop Draco if he "knew" Draco was guilty. Dumbledore answers not that he didn't have proof but that he was *trying* to stop him--for example, through Snape. Both Hagrid and Hermione offer conclusions in that chapter that push us in the opposite direction than the real answer. Dumbledore's line about investigations in Slytherin is I think intentionally quite ambiguous--he could very well be referring to Snape's surveillance of Draco. Regardless of whether Dumbledore was 100% sure about Draco being the culprit (and I see no sign that he wasn't), his behavior about suspicions of Draco is explained by his trying to handle the Malfoy/Voldemort situation not by his needing proof. This just isn't set up as Dumbledore protecting Draco from Harry's unfair accusations. It's Dumbledore trying to handle the Draco situation in his own way and wanting Harry off the track. (And while Dumbledore's own surveillance of Draco might not be 24/7, he does have Snape on it.) I thought Sherry and Alla were just pointing out that Dumbledore's not acting on Harry's reported whooping for the same reason he doesn't act on any of Harry's warnings throughout the year--he knows more about the situation than Harry and thinks it's under control. I have to admit I agree with them about the idea that hearing about Trelawney would have so changed Dumbledore's mind and made him head to the RoR. Why? People keep talking about a teacher being "assaulted" but she's not assaulted or attacked. She's strongarmed out of the room. She walks in, calls out, the room goes pitch black (due to a powder bought at the local joke shop run by Hogwarts favorites) and the person throws her out of the room like a bouncer would throw out an unwanted patron. She's already drunk so it's not like Malfoy has to throw her down or kick her leave her sprawled on the ground. There's nothing that I can see that makes the situation very different if Dumbledore knows that the person whooping in the RoR also wants privacy. It's certainly not acceptable behavior for a student to a teacher, but I don't think it's something Dumbledore would have stopped anything to do something about. -m From enlil65 at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 14:41:29 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:41:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: More to Petunia than meets the eye In-Reply-To: References: <1789c2360610071043k3f08d20ep17d139fcfc82cef1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360610090741s6037d3b9x6be615ff8bf6869@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159266 On 10/8/06, woollybear_99 wrote: > woollybear_99: > An interesting thought but can we even be sure that Polyjuice > Potion would work on muggles? What if it just makes them sick or > does nothing at all? And can muggles even see Hogwarts? But again > it is an intersting thought. On a personal note I think my mother > in law could be Petunia under the spell of Polyjuice Potion. Peggy W: We can't know for sure Polyjuice would work on a Muggle, but as a supporting example that potions can have the same effect on Wizard and Muggle alike, we see that Merope's love potion (unfortunately) had the desired effect on Tom Riddle, Sr. Sorry to hear about your mother-in-law! -- Peggy Wilkins "We Kingly Pigs" enlil65 at gmail.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 15:00:23 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:00:23 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Draco_Unredeemed_and_the_Cabinet_That_Won=92t_Die_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159267 Renee wrote: > What if, for instance, Regulus Black (assuming he's RAB) turned > against Voldemort because he discovered the purebloods were merely > used as tools, and this angered him? We don't know why exactly he > tried to thwart Voldemort, but it doesn't have to be because he > suddenly realised racism is wrong. Maybe he did, but this doesn't > necessarily follow from the fact that he changed his mind about > Voldemort. > > Likewise, Draco can very well go on believing that purebloods are > several notches above the rest of the WW, yet come to the conclusion > this conviction is not worth damaging your soul by killing people. > This is commendable, but it doesn't make him a wonderful guy. And he > doesn't have to be. (I'd even go as far as saying that he has a right to go on considering himself superior to halfbloods and muggleborns. Though I'm not sure JKR will let him.) Carol responds: First, I want to protest (in vain, I realize) against the word "racism" to describe blood prejudice. Race has nothing to do with it, as Angelina, Dean, Blaise, Lee and others )say, the Patil twins and Cho Chang) illustrate. There's not the slightest hint of true racism in the WW. The prejudice against nonmagical people permeates the WW, and among Slytherins in general and some non-Slytherin pureblood families, it extends to Muggleborns as well. But it has nothing to do with race. "Mudblood" Hermione is a member of the same race as pureblood Draco (White or Caucasian), and both are members of the same race as Muggle Dudley. Possibly this prejudice is analogous to racism in our world, but it isn't identical to it. Second, I think that what you describe as happening to Draco is most likely what happened to Regulus. I doubt that he gave up his belief in pureblood superiority. After all, it was part of his upbringing and seven years in Slytherin House would have done nothing to change that. I'm sure he still thought of himself as part of "nature's aristocracy." But believing that others are inferior to you and torturing and killing those supposed inferiors are two different things. As Quirrell says of Snape in SS/PS, he hated you but he didn't want to kill you. And regarding someone as inferior is even weaker grounds for killing that person than hating them--except for people who carry eugenics to an extreme like the advocates of "racial purity" (again a mistaken concept since European Jews and non-Jewish Germans are members of the same race and the Aryan race is nonexistent). Otherwise, people with PhDs in nuclear physics would be killing off the rest of us. Or, to take a WW example, purebloods would kill off their house-elves as "inferior beings." Regulus may have believed that Muggleborns should serve purebloods but drawn the line at killing them, rather like rich slaveowners in the American South who drew the line at whipping and otherwise abusing their slaves. IOW, it's possible to hold views that we postmodern Muggles consider reprehensible without having a Ku Klux Klan or Nazi mentality, whether that view is true racism or blood prejudice. As for Draco, he seems to have thought, until he was actually faced with doing it, that killing "Mudbloods" and Muggle-loving old fools (his view of Dumbledore) was perfectly acceptable. I haven't seen him expressing any concern whatever for his soul. Maybe he doesn't even know that killing splits the soul (it seems that Tom Riddle didn't until Slughorn told him) or that Unforgiveable Curses, as we've seen with the Crouches and Bellatrix, lead to corruption and madness. Or so it seems to me. I think that the way to persuade Draco to fight Voldemort is to persuade him that Voldemort's is the losing side--and that won't be easy. The alternative is for Voldemort to harm or kill one of Draco's parents, in which case, he'll want revenge. Otherwise, he'll probably either break under pressure and do what Voldemort wants or stand there doing nothing and be killed for being ineffectual. What absolutely won't happen, IMO, is a change in his views on pureblood superiority and his interest in Dark Magic. Carol, hoping that Snape will be the one to point Draco in the right direction From cass_da_sweet at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 08:52:08 2006 From: cass_da_sweet at yahoo.com (cass_da_sweet) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:52:08 -0000 Subject: LV & the Avada Kedavra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159268 > Brothergib: > I am a little confused about something. The Avada Kedavra is the > killing curse. Therefore, that would suggest that it targets and > destroys the soul - Yes or no? To me it seems that the answer > should be yes. If that is the case, then the rebounded Avada > Kedavra should have destroyed that piece of LV's soul. To reform, > he would then need to access one of his other Horcruxes. If that > is the case, then only 3 Horcruxes remain plus the piece inside LV! > Cass_da_sweet: If you remember DD said that Harry had to destroy all the horcruxes, before he would be able to distroy the piece of soul that was in LV's body. So the piece that's in LV's body can't be distroyed untill the rest of his horcruxes are gone. From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 12:29:00 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 07:29:00 -0500 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610090529r35f95928y160032058223446e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159269 pippin_999 wrote: If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would be out of the castle that night, why wait for an hour in the RoR? Wouldn't he have gotten out of there in case Trelawney came back? montims: Maybe he was in Diagon Alley, finalising plans? From mark.a.ryan at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 12:04:45 2006 From: mark.a.ryan at gmail.com (mark ryan) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:04:45 -0000 Subject: Time travel in JKR books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jdl3811220" wrote: > But they DID alter history when they undid Buckbeak's death. They > HAD already killed Buckbeak before Harry and Hermione used the time > turner. They altered time and undid it. They changed history, the > space time continuum, whatever you want to call it. We never had confirmation that Buckbeak was dead. "There was a jumble of male voices, a silence, and then, without warning, the unmistakable swish and thud of an axe." Then before Hermione and Harry can go see Hagrid, Scabbers runs off. It turns out later on that Macnair had swung his axe into the fence. In the film, he smashed a pumpkin. mark From shivifree2find at yahoo.co.in Mon Oct 9 13:40:56 2006 From: shivifree2find at yahoo.co.in (shivifree2find) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:40:56 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159271 Hi! I am new to this group. Harry Potter is my childhood hero and reading his books is my favourite pass time. When I heard he is going to die in 7th part I had a feeling that I have lost my senses and become mad. I can do anything to see the movie and read the book. I can go to see the movie or read the book even if I have any disease. shivifree2find From unicornspride at charter.net Mon Oct 9 14:01:41 2006 From: unicornspride at charter.net (Lana Bingenheimer) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:01:41 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159272 > Tim: > > I don't think Snape is going to turn out to be a Deatheater > after all, I think he killed Dumberdore only to protect Draco > because of the vow he made with Draco's mother. And, I think > he prevented Harry from doing an unforgivible curse to protect > him. > ****************** Hi, Here is my take on it. I think that Snape was indeed trying to protect Draco from doing the killing. I believe that by killing Dumbledore, Draco would have been in a "no turning back" point. Not to mention Snape promised Dracos mom. I also have some suspicion that maybe in some form Snape must have confided in Dumbledore to some degree as to "what may happen" and it was probably Dumbledore's wish to be defeated by Snape's hand rather than Draco's. Trying to protect the young type of thing. And, how do we know that Dumbledore is really gone for real? Could this be a ruse that will turn around when Harry really needs it to? Hmmmm... Lana From foodiedb at optonline.net Mon Oct 9 13:50:56 2006 From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:50:56 -0000 Subject: Something that caught my eye In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159273 > Jenni wrote: > > He then tells Draco that they (the Order, I guess) can hide > > him and his family so thoroughly they can never be found. > > > > This makes me really wonder if the Potters, Dumbledore himself > > and others that have supposedly died for the cause are really > > really gone. > > Snape's Witch replies: > In her August appearance in NYC Jo said that Dumbledore was > definitely dead as she felt the speculation had gone on long > enough and should stop. Earlier she has stated that dead is > dead in Potterverse so no one is coming back to life: not the > Potters, not Sirius, not Dumbledore. David says: What you say is true, however, as many have pointed out, she said Dumbledore is dead, she didn't, however, say that Albus was dead. Could it have been Albus' brother or another relative? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 16:37:40 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 16:37:40 -0000 Subject: DIARY- Misconception ( was A new Voldemort/Harry Theory...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159274 --- "spookedook" wrote: > > KathyO wrote: > > 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? > > Tinktonks: > > I can see where you're coming from on this but > personally I dont think there was anything 'easy' about > having your arm pierced by a highly poisonous fang of > a creature that can kill you without even getting close. > > I don't think its fair to say it was easy. The basilisk > was .. the most poisonous inescapable creature possible. > Therefore the potency of the poison very high - not > suprising a horcrux should succumb to this. > > ...edited... > > Tinktonks > bboyminn: There is a slight misconception here with regards to the nature of the protections surrounding the Horcruxes. First regarding the Diary, the Diary differs from the other Horcruxes in that it was meant to be used. The whole purpose of the Diary was that it was to be placed in the hands of some unsuspecting citizen at some time in order to release the Basilisk. The other Horcruxes were not meant to be found and used, they were meant to be hidden away and never found by anyone ever. Notice that the Locket Horcrux itself was easy to obtain once you got past all the external enchantments protecting it. With regard to the Ring, we can't be sure. Certainly there were external enchantments protecting it, but since it was in a somewhat unprotected area, the Gaunt farm, it may have not only had external protections but may have also had a protective curse of some type placed directly on it in case some muggle or magical person came snooping around and accidentally discovered it. That is very much NOT likely to happen with the locket in the cave. It is not likely to be found by accident in such a remote and difficult to access cave. So anyone coming to the cave is likely to be there for one specific purpose; therefore access to the locket must be guarded, but the Locket itself seems not to contain any protective curse. Now we know that these are all powerful magical objects, it is possible that some of the 'objects' innate power is released when the Horcrux is destroyed and the soul-bit is released. Considering that, it is possible that the Ring was not cursed and that some internal innate magical power was spontaneously released when it was destroyed. The Diary was a common muggle object bought at a common muggle store, it did not have a centuries long history over which to accumulate magical power, so there would have been very little to release when it was destroyed. So, my point is, we need to be careful not to confuse the charms protecting the /location/ of the Horcrux with any potential magical power that might have been applied to the Horcrux itself. All the magic we see in the cave has been applied to the /location/. Until we see a Horcrux, other than the Diary which is a unique case, destroyed we can't say for sure how dangerous that process is. As to the Ring, Dumbledore may have been injured by charms protecting the location, or by protective curses placed on the Ring, or by the release of inherent magical power when the Ring was broken open. If it was 'inherent magical power' then that situation was unique specifically to the Ring, and would be very different for other magical objects like the Hufflepuff Cup. So in conclusion, we must be careful to separate the protections placed on the /location/ of a Horcrux from whatever magical power the object itself may or may not contain. That's all I'm saying. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 17:03:52 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:03:52 -0000 Subject: LV & the Avada Kedavra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159275 --- , "esmith222002" wrote: > > I am a little confused about something. The Avada > Kedavra is the killing curse. Therefore, that would > suggest that it targets and destroys the soul - Yes or > no? To me it seems that the answer should be yes. bboyminn: Here is the first flaw in your theory. Ask yourself 'What is death to you and me?'. Mortal death is the death of the body which is the vehicle that defines our earthly existance and provides our sense of indentity. The Soul in most religious is generally thought to be eternal. Voldemort's remote soul-bits still have functioning bodies so they are not going to pass on to the afterlife if some other part of the soul loses its body. As long as those soul-bits have functioning bodies, Voldemort's core soul will not pass over into the afterlife. It remains earth- bound. When Harry has destroyed the bodies of the soul-bits, then there is nothing to hold Voldemort's soul to the earth. In the final event, when Voldemort's body is destroyed, his soul will cross over into the afterlife and that will be the end of the identity know as Tom Riddle/Voldemort. For the record, it is my belief that it is the Horcruxes, teh /bodies/, that Harry has to destroy, not the soul-bits contained within. Those soul-bits are eternal, when released they are free of their physical body but unable to cross over without the other soul-bit; they are /free/ but still earth-bound. They are what I refer to a free-roaming souls. They are still on earth but in no way provide Voldemort with any protection from death. As soon as Voldemort's body can be effectively destroyed, all the soul-bit cross over into the afterlife at once. Sorry to shoot down your theory. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 17:08:22 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 17:08:22 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159276 > Pippin: > I've been thinking about Draco's movements on the night of the Tower, and > I've noticed a couple of curious things. > > One, JKR shows us in OOP that the Room of Requirement can be > locked from inside, presumably keeping anyone else from entering even if > they require it in its current form. Yet Draco must have left it unlocked, > because Trelawney got in after him. Why? Was Draco expecting someone? > Neri: I see no sense in keeping it locked. It would just look suspicious to anybody trying to use the room for hiding something. Draco could simply let them in and hide himself somewhere in the room (big as a cathedral with many alleyway and roads) while they were at their business. He should have done the same with Trelawney too, except that she heard him whooping and he obviously panicked. > Pippin: > Two, after he threw Trelawney out, Draco remained in the RoR until > the DE's arrived. Ginny says it was about an hour after they started > to keep watch. According to PoA, it takes an hour to walk to Hogsmeade. > So, just moments after Draco heard from Rosmerta, the DE's > arrived and the attack began. We know Voldemort can > summon his servants instantly. So far, so good. But-- > > If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would be > out of the castle that night, why wait for an hour in the RoR? > Wouldn't he have gotten out of there in case Trelawney came back? > > The Order knew that Dumbledore would be gone that night. Did one > of them tell Draco to stay put? Neri: Ah, the Missing One Hour . First, an hour walk to Hogsmeade sounds a bit too much to me. At least it seems that in PoA everybody reaches the Shrieking Shack much faster than that. What exactly is the canon that it takes a whole hour? An hour (or two or three) to organize of at least eight DEs and plan an operation like that seems quite reasonable, assuming they weren't prepared for it in a moment notice 24/7 throughout the year. Dumbledore was spending many nights outside the castle that year, and it wasn't much of a secret (he was usually making a point of showing himself in the Three Broomsticks or in the Hog's Head). Considering that Dumbledore was the main target of the operation, the DEs should be extremely stupid to start before they have some intelligence regarding his whereabouts. They may have been waiting for any news from Rosmerta. So as a whole this sounds to me like rather big leap to deduce the existence of a traitor, but it should definitely be interesting to chart the timeline of that night. BTW, who's Virginia? Neri From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Oct 9 17:45:08 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:45:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Something that caught my eye Message-ID: <2d7.6b6610.325be4a4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159277 In a message dated 10/9/2006 12:31:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, foodiedb at optonline.net writes: What you say is true, however, as many have pointed out, she said Dumbledore is dead, she didn't, however, say that Albus was dead. Could it have been Albus' brother or another relative ==================== If y'all are done splittin' them rabbits, mind puttin' 'em on the fire to roast? :-) The question to which JKR responded with this comment dealt with ALBUS Dumbledore. Additionally, by convention when "Dumbledore" is used alone in canon, it refers to ALBUS Dumbledore (check the books - "Dumbledore" always means Albus, not Aberforth or anyone else). When she included this statement in her response to Mr. Rushdie, she was saying that the person she refers to on a regular basis by the single name "Dumbledore" is, indeed, dead. And that would be Albus. Sherrie (who figures it's like someone saying "Boone" - they don't mean Becky or Mima, they mean Dan'l) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 18:15:44 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:15:44 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159278 --- "Stephen and Angelique" wrote: > > Hey. I just joined this group today. Both my husband > and I are Harry Potter fans. ... I have a few questions > that I'm hoping somebody might be able to answer. > > First, I believe it's in the 5th book that the Thestrals > are first mentioned. They say that only those who have > witnessed death can see these creatures. ... Why does > he not see the Thestrals until his fifth year? > bboyminn: First is it safe to assume you have read all the available books so far. You mention book 5, so it seems you have read at least that far. I would hate to introduce something that would spoil newer books for you. Others have already elaborated on the reason why Harry's parents and Quirrel's deaths did not count, so I won't touch that aspect. As far as Cedric's death, let me diverge for a moment and remind you of the stages of grieving. The first stage is Denial. You brain says, I have this data and I know it to be true, but your heart refuses to accept it. That is the stage Harry is in at the end of Goblet of Fire. He intellectually knows Cedric is dead, but his heart hasn't accepted it yet. He goes through a huge stage of denial when someone very close to him dies in book 5 (don't want to spoil it). As to whether JKR added this as an after thought or whether she was aware of it when she was writting, I think she was well aware of it. On her website - http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=21 She explains this in the second paragraph. Combining this with information from interviews, she said she knew this was going to be a problem, but she didn't want to introduce a mystery of this magnitude in book four that wouldn't be explained for a couple of years. It's a good think too, or all our heads would have probably exploded trying to figure it out. So, she needed a rational explanation for leaving it out of book 4 (GoF), and that explanation was that it takes time to process death. It takes time to get beyond the stage of emotional denial and into the stage of emotional acceptance in the grieving process. She explains it very well in the link provided above. > mrnmrswatters continue: > > Also, I think that Crookshanks the cat might turn out > to be an animagi but my husband thinks not. Does > anybody else think this cat might be something besides > just a cat? > > mrnmrswatters > bboyminn: One could speculate that, but one must ask one's self how that could possibly happen. Hermione bought that Cat in a pet store, she went into the pet story to buy an Owl. What are the odds that anyone could have predicted that Hermione would go into that particular pet story at that particular time and buy that particulat pet? And, who would volunteer to take on that job? Who would volunteer to spend an unknown number of years disguised as a magical cat? And for what purpose? There is something special about Crookshanks but it is the fact that he/she is a Kneasle; a special magical variety of cat with special, though somewhat limited, magical powers. For a brief summary of Kneasles see- http://www.hp-lexicon.org/bestiary/bestiary_k.html#kneazle Note it is likely that Crookshanks is part Kneasle. Information specifically on Crookshanks including quotes from JKR - http://www.hp-lexicon.org/bestiary/crookshanks.html Hope that helps, and welcome to the group. It can get a bit hectic at times and the discussion can get very emotional and intense at times, but all posts are welcome (within the posting guidelines, of course). Some new comers are a bit intimidated here, but new posts on old subjects are welcome. They frequently allow us to examine an old hashed-out subject from a new perspective. Look as the posts generated by your simple questions. Any idea or theory that can be reasonably state will be reasonably accepted and answered. Enjoy. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 18:50:52 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:50:52 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159279 --- "shivifree2find" wrote: > > Hi! I am new to this group. Harry Potter is my > childhood hero and reading his books is my favourite > pass time. When I heard he is going to die in 7th part > I had a feeling that I have lost my senses and become > mad. I can do anything to see the movie and read the > book. I can go to see the movie or read the book > even if I have any disease. > > shivifree2find > bboyminn: Keep in mind that you heard that Harry MIGHT die in book 7, not that he /will/ die. That is still an unknown. I have said before that if Harry dies in the final book, there will be an outpouring of sadness and grief that will rival the death of beloved King, Queens, and Presidents. I can see the world coming to a near shutdown over grief from Harry's death. Yet, I trust the author. If Harry must die then I trust it will be a heroic and noble death that, while it will sadden me, will also satisfy me. There are far worse fates in life than a noble heroic death. I won't like it, but I can handle it if Harry's death has meaning and purpose, though I think that is a sad ending for this story. As to the books and movies, I agree, it would take forces of an epic nature to keep me from being first in line to buy the latest book or see the latest movie. Welcome to the group. Steve/bboyminn From elanor.isolda at googlemail.com Mon Oct 9 18:45:12 2006 From: elanor.isolda at googlemail.com (Elanor Isolda) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:45:12 +0100 Subject: Announcement: Sectus link up with Fiction Alley Message-ID: <6493bc80610091145k645c2691m7616a8229dfa7533@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159280 Take a stroll down Fiction Alley in London! Sectus are pleased to announce an exciting partnership with Fiction Alley, the largest fanfiction site in the Harry Potter fandom. For the duration of Sectus 2007, Fiction Alley will not be an alley at all, but a room dedicated to promoting creativity in the fandom. Fiction Alley will play host to creative writing workshops, live fiction readings and opportunities for informal discussions and meetups. There will also be drabble booths, where writers from within fandom will be on hand to turn your ideas into short works of fiction. And for the artistically inclined, drawble booths will be the place to visit to have your vision turned into a piece of art. "We're thrilled to support Sectus," says Fiction Alley's Heidi Tandy, "and this will be a wonderful creative outlet for the fans." "Creativity is a huge part of fandom, and often an underestimated one," adds Llama of the Sectus Programming Team. "Fiction Alley will provide a central location for those who are inspired by the Harry Potter books, and this will run alongside the academic stream of the conference." Have any ideas that would be suitable for Fiction Alley? You can get involved by submitting a proposal for a workshop, discussion or other event to submissions at sectus.org. Almost any format can be arranged ? in keeping with the theme of Fiction Alley, the only limit is your imagination! ** Sectus 2007 is an unofficial Harry Potter conference taking place in London, England from July 19-22 2007. Registration is now open, and the special rate of ?45 is available only until 31st October 2006. For more information, visit www.sectus.org For more information about Fiction Alley, visit www.fictionalley.org. ** This press release can be found in .doc, .rtf and .pdf formats at www.sectus.org/press.php If you have any queries or would like to receive copies of all press releases automatically, please email me directly. All the best, Elanor Isolda Conference Chair Sectus 2007 -- http://elanor-isolda.livejournal.com Celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Harry Potter series in the country where it all began! Visit http://www.sectus.org for details. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 9 18:58:46 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:58:46 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159281 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shivifree2find" wrote: > > Hi! I am new to this group. Harry Potter is my childhood hero > and reading his books is my favourite pass time. When I heard > he is going to die in 7th part I had a feeling that I have lost > my senses and become mad. I can do anything to see the movie > and read the book. I can go to see the movie or read the book > even if I have any disease. Geoff: Surely, JKR has //not// said that Harry will die. IIRC, she has coyly dodged the issue when questioned on various occasions and left us all up in the air. I think that if she really wants to kill him and lets that slip, mayhem will break out. :-) I continue to remain a paid-up member of IWHTLC (the I want Harry to live club). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 19:18:12 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:18:12 -0000 Subject: How to make a horcrux -- one small flaw In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159282 --- "Wayne Cochran" wrote: > > I have a theory that could explain Harry!horcrux or > Scar!horcrux, although I am going out on a limb here. > Have we ever been told the ritual that is undertaken in > creating a horcrux? I think that it is a complicated > process that targets two separate things, the victim > and the item the soul piece becomes attached to. So, > under this theory, presumably, the ritual must begin > before the murder takes place, and ends when the soul > piece becomes encased in another object. Now, once a > ritual like this starts, theoretically, it cannot be > stopped until it is completed. > > ...edited... bboyminn: Just one small thing that you need to explain away before I can accept your theory. When we see Tom Riddle in Slughorn's memory, he is wearing the Ring, so he has killed his father and grandparents, and framed Morphin. But, it is only at this later time that he is initially asking Slughorn about Horcruxes and how they work. So, we must assume that it was some time after that that he completed his research into Horcruxes and actually makes a Horcrux from their deaths. Consequently, that implies there can't be any advance preparation process as part of the creation of a Horcrux. Explain that away and we will take it from there. Personally, I think creating a Horcrux is simply a matter of assigning a soul-bit to a new body; which can be done at any time after the soul-bit is created, somewhat similar to a switching or transfer spell, though certainly more complicated and difficult. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From tonks_op at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 19:45:20 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:45:20 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610090529r35f95928y160032058223446e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159283 > pippin_999 wrote: > > If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would be out > of the castle that night, why wait for an hour in the RoR? > Wouldn't he have gotten out of there in case Trelawney came > back? > > montims: > Maybe he was in Diagon Alley, finalising plans? > Tonks: Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Diagon Alley is in London. Once the students are at school the only place they can go is Hogsmead. I don't think that Draco would be apperating around and not sure you can apparate from just outside the gates all the way to Diagon Alley anyway. And it is night. I assume that Diagon Alley is not open at night. Pippin does present an interest thought. Did Draco stay in the room and if so is there a spy in the Order? I hope it isn't McGonagall. Did Snape know that DD was leaving? I have to go back and listen to the book again. It is so hard to remember all of the details over time. Tonks_op From dsueiro at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 19:37:22 2006 From: dsueiro at gmail.com (Diego Sueiro) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:37:22 -0300 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: How to make a horcrux -- one small flaw In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8de2fdd80610091237p4d349f23pcedd7e7642d01193@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159284 Steve/bboyminn: > But, it is only at this later time that he is initially > asking Slughorn about Horcruxes and how they work. So, > we must assume that it was some time after that that > he completed his research into Horcruxes and actually > makes a Horcrux from their deaths. Consequently, that > implies there can't be any advance preparation process > as part of the creation of a Horcrux. > Diego: Although I'm not completly sure about this, I think it's possible that, when asking Slughorn, Tom just wanted his opinion on making several Horcruxes, not about the process itself, which he might have known beforehand. With respect to having made a Horcrux or not at that point, that is another matter. The fact that he is still wearing the ring and his Modus Operandi (making an Horcrux and hiding it) seems to imply that he had no't. And the fact that, after having observed this same memory, Dumbledore still believes (or at least says to) that Tom used his father's death to make a Horcrux (it doesn't matter if that's right or wrong), seems to allow for the possibility of making a Horcrux way after murdering. I don't think that Albus didn't know how to make a Horcrux, but, as stated by Professor McGonagall, he was just to noble to do it. Diego From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 20:01:57 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:01:57 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159285 --- "Tonks" wrote: > > > pippin_999 wrote: > > > > If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would > > be out of the castle that night, why wait for an hour > > in the RoR? Wouldn't he have gotten out of there in case > > Trelawney came back? > > > > montims: > > Maybe he was in Diagon Alley, finalising plans? > > > > Tonks: > Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Diagon Alley is in > London. Once the students are at school the only place > they can go is Hogsmead. ... And it is night. I assume > that Diagon Alley is not open at night. > > Pippin does present an interest thought. Did Draco stay > in the room and if so is there a spy in the Order? I > hope it isn't McGonagall. Did Snape know that DD was > leaving? I have to go back and listen to the book again. > It is so hard to remember all of the details over > time. > > Tonks_op > bboyminn: Ouuu... once again just a slight minor techincal problem with this theory. Since Draco has now created a perfect way to get Death Eater /into/ the castle, he has also created a perfect way for himself to get /out/ of the castle. Draco used the cabinet to get to Knockturn Alley then Apparated to where ever he had to be to rally the troop. Then they all returned to Hogwarts to spring the trap. We assume Draco was trapped in the room, but we don't actually know that. He had a quick and easy backdoor route out of and in to the castle, and he likely used it. Sorry, but this small detail needed to be said. Steve/bboyminn From wlhunter at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 9 19:26:42 2006 From: wlhunter at sbcglobal.net (Wendy) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 19:26:42 -0000 Subject: A new Voldemort/Harry Theory based on a challenge post. on HPFF In-Reply-To: <8355B5BB-7EDC-48E9-83AA-908344233C16@golden.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159286 > doug: > > I have always held one idea - among many - and that is that Harry as > a baby was killed and inherited a fragment of Voldy's soul. It would > be a very whole and complete soul for a baby body.... and held and > transformed by a mothers love sacrifice, it would be pure. > > It all basically comes down to one thing. How does one make a Horcrux? There must be a spell or charm involved, otherwise the magical world would be full of accidental Horcruxes, what with all the Wizard murders that are going on. I suspect it is also a complicated bit of magic. Something that can not be by accident, but only with purpose. I do not think Harry is either Voldemort or a Horcrux, although I love the theory's that are being bounced about. When Voldies hex rebounded off of Harry and destroyed his body all that was left of him was the small remnant of his soul that was still residing in his body. If that remnant went into Harry's body, what was the ouze that was slithering arround Albania and taking over Quirrell? We must also remember that James was a powerfull Wizard and Lily excelled at charmes. Both of those qualities were passed down to Harry. James became an Animagus at a young age = Harry can produce a Patronus at a young age. Both are exceptionally powerfull pieces of magic in a young wizard. Harry just takes after his parents. wendy From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 9 20:31:27 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:31:27 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159287 "Steve" wrote: > if Harry dies in the final book, there > will be an outpouring of sadness and > grief that will rival the death of > beloved King, Queens, and Presidents. > I can see the world coming to a near > shutdown over grief from Harry's death. I think that's true, and that's exactly why I think Harry will die. The entire point of being a writer is to touch people's emotions, so how could JKR resist the temptation to create a worldwide emotional earthquake of that magnitude? > 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 From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 9 20:41:05 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:41:05 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159288 > > Pippin: > > I've been thinking about Draco's movements on the night of the > Tower, and > > I've noticed a couple of curious things. > > > > One, JKR shows us in OOP that the Room of Requirement can be > > locked from inside, presumably keeping anyone else from entering even if > > they require it in its current form. Yet Draco must have left it > unlocked, > > because Trelawney got in after him. Why? Was Draco expecting someone? > > > > Neri: > I see no sense in keeping it locked. It would just look suspicious to > anybody trying to use the room for hiding something. Draco could > simply let them in and hide himself somewhere in the room (big as a > cathedral with many alleyway and roads) while they were at their > business. He should have done the same with Trelawney too, except that > she heard him whooping and he obviously panicked. > Pippin: Why would it look suspicious? Any former member of the I-squad or the DA could have been using the Room to hide things, and no one who was hiding something would want to be discovered. The vanishing cabinet cannot have been too far from the entrance. Draco needed to be close enough to hear the clang of the dropped scales, which meant that any sounds he was making could also be heard by anyone who came in. Clearly he would need to fear discovery. > > Neri: > Ah, the Missing One Hour . > > First, an hour walk to Hogsmeade sounds a bit too much to me. At least > it seems that in PoA everybody reaches the Shrieking Shack much faster > than that. What exactly is the canon that it takes a whole hour? Pippin: PoA ch 10 It took ages, but Harry had the thought of Honeyduke's to sustain him. After what felt like an hour, the passage began to rise. Panting, Harry sped up, his face hot, his feet very cold. Ten minutes later, he came to the foot of some worn stone steps, which rose out of sight above him. PoA ch 17 On and on went the passaage, it felt at least as long as the one to Honeydukes. -- An hour also matches with the PoA timeline. An hour for Harry and co to walk out to the shack, an hour of conversation, and an hour back again. Three turns should do it. Neri: > An hour (or two or three) to organize of at least eight DEs and plan > an operation like that seems quite reasonable, assuming they weren't > prepared for it in a moment notice 24/7 throughout the year. Pippin: Voldemort expects his DE's to answer his summons instantly. Snape's failure to do so was a cause for suspicion. Dumbledore didn't keep his absences from the castle a secret, but we know he didn't inform Order members who weren't going to be on guard that he would be absent, or Tonks would have known. If the soonest Draco could have known that Dumbledore had left was when Rosmerta sent him the message, we have to give him some reason for hanging about in the RoR. montims: Maybe he was in Diagon Alley, finalising plans? Pippin: Good point! The cabinet would let him leave the school and go to wherever the other one was, perhaps still at B and B's. From there he might have been able to apparate. But would Draco risk being spotted elsewhere when he was supposed to be at Hogwarts? And why would he be finalising plans if he doesn't yet know when the attack will be? Neri: > BTW, who's Virginia? Pippin: A young lady long noted for her skepticism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_Virginia,_there_is_a_Santa_Claus From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Oct 9 20:42:26 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 20:42:26 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_Draco_Unredeemed_and_the_Cabinet_That_Won=92t_Die_(long)?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Renee wrote: > > > What if, for instance, Regulus Black (assuming he's RAB) turned > > against Voldemort because he discovered the purebloods were merely > > used as tools, and this angered him? We don't know why exactly he > > tried to thwart Voldemort, but it doesn't have to be because he > > suddenly realised racism is wrong. Maybe he did, but this doesn't > > necessarily follow from the fact that he changed his mind about > > Voldemort. > > > > Carol responds: > First, I want to protest (in vain, I realize) against the word > "racism" to describe blood prejudice. Race has nothing to do with it, > as Angelina, Dean, Blaise, Lee and others )say, the Patil twins and > Cho Chang) illustrate. There's not the slightest hint of true racism > in the WW. The prejudice against nonmagical people permeates the WW, > and among Slytherins in general and some non-Slytherin pureblood > families, it extends to Muggleborns as well. But it has nothing to do > with race. "Mudblood" Hermione is a member of the same race as > pureblood Draco (White or Caucasian), and both are members of the same > race as Muggle Dudley. Possibly this prejudice is analogous to racism > in our world, but it isn't identical to it. Renee: It seems we're not using the same definitions of racism; apparently you prefer to restrict it to discrimination, prejudice, etc. based on visible physical differences between groups of humans. I was thinking of the wider definition of racism used by the United Nations: "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life." According to this definition, the blood prejudice found among the followers of Voldemort *is* racism, as it is based on descent. Of course the important question here is how JKR defines racism, not what definition either of us prefers. But my impression is, that pureblood mania and discrimination of non-humans like giants, goblins and house-elves are some of the forms racism take in the Wizarding World, like xenophobia, anti-semitism and ethnocentrism are some of the forms racism takes in RL. Renee (snipping the rest of Carol's post, with which she largely agrees) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 9 21:49:17 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:49:17 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159290 pippin: > > > > If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would be out of the castle that night, why wait for an hour in the RoR? Wouldn't he have gotten out of there in case Trelawney came back? > > montims: > > Maybe he was in Diagon Alley, finalising plans? Tonks: > Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Diagon Alley is in London. Once the students are at school the only place they can go is Hogsmead. I don't think that Draco would be apperating around and not sure you can apparate from just outside the gates all the way to Diagon Alley anyway. And it is night. I assume that Diagon Alley is not open at night. Ceridwen: I think Montims means that Draco used the now-functioning cabinet to go to Knockturn Alley in order to contact the DEs assigned to him and get the plot started. Of course Draco can't Apparate out of Hogwarts! I agree that Diagon Alley is probably not open at night, now that so many shops are shut down, and people are afraid of all the things which have been happening. It's probably the same in Knockturn Alley, for the same reason, for other reasons (wanting to avoid suspicion), or for some combination of reasons. If Draco did use the cabinet to get to Borgin and Burke's, he probably had some agreement with the proprietor to do so, set up along with the other intimidations he used at the beginning of the story. A traitor would be interesting and I wouldn't rule it out, since it was mentioned (by Sirius?) that no one felt as if they could trust anybody else at the height of VWI. Though, it would make for more complications in the story and lengthen the last book so that it might as well be released as a 10-volume series. ;) Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 21:57:13 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 21:57:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of/Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159291 > Pippin: > Think about it in terms of real life instead of a story; if there was > an official investigation going on behind the scenes, would the > authorities want a teenage boy with a grudge to help them with it? > Well, Umbridge would, but the I-Squad was horrible, right? > > Now Harry forms his own little I-Squad, courtesy of Dobby and > Kreacher, and you think the adults should cheer him on? Ick! a_svirn: Well, it's a bit hard to think of it like a real-life story, considering that in real life the world's destiny does not depend on one teenager's ability to kill Hitler or Osama bin Laden in a one-to- one combat. In fact, even in the WW Harry's situation and status are kind of unique. Which, I might add, Dumbledore lost no opportunity to emphasise. Also, even in real life no authority would ignore this kind of information. Here is a teenager who had been nearly murdered on a number of occasions and he stumbled on some evidence indicating that a son of one of his would-be killers is apparently up to no good. Surely in real life any authority worth their salt would say something like "very well, Harry, I'll look into it, don't worry". Or, if, they are already looking into it something like "don't worry, I know all about it and I'll keep an eye on him". In fact, Arthur Weasley did exactly the former. He was sceptical himself, but he knew that he couldn't afford to ignore it, so he followed Harry's lead. Now, Dumbledore, he did neither. When Harry came to him with a story of the UV he said, "I do not think that it is of great importance", which was both a flat-out lie and a dismissal. Harry, being nobody's fool, not even Dumbledore's, recognized both. And it hardly comes as a surprise that he didn't care of being lied to and dismissed. Honestly, it seems almost as if Dumbledore deliberately goaded Harry into "forming his own little I-squad". > Pippin: > Naturally they want to discourage him, which, as everyone who's > dealt with a teenager knows, is often best done by ignoring the > behavior you disapprove of rather than condemning it. a_svirn: Huh? Wouldn't it be better to *explain* to a teenager the *reason* of your disapproval? If you just ignore, disapprove and generally shut a teenager out you'd likely to drive them into rebellion. Which is exactly what Dumbledore did in OOP and to a point in HBP. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 22:01:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:01:06 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159292 Ceridwen: > A traitor would be interesting and I wouldn't rule it out, since it > was mentioned (by Sirius?) that no one felt as if they could trust > anybody else at the height of VWI. Though, it would make for more > complications in the story and lengthen the last book so that it > might as well be released as a 10-volume series. ;) Alla: I bet on no traitor ( Lupin or anybody else :))precisely because of that nobody can trust anybody in the first war. As we know that traitor there was already revealed ( unless you share Pippin's convinctions of ESE!Lupin of course), so I think JKR does parallels but with the improvement of the sort twist. I think that somebody may look like a traitor or tempting to betray, but will come to the senses, or no betrayal will follow. But this is of course just speculative prediction. JMO. Alla From wormtails_a_water_goblet at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 15:36:47 2006 From: wormtails_a_water_goblet at yahoo.com (Kerry Wolber) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 15:36:47 -0000 Subject: How to make a horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159293 Raven Heart: "1. As soon as LV points the wand at Harry, his soul fractures, leaving part of it in Harry or at least in the scar. Because of Lily's protective magic, as well as his own soul bit now with Harry, when the words Avada Kadavara are uttered, it is deflected back at LV, ripping the remaining part of his soul from his body, the combine force of the two soul pieces clashing magically destroying the house. 2. LV, realizing that he must encase this soul bit now, attempts to take care of that matter, but because Lily's death was a love sacrifice charm itself, caused the horcrux spell to not properly resolve, destroying his body, sending one soul bit into Harry, the other soul part in the other direction, the force destroying the house." Kerry: I believe that in one way or another, Harry does have a piece of Voldy's soul, and both of these explanations could account for it. I am particularly interested in the scene near the end of OotP at the MoM when Harry is hiding behind the statue and he can suddenly feel Voldy in his head. While this could be attributed to the "link" that Harry has been unpleasantly experiencing all year, what if this "link" is actually the piece of Voldy's soul that resides with Harry? If we think back to earlier in the book when Nagini attacks Mr. Weasley, the general consensus is that Voldy possessed, or in essence, got into Nagini's mind, to perpetrate the attack. If Nagini is one of the 6 horcruxes, this makes me wonder if one of the characteristics of a horcrux is to allow the original soul to temporarily join, or visit, the other piece(s). If this were the case, Voldy's intrusion into Harry's mind at the MoM could have been Voldy visiting his horcrux in Harry (his scar or soul). In HBP, when Harry and DD are discussing Horcruxes, Harry asks if Voldy can tell when his horcruxes are destroyed. DD says he doesn't think so because he has split himself so many times. This could account for why Voldy didn't know about his connection with Harry in the beginning, but he discovered it during the attack with Nagini. That would have been, in essence, 3 parts of Voldy's soul in one place. In regards to destroying the horcrux within Harry, perhaps we should remember DD's frequent reminders that Harry's greatest power is that of love. I don't believe that Harry's death would be the end to that horcrux, if it does exist. Perhaps it will be a form of love, such as forgiveness or mercy. On a side note...has anyone ever considered that Harry may be the "something of Gryffindor's" that DD mentioned? Let me know what you think ;) Kerry From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 9 22:06:41 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:06:41 -0000 Subject: RAB Identity Confirmed? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159294 Mugglenet http://www.mugglenet.com/ has a link to the interview given by the Portugese translator of the HP books in which she mentions RAB. Due to translation needs, this translator has also discovered that Blaise Zabini is male, and Prof. Sinistra is female. The site, http://www.nimbus.com.pt/index_novie.php , which has the info provides a link to the original Portugese publication of a Nov. 2005 news article in which the identity is revealed. (Don't worry, Mugglenet and the Nimbus page also give the information!) Ceridwen. From cadtitanic at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 17:32:30 2006 From: cadtitanic at yahoo.com (Mare Cad TITANIC) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 10:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061009173230.76478.qmail@web34912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159295 shivifree2find wrote: >> Hi! I am new to this group. Harry Potter is my childhood hero and reading his books is my favourite pass time. When I heard he is going to die in 7th part I had a feeling that I have lost my senses and become mad. << >From what I've read in my HP Alerts, authors like Sephen King have asked JKR NOT to kill off the major characters, if she listens to this who knows? Maybe JKR doesn't want a slew of HP books written, as in The Star Wars saga. Marianne ( Mare ) CadTITANIC From sobernme at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 18:12:24 2006 From: sobernme at yahoo.com (sobernme) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:12:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore (was Re: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159296 > Lana: > And, how do we know that Dumbledore is really gone for > real? Could this be a ruse that will turn around when Harry > really needs it to? Tim: Good point,and even if Dumbledore is really dead, his portrait is hanging in the Headmasters office to give guidance and I'm sure there are portraits of him all over the wizarding world that he will be able to travel between. Who knows, Harry might be able to carry him with all the time in a card that comes with a chocolate frog. I know, I'm reaching but..... From MadameSSnape at aol.com Mon Oct 9 22:17:08 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:17:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Request (Harry live or die?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159297 In a message dated 10/9/2006 6:10:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, cadtitanic at yahoo.com writes: >From what I've read in my HP Alerts, authors like Sephen King have asked JKR NOT to kill off the major characters, if she listens to this who knows? Maybe JKR doesn't want a slew of HP books written, as in The Star Wars saga. =================== We know that JKR is a fan of the late, great Dame Agatha Christie - who deliberately killed off both her most popular detectives (Hercule Poirot in CURTAIN and Miss Marple in SLEEPING MURDER) for precisely that reason - so that no other author could use them. She's mentioned that in at least one interview (it might have been NYC, but I'm too lazy to look it up), which may be a hint which way she's leaning. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gaurav.baral at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 18:47:46 2006 From: gaurav.baral at yahoo.com (gaurav.baral) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:47:46 -0000 Subject: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159298 I think that he will return. Even Albus D. as a ghost. "gaurav.baral" From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Mon Oct 9 19:05:28 2006 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 15:05:28 -0400 Subject: Thestrals, death (was Re: newbie with questions) References: Message-ID: <000901c6ebd5$e4dcb9f0$0200a8c0@carlaathome> No: HPFGUIDX 159299 Angelique/mrnmrswatters wrote: > First, I believe it's in the 5th book that the Thestrals > are first mentioned. They say that only those who have > witnessed death can see these creatures. ... Why does > he not see the Thestrals until his fifth year? bboyminn: >> Others have already elaborated on the reason why Harry's parents and Quirrell's deaths did not count, so I won't touch that aspect. As far as Cedric's death, let me diverge for a moment and remind you of the stages of grieving. The first stage is Denial. You brain says, I have this data and I know it to be true, but your heart refuses to accept it. That is the stage Harry is in at the end of Goblet of Fire. He intellectually knows Cedric is dead, but his heart hasn't accepted it yet. << Carla: If I might also venture another explanation. Harry was a baby when his parents died, he has no memory of it. We also don't know if he actually witnessed it. The confrontation between Lily and LV might have been outside of Harry's line of sight. The death of Quirrell was the death of an enemy. Harry didn't suffer a loss there. I think the death that must be witnessed is that of someone you care about....a friend or relative. The death Luna witnessed was that of her Mother. It must be a personal loss in order to see the Thestrals. Cedric was his friend. He felt a loss. From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Mon Oct 9 20:01:22 2006 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 16:01:22 -0400 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor References: Message-ID: <001d01c6ebdd$b21099d0$0200a8c0@carlaathome> No: HPFGUIDX 159300 > pippin_999 wrote: > If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would > be out of the castle that night, why wait for an hour in the > RoR? Wouldn't he have gotten out of there in case Trelawney > came back? Tonks: >> Pippin does present an interest thought. Did Draco stay in the room and if so is there a spy in the Order? << Carla: But remember, the cabinet runs two ways. Draco could exit through the cabinet just like LV's followers entered through it from Nocktern (sp) Alley. From CliffVDY at juno.com Mon Oct 9 22:40:20 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:40:20 -0000 Subject: LV & the Avada Kedavra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" wrote: > > I am a little confused about something. The Avada Kedavra is the > killing curse. Therefore, that would suggest that it targets and > destroys the soul - Yes or no? Cliff here: The AK doesn't destroy anything a bullet wouldn't. The soul lives on in Eternity, except where any number of Horcruxes have been made. Then the soul remains in the hereandnow and can inhabit another being or be subject to a rebirth following LV's potion recipe that Peter Pettigrew carried out. But regaining a full body also collects all of the parts of the soul to make a new mortal. Maybe an incomplete one if some of Horcruzes have been destroyed. LV wouldn't know any of this. A theory. One of many. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 23:38:05 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:38:05 -0000 Subject: How to make a horcrux -- and what to do with them In-Reply-To: <8de2fdd80610091237p4d349f23pcedd7e7642d01193@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159302 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Diego Sueiro" wrote: > > Steve/bboyminn: > > But, it is only at this later time that he is initially > > asking Slughorn about Horcruxes and how they work. So, > > we must assume that it was some time after that that > > he completed his research into Horcruxes and actually > > makes a Horcrux from their deaths. Consequently, that > > implies there can't be any advance preparation process > > as part of the creation of a Horcrux. > > > > Diego: > Although I'm not completly sure about this, I think it's possible > that, when asking Slughorn, Tom just wanted his opinion on making > several Horcruxes, not about the process itself, which he might > have known beforehand. Mike: I was glad to see that someone else holds to the theory that Tom's real focus was on Slughorn's opinion of *multiple Horcruxes*. Dumbledore himself said that what Tom particularly wanted to know from Horace was the multiple Horcrux angle. IMHO, Tom already knew how to make a Horcrux and, in fact, had already made one. He found a book or something that not only mentioned Horcruxes but explained them. I think we were all relying too much on Hermione's experience of finding the term and getting no explanation. Isn't it far more likely that 50 years ago, Tom found a book which didn't have any moral restrictions on information? In fact, who would really expect to find a book that only mentions Horcruxes to simply denounce them as *too* dark, Hermione certainly thought it was ridiculous. I have no problem believing that Tom was saying all the right things and showing the right level of knowledge (lack of knowledge really) that would convince Slughorn and other viewers of that scene that he had no idea about Horcruxes, when he actually had already had made one. Besides, Slughorn didn't tell him how to make a Horcrux and yet we know he still learned. Why is it so hard to believe that he learned prior to questioning Sluggy, at the same time that he learned the term? Finally, remember what Dumbledore said about about multiple Horcruxes after exiting the pensieve: "No book would have given him that information. As far as I know - as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew - no wizard had ever done more than tear his soul in two." (HBP p.500, US) Notice that Dumbledore is revealing that Tom learned about Horcruxes from a book. How would Tom know he has to ask Slughorn about multiple Horcruxes unless he had already found out that he would not get that information from a book? He must have already known about Horcruxes but he didn't get the multiple information, yet. DD knew going in that Tom knew what a Horcrux was and how to make them, before asking Slughorn. > Diego: > With respect to having made a Horcrux or not at that point, that > is another matter. The fact that he is still wearing the ring > and his Modus Operandi (making an Horcrux and hiding it) seems to > imply that he had not. Mike: Actually, it appears that hiding his Horcruxes is a more recent development. He gave the diary to Lucius shortly before GH. To those that hold to the theory that Bella was given the locket to hide, that too must be more recent. In any case, for Regulus to have learned about LV's Horcruxes must have come after he graduated in June 1979, and he must have heard about the hiding (or attempt to hide) in the sea cave (by Bella?), which indicates that that Horcrux was not yet in place either. Besides, who says the ring was his first Horcrux, maybe the diary was first. What are the chances that Tom was relying on picking up a valuable heirloom from Morfin to make his Horcrux from his father's murder? Isn't it more likely that, if he was intending to make a Horcrux and you have to have the object with you as per RavenHeart's (and my) scenario, Tom had that object in hand when he set out on this adventure? And we know he had already stored the memory in the diary. > Diego: > And the fact that, after having observed this same memory, > Dumbledore still believes (or at least says so) that Tom used > his father's death to make a Horcrux (it doesn't matter if that's > right or wrong), seems to allow for the possibility of making a > Horcrux way after murdering. I don't think that Albus didn't > know how to make a Horcrux, but, as stated by Professor > McGonagall, he was just too noble to do it. Mike: I agree with you on Dumbledore's Horcrux knowledge. But, I would like to point out that Dumbledore could just as easily understood that Tom brought his Horcrux object with him, if that is indeed required by the procedure. IOW, if the procedure requires the object be present at the beginning and he believes Tom made his first Horcrux with his father's death, then he naturally assumes that Tom brought the object with him. He wouldn't be expounding on it since he isn't teaching Harry how to make one. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv This thread thread brings up a question that has been nagging me. Why does Voldemort start dispersing his Horcruxes and why does he want them hidden? Surely he doesn't expect anyone to best him in combat and take his Horcruxes (let alone get *killed* by a baby). Why would he think dispersing and hiding helps him? I understand the diary. He wants to eventually deploy it and Lucius still being a fine upstanding member of the wizarding community would be the best vehicle for that eventual deployment. But the others? From Dumbledore, we get the impression that the rest were still in LV's possession until shortly before GH, not immediately before but not that much before. Since the Aurors had never found his hideouts (at least we were never told they had), and the safest place has got to be in his possession where he can keep an eye on them, defend them and whatnot, why send them out to be hidden? This tactic of Voldemort's is even made more perplexing if you believe Dumbledore's comment that Voldemort thinks that he alone knows of his Horcruxes. Opinions? Guesses? More info? Mike, still confused by Voldemort's master plan. From mamakat3185 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 9 20:06:13 2006 From: mamakat3185 at yahoo.com (Lisa Marie Smith) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 13:06:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061009200613.65957.qmail@web58405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159303 >>> pippin_999 wrote: >>> >>> If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would be out >>> of the castle that night, why wait for an hour in the RoR? >>> Wouldn't he have gotten out of there in case Trelawney came >>> back? > >> montims: >> Maybe he was in Diagon Alley, finalising plans? > >Tonks: >Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Diagon Alley is in London. Once >the students are at school the only place they can go is Hogsmead. I >don't think that Draco would be apperating around and not sure you >can apparate from just outside the gates all the way to Diagon Alley >anyway. And it is night. I assume that Diagon Alley is not open at >night. >Pippin does present an interest thought. Did Draco stay in the room >and if so is there a spy in the Order? I hope it isn't McGonagall. >Did Snape know that DD was leaving? I have to go back and listen to >the book again. It is so hard to remember all of the details over >time. Lisa Marie Smith: Not true. That Vanishing Cabinet if you remember has a twin where the Borgin & Burke shop is in Knockturn Ally which is just off of Diagon alley. Where they sell dark items. It mentioned this place in the 2nd book I think. When they used floo powder to get to Diagon Ally to get their school supplies.And Draco's father had slipped the diary into Ginny's cauldron. Also it was mentioned in the last book that Malfoy had wanted the shop owner to fix the cabinet for him. Said it was very important and that Fenir Greyback the werewolf would be coming to check up on the progress he was making. And yes you can apparate outside of the gates. Herminie states in book 1 that you cannot apparate anywhere inside of Hogwarts due to the magical reinforcements that have been placed on the castle. But I beleive that you could apparate outside of there. Lisa Marie Smith From Bar081474 at aol.com Mon Oct 9 23:09:50 2006 From: Bar081474 at aol.com (Bobby Reed) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 23:09:50 -0000 Subject: new to the group Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159304 Not sure what all has been said on here before however after reading Half Blood Prince I began thinking that Dumbledore is not dead. I know I have a very good chance of being wrong but it was pointed out in the book about how they can perform spells without speaking the. Also why would he take Hary to a place that is clearly so dangerous not really his style. I think he wanted to let Harry see him get sick and fall to Snape! Snape had made the unbreakable vow to kill Dumbledore if Malfoy could not so what if he came up with something to make it appear that he had done so? Like I said I could be wrong :) And has any one figured out the Initials yet? R.A.B. From the chapter Flight of the Prince? -Bobby From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 00:14:48 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 19:14:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: <20061009200613.65957.qmail@web58405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <20061009200613.65957.qmail@web58405.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610091714y40057d6fm522bc43a6502d1dd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159305 > >> montims: > >> Maybe he was in Diagon Alley, finalising plans? > > >Tonks: > >Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. >Lisa Marie Smith: >Not true. That Vanishing Cabinet if you remember has a twin where the >Borgin & Burke shop is in Knockturn Ally which is just off of Diagon >alley. Wherethey sell dark items. It mentioned this place in the 2nd >book I think. When they used floo powder to get to Diagon Ally to get >their school supplies. montims: Yes, thank you Lisa Marie and Steve/bboyminn - I did, of course, mean Knockturn Alley not Diagon Alley. It makes perfect sense to me that he would go through the cabinet to make sure all the DEs were there and knew their respective roles... montims From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Oct 10 00:29:55 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:29:55 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159306 > pippin: > > > > > > If Draco didn't know until then that Dumbledore would be out of > the castle that night, why wait for an hour in the RoR? Wouldn't he > have gotten out of there in case Trelawney came back? wynnleaf I don't think Hogsmeade is an hours walk from Hogwarts. Granted, some comments about it are contradictory, but if you look at the photo of the map JKR drew of the area (it's in the Lexicon), the outskirts of Hogsmeade start right outside the gates of Hogwarts. > Ceridwen: > A traitor would be interesting and I wouldn't rule it out, since it > was mentioned (by Sirius?) that no one felt as if they could trust > anybody else at the height of VWI. Though, it would make for more > complications in the story and lengthen the last book so that it > might as well be released as a 10-volume series. ;) > wynnleaf Since JKR has managed to have some sort traitor (or at least "good guy is really bad guy") in every single book so far, I really think she can and probably will have another one in book 7. Why should she need any more than one book to produce another traitor? She never needed more than one book in the past. If as Pippin suspects, Lupin is the traitor, then he knew in advance that DD was going to be gone that night since DD must have recalled Lupin specially from his assignment with the werewolves. Draco would know that DD was going to be leaving at some point during the evening, and would simply be waiting for some sort of signal that he had gone. The signal would presumably come from Hogsmeade -- although it needn't go directly to Draco, it could instead go to Borgin and Burkes. You know, the more I think of it, one has to wonder about the state of readiness of the DE's. They were obviously ready at practically a moment's notice to go. If Draco and the DE's only learned that DD was going to be gone when a signal came from Hogsmeade, then they had extremely little time to get a contingent of DE's together for the raid. It would actually make more sense if they had already received some information that DD was going to be gone that night and were simply waiting for notice of the exact timing, but supposedly only Harry and the Order members knew. wynnleaf From lovehorsesandlegolas at hotmail.com Tue Oct 10 00:29:50 2006 From: lovehorsesandlegolas at hotmail.com (Lauren) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:29:50 -0000 Subject: new to the group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159307 > Bobby: > Not sure what all has been said on here before however after reading > Half Blood Prince I began thinking that Dumbledore is not dead. I know > I have a very good chance of being wrong but it was pointed out in the > book about how they can perform spells without speaking the. Also why > would he take Hary to a place that is clearly so dangerous not really > his style. I think he wanted to let Harry see him get sick and fall to > Snape! Snape had made the unbreakable vow to kill Dumbledore if > Malfoy could not so what if he came up with something to make it > appear that he had done so? Like I said I could be wrong :) And has > any one figured out the Initials yet? R.A.B. From the chapter Flight > of the Prince? Lauren: An interesting theory. But I think he is dead. JK Rowling has systematically killed off anyone that Harry could use as a crutch. I think she is setting it up so the final battle with Voldemort is Harry's own effort and not the foreplanning of some helpful adult. It is implied in the book that Dumbledore of the Unbreakable vow. I like to think that he gave up his life to protect Snape and Draco from Volemorts wrath. Lauren From cadtitanic at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 00:35:50 2006 From: cadtitanic at yahoo.com (Mare Cad TITANIC) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 17:35:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] new to the group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061010003550.23871.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159308 >Bobby Reed wrote: >Not sure what all has been said on here before however after reading >Half Blood Prince I began thinking that Dumbledore is not dead. >I know I have a very good chance of being wrong but it was pointed >out in the book about how they can perform spells without speaking >the. Also why would he take Hary to a place that is clearly so >dangerous not really his style. I think he wanted to let Harry see >him get sick and fall to Snape! Snape had made the unbreakable vow >to kill Dumbledore if Malfoy could not so what if he came up with >something to make it appear that he had done so? >Like I said I could be wrong :) And has any one figured out the >Initials yet? R.A.B. From the chapter Flight of the Prince? Marianne: Does anyone know the full name of Professor Binns ? He could be the RAB we are speaking of. His love of History & his accuracy in it, could make him responsible for destroying one of the Horcruxes. He alwys seemed to me, to be a good guy !!! Marianne ( Mare ) CadTITANIC [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lovehorsesandlegolas at hotmail.com Tue Oct 10 00:55:38 2006 From: lovehorsesandlegolas at hotmail.com (Lauren) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:55:38 -0000 Subject: new to the group In-Reply-To: <20061010003550.23871.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159309 > Marianne: > > Does anyone know the full name of Professor Binns ? He could be the RAB we are speaking of. His love of History & his accuracy in it, could make him responsible for destroying one of the Horcruxes. He alwys seemed to me, to be a good guy !!! > > Marianne ( Mare ) CadTITANIC > Lauren: Oh I hadn't thought of him! I don't know his first name but he has always seemed like an Albert to me. I have my suspicions that RAB is Regulus Black. Don't he and Sirius have an uncle who's first name begins with A? The note said that by the time Voldemort learned what had happened he would be gone. And Regulus died quite soon after turning against Voldemort so it could have been his last revenge. Lauren From icedragn at hotmail.com Tue Oct 10 00:55:10 2006 From: icedragn at hotmail.com (icedragn571) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 00:55:10 -0000 Subject: newbie with questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159310 > Angelique wrote: > once you enter your 2nd year at Hogwarts you travel up > to the school in these Thestral drawn carriages. In the 1st > book, Harry has witnessed the death of not only his parents > when he was a baby, but also the death of Professor Quirrell. > Why does he not see the Thestrals until his fifth year? > > Also, I think that Crookshanks the cat might turn out to be an > animagi but my husband thinks not. Does anybody else think this > cat might be something besides just a cat? Crookshanks is known as a Kneazle. I think I saw that on JKR's site a while back and said to check the "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them" about what it is. As for Thestrals ... during the CoS (2nd book) Harry and Ron missed the train so they didn't get to ride the carriages to Hogwarts, PoA (3rd Book) he was too concerned about the Dementors I suppose, in GoF it was raining so hard they all just rushed into the castle, in the OoP they weren't in a rush and Harry had to look around for Ron and Hermione and noticed them, but Ron and Hermione didn't see them. Btw my name is Jacqueline, I live in Ontario Canada and found this site by chance. :) From gwc22 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 01:18:48 2006 From: gwc22 at yahoo.com (Wayne Cochran) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 18:18:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Time travel in JKR books Message-ID: <20061010011848.6494.qmail@web53613.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159311 Jenni / jdl3811220: Hi Raven Heart (I love that screen name by the way.) But they DID alter history when they undid Buckbeak's death. They HAD already killed Buckbeak before Harry and Hermione used the time turner. They altered time and undid it. They changed history, the space time continuum, whatever you want to call it. So, in theory, they could alter history and prevent/undo Harry's demise. > Raven Heart: Was buckbeak killed the first time the events occured? They never actually saw Buckbeak killed, only heard the cry of Hagrid, which they later found out was a cry of joy that Buckbeak somehow escaped. Events happened the same the first time they experienced them as they did the second time, the difference is only from the point of view. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 01:38:40 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 20:38:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time travel in JKR books In-Reply-To: <20061010011848.6494.qmail@web53613.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061010011848.6494.qmail@web53613.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610091838o52f60993g6e4abb029fe352c9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159312 > > Raven Heart: > > Was buckbeak killed the first time the events occured? They never actually > saw Buckbeak killed, only heard the cry of Hagrid, which they later found > out was a cry of joy that Buckbeak somehow escaped. Events happened the same > the first time they experienced them as they did the second time, the > difference is only from the point of view. montims: Thing is, though, how would it have played out if they hadn't used the time turner? That's what gets me every time... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Tue Oct 10 02:12:40 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:12:40 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World Message-ID: <505.3210d8fd.325c5b98@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159313 Carol wrote: > They use quill pens and parchment like Muggles in the Middle Ages and > > candles for lighting (ever try grading essays or doing homework by > > candlelight?). Hogwarts is so cold in winter that kids wear cloaks and > > gloves in the corridors. (Durmstrang must be nearly unbearable.) They > > don't have computers or telephones or even cars.) Yes, some of them > > can Apparate, but they can't teach that skill to Muggles even if they > > wanted to. > Sandy now: This is something that has aiways confounded me about the Muggle born/raised students at Hogwarts; how willing they are to give up all their Muggle comforts for the sake of going to Hogwarts. I would think it goes even further than that. If they are educated as witches and wizards it stands to reason that they will continue to live in the WW after they leave Hogwarts. It all sounds so charming as you are reading the books, but think about the last time you went through a power failure. It is the only life the WW knows, but that is not the case for Muggle born/raised. You have Hermione, who is the only child of two dentists, which leads me to believe she lived in relative affluence, and she gives all that up to become a witch?!? As fascinating as the concept of magic is, I couldn't do it. This is also one of JKR'S inconsistencies. Although they have no electricity or electronics, and no furnaces, they have modern plumbing with running water, flushing toilets and bathtubs with hot and cold running water. We know this from cannon because of all of the action that takes place in various books in the bathrooms and because of the prefects' bath in GOF. As I said, it adds a certain charm to the books, but I wouldn't want to live in those conditions and don't understand why anyone would who knows that there is a better way. Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Oct 10 02:16:24 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:16:24 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159314 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 22, After the Burial Summer is coming, and Harry is frustrated that he hasn't been able to retrieve the memory from Slughorn or to figure out what Malfoy is doing in the Room of Requirement. The trio is sitting in the courtyard, and Ron and Hermione are preparing for the apparition test, which is scheduled for later that day. Ron hides behind Hermione at the approach of every girl, fearing it will be Lavender. A girl arrives and hands Harry a note from Hagrid. Aragog has died, and Hagrid wants the trio to come down to his hut at sunset for the burial. They all agree that it's crazy of him to even ask, although Harry seems regretful. Hermione suggests that Harry try to talk to Slughorn during Potions, which should be almost empty due to the apparition test. "57th time lucky, you think?" Harry asks, and this inspires Ron to suggest using Felix Felicis to get the memory. Though he doesn't tell Ron and Hermione about it, Harry had had vague plans of using the potion to help split up Ginny and Dean. Harry decides that if he's not successful during Potions, he'll use the Felix that evening. Two unhappy-looking girls, the Montgomery sisters, walk by, and Hermione tells the boys that their little brother was attacked by a werewolf and died in St. Mungo's. Harry is shocked to hear that werewolves sometimes kill rather than turning the victim into a werewolf. Rumor has it that the attacker was Fenrir Greyback. Harry heads off to Potions while Hermione and Ron go for their apparition exam. Slughorn has the students mix up any potion they'd like, something "amusing." Harry notes that Malfoy looks thin, pale, and gray, leading him to believe that Malfoy's mission (still unknown) is going badly. Harry mixes "An Elixir to Induce Euphoria," which turns out perfectly thanks to the Half-Blood Prince's corrections. Slughorn speeds out of the class before Harry can talk to him. Back in the common room, Hermione and Ron return from their test. Hermione passed; Ron failed because he left half an eyebrow behind. Harry decides to take some of the Felix, but remarks that he won't need all 24 hours' worth. Ron reminisces about the great feeling he got when he took it. Hermione points out that he never took any, but Ron says that since he thought he did, it amounts to the same thing. Later that evening, Harry takes a "measured" gulp of the Felix and immediately feels exhilarated and like anything is possible. Fully confident, he announces that he's going to Hagrid's hut. As he's talking, Ron and Hermione became progressively more alarmed. Hermione wonders if maybe he had a little bottle of something else that he might have taken by mistake. Harry assures them that he ? or rather, Felix ? knows what he's doing. He puts on the invisibility cloak and leaves the boys' dorm, followed by the other two. Lavender shrieks at Ron, thinking he and Hermione were alone in the boys' dorm. Harry accidentally brushes Ginny on the way out the portrait hole, and she reprimands Dean, thinking he was trying to help her through. Felix lights the way for Harry, and he decides to detour past the vegetable patch, where he finds Professor Sprout giving Professor Slughorn some plants. Harry pulls off his invisibility cloak and reveals himself in a flourish to Slughorn. Felix tells Harry to tell the truth, so he tells Slughorn where he's going. Slughorn immediately sees the profit that could be gained if he can get some of the venom from the dead Acromantula. He heads up to the castle to change his clothing and get some wine. Harry arrives at Hagrid's hut. Hagrid tells Harry that he can't go near the spider webs anymore, and that it was only Aragog's orders that kept the other spiders from eating him in the past. Slughorn arrives, and the three of them go outside to the pumpkin patch to bury Aragog. Slughorn sneaks some venom from Aragog's pincers under the premise of examining the spider more closely. He then gives a lovely eulogy. Back in the hut, Slughorn mentions that he had a house-elf taste all the wine bottles to make sure none were poisoned. They all toast Aragog, although thanks to Felix, Harry knows he must not drink As Slughorn and Hagrid get drunk, Harry manages a wordless refilling charm on the emptying wine bottles. Hagrid gives Slughorn a whole unicorn tail, and then they start singing about a dying wizard. Hagrid comments how his father and Harry's parents were too young to die, then falls asleep. Harry and Slughorn are the only ones awake. Harry launches "remorselessly" into the story of his parents' murder, describing in detail for Slughorn how Voldemort murdered James, then stepped over his body to get to Lily and Harry. His storytelling is dramatic and effective. Slughorn begs him to stop. Harry pretends he forgot how much Slughorn liked Lily. He pours on the guilt, finally saying, "I am the Chosen One. I have to kill him. I need that memory." Slughorn admits to being afraid of what will happen to him if he helps Harry. Harry says, "Be brave like my mother." Slughorn tells Harry that he's not proud of what he did, that he thinks he did great damage the day in question. Slughorn finally gives Harry the memory he wants, saying, "You're a good boy. And you've got her eyes Just don't think too badly of me once you've seen it " Then Slughorn falls asleep. Discussion Questions: 1. Why does a girl deliver Harry's note from Hagrid, rather than an owl? Why isn't that girl named? 2. The Montgomery boy was attacked because his mother refused to help the Death Eaters. The books make it seem like the Death Eaters are constantly threatening random and numerous wizards who refuse to help them. Are there enough Death Eaters for this to be realistic? How many Death Eaters do we think there are? What did they want from the Montgomery witch? Will we hear more about her? 3. Harry was surprised to hear that werewolves sometimes kill their victim. Were you? In PoA, didn't Snape seem to imply that Lupin could have killed him during the Prank? Why doesn't Harry remember that? 4. Do you think there's any possibility that Harry took something other than Felix Felicis? 5. Harry didn't actually have 24 hours' worth of Felix Felicis, he only had a 12-hour dose. Is it possible that his "measured" gulp didn't last as long as he thought it would? Might he have been on his own at the end of the conversation in Hagrid's hut? Or was that just a flint? 6. How much of the effect of Felix Felicis do you think is placebo? 7. Do you think Harry acted recklessly under the influence of Felix? We know that when taken in excess, the potion can be harmful. Is there any possibility that something bad could have happened to Harry even with this limited use? 8. Harry thinks how upset Hermione would be by Slughorn making a house-elf taste wine that could be poisoned. Are we EVER going to see something come of Hermione's obsession with house-elves? 9. What do you think would have happened if Harry had drank the wine at Hagrid's? Would it just have interfered with retrieving the memory, or could there be some type of bad interaction between the two drinks? 10. Slughorn acquires unicorn hair and Acromantula venom at Hagrid's hut. Are we going to see those items again, and how? 11. Felix tells Harry that Slughorn won't remember their conversation in the morning. Do you think that's true? Even if it is, a Legilimens like Voldemort could probably see the truth. Is Slughorn in great danger now that he has given Harry the memory? 12. What was your reaction to the "remorseless" way Harry described his parents' murder in this scene? Do you think he only did that because he had to, or is he less sensitive about the subject now? Is this a different side to Harry than what we usually see? What does this tell us about Harry's growth since we met him as an eleven- year-old? Many thanks to Ari Elf, aka Jen, for her help & suggestions! Allie NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 02:18:02 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:18:02 -0000 Subject: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159315 > Pippin: > PoA ch 10 > It took ages, but Harry had the thought of Honeyduke's to sustain > him. After what felt like an hour, the passage began to rise. Panting, > Harry sped up, his face hot, his feet very cold. > > Ten minutes later, he came to the foot of some worn stone steps, > which rose out of sight above him. > Neri: "What felt like an hour" isn't necessarily an hour. It could be just what felt like an hour to an impatient 13 yrs old kid walking in a dark tunnel he never walked before. I'm sure it didn't actually take "ages" either. > Pippin: > PoA ch 17 > On and on went the passaage, it felt at least as long as the one to > Honeydukes. > -- > An hour also matches with the PoA timeline. An hour for Harry and > co to walk out to the shack, an hour of conversation, and an hour > back again. Three turns should do it. > Neri: These three hours include more than the conversation in the shack. They also include HRH going to Hagrid's under the cloak, having a talk with him, finding Scabbers there, and going back to the willow. They also include going out of the willow, Lupin's transformation, Wormtail's escape, the dementors attack, Snape bringing the kids and Sirius back to the castle, meeting with Fudge, the big argument in the hospital wing fitting all the above into a single hour feels a bit tight. > Pippin: > Voldemort expects his DE's to answer his summons instantly. Snape's > failure to do so was a cause for suspicion. > Neri: Assuming Voldemort summoned the attack party himself (and we don't know that he did) Draco still needed to contact Voldemort in the first place. Did he have an instantaneous way to do that? And is the Dark Lord obliged to answer instantly? Then, even assuming all the DEs arrive immediately, there's still a few small details to clarify: Who's in charge? Who's the target? Who gets the first shot at the target? Where is the target right now? What do you mean you're not sure where he is right now? In his office? Then how do we get in? There's a password? What's the password? What do you mean you don't know the password? And what if he's not there at all? Have you heard such a stupid plan in your life? Why is he in charge and not me? Shouldn't we do this tomorrow or the day after that when we have some proper intelligence? Why don't we have some intelligence from Snape? Isn't it his job to bring intelligence? What do you mean you don't want him involved? Why? Didn't I say it's a stupid plan? What other defenses are we likely to meet, anyway? When we finish this business, what are our escape routes out of the castle? How long would it take the aurors to arrive? Are there going to be any snacks (Greyback's question)? Why do we have to bring *him*? Kid, do you want to argue with the Dark Lord about it? Etc, Etc, Etc I mean, these guys took four pages on the tower just to decide who should kill Dumbledore, and they probably would still be arguing about it if Snape hadn't arrived and took matters into his own hands. > Pippin: > Dumbledore didn't keep his absences from the castle a secret, but > we know he didn't inform Order members who weren't going to be > on guard that he would be absent, or Tonks would have known. > If the soonest Draco could have known that Dumbledore had left > was when Rosmerta sent him the message, we have to give him > some reason for hanging about in the RoR. > Neri: He doesn't hang about in the RoR ? he goes bringing the DEs. The point is that the DEs would know that Dumbledore is frequently not even in the castle at nights, so they'd want first to make sure he isn't in the Three Broomsticks or in the Hog's Head or anywhere else. They'd wait until they know where he is. Neri, who was skeptic about the fairies too. From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 10 02:51:40 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 22:51:40 EDT Subject: Request (Harry live or die?). Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159316 "Steve" wrote: > if Harry dies in the final book, there > will be an outpouring of sadness and > grief that will rival the death of > beloved King, Queens, and Presidents. > I can see the world coming to a near > shutdown over grief from Harry's death. Eggplant: I think that's true, and that's exactly why I think Harry will die. The entire point of being a writer is to touch people's emotions, so how could JKR resist the temptation to create a worldwide emotional earthquake of that magnitude? Julie: She can resist it because she has a strong emotional attachment to Harry Potter. If fans will be distraught over Harry's premature death (before he even had a chance at a real life), how much more distraught would JKR be if she did that to the boy she created and loves? I personally don't think she *can* do it (e.g., she doesn't want to put herself or Harry through that pain). I could certainly be wrong, but my reasoning (based on sentiment as it may be) is as sound as any argument for killing off Harry Potter. Eggplant: > There are far worse fates in life > than a noble heroic death. Julie: But far better fates too. Enjoying the opportunity to live a full and free life being one. Why should Harry have a "not the worst fate" rather than a much better fate he so fully deserves? Eggplant: 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. Julie: It sounds like you see little hope for any enjoyable life after 30! So maybe Logan's Run had it right after all? ;-) (I don't think so.) I see Harry surviving his inevitable run in with Voldemort, then enjoying the love of a good woman, finding a job he loves and excels at, engaging in weekend Quidditch matches with his pals, seeing his children being born and being awestruck at the sheer potential of their yet unformed lives, becoming an everyday hero to those children as they grow--and later to his grandchildren-- all the while appreciating all the many gifts in life, even the pain and sadness that is inevitably part of it, and most of all, doing just what his parents willingly gave their lives for--living. You'd prefer a blaze of glory, I'd prefer a gentle goodnight after a life well and fully lived. Fact is, there's no reason Harry must (or would want to) live fast and die young. I hope he becomes a poster boy for the WW version of that AARP commercial--"It's already too late to die young, so live fast." (Still playing Quidditch at 102 ;-) And who gives a damn what your corpse looks like anyway? It's just an empty husk, soon to be grey dust. (IMO, from someone who's never thought much of that stupid credo.) Julie, fellow member of the IWHTLC [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jguaj74 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 02:12:33 2006 From: jguaj74 at yahoo.com (Jessica) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 02:12:33 -0000 Subject: new to the group / RAB, Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bobby Reed" wrote: And has any one figured out the Initials yet? R.A.B. From the chapter Flight of the Prince? Jecca: I think that RAB is Siruis Black's bro. I'm not sure what book it was but it mentioned a brother that was with LV. I think that RAB figured out how to kill LV and started hunting the hurcruxes. That's why some feel that Sirius' house may hold one of them. DD being dead. I don't know - I'm on the fence with that one. It's ironic that the animal is the Phoenix - you know...dies and rises from the dead. I like your theory on the spells. JKRowling has the amazing gift and shoving a clue in your face and you have no idea what you are looking at till much later. Maybe that is a clue in regards that will come back with DD. Happy Reading...J From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 03:03:31 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:03:31 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159318 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > Discussion Questions: > > 1. Why does a girl deliver Harry's note from Hagrid, rather than an > owl? Why isn't that girl named? Alla: HA, good point. Is it another hint at polyjuced somebody? have no clue, but curious indeed. > > 2. The Montgomery boy was attacked because his mother refused to > help the Death Eaters. The books make it seem like the Death Eaters > are constantly threatening random and numerous wizards who refuse to > help them. Are there enough Death Eaters for this to be realistic? > How many Death Eaters do we think there are? What did they want > from the Montgomery witch? Will we hear more about her? > Alla: I don't think there are many DE, if we think about it, but funnily enough I think JKR did really good job to make those attacks sounds realistic. I mean, I know that she did not envision too many DE, but it feels like there is a whole lot of them, if that makes any sense. > 3. Harry was surprised to hear that werewolves sometimes kill their > victim. Were you? In PoA, didn't Snape seem to imply that Lupin > could have killed him during the Prank? Why doesn't Harry remember > that? Alla: I did not remember that either. To answer your question, yes, it seems like contradiction to me, for more detailed questioning on this topic see Lanvals posts here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/153705 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/153823 and the whole thread. > 7. Do you think Harry acted recklessly under the influence of > Felix? We know that when taken in excess, the potion can be > harmful. Is there any possibility that something bad could have > happened to Harry even with this limited use? Alla: No, I think he acted just with enough bravado to do what needed to be done, but of course one never knows if potion could have harmed him indeed. > 11. Felix tells Harry that Slughorn won't remember their > conversation in the morning. Do you think that's true? Even if it > is, a Legilimens like Voldemort could probably see the truth. Is > Slughorn in great danger now that he has given Harry the memory? Alla: I believe that Slughorn will not remember,yes, but what you said about Voldemort getting the truth can also be right. Slughorn was running for year. If he is a good guy, something tells me that he may have to face DE in book 7 in one way or another. > 12. What was your reaction to the "remorseless" way Harry described > his parents' murder in this scene? Do you think he only did that > because he had to, or is he less sensitive about the subject now? > Is this a different side to Harry than what we usually see? What > does this tell us about Harry's growth since we met him as an eleven- > year-old? Alla: I did not get an impression that Harry was describing his parents murder in remorseless way. I thought he was acting remorselessly towards Slughorn, but he was doing the correct description, no, at least as he knows it? And considering how angry Harry becomes when he learns about Snape's role in his parents deaths, I really do not think that he is any less sensitive about the subject. I give him major kudos for being able to talk that way or major kudos to Potion? I snipped your questions about how much Felicis influence is true, since I have no idea, but we shall see I guess. Thank you! From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 03:25:31 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:25:31 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159319 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > One small thing that you seem to be overlooking, and that > is that what Dumbledore is saying now today is not based > on his instantaneous realization in the moment his > interview of Trelawney was interupted. He has had well > over a decade of time to research the matter, to gather > information, and to get his story straight. > Mike: Not a small thing, a big thing. You are of course right, Dumbledore had a decade to learn what Snape told Voldemort. Thereby, he can state with ultimate confidence how much Voldemort heard. > bboyminn: > I leave an element of doubt because we don't really know > for a fact that Snape can be trusted, but Dumbledore > thinks he can, and so he takes his statement of what he > heard as fact. Mike: For the purposes of my theory, Snape was already in Dumbledore's confidences at the time of the prophesy. So, learning what parts Voldemort got from an ESE!Snape would completely nullify my theory and therefore render the question moot. I shall not dwell on this :) > > Mike: > > Another point to answer. (Thank you montims) Instead > > of reaching to try to figure out how to reconcile the > > two versions of events, we should be asking why Snape > > would be eavesdropping on a teachers job > > interview. ...edited... > > bboyminn: > > But that is assuming Snape knew who Dumbledore was > meeting and why. Snape can't possibly know if something > worth hearing would occur unless he heard it and made a > determination. > > Dumbledore was having a private meeting, and private > meeting are usually private because something 'private' > is being discussed. Mike: Ah, a small but significant difference. Dumbledore's interview with Trelawney would be private but not secret. Most likely they would have met in the bar first, before going to a private room, propriety must be observed you know :) In any case, neither Dumbledore nor Trelawney would have any reason to keep their interview secreted from the general populace, and I don't find Sibyll particularly discrete, do you? Given Sibyll's propensity for establishing her pedigree, Snape most likely would have learned who Dumbledore was meeting with prior to the actual interview (if he was at all competent). Even being thorough and still eavesdropping on the meeting on principle, Snape would learn from the outset that this was a job interview. Staying there to continue to eavesdrop on this interview would surely not be worth the risk, considering his exposed position in the hallway. I realize that the is conjecture not canon, but it seems reasonable to me. Therefore, I'll stick with it until someone shows me it doesn't make sense to read it this way. BTW, I always envisioned Snape's eavesdropping to be occurring through the partially open door of Sibyll's room. IOW, I supposed that Dumbledore would not want to be seen going to a strange woman's room, over a bar, and close the door. If you know what I mean ;-) Now, of course, I don't think Snape was eavesdropping at all :) > bboyminn: > > Here's the thing, I don't think the two version are > inconsistent. Each is in a conversation, each is relating > detail that the individually feels are relevant to the > conversation at hand. Neither is intent on giving a > precise detailed minute-by-minute historical account. Mike: It's not the details, it's that Dumbledore said the eavesdropper was discovered "only a short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building". This does not sound like the eavesdropper was allowed to remain *inside the building* long enough for Sibyll to finish the prophesy, much less to appear in her room *after* the prophesy is finished. JKR has Dumbledore choose his words very carefully and this is a critical point of the entire storyline. Why does Dumbledore not say, "The eavesdropper was discovered a short way into the prophesy and prevented from hearing the rest."? Or how about, " ...into the prophesy but removed from earshot so he couldn't hear any more."? Since Sibyll saw Snape after the prophesy was over, either of my two alternate verbages more accurately reflect what Dumbledore proposed happened. And whether Snape was then "thrown from the building" becomes immaterial. My point is that Dumbledore has had 16+ years to figure out how he was going to tell the story of how this went down. Would he not tell Harry something that more accurately reflected the actual sequence of events if Snape was indeed still acting on Voldemort's orders at the time? He can still leave Snape's identity out of it. When JKR introduces this anomaly of versions, I read it as a clue. > bboyminn: > Further, there is very likely a third set of details that > neither of them are relating because they are not > relevant to the conversation at hand. I have no problem > piecing together the two version, and until something in > that third set of unknown details appears to contradict > it, I take both to be true in the context in which they > were spoken. Mike: Curious. I wonder what framing you would put on this third set of details? Could you be referring to Aberforth's version? Else, I'm not following what you mean by a third set. From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 10 03:42:28 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:42:28 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Apparating (Was: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159320 > Ceridwen: > I think Montims means that Draco used the now-functioning cabinet to > go to Knockturn Alley in order to contact the DEs assigned to him and > get the plot started. Of course Draco can't Apparate out of Hogwarts! Eddie: You know, now that I read this, I recall that Montague escaped from the still-broken vanishing cabinet apparated himself out? (True he nearly died and ended up lodged in a toilet.) Seems you CAN apparate inside Hogwarts after all? Eddie From jentle.spirit at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 03:30:00 2006 From: jentle.spirit at yahoo.com (jentle.spirit) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:30:00 -0000 Subject: new to the group/ Is Dumbledore dead? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159321 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bobby Reed" wrote: > > Not sure what all has been said on here before however after reading > Half Blood Prince I began thinking that Dumbledore is not dead. Bobby, I agree with you on this. I could be terribly wrong or living in a fantasy world but I just cannot wrap my mind around Dumbledore being dead. I think the Phoenix song is tied into it too. I am still hoping that after Harry beats Voldemort Dumbledore will reappear and they'll all go live in Godrics Hollow and Harry will have the father- figure he's missed out on all his life. Jen p.s. I'm new to this group too. From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Oct 10 03:29:27 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 23:29:27 -0400 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159322 "Julie: That is exactly my problem with the theory that Snape was hiding the book, from Dumbledore or anyone. Who hides a book in plain sight, in a cupboard where anyone can get to it? " I presume that you are familiar with the stories of Edgar Allen Poe? BAW From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 03:52:30 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:52:30 -0000 Subject: Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: <505.3210d8fd.325c5b98@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159323 > Sandy now: > This is something that has aiways confounded me about the Muggle born/raised students at Hogwarts; how willing they are to give up all their Muggle comforts for the sake of going to Hogwarts. I would think it goes even further than that. If they are educated as witches and wizards it stands to reason that they > will continue to live in the WW after they leave Hogwarts. It all sounds so charming as you are reading the books, but think about the last time you went through a power failure. It is the only life the WW knows, but that is not the case for Muggle born/raised. You have Hermione, who is the only child of two dentists, which leads me to believe she lived in relative affluence, and she gives all that up to become a witch?!? As fascinating as the concept of magic > is, I couldn't do it. > Tonks: Well it is no different than people who give up modern comforts to go to under developed countries, like with the Peace Corp, etc. Or those who go to some of the more strict monasteries where, while they have furnaces, it is still freezing cold in the winter and they lack most of the modern conforts that the rest of us take for granted. And then there are those who leave the modern world to live in the backwoods places. I have met people who were happy to leave the city and go deep into the woods of Northern Michigan without electricity or running water. Not my cup of tea, but people do do it. So it doesn't seem that odd to me that Muggleborns would be willing to give up the comforts of the Muggle world to be with their own kind. After a while you just forget what you have left behind. Tonks_op From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 04:03:41 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:03:41 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Apparating (Was: Yes, Virginia, there is a traitor) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > Eddie: > You know, now that I read this, I recall that Montague escaped from > the still-broken vanishing cabinet apparated himself out? (True he > nearly died and ended up lodged in a toilet.) > > Seems you CAN apparate inside Hogwarts after all? Mike: IIRC, JKR made some excuse for this but it wasn't very convincing. How about this one. Montague was moving back and forth between his broken cabinet *in* Hogwarts and the working cabinet *outside* of Hogwarts (in B&Bs). He started his apparition attempt while he was outside of Hogwarts and finished during transition inside of Hogwarts. Besides, maybe it isn't really impossible to apparate inside of Hogwarts. Maybe apparating from inside Hogwarts means you always end up in the toilet, literally!! From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 10 04:08:38 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:08:38 -0000 Subject: Follow the owls: Hedwig In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159325 > > Eddie: > > Since Hedwig could find Sirius when the MoM couldn't, then Hedwig > > could probably find Voldemort too. > > Carrie: > In the F.A.Q. at JKR's website there is a question similar to this > about following owls to find Sirius. Eddie: You are completely correct! Here's the info from Rowling's FAQ: "Just as wizards can make buildings unplottable, they can also make themselves untraceable. Voldemort would have been found long ago if it had been as simple as sending him an owl!" From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 04:27:39 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:27:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore (was Re: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610092127o6b9f1623od27069b682554b5c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159326 Tim: Good point,and even if Dumbledore is really dead, his portrait is hanging in the Headmasters office to give guidance and I'm sure there are portraits of him all over the wizarding world that he will be able to travel between. Who knows, Harry might be able to carry him with all the time in a card that comes with a chocolate frog. I know, I'm reaching but..... Lynda: No, you really aren't. From what JKR has consistently written nothing makes more sense. Of course, I've been saying since Dumbledore made that statement about being taken off the Chocolate Frog Cards that this was exactly the reason, but it makes sense. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 04:51:22 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 21:51:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610092151v15b99251n22c12bed82b4d8af@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159327 Eggplant: 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. Lynda: Of course, Harry's a fictional character for whom the story is over after the seventh book. He will never experience, evein in published fiction any of the above. He will simply live on in the minds of old and new fans, forever seventeen or thereabout. Peter Pan anyone? Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 04:58:16 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 04:58:16 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159328 Eggplant wrote: > I think that's true, and that's exactly why I think Harry will die The entire point of being a writer is to touch people's emotions, so > how could JKR resist the temptation to create a worldwide emotional > earthquake of that magnitude? > Tonks: Harry is going to have a near death experience, but come thru it to live a rich and full life. He is not going to go from being the `boy who lived' to the `young man who died'. If Harry is everyman then he is here to give a message to all of us. I think that message is that we should all live life to the fullest. I can see JKR wanting to spread a message like that after watching her mother die. "I came that they might have life, and have it abundantly." As to DD. I do think that he is a Christ figure (but not Jesus, there is a difference), but I am uncertain if it is he or Fawkes who will return. I see Fawkes as the symbol of the Holy Spirit and it might make sense for Fawkes to come back, and for DD to be the Saint that Harry can ask for help from the other side. One way or another I am certain that we will see a resurrection of someone in the last book. Tonks_op who would bet a years worth of butterbeer that the last book will be called "Harry Potter and the return of the Phoenix". From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 07:46:19 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:46:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159329 --- "Mike" wrote: > > > edited.... > > > > bboyminn: > > > > Here's the thing, I don't think the two version are > > inconsistent. Each is in a conversation, each is > > relating detail that the individually feels are > > relevant to the conversation at hand. Neither is > > intent on giving a precise detailed minute-by-minute > > historical account. > > Mike: > It's not the details, it's that Dumbledore said the > eavesdropper was discovered "only a short way into the > prophesy and thrown from the building". This does not > sound like the eavesdropper was allowed to remain > *inside the building* long enough for Sibyll to finish > the prophesy, much less to appear in her room *after* > the prophesy is finished. > > ...edited... > > ...edited... > > > > bboyminn: > > Further, there is very likely a third set of details > > that neither of them are relating because they are not > > relevant to the conversation at hand. I have no > > problem piecing together the two version, and until > > something in that third set of unknown details appears > > to contradict it, I take both to be true in the > > context in which they were spoken. > > Mike: > Curious. I wonder what framing you would put on this > third set of details? Could you be referring to > Aberforth's version? Else, I'm not following what you > mean by a third set. > bboyminn: By 'third set of details' I mean that neither Dumbledore or Trelawney are giving a /complete/ minute-by-minute historical account of the event. They are both summarizing what they think is relavant. Consequently there is a third set of detail which are simply the unspoken details that they feel at the moment aren't relative to the discussion at hand. For example, ...the eavesdropper was discovered "only a short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building". All that is true but details are left out. In this example, Aberforth discovered Snape a short way into the Prophecy (fact), Snape was thrown from the building (fact), that is all Harry needs to know at that point. In fact, given the animosity between them it is probably critical that Harry NOT know it was Snape, so Dumbledore leaves out the middle part, the part that was related to us by Trelawney in which, after a struggle, Snape is brought into the room, and Dumbledore suggests (supposition) to Aberforth that Snape be thrown out. Those two versions mesh if you assume they are partial tellings of the same story. So, Snape was discovered part way through the Prophecy and thrown from the building, but those do not have to be chronologically consecutive events. Something could have occurred between those suggested events as Trelawney clearly relates to us in her version. So, again, neither person is giving a full and complete account of events, both are leaving details out because, at that moment, in that conversation, they either don't think those details are relevant, or in the case of Dumbledore naming Snape, they are consciously NOT telling. Both are leaving out details, those detail represent a third set of unspoken facts about the event. Until those unspoken facts are revealed and contradict what we already know, I am going to continue to say that both Trelawney and Dumbledore's accounts are accurate but incomplete. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From jamess at climaxgroup.com Tue Oct 10 10:31:54 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:31:54 +0100 Subject: [SPAM] [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Apparating (Was: Yes, Virgini a, there is a traitor) Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39C56@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 159330 > Ceridwen: > I think Montims means that Draco used the now-functioning cabinet to > go to Knockturn Alley in order to contact the DEs assigned to him and > get the plot started. Of course Draco can't Apparate out of Hogwarts! Eddie: You know, now that I read this, I recall that Montague escaped from the still-broken vanishing cabinet apparated himself out? (True he nearly died and ended up lodged in a toilet.) Seems you CAN apparate inside Hogwarts after all? James: I don't think we can take this as proof that you can actually apperate within Hogwarts. Remember that we are told that when stuck in the cabinet he seemed to alternate between being closest to B&B's and to Hogwarts. It seems likely that the cabinet while broken was essentially moving him far enough away from Hogwarts to get away from the magic that prevents apperation. I don't recall canon saying that the toilet in question was inside Hogwarts, so the origin and destination of the attempted apperation need not break the rules. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jentle.spirit at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 03:47:53 2006 From: jentle.spirit at yahoo.com (jentle.spirit) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 03:47:53 -0000 Subject: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159331 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gaurav.baral" wrote: > > I think that he will return. Even Albus D. as a ghost. > > Nope, Sirius is gone for good. I'm still clinging to the hope that Dumbledore is not dead. Jen From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Tue Oct 10 11:15:17 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:15:17 -0000 Subject: Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: <505.3210d8fd.325c5b98@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159332 > > Sandy now: > This is something that has aiways confounded me about the Muggle born/raised > students at Hogwarts; how willing they are to give up all their Muggle > comforts for the sake of going to Hogwarts. Although they have no electricity > or electronics, and no furnaces, they have modern plumbing with running water, > flushing toilets and bathtubs with hot and cold running water. > > Sandy > Tesha: Give up all this? In a minute! Just let me get my coat... But seriously, the Romans had plumbing - and flush toilets aren't modern science. It's just basic stuff, and with a little ingenuity you could have almost anything! Wave your wand and your book opens to the page with the quote you're looking for - who needs Google? Late for an appointment, what rush hour traffic? - Floo Powder! and on and on... Imagine the possibilities! Tesha - who swears she comes from a wizarding family From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Oct 10 12:11:07 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:11:07 -0000 Subject: LV & the Avada Kedavra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159333 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Voldemort's remote soul-bits still have functioning bodies > so they are not going to pass on to the afterlife if some > other part of the soul loses its body. As long as those > soul-bits have functioning bodies, Voldemort's core soul > will not pass over into the afterlife. It remains earth- > bound. > > When Harry has destroyed the bodies of the soul-bits, then > there is nothing to hold Voldemort's soul to the earth. > In the final event, when Voldemort's body is destroyed, > his soul will cross over into the afterlife and that will > be the end of the identity know as Tom Riddle/Voldemort. > > For the record, it is my belief that it is the Horcruxes, > teh /bodies/, that Harry has to destroy, not the soul-bits > contained within. Those soul-bits are eternal, when > released they are free of their physical body but unable > to cross over without the other soul-bit; they are /free/ > but still earth-bound. They are what I refer to a > free-roaming souls. They are still on earth but in no way > provide Voldemort with any protection from death. As soon > as Voldemort's body can be effectively destroyed, all the > soul-bit cross over into the afterlife at once. Yes that does make perfect sense. I suppose I am still a little unsure as to how the soul piece within the diary was being used to create a new body for Tom Riddle, but I'm probably thinking about it a bit too much!! Brothergib From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Oct 10 12:18:13 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:18:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159334 Jen Wrote: Nope, Sirius is gone for good. I'm still clinging to the hope that Dumbledore is not dead. Sherry now: I don't really expect JKR to bring back Sirius. Having said that however, if she brought back anyone, I'd want it to be Sirius, so Harry has that person in his life. Also, he's the one character who has died, in the time frame of Harry's story, not in the past, whose body has never been seen. I'm talking about major characters or someone affecting Harry's life. Sirius was a major character to Harry, but his little trip behind the veil left Harry and us no body. It's kind of suspicious to me. I can live with Dumbledore being dead. He was an old man after all. Sherry From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Tue Oct 10 12:23:17 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:23:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159335 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > By 'third set of details' I mean that neither Dumbledore > or Trelawney are giving a /complete/ minute-by-minute > historical account of the event. They are both summarizing > what they think is relavant. Consequently there is a third > set of detail which are simply the unspoken details that > they feel at the moment aren't relative to the discussion > at hand. > > For example, ...the eavesdropper was discovered "only a > short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building". > All that is true but details are left out. In this > example, Aberforth discovered Snape a short way into the > Prophecy (fact), Snape was thrown from the building > (fact), that is all Harry needs to know at that point. In > fact, given the animosity between them it is probably > critical that Harry NOT know it was Snape, so Dumbledore > leaves out the middle part, the part that was related to > us by Trelawney in which, after a struggle, Snape is > brought into the room, and Dumbledore suggests > (supposition) to Aberforth that Snape be thrown out. > > Those two versions mesh if you assume they are partial > tellings of the same story. So, Snape was discovered part > way through the Prophecy and thrown from the building, but > those do not have to be chronologically consecutive > events. Something could have occurred between those > suggested events as Trelawney clearly relates to us in > her version. > > So, again, neither person is giving a full and complete > account of events, both are leaving details out because, > at that moment, in that conversation, they either don't > think those details are relevant, or in the case of > Dumbledore naming Snape, they are consciously NOT telling. > > Both are leaving out details, those detail represent a > third set of unspoken facts about the event. Until those > unspoken facts are revealed and contradict what we > already know, I am going to continue to say that both > Trelawney and Dumbledore's accounts are accurate but > incomplete. > > For what it's worth. > > Steve/bboyminn > Is it not possible that DD realised at some time during the prophecy that they were being overheard? He then uses a spell (Muffliato??) to prevent the intruder from hearing anything further, and also warns Aberforth of the intruder. By the time Aberforth apprehends Snape, Sybil is out of her trance and witnesses the whole thing. I therefore agree with bboymin that the discovery of the intruder and their ejection from the building do not have to be chronologically consecutive events. Brothergib From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 12:39:33 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:39:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: LV & the Avada Kedavra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610100539j4e69d474r4649ac8cf65d2a3c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159336 > Cliff here: > > The AK doesn't destroy anything a bullet wouldn't. Random832: Well, it's been demonstrated to destroy statues. But that's probably not what you meant. Brothergib: > Yes that does make perfect sense. I suppose I am still a little > unsure as to how the soul piece within the diary was being used to > create a new body for Tom Riddle, but I'm probably thinking about it > a bit too much!! Random832: I read this as the Diary soul piece trying to get a [mobile/animate] body for itself to take over the world in its own right. That is, Vapormort = old and busted, Diary!Riddle = new hotness. I think this situation might actually qualify for the evil overlord list under "why not to clone yourself". -- Random832 From abhi_bubblevyshu at yahoo.co.in Tue Oct 10 11:14:31 2006 From: abhi_bubblevyshu at yahoo.co.in (abhi_bubblevyshu) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:14:31 -0000 Subject: Harry should return back to Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159337 Hi, I am vyshu [B-)] >From my point of view I feel Harry should return back to Hogwarts for his seventh year because he has his friends to support him, he has Hagrid, is it necessary for him to go there only if Dumbuldore is there? From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 13:49:29 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:49:29 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061010134929.88807.qmail@web38313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159338 --- "gaurav.baral" wrote: > I think that he will return. Even Albus D. as a > ghost. > Cassy: I disagree, at least about Dumbledore. I don't see, how he could exchange "next gret adventure" - afterlife for linguering on Earth as a pathetic ghost. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From enlil65 at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 14:35:08 2006 From: enlil65 at gmail.com (Peggy Wilkins) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:35:08 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] new to the group In-Reply-To: <20061010003550.23871.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061010003550.23871.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1789c2360610100735h1f2d748evf0819c4e38d4971c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159339 On 10/9/06, Mare Cad TITANIC wrote: > Marianne: > Does anyone know the full name of Professor Binns ? He could > be the RAB we are speaking of. His love of History & his accuracy > in it, could make him responsible for destroying one of the > Horcruxes. He alwys seemed to me, to be a good guy !!! Peggy W: I would be surprised to see Professor Binns act outside his characteristic torpor to do anything so exciting as destroy a Horcrux. He seems about as involved in the world as a flobberworm... -- Peggy Wilkins "We Kingly Pigs" enlil65 at gmail.com From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 14:34:20 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:34:20 -0000 Subject: O O O It's Magic (More Wombat Love) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159340 Greetings Once again we are left to prod the bloody entrails of exam results, hoping some patterns congeal, so that we can conjure our clues from the stinking carnage. But, as we will see, the mysteries of Ms Rowling's "quite complicated" marking system, run deep. I took the exam twice (toggling 4.3 answers) and got Outstanding both times. This was a bit of a hoot, as I considered some of my second choice answers to be "clearly wrong." Thus, like others, I sought clarity in comparison. Between responses on HPfGUs and a small group, I felt I was coming to some consensus...just needed a *little* more input to clear up some close calls... Bam. Anne gave me 5 sets of "O" answers from the Leaky that blew everything out of the cauldron. Here then, for your edification and bewilderment, are the results of my tabulations. All of these, mind you, represent putative "O" answers. (Best if you have a hard copy of the exam, to play along at home.) 1. A=7; B=4 2. A=1; B=6; C=1; D=1; E=2 3. A=1; C=5; E=5 4. A=1; D=10 5. B=2; C=9 6. B=2; C=3; D=2; E=4 7. A=2; B=5; C=4 8. A=2; B=8; C=1 9. A=5; B=5; D=1 10. A=3; B=1; C=7 11. C=11 12. A=1; B=9; D=1 13. B=7; F=2; G=3; H=3, I=8; M=1; N=2; O=3; W=2; X=1, ?=1 14. C=1; D=8; E=2 15. C=7; E=4 16. B=6; C=5 17. A=10; B=1 18. B=5; D=5; E=1 I don't know about you, but I find this all very troubling. Sure there is one consensus, and a number of clear majorities. But there are still too many close calls. And some of these were going a different way before I got the Leaky five, three of which come from the same family, where people were sharing ideas. `Course my two come from the same head. Moreover, even if weighted credit were given for all answers, it's hard to believe that someone could miss so many best answers and still get the O. Yet it seems that some or the other of us did. That, or we are dealing with tampered memories. Pas moi, I wrote them down as I went. So, I guess we just need more "O" data. Not to slight anyone else, but I don't think I can handle the variations where even more answers are in error. If enough O's start agreeing, I'll be happy to toss out anomalies as likely products of a Confundus Charm. (No darling, Outstanding doesn't start with a "T.") On a popularity basis, here's how matters stand at present: 1. A. Hags eat children, small or otherwise (picked 7 times out of 11). Bathilda Bagshot says so. (FB xi) 2. B. Freshwater merpeople are NOT less warlike than salt (6 times out of 11). Ask the giant squid. 3. Tied between Inferi and WW (5 each). My money's on Inferi. 4. D. Poltergeists have never died, never will (10 of 11). For once, tradition and Rowling concur. 5. C. Goblins want their wands, pal. Nine of 11 O's agree. 6.One scrambled mess with E having a slight edge (4). Come on. You know they do. 7. B. House-elf house allegiance wins with a scant 5. Guess Elladora had some premature axe-ulations. 8. B. The wizard on the street wants more action (8 of 11). Don't we all. HP variety, of course. 9. Tied up 5 to 5, with those parents bitching about DADA and CoMC. Let's ask Kettleburn. 10. C. 53% of the wizards who were buttoned-holed agreed to regulation (7 of 11). 11. C. Lots of excitement over WW bites. 11 of 11 agree. Tonks says they kinda tickle. 12. B. 18% of the WW wants to keep the Wizengamot tujours pur (9 of 11). 13. Partial credit dilutes majority significance, IMO. FWIW, I (8) and B(7) score high. I'll take the IC, but decline the (broom) shaft. 14. D. It's reparo, baby. Not even superglue comes close; 8 of 11 know it. 15. C. Wouldn't it be nice if Hermione could just Google "Prince?" Nothing like computers (7). 16. At 6 (B) and 5 (C), it's too close to call. Is there a Wizard in your tree? Or can you laugh at Dragon Pox? I'll take C. 17.A. After 6 books and innumerable interviews, 10 of 11 have figured out that Muggles can't do Magic. 18. Tied up at 5 and 5, those Insensitive (D) Muggles are in Danger (B). A few more personal observations: 1. There is solid canon for hags eating children. Conversely, there is abundant reason to infer that Inferi can be programmed to do any number of things, including certainly--in a world where so many normally inanimate objects can--speak. The creepy co-opted cadaver of someone we know could show up for a chat in Book 7! ::evil frissions of delight:: Zombie-Lily drags one foot as she gropes toward our hero: "Harry...you have my eyes...give them back." 2. I welcomed the Merpeople answer as it finally gave an authorial explanation for the difference between the picture of the snoozing blonde in the Prefect's bathroom, and those delightful green-haired lunatics in the lake. And, it's specifically because we have a basis for finding it false that I chose the Merpeople answer. For the rest, we either had reason to find the statement true, or no acceptable evidence at all. The ghost business was tricky. Liquid was obvious but gas might have been a trap...until I recalled that Sir Patrick's severed head toots a horn in CoS. In a game of inference, that's close enough for me. There's no evidence for the rest, so the following Question 2 comments are pure drivel. We know WW snouts are distinguishable. It seems reasonable that they should be, proportionally, shorter than those of a real wolf. 1) They start out from a comparatively flat human faces; and 2) real wolves have pretty long snouts, already. WWs would look a bit like anteaters if they had noticeably longer ones. No male Veela, eh? Well, from a metaphorical stand point...there's plenty of monstrous pretty-boys out there...but, as women generally don't fall for looks alone...seems right to me. Now that we know that Hags only have four toes, all I can say is: you might want to check under the footwear before you take her home. Just to be sure. 3. The answer is Inferi. The MoM employed Dementors, hags can be found in pubs (see warning, above), we've seen vampires at holiday parties, and werewolves have a liaison office. Process of elimination, alone, gets you to Inferi. Add in the MoM pamphlet warnings, Snape's poster of what they do to you (a bloody smudge), and the fact that the best DD could do was hold them at bay (hard to use all that fire in your house or public areas), I'm willing to believe the MoM considers them most dangerous. 6. Ah, the giants. I believe that answers a, b, and c are all negated by reasonable inference from canon. Answers a and b are nixed by the fact that both Gurgs represented are male and of the largest of their kind. Answer c is negated by Olympe's use of the Conjunctivitis Curse, when she and Hagrid are trying to escape hostile giants. The Conjunctivitus Curse itself goes specifically to quality of eyesight. If a wizard who is capable enough to be Headmistress of one of the three largest schools in the WW uses a spell tailored to impair eyesight, the clear inference is that the eyesight was good to begin with, not "very poor compared to humans." That leaves nocturnal or cannibals. When Hagrid and Olympe reach the giant's reservation, it is already night. They decide to watch and wait until morning. It is noted that the giants don't fall asleep until about 3AM, at which point they pass out where they sit. While we don't know the exact date or location of this experience, 3AM is the lion's share of the night in most locales. I'll bet they aren't in a hurry to get up in the morning, either. Grawp was certainly snoozing when Harry and Hermione went to meet him in the middle of the day. I'm prepared to say that giants are up "most of the night and some of the day," and that "nocturnal" isn't a bad answer. However, I think the even better answer is cannibals. Heck, in desperate situations--such as confinement to close territory with limited resources--humans have demonstrated a ready ability to enjoy a same-species repast, or two. The giants are trapped in a small area, and I'll bet 80 (plus or minus) giants go through a lot of goats at one sitting. The "mean" Gurg was wearing a necklace that included what appeared to be human bones. Now, it may not be considered cannibalism for giants to eat humans (though they interbreed, as evidenced by both Hagrid and Olympe), but it's pretty close. Giants don't seem to have any moral qualms about killing each other, or tearing each other into handy bite-sized pieces. I find it hard to believe they would let a good meaty haunch go to waste in preference of a few goat snacks (if available), especially if they have no problem eating other humaniod beings. Yep. I'm betting many of `em are willing to eat each other. Naughty me. Wonder what Grawp's into. 7. Here I remain somewhat ambivalent. I toggled between the life expectancy and allegiance answers, and as the other O's did the same, it's hard to draw any conclusive patterns. My reasoning is the same, or similar to what has already been said. Elladora's program was started less than 200 years ago and has netted, not just one, but a row of heads. The Inference is that you can go through a lot of elves in less than 200 years. A house-elf's foremost allegiance is clearly to the bloodline of the family it is attached to. If Barty Sr. had gone off to a sanatorium in Switzerland, and summoned Winky back to his side, she would have gone in a gleeful twinkling--no tears wasted on Chez Crouch. I notice that a lot of folks talk about how Kreature was left to Harry, along with GP. That speaks of ownership, and the need to obey, but it doesn't reach Kreature's feelings in the matter. Kreature would clearly prefer to work for Bella. He continues to express his preference for Draco (House of Black) even though Harry now owns GP (house as structure). In the hierarchy of things, it's clear that an elf feels greater loyalty to the estate (and chattels) of it's long time family-- snogging old britches, and all--than to any mere "inhabitants" who, as we see when the Order takes over GP, may not have anything to do with the bloodline, at all. As a relative statement, or in the unlikely event that "it's house" was meant to differ from "the house" (bloodline vs. structure) the statement will pass as true and we can clearly select the 200 year lifespan as the correct (False) answer. Otherwise it's false. House elf's loyalty is to the family, not the structure or it's inhabitants du jure. It's probably false, and therefore, the correct answer. The Black family elves just weren't good at carrying tea trays. 10. Not so much about the selection process, which was idiosyncratic (weather generally not modified, blah blah, blah), but what the topic brought back to mind. I have always thought that DD modified the weather on at least 2 occasions (on page). The first is in Book 1 where the weather man earnestly promises rain the night Harry is left at the Dursleys, but none comes. The second is where the Advanced Guard comes for Harry. There has been a drought all summer, but the guard and Harry are drenched as they fly through the cloud cover overhead. In both cases DD is concerned with high level security and I think there is a direct connection. Is she nudging us to consider weather modification spells as a topic beyond the exam? Hmmm. As for the poll, I went with 53%, and still don't care. 13. You already have your wand (take the hint, you're magic). I reject any consideration of what the average wizard has on hand. As the questions stands, all options are at my disposal. The Invisibility Cloak seems to be the no-brainer. For travel, personally, I'm going to pack light and Apparate. I don't fear running into anti-apparation jinxes at every turn, and I don't want to fuss with carrying a broom stick while I'm slinking about in my IC or running, dodging, and shooting curses. Let's face it, even if the DEs had taken brooms to the MoM, strapped them to their backs while fighting, and then managed to get them between their legs after DD arrived in the Death Chamber, they would only have been able to ride as far as the elevator, after which point they would have been better off Apparating instead of pushing the button for an exit floor. All other forms of travel, Floo Powder included (not only do you need a fireplace, but you have to shout about where you're going), deteriorate from there. If I've already got the IC, I have far less use for the inherently limited Peruvian Darkness Powder, selection of which would also mandate that I take the Hand of Glory as my final item, in order to find my own way around in it. (Unless I just want to throw it through the window of a DE hideout and run away laughing.) Skip that. It's already been noted that you can clout a foe in the head with just about anything, including a cauldron, crystal ball, or good brass scales. IMO they should all get you zero to negative points for choosing--out of all this bounty--to tote such things into battle. Ditto Anti-Muggle doorknobs, Lunascopes, Omnioculars (hey, who hit me?), Quick-Quotes Quills, Rememberalls, Parchment, Wireless, and Telescopes. Extendable Ears, Hand of Glory, Pensieves, Potion-making kits, and Revealers have limited use in limited "trouble" situations--maybe they would get "some" credit. Not much. Foe-glass? Nah, I'd have to get a big one. Plus, Barty Jr.'s only worked after DD, Snape, and McG had already kicked in the door. I'm willing to take it on faith that anyone who smashes down my door is a foe. Hagrid excepted. Secrecy-Sensors and Sneakoscopes probably could get "some" credit-- but they go off for all sorts of goofy reasons, and who cares if they are squealing like mad whilst you battle the Dark Lord? Come to think of it, if you're hidden, they could give you away. Glad I didn't pack any. In addition to the IC, I took: The Two-way mirror--because a handy, secure source of communication with relevant allies--or loved ones you are trying to protect--is always good. The Time-Turner, because it kicks ass, definitely has been demonstrated to change outcomes, and it's uses are only limited by one's imagination. 16. I believe that Muggle-born witches are less susceptible to magical illnesses. Moreover, I do not believe that being so impugns their magical ability in any wise, as we know they are often "some of the best" (Hr/Lily). Rowling's definition of a squib is: "a non-magical person born to at least one magical parent." No exception is made to infer that this happens (rare as it is) more often to Muggle-born witches or wizards. Indeed her detailed discussion of how they lead marginal lives, being in the WW but unable to participate, strongly suggests they usually don't have family in the Muggle world (as has been noted). Squibs, Rowling says, are "almost the opposite" of Muggle-born wizards. Q: "How does a Muggle-born like Hermione develop magical abilities?" JKR: "Nobody knows where magic comes from. *Sometimes* it *seems* to be inherited, but others are the only ones in their family who have the ability." (Barnes & Noble 3/19/99, my emphasis) *Sometimes* doesn't sound like *usually* to me. Hermione is our best example of a Muggle-born witch, and she's unlikely to have been slow to show magical ability. Ditto Lily. Natural rhythm...yeah, like your average dentist. My thinking is that unblended magical genes are likely more vulnerable to magical diseases. I'll bet it IS harder for Hermione to catch Dragon Pox. That about wraps me up for WOMBATS II, unless there are other scores that can shed light on the remaining ambiguities. Talisman PS: Perhaps question 13 was another way for Rowling to highlight how useful an IC really is, thus raising the critical matter of the Potter garment, yet again. I haven't been reading HPfGUs much, but last I looked no one was saying what I think is obvious: James left the IC with DD, for Harry, because James knew he was going to die (and Harry wasn't) in the conflict at GH. In the distant past, I've written extensively of how Lily's behavior indicates she knew what was going to happen, and what her role in matters required. Shall we add James to the list? All part of DD's plan, m'dears. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 14:18:27 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:18:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610092151v15b99251n22c12bed82b4d8af@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0610092151v15b99251n22c12bed82b4d8af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610100718t132a534fq12ecb128089d6164@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159341 > > Lynda: > > Of course, Harry's a fictional character for whom the story is over after > the seventh book. He will never experience, evein in published fiction > any > of the above. He will simply live on in the minds of old and new fans, > forever seventeen or thereabout. Peter Pan anyone? montims: and yet they have done exactly that with Peter Pan - Geraldine McCaughrean has been chosen to write the official sequel to the story of Peter Pan. I can quite understand JKR's desire to keep her character for herself. Good writing or bad writing, they have written sequels to Austen, the Brontes, Dickens, Du Maurier, etc etc, and in the process the brainchild morphs into something else... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 16:51:38 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:51:38 -0000 Subject: OT: Web Group Changes - 'Messages' Menu Item Inactive Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159343 Just a quick note, as many of you already know the 'Messages' menu item is now inactive on most screens. In the OT-Chatter group I have a link to a Yahoo Feedback form where you can complain. Common logic suggests that all menu items should remain active at all times. Here is a link to the OT Message - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/30829 Thanks for your support. Now back to our regualarly schedule program. Steve/bboyminn From alexandriamaria2002 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 17:31:32 2006 From: alexandriamaria2002 at yahoo.com (Jenny jndmne) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:31:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry should return back to Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061010173132.21366.qmail@web55107.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159344 Hi, I am Jenny. I agree with vyshu that Harry should return to Hogwarts for his seventh year. My thought are that one way or another they will all end up back at Hogwarts. It is kind of the idea that it will end sort of where it started. I have more thoughts on this, but I'm not going to put them out at this time because I want to check a few things with the book before I say anymore. Jenny From juli17 at aol.com Tue Oct 10 17:45:07 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:45:07 EDT Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159345 "Julie: That is exactly my problem with the theory that Snape was hiding the book, from Dumbledore or anyone. Who hides a book in plain sight, in a cupboard where anyone can get to it? " BAW wrote: I presume that you are familiar with the stories of Edgar Allen Poe? Julie again: Some, and I was being a bit facetious there. Let's just say Snape isn't going to hide a book in plain sight. Not his MO. If that book contained anything he wanted to keep from Dumbledore or anyone else, I'm sure he would have tucked it away safely somewhere, or destroyed it, not left it in an unlocked classroom cabinet. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From acean22 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 14:26:18 2006 From: acean22 at yahoo.com (yvette) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:26:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore (was Re: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ?) In-Reply-To: <20061010134929.88807.qmail@web38313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159346 "gaurav.baral" wrote: > > I think that he will return. Even Albus D. as a > > ghost. > > Cassy: > I disagree, at least about Dumbledore. I don't see > how he could exchange "next great adventure" - > afterlife for lingering on Earth as a pathetic ghost. Yvette: I think Sirius will return; Dumbledore, I think is such a major force in Harry's life that I don't think he will just leave Harry completely, at least not until things are resolved. Dumbledore is so powerful and cool he will find a way to communicate with Harry. I bet he had a plan all along. yvette From ligayfriends at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 17:06:39 2006 From: ligayfriends at yahoo.com (Sean Patrick Brennan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:06:39 -0000 Subject: How to make a horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159347 <<<< wrote: I have a theory that could explain Harry!horcrux or Scar!horcrux although I am going out on a limb here. Have we ever been told the ritual that is undertaken in creating a horcrux? I think that it is a complicated process that targets two separate things, the victim and the item the soul piece becomes attached to. 1. As soon as LV points the wand at Harry, his soul fractures, leaving part of it in Harry or at least in the scar. Because of Lily's protective magic, as well as his own soul bit now with Harry, when the words Avada Kadavara are uttered, it is deflected back at LV, ripping the remaining part of his soul from his body, the combine force of the two soul pieces clashing magically destroying the house. 2. LV, realizing that he must encase this soul bit now, attempts to take care of that matter, but because Lily's death was a love sacrifice charm itself, caused the horcrux spell to not properly resolve, destroying his body, sending one soul bit into Harry, the other soul part in the other direction, the force destroying the house.>>>>> _________________________________________________________ Sean (new member here) responds: I'd like to add that Harry being a Horcrux presents a major problem for LV which Wayne made me realize, but he also made me realize the solution/plan that LV might have if that's the case. Problem: If Harry was made a Horcrux, either by accident or on purpose, then killing Harry will destroy part of LV's soul. Now LV is no dummy from what we have learned. If the scar or Harry was a Horcrux, LV would know it. Now some would say that's why he instructs all his DE's not to kill Harry. But if killing Harry was such an important thing not to do, why do some DE's seem hellbent on killing Harry anyway throughout the books? Then again, in at least one memorable example from the CoS MOVIE, Lucius Malfoy starts saying, "Avada..." but when I cross-referenced it in CoS page 338, he was only ready to harm but not kill Harry. In GoF page 678, Barty Crouch Junior definitely says he's going to kill Harry himself and be rewarded by LV for it. In another, in HBP page 603, Severus yells at a DE to leave Harry alone. In that instance, the DE wasn't necessarily killing him, just torturing him a bit, but Snape's warning was definitely caused by real concern. Not to mention that LV himself is definitely trying to kill Harry. Okay, so all of that is the problem, mainly that no matter what, LV's Death Eaters are trying to kill Harry even though their instructions are not to and LV wants Harry dead. And if he's dead, so too is LV's soul portion. Solution/LV's plan: This solution then is based on Wayne's theory. In GoF in the graveyard scene, page 658, LV has been yelling at his DE's and at Harry. Nagini, meanwhile, has been constantly circling the area. So on page 658, LV says, "I am now going to prove my power by killing him," and at the end of his speech he adds, "Just a little longer, Nagini." Hmm. If Harry is a horcrux, Nagini then is on standby to receive the horcrux. Of course on that theory, Nagini is not a horcrux at the end of Book 4 (unless he was prepared to hold a second horcrux, but LV seems to prefer keeping them separate). I personally hate the idea that Harry is a Horcrux because it means he has to die, as even if all other Horcruxes are destroyed, LV lives on in Harry. So I hope this is all just an exercise in "what if". But I wanted to contribute to the discussion anyway by reasoning out the Harry as Horcrux theory. I hope it has been a worthwhile contribution in some way. --Sean From d4sunrise at aol.com Tue Oct 10 15:02:58 2006 From: d4sunrise at aol.com (d4sunrise at aol.com) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:02:58 EDT Subject: new to group (is DD dead/ RAB) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159348 JKR has said in now a couple of interviews that Dumbledore is definitely dead. She also kind of let the cat out of the bag that RAB is Regulus Black in an interview. I am new to the group also and wasn't sure if this has been pointed out yet. Dawn "Better wizards than you have lost a buttock, ya know?" Mad Eye Moody [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 10 12:40:18 2006 From: secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net (maria) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 05:40:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061010124018.55888.qmail@web83014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159349 Jen Wrote: >> Nope, Sirius is gone for good. I'm still clinging to the hope that Dumbledore is not dead. << Sherry now: >> I don't really expect JKR to bring back Sirius. Having said that however, if she brought back anyone, I'd want it to be Sirius, so Harry has that person in his life. Also, he's the one character who has died, in the time frame of Harry's story, not in the past, whose body has never been seen. << Maria: Welcome to The Denial Club! I have alway stated that "Sirius and DD was dead and that Snape isn't bad but a good guy." With that said, at this point I think we will see a lot of Sirius thru the mirror he gave Harry, or at least a "voice". Or.....now this is really out there but since there wasn't a body, there still may be hope! Maybe, just maybe, DD is going to gather up Sirius for the last battle against LV! See I think being that this is the last book, it is going to be a free for all against Good vs. Evil. But who knows..I for one will love to see all the Hogwarts teachers fight against the DE~LOL! As for DD there is a site, I want to say it's called Dumbledore is not dead! LOL I truly believe his trust in Snape is more powerful than anything as he did not want to even hear anything against him, for me that means Snape had done something great to prove himself to DD! So I think being that he trusts Snape with out a doubt, he called on him to help him out and made him just look like he was dead. I feel he will return. I am also hoping that this won't be the end of the books as many writers end it for a short time but then go back for whatever reason, mostly for the money. I also think a lot will be revealed about Snape and his past and finally what led DD to trust him as he does! I for one can't wait!! ~maria~ From whytewytch76 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 15:25:15 2006 From: whytewytch76 at yahoo.com (NightChade) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:25:15 -0000 Subject: New member - Locket, Snape and Dumbledore on the Tower Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159350 Hi everyone, Here's a few of my thoughts on the last book into the new book (next summer??!!, why so long????) So the locket they are looking for is in the possession of Harry's new house elf, Kreacher. When they were cleaning out the Black house/headquarters, it was in a cabinet. Kreacher was taking things and hiding them. He has the locket that wouldn't open. Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders, when he said Please Severus, he wasn't begging for his life, he was pleading for him to carry out his order. I suppose all of this has been discussed already, but I am new and can't read all the messages! Thanks, Sherry From freakywife54321 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 10 17:01:10 2006 From: freakywife54321 at sbcglobal.net (Carolyn) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:01:10 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159351 My name is Carol and you could say that I am a Harry Potter fan. I have read and seen every Harry Potter book and even seen all the movies that are out about him. Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. Carol From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 18:01:23 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:01:23 -0000 Subject: Why didn't Snape turn Harry in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159352 > "Julie: > That is exactly my problem with the theory that Snape was hiding the > book, from Dumbledore or anyone. Who hides a book in plain sight, > in a cupboard where anyone can get to it? " > > BAW wrote: > I presume that you are familiar with the stories of Edgar Allen Poe? > > > Julie again: > Some, and I was being a bit facetious there. Let's just say Snape isn't > going to hide a book in plain sight. Not his MO. If that book contained > anything he wanted to keep from Dumbledore or anyone else, I'm sure > he would have tucked it away safely somewhere, or destroyed it, not > left it in an unlocked classroom cabinet. Alla: What if this is exactly his MO? What if we presume that it is not? What is the better way for the supposedly turned DE to hide but in the plain sight of unconditional trust of Albus Dumbledore? What if Snape hiding the book in the plain sight foreshadows him hiding his true nature in the plain sight? Not saying that this is true necessarily, but do wonder where do you get that Snape cannot hide the book in the plain sight? JMO, Alla From e_spehr_99 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 16:53:42 2006 From: e_spehr_99 at yahoo.com (e_spehr_99) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:53:42 -0000 Subject: Harry should return back to Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159353 Vyshu wrote: > From my point of view I feel Harry should return back to Hogwarts > for his seventh year because he has his friends to support him, he > has Hagrid, is it necessary for him to go there only if Dumbuldore > is there? e_spehr_99: I also agree with you. Also Harry needs to gain all the magical skills necessary for his upcoming battle.... Additionally he may even gain more information from the Dumbledore portrait... From rbrucecarter at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 17:26:38 2006 From: rbrucecarter at yahoo.com (Bruce Carter) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:26:38 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159354 shivifree2find: > When I heard he is going to die in 7th part I had a feeling that > I have lost Bruce: I have a theory that the story of Harry is an allegory to the story of Christ. Therefore, in the 7th book, he would have to die to save the world. But --- since his character parallels Christ - it is possible he could also have a resurrection. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 18:15:29 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:15:29 -0000 Subject: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159355 --- "gaurav.baral" wrote: > > I think that he will return. Even Albus D. as a ghost. > > "gaurav.baral" > bboyminn: Oh me, oh my, oh dear, do I even dare respond? I have such a wild and unlikely theory, and further one that has been discussed here a couple of times before. I hate to trot out my old theories and rehash them. I feel too much like my father, telling the same old tired stories over and over again. Maybe that's just part of being old? Well, you did ask, so here it goes. No, Dumbledore is absolutely and completely dead. All we have left are his one or more portraits to help us, and any additional information that Dumbledore may have left Harry. That's it. Dumbledore the human being is dead and gone. He certainly will not come back as a ghost seeing as how he has such an enlightened attitude towards dead; it being the next great adventure. Sirius is another matter though. My first speculative assumption is that Sirius 'crossed over' under unusual circumstances. Assuming the Veil is a metaphor for death, and assuming that the 'other side' of the Veil is the Realm of the Dead, when one normally crosses over, goes beyond/behind the Veil, ones physical bodies dies and is left behind, and only the Spirit cross the threshold into the Realm of the Dead. But Sirius didn't die before he crossed over, he went through body and soul alive and intact. Now it is a rare mythilogical hero who is able to cross over into the Land of the Dead and live through the experience. It is even a rarer mythological hero who manages to come back from the dead. So, at the moment, Sirius is alive, but he is trapped on the other side. If one is trapped in the Realm of the Dead and is so trapped for eternity, then isn't one as good as dead? Isn't one functionally dead even if not literally dead? So, for all intent and purpose, Sirius is trapped forever in the Realm of the Dead. But, as I said, it is the rarest of rare mythological heroes who manages to outwit death and return from the dead. Could Sirius be such a hero and how could he possible manage it? I'm glad you asked. We know that Voldemort transferred some of his magical powers and skills to Harry when he tried to kill him. What if (more speculation) he transferred powers that have yet to manifest themselves. Harry learned he can talk to snakes by encountering snakes. What if Harry has other powers but he simply hasn't come across the circumstance that allows those powers to manifest themselves. Take for example Voldemort other unique and often mentioned power to possess other beings. Now hold that thought. My theory involves Harry going beyond that Veil, but what could possibly draw the story and the characters back to the Department of Mysteries and to the Veil? In a sense, we've been there, we've done that. Why would they have need to return to that location? Hold that thought. Now we know Harry main task is to destroy the Horcruxes, so that he can then in turn destroy Voldemort, but how? How does one destroy a Horcrux? Is is as simple as breaking open a stubborn box? Is there a terrible curse that is automatically part of each and every Horcrux? And who do we know who is good at breaking curses; Bill maybe? But Horcruxes are extremely rare, and they may require special magic to release the soul piece within. Would Bill know of this rare and unusual magic? Who knows. But we do know a way in which souls can be released from their bodies. Since Horcruxes are typically not alive, I suspect if they were thrown beyond/behind the Veil, their soul-piece would be released. So Harry gets the idea that the Horcruxes could be thrown into the Veil and that would destroy them safely. Perfect, now we have Harry and the gang at the Dept of Mysteries with all the Horcruxes. So, now we have to get Voldemort there. Well, of course he arrive just in the nick of time to prevent Harry from destroying the Horcruxes. In my scenario, Harry is about to throw them in when Voldemort arrives. The fastest way to stop Harry is to take painful possession of Harry's body, and prevent Harry from thrown the Horcruxes behind the Veil. So, Voldemort possesses Harry, but Harry is absolutely determined to stop Voldemort, and he resist that possession with all his might. It, once again, becomes a test of will similar to the Brother Wand test of wills. Harry summons every last bit of strength he has to throw Voldemort from his body, and lo and behold, instead of throwing Voldemort from his body, Harry reverses the possession. Now Harry is in possession of Voldemort's body. Seeing his opportunity, Harry waste no time in throwing himself and by extension Voldemort through the Veil, thereby sacrificing himself to end Voldemort's life on earth. So, Harry, Voldemort, and all the Horcruxes are now behind the Veil. Just one small rub. Death doesn't know what to make of two bodies and two souls occupying one physical form; the merged Harry/Voldemort body. Death can't take them because first of all they went through the Veil under the same unusual circumstances as Sirius. Second of all, as long as the two forms/bodies stay merged Death can't claim them, this dual body/soul is not trapped behind the Veil. If they can summon a unified will and find the gateway, they can leave. So, while merged and behind the Veil, Sirius, Dumbledore, and Harry's parents come to his aid. Though they can do little besides give him advice and encouragement. But there is a critical piece of advice that they can give. If Harry were to merge with Sirius the same duel body/duel soul would allow them both to leave. But how? If Harry is alone in his body and soul behind the Veil he becomes as trapped as Sirius. Solution? Simple, Sirius places his hand on the merged Harry/Voldemort and Harry transfers his possession to Sirius. That leaves Voldemort isolated and trapped behind the Veil and leaves merged Harry and Sirius free to leave. When Harry and Sirius emerge from behind the Veil, they separate, everyone cheers, and they are all off to the Leaky Cauldron for a nice glass of mead. Voldemort is /vanquished/ forever; Harry causes his demise but never has to actually kill him. Fade to Black. Well, you /did/ ask. Steve/bboyminn From pandoras_obsession at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 18:21:54 2006 From: pandoras_obsession at yahoo.com (pandoras_obsession) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:21:54 -0000 Subject: Harry should return back to Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159356 Vyshu wrote: > From my point of view I feel Harry should return back to Hogwarts > for his seventh year because he has his friends to support him, he > has Hagrid, is it necessary for him to go there only if Dumbledore > is there? pandoras_obsession: Well I think that Harry should not return to Hogwarts at first though I do think in the end he will end up there...Harry needs time to himself, and the only way he can do that is if he discovers the world without Hogwarts...But then again who knows just what she will do in this book. From cadtitanic at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 18:27:09 2006 From: cadtitanic at yahoo.com (Mare Cad TITANIC) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061010182709.24176.qmail@web34913.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159357 Carol wrote: >> Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. << Sounds to me like the chick hasn't got anything better to do. Maybe she should come over to my place & give me a hand planting spring flowers. Do you know, that she has NEVER even read ANY of the H P books??? What a jerkozoid!!! Marianne ( Mare ) CadTITANIC From brycam75203 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 18:26:41 2006 From: brycam75203 at yahoo.com (brycam75203) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:26:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159358 Hello everyone! I am new to the group, however, I have read all of the books and seen all the movies. I was so shocked in this last book to read about Snape's betrayal! Who will Harry turn to now for information about the Dark Lord? His mentor is gone, so who will guide him now? Where will he go and what will he do? I know he doesn't need money and providing for his needs is not what I'm questioning. It seems he always had Dumbledore to ultimately look out for him, and now he doesn't. At the end of the "Half Blood Prince", I felt that Ron and Hermione would stick by him through think and thin, however, they are all just kids? Who will mentor them now, and will the students return to Hogwarts? brycam75203 From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Tue Oct 10 18:47:08 2006 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:47:08 -0400 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books References: Message-ID: <001101c6ec9c$7e270ea0$0200a8c0@carlaathome> No: HPFGUIDX 159359 Carol: >> Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. << Carla: I heard about it. It's silly. And she says she is speaking for Christians. I am a Christian myself and see NOTHING wrong with the books. They teach loyalty, friendship, humility, and a number of other wonderful qualities and lessons. Guess we better ban Shrek, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Hansel and Gretel, etc. The have magic in themn too....egad! Such danger. Yeah, I'm gonna run down to the corner wand shop and start wreaking havoc on mankind because I can quote imaginary magic spells from a children' book. She needs to get a life. Carla From taguem at jmsearch.com Tue Oct 10 18:52:07 2006 From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle A. Tague) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:52:07 -0400 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159360 Carol: >> My name is Carol and you could say that I am a Harry Potter fan. I have read and seen every Harry Potter book and even seen all the movies that are out about him. Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. << Michelle here: Welcome, I'm relatively new as well. I love hearing everyone's theories on this list... this is a very high volume group...so hold on to your inbox! It's amazing that people are so scared of the HP books. I think that whatever can unify children across the globe with the joy of imagination, and the joy of reading... is a wonderful thing. I actually watched a documentary about the world of Harry Potter (got it on netflix) and it was really fascinating to see where Jo could have and did pull a lot of her information that was put in the books. That it wasn't simply just a fiction story...so much truth or old folklore and mythology was also used. Probably has been discussed on here but just sharing. Michelle in Pennsylvania From pandoras_obsession at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 18:27:15 2006 From: pandoras_obsession at yahoo.com (pandoras_obsession) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:27:15 -0000 Subject: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159361 > "gaurav.baral" wrote: > I think that he will return. Even Albus D. as a ghost. pandoras_obsession: Well I think Black just may come back...as for Albus D, I can not wait to hear what he will impact to Harry via his portaits.. From ligayfriends at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 18:34:10 2006 From: ligayfriends at yahoo.com (Sean Patrick Brennan) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:34:10 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?) -- Christian allegory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159362 Bruce: > I have a theory that the story of Harry is an allegory to the story > of Christ. Therefore, in the 7th book, he would have to die to save > the world. But --- since his character parallels Christ - it is > possible he could also have a resurrection. _____________________________________________ Sean: One of the many reasons I am a fan of J.K. Rowling and her books is that she has a wonderfully accurate moral character that keeps shining through her work and words, even those outside her books. She is rightfully angry at fundamental Christians while remaining a beautifully Christian-charactered woman herself. I feel that she has tried very hard not to write Jesus' story into the books, but at the same time she can't help but allow that story to affect her writing (which is fine). What you do tap into, the Resurrection, is something very much worth wondering about and waiting for. One of the central characters of the books is the Phoenix, mythological representation of death and rebirth and a Christ symbol. And because JKR didn't just accidentally write that both Harry and LV have phoenix feathers in their wands, nor did she simply mistakenly write that Mr. Ollivander of wand-making fame has disappeared, I am confident Book 7 will answer these questions. I'm looking forward to reading it. =) From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 19:09:55 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:09:55 -0000 Subject: O O O It's Magic (More Wombat Love) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159363 > Talisman: > > Once again we are left to prod the bloody entrails of exam results, > hoping some patterns congeal, so that we can conjure our clues from > the stinking carnage. > > But, as we will see, the mysteries of Ms Rowling's "quite > complicated" marking system, run deep. > Neri: I think there's a simple explanation to the mystery. Since the questions in many cases don't have definite answers in canon, JKR takes it into account. She doesn't necessarily have answers that are wrong and answers that are right. Instead she has answers that are more right than others. So for example, taking question 3: what's the most dangerous ? dementors, inferi, hags, vampires or werewolves. JKR doesn't give (say) "inferi" 10 points and 0 for any other answer. Instead, inferi get 10, dementors get 9, werewolves get 6, hags get 3 and vampires get 1. If most of the questions are graded this way then it is possible to get "Outstanding" with many different variations, as long as they're good enough. In addition we don't know what was JKR's benchmark for getting an O. Now, I haven't actually tried to formulate this problem in algebraic terms but a simple algebraic law says that in order to solve for n unknowns you need at least n equations. This means that if we have something like 18 questions times 5 answers per question = 90 unknowns (the grade for each answer) then you'll need *at least* 90 different O-grade sets of answers to discover these unknowns (throw in the benchmark for O as one additional unknown). That's assuming you know how to solve a system of 90 equations with 90 unknowns. Don't look at *me* But in general, I'd say the way you've been going about it isn't unreasonable. If you gather as many different O-grade sets of answers as you can find, and grade each answer by its popularity, the results should probably be pretty close to JKR's original grading. Not identical necessarily, but generally close. For example, your popularity pole might find that inferi are slightly more dangerous than demenetors while JKR originally graded inferi slightly less dangerous, but it would still mean that she probably graded inferi and dementors very close. Hope this helps, Neri From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Tue Oct 10 19:31:30 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:31:30 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: <001101c6ec9c$7e270ea0$0200a8c0@carlaathome> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159364 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carla" wrote: > > Carol: > >> Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban > the Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that > the books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. << > > > Carla: > I heard about it. It's silly. Tesha: The ALA (American Library Association) has the Harry Potter Books listed as being the 7th in "The 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990?2000" - from Factmonster.com: "The reason given for censoring the phenomenally popular and seemingly harmless novels was that they promoted "unchristian magic."" It's quite sad really. The folks that try to ban books most likely haven't read them, since learning - seeing something new - opening yourself to a new experience - is just wrong. Makes you wonder what their children will be like... From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 10 19:35:24 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:35:24 -0000 Subject: O O O It's Magic (More Wombat Love) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159365 > Neri: > I think there's a simple explanation to the mystery. Since the > questions in many cases don't have definite answers in canon, JKR > takes it into account. She doesn't necessarily have answers that are > wrong and answers that are right. Instead she has answers that are > more right than others. > > So for example, taking question 3: what's the most dangerous ? > dementors, inferi, hags, vampires or werewolves. JKR doesn't give > (say) "inferi" 10 points and 0 for any other answer. Instead, inferi > get 10, dementors get 9, werewolves get 6, hags get 3 and vampires > get 1. > > If most of the questions are graded this way then it is possible to > get "Outstanding" with many different variations, as long as they're > good enough. In addition we don't know what was JKR's benchmark for > getting an O. > > Now, I haven't actually tried to formulate this problem in algebraic > terms but a simple algebraic law says that in order to > solve for n unknowns you need at least n equations. This means that > if we have something like 18 questions times 5 answers per question = > 90 unknowns (the grade for each answer) then you'll need *at least* > 90 different O-grade sets of answers to discover these unknowns > (throw in the benchmark for O as one additional unknown). That's > assuming you know how to solve a system of 90 equations with 90 > unknowns. Don't look at *me* Potioncat: My first reaction was "This is a simple explanation?" and my second reaction was "C'mom---we're talking about Maths!Rowling here. (that does mean big grin, doesn't it?) I didn't take the Wombats. I would have had to be carried out like what's her name in O.W.L.s if I had. My question(s) to the group is, why do you think she creates these tests. Did she create these tests? Have they generated, whether by intention or not, any new canon or clues? P.S.---everyone, please give the List Elves a round of applause. The work load has picked up. Greetings to all the new members. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Tue Oct 10 20:02:02 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:02:02 -0000 Subject: What do you really think of Dumbledore? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159366 Whooo-hoo! I just received my owl ? I'm a real unmoderated-member as of this afternoon! Now I have a question. I entered this pale because I'm writing a murder mystery for my family this Christmas and the theme is HP. One of the characters is DD and it might be him, or his brother, or another imposter ? and I need to see DD more clearly. I came to learn from the experts, and I need you now. Could anyone help me out here? Simple Question In 20 words or less Do you love, hate, or "could care less" about DD and why. (opinion accepted, quotes appreciated, lexicon info extra credit 8^) Thank you thank you thank you Tesha From dougsamu at golden.net Tue Oct 10 20:22:58 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:22:58 -0400 Subject: Time travel in JKR books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159367 Raven Heart: Events happened the same the first time they experienced them as they did the second time, the difference is only from the point of view. doug: Such an important thing to keep in mind..... Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 10 20:28:38 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:28:38 -0000 Subject: Banning the books/Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159368 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carolyn" wrote: > > My name is Carol and you could say that I am a Harry Potter fan. > I have read and seen every Harry Potter book and even seen all > the movies that are out about him. > > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. Geoff: Sadly, she is not the first. If you have been reading about the Banned Books Week, HP features largely there. Much of the opposition comes from "far right" Christian groups. Let me make it very clear to start with that I am an evangelical Christian and I do not agree wioth these groups. When the books first emerged, I allowed myself to be led by people leaning that way in my own church. When I saw the second film (almost by accident), I realised that I had allowed myself to be influenced without looking at the information for myself. If you are going to ban Harry Potter, then you must logically also ban "The Lord of the Rings" and the "Narnia" books - also written by Christians and also having an underlying theme of love. Moving on, Bruce wrote in message 159354: I have a theory that the story of Harry is an allegory to the story of Christ. Therefore, in the 7th book, he would have to die to save the world. But --- since his character parallels Christ - it is possible he could also have a resurrection. Geoff: Here, I would disagree. I have on several occasions taken issue with contributors who have suggested that Harry is a Christ figure. Christ was God in human form; he was sinless. Harry, though I will fight for his side anytime, does not fit that category. I identify so much with him because I see myself in my teen years. He is human and fallible. I have on many occasions posted to say that I see him as an everyman. Like us, he is on a journey and, like us, seeks the best way but often falls down as we do because we allow God's desire to guide us to be thwarted by pride, anger, apathy and a hundred and one other things in our physical life. At the risk of being hit by someone because I have preeviously said this again and again and (sigh) again, I want to see a Horcruxless Harry emerge alive and well from the end of Book 7. From dhudson2663 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 19:29:43 2006 From: dhudson2663 at yahoo.com (David Hudson) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:29:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore (was Re: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return Message-ID: <20061010192943.67101.qmail@web83001.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159369 I'm not sure how Sirius can speak to Harry through the mirror since Harry smashed the mirror & it's never mentioned that he used the Repairo spell. I do however believe Dumbledore will be able to communicate with Harry because I'm nearly certain he would have already had a painting of himself done as one of the greatest Headmasters of Hogwarts. David From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 19:52:31 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:52:31 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159370 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carolyn" wrote: > > My name is Carol and you could say that I am a Harry Potter fan. > I have read and seen every Harry Potter book and even seen all > the movies that are out about him. > > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. > > Carol Carol, If she had read the books she would know that it is emphasized many many times that witches and wizards aren't made, they are born. You can't learn magic. Oh, you can learn tricks that imitate magic, but you can't actually DO magic unless you are born a witch or wizard. According to the books. I am a Christian and was a bit skeptical about Harry Potter when all the hooplah first started years ago when the first one came out. But I decided not to judge until I had read them for myself. To me, it's fantasy just like in Cinderella, Lord of the Rings, Sleeping Beauty, and other works of fiction that contain witches, wizards, elves and other magical beings. And the woman that wants these books banned needs a wake up call! There ARE people in this world who profess to be witches and wizards. Wiccan (I hope I'm spelling that right) IS a religion that some people in this world and this country choose to practice. While I may or may not agree with this, IT IS A FREE COUNTRY!!! These people have just as much right by law to practice their religion as I do. I for one love the books and movies (but the books much more)! It's the same old tale of good vs. evil! We cheer for Harry and his pals because we see a little of ourselves in them. The rumors that have flown around in other boards (don't know about here, I'm new)that JKR uses actual spells and stuff may or may not be true. I could frankly care less either way. If she did use actual spells in the books, it means JKR did her homework! Did a lot of research for the books. Just as many other authors have done so for their works of fiction. Included some factual stuff in them. If this woman HAD read them, then I wouldn't have a problem with her wanting to ban them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and feelings. BUT it isn't right that she is dead set against them when she doesn't know anything about them. Jenni from Alabama From rbrucecarter at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 19:52:23 2006 From: rbrucecarter at yahoo.com (Bruce Carter) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:52:23 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159371 > Carol: > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. Bruce: Another Carol. Carol Matricino (or something like that). In the late 70's, early 80's she made a lot of money with books and tapes about the evils of the New Age Movement. The Radio Talk show "Point of View" put her on several times. The New Age Movement is sort of a - bust - a non-issue now so she found another "devil" to make money on. The problem is - Harry Potter is a beautiful allegorical tale of Christ. She is nuts. Many conservative Christian fundamentalists like myself are strong supporters of the series of books and movies. If they are not outright allegorical stories of Christ, they are certainly good tales of morality and the triumph of good over evil. The "witches" of Harry Potter are genetically different human beings, not converts to the religion of Wicca. There are as many real witches in Harry Potter as there were in Salem (NONE). I am really sensitive to the issue, because one of my ancestors was Rebecca Addington (AKA Rebecca Shelley, Rebecca Chamberlain) who died in a Salem jail awaiting trial on a false charge of witchcraft. I also know a member of the church of Wicca, who is more opposed to Harry Potter than most of the Christian fundamentalists - it misrepresents her religion. I fight the lunacy of those against Harry Potter all the time. Bruce From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 20:07:35 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:07:35 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?) -- Christian allegory? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159372 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sean Patrick Brennan" wrote: > One of the many reasons I am a fan of J.K. Rowling and her books >is that she has a wonderfully accurate moral character that keeps >shining through her work and words, even those outside her books. >She is rightfully angry at fundamental Christians while remaining a > beautifully Christian-charactered woman herself. Sean, Amen, couldn't have said it better myself!! Also symbolic of Christ's sacrifice is Lily's death. She died to save Harry. And with her 'shedding of blood' and 'love for him' gave him the ultimate protection. Very VERY symbolic!! Jenni from Alabama From carla.mcculley at comcast.net Tue Oct 10 19:12:39 2006 From: carla.mcculley at comcast.net (Carla) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 15:12:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's Death References: Message-ID: <003701c6eca0$0e691cd0$0200a8c0@carlaathome> No: HPFGUIDX 159373 > >>brycam75203 >> I was so shocked in this last book to read about Snape's betrayal! At the end of the "Half Blood Prince", I felt that Ron and Hermione would stick by him through think and thin, however, they are all just kids? Who will mentor them now, and will the students return to Hogwarts? << Carla: The real question is did Snape really betray Dumbledore. I think not. Dumbledore was dying. The potion he drank was killing him painfully. I think he knew before going to retrieve the horcrux what he would be facing. Note that he didn't let Harry drink the liquid. When DD saw Snape, he simply said, "Severus please." I think it was a request. I believe Snape told DD about Draco's assignment and of the promise Snape had made Draco's mother. DD didn't want Draco to cross that final line and become a killer. We may all hate Draco, but he is still a kid and DD is his teacher and headmaster. By making this pact with Snape, DD saved Draco in a sense, and it firmly kept Snapes cover as a supporter of LV in tact, thus enabling him to assist the Order, even if they don't yet realize it. As for who will look out for Harry, he always has the Weasley's and Lupin. Carla From tigerbaby76 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 20:21:33 2006 From: tigerbaby76 at yahoo.com (Crookshanks) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:21:33 -0000 Subject: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159374 > > "gaurav.baral" wrote: > > I think that he will return. > > pandoras_obsession: > Well I think Black just may come back... Crookshanks: Don't know if Sirius will return, but remember the mirror he gave Harry in book 5? JKR said that would resurface...it didn't in book 6 so it's sure to in book 7, should be interesting. Crookshanks From irene.pdegl at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 20:49:49 2006 From: irene.pdegl at gmail.com (Irene Degl'Innocenti) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:49:49 -0700 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8d6ec72c0610101349o3f00985agdc3833ed0e07d502@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159375 > >>Carol: > > > > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. > >>Jennie from Alabama: > >> If this woman HAD read them, then I wouldn't have a problem with her wanting to ban them. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and feelings. BUT it isn't right that she is dead set against them when she doesn't know anything about them. << Irene: Wait - there is more. I ran into someone who also thought the books were bad because Harry didn't respect the Dursleys and thus did not respect authority. Irene From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 21:27:40 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:27:40 -0000 Subject: What do you really think of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159376 > Now I have a question. I entered this pale because I'm writing a > murder mystery for my family this Christmas and the theme is HP. One > of the characters is DD and it might be him, or his brother, or > another imposter ? and I need to see DD more clearly. > I came to learn from the experts, and I need you now. Could anyone > help me out here? Simple Question > > In 20 words or less > Do you love, hate, or "could care less" about DD and why. Tonks: Oh are you going to sorry that you asked that question. I can not answer in 20 words. I love DD with all of my heart and soul. Early on I told my friends that I wanted to marry him, but they said "he is too old for you", and then someone said "I hate to break this to you, but he is a fictional character!" He is my kind of guy. You will see that when others put him down for something (that by the way, isn't his fault!) that I come to the discussion as "DD's most loyal and faithful". I see DD as a role model for the highest and best in the human being. He is the type of person that I hope to be someday. He is the image of Christ. He is the Saint. He is wise, he is kind, he has a great sense humor. He has faith in people and he gives everyone a second chance. He has compassion, he is easy going, he is non-judgmental. He has respect for all people no matter what their status in life. He is as JKR says "the epitomy of goodness". To me he is the epitomy of Love. He says that Harry is, but I think that DD is too. And he is very powerful, which is not the most important thing about him, but kind of cool never the less. He is not afraid of the dark. He knows what to do, when and how. He is the wisest and strongest wizard, yet a very humble man. When he died look at the people who came to show their respect, from the very lowly to the highest. It was like Mother Teresa's funeral. Tonks_op With a tear in my eye. I miss him still. From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 10 21:27:29 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:27:29 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Apparating (Was: Yes, Virginia, there is a In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39C56@mimas> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159377 > > Ceridwen: > > I think Montims means that Draco used the now-functioning cabinet to > > go to Knockturn Alley in order to contact the DEs assigned to him and > > get the plot started. Of course Draco can't Apparate out of Hogwarts! > > Eddie: > You know, now that I read this, I recall that Montague escaped from > the still-broken vanishing cabinet apparated himself out? (True he > nearly died and ended up lodged in a toilet.) > > James: > I > don't recall canon saying that the toilet in question was inside Hogwarts, > so the origin and destination of the attempted apperation need not break the > rules. Eddie: Yep, it's canon. Chapter 28, "Snape's Worst Memory" Draco says to Snape, "They've found Montague, sir, he's turned up jammed inside a toilet on the fourth floor." Eddie, who's not some wizened Potter nut, but just happened to have looked this up recently. From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 21:09:25 2006 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:09:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Minerva to run Hogwarts / Fawks aids return? In-Reply-To: <003701c6eca0$0e691cd0$0200a8c0@carlaathome> Message-ID: <20061010210925.89119.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159378 I have this feeling Minerva will take over the school until the Ministry of Magic steps in to make drastic changes. Also, do you think Fawks will have anything to do with anyone's return? dragonkeeper From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 21:57:31 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:57:31 -0000 Subject: Minerva to run Hogwarts / Fawks aids return? In-Reply-To: <20061010210925.89119.qmail@web53304.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159379 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dragonkeeper wrote: > > I have this feeling Minerva will take over the school until the Ministry of Magic steps in to make drastic changes. > > Also, do you think Fawks will have anything to do with anyone's return? > > dragonkeeper > Eh. Voldemort's gonna be in the castle before term starts, and Minerva will have been blasted out of the headship in the early chapters. Sorry darlin, that's 2 Heads for the chop. You wondered how to get Harry back to Hogwarts in year 7? That's where all the dark action is going down. Well, not all of it, but you get the drift. Cheers, Talisman From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 21:19:21 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:19:21 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books, Harry and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <8d6ec72c0610101349o3f00985agdc3833ed0e07d502@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159380 > Irene wrote: > Wait - there is more. I ran into someone who also thought the > books were bad because Harry didn't respect the Dursleys and > thus did not respect authority. Irene, OMG!! How lame can you get?!! I really wonder about some people! I mean if you died and your child was orphaned and left to relatives who treated them like the Dursleys treat Harry, would you want them to show any respect or allegience to them? I would think not!! I for one have really wondered why Harry hasn't lost it with Dudley like he did with the Aunt and blown him up. Hee Hee, Dudley the human kite! Now THAT I would love to see! Something, ANYTHING, where he retaliates against them for all the crap they've put him through. Jenni from Alabama From tonks_op at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 22:01:06 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:01:06 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159381 Carolyn wrote: > > My name is Carol and you could say that I am a Harry Potter fan. > I have read and seen every Harry Potter book and even seen all > the movies that are out about him. > > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. Tonks: There are many Fundamentalist Christians that have or try to ban the HP books. It was one of the reasons that I started reading a children's book when I almost never read fiction. I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. And I am glad that I did. In a strange way, I think it is a good thing that this segment of Christians oppose the books, because it actually encourages people to read them. And the books are very Christian books. They are not overtly so. JKR has, IMO, taken the essence of the message of Jesus and written a book where it is played out in the person of DD and others. The fact that the message is not cloaked in Religion is helpful since there are many who would run the other way if they thought that it was religion. I have written before about the Christian symbolism that I see hidden in the books. And I also think that if the Fundamentalist knew that the sybolism was there, they might be even more up in arms than they are already. Basically the books show Christ as a wizard. Love it! Tonks_op From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 22:05:53 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:05:53 -0000 Subject: Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: <505.3210d8fd.325c5b98@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159382 > >>Sandy: > This is something that has aiways confounded me about the Muggle > born/raised students at Hogwarts; how willing they are to give up > all their Muggle comforts for the sake of going to Hogwarts. Betsy Hp: While tripping through the on-line world of Harry Potter discussion a year or so ago I ran across a theory that there's actually a very strong "muggleborn" group of students who share the news on what's up on "EastEnders" (or the soap of your choice) and the latest football scores, and possibly smuggle in supplies of coke (the erm, drink, heh). Dean would be a strong member of course, since he refuses to give up football. But we don't hear anything about it because Hermione is so intense about fully assimilating. The theory was spun mostly for a laugh (IIRC), but it rang awfully true to me. > >>Sandy: > I would think it goes even further than that. If they are educated > as witches and wizards it stands to reason that they will continue > to live in the WW after they leave Hogwarts. > Betsy Hp: At first you'd think they'd have to. After all, Hermione isn't going to have the sort of credentials required to make it in the muggle world. She doesn't even have her O levels. (And how do muggle parents deal with that when enquiring friends and family wonder where little Colin will be going to University, or how has that fancy school served young Dean?) But then again, I suppose proper credentials are easily forged. And there must be *some* sort of passing going on for "half-bloods" to occur. Though I will say, I think modern technology has it all over the WW in many ways. And I think the WW thinks so as well. How else to explain the WW wireless? It must have been a grab from the muggle world. No way wizards would come up with the name "wireless", seeing as they don't generally deal with wires. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 22:49:25 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:49:25 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159383 > >> Allie: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 22, After the Burial > > Harry accidentally brushes Ginny on the way out the portrait hole, > and she reprimands Dean, thinking he was trying to help her > through. > Betsy Hp: And if that isn't a sign that Ginny is just marking time waiting for Harry to notice her, I don't know what is. Generally when girls get this bent out of shape over benign behavior they're looking for reasons to break up. Either that or Ginny is just a colossal, erm, witch, who has no appreciation for gentlemanly behaviour. (Never mind her, Dean, obviously your momma raised you right and you need to hold out for a girl who deserves you. ) But that's just my opinion, on with the show... > Discussion Questions: > 1. Why does a girl deliver Harry's note from Hagrid, rather than > an owl? I recall taking that as a sign that owls have been compromised. Death Eaters are everywhere! No owl is safe! > Why isn't that girl named? Harry doesn't know the name of any student who hasn't directly interacted with him. Even if they're in his House. (Or the dry answer, JKR couldn't be bothered coming up with a name. ) > 2. The Montgomery boy was attacked because his mother refused to > help the Death Eaters. The books make it seem like the Death > Eaters are constantly threatening random and numerous wizards who > refuse to help them. Are there enough Death Eaters for this to be > realistic? Based on the size of the WW, I think it's realistic enough. Especially when you consider that not every wizarding family sends their children to Hogwarts. So we're already dealing with the elite in some ways. Or at least those who see some future in WW institutions. (Ministry, Hogwarts, St Mungos) > How many Death Eaters do we think there are? What did they want > from the Montgomery witch? Will we hear more about her? I doubt we'll hear more. I think this information was thrown in for atmosphere more than anything. (Though I could of course, be wrong). As to amount of Death Eaters... The thing is, if something is done by a Death Eater minion (werewolf, giant) is it considered the work of Death Eaters? I suspect that there are plenty of bad sorts more than thrilled with reeking a bit of violence here or there, and the Death Eaters (the genuine branded sort) are quick to use them. And it all gets branded "Death Eater work". Which it is. > 3. Harry was surprised to hear that werewolves sometimes kill > their victim. Were you? Um... NO! Good Lord, Harry can be a bit of an idiot sometimes. I think he's so intent on Lupin being pure as driven snow he's wearing fairly strong blinders. (With Snape-issues thrown in for good measure.) > In PoA, didn't Snape seem to imply that Lupin could have killed > him during the Prank? Why doesn't Harry remember that? More than that, Harry obviously didn't pay attention to his DADA lesson on that subject. And yes, I do think it all goes back to Snape. When Snape speaks, Harry covers his ears. > 4. Do you think there's any possibility that Harry took something > other than Felix Felicis? I'm going to go with the easy and straightforward, no. I'm betting there are theories though. > 5. Harry didn't actually have 24 hours' worth of Felix Felicis, > he only had a 12-hour dose. Is it possible that his "measured" > gulp didn't last as long as he thought it would? Might he have > been on his own at the end of the conversation in Hagrid's hut? > Or was that just a flint? I'm wishy-washy on this. I recall suspecting Harry was on his own at the time, only it was never brought up. Would JKR really hold a little lesson like that over to book 7? Wouldn't it take a lot of effort to remind everyone and have Harry go through a Dumbo "I dropped my magic feather, I couldn't possibly fly!" kind of situation? At this point, I think I'll go with Flint. But that's subject to change. > 6. How much of the effect of Felix Felicis do you think is > placebo? My gut says all to most. But there must be some magical influence, because I don't see any way for Harry to link Slughorn being in the garden to Hagrid's invitation all on his own. Maybe it just intensifies your instinct? > 7. Do you think Harry acted recklessly under the influence of > Felix? We know that when taken in excess, the potion can be > harmful. Is there any possibility that something bad could have > happened to Harry even with this limited use? I don't think Harry was reckless. But, his absolute confidence did hint, IMO, as to what dangers might arise. I think especially as he was stranded out of bounds and had to work pretty hard to get back to Gryffindor. > 8. Harry thinks how upset Hermione would be by Slughorn making a > house-elf taste wine that could be poisoned. Are we EVER going to > see something come of Hermione's obsession with house-elves? Honestly, I doubt it. I just don't see how it could be done. (Again, I'm prepared to be wrong.) > 9. What do you think would have happened if Harry had drank the > wine at Hagrid's? Would it just have interfered with retrieving > the memory, or could there be some type of bad interaction between > the two drinks? I think he would have gotten a bit drunk himself. I think that was all that was being warned against here. > 10. Slughorn acquires unicorn hair and Acromantula venom at > Hagrid's hut. Are we going to see those items again, and how? At this point, again, I doubt it. > 11. Felix tells Harry that Slughorn won't remember their > conversation in the morning. Do you think that's true? Even if > it is, a Legilimens like Voldemort could probably see the truth. > Is Slughorn in great danger now that he has given Harry the memory? Slughorn could be. And yes, I'm not sure it depends on Slughorn remembering the discussion or not. Frankly I think the "he won't remember" was more for Harry feeling comfortable going all emotional on Slughorn. It's not the sort of thing Harry is at all comfortable doing. I think he needed to feel that nothing would be remembered. (In many ways this scene read as Harry seducing Slughorn, to me. I've always seen some dark connotations there. From the moment Dumbledore left Harry alone with Slughorn to "persuade" Slughorn to return to Hogwarts.) > 12. What was your reaction to the "remorseless" way Harry > described his parents' murder in this scene? Do you think he only > did that because he had to, or is he less sensitive about the > subject now? Is this a different side to Harry than what we > usually see? What does this tell us about Harry's growth since we > met him as an eleven-year-old? Betsy Hp: I don't think it's any easier for Harry (hence the "no one will remember this" bit) but I do think Harry sees the necessity to do just about anything to help defeat Voldemort. Does it show growth? I was about to say yes, but Harry was pretty determined to do just about anything to defeat Voldemort in PS/SS. He even envoked his parents' murder with Ron and Hermione, IIRC. But at the time he did it without thought or plan. He was all emotion. In this scene, Harry pretty much fakes emotion (or calls up an emotion, to be nicer) in a calculated move to get what he needs. Which is a more adult move. And it was nice to see Harry do something calculated and not "seat of his pants". So yeah, he did grow up a bit. (Too bad so much was drug induced. I hope we see Harry doing something similar while *not* under the influence!) > Many thanks to Ari Elf, aka Jen, for her help & suggestions! And thank you, Allie. Good summary and questions. I hope this discussion doesn't get lost in the deluge. Betsy Hp (happy to have the deluge, just to be clear ) From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 10 22:57:16 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:57:16 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books, Harry and the Dursleys References: Message-ID: <006b01c6ecbf$7319d7e0$b398400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159384 > Irene wrote: > Wait - there is more. I ran into someone who also thought the > books were bad because Harry didn't respect the Dursleys and > thus did not respect authority. Jenni from Alabama > OMG!! How lame can you get?!! I really wonder about some people! I > mean if you died and your child was orphaned and left to relatives > who treated them like the Dursleys treat Harry, would you want them > to show any respect or allegience to them? I would think not!! Magpie: Obviously I don't know these people but I would guess it's the more familiar complaint that the books set up any situation where the adults don't get or don't deserve respect. The fact that no one would respect the Dursleys would be the problem for people who think books should teach by example that kids should teach adults (meaning them) with respect. Bruce: I also know a member of the church of Wicca, who is more opposed to Harry Potter than most of the Christian fundamentalists - it misrepresents her religion. I fight the lunacy of those against Harry Potter all the time. Magpie: I am compelled to ask--has anyone pointed out to her that the books aren't representing her religion at all? Or is it the flipside of the Fundamentalists so she claims any kind of witchcraft for whatever tradition she happens to follow? -m From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 23:27:29 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:27:29 -0000 Subject: O O O It's Magic (More Wombat Love) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159385 > Potioncat: > > My first reaction was "This is a simple explanation?" > > and my second reaction was "C'mom---we're talking about Maths! Rowling > here. (that does mean big grin, doesn't it?) > > I didn't take the Wombats. I would have had to be carried out like > what's her name in O.W.L.s if I had. My question(s) to the group is, > why do you think she creates these tests. Did she create these tests? > Have they generated, whether by intention or not, any new canon or > clues? Neri: Maybe I didn't explain this very well JKR's grading system is simple enough, I believe: A good answer gets high score, a bad answer gets low score, and medium answer gets a medium score. You don't need to be a math genius for that. I trust even JKR can manage it. She was a teacher once, wasn't she? The fact that her grading system is simple enough doesn't mean that it will be simple for *us* to reverse-engineer it. This, as I tried to demonstrate in my post upthread, will probably be *very* complicated. But there's no contradiction here. The grading system can be very simple, and yet it would be very difficult to reveal what it was just from the final grades. The thing is ? we're all dying here for some new canon details: does the Ministry consider the dementors or the inferi more dangerous????? We want *definite answers* for questions like this one. But JKR apparently hasn't realized that. She just put together a very simple exam for us to test our understanding of the WW. Dementors and inferi are both very reasonable answers showing good understanding of the WW, so JKR gives them both high score. For what she's trying to do it makes sense. It's actually a much more reliable grading method than giving only one answer the maximum grade and zero for all the others. In fact I'd recommend using JKR's grading method to any teacher around. The problem here is only with us. *We* don't care much if we received O or A or E in the darn WOMBAT. We want to know if it's dementors or inferi that the Ministry considers most dangerous, because for some reason we're sure it's the key to all the mysteries in the series. Well, tough luck for us. JKR wasn't distributing new canon here. Neri From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Oct 10 23:49:05 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:49:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Banning the books/Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159386 > >Carol > > My name is Carol and you could say that I am a Harry Potter fan. > > I have read and seen every Harry Potter book and even seen all > > the movies that are out about him. > > > > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. > >Geoff: >Let me make it very clear to start with that I am an evangelical >Christian and I do not agree wioth these groups. When the books >first emerged, I allowed myself to be led by people leaning that way >in my own church. When I saw the second film (almost by accident), >I realised that I had allowed myself to be influenced without looking >at the information for myself. > >If you are going to ban Harry Potter, then you must logically also >ban "The Lord of the Rings" and the "Narnia" books - also written by >Christians and also having an underlying theme of love. wynnleaf I am in a similar position as Geoff. It wasn't until we moved to a town in the midwest of the US where many evangelical Christians *loved* HP, that I started reading the books, too. I have run across a number of evangelical Christians who love Tolkein and Lewis and hate HP. I can't understand this at all. It seems so contradictory. >Moving on, Bruce wrote in message 159354: > >I have a theory that the story of Harry is an allegory to the story >of Christ. Therefore, in the 7th book, he would have to die to save >the world. But --- since his character parallels Christ - it is >possible he could also have a resurrection. > >Geoff: >Here, I would disagree. I have on several occasions taken issue with >contributors who have suggested that Harry is a Christ figure. Christ >was God in human form; he was sinless. > >Harry, though I will fight for his side anytime, does not fit that >category. >I identify so much with him because I see myself in my teen years. >He is human and fallible. I have on many occasions posted to say that I >see him as an everyman. Like us, he is on a journey and, like us, seeks >the best way but often falls down as we do because we allow God's >desire to guide us to be thwarted by pride, anger, apathy and a hundred >and one other things in our physical life. > >At the risk of being hit by someone because I have preeviously said this >again and again and (sigh) again, I want to see a Horcruxless Harry >emerge alive and well from the end of Book 7. > > wynnleaf While I certainly don't think Harry is a Christ figure, I will not be at all surprised if after Book 7 is published, JKR reveals her thoughts regarding spiritual aspects of the books. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and morethen map the best route! http://local.live.com From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 11 00:27:13 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:27:13 -0000 Subject: Would Harry make a Horcrux for himself? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159387 Harry has a big fight coming up with Voldemort. If, by chance, he kills a Death Eater early in Book 7, he may be offered the opportunity to make a Horcrux for himself. Do you think he would avoid that or make one as an insurance policy against getting AKed by LV? From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 00:27:31 2006 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:27:31 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Welcome To Our New Members! Please Read... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159388 Hello, everyone! As many of you may know, Yahoo Groups is spotlighting HPforGrownups this week in their "Inside Yahoo! Groups" section: http://groups.yahoo.com/ We're honored to have been selected. This spotlighting has brought us great numbers of new members, so welcome to you all! We're very happy to have you join us! We'd also like to mention that, to our knowledge, there is no date yet for the final book's release. Perhaps Yahoo has some inside info , but as far as we know, there is *no* release date. We can hope for next summer, it's still possible, but could very well be 2008 as well. Sorry to disappoint everyone. ;-) HPforGrownups (HPfGU) has been around for a few years now (founded as a Yahoo Club in September 1999, moved to Yahoo Groups in August 2000), and is a very large and busy group with a diverse membership. Due in part to these factors, HPfGU has a fairly sturdy structure of posting rules, moreso than many other groups. So, we'd like to take this opportunity to direct you to our Humongous BigFile (which we refer to as the "HBF"). A lengthy file that is sent to our new members upon joining (HBF_Text__MUST_READ), it explains the "things you need to know" when you post here: http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/HBF21Sept06.html It can also be found in the "Admin_Files" folder in the Files section of the group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/ Section 1 explains such things as Legal Issues all members must be aware of; account settings; moderated status; our 'sister' groups; who we, the List Elves, are, and how we may be contacting you, how you can contact us with any questions or problems, and so on. Section 2 lists our Posting Rules. These are indeed rather long, we apologize for that, but we wanted them to be as detailed and clear as possible. http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/PostingRules_22Sept06.html Two things we'd like to note here: One -- we ask folks to limit themselves to 5 posts a day; this is both to help keep volume down to a more manageable level, and also to encourage everyone to make more 'substantive' posts -- rather than just dashing off a few lines in reply to a message, instead make one post that comments on a number of posts in that discussion thread, or make a longer post of your own, elaborating on your various HP thoughts. The idea is to try to advance discussion, to give your fellow list members something they can really think about and respond to. Two -- we ask that members not 'top-post' (replying to a message by putting your new comments at the top of the message leaving the quoted message to follow). Instead, please write your post *below* the quoted material (quoted material is the content from another post you are replying to). This is mentioned in our posting rules, but here is an admin that explains it as well: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/154637 Please, please, *please* make sure to read at least sections 1 and 2 of the HBF! Additionally, a good way to learn the posting standards is to follow the posts of your fellow list members; it can help to get a look at the posting rules "in action," so to speak. :-) Sections 3 through 5 give information we think you may find useful -- info about our FAQs, abbreviations you might see here, the "Fantastic Posts", the Lexicon and other excellent HP resources, and so on. One last note: it's extremely important that all members, especially those who post, frequently check the email account you are using for this group. All new members start out on moderated status, so if you don't see your post coming through to the list, it may be because the elves are trying to reach you. Also, please realize that with the greater number of messages being sent, your message may still just be in the 'pending' queue. The Elves are working hard to make sure messages get handled in a timely manner, so we thank you for your patience, but please feel free to contact us if you don't see your post show up. Again, the email account you use for the group is the Elves' primary means of contacting you, so please remember to check it! So, again, welcome to everyone; we hope you enjoy yourselves here! If you have any questions at all, please let us know. Ask your personal List Elf, and/or just write to us at HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com and we'll do whatever we can to help! --The Elves Alla -- Alika Elf Amanda -- Amandageist Betsy Hp -- Oopsie Elf Ceridwen -- Vexxy Elf Charme -- Bex Elf Debbie -- Speedy Elf Dhyana -- Nani Elf Jen -- Ari Elf Kathy -- Zaney Elf Kelley -- Kelley Elf Laura -- Wilder Elf Mary Ann -- Dizzy Elf Melody -- Aphrael Elf Nora -- Alto Elf Petra -- Penapart Elf Pippin -- Peppy Elf Shaun -- Crikey Elf Sherry -- Blinky Elf Sheryll -- Rylly Elf Susan/RB -- Smiley Elf SSSusan -- Shorty Elf Tim -- Kroppy Elf Specialized Elves: Heidi -- HPEF Liaison Paul -- TechnoGeist Steve -- Keeper of the Lexicon From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 11 00:29:50 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:29:50 -0000 Subject: Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: <505.3210d8fd.325c5b98@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159389 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, OctobersChild48 at ... wrote: > Sandy now: > This is something that has aiways confounded me about the Muggle born/raised > students at Hogwarts; how willing they are to give up all their Muggle > comforts for the sake of going to Hogwarts. I would think it goes even further than > that. If they are educated as witches and wizards it stands to reason that they > will continue to live in the WW after they leave Hogwarts. It all sounds so > charming as you are reading the books, but think about the last time you went > through a power failure. It is the only life the WW knows, but that is not the > case for Muggle born/raised. You have Hermione, who is the only child of two > dentists, which leads me to believe she lived in relative affluence, and she > gives all that up to become a witch?!? As fascinating as the concept of magic > is, I couldn't do it. Quick_Silver: I like your point but I waver towards the exact opposite of it almost. The impression I get from the muggle-borns and the half-bloods raised among muggles is that they know they are "special". Harry, Hermione, Tom Riddle, Colin Creevy all mention knowing that they can do weird things...Tom Riddle had already begun to control his power when he encounters Dumbledore. To the wizarding child raised in the wizarding world Hogwarts and magic is simply a fact of life...to the muggle-borns and half-bloods like Harry it's the Promised Land. Quick_Silver From Scylla1958 at aol.com Tue Oct 10 23:41:19 2006 From: Scylla1958 at aol.com (scylla1958) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:41:19 -0000 Subject: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: <20061010124018.55888.qmail@web83014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159390 My 2 cents: I think Sirius is gone for good. He was really getting too whiney and sulky towards the end. He seemed to be in the way. But I think Dumbledore may be back. Remember, his "pet" was a phoenix. Rising from the ashes is not a new concept in relation to Dumbledore. Kathy From rbrucecarter at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 00:26:29 2006 From: rbrucecarter at yahoo.com (Bruce Carter) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:26:29 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: <8d6ec72c0610101349o3f00985agdc3833ed0e07d502@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159391 > >>Irene: > Wait - there is more. I ran into someone who also thought the books > were bad because Harry didn't respect the Dursleys and thus did not > respect authority. Bruce Carter: The ignorance of that is beyond belief. If I ever heard such sentiments in a church, I would be out the door. In my fundamentalist church, we would immediately repeat the Dursleys to the state for abuse if Harry's plight became known. We are required to, by law. Bruce Carter From cadtitanic at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 23:55:48 2006 From: cadtitanic at yahoo.com (cadtitanic) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:55:48 -0000 Subject: ***MY WISH FOR HARRY JAMES POTTER*** Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159392 That he survives the 7th book. Harry should find and destroy all the remaining Horcruxes & live to tell the tale. Then when he is in his twenties (25 or so ) get his one true hearts desire & finally wed Ms Ginny Weasley. If any one deserves to be happy and content, it is Harry. After all he had spent the first 11-years of his life in total misery with those Dursleys. PLUS all Harry has gone thru at Hogwarts and everything he had to endure. Mr Harry James Potter, have a wonderful very LONG life, filled with contentment, you have earned it. Tell your lovely Wife, Ginny I said "Hi." cadtitanic From skippy at ezy.net Wed Oct 11 00:32:35 2006 From: skippy at ezy.net (kelli tyler/Happy Scrapper Products) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:32:35 -0000 Subject: HBP -- Two Questions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159393 Two questions from Half Blood Prince: When Dumbledore was under the effect of the potion at the lake, and he was making comments about, don't make me, I don't want to hurt them, etc... Who do you think he was seeing? And... Do you think the reason that Dumbledore trusted Snape so much was that they made an unbreakable vow? kelli t. From x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 00:26:23 2006 From: x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com (x_dreamsmadeflesh_x) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:26:23 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159394 I am new to this group, so sorry if any of these theories have already come up or been discussed. I just have a few thoughts about the book and was wondering if anyone could support/disprove them for me. I CAN'T WAIT for the next book to come out so we can get the real ending. Theory #1: Dumbledore is not really dead. Maybe Dumbledore and Snape used polyjuice potion and switched. I was thinking that maybe Snape felt that he owed Dumbledore one last favor and switched because he knew Lord Voldemort's plans to kill Dumbledore. Does anyone else think this might be true? Theory #2: Maybe Dumbledore was already dying from destroying the ring Horocrux (the dead hand?) so he went along with Snape's plan to kill him. If he was already dying (he said himself that there are worse things than death in OotP) then he could sacrifice himself and still have Snape be a spy for the Order. Theory #3: This may be a bit far fetched, but it seems strange to me...When Dumbledore drank the potion that the fake Horocrux he was saying strange things and it seemed to me like he was reliving a bad memory ("I don't want...Don't make me" "I don't want to...I don't want to...Let me go..." "It's all my fault, all my fault. Please make it stop, I know I did it wrong, oh please make it stop and I'll never, never again..." This just seems a bit out of place to me... Theory #4: Why didn't Snape just kill Harry while they were dueling at the end. It is no big secret that he hates Harry. I know that he says that Lord Voldemort wanted Harry alive, but it just doesn't seem right from everything that we know about Snape so far. I personally think that Snape is still on the Order's side...Maybe even Draco...The ending duel between Harry and Snape just seemed a bit fishy to me... Anyone care to discuss any of my theories? I am probably TOTALLY wrong on them, lol, but it would be interesting to hear if anyone else is thinking along the same lines as me. Thanks!! x_dreamsmadeflesh_x From rbrucecarter at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 00:19:30 2006 From: rbrucecarter at yahoo.com (Bruce Carter) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:19:30 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books, Harry and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <006b01c6ecbf$7319d7e0$b398400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159395 > >>Magpie: > > I am compelled to ask--has anyone pointed out to her that the books > aren't > representing her religion at all? Or is it the flipside of the > Fundamentalists so she claims any kind of witchcraft for whatever > tradition > she happens to follow? Bruce Carter: We are talking about a 15 year old girl here - who doesn't have much depth to her religious beliefs. But even she realizes that the witches of HP are not witches at all. She resents the stereotypes of witches - riding brooms, ugly with warts, casting spells, making potions. There is plenty of that in HP to make her mad - all she does is attend rituals in the forest 4 times a year and pray to mother nature. Pretty tame stuff - not my religion, but we agree to disagree. Bruce Carter From natie_sue at yahoo.com Tue Oct 10 23:07:31 2006 From: natie_sue at yahoo.com (natashia) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:07:31 -0000 Subject: harry fan Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159396 I just love all of the Harry Potter books. I have read everyone of them. I hope to meet J.K. Rowling someday. I heard she making the 7th book and shes killing off Harry Potter. But dont pay any attention to me its just what I heard. natashia From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 11 00:56:10 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:56:10 -0000 Subject: What do you really think of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159397 "Tesha" wrote: > In 20 words or less > Do you love, hate, or "could care less" about DD and why. > > Thank you thank you thank you > Tesha aussie: DD is a father figure to most wizards, including the ones on the tower when he was killed. Love him. (hooray ... I made it in 20 words!) aussie PS, now that the 20 worda are over ... DD talked in a calming voice and greeted them all civilly. His manner around Harry and Tom when they were in his care showed patience and care. As to what Lexicon has to say ... http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/dumbledore.html Order of Merlin, First Class, and Grand Sorcerer; Founder and Secret Keeper, Order of the Phoenix; Supreme Mugwump of the International Confederation of Wizards (temporarily "voted out" OP5); Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot (temporarily demoted OP5). and the all important Chocolate Frog Card ALBUS DUMBLEDORE Currently Head master of Hogwarts. Considered by many the greatest wizard of modern times, Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon's blood, and his work on alchemy with his partner, Nicolas Flamel. Professor Dumbledore enjoys chamber music and tenpin bowling. (& Knitting patterns) Ahh, yes, you have to admire the man for all those things ... and knitting patterns aussie From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 00:57:01 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 17:57:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011005701.49306.qmail@web39505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159398 --- Bruce Carter wrote: > > >>Irene: > > Wait - there is more. I ran into someone who also > thought the books > > were bad because Harry didn't respect the Dursleys > and thus did not > > respect authority. > > Bruce Carter: > The ignorance of that is beyond belief. If I ever > heard such > sentiments in a church, I would be out the door. In > my fundamentalist > church, we would immediately repeat the Dursleys to > the state for > abuse if Harry's plight became known. We are > required to, by law. > > Bruce Carter parisfan writes: I SO agree with you Bruce. up here in canada we be calling children's aid if the abuse that Harry suffered at the hands of Dursleys came to light. and thw whole disrespecting his autn and uncle would be just see as a kid being a kid. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From rbrucecarter at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 00:23:54 2006 From: rbrucecarter at yahoo.com (Bruce Carter) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:23:54 -0000 Subject: Harry and Christianity (was:Re: Banning the books/Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159399 > >>wynnleaf > > I have run across a number of evangelical Christians who love > Tolkein and > Lewis and hate HP. I can't understand this at all. It seems so > contradictory. Bruce Carter: I know. I find 100 times the Christian symbolism in HP than I do in LOTR. > >>Geoff: > > Harry, though I will fight for his side anytime, does not fit that > category. > Bruce Carter: Agreed. However - the allegorical types of Jesus in the Bible - King David in particular - were not sinless either. In fact - David committed murder, Harry has yet to fall that far! Yet David is mentioned by Biblical scholars as a type, an allegory of Christ. The comparison need not be perfect, nor does it need to apply universally to all aspects of the character. > >>wynnleaf: > While I certainly don't think Harry is a Christ figure, I will not > be at all > surprised if after Book 7 is published, JKR reveals her thoughts >regarding > spiritual aspects of the books. Bruce Carter: I read in some interview she gets major ideas for the books from her pastor. Bruce Carter From valkayrion at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 01:10:17 2006 From: valkayrion at yahoo.com (Riff Almighty) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What do you really think of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011011017.94529.qmail@web35301.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159400 > >>Tesha > > In 20 words or less > Do you love, hate, or "could care less" about DD and why. > I think Dumbledore is mysterious. And I love mystery.... Riff Almighty From emberleeblu at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 01:27:59 2006 From: emberleeblu at yahoo.com (Jennifer Yumoto) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books Message-ID: <20061011012759.33418.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159401 I think the idea of banning HP is nuts! I don't see how anyone could truly believe that HP books teach witchcraft. I am a practicing Wiccan, and I can assure you I don't turn rats into water goblets, travel by floo powder, or own a pet kneazle. They are CHILDREN'S STORIES!!!!! They are funny, and insightful, and they teach valuable lessons in friendship, courage, and honesty...... but not witchcraft. Unfortunately, some people have a severe lack of sense and they feel driven to take it out on the rest of us. Aleyna - "The road to success is full of flat squirrels that couldn't make up their minds." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 11 02:00:10 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:00:10 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159402 > Discussion Questions: > > 1. Why does a girl deliver Harry's note from Hagrid, rather than an > owl? Why isn't that girl named? Potioncat: I think there are several times that notes or messages are delivered by students. Nothing much is said about it, but it gives the sense that some students might be serving as pages---not sure if that would be a volunteer position, or a form of detension. Colin delivers a message in GoF. > > 2. The Montgomery boy was attacked because his mother refused to > help the Death Eaters. The books make it seem like the Death Eaters > are constantly threatening random and numerous wizards who refuse to > help them. Are there enough Death Eaters for this to be realistic? > How many Death Eaters do we think there are? What did they want > from the Montgomery witch? Will we hear more about her? Potioncat: Throughout the books there are scenes that indicate a great number--- it's caused all sorts of discussions about how many students there "really" are. I think JKR sees the WW as fairly large. It's hard to tell if random families are threatened or if particular ones are. Or if any family a DE might have a grudge against would be threatened. I don't think we'll hear more about Mrs. Montgomery. > > 3. Harry was surprised to hear that werewolves sometimes kill their > victim. Were you? In PoA, didn't Snape seem to imply that Lupin > could have killed him during the Prank? Why doesn't Harry remember > that? Potioncat: Everything I used to know about werewolves I learned from Lon Chaney, Jr. No I wasn't surprised. No, Snape did not imply Lupin could have killed him. Snape down right insists that was the plan. > > 4. Do you think there's any possibility that Harry took something > other than Felix Felicis? Potioncat: No, that was done earlier in the book. > > > 6. How much of the effect of Felix Felicis do you think is placebo? Potioncat: We've seen how well a placebo works. In fact, it may have worked better. Someone wrote a post once about all the things that actually went wrong while different students were using FF. But, since this is a book about magic, I'd say FF is supposed to be effective. > > > 8. Harry thinks how upset Hermione would be by Slughorn making a > house-elf taste wine that could be poisoned. Are we EVER going to > see something come of Hermione's obsession with house-elves? Potioncat: Yes, many years from now she'll show up as a Famous Wizarding Card as the founder of S.P.E.W. just like the founder of S.S.S. did a few months ago. > 9. What do you think would have happened if Harry had drank the > wine at Hagrid's? Would it just have interfered with retrieving the > memory, or could there be some type of bad interaction between the > two drinks? Potioncat: Oh! Good question. As it stands, he was showing responsible drinking. > > 10. Slughorn acquires unicorn hair and Acromantula venom at > Hagrid's hut. Are we going to see those items again, and how? Potioncat: Very likely. LV drank unicorn blood. The spiders fled from the Basilisk. There could be a connection. > 11. Felix tells Harry that Slughorn won't remember their > conversation in the morning. Do you think that's true? Even if it > is, a Legilimens like Voldemort could probably see the truth. Is > Slughorn in great danger now that he has given Harry the memory? Potioncat: So, you think LV and Slughorn will find themselves at the same party? Slughorn seems very afraid of either DEs or being associated with DEs. If he doesn't ever remember giving the memory to Harry, it might not show up under Legilimency. Potioncat would like to encourage all the new members to take a look back at earlier chapter discussions. You can find the actual post number for each chapter---I think by clicking on this link: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Thanks to Allie for this summary and discussion questions. Great job! > From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 02:08:47 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:08:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Christianity (was:Re: Banning the books/Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610101908j2cb94a27xbce17383839cf976@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159403 > > Bruce Carter: > I read in some interview she gets major ideas for the books from her > pastor. montims: I hadn't heard that, but strictly speaking, if that were the case, it would be "minister" not "pastor", as she is Church of Scotland... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 02:12:04 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:12:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books, Harry and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <006b01c6ecbf$7319d7e0$b398400c@Spot> References: <006b01c6ecbf$7319d7e0$b398400c@Spot> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610101912x4238a60av9f22a3c02e5d4689@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159404 > > Magpie: > Obviously I don't know these people but I would guess it's the more > familiar > complaint that the books set up any situation where the adults don't get > or > don't deserve respect. The fact that no one would respect the Dursleys > would be the problem for people who think books should teach by example > that > kids should teach adults (meaning them) with respect. montims: just out of interest - does anyone know if the Lemony Snicket books cause offence to these people, because nobody could be treated worse than those poor orphans... I know Roald Dahl books were on the banned list, presumably for this reason. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 02:24:43 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:24:43 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159405 wrote: > Theory #1: Dumbledore is not really dead. zgirnius: We had some fun thinking up ways this might be true, back after HBP came out. However, in her recent appearance in New York Rowling seems to have said in no uncertain terms that Dumbledore is dead, and is not coming back. > Theory #2: Maybe Dumbledore was already dying from destroying the ring > Horocrux (the dead hand?) so he went along with Snape's plan to kill > him. If he was already dying (he said himself that there are worse > things than death in OotP) then he could sacrifice himself and still > have Snape be a spy for the Order. zgirnius: Yup, a popular theory as well. Or, perhaps, Dumbledore knew he was dying of the green potion and asked Snape to kill him, not as part of a plan, but the same reasoning would hold. > Theory #4: I personally think > that Snape is still on the Order's side... zgirnius: That's what I think too. Do you think anyone knows about Snape? I kind of like the theory that Dumbledore's death was not planned in advance, that I mentioned above. Because I think that would make it the hardest for things to get straightened out in Book 7 (and thus, the most exciting/suspenseful to read about.) From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 02:25:13 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:25:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What do you really think of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610101925k4f3e906bu4d6d5b3c21578182@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159406 On 10/10/06, Tesha wrote: > > In 20 words or less ? > Do you love, hate, or "could care less" about DD and why. montims: I very much like his humour, his kindness and his wisdom. But to me he is an archetype. [That is less than 20 words...] ***Tonks - please don't read any further!*** I can't quite believe in him, I'm afraid. I have never known anyone like him, and I loathed my headmistress when I was at school, so it is difficult to believe that anyone so good is real. Which is why, really, I entered the conversation threads with those doubting and mistrusting him, as that made more sense... Bottom line - we see him primarily through Harry's eyes, I feel, and to him DD is the epitome of goodness, but DD is actually much more 3-dimensional and complex than he seemed to a teenage boy. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 02:36:56 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:36:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books, Harry and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: References: <006b01c6ecbf$7319d7e0$b398400c@Spot> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610101936s30486760g69f733a7eefe9dc7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159407 > Bruce Carter: > We are talking about a 15 year old girl here - who doesn't have much > depth to her religious beliefs. But even she realizes that the > witches of HP are not witches at all. Does she, now? I think what she actually realizes is that they are not Wiccans, a fact which has, of course, never been in dispute. I think the key problem is not one of depth of beliefs, but rather the entirely mistaken idea that "witch" does not mean, has never meant, and cannot ever mean anything other than a practitioner of Wicca. What I don't understand is this. Wouldn't it have been better for them (that is, Wiccans in general) to simply stop co-opting the term "witch" (and thus avoid being stereotyped as "witches") rather than trying to fight a much older meaning of the word? -- Random832 From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 02:40:37 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:40:37 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] new to the group In-Reply-To: <20061010003550.23871.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061010003550.23871.qmail@web34905.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610101940t3ab23e11k48f8b9a1c1dc525@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159408 > > Marianne: > > Does anyone know the full name of Professor Binns ? He could be the > RAB we are speaking of. His love of History & his accuracy in it, could > make him responsible for destroying one of the Horcruxes. He alwys seemed > to me, to be a good guy !!! montims: The only problem I can see is that the note said (more or less - no book handy), "by the time you read this, I shall be dead", implying that the writer was alive at least at the time of writing, but was expecting to be killed for his actions, and this we know to be untrue of the late professor. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 02:54:07 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:54:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Christianity (was:Re: Banning the books/Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610101908j2cb94a27xbce17383839cf976@mail.gmail.com> References: <8ee758b40610101908j2cb94a27xbce17383839cf976@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610101954w7e99f91bw740ae286b5e46ae0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159409 > montims: > I hadn't heard that, but strictly speaking, if that were the case, it would > be "minister" not "pastor", as she is Church of Scotland... I thought the CoS were Presbyterians, who IIRC have pastors. (Church of Scotland is not Church of England.) I read about who uses what terms recently, but it was wikipedia, and incomplete at that. -- Random832 From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 11 03:09:13 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:09:13 -0000 Subject: O O O It's Magic (More Wombat Love) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159410 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > On a popularity basis, here's how matters stand at present: > > 1. A. Hags eat children, small or otherwise (picked 7 times out of > 11). Bathilda Bagshot says so. (FB xi) > > 2. B. Freshwater merpeople are NOT less warlike than salt (6 times > out of 11). Ask the giant squid. > > 3. Tied between Inferi and WW (5 each). My money's on Inferi. > > 4. D. Poltergeists have never died, never will (10 of 11). For once, > tradition and Rowling concur. > > 5. C. Goblins want their wands, pal. Nine of 11 O's agree. > > 6.One scrambled mess with E having a slight edge (4). Come on. You > know they do. > > 7. B. House-elf house allegiance wins with a scant 5. Guess Elladora > had some premature axe-ulations. > > 8. B. The wizard on the street wants more action (8 of 11). Don't > we all. HP variety, of course. > > 9. Tied up 5 to 5, with those parents bitching about DADA and CoMC. > Let's ask Kettleburn. > > 10. C. 53% of the wizards who were buttoned-holed agreed to > regulation (7 of 11). > > 11. C. Lots of excitement over WW bites. 11 of 11 agree. Tonks > says they kinda tickle. > > 12. B. 18% of the WW wants to keep the Wizengamot tujours pur (9 of > 11). > > 13. Partial credit dilutes majority significance, IMO. FWIW, I (8) > and B(7) score high. I'll take the IC, but decline the (broom) shaft. > > 14. D. It's reparo, baby. Not even superglue comes close; 8 of 11 > know it. > > 15. C. Wouldn't it be nice if Hermione could just Google "Prince?" > Nothing like computers (7). > > 16. At 6 (B) and 5 (C), it's too close to call. Is there a Wizard > in your tree? Or can you laugh at Dragon Pox? I'll take C. > > 17.A. After 6 books and innumerable interviews, 10 of 11 have > figured out that Muggles can't do Magic. > > 18. Tied up at 5 and 5, those Insensitive (D) Muggles are in Danger > (B). > > Talisman Now Secca adds: More WOMBAT bits to add to your soup... I took the test twice, and got an EE on my first and an O on my second. These are my answers on my second [and, ahem, more sober ;) ] test... to the best of my recollection, as I did not write them down... 1) a - hags 2) c- snout [I know this is seemingly less likely than shorter snouts, but I chose it because the topic is referenced so much more in canon by far than any of the answers] 3) c - Inferi [I feel strongly on this one... which of the named creatures in the question has the MoM put up warning posters about?] 4) d- poltergeists 5) c- goblin wands 6) c- eyesight [The scene with Grawp implies to me that he might have weak vision, although all the 'peering blearily' might be simply because he just woke up] 7) c- kill themselves 8) c - resources for protection [Perhaps its my muggle perspective, but people tend to prefer things that make them feel safe, rather than actions that actually make them safer] 9) d- CoMC 10) b - 33% [I felt less than a majority of wizards would want more regulation of any kind] 11) c - werewolf bites 12) d - goblin reps [I felt that 18% seemed high for Pure Blood numbers at this time -- went with Goblins because it seems to be a fave of Jo's] 13) b- Broomstick, h- hand of Glory [Gives light to the holder only? Yes Please!!] - invis cloak 14) d- reparo 15) e- television [I think computers is a possible answer, but Pensieves store data better, and wiz's have better AI "things that think for themselves". But, what at all in the wizarding world compares to TV? "Popular mass media sent out to all wizard homes"?? Nada IMHO. I think Jo left the idiot box and or any replacement for it out of her world intentionaly.] 16) b- wiz ancestor 17) a- muggle magic 18) d - insensitive to their surroundings Secca from PottersKeys.com From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 03:14:32 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:14:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610100718t132a534fq12ecb128089d6164@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0610092151v15b99251n22c12bed82b4d8af@mail.gmail.com> <8ee758b40610100718t132a534fq12ecb128089d6164@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0610102014r42caf947g37a18623995583af@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159411 montims: and yet they have done exactly that with Peter Pan - Geraldine McCaughrean has been chosen to write the official sequel to the story of Peter Pan. I can quite understand JKR's desire to keep her character for herself. Good writing or bad writing, they have written sequels to Austen, the Brontes, Dickens, Du Maurier, etc etc, and in the process the brainchild morphs into something else... Lynda: Oh, I know. And they'll do it weather or not Harry lives or dies in the canon stories. Sometimes it bothers me to all get out and other times it doesn't. That all depends on the amount of skill the writer handles the characters and stoies with, although in actuality of the many non-original author books I've read I've dumped all but one or two of them. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Oct 11 03:19:12 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 23:19:12 -0400 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159412 Of course the Dursleys are treated with contempt. They are contemptible. DD or some other wizard friendly to Harry should have turned them all to frogs a long time ago. Perhaps that's what Harry will do to them as a 17th birthday present to himself. BAW From ik8tey at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 03:16:18 2006 From: ik8tey at gmail.com (kate yerger) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:16:18 -0700 Subject: Would Harry make a Horcrux for himself? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159413 On 10/10/06, Hagrid wrote: > > Harry has a big fight coming up with Voldemort. If, by chance, he > kills a Death Eater early in Book 7, he may be offered the opportunity > to make a Horcrux for himself. > > Do you think he would avoid that or make one as an insurance policy > against getting AKed by LV? > I think he'd avoid it. I've just finished reading Book 6 for the 2nd time and the conversation between Dumbledore and Harry about how LV became less and less human the more he split his soul struck me. I think Harry would avoid it because of that, and he'd avoid it simply because it's the path LV took. -- Kate www.cafepress.com/african_violets From angeljaneann1955 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 03:20:46 2006 From: angeljaneann1955 at yahoo.com (angeljaneann1955) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 03:20:46 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159414 x_dreamsmadeflesh_x: Theory #1: Dumbledore is not really dead. Maybe Dumbledore and Snape used polyjuice potion and switched. I was thinking that maybe Snape felt that he owed Dumbledore one last favor and switched because he knew Lord Voldemort's plans to kill Dumbledore. Does anyone else think this might be true? janeann: Here are some of my theories as well. 1 I agree. Maybe Dumbledore knew he was dying....remember Harry destroyed some of his silver instruments in his office in anger? ...maybe that started it. 2. Snape is really a good guy. He and Dumbledore planned the "death" so that Malfoy would not go down the path of his father. 3. Crookshanks is really Dumbledore in disguise. 4 Harry will have to die to finally kill He Who Must Not Be Named. However, he will come back to life in an unexpected manner. What an ending to a great series. Has anyone ever read the book "hero with a thousand faces"? death and rebirth is an ingrained theme ala Carl Jung. You have some great insights. janeann From annemehr at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 04:15:01 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:15:01 -0000 Subject: O O O It's Magic (More Wombat Love) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159415 Talisman: > Bam. Anne gave me 5 sets of "O" answers from the Leaky that blew > everything out of the cauldron. Annemehr: I'm just pissy that way. Now let's talk about the giants. 'Kay? Talisman: > 6. Ah, the giants. > > I believe that answers a, b, and c are all negated by reasonable > inference from canon. Answers a and b are nixed by the fact that > both Gurgs represented are male and of the largest of their kind. > Answer c is negated by Olympe's use of the Conjunctivitis Curse, > when she and Hagrid are trying to escape hostile giants. > > The Conjunctivitus Curse itself goes specifically to quality of > eyesight. If a wizard who is capable enough to be Headmistress of > one of the three largest schools in the WW uses a spell tailored to > impair eyesight, the clear inference is that the eyesight was good > to begin with, not "very poor compared to humans." Annemehr: But...how good does a giant's eyesight have to be to see two twelve- foot tall half-giants right in front of their noses? There are real reasons to use the Conjunctivitis Curse, none of which assume anything approaching 20/20 vision: 1. A single witch has no choice but to hit them in the eye, as can be inferred by the way the Aurors' stunners bounced right off Hagrid in OoP -- and he's part human. 2. If you're on a diplomatic mission to giants, and suddenly have to defend yourself, it's probably best to use a curse specifically made for eyes. The conjuctivitis will clear up soon enough, no doubt. No real harm done to the giants. Some other curse might cause permanent injury -- and a permanent grudge. 3. And as I said, a couple of half-giants are hard to miss. Temporary blindness would still come in handy. So, to me, Olympe's use of Conjuctivitis against giants does not imply that they have eagle-eyes -- or human ones, for that matter. The canon that I dimly remembered while taking the test, that made me choose the eyesight answer, was that in Grawp's two scenes in OoP he really does seem to be nearsighted. He can spot a little bird's nest in a treetop he's holding in his hand, but he has to stoop down to look at Harry, Hermione, and the Centaurs. I know it doesn't prove anything, and Grawp might not be representative of his race, but I still think all this together makes the "poor eyesight" answer at least as good as the "nocturnal" one. Speaking of which -- Talisman: > When Hagrid and Olympe reach the giant's reservation, it is already > night. They decide to watch and wait until morning. It is noted > that the giants don't fall asleep until about 3AM, at which point > they pass out where they sit. Annemehr: There, see? That, to me, does not say "nocturnal," or even "nearly nocturnal." No, it says "diurnal party animals who stayed up waaay past their bedtimes." Okay, it says no such thing. Still: Talisman: > While we don't know the exact date or location of this experience, > 3AM is the lion's share of the night in most locales. I'll bet they > aren't in a hurry to get up in the morning, either. Annemehr: Well, the next thing Hagrid says is that "once it was light we wen' down ter see 'em." (427) That's morning. Shortly past the crack of dawn, even, if they only waited for full daylight. And the Gurg was awake, waiting to be fed at the time. Talisman: > Grawp was certainly snoozing when Harry and Hermione went to meet > him in the middle of the day. > > I'm prepared to say that giants are up "most of the night and some > of the day," and that "nocturnal" isn't a bad answer. Annemehr: Hmmmm, maybe half points. And who's to say Grawpy wasn't just having a nice, post-luncheon snooze? All nice and civilized. Talisman: > However, I think the even better answer is cannibals. Now this one, I agree with. I still think the poor eyesight answer is good -- probably second best. But then again, what do I know; I got EE -- twice. :P Annemehr who dearly wishes there had been a Magical History question about what *really* happened at Godric's Hollow (presumably written by ol' DD before that trip to the seashore) From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 04:23:20 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:23:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HBP -- Two Questions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610102123i7e90d348u4db825b06a8ade5b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159416 kelli t: And... Do you think the reason that Dumbledore trusted Snape so much was that they made an unbreakable vow? Lynda: I do. At least I think there's a very strong possibility that he did--but I think I'm one of the few who does. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gwc22 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 04:11:54 2006 From: gwc22 at yahoo.com (Wayne Cochran) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 21:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Would Harry make a Horcrux for himself? Message-ID: <20061011041154.88597.qmail@web53601.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159417 > Harry has a big fight coming up with Voldemort. If, by chance, he kills a Death Eater early in Book 7, he may be offered the opportunity to make a Horcrux for himself. Do you think he would avoid that or make one as an insurance policy against getting AKed by LV? > I do not believe in these circumstances that he would be able to create a horcrux. From my understanding, murder must be committed to create a horcrux. Most people agree murder to be a cold blooded malicious ending of another's life. However, death on the battlefield is much different from striking down someone in cold blood. This also ties into my own earlier theory on the ritual involved in making a horcrux. LV could not use James death to create a horcrux because he killed James in battle, however, Lily's death was cold blooded murder because she did not defend herself, and she had not even raised a wand to LV. Perhaps in killing Lily, LV accidentally triggered the horcrux creating spell. No, I think for Harry to have a horcrux, he would have to kill in cold blood, and I do not think that any DE would go quietly against HP. Just my 2 knuts worth... Raven Heart The brilliant Cerebron, attacking the problem analytically, discovered three distinct kinds of dragon: the mythical, the chimerical, and the purely hypothetical. They were all, one might say, nonexistent, but each nonexisted in an entirely different way ... -- Stanislaw Lem, "Cyberiad" Visit Raven Heart's Nest @ http://www.waynecochran.net From ebaith at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 04:17:15 2006 From: ebaith at yahoo.com (Jessica) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:17:15 -0000 Subject: Is Snape Voldemort's son? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159418 Hi, I'm new here. My friends and I have a crazy theory. Being that Snape's mother's Potions book was 50 years old (the book Harry was using in book 6), we decided she must have been at Hogwart's with Voldemort. So, what if she had a brief affair with him, got pregnant, and that is why her husband hated her. Also, if Dumbledore found out about it, and he was the one who told Snape, that could have been what brought Snape to his side. That could be why Dumbledore trusted him so fully. What do you all think? Has anyone else heard this crazy theory of mine? I also do believe that Harry has a Horcrux in his scar but I desperately want him to live! Jessica From annie3x20 at aol.com Wed Oct 11 04:13:09 2006 From: annie3x20 at aol.com (Annie) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 04:13:09 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159421 Carol wrote: > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. Annie: Jo has said on her website that she takes it as a "great honour" to be in the company of Mark Twain (the most banned author in history), J.D. Salinger, John Steinbeck and many other authors who have been banned for works that may cause people to think outside their accepted norms. I lead a Harry Potter group in my town, and during a recent presentation was interrupted by a protestor who said I should be ashamed for promoting the teaching of sorcery to our children. I told the angry man that while he was entitled to his opinion, I had to disagree, and thankfully the people in attendance also stood up and told him he was wrong, and in no way represented them for his alleged "Christian beliefs." Unfortunately for people who need to be lead and told how to think and believe, it is easy for them to accept that books or ideas can be "wrong" without ever having read them or understood them. I can't believe that anyone who has read the Potter books can find fault (morally, religious, or otherwise) in the central theme of these books: that no matter what other powers or gifts someone may have, there is no greater power than Love. Annie From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Wed Oct 11 05:17:04 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 05:17:04 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159422 Re: HBP theories... --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "x_dreamsmadeflesh_x" wrote: > Theory #1: Dumbledore is not really dead. Maybe Dumbledore and Snape > used polyjuice potion and switched. I was thinking that maybe Snape > felt that he owed Dumbledore one last favor and switched because he > knew Lord Voldemort's plans to kill Dumbledore. Does anyone else think > this might be true? Nate writes: Hi there, welcome! I am of the persuasion that Dumbledore is definitely dead. I think that JKR has gone out of her way to tell us this. However, I do believe that there are intances in HBP where Snape or another imposter is pretending to be Dumbledore. The first occurs in Chapters 3-4, where Dumbledore arrives at the Dursleys and takes Harry to see Horace Slughorn. In these chapters, there are a few references to the current time as the action takes place, and it would seem that around an hour passes between Dumbledore arriving at the Dursleys and the time where Dumbledore excuses himself to use the toilet at Slughorn's (supposedly to allow Harry to sweet-talk Slughorn into returning to Hogwarts, but also an opportunity for the imposter to replenish his/her dosage of polyjuice). There is also discussion in this chapter by Dumbledore, asking Harry how he knows that Dumbledore isn't an imposter. I think that that particular point is quite telling. I've picked out some quotes below to illustrate my points, however I'm sure if you do an internet search you will come up with a more cohesive theory than the one I illustrate below. 1st reference to the time: "An alarm clock, repaired by Harry several years ago, ticked loudly on the sill, showing one minute to eleven." pg 46 of HBP (Bloomsbury, UK edition, 2005). 2nd reference to the time: "The minute hand on the alarm clock reached the number twelve, and at that precise moment, the streetlamp outside the window went out." pg 47. Making the time 'Dumbledore' arrives 11pm. However, at this point, we are not told it is Dumbledore. Harry sees: "A tall figure in a long, billowy cloak was walking up the garden path." 3rd reference to the time: "The church clock chimed midnight behind them." pg 62. Here Dumbledore and Harry arrive in Slughorn's village. Making it exactly one hour since 'the figure' arrived at the Dursley's, assuming the two clocks correlate exactly (which in real life they probably would not). On pg 63, Dumbledore tells Harry he should have asked Dumbledore a personal question to make sure he wasn't a Death Eater or an imposter (which seems to draw attention to the idea that Dumbledore may in fact be an imposter). Finally on pg 70, right in the middle of conversation with Slughorn, "Dumbledore stood up rather suddenly. 'Are you leaving,' asked Slughorn at once, looking hopeful. 'No, I was wondering whether I might use your bathroom,' said Dumbledore." It seems to me that either Dumbledore had a sudden attack of the bladder (as old men do) or the imposter's polyjuice finally started to wear out, and he/she had to go and retake the potion. Another few points about the imposter, who I believe may be Snape. On pg 48, we are told Dumbledore is dressed in a "long black travelling cloak" which seems a bit at odds with his normal bright coloured clothing (However, he could be wearing this for stealth purposes - it would make sense that he wants to be concealed, after all, he has also done something to the streetlamps, presumably using his putter-outer). The point I am also trying to make here is that the Dumbledore figure could be Snape - who is known for his billowy black robes. This would also explain the references to the time which permeate these two chapters - polyjuice use, timed to run out around an hour later. Also note that Dumbledore "drew his wand so rapidly that Harry barely saw it" pg 50 - as if he didn't want Harry to identify it. (Or, so that he didn't scare the muggles - there's at least two interpretations of every quote I use here) The time between Harry sighting the figure outside and the time Harry dresses and makes it downstairs could be a few minutes, giving the imposter time to down his polyjuice. The reason I don't think the figure had taken the polyjuice before arrival is illustrated above - Harry hears the clock chime twelve at Slughorn's, before Dumbledore disappears into Slughorn's bathroom. However, it would make more sense that Snape took the polyjuice before arriving at the Dursleys - he wouldn't want to expose his movements to any Death Eaters, Order Members or Ministry Officials watching the Dursley's home. However, you have to note that if this is Snape, he is remarkably good at a) playing Dumbledore and b) not showing his true feelings regarding Sirius (whose property is discussed in chapter 3). One final point - which could be taken either that Dumbledore didn't know he was going to die (if it is Dumbledore) or an ironic statement on the part of the imposter, on pg 58, Dumbledore tells the Dursleys: 'Until we meet again.' Another part of the book where it has been suggested Dumbledore is being played by an imposter (ie Snape) is Chapter 26 (pg 519). On pg 520, Dumbledore's movements are compared to the "Sudden agility of a much younger man." On pg 521, Dumbledore refers to Tom Riddle as 'Lord Voldemort' where he usually used the name Tom Riddle. On pg 522, Dumbledore realises that he's dried his on robes, but left Harry soaking wet (rather uncaring?) He is also remarks about the cave's defenses being blood-bound. 'Oh surely not. So crude.' and further on pg 523, it is stated: "'I said it was crude,' said Dumbledore, who sounded disdainful, even disappointed, as though Voldemort had fallen short of the standards Dumbledore expected." This seems to me to be something Snape would remark on, especially since at one point he must have held Voldemort in some sort of esteem, something that Dumbledore never seemed to do. Recall that Snape is the man that guarded the Philosopher's stone with a complex logic potion (although it's ironic that a first year cracked it), not something crude like blood. On pg 523, Dumbledore heals his own hand "it was healed instantly, just as Snape had healed Malfoy's wounds." An interesting comparison? For more information on the latter theory, see Professor Mum's theory 'Severus Stands In' on livejournal, linked below: http://professor-mum.livejournal.com/5922.html#cutid1 - Part One http://professor-mum.livejournal.com/6547.html#cutid1 - Part Two Nice to meet you, cheers, Nate! From tonks_op at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 05:35:43 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 05:35:43 -0000 Subject: HBP -- Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159423 >kelli t. wrote: Two questions from Half Blood Prince: > > When Dumbledore was under the effect of the potion at the lake, and he was making comments about, don't make me, I don't want to hurt them, etc... Who do you think he was seeing? > > And... Do you think the reason that Dumbledore trusted Snape so much was that they made an unbreakable vow? Tonks: Welcome to the group. Most of us think that the potion in the cave was a pensive and DD was reliving someone's memory. The question is whose? Also John Granger (author of Hidden Keys to HP, and 2 other books) says, and I agree, that when DD takes the potion he drinks 12 cups full which is symbolic of the 12 disciples, the 12 tribes of Israel and completeness. Granger and I also say that at this point DD is symbolically taking on the sins of the world in a Christ like sense. But we come back to whose memory is it? It could be Snape's. It could be Tom Riddle's. Somehow it could be DD's. He is over 150 years old at his death; he may have a few regrets in his life. I think we will discover more about this in the last book. As to why DD trust Snape. No, Snape did not make an unbreakable vow. As readers we have a bad habit of picking up whatever new invention JKR has created and start seeing it everywhere. DD is not the type of man to force someone to follow him. They do so freely. Choice and free will is a big thing in the books. DD trust Snape because he repented of his past life as a DE and made the choice to follow DD. Some of us also think that the reason Snape repented was because he was in love with Lily and could not bear to think that he was responsible for her death. Tonks_op From cobenghichngom9028 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 02:36:11 2006 From: cobenghichngom9028 at yahoo.com (cobenghichngom9028) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:36:11 -0000 Subject: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "scylla1958" wrote: > > My 2 cents: I think Sirius is gone for good. He was really getting too > whiney and sulky towards the end. He seemed to be in the way. But I > think Dumbledore may be back. Remember, his "pet" was a phoenix. > Rising from the ashes is not a new concept in relation to Dumbledore. I always hope Sirius will turn back. But in fact he died, Mr Dumbledore did too. I'm really sad!!! "cobenghichngom9028" From dream_vs_dimension at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 03:46:43 2006 From: dream_vs_dimension at yahoo.com (Cicero X4) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:46:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore's Death In-Reply-To: <003701c6eca0$0e691cd0$0200a8c0@carlaathome> Message-ID: <20061011034643.71025.qmail@web58112.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159425 Carla: > The real question is did Snape really betray Dumbledore. I think not. Dumbledore was dying. The potion he drank was killing him painfully. I think he knew before going to retrieve the horcrux what he would be facing. Note that he didn't let Harry drink the liquid. As for who will look out for Harry, he always has the Weasley's and Lupin. < I agree with Carla. Although, I'd like to think that there will still be participation from Sirius and DD from the other side. I'm kinda curious whether the hooded door to the netherworld will reappear in the next book. It's really scary how Harry, Hermione, Ron and the rest of the DA will stand up to the enemies they're facing (not to mention the complexity of curses). Jax From valkayrion at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 05:07:12 2006 From: valkayrion at yahoo.com (Riff Almighty) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:07:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Snape Voldemort's son? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011050712.31447.qmail@web35311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159426 Jessica: >> Being that Snape's mother's Potions book was 50 years old (the book Harry was using in book 6), we decided she must have been at Hogwart's with Voldemort. So, what if she had a brief affair with him, got pregnant, and that is why her husband hated her. << Mm, I think if Snape is Voldemort's son, his title Half Blood Prince is not suitable anymore for him. Riff Almighty From aquarius_brk_85 at yahoo.co.in Wed Oct 11 05:10:28 2006 From: aquarius_brk_85 at yahoo.co.in (aquarius aquarius) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:10:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Snape Voldemort's son? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011051028.63414.qmail@web8704.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159427 Jessica wrote: >> Being that Snape's mother's Potions book was 50 years old (the book Harry was using in book 6), we decided she must have been at Hogwart's with Voldemort. So, what if she had a brief affair with him, got pregnant, and that is why her husband hated her. I also do believe that Harry has a Horcrux in his scar but I desperately want him to live! << aquarius_brk_85: No, this is the first time I have heard this theory. This is unbelievable but not impossible. I will agree with you that Harry might be a Horcrux, how else can he fulfil the prophecy, he is not as good as LV in magic, he will just make him mortal so that other can have chance of killing him. From lisasimpsonfan at aol.com Wed Oct 11 05:17:20 2006 From: lisasimpsonfan at aol.com (lisasimpsonfan at aol.com) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 01:17:20 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Snape Voldemort's son? Message-ID: <453.72b1be2.325dd860@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159428 Jessica: Being that Snape's mother's Potions book was 50 years old (the book Harry was using in book 6), we decided she must have been at Hogwart's with Voldemort. So, what if she had a brief affair with him, got pregnant, and that is why her husband hated her. Also, if Dumbledore found out about it, and he was the one who told Snape, that could have been what brought Snape to his side. That could be why Dumbledore trusted him so fully. What do you all think? Has anyone else heard this crazy theory of mine? Linda: Sorry to shoot down your theory but the potion's book was Snape's not his mothers. His mother was Eileen Prince who married a muggle Tobias Snape and he fathered Severus. Severus came up with the name Half-Blood Prince because he was trying to disassociate himself from his muggle father. Plus we learned that Tom is the last heir to Slytherin in CoS so he can't have any children. We don't know if Eileen knew Tom Riddle when he was in school since we don't know how old she was when she had Severus. Linda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From damselfly318 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 06:29:43 2006 From: damselfly318 at yahoo.com (damselfly318) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:29:43 -0000 Subject: HBP -- Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159429 kelli t: > When Dumbledore was under the effect of the potion at the lake, and he was making comments about, don't make me, I don't want to hurt them, etc... Who do you think he was seeing? Mari: I'm so glad you brought this up. Per DD, that's the cave where Tom Riddle brought the two children from the orphanage who, according to the matron, were never quite right afterward. The last time I read that part, I was struck by how child-like DD sounds when drinking or being force-fed the potion. It is not at all typical of DD's normal dialogue -- even if he is being tortured. It is very typical, however, of a small child being punished and forced to do something s/he doesn't want to do. Riddle did something to those two children in that cave -- tortured them, frightened them, attempted to control them, or something similar. It was an important enough event to him that he later hid and elaborately protected a Horcrux there. I think Riddle used those children as guinea pigs on which to test his budding powers, and that the liquid DD drinks forces him to relive that torture from the children's POV. The liquid itself may have been the distilled emotions/memories from that event. kelli t: And... Do you think the reason that Dumbledore trusted Snape so much was that they made an unbreakable vow? Mari: I wondered about that myself. Would a prior UV nullify a subsequent UV if the 2 vows were at odds with each other? I can't see DD requiring SS to give him a UV, tho I could see SS offering to do it to prove himself. Honestly, tho, I don't think DD would compell SS to do that, and I'm not sure he'd value a UV over true contrition. Whatever made DD trust SS, I think it's something big, and I can't wait to find out what. Mari who's been wondering if anyone else picked up on what DD was saying at the lake.... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 11 06:43:53 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:43:53 -0000 Subject: Harry and Christianity (was:Re: Banning the books/Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610101954w7e99f91bw740ae286b5e46ae0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159430 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > montims: > > I hadn't heard that, but strictly speaking, if that were the case, it would > > be "minister" not "pastor", as she is Church of Scotland... > > I thought the CoS were Presbyterians, who IIRC have pastors. (Church > of Scotland is not Church of England.) I read about who uses what > terms recently, but it was wikipedia, and incomplete at that. Geoff: Speaking as a Christian - and as a member of a Baptist Church,the normal usage in the UK is that Catholics refer to their "priest", Anglicansto their "vicar". In the Non-conformist churches such as the Baptists, Methodists, URC and Presbyterians, the tendency is to refer to the "mnister". "Pastor" is used in these churches in a very informal way. The word seems to be used formally more frequently in the independent evangelical churches. From damselfly318 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 06:50:49 2006 From: damselfly318 at yahoo.com (damselfly318) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 06:50:49 -0000 Subject: Is Snape Voldemort's son? In-Reply-To: <20061011050712.31447.qmail@web35311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159431 > Jessica: > >> Being that Snape's mother's Potions book was 50 years old (the > book Harry was using in book 6), we decided she must have been at > Hogwart's with Voldemort. So, what if she had a brief affair with > him, got pregnant, and that is why her husband hated her. << Riff: >> Mm, I think if Snape is Voldemort's son, his title Half Blood Prince is not suitable anymore for him. << Mari: True, but SS gave himself that title, so assuming (just for the sake of argument) that he is LV's son, he probably thought (and would still think) he is Tobias Snape's son. Very intriguing theory, I love it, but can't allow for it; SS probably would have ended up more conventionally handsome, for one thing. It certainly makes for some interesting speculation. If SS was the hero of the series, rather than HP, I'd say chances of him turning out to be LV's son would be pretty good. Very mythic -- son growing up unaware of his true father and setting out to defy or kill him (Oedipus, Cuchulain/Connla, Luke Skywalker, etc.) It would be a nice symmetry too, as Riddle killed his own father. Of course, with LV being obsessed about physical immortality, and wary of anyone who might be more powerful than him, I suspect he'd have been careful not to spawn any Dark Lordlings, and if he had, would have "taken care of them" -- in the Sicilian sense of the word -- before they had the chance to say (pardon the pun) "Dada!" Appealing as that is, last I heard, Harry is the hero, and JKR has a hard time believing so many of her readers like SS so much (blame Alan Rickman, I say), so I'm betting that won't be the big surprise in the 7th book. Mari From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Oct 11 09:27:09 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:27:09 -0000 Subject: HBP -- Two Questions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159432 > >kelli t. wrote: > Two questions from Half Blood Prince: > > > > When Dumbledore was under the effect of the potion at the lake, > and he was making comments about, don't make me, I don't want to > hurt them, etc... Who do you think he was seeing? > > > Tonks replied: > > Most of us think that the potion in the cave was a pensive and DD > was reliving someone's memory. The question is whose? [SNIP] It >could be Snape's. It could be Tom Riddle's. Somehow it could be >DD's. He is over 150 years old at his death; he may have a few >regrets in his life. I think we will discover more about this in the >last book. > > Mari also replied: > > I'm so glad you brought this up. Per DD, that's the cave where Tom > Riddle brought the two children from the orphanage who, according to > the matron, were never quite right afterward. The last time I read > that part, I was struck by how child-like DD sounds when drinking or > being force-fed the potion. It is not at all typical of DD's normal > dialogue -- even if he is being tortured. It is very typical, > however, of a small child being punished and forced to do something > s/he doesn't want to do. > I completely agree that this is a pensieve and that DD is reliving the memory of what Tom Riddle did to those children. Therefore it almost has to be Tom Riddle's memory. He was not even aware he was a wizard at this point and did not have a wand, so he could not have extracted the memories from them. I think that LV probably altered the memory, so that anyone drinking the potion relived the memory in the first person i.e. when DD drank the potion he entered a reality (in his mind at least) where he was torturing young children. Despite every fibre of his being telling him that this was a terrible thing to be doing, as long as he kept drinking the potion he kept torturing (an assumption on my part) the children. This was the reason for his comments during this scene. Brothergib From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Wed Oct 11 10:06:43 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:06:43 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159433 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > [SNIP] > I kind of like the theory that Dumbledore's death was not planned in > advance, that I mentioned above. Because I think that would make it > the hardest for things to get straightened out in Book 7 (and thus, > the most exciting/suspenseful to read about.) On finding out from Flitwick that DE's have invaded the castle, Snape runs straight for the tower, without even stopping to consider the battle raging within Hogwarts. This is a very single minded action and suggests that this course of action had been predetermined. My interpretation is this - Snape knows that Malfoy is meant to kill DD. DD knows that Malfoy may be close to getting DE's into the castle (info via Harry via Sybil). If DD and SS are conspiring together, it makes sense that they would agree a plan of action if DE's get into the castle. Therefore the plan of action would seem to be that Snape has to kill DD before Malfoy does. Hence why Snape sprints for the tower. The whole reason for DD's death at the hands of Snape is to place a trusted double agent at LV's side. Brothergib From x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 11:16:57 2006 From: x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com (x_dreamsmadeflesh_x) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:16:57 -0000 Subject: Would Harry make a Horcrux for himself? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159434 I do not think HP would make a Horocrux. He is already worried about how much alike LV he is, I don't think he would choose to make a Horocrux simply because that was something that LV did. x_dreamsmadeflesh_x From x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 11:15:09 2006 From: x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com (x_dreamsmadeflesh_x) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:15:09 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610102014r42caf947g37a18623995583af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159435 I'm not too sure that HP /will/ die. The prophecy states that 'either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives'. I don't think that BOTH LV and HP will end up dying. But if HP must die, I believe that it will be done in a truly spectacular way. x_dreamsmadeflesh_x From x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 10:56:08 2006 From: x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com (x_dreamsmadeflesh_x) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:56:08 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159436 I have heard many people want to ban HP books. There are actually a few schools near me that do not allow the books onto their grounds. It's not just HP books, it is a lot of EXCELLENT classics also. I think that it is extremely stupid to ban ANY book, because people always say that children don't read enough as it is. Maybe if they didn't ban all the good books this wouldn't be such a problem. Personally I think that HP teaches some great lessons (the importance of friendship & loyalty just to name a few) but that being said, I wouldn't want just any child to read them. I feel that some of the books deal with a more mature theme and some children may find them a bit scary...I guess it all depends on the child. I honestly don't see how you could possibly say that these books teach witchcraft tho, I mean if I pulled a wand out and waved it around and said some 'magic' words absolutely NOTHING would happen, lol. These books are classified as fantasy for a reason!! Witchcraft is fantasy and not real. There are religions that incorporate 'witchcraft', but it is totally different from anything you will find in a fantasy book or see in a movie. I find it humerous when people try to say HP is bad, but when you ask them why they can't give a good reason at all. Most of the people trying to ban them have never even read them and that annoys me so much! I wouldn't worry too much about the book being banned, it may happen in schools (as it has here) but if someone really wants to read it they won't let a ban stop them. I think it would actually work in reverse...I think people will be more curious as to why they are banned and want to read them more. x_dreamsmadeflesh_x From x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 11:09:57 2006 From: x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com (x_dreamsmadeflesh_x) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:09:57 -0000 Subject: new to the group In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159437 I have quite a few theories on how DD may not be dead, but I am probably wrong on most of them. One thing I just thought of... I think that DD knew that he was dying. I remember reading in HBP how Fawkes was singing every once in awhile while Harry was having his lessons with DD. I think that Fawkes knew DD was dying also. I have a feeling that something about the ring Horocrux DD destroyed was slowly killing him... Maybe Fawkes will somehow bring DD back. We know that phoenix's have healing powers, but I am not sure to what extent they can heal... x_dreamsmadeflesh_x From x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 10:48:22 2006 From: x_dreamsmadeflesh_x at yahoo.com (x_dreamsmadeflesh_x) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 10:48:22 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159438 I just have one comment to your answers to these questions. You said: > Potioncat: > Throughout the books there are scenes that indicate a great number--- > it's caused all sorts of discussions about how many students > there "really" are. I think JKR sees the WW as fairly large. I'm not quite sure if I agree about the wizarding world being very large. According to the book there are only 5 beds in Harry's Gryffindor bedroom, so that would mean (on average) 10 students per house per year. That would equal to about 280 students. But if you break it down into age range that would be about 40 students per grade. Now we know that there are at least 3 wizarding schools out there, so that does triple all the numbers (about 120 students per grade) but I'm not too sure I would call that a large population. It seems quite small if you compare it to the population of the world in reality. Just thought I would point that out. You might be quite right tho, there may be many more wizarding schools that just aren't mentioned in the book. But this is just how I interpreted the population of wizards. x_dreamsmadeflesh_x From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 11 11:30:37 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:30:37 -0000 Subject: Is Snape Voldemort's son? In-Reply-To: <453.72b1be2.325dd860@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159439 > Linda: > > Sorry to shoot down your theory but the potion's book was Snape's not his > mothers. His mother was Eileen Prince who married a muggle Tobias Snape and he > fathered Severus. Severus came up with the name Half-Blood Prince because > he was trying to disassociate himself from his muggle father. Plus we learned > that Tom is the last heir to Slytherin in > CoS so he can't have any children. We don't know if Eileen knew Tom Riddle > when he was in school since we don't know how old she was when she had > Severus. Potioncat: According to the Lexicon McGonagall was born 1925, Riddle was born 26/27. According to me if the "50 years" was precise, then Eileen was born in 31/32. Her time at Hogwarts would have overlapped--just barely--with both McGonagall and Riddle. She would have been around 27 when Iddle Sevvie was born. Did you mean we don't "know" the book was Eileen's at all? One theory presumes that it was, another thinks we are only to think it was. I think it was her book and am basing Eileen's age on her owning the book new. If the "50 years" was just a phrase, she could actually be a few years older, and be closer in age to McGonagall, Riddle and most likely "Gram Longbottom." But, no, for reasons mentioned by previous posts, and because JKR said LV did not have children, I don't think Snape is LV's son. I don't see Halfblood Prince distancing Snape from his father. If Snape wanted distance, he would leave off the Halfblood part. I'll bet he was given that nickname by "Dark Lord" himself. "My my, if it isn't the halfblood Prince. No matter, you show great promise." I'm betting 6th year Snape was honored in much the same way 6th year Draco was. From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 11:47:45 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:47:45 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What do you really think of Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011114745.79071.qmail@web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159440 --- Tesha wrote: > > In 20 words or less > Do you love, hate, or "could care less" about DD > and why. > > Cassy: Well, not sure if I'll make it into 20 words... I think Dumbledore, though having best intentions, is a over-self-righteous manipulative person, who enjoys running other people's lives. >aussie: >DD is a father figure to most wizards I agree with that, but I think that he tends to abuse the emotional power this position gives him, not actually ordering people around, but using their attachment to him to make them do what he wants. Like he demonstrated his disappointment to Harry to urge Harry to get Slughorns memory faster. While Voldemort sends his minions to possible death using their fear for him, Dumbledore uses his followers devotion. Of course, people love him, but lots of people love Hitler and Stalin too. And both of them claimed they were "Children's friends". (OK, don't through sleepers at me for the last passage, it just my most humble opinion) Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 11:50:50 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:50:50 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore (was Re: Do you all think that Sirius Black will return back ?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011115050.29404.qmail@web38304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159441 --- yvette wrote: > Dumbledore is > so powerful and cool he will find a way to > communicate with Harry. > I bet he had a plan all along. > Cassy: It would ruin the classical story structure where in the last part the hero stands along. If Dumbledore will be able to communicate with Harry, then he will surely help to figure out the Horcruxes and I feel that it is something the Trio needs to do on their own. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Oct 11 12:27:07 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:27:07 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books, Harry and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610101912x4238a60av9f22a3c02e5d4689@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159442 > > montims: > just out of interest - does anyone know if the Lemony Snicket books cause > offence to these people, Tesha: Oh yes, here's one place... "though his books have apparently been banned in Decatur, Georgia, where elementary school teachers cancelled Handler's planned visit, objecting to a suggestion of incest in one of the books and Count Olaf's use of the word "damn". "Its use was precipitated," says Handler, "by a long discussion of how one should never say this word, since only a villain would do so vile a thing! This is exactly the lily-liveredness of children's books that I can't stand."" quote from http://books.guardian.co.uk/ From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 12:43:10 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:43:10 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV's offspring (was Re: Is Snape Voldemort's son?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011124310.20858.qmail@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159443 --- potioncat wrote: > If the "50 years" was just a phrase, she (Eileen) > could actually be > a few years older, and be closer in age to > McGonagall, Riddle and > most likely "Gram Longbottom." > Cassy: Speaking of "Gram Longbottom" going to school with Riddle, how about Voldemort's being Neville's granddad? After all, most everybody agrees there's ore to Neville, then we know... As for Eillen, I don't really seehow such an unattractive girl would interest such a schoold star as Riddle. If she did not posess any valueable relic, that is. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 13:41:33 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:41:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books, Harry and the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610101936s30486760g69f733a7eefe9dc7@mail.gmail.com> References: <006b01c6ecbf$7319d7e0$b398400c@Spot> <7b9f25e50610101936s30486760g69f733a7eefe9dc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610110641u169e8982u5d00d3563aaa069@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159444 On 10/10/06, Jordan Abel wrote: > > What I don't understand is this. Wouldn't it have been better for them > (that is, Wiccans in general) to simply stop co-opting the term > "witch" (and thus avoid being stereotyped as "witches") rather than > trying to fight a much older meaning of the word? montims: and yet they (we - as a wiccan I must declare an interest) are using a word and a meaning that existed centuries before the stereotype, which really developed to placate James VI and I and the Catholic Church. A witch is a Wise One, a lover and observer of nature, who uses natural energies to achieve a change, hence magic. The evil hag caricature is as representative of witches as Nazi propaganda images were representative of Jews, and for the same reason. JKR's witches are, in fact, more similar to the everyday witches I know than most other literary depictions. (And I would add that a 15 year old would not be considered to be Wiccan by others, however self-initiated she is - people are not accepted for study in the RW until they are adult...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 11 13:46:16 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:46:16 -0000 Subject: LV's offspring (was Re: Is Snape Voldemort's son?) In-Reply-To: <20061011124310.20858.qmail@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159445 > Cassy: > > Speaking of "Gram Longbottom" going to school with > Riddle, how about Voldemort's being Neville's > granddad? After all, most everybody agrees there's ore > to Neville, then we know... Pippin: http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm Harry: Has Voldermort any children? JK Rowling replies -> No. Voldemort as a father... now that's not a nice thought. I'm afraid Voldemort can't be Snape's father or Neville's grandfather, as Neville's parents, though addled, are still alive. He could possibly be the grandfather of a character whose parent is dead.(See how we love to find loopholes around here?) But that's ruled out since Tom is the last remaininng descendant of Salazar Slytherin, unless Dumbledore was wrong. Pippin waves at all the newcomers From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 11 14:01:13 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:01:13 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159446 Brothergib: > On finding out from Flitwick that DE's have invaded the castle, Snape > runs straight for the tower, without even stopping to consider the > battle raging within Hogwarts. This is a very single minded action and > suggests that this course of action had been predetermined. My > interpretation is this - Snape knows that Malfoy is meant to kill DD. > DD knows that Malfoy may be close to getting DE's into the castle (info > via Harry via Sybil). Magpie: I think Snape and DD definitely have plans in certain emergencies, but isn't it rather an important point that Dumbledore *didn't* know DEs were close to getting into the castle? The Cabinet Plot is the monkey wrench in everyone's plans. Snape would still sprint for the Tower (or wherever Draco was) knowing that whatever is going on, it's supposed to end with Draco killing Dumbledore. The Tower scene, once Snape shows up, seems to me more likely an emergency worst-case scenario. Some aspects I think were discussed as possibilities by Snape and Dumbledore (the "Severus, please" referring to them) but the situation itself with Hogwarts' defenses breached and all these DEs there adding a sort of "all bets are off" chaos. -m From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 14:17:55 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:17:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0610102014r42caf947g37a18623995583af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610110717j69bc892cma189b920519188d0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159447 On 10/11/06, x_dreamsmadeflesh_x wrote: > > I'm not too sure that HP /will/ die. The prophecy states that 'either > must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other > survives'. I don't think that BOTH LV and HP will end up dying. But if > HP must die, I believe that it will be done in a truly spectacular way. montims: well, the prophecy might not actually mean that, but Harry will die. Whether in the next book or at 150 years old, he will die as we all do... Taking off my flippant hat though, I don't know whether I feel it would be better, artistically, for him to die in book 7 or not... In some ways, I would prefer it if book 7 was never released, and we were just left to our speculations, each of us having a different conclusion... (like Edwin Drood) It breaks my heart to think that in a few years time and beyond, people will be coming new to the series KNOWING, through movies or anecdote, the ending before they even read the first page of PS. That will colour their reading from the start... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jfite at midsouth.rr.com Wed Oct 11 13:59:04 2006 From: jfite at midsouth.rr.com (n8483483) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:59:04 -0000 Subject: hagrid, detention, Lupin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159448 Hello, Newbie here.... I am curious as to how much Hagrid knows about Tom Riddle being Voldermont. He tells Harry Voldermont was in Slytherin in the first book. Is he aware that Tom Riddle is Voldermont because I did not think many people knew that. If they do know this can't they deduct that Tom Riddle was not such a golden boy and that Hagrid was framed? Is Hagrid allowed to do magic now? I can't seem to figure that out! Also, in the first book Harry and the others have an 11:00 pm detention. Isn't that a bit late for 11 year old children to be awake? I have not ever encountered another detention which lasted all night. Is this detention merly a device to introduce the Forest? Please direct me to any discussions regarding Lupin not telling DD about the fact that Sirus was aware of the secret passage under the willow. I am intrested in this but can't seem to find the old posts regarding the discussions I am sure have happened! THANKS! "n8483483" From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 15:08:04 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:08:04 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159450 zgirnius (me) previously: > > I kind of like the theory that Dumbledore's death was not planned > > in advance, that I mentioned above. brothergib: > On finding out from Flitwick that DE's have invaded the castle, Snape > runs straight for the tower, without even stopping to consider the > battle raging within Hogwarts. This is a very single minded action and > suggests that this course of action had been predetermined. zgirnius: I don't find Snape's reaction requires any special explanation involving a plan with Dumbledore. In light of what he knows, it seems to me that his first thought upon hearing that Death Eaters were in the castle would logically be that Draco brought them in. Even without advance plans that Snape must kill Dumbledore, seeking out Dumbledore and Draco first to see what is happening seems the correct decision on Snape's part to me. There are other Order members attempting to deal with the battle. There is no other Order member who knows what Snape knows, so it makes sense for him to leave them to it. I'm not saying the plan theory is wrong. If Dumbledore had been dying slowly all year (an assumption, he might not have been), for example, it would be very logical and consistent with his character to come up with such a plan. It would also be a reasonable worst case scenario for him and Snape to consider. It could have been the subject of the argument in the Forest. On the other hand, Dumbledore did not believe that Draco could get Death Eaters into the school, and he did not beleieve that Draco would kill him. So it is not necessary, in my view, that such a plan should have been discussed in advance. Personally, I think the plan they dicussed in advance was a plan to talk Draco out of the killing and offer him and his family asylum. A plan we appear to have seen in action on the Tower, which failed due to the arrival of the other Death Eaters. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 15:19:53 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:19:53 -0000 Subject: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS- Question ab... In-Reply-To: <304.e12c11e.3259c006@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159451 Sherrie wrote: > IIRC, there are no male veela (wila, in Slavic myth, vilia in Celtic). > There are also no female centaurs in mythology (STAR TREK convention costumes notwithstanding). Both mythological races reproduced by breeding with humans of the, erm, appropriate gender. (Though in some myths, the "Willies" are spirits of young girls who die before their wedding day - cf. Giselle). Carol responds: But if that's the case, how could Fleur be *part* Veela? If her "grandmuzzer" was a Veela who married a human man, then she and her mother would (and little Gabrielle) also be full-blood Veelas. Mythology notwithstanding, I think that in JKR's world, there must be male Veela, though perhaps they're very rare and consequently, most Veela don't marry. Or--not that this solution would appear in JKR's books--maybe they practice polyandry, sharing a husband because to do otherwise would mean the end of the species. Alternatively, maybe both the Veela and the Centaurs have some form of asexual reproduction, as the Dementors do. Carol, finding the idea of a union between a centaur and a human woman repugnant and wondering why the offspring wouldn't be three-quarters human rather than one-half From cobenghichngom9028 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 09:54:54 2006 From: cobenghichngom9028 at yahoo.com (phuong mai) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 02:54:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Will Harry die after part 7???? Message-ID: <20061011095454.55645.qmail@web55302.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159452 Hey friends, don't you think that Harry will die after he kills Voldemort? I hope he will come back to his school in the final part. phuong mai From ladypotentpotions1 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 15:52:44 2006 From: ladypotentpotions1 at yahoo.com (Alice Franceschini) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:52:44 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159453 Hello I am new to this group and I have been reading postings. Wonderful theories and conjectures. Maybe this has been brought up, but I am sure Snape is working under cover for Dumbledore even though it looks like Snape killed him. It's the way it is written that gives me this idea. Even if Snape did kill him, it was a plan worked out by both Snape and Dumbledore, for Dumbledore could have released Harry for help and he chose not to. And burying Dumbledore above ground is an indication to me that he is only temporarily away. And that potion Dumbledore drank in the cave, could have been a slow working protection potion or "possum" potion (simulating death) Love the group so far, Alice From jamess at climaxgroup.com Wed Oct 11 10:20:21 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:20:21 +0100 Subject: [SPAM] RE: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do you all think that Sirius B lack will return back ? Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39C5A@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 159454 Jen Wrote: Nope, Sirius is gone for good. I'm still clinging to the hope that Dumbledore is not dead. Sherry now: I don't really expect JKR to bring back Sirius. Having said that however, if she brought back anyone, I'd want it to be Sirius, so Harry has that person in his life. Also, he's the one character who has died, in the time frame of Harry's story, not in the past, whose body has never been seen. I'm talking about major characters or someone affecting Harry's life. Sirius was a major character to Harry, but his little trip behind the veil left Harry and us no body. It's kind of suspicious to me. I can live with Dumbledore being dead. He was an old man after all. James writes: Slight change of subject, but there is one thing about this that bothered me. After DD's death Harry is thinking about the fact that he has never been to a funeral, because there was no physical remains left of SB. In our world, we have plenty of funerals where a body was never recovered, I find that these memorials are an important part of the grieving process and quite frankly I'm shocked that they never did anything for SB. Especially considering the emotional impact it had on Harry and co. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Oct 11 16:45:24 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:45:24 -0000 Subject: hagrid, detention, Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159455 > "n8483483: > Please direct me to any discussions regarding Lupin not telling DD > about the fact that Sirus was aware of the secret passage under the > willow. I am intrested in this but can't seem to find the old posts > regarding the discussions I am sure have happened! > Pippin: There's a recent discussion of how Sirius got in and whether Lupin should have told Dumbledore about the passage starting at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151677 BTW, an advanced search on ESE!Lupin contained in the message body will tell you more than you ever wanted to know Pippin From casmir2012 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 16:59:42 2006 From: casmir2012 at yahoo.com (casmir2012) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:59:42 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159456 > Magpie: > I think Snape and DD definitely have plans in certain emergencies, > but isn't it rather an important point that Dumbledore *didn't* know > DEs were close to getting into the castle? > Casmir: I have recently re read this book since it first came out. Different things stood out, one of which is that Snape DID NOT know DE's were coming. A sign that he may not be fully trusted by Voldemort. Perhaps killing DD was a contingency plan made should it seem Snape was losing status with V. HOwever, that leaves the question of whether Snape really knew what he was promising to Draco's mom...if so, then the theory that this was a contingency plan is wrong. As Snape knew he'd be killing Dumbledore by the end of the school year. DD obviously had a good hunch on what four of the horcruxes are, but chose, quite possibly to take on the one he thought was most deadliest, seeing how he was going to die anyways. Or maybe it was just the one he could locate first. From heidi at heidi8.com Wed Oct 11 17:02:04 2006 From: heidi at heidi8.com (heiditandy) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:02:04 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159457 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > I think Snape and DD definitely have plans in certain emergencies, > but isn't it rather an important point that Dumbledore *didn't* know > DEs were close to getting into the castle? The Cabinet Plot is the > monkey wrench in everyone's plans. Snape would still sprint for the > Tower (or wherever Draco was) knowing that whatever is going on, > it's supposed to end with Draco killing Dumbledore. The Tower scene, > once Snape shows up, seems to me more likely an emergency worst-case > scenario. Exactly. If you presume that Dumbledore did not know that the Death Eaters would be getting into the castle via a room that is, inherently, unmonitorable, it immediately defaults to the worst-case scenario. But an additional question is whether Dumbledore had told Snape before he went to the cave where he was going. He must have had a supposition that there might be a poison or some other injurious trick from Voldemort there, and if he told Snape beforehand that he might return Different, Changed or Damaged, then perhaps they did discuss that day that things might need to be escalated sooner than later, again leading to the "Severus, please..." bit? heidi Follow me to FictionAlley.org Where Creativity is Magic! fanfiction :: fanart :: fan vids :: HPWiki.com Spell-Cast.com (the Potter fandom podcast) :: Fan Events From casmir2012 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 17:02:24 2006 From: casmir2012 at yahoo.com (casmir2012) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:02:24 -0000 Subject: Would Harry make a Horcrux for himself? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159458 No Way. Horcruxes are dark magic, first off; and secondly, Dumbledore is quite clear that splitting the soul is not a good thing and that there is a beauty to a whole soul. ...let's not forget, Harry is "Dumbledore's man through and through". From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 16:39:49 2006 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:39:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011163949.87512.qmail@web53302.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159459 Julia, If J.K. used the same of idea of using a potion to slow a person's metabolism like in Romeo and Juliet, it might one good possibility. Dragonkeeper From maccanena at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 17:19:35 2006 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:19:35 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 - RESULTS- Question ab... In-Reply-To: References: <304.e12c11e.3259c006@aol.com> Message-ID: <1f40e2480610111019l607c8dcepaa7d77bd8e206c0f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159460 On 10/11/06, justcarol67 wrote: > Sherrie wrote: > > IIRC, there are no male veela > Carol responds: > But if that's the case, how could Fleur be *part* Veela? If her > "grandmuzzer" was a Veela who married a human man, then she and her > mother would (and little Gabrielle) also be full-blood Veelas. > Mythology notwithstanding, I think that in JKR's world, there must be > male Veela, though perhaps they're very rare and consequently, most > Veela don't marry. Or--not that this solution would appear in JKR's > books--maybe they practice polyandry, sharing a husband because to do > otherwise would mean the end of the species. Alternatively, maybe both > the Veela and the Centaurs have some form of asexual reproduction, as > the Dementors do. > I think that you are assuming here that the outcome of the union between a veela and a human man can only be another woman, therefore a veela. Thus, Fleur and Gabrielle could not be half veelas, but full veelas. However, I think that veelas could give birth to both male and female babies, if females they would be full veelas, if male, plain humans but with some of that beauty and genetics, which could be passed down to the grandchildren, however diluted. Do we know anything about Fleur's mother? Maybe I am making my theory forgetting some fact, but I think it explains the fact that Fleur is part-veela pretty well. Maria, coming back after a very long period of lurkdom From emberleeblu at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 16:40:25 2006 From: emberleeblu at yahoo.com (emberleeblu) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:40:25 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books - Some clarification on the term "witch" In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610101936s30486760g69f733a7eefe9dc7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159461 Random832 wrote: > What I don't understand is this. Wouldn't it have been better > for them (that is, Wiccans in general) to simply stop co-opting > the term "witch" (and thus avoid being stereotyped as "witches") > rather than trying to fight a much older meaning of the word? Actually, the term "witch" has been used by Wiccans, like myself, and others who practice the Old Ways since about 2000 B.C., beginning in ancient Egypt! It was the early/medieval time Christian leaders who created the "stereotype" you speak of to turn people away from the Old Ways because there were many who were straddling the fence, so to speak, and practicing both. This can be verified with very minimal research by anyone who cares to run a Google or check Wikipedia, etc. Our religion has not changed, that's why it has always been refered to as "the Old Ways", as in the ways before the new(Christianity). It is, then, the "newer" meaning of the word we must fight, not the "much older" suggested here. We didn't ask for the stereotype. Why should we change to please anyone else? If the fires of the witchhunts didn't break us, then a bit of "stigma" won't either. You might as well ask Christians to call themselves something besides Christian because they could avoid being stereotyped as "holy rollers" or "bible bangers". Aleyna From guguyni at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 17:47:59 2006 From: guguyni at gmail.com (guguyni) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:47:59 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159462 x_dreamsmadeflesh_x wrote: > I'm not quite sure if I agree about the wizarding world being very > large. <> I'd think you could get a feel for the size of the wizarding community by looking at the turnout for the Quidditch World cup. On page 95 of GoF, Mr Weasley tells Harry that the stadium "seats a hundred thousand." You'd have to assume that only a small percentage of the actual wizarding population is able to attend the match (based on a Muggle example: the largest world cup soccer attendance was over 190,000 but that is only a small fraction of the world population...). I'd lean towards the theory that there are more wizarding schools than JKR has felt inclined to mention by name. guguyni From random832 at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 17:58:15 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:58:15 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610110717j69bc892cma189b920519188d0@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0610102014r42caf947g37a18623995583af@mail.gmail.com> <8ee758b40610110717j69bc892cma189b920519188d0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610111058s52b0b36elda018a2e3086af3f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159463 > montims: > well, the prophecy might not actually mean that, but Harry will die. > Whether in the next book or at 150 years old, he will die as we all do... JKR has said that wizards don't die "of old age", only by violence/disease/etc, so he might not. It's vanishingly unlikely, though... there's something I read on usenet once that I think fits quite well in any discussion of incomplete immortality: "if nothing else kills you first, no matter how careful you are, you will eventually be hit by a train." -- Random832 From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 19:19:58 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:19:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40610111219s79176044mc6341e73c9d05264@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159464 > Allie wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 22, After the Burial > >... Harry and Slughorn are the only ones awake. Harry > launches "remorselessly" into the story of his parents' murder, > describing in detail for Slughorn how Voldemort murdered James, then > stepped over his body to get to Lily and Harry. His storytelling is > dramatic and effective. Slughorn begs him to stop. Harry pretends > he forgot how much Slughorn liked Lily. He pours on the guilt, > finally saying, "I am the Chosen One. I have to kill him. I need > that memory." > ... > > Discussion Questions: ... > > > 12. What was your reaction to the "remorseless" way Harry described > his parents' murder in this scene? Do you think he only did that > because he had to, or is he less sensitive about the subject now? > Is this a different side to Harry than what we usually see? What > does this tell us about Harry's growth since we met him as an eleven- > year-old? Kemper answers: Harry was 'remorseless' to Slughorn. He was relentless in his telling not because his heart was becoming colder or hardening, but because Slughorn needed to hear the cold, hard reality of his parents' deaths, one for whom he expressed a loving admiration. Slughorn had numbed himself from his feelings, and it took Harry to hit him with cold, hard blows of Truth to soften him up. I believe that even though Slughorn may still live in fear, deep down the release of memory, his dark truth, has set his heart free. And he is glad in it. In the end, Harry freed Slughorn of his memory and therefore his guilt with cruel kindliness. Kemper From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Oct 11 18:18:55 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:18:55 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books - Some clarification on the term "witch" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159465 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "emberleeblu" wrote: > > Random832 wrote: > > What I don't understand is this. Wouldn't it have been better > > for them (that is, Wiccans in general) to simply stop co-opting > > the term "witch" (and thus avoid being stereotyped as "witches") > > rather than trying to fight a much older meaning of the word? > > > Actually, the term "witch" has been used by Wiccans, like myself, > and others who practice the Old Ways since about 2000 B.C., > Aleyna > Tesha: Witch came first - witch meaning something bad came later... The dictionary says witch- [from Middle English wicche, from Old English wicce, witch, and wicca, wizard, sorcerer.] meanings range from someone awfully good at what they do or just plain awful. Professor Bins, when asked for information about the Chamber of Secrets, said, "They built this castle together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much persecution." When Christianity overran the formerly Pagan lands, they used all sorts of ways to convert folks, one was to demonize the local powers if they wouldn't convert. As an example... Women skilled in healing were suddenly in league with the devil, and burned as witches or otherwise removed from society. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 19:04:16 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:04:16 -0000 Subject: hagrid, detention, Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159466 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Pippin: > > BTW, an advanced search on ESE!Lupin contained in the message > body will tell you more than you ever wanted to know Mike: Gosh, Pip, are you trying to scare the newbies off :D That advanced search returns 835 results (well 837 now with yours and mine). Why don't you just start them out with some light reading, like say...Ohh...how about Elkins' Crab Custard. From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Oct 11 19:10:31 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:10:31 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610111058s52b0b36elda018a2e3086af3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159467 Random832 > > JKR has said that wizards don't die "of old age", only by > violence/disease/etc, so he might not. It's vanishingly unlikely, > though... Do you have a citation for this? phoenixgod2000 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 20:18:27 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:18:27 -0000 Subject: OT: Harry and Christianity - Pastor or MInister In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610101954w7e99f91bw740ae286b5e46ae0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159468 --- "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > montims: > > I hadn't heard that, but strictly speaking, if that > > were the case, it would be "minister" not "pastor", > > as she is Church of Scotland... > Random832: > > I thought the CoS were Presbyterians, who IIRC have > pastors. (Church of Scotland is not Church of England.) > I read about who uses what terms recently, but it was > wikipedia, and incomplete at that. > > -- > Random832 > bboyminn: We are straying off-topic here, so we shouldn't let this aspect of the thread stray too far. As to Pastor and Minister, where I come from they are essentially the same, but are used in a different context. For example- It is perfectly acceptable to say - "Pastor Johnson is the minister of our church." 'Pastor' is a title similar to 'Doctor' or 'Mister'. 'Minister' is a job description; carpenter, lawyer, baker, minister. One is never Minister Johnson. It is either Reverend Johnson or Pastor Johnson. So, 'Reverend Johnson and his brother Pastor Johnson are ministers of their respective churches'. Just as on might say that- 'Father Johnson is the priest of the local Catholic Church.' 'Father' and 'Priest' mean the same thing but they are not used interchangably, any more than 'Reverend' or 'Pastor' are used interchangably with minister. So....? Clear or Cloudy - you be the judge. Steve/bboyminn From mtd122863 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 18:12:55 2006 From: mtd122863 at yahoo.com (Michael Davies) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:12:55 -0000 Subject: What's next for Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159469 Here's where we predict the ultimate outcome of the last book! Predictions may be as wild and wonderful as you wish. But you must address four characters and their outcomes. Ron--nearly loses his life helping Harry defeat Voldemort then becomes an auror permenantly worring his mother but making his father quite proud! Hermione--nearly loses her life helping Harry defeat Voldemort then becomes numerology professor at Hogwarts will eventually become Headmistress after the death of Professor McGonagal Voldemort--DEAD & GONE FOREVER...killed by the hand of Harry Potter! Harry--After defeating Voldemort once and for all he returns to Hogwarts as the only lasting and permanent "Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor" and marries Ginny Weasley, they live happily ever after. Michael Davies From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 20:03:35 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:03:35 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159470 --- "esmith222002" wrote: > > --- "zgirnius" wrote: > > > [SNIP] > > I kind of like the theory that Dumbledore's death was > > not planned in advance, that I mentioned above. > > Because I think that would make it the hardest for > > things to get straightened out in Book 7 (and thus, > > the most exciting/suspenseful to read about.) > Brothergib: > > On finding out from Flitwick that DE's have invaded the > castle, Snape runs straight for the tower, without even > stopping to consider the battle raging within Hogwarts. > This is a very single minded action and suggests that > this course of action had been predetermined. ... > Therefore the plan of action would seem to be that Snape > has to kill DD before Malfoy does. ... The whole reason > for DD's death at the hands of Snape is to place a > trusted double agent at LV's side. > > Brothergib > bboyminn: In general I don't have a problem with Snape and Dumbledore having a plan, but I am very uneasy with the idea that the plan was as specific as 'Dumbledore made Snape agree to kill him when DE's entered the castle'. That strikes me as a very narrow plan in such an anything can happen wide open war. I suspect it was more like 'Dumbledore made Snape argee that if Hogwarts should ever be invaded by any means and by any person or persons that Snape would act in the greater long term interest of Voldemort's defeat and not merely try to salvage the moment to great detrimental short term and long term cost'. That strikes me as a broader and all-encompassing plan that allows for the very certain uncertainty of this war. That also includes Snape acting on their suspicions regarding Draco. When Dumbledore said 'Severus please...', he wasn't saying 'please kill me', he was saying 'please do what you know must be done for the greater long term good of all'. In that moment, in effect, it amounts to the same thing since, in that moment, the greater long term good is served by Dumbledore dying for good cause, rather than them all dying in a futile attempt to save Dumbledore. So, I don't think Dumbledore specifically planned for Snape to kill him, certainly that possibility was included in a broader plan, but not specifically stated. So, in that context, I almost agree with you. Steve/bboyminn From mtd122863 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 18:20:39 2006 From: mtd122863 at yahoo.com (Michael Davies) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:20:39 -0000 Subject: Request (Harry live or die?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159471 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shivifree2find" wrote: > > Hi! I am new to this group. Harry Potter is my childhood hero > and reading his books is my favourite pass time. When I heard > he is going to die in 7th part I had a feeling that I have lost > my senses and become mad. I can do anything to see the movie > and read the book. I can go to see the movie or read the book > even if I have any disease. > > He is after all "...the boy who lived..." of course he will live. Some will die in this book, but, it will not be any of the trio. Harry Potter will finally, once and for all, unmistakenably, defeat and kill Voldemort! Good will triumph over evil! Someone else will die my guess is Hagrid. Harry must suffer another great loss before the end and Hagrid is the closest he has to a father figure. In the end he will triumph and return to Hogwarts as the only lasting and permanent "Defense Against the Dark Arts Professor!" Michael Davies From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 21:31:49 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:31:49 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: <20061011005701.49306.qmail@web39505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159472 > >>Bruce Carter: > > > > In my fundamentalist church, we would immediately repeat the > > Dursleys to the state for abuse if Harry's plight became known. > > We are required to, by law. > >>parisfan writes: > I SO agree with you Bruce. up here in canada we be > calling children's aid if the abuse that Harry > suffered at the hands of Dursleys came to light. > Betsy Hp: I wonder though, what would child services do, in the end? I mean, yeah, Harry has to wear hand-me-downs, and he's definitely not the favored child. But what out and out abuse does he suffer from? Especially in pre-PS/SS days? At most I expect the judge or child services person would tell Vernon and Petunia to move Harry out of the cupboard and into an actual bedroom. And, since I'm pretty sure Vernon and Petunia would immediately do so going by their reaction to Harry's Hogwart's invite, I think that would be that. I just don't see that what they do to Harry is all that actionable. Betsy Hp From kronosred at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 19:56:09 2006 From: kronosred at yahoo.com (Pavan Sharma) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 12:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610111058s52b0b36elda018a2e3086af3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061011195609.74059.qmail@web51711.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159473 --- Jordan Abel wrote: > JKR has said that wizards don't die "of old age", > only by > violence/disease/etc, so he might not. JKR has never said that wizards don't die of old age. She's said that they live longer than muggles do but that they're ultimately as mortal everyone else; otherwise, what would be the point of the Philosopher's Stone? kronosred From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Oct 11 21:47:43 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:47:43 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159474 > Alice: > > Maybe this has been brought up, but I am sure Snape is > working under cover for Dumbledore Eddie: Welcome to the group, Alice! Variations of your very intelligent theory have made the rounds here, but they were all pretty much squashed when Rowling said that Dumbledore is dead and "won't pull a Gandalf." That is, come back from the dead as the wizard Gandalf did in Lord of the Rings. See the messages that start around here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156412 Eddie From k.coble at comcast.net Wed Oct 11 22:14:06 2006 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:14:06 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Look Of Triumph In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159475 I'm coming out of lurkdom to bounce a theory off the group. I'm in the middle of my semi-annual re-read and something has just occured to me. We've discussed a lot about Harry being the Horcrux and (possibly) having to die in order to defeat Voldemort. I do not want Harry to die. I'll say that up front. To that end, something occured to me this afternoon. What if the "look of triumph" in Dumbledore's eyes was one of understanding. Suppose that Harry was a horcrux, created that night at Godric's Hollow. But then further suppose that by using Harry's blood for his resurrection in the graveyard at Little Hangleton, Voldemort unknowingly invalidated Harry's position as Horcrux. In other words, Voldemort already took back that part of his soul. Perhaps Harry's growing sensitivity to V's powers is a side effect of having V's soul already removed. In other words, when V's soul was a part of Harry, it "owned" most of V's magic and actions apart from Harry's personality. But now that V has taken Harry's blood, and with it the essence of his (Voldemort's) soul, that firewall is removed and Harry is left with ties to Voldemort's power and emotion. In short, Harry WAS a Horcrux until the graveyard resurrection. Katherine From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed Oct 11 20:44:15 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:44:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <722902893.20061011134415@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159476 Monday, October 9, 2006, 7:16:24 PM, allies426 wrote: a> 3. Harry was surprised to hear that werewolves sometimes kill their a> victim. Were you? In PoA, didn't Snape seem to imply that Lupin a> could have killed him during the Prank? Why doesn't Harry remember a> that? Dave: I think Harry has conditioned himself so that anything Snape says goes directly into Harry's mental "Bozo Bin". a> 5. Harry didn't actually have 24 hours' worth of Felix Felicis, he a> only had a 12-hour dose. Is it possible that his "measured" gulp a> didn't last as long as he thought it would? Might he have been on a> his own at the end of the conversation in Hagrid's hut? Or was that a> just a flint? Dave: I think it was probably a flint. a> 8. Harry thinks how upset Hermione would be by Slughorn making a a> house-elf taste wine that could be poisoned. Are we EVER going to a> see something come of Hermione's obsession with house-elves? Dave: Probably only in the epilogue, when we hear about her activism in a post-Voldemort WW. a> 11. Felix tells Harry that Slughorn won't remember their a> conversation in the morning. Do you think that's true? Even if it a> is, a Legilimens like Voldemort could probably see the truth. Dave: My interpretation of that bit is that Harry is not thinking about LV, but is considering the possibility of retribution to himself at the next Potions class for "tricking" Prof. S. out of the memory. a> Is Slughorn in great danger now that he has given Harry the memory? Dave: Not as long as Harry can keep his horcrux hunt a secret, but who knows how long that will be? a> 12. What was your reaction to the "remorseless" way Harry described a> his parents' murder in this scene? Do you think he only did that a> because he had to, or is he less sensitive about the subject now? Dave: I think he's just as sensitive, but willing to do what it takes to break through Slughorn's Slytherinian instinct of self-preservation in order to appeal to his more moral, compassionate side. -- Dave From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Oct 11 22:37:21 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:37:21 -0000 Subject: What's next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159477 > Michael Davies: > Here's where we predict the ultimate outcome of the last book! > Predictions may be as wild and wonderful as you wish. But you must > address four characters and their outcomes. Eddie: Ooohhh, I love speculation! It's almost as much fun as writing our own books. Here are a few of mine. Are more than 4 allowed? Voldemort - "Lord Voldemort" will be killed but "Tom Riddle" will survive, living out the rest of his life in blissful insanity in the Room of Love in the Ministry of Magic Ron & Hermione - killed by Voldemort, leaving Harry with no friendly support to help him fulfill his hero's quest. Wormtail - trying to protect Harry (to fulfill his life-debt) is killed by Voldemort Snape - survives, is exonerated by helping Harry defeat Voldemort, but maybe ends up still teaching Potions and having to watch Harry be given the Defense Against The Dark Arts teaching post. Harry - survives, plays professional Quidditch, snogs Ginny. Together thay have a few children who all have unruly red hair and their father's eyes. Dumbledore - stays dead, but is able to advise Harry via the chocolate frog cards and the portrait in the Headmistress' office. Sirius - stays dead, and is never heard from again Nearly-Headless Nick - Trying to contact Sirius, Dumbledore, etc, in an effort to help Harry, Nick will pass through the Veil of Death in the Ministry of Magic, but he will never be heard from again. Before he goes he'll say, "507 years is long enough to go on without a properly severed head. I'm no longer afraid of death." Dobby - kills Kreacher and becomes Harry and Ginny's house elf, and marries Winky. S.P.E.W. - The house elves will earn great honor as they help overcome Voldemort and the death eaters. The magic that enslaves their kind will be loosened somewhat, but no so much that they will freak out. Oh well, it's a step in the right direction. Horcruxes - (1) Kreacher has the locket (Dobby will be involved in prying it from Kreacher's cold dead hands); (2)(3)(4) Cup, Gryffindor's item, Ravenclaw's item -- no clue. But I suspect the House elves will be instrumental in finding these. Or nifflers. Hogwarts - closed and/or destroyed. The four houses divided against themselves cannot stand. It will be replaced by a new school with McGonagall as the headmistress. The crest of the new school will contain a lightning-shaped scar-like symbol. The architectural style will be a post-modern all-glass cube with a fern-bedecked Starbuck's in the lobby. (OK, maybe not this last sentence.) Hagrid - After Hogwarts closes, Hagrid moves to France (with Grawp) and marries Olympia Percy - when Ron and Hermione are killed, he will be shocked into a reconciliation with his family Mrs. Figg - will gain a small measure of magic late in life Dursleys - In a fit of compassion for all they've been through, Harry will modify their memories so they will completely forget they ever knew anything about Harry and the wizarding world. Unfortunately, this becomes a full-time task because of all the secondary people who have memories of Harry: Aunt Marge, the kids at Dudley's and Harry's primary school, etc. Bill and Fleur - in the heat of "passion" Bill will bite Fleur and she will grow fur on her face whenever Bill moons her. Bill will be cool with that. Eddie - will continue to visit HPfGU even after book 7 is published so we can continue to speculate about the questions Rowling didn't answer. :-) From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com Wed Oct 11 21:57:24 2006 From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (Kayla Pittillo) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:57:24 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159478 > x_dreamsmadeflesh_x wrote: > > Theory #1: Dumbledore is not really dead. Maybe Dumbledore and > Snape used polyjuice potion and switched. I was thinking that > maybe Snape felt that he owed Dumbledore one last favor and > switched because he knew Lord Voldemort's plans to kill Dumbledore. > Does anyone else think this might be true? Kayla: What about Fawkes? Traditionally phoenixes are lone creatures that take with one person if at all, and Fawkes was seen mourning at DD's funeral. That to me would indicate that Dumbledore is indeed dead and that it wasn't a polyjuiced Snape. Fawkes would have no reason to mourn Snape, imo. Aside from Fawkes, I don't see any reason why Dumbledore would switch places with Snape, and I don't see how it could be done without at least some of the DEs being suspicious and trying to gang up on polyjuiced DD in the tower, mainly Fenrir Greyback. Kayla From chan71j at yahoo.ca Wed Oct 11 22:33:54 2006 From: chan71j at yahoo.ca (chandelle) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:33:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's Future Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159479 I am new to the group but from what I've read Harry's a goner. Would we really want to see him as a heroic figure and then live the rest of his life teaching at Hogwarts and leading a normal life? I don't want his character to die but after Voldemort is killed(which we know will happen)what does Harry have to do? Just a thought. chandelle From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Wed Oct 11 23:00:59 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 16:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061011230059.15571.qmail@web39514.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159480 > > Michael Davies writes: > > Here's where we predict the ultimate outcome of > the last book! > > Predictions may be as wild and wonderful as you > wish. But you must > > address four characters and their outcomes. > yeah for speculation! here's mine Ron and Hermionie both nearly die trying to help Harry, but settle into carriers, get married to each other, have a few kids and both live LONG lives. He whom must not be named is dead, dead, dead. Harry dies shortly after LV dies and becomes a universal hero to all wizards. Ginny, heartbroken over Harry never marries and in honur of him becomes a totally AWSOME auror and kicks ass. that is mine __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From random832 at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 23:07:30 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:07:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books - Some clarification on the term "witch" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610111607j6f0f1d80hf0b2609c05dc3315@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159481 [I would like to note first that I do not believe that the lack of a continuously existing tradition makes Wicca in any way illegitimate. There's nothing wrong with revivals.] Aleyna: > > Actually, the term "witch" has been used by Wiccans, like myself, > > and others who practice the Old Ways since about 2000 B.C., Random832: The term "witch" has been used by Wiccans _as such_ since, at the earliest, 1921 C.E. I didn't want to get into this unless it was disputed, but it's generally accepted that Wicca does _not_ have a continuously existing tradition from before that. Perhaps the term "witch" was used "since about 2000 B.C."* but at some later time it _stopped_ being used in that sense, and the meaning as used throughout the modern era until the 20th century became the sole meaning. And even if it is a linguistic throwback rather than a neologism, that still doesn't give it the right to edge out the established meaning. *(unlikely as at that time the germanic-language-speaking world had a quite different "old faith" than the one you're thinking of, one now known as Asatru, and celtic peoples would not have used the germanic word "witch".) Tesha: > Witch came first - witch meaning something bad came later... Random832: I didn't say "meaning something bad" (those who think that witchcraft in the broomsticks/potions/etc sense is "something bad" are likely not going to be common on an HP list) of course, but... i meant meanings unrelated to Wicca, or even to the older religions of which Wicca can be considered a revival. Tesha: > The dictionary says witch- [from Middle English wicche, from Old > English wicce, witch, and wicca, wizard, sorcerer.] meanings range > from someone awfully good at what they do or just plain awful. Random832: Sounds rather like "hacker" in that way, but I digress. Tesha: > When Christianity overran the formerly Pagan lands, they used all > sorts of ways to convert folks, one was to demonize the local powers > if they wouldn't convert. As an example... Women skilled in healing > were suddenly in league with the devil, and burned as witches or > otherwise removed from society. Random832: Except in its early centuries Christianity's policy towards "witchcraft" was far from established. At one point it was declared "un-christian" to burn people as witches. There's a Red Hen essay that says that at some later time, the status quo was that magic is okay so long as it does not involve demons (implicitly or explicitly acknowledging that magic is in fact possible without demons, and in those cases is okay) From random832 at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 23:35:32 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 19:35:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Request (Harry live or die?). In-Reply-To: <20061011195609.74059.qmail@web51711.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7b9f25e50610111058s52b0b36elda018a2e3086af3f@mail.gmail.com> <20061011195609.74059.qmail@web51711.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610111635m77399e75g7a1b555731c84633@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159482 On 10/11/06, Pavan Sharma wrote: > JKR has never said that wizards don't die of old age. > She's said that they live longer than muggles do but > that they're ultimately as mortal everyone else; "In interviews made around the time of the release of HBP Rowling stated her contention that wizards normally live until some magical ailment carries them off. Which is to say that they rarely die of old age alone." was stated in http://www.redhen-publications.com/WizPopulation.html - i can't find the direct quote but assumed that there was in fact a real quote that was referring to. > otherwise, what would be the point of the Philosopher's Stone? Immunity to such diseases? After all, Quirrel!Voldemort wanted it, and neither of them was dying from old age. -- Random832 From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 12 00:41:19 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:41:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Look Of Triumph References: Message-ID: <005501c6ed97$248701b0$4c86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159483 Katherine Coble: > Suppose that Harry was a horcrux, created that night at Godric's > Hollow. But then further suppose that by using Harry's blood for > his resurrection in the graveyard at Little Hangleton, Voldemort > unknowingly invalidated Harry's position as Horcrux. In other > words, Voldemort already took back that part of his soul. Magpie: But wouldn't Dumbledore have to have then told Harry that in HBP when he's telling him about Horcruxes? He specifically tells Harry he knows about the ring and the diary, then there's the locket, and then there's something from the other founders maybe and perhaps Nagini. He goes through all the possibilities in his mind and never mentions thinking Harry was a Horcrux that's already been destroyed. As much as I know Albus likes to withold information as long as possible, and this time probably wound up dying before he got to reveal many things (as the old man with the beard tends to do in these stories!) I don't think he'd pretend to consider other Horcruxes if his look of triumph was over the Harrycrux's destruction. -m From sir_boob at naughtyham.com Wed Oct 11 23:22:35 2006 From: sir_boob at naughtyham.com (Sir Boob) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:22:35 -0500 Subject: intresting... I have theories (Portraits & Pensieves) References: <1160586021.2067.39082.m35@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <00fd01c6ed8c$25e225e0$0602a8c0@Bobbyscomp> No: HPFGUIDX 159484 HP (Harry Potter) for Grownups, I have been thinking DD is definitely dead. However I believe he will still be able to help Harry. One way is, at the end of HBP he is sleeping in a painting so perhaps this new version of him will be able to help. If not, his memories will most certainly be able to help! After all HP was looking in the pensieve all year with DD. Perhaps HP goes and retrieves this to learn more of what DD was planning, then learns that SS may not be bad after all. Perhaps he will see DD speaking to SS telling him if it came down to it, it would be ok for him to kill him to save DM from LV. Perhaps HP will even go back and look at SS's Pensieve again... Could find out some interesting things there I bet! -Bobby [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 12 01:13:08 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:13:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159485 > I am new to the group but from what I've read Harry's a goner. Would > we really want to see him as a heroic figure and then live the rest of > his life teaching at Hogwarts and leading a normal life? I don't want > his character to die but after Voldemort is killed(which we know will > happen)what does Harry have to do? Just a thought. > > chandelle > Julie: Nothing I've read has said Harry's a goner. At least nothing from JKR. She's said she understands why some authors kill off their main characters, but she's never said she plans to do so. In fact she's let slip a couple of comments that seem to indicate Harry will have a future beyond book 7. As for what Harry has to do after Voldemort is killed, how about "live"? Harry hasn't been able to do that yet, not without the threat of death hanging over his head. And what's wrong with simply living anyway? Life's not worthless just because one isn't on a great heroic quest. It doesn't have to be boring either, though I'm sure Harry wouldn't mind a little boredom now and then compared to being regularly forced into deadly confrontations and watching those he loves die in the process. Obviously it wouldn't be as much fun to read about Harry's "ordinary" life, which is why we're reading about his heroic quest. But that doesn't prevent us from learning he has some ordinary days (years, decades) coming and appreciating the value of that ordinary future to Harry. That's how I expect the saga to end, with the bang of Voldemort's demise, and the comforting knowledge of Harry's continuing existence outside our purview. Which would be a thrilling conclusion for me, though perhaps not for everyone ;-) Julie From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 01:42:28 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:42:28 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159486 > 2. The Montgomery boy was attacked because his mother refused to help the Death Eaters. The books make it seem like the Death Eaters are constantly threatening random and numerous wizards who refuse to help them. Are there enough Death Eaters for this to be realistic? How many Death Eaters do we think there are? What did they want from the Montgomery witch? Will we hear more about her? Goddlefrood comments: - I have formed the view that there are 49 Death Eaters at any given time. This is for no better reason than a fair assessment of the graveyard scene in GoF and LV's belief in the power of the number 7. 49 being the square of 7 would have particular significance for him. The wizarding world could quite effectively be terrorised by the Death Eaters, they already have the advantage that LV is universally feared and reviled and on that basis very few could spread a great deal of panic to very many. This is further reinforced by the statement in PS that nobody knew who to trust in the wizarding community prior to LV's first downfall, which rather suggests that the Death Eaters were effective in spreading threats and curses far and wide. As to what motive they may have had for going after the Montgomery witch I have nothing to assist but I do apprehend, on the basis of JKR's assertion that all will be revealed, that an explanation, however brief, would appear in book 7. Goddlefrood, who is rather pressed for time and has little else to say in respect of other questions posed. From imamommy at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 12 01:57:01 2006 From: imamommy at sbcglobal.net (Emily) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:57:01 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books - Some clarification on the term "witch" In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610111607j6f0f1d80hf0b2609c05dc3315@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159487 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > [I would like to note first that I do not believe that the lack of a > continuously existing tradition makes Wicca in any way illegitimate. > There's nothing wrong with revivals.] Hey, this is an interesting discussion, but could we move it to the OT list, since it's gotten away from canon? Thanks! imamommy From k.coble at comcast.net Thu Oct 12 02:27:27 2006 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:27:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Look Of Triumph In-Reply-To: <005501c6ed97$248701b0$4c86400c@Spot> References: <005501c6ed97$248701b0$4c86400c@Spot> Message-ID: <65BB4587-F2D7-4320-A460-460CB68120B1@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159488 On Oct 11, 2006, at 7:41 PM, Magpie wrote: > Katherine Coble: > > Suppose that Harry was a horcrux, created that night at Godric's > > Hollow. But then further suppose that by using Harry's blood for > > his resurrection in the graveyard at Little Hangleton, Voldemort > > unknowingly invalidated Harry's position as Horcrux. In other > > words, Voldemort already took back that part of his soul. > > Magpie: > But wouldn't Dumbledore have to have then told Harry that in HBP > when he's > telling him about Horcruxes? > > As much as I know Albus likes to withold information as long as > possible, > and this time probably wound up dying before he got to reveal many > things > (as the old man with the beard tends to do in these stories!) I > don't think > he'd pretend to consider other Horcruxes if his look of triumph was > over the > Harrycrux's destruction. > . > > I think he probably just didn't want to burden Harry with that knowledge at the time. He didn't think he was going to die, and probably thought he'd have other chances to break the hard facts to him. Dumbledore's been nothing but stingy with Harry regarding harsher realities. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 12 03:24:31 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:24:31 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159489 > Guguyni: > < awhile...>> Potioncat: Welcome, glad you worked up the courage. Our discussions can get rather heated at times, but it's always with an intent of having fun. Guguyni: I'd think you could get a feel for the size of the > wizarding community by looking at the turnout for the Quidditch World > cup. On page 95 of GoF, Mr Weasley tells Harry that the > stadium "seats a hundred thousand." Potioncat: We need to be very careful anytime JKR uses numbers. Some of us (me) have very vague notions of numbers and time. Others (well, Neri for example) are very precise. JKR gives the impression of lots of students and great numbers of wizarding folk. This 7 story castle has crowded halls, thundering footsteps are heard between classes, students from the same house do not know each other after years of attending school together. Yet she only names 40 students for the one year, only has 5 boys in Harry's dorm, says that there are 20 students in a particular class. Heck, there are more than 40 new students every year in the local grade school in my small community. It isn't crowded and it is not a 7 story castle. I wouldn't exactly call it a Flint---but it's something you have to suspend disbelief over. But I do think she intends the numbers to be larger than we have hard evidence for. It's only a big deal when we try to use our understanding of the numbers to determine some other fact. Potioncat, hoping she isn't rambling too very much after a long day at work. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 12 03:32:39 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 23:32:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Look Of Triumph References: <005501c6ed97$248701b0$4c86400c@Spot> <65BB4587-F2D7-4320-A460-460CB68120B1@comcast.net> Message-ID: <009d01c6edaf$1fe15a80$4c86400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159490 >> Magpie: >> But wouldn't Dumbledore have to have then told Harry that in HBP >> when he's >> telling him about Horcruxes? >> >> As much as I know Albus likes to withold information as long as >> possible, >> and this time probably wound up dying before he got to reveal many >> things >> (as the old man with the beard tends to do in these stories!) I >> don't think >> he'd pretend to consider other Horcruxes if his look of triumph was >> over the >> Harrycrux's destruction. Katherine Coble: > I think he probably just didn't want to burden Harry with that > knowledge at the time. He didn't think he was going to die, and > probably thought he'd have other chances to break the hard facts to > him. Dumbledore's been nothing but stingy with Harry regarding > harsher realities. Magpie: But isn't this good news, not a harsh reality? It means there's one less Horcrux to destroy, right? So why would Dumbledore be pretending that there was another one Harry had to find? -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Oct 12 03:38:17 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 20:38:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610112038v21f712dfw75248742c8696c9f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159491 x_dreamsmadeflesh_x: I find it humerous when people try to say HP is bad, but when you ask them why they can't give a good reason at all. Most of the people trying to ban them have never even read them and that annoys me so much! Lynda: I think my church is divided about 1/3 to 2/3's on this matter and its not a fundamentalist church but a major protestant denomination (Disciples of Christ). Some of my friends are set dead against them but most of the children and many of the adults have read them. One of my friends who is married to a Baptist minister was against them at first, but after several years she picked up SS at the library and the rest, so to speak is history. Most lately, she ask me to tell her all about Half Blood Prince because she lives in a rural section of Maryland and the library doesn't carry the books. Quite a change from the woman who told me the books were nothing more than trash that could not possibly be interesting. And this is the woman who introduced me to David Eddings, Katherine Kurtz and Patricia McKillip among other recognizable fantasy writers. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 12 03:52:02 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:52:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159492 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Donna" wrote: > > What do you think is Harry's future? We know he talked to McGonagall > about being an Auror. But somehow I don't think his heart was in > it. Seems to me that he really liked planning the lessons for the > DA. And he's always considered Hogwarts to be his home. It would be > poetic justice if he became the DADA teacher. > > "Donna" > Secca adds: "Go with your strengths". ~~ I see Harry going on to enjoy his life by doing what seems to have always brought him the most pleasure -- Quidditch. He plays seeker for the Chudley Cannons and also for the English National Team. England goes on to win the World Cup a record five times in a row with Harry as Captain of the team... ~~Of course he marries Ginny and they have seven children, the seventh son is named "Albus James Percival Wulfric Potter." Ginny works in the Dept. of Mysteries. My 2knuts :) From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 04:04:35 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:04:35 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159493 Alice wrote: > Hello > > I am new to this group and I have been reading postings. > Wonderful theories and conjectures. > > Maybe this has been brought up, but I am sure Snape is > working under cover for Dumbledore even though it looks > like Snape killed him. It's the way it is written that > gives me this idea. Even if Snape did kill him, it was > a plan worked out by both Snape and Dumbledore, for Dumbledore > could have released Harry for help and he chose not to. > And burying Dumbledore above ground is an indication to me > that he is only temporarily away. And that potion Dumbledore > drank in the cave, could have been a slow working protection potion > or "possum" potion (simulating death) Tonks: For all of you newbies to the group, first welcome! I would like to invite each of you to visit the HMS DESIRE, a man of war ship at the bay, T-Bay that is. T-Bay is Theory Bay where members can build a ship and launch it hoping that it will sail all the way to the end of book 7. Here is one that I built with a theory of Snape from his early life up to the tower and beyond. It is a bit melodramatic at points, but come on aboard, have a butterbeer and look around. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149518 Note: when I suggest that Snape made a vow to DD, I did not mean an `unbreakable vow' which IMO is dark magic, but rather just a pledge to follow him. Tonks_op PS. for anyone interested in Christian symbolism in the books see post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151730 From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Oct 12 04:17:30 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:17:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: References: <20061011005701.49306.qmail@web39505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0610112117q426a47efta8c421b995ffc3eb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159494 Betsy HP: I just don't see that what they do to Harry is all that actionable. Lynda: I just listened to SS again last week when I was doing housework. Vernon Dursley "hitting Dudley around the head" was mentioned. That's actionable. Should be for both kids really. Not letting a kid out of his room other than for bathroom breaks could also be considered abusive. What's most compelling though, is the way Harry reacts to Vernon. Keeps out of his way, due to his temper and his reach. That's not good. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ebaith at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 02:44:50 2006 From: ebaith at yahoo.com (Jessica) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:44:50 -0000 Subject: The Look Of Triumph In-Reply-To: <005501c6ed97$248701b0$4c86400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159495 Katherine Coble: >> Suppose that Harry was a horcrux, created that night at Godric's Hollow. But then further suppose that by using Harry's blood for his resurrection in the graveyard at Little Hangleton, Voldemort unknowingly invalidated Harry's position as Horcrux. In other words, Voldemort already took back that part of his soul. << Magpie: >> But wouldn't Dumbledore have to have then told Harry that in HBP when he's telling him about Horcruxes? He goes through all the possibilities in his mind and never mentions thinking Harry was a Horcrux that's already been destroyed. I don't think he'd pretend to consider other Horcruxes if his look of triumph was over the Harrycrux's destruction. << Jessica: I love this theory because I am so hoping Harry doesn't die! I was almost there myself when I reread the books but couldn't put my finger on it. As for Dumbledore, maybe he wasn't sure? Maybe he knew it was no longer in Harry, so he didn't mention it. But, he may have thought Voldemort placed it somewhere else (the question of why Nagini was circling the graveyard that night?) So, it could be that Nagini has the Horcrux now. Jessica From alig1528 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 02:59:14 2006 From: alig1528 at yahoo.com (alig1528) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 02:59:14 -0000 Subject: Sevens. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159496 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 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 04:36:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 04:36:30 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610112117q426a47efta8c421b995ffc3eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159497 > Betsy HP: > I just don't see that what they do to Harry is all that actionable. > > Lynda: > > I just listened to SS again last week when I was doing housework. Vernon > Dursley "hitting Dudley around the head" was mentioned. That's actionable. > Should be for both kids really. Not letting a kid out of his room other than > for bathroom breaks could also be considered abusive. What's most > compelling though, is the way Harry reacts to Vernon. Keeps out of his way, > due to his temper and his reach. That's not good. Alla: Starving kid is actionable, putting prison bars on his room could easily be actionable, etc, but that is not what I want to ask. My position is known - hate Dursleys, think Vernon should be in jail and Petunia close by, I mean, their RL equivalents of course, since Dursleys of course have caricaturic features, but you said that it should be for both kids. And after book 6 it is rather clear to me that that is what JKR is trying to promote - that Dudley was abused too, but I am just soo not buying it, I mean I am buying it on intellectual level, but not on the emotional, because JKR did not manage to make me feel one ounce of sympathy for Dudley. Could somebody who indeed feels that Dursleys are horrible, but feel something for Dudley explain why? I mean if for you all Dursleys are great, ( for hypothetical you, or like for Betsy, they are just not abusive, I get it), I am just trying to feel something for Dudley and cannot, assuming that I am hundred percent sure that his parents are abusive monsters. I mean the fact that he is a bully to Harry obviously does not help, but I am trying to imagine what if he would not and only his parents abused Harry, and he was indifferent and still cannot find any sympathetic scenes. It is like with Draco - I do feel that he is likely headed to redemption and am feeling rather sorry for myself, because usually I eat those stories with the spoon, but I hated him for so long and for five books JKR did not give me ONE deed of Draco which is worth sympathy ( that is only my impressionn of course), so this redemption story will leave me untouched, most likely. I want to buy Dursleys as abused child and want to sympathise with him. Help me? Alla From ligayfriends at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 04:08:47 2006 From: ligayfriends at yahoo.com (Sean) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 21:08:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: interesting... I have theories (Portraits & Pensieves) In-Reply-To: <00fd01c6ed8c$25e225e0$0602a8c0@Bobbyscomp> Message-ID: <20061012040847.66141.qmail@web34203.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159498 Sir Boob wrote: >> DD is definitely dead. However... his memories will most certainly be able to help! After all HP was looking in the pensieve all year with DD. Perhaps HP goes and retrieves this to learn more of what DD was planning, then learns that SS may not be bad after all. Perhaps he will see DD speaking to SS telling him if it came down to it, it would be ok for him to kill him to save DM from LV. << Sean responds: Wow, I had never thought of that, but you're right! The Pensieve invention (almost as the flipside of the time travel problem) is a wonderful idea that JKR has employed to help us go back in time and understand things better. And since the thoughts of DD are separate from DD--as we have seen Harry go exploring without DD present--they can be used even after his death. Hmm...JKR are you reading this? This is good stuff here! ;-) From LHunneb at attglobal.net Thu Oct 12 08:37:59 2006 From: LHunneb at attglobal.net (Lou Hunnebeck) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:37:59 -0000 Subject: Edinburgh Cafe Name - What is it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159499 Does anyone know the name of the cafe in Edinburgh where JK worked on the books? I just got back from Scotland and think I might have visited it without knowing. Thanks! From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 08:48:38 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:48:38 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061012084838.55821.qmail@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159500 --- Eddie wrote: > > Voldemort - "Lord Voldemort" will be killed but "Tom > Riddle" will > survive, living out the rest of his life in blissful > insanity in the > Room of Love in the Ministry of Magic > > Ron & Hermione - killed by Voldemort, leaving Harry > with no friendly > support to help him fulfill his hero's quest. t > > Snape - survives, is exonerated by helping Harry > defeat Voldemort, but > maybe ends up still teaching Potions and having to > watch Harry be > given the Defense Against The Dark Arts teaching > post. > > Harry - survives, plays professional Quidditch, > snogs Ginny. Cassy: Oh, I really like your ideas and agree with most of them! However, I think Harry would better be full-time Quidditch player, after all teaching requires leadership and responsibility, and Harry had enough of that for a life-time. How about Tom Riddle surviving and staying sane and nice? He then can teach DADA and the curse would be lifted automatically. And I don't want Ron and Hermione BOTH die. I think Mione will perish and Ron, after much grieving will settle with Luna. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 12 08:51:02 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:51:02 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159501 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "alig1528" wrote: > > Everyone probably already knows this, but the release date of > the seventh book is 07/07/07. Hickengruendler: Don't believe everything you have heard randomly on the internet. While I won't rule out the possibility, that the release date is 07/07/07 (which is a Saturday), there is no release date known. JKR said, that she's still writing the book, and we don't known, when she's finished and when the book will be published. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 12 10:29:31 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:29:31 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159502 Alla: *(snip)* > It is like with Draco - I do feel that he is likely headed to redemption and am feeling rather sorry for myself, because usually I eat those stories with the spoon, but I hated him for so long and for five books JKR did not give me ONE deed of Draco which is worth sympathy ( that is only my impressionn of course), so this redemption story will leave me untouched, most likely. I want to buy Dursleys as abused child and want to sympathise with him. Help me? Ceridwen: Sometimes, a person who should have our sympathy is not given our sympathy because, as you said, they have no sympathetic characteristics. Through the first five books, Draco appeared to be merely "School Bully #1", the one with the speaking lines. We get some idea that he is somewhat artistic, if even in a snide way - he made up "Weasley Is Our King", for instance, and made the "Potter Stinks" buttons. But, he didn't seem to have the "soul of an artist", the stereotypical sensitivity and all the other trappings of a fragile artistic temperament. On the tower, we see how deep his feelings for his family do run. Dudley was Draco's home counterpart, with his gang of friends taking on the roles of Muggle Crabbes and Goyles. Our first visual clue that Dudley may be abused in some way by his parents is his weight. He is allowed to do anything he wants to do, including overeat. The common agreement used to be that a child whose parents allowed it to get away with anything it wanted, was a child whose parents neglected it or even didn't love it in the right way. Love doesn't mean giving a child its way all the time, love means teaching a child how to get along in the world. Dudley certainly is allowed to get away with things, and his parents seem to ignore any attempt by outsiders to curb him. If I recall correctly, they didn't believe he was a bully at school. This is very much like Real Life parents who refuse to believe anything but the best about their children, the parents who will tell anyone, "My child would never do anything like that!", proving that they don't know the child in the least, and are not concerned with helping them to break bad habits and grow into contributing adult members of society. Petunia had to be scared into putting him on a diet. And, the entire family had to go on the same diet to spare poor Dudder's feelings, even Harry and Petunia, both of whom are described as thin. Dudley is not being taught that the rest of the world does not have to operate on his schedule. This will be a rude surprise for him when he does become an adult. The way the law is structured in many places now is that a child is not responsible for its own actions, someone else will get the blame. Parents of habitual truants have been sent to jail in the UK, for instance. The child experiences no consequences for its actions and will be shocked to find that they will get fired from a job for the same sort of thing. Dudley will have many shocks as he grows older, courtesy of Vernon and Petunia. I've had the idea that Petunia is acting out her resentment at her parents for favoring Lily, by feeding Dudley (giving love) while nearly starving Harry (withholding love). This matches, with food, the way she felt growing up with her "freak" sister being so adored by their parents. She's getting back at Lily and the Evanses by doing this, even though they are all dead and won't know. Petunia has issues herself, in other words, and can't give Dudley the sort of nurturing a child needs to grow up happy, healthy and normal. Vernon seems to be a knee-jerk bigot against any witch or wizard, so Dudley does not get any balance at all. By insisting that he's always right, always good, his parents create doubt about himself in his own mind. He knows, from what is taught at school and on the TV programs he is always watching, that bullies get theirs in the end. Having his parents always saying he is perfect must create some confusion in his mind. Also, children who are set up as not needing to be corrected, children who are set up as already adult enough to make their own decisions about behavior, bedtime, the way they treat people, etc., have confidence issues which can then be acted out as more bullying. They are thrown into making big decisions for themselves when they are not ready. This can make them feel that they are in a runaway car headed for a cliff. Dudley is not a sympathetic character due to the nature of the signs of his abuse. He is a bully, he seems not to use the intelligence he has, he is directly set against the story's hero, he is unloveable. This is really sad for a child, to be made so unloveable by its parents that no one can drum up any sympathy for him. Does this help? Ceridwen. From valkayrion at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 05:03:25 2006 From: valkayrion at yahoo.com (Riff Almighty) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:03:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061012050325.58003.qmail@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159503 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? Riff Almighty: Hm, yeah you'r right. Let me try to find more. - What about that the students in Hogwarts study there for 7 years - The Weasley, has 7 children - The total of the seven we found in the book (except the date) is 7 Wow........ From dhudson2663 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 12:20:23 2006 From: dhudson2663 at yahoo.com (David Hudson) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's Future Message-ID: <20061012122023.22435.qmail@web83008.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159504 I just don't see Harry dying in the book. And you ask after V dies what will Harry have left to do. Two things come to mind. The first being the kid has suffered enough through his first 16+ years (will be 17 by the time the book ends) that doesn't he deserve to live and have some happiness in his life? The second being in order for good to exist, evil must also exist. They balance each other out. There will be someone to take V's place, maybe not now but in the future. There will always be dark wizards & there will always be a need for someone to fight them. Harry would be the absolute best person to teach the youngsters how to do this. Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. dhudson2663 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 12 13:14:16 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:14:16 -0000 Subject: Sevens/What's next for Harry? In-Reply-To: <20061012050325.58003.qmail@web35307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159505 alig1528: > 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? Geoff: I don't think that any sort of date has been mooted for the new book. As far as I can recall, the only date I have seen firmed up is the date of the OOTP film release which has been given as 13/07/07. chandelle: > I am new to the group but from what I've read Harry's a goner. Would > we really want to see him as a heroic figure and then live the rest of > his life teaching at Hogwarts and leading a normal life? I don't want > his character to die but after Voldemort is killed(which we know will > happen)what does Harry have to do? Just a thought. Secca: > ~~ I see Harry going on to enjoy his life by doing what seems to have > always brought him the most pleasure -- Quidditch. He plays seeker for > the Chudley Cannons and also for the English National Team. England > goes on to win the World Cup a record five times in a row with Harry as > Captain of the team... > ~~Of course he marries Ginny and they have seven children, the seventh > son is named "Albus James Percival Wulfric Potter." Ginny works in the > Dept. of Mysteries. Geoff: JKR has been very coy in interviews and not given hints either way. Many of us therefore do not take it for a given that "Harry's a goner" and also do not believe in Horcrux!Harry. I do not see why Harry cannot go on and lead a normal life. In the real world, numberless famous figures have made a safe and successful transition from hero to ordinary guy. I'm sure he would greatly value leading a normal life (whatever that means). I'm not also sure that he will marry Ginny. Not so long ago, I suggested in a post that he might want to remain a bachelor at least for the time being; many UK folk today do not marry ? or get involved with partners ? until they are well into their twenties. Again, Harry has never come across as being a ladies' man. He tends to be a loner and think of what "Witch Weekly" would have to print about dark-haired, fascinating, handsome, brooding and eligible Harry Potter! Perhaps I say this because I'm not much of a Ginny fan as far as a suitable match for him. From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 13:27:03 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 06:27:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061012132703.8326.qmail@web39511.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159506 Betsy HP writes: > > At most I expect the judge or child services person > would tell > Vernon and Petunia to move Harry out of the cupboard > and into an > actual bedroom. And, since I'm pretty sure Vernon > and Petunia would > immediately do so going by their reaction to Harry's > Hogwart's > invite, I think that would be that. > > I just don't see that what they do to Harry is all > that actionable. > > Betsy Hp > > > Parisfan writes: to me it's not about just handme down clothes and sleeping in a cupboard. its more like, he sleeps in a cupboard which is ALSO used as punishment (ie: in PS/SS after the python was accidentally set loose Vernon locked Harry in the cupboard as a form of grounding till the end of the school year), not ensuring the hand me downs actually fit and using said hand me downs for a school uniform when they can have gone out to get a uniform for Harry as WELL as Dudley (yes they CAN afford it, look at the stuff they get for themselves and Dudley), an obvious lack of remembering Harry's birthday as well as not treating him equal on christmas as well, allowing aunt Marge to bully Harry when ever she is over (ie; in POA how she dogs on Harry over his family and also the remembered instances by Harry as to other occasions when she was mean to him and nothing was said to her to leave him alone), allowing Dudley to bully and torment Harry, not even attempting to answer Harrys questions about his parents and trying to speak kindly of them, playing obvious favoritism between the two boy. even if childrens aid couldn't do anything for Harry I'd call the above abuse. Laurie __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 13:29:32 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:29:32 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty WAS: Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 In-Reply-To: <20061008090917.76909.qmail@web30901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159507 > > Kimberly here: > This is where I think the allegiance to the house comes in. If Kreacher wasn't > bound to the house but the family, then he would have passed on to the next > blood line in the Black family, not the next owner of the house. It seems the > ownership of the house takes precedant over the family. Whomever owns > the house, gets Kreacher rather than whomever is next on the bloodline. > It's like splitting a hair, it is a very fine line I believe. Finwitch: Well, yes. The house. Like the genie of the lamp, I suppose, having to obey whatever the lamp's current owner said... So evenly Kreacher must obey the owner of the house. Their *house*- loyalty going to the depth of forming a bond. Clothes are so horrible, because unlike towels, pillowcases etc. they're not a house-hold item -- They sends out of the House. I don't know how Dobby managed to leave unless the House he serves is NOT Malfoy Manor. Maybe he WAS a Potter elf, and since the house was destroyed, he's not bound by magic but trough his own choice - to Potters, namely Harry. You know, they come with 'old houses,' .. how did the bond begin? Do houses, upon aging enough, automatically generate an elf? If that were the case... Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 13:48:08 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:48:08 -0000 Subject: Time travel in JKR books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159508 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, doug rogers wrote: > > Raven Heart: > Events happened the same the first time they experienced them as they > did the second time, the difference is only from the point of view. > > doug: > Such an important thing to keep in mind..... Finwitch: It's particularly obvious with Harry seeing *Himself* across the lake, summoning a patronus. He tries to explain it to Hermione- how he could summon the patronus because he *had* done so... The main thing in Time-Turner's function is the turning of cause-and-consequence in Time... Finwitch From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 12 13:59:52 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 13:59:52 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159509 > > Alla: > > > > I want to buy Dursleys as abused child and want to sympathise with > him. Help me? > > Alla > Tesha: Perhaps Petunia fed her Dudders as a replacement for love. Did she feel guilty for not having the heart to mother him correctly. It's pretty clear that she's a warped individual, spitting hateful words out about her family loving her sister more. Maybe there IS more to her than we've seen. And sweet little Dudders might have had a chance if he hadn't learned how to bully his father and then Harry. Having received no love from the Dursleys, is Harry any luckier with his upbringing than Duddly who received warped/defective parenting? I feel sorry for them all - but I still don't like Duddley. From nancy.hannah at mac.com Thu Oct 12 13:08:10 2006 From: nancy.hannah at mac.com (Nancy Hannah) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:08:10 -0400 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) Message-ID: <1855147.1160658490658.JavaMail.nancy.hannah@mac.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159510 Alla posted: >I am just trying to feel something for Dudley and cannot, assuming that I am hundred percent sure that his parents are abusive monsters. I mean the fact that he is a bully to Harry obviously does not help, but I am trying to imagine what if he would not and only his parents abused Harry, and he was indifferent and still cannot find any sympathetic scenes. >It is like with Draco - I do feel that he is likely headed to redemption and am feeling rather sorry for myself, because usually I eat those stories with the spoon, but I hated him for so long and for five books JKR did not give me ONE deed of Draco which is worth sympathy ( that is only my impressionn of course), so this redemption story will leave me untouched, most likely. >I want to buy Dursleys as abused child and want to sympathise with him. Help me? Alla, I can see where Dudley can be looked at in todays world as an example of a kid gone bad because of abusive , neglective home. They indulge him, give him all the wrong messages, and then berate him and put pressure on him. You can see how he has learned to control his life by being a bully, to HP and all. He is the kid abusing animals I'd say, if he were real. Draco , falls in similar situation. Much pressure, a wimp with a big bark, not much bite and his father is disappointed in him I think. Draco has become less of a challenge outwardly, than in the first books. He slinks behing ready to pounce. Kind of a dirty player , or back stabber, not someone who can outwardly challenge HP. IMHO. All the kids come with their own baggage, whether real or imagined by them. And they have been given their own "tools" to deal. Hermoine her studies to compensate, Harry is curiosity, Draco his need for hate of someone who is supposedly greater than him,thus disappointing his worshipped father. So... what baggage are the adults all carrying? Snapes past eludes me. Also.. DE... I really can't grasp how they work, why they become DE etc. Nancy From unicornspride at centurytel.net Thu Oct 12 14:01:26 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:01:26 -0500 Subject: Houseelves loyalty References: Message-ID: <013c01c6ee06$e902b100$ecd3ced1@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 159511 > Kimberly here: > This is where I think the allegiance to the house comes in. If Kreacher wasn't > bound to the house but the family, then he would have passed on to the next > blood line in the Black family, not the next owner of the house. It seems the > ownership of the house takes precedant over the family. Whomever owns > the house, gets Kreacher rather than whomever is next on the bloodline. > It's like splitting a hair, it is a very fine line I believe. Lana: But... Harry is family and the owner of the house. Isn't he? Since Sirius is Harrys God-Father, that makes him heir to the house and the son of a Black. Maybe not by blood, but definately by law. Regardless of magical or non magical law. They are bound by that which was made by Harrys parents and Sirius. So either way, Harry is Kreacher's master. Not that he really wants him. LOL This is just my take on it. Lana From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Oct 12 14:26:46 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 09:26:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sevens. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610120726i55372966sbde975bf0491c4e9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159512 On 10/11/06, 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? montims: Well, 7/7/7 is the anninversary of the London bombing, so I am not convinced it is probable. Where did you get your information from? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 12 14:26:26 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:26:26 -0000 Subject: The Look Of Triumph In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159513 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble wrote: > > I'm coming out of lurkdom to bounce a theory off the group. > > I'm in the middle of my semi-annual re-read and something has just > occured to me. > > We've discussed a lot about Harry being the Horcrux and (possibly) > having to die in order to defeat Voldemort. > > I do not want Harry to die. I'll say that up front. Ken: A lot of us who believe that Harry is, or could be, a Horcrux do not believe that this means he has to die. Nothing in the books says that a living horcrux has to be killed in order destroy the soul bit embedded in it. Nothing in the books says that killing a living horcrux would be sufficient to destroy the soul bit embedded in it. DD does not tell Harry that a living horcrux is risky because it can be killed, he says it is risky because it can think and act on its own. That could just as well imply that a living horcrux can decide to take action on its own to expel or destroy the soul bit embedded inside it without (fatal) damage to itself. The fate of a living horcrux is not necessarily linked to that of the soul bit it contains. Any statement you read that asserts one opinion or the other on this is just an opinion, a theory. Most of us expect that book 7 will answer this question one way or the other but then it is entirely possible that there are *no* living horcruxes in which case book 7 won't answer the question but it won't matter then either. Harry's fate is in JKR's hands whether he is a horcrux or not. She can be a cold hearted goddess and that makes a lot of us nervous. Your no-longer-horcrux-Harry theory does have some appeal. Slughorn's description of how horcruxes work implies that when a horcrux owner is attacked with lethal force the soul bit inside him/her does die and the spirit or whatever is anchored to the Earth by the soul bit in the horcrux(es). That would mean that LV's regenerated body has no soul, which is the opinion that many of us hold of him if not so literally. You supply a means by which he could have gotten a soul bit for his new body. Unfortunately one of the things that makes some of us believe that Harry is a horcrux is the pain in his scar and the linkage between him and LV. Both of those continue after the graveyard scene and that would argue against your theory unless only part of the soul bit in Harry was transferred to LV's new body at the graveyard. But in that case Harry would still be a horcrux. On the third hand many believe that the scar pain and LV/Harry link have nothing to do with horcruxes anyway and that would rescue your once was but not now horcrux theory. One theory is as good as another at this point. It isn't likely that we will unravel the story before book 7 comes out because there are so very many possibilities and so very many conflicting clues. Ken From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 12 14:21:52 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:21:52 -0000 Subject: Thestrals, death (was Re: newbie with questions) In-Reply-To: <000901c6ebd5$e4dcb9f0$0200a8c0@carlaathome> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159514 Carla: If I might also venture another explanation. Harry was a baby when his parents died, he has no memory of it. We also don't know if he actually witnessed it. The confrontation between Lily and LV might have been outside of Harry's line of sight. The death of Quirrell was the death of an enemy. Harry didn't suffer a loss there. I think the death that must be witnessed is that of someone you care about....a friend or relative. The death Luna witnessed was that of her Mother. It must be a personal loss in order to see the Thestrals. Cedric was his friend. He felt a loss. Tinktonks: Also just to add to a very eloquent answer I'm pretty sure that Harry was unconscious by the time Quirrell actually died. I dont have the books with me but doesn't Harry ask DD what happened to Quirrell (therefore canonically stating that he doesn't see him die) Hope that helps Tinktonks ; ) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 14:23:57 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:23:57 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: <013c01c6ee06$e902b100$ecd3ced1@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159515 > Lana: > But... Harry is family and the owner of the house. Isn't he? Since Sirius is Harrys God-Father, that makes him heir to the house and the son of a Black. Maybe not by blood, but definately by law. a_svirn: No, he most definitely isn't. Not even in canon law, much less in common or civil law. From hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 12 11:21:08 2006 From: hyder_harry_potter at yahoo.co.uk (Mark Hyder's Harry Potter Web Site) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:21:08 +0100 (GMT Standard Time) Subject: Edinburgh Cafe Name - What is it? References: Message-ID: <452E2523.000001.01260@YOUR-DB72CAD53B> No: HPFGUIDX 159516 Lou: >> Does anyone know the name of the cafe in Edinburgh where JK worked on the books? I just got back from Scotland and think I might have visited it without knowing. << Mark: I think this link will help you. http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1997/1197-scotsman-woods.html From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 12 14:55:30 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:55:30 -0000 Subject: Thestrals, death (was Re: newbie with questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spookedook" wrote: > > Carla: > If I might also venture another explanation. Harry was a baby when > his parents died, he has no memory of it. We also don't know if he > actually witnessed it. The confrontation between Lily and LV might > have been outside of Harry's line of sight. > > The death of Quirrell was the death of an enemy. Harry didn't suffer > a loss there. I think the death that must be witnessed is that of > someone you care about....a friend or relative. The death Luna > witnessed was that of her Mother. It must be a personal loss in order > to see the Thestrals. Cedric was his friend. He felt a loss. > > > Tinktonks: > > Also just to add to a very eloquent answer I'm pretty sure that Harry > was unconscious by the time Quirrell actually died. Tesha: oh, so right! "He felt Quirrell's arm wrenched from his grasp, knew all was lost, and fell into blackness, down... down... down..." next scene: "The smiling face of Dumbledore swam into view..." He asks DD if Q got the stone... Harry never saw his death. From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 14:18:18 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:18:18 -0000 Subject: Edinburgh Cafe Name - What is it? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159518 Lou wrote: > Does anyone know the name of the cafe in Edinburgh where JK > worked on the books? I just got back from Scotland and think > I might have visited it without knowing. << maria8162001: The name of the cafe is Nicholson's Cafe and they installed a commemorative granite plaque there last Oct.10. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 12 15:06:00 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:06:00 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159519 > Alla: > Could somebody who indeed feels that Dursleys are horrible, but feel > something for Dudley explain why? > > I mean if for you all Dursleys are great, ( for hypothetical you, or > like for Betsy, they are just not abusive, I get it), I am just > trying to feel something for Dudley and cannot, assuming that I am > hundred percent sure that his parents are abusive monsters. I mean > the fact that he is a bully to Harry obviously does not help, but I > am trying to imagine what if he would not and only his parents > abused Harry, and he was indifferent and still cannot find any > sympathetic scenes. > > > I want to buy Dursleys as abused child and want to sympathise with > him. Help me? Pippin: How to put this...the Dursleys are to parenting what bleeding and purging are to doctoring--in most cases you'd be better off to let nature take its course. They do not know how to set limits, and they have consistently given Dudley more presents, more food, more priveleges and more stimulation than he can handle. He has never learned to be satisfied with what he has, and until he does he can't really ever be happy. If it weren't for the school nurse and the boxing team he'd be well on his way to eating himself to death, and yet he doesn't take pleasure in his food, not like Slughorn does. It's never good enough. When he bullies we don't see him taking pleasure in scaring or hurting people the way Draco does -- Dudley does it to impress his gang and keep them entertained. Maybe that was the point of naming the victim Evans? It could be Dudley's not as different from James as you might think. Pippin From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 15:01:07 2006 From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:01:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061012150107.10665.qmail@web39512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159520 --- Tesha wrote: > > > tesha: > Perhaps Petunia fed her Dudders as a replacement > for love. Did she > feel guilty for not having the heart to mother him > correctly. It's > pretty clear that she's a warped individual, > spitting hateful words > out about her family loving her sister more. Maybe > there IS more to > her than we've seen. And sweet little Dudders might > have had a chance > if he hadn't learned how to bully his father and > then Harry. > Having received no love from the Dursleys, is > Harry any luckier > with his upbringing than Duddly who received > warped/defective parenting? > parisfan writes: Neither kid is particularly lucky when it comes to Petunia and Vernon. One has turned out (thus far) to be an overweight bully who seemly lacks any sense of how to treat people and the other turned out being kinda scrawny and hating his aunt and uncle. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From mros at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 12 15:29:35 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:29:35 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) References: Message-ID: <001101c6ee13$38f816d0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 159521 Tesha: >>>Perhaps Petunia fed her Dudders as a replacement for love. Did she feel guilty for not having the heart to mother him correctly. It's pretty clear that she's a warped individual, spitting hateful words out about her family loving her sister more.<<< Marion: Well, in that case I'm a warped individual too. My two sisters were the Sisters From Hell. The eldest a manipulator, the second a bully. Especially the second one made my life an absolute Hell. She tried to convince me that I was a horrible, ugly and abysmally stupid individual, and she succeeded insofar I couldn't look into a mirror for more than twenty years because looking in a mirror, caring about what I looked like, meant that She Had Won (it took me a couple of years of therapy to understand that this was Not A Healthy Attitude) When I was 13 they both left home, but not my life. At that time both my parents were going through a bad time. My mother had major surgery nine times over the next ten years (twice for cancer) and my father had a stroke and heart attack, which cost him his job. I stayed at home and looked after my parents. I gave up all my desires for going to Art School because I could not leave my parents on their own. My sisters hardly visisted during those years, but my parents longed for them with a desperate longing. When the telephone or the doorbell rang there was always the gleam in their eyes; "is it Louise? Is it Jacky?" I gave up on my sisters on my 21st birthday, when Jacky still persisted in bullying me. I decided I had to cut such toxic people out of my life. Which I did. I haven't seen either of them for the past 20 years. My parents never stopped longing for them. I detested that. They were treated like shite, but still they'd worship my sisters. I never doubted I was loved, but I was the plain bread and butter. My sisters were the three-layed cake. My mother finally had the shells falling from her eyes three years ago, when my sisters refused to visit my father in hospital when he had terminal cancer and refused to go to his funeral ("I'm not interested in dead people") But bitter? Oh, yes. You better believe it. It's hard to work your butt off to be noticed by people (whom you love) when those who spit on them gets worshipped by them. I don't want to see my sisters ever again. I wouldn't spit in their faces if their noses were on fire. Am I warped? No. Bitter. Ohh you better *believe* it, honey!! If ever the son of my sister appeared on my doorstep, I would send him away. He might be a very nice boy, and I wouldn't blame him for the years of pain and bullying his mother inflicted on me, but memories would be dug up and relived and that would hurt too much. So, back to Petunia. Why does everybody assume that Lily was such a nice sister? Because Lily gave her life for her son? So would Petunia. Just because people act heroically once as an adult doesn't mean they were nice people during their life or in their youth. We saw that with James. James was a worthless person. A rich bully. The only people who actually liked him were his Marauder friends, and what does that mean? He was liked by a werewolf, a traitorous sycophant and a juvenile deliquent who tried to murder another schoolboy when he was 15! But you'd never hear an adult wizard (apart from Snape) tell Harry that James was a rotten bully because James is the Dead Hero, the Guy Who Defied Voldemort, and any bitter feelings one might have about James Potter were buried with him. Convenient. But what about Lily? Fans seem to think that she was a saintly, kind person because she Gave Her Life For Her Son and because She Stood Up For Snape in the Pensieve scene. But did she really? Stand up for Snape, I mean. When we look at that scene carefully, we see that she's not interested in what happened to Snape at all. She does not say anything to the prostrate miserable boy on the ground. She does not help him get up. She's ranting to James. And 'ranting'? Say 'flirting'. (read Red Hen's essay on this) Apparantly, James and Lily are flirting with eachother for a while using the "I'm such a Bad Boy" and "Ooooh, you're so *impossible*!" mode. And they're flirting over the body and dignity of Severus Snape. No wonder he spits 'Mudblood!' at her. She only notices he is a real alive human being after he does that (and this flusters her: it makes her look just as callous and heartless as James, and she apparently likes to be thought of as a Good Girl. She was a Popular Girl. Popular does not necessarily mean 'kind') Maybe Lily wasn't such a paragon of virtue. Maybe she did bully and terrorize her sister with her powers. Maybe she did turn Petunia's teacup into a rat and laughed her head of when her sister shrieked in fear. Maybe her parents worshipped their pretty talented daughter in the same way the Dursleys worship Dudley. Just as undeserved. Creating just as much trauma. I still say that Dumbledore should never have left Harry with the Dursleys. Not because of Harry, but because Petunia does not deserved to be put through that kind of Hell again. Maybe Petunia Dursley is no stellar human being, but she has been enough childhood trauma to make her this bitter, this neurotic. She should've been left at peace by the WW. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 15:35:28 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:35:28 -0000 Subject: Edinburgh Cafe Name - What is it? - Nicholson's Cafe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159522 --- "Maria Vaerewyck" wrote: > > Lou wrote: > > Does anyone know the name of the cafe in Edinburgh > > where JK worked on the books? I just got back from > > Scotland and think I might have visited it without > > knowing. << > > > maria8162001: > > The name of the cafe is Nicholson's Cafe and they > installed a commemorative granite plaque there last > Oct.10. > bboyminn: Here is a link to an article in 'The Scotsman' that doesn't give the address but the general location. It is an article about the plaque they erected. Apparently, ... "...the plaque on the corner of Nicholson Street and Drummond Street..." "The plaque sits outside the Black Medicine Coffee Company shop. However, it was in the rooms above the present day coffee shop, currently the premises of a Chinese buffet restaurant, that Nicholson's (Cafe) operated." http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=3&id=1500742006 So, the answe to your question is 'Nicholsons Cafe' which is no longer there. It is now a Chinese Buffet. Hope that helps. Steve/bboyminn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Oct 12 15:36:10 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:36:10 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159523 Thanks, Allie! Love your questions. > 5. Harry didn't actually have 24 hours' worth of Felix Felicis, he > only had a 12-hour dose. Is it possible that his "measured" gulp > didn't last as long as he thought it would? Might he have been on > his own at the end of the conversation in Hagrid's hut? Or was > that just a flint? Jen R.: There's an edition difference here which I think is likely a flint in the Scholastic version, though I haven't checked the Lexicon to see. But the Bloomsbury edition has Harry saying something like "I don't need 12 hours worth" when he takes the measured gulp. > 8. Harry thinks how upset Hermione would be by Slughorn making a > house-elf taste wine that could be poisoned. Are we EVER going to > see something come of Hermione's obsession with house-elves? Jen R: Yes, I really think we will. My theories range from a fairy- tale moment where the enchantment is lifted to a more JKR-like version (imo) where house elves are allowed to learn magic at Hogwarts. Most wouldn't go, but Dobby would! > 10. Slughorn acquires unicorn hair and Acromantula venom at > Hagrid's hut. Are we going to see those items again, and how? Jen R. I'm betting on the venom. There was such a point made of Slughorn collecting it. Maybe it was just meant to be a character moment although it's already made clear Slughorn can be greedy. > 11. Felix tells Harry that Slughorn won't remember their > conversation in the morning. Do you think that's true? Even if > it is, a Legilimens like Voldemort could probably see the truth. > Is Slughorn in great danger now that he has given Harry the memory? Jen R.: I *want* to think Slughorn actually gave Harry that memory of his own accord, that it was his moment of bravery in a lifetime of cowardice. Regardless, his chances of surviving are slim. "The Dark Lord knows everything" and once Voldemort figures out that Dumbledore discovered his secret, which I firmly believe he will, then he will seek out Slughorn to discover if Dumbledore knew how many horcruxes he made. He may even tell Slughorn he won't kill him if he tells the truth ("Tell the Truth!") but he will of course. > 12. What was your reaction to the "remorseless" way Harry > described his parents' murder in this scene? Do you think he only > did that because he had to, or is he less sensitive about the > subject now? Is this a different side to Harry than what we > usually see? What does this tell us about Harry's growth since we > met him as an eleven-year-old? Jen R.: I was surprised, honestly. Didn't think the boy had it in him! It did seem like a last resort to me, and one Dumbledore encouraged when he asked Harry if he had exhausted all his ingenuity & cunning to gain the memory (paraphrase). That seemed like permission to me. And it's hard to escape the fact Dumbledore used 'cunning' when that's a word associated with Slytherin house and Harry was considered by the Sorting Hat to have Slytherin potential. Jen R. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 15:41:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:41:06 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys/Dudley, Draco, some Regulus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159524 > Ceridwen: > This will be a rude surprise for him when he does become an adult. > The way the law is structured in many places now is that a child is > not responsible for its own actions, someone else will get the > blame. Parents of habitual truants have been sent to jail in the UK, > for instance. The child experiences no consequences for its actions > and will be shocked to find that they will get fired from a job for > the same sort of thing. Dudley will have many shocks as he grows > older, courtesy of Vernon and Petunia. Alla: Ooooo, yes, absolutely. See what would helped me if in some way or another I would have seen that shock, like if in school Dudley would have knocked down and fast, if instead of bully, he would have experienced some bullying. I want to see at least a glimpse of that rude facing of big world. I mean, I know it is a Harry story of course, but something like that would have been nice for me. The one moment when I had a tiniest pity for Dudley was when he was attacked by Dementors. More of that would have been great IMO. > Pippin: > How to put this...the Dursleys are to parenting what bleeding and purging > are to doctoring--in most cases you'd be better off to let nature take its > course. They do not know how to set limits, and they have consistently > given Dudley more presents, more food, more priveleges and more > stimulation than he can handle. He has never learned to be satisfied > with what he has, and until he does he can't really ever be happy. > If it weren't for the school nurse and the boxing team he'd be well > on his way to eating himself to death, and yet he doesn't take > pleasure in his food, not like Slughorn does. It's never good enough. Alla: Oh, but I know that Dursleys overindulge Dudley, I totally understand that - I suppose if I would have seen him being unhappy because of that, I would have been able to feel something here. I mean, and his weight issues should have made me feel something, since I also always had weight issues ( maybe not as big as Dursley's, but I am also in need of losing weight - not to lose weight for the sake of it, but truly need to) and even that does not make me sympathise with him. Oh, could you point me to quote that Dudley does not take pleasure in his food? That is actually helpful. Pippin: > When he bullies we don't see him taking pleasure in scaring or hurting > people the way Draco does -- Dudley does it to impress his gang and keep > them entertained. Alla: That is actually interesting too. Dudley struggling for attention? Pippin: Maybe that was the point of naming the victim Evans? > It could be Dudley's not as different from James as you might think. Alla: Only when we will see James bullying someone several years younger than him :) Somebody pointed out though that the same word is used in description of Dudley as James ( forgot which one), so maybe indeed Dudley will end up heroically fighting against evil and dying ;) Doubt so though as of now. > Alla: > *(snip)* > > It is like with Draco - I do feel that he is likely headed to > redemption and am feeling rather sorry for myself, because usually I > eat those stories with the spoon, but I hated him for so long and for > five books JKR did not give me ONE deed of Draco which is worth > sympathy ( that is only my impressionn of course), so this redemption > story will leave me untouched, most likely. > > I want to buy Dursleys as abused child and want to sympathise with > him. Help me? > > Ceridwen: > Sometimes, a person who should have our sympathy is not given our > sympathy because, as you said, they have no sympathetic > characteristics. Through the first five books, Draco appeared to be > merely "School Bully #1", the one with the speaking lines. We get > some idea that he is somewhat artistic, if even in a snide way - he > made up "Weasley Is Our King", for instance, and made the "Potter > Stinks" buttons. But, he didn't seem to have the "soul of an > artist", the stereotypical sensitivity and all the other trappings of > a fragile artistic temperament. On the tower, we see how deep his > feelings for his family do run. Alla: Hehe, sensitivity of the artist. How about just not mercilessly participating in the show I am so hurt that innocent animal deserves to die because of that for starters and many other things. Funny thing is that if the first time I would heard of Draco in HBP and his story, he would definitely had some of my sympathy then. Like I did not even met Regulus Black yet, I already pitied him even after Sirius not very sympathetic portrayal of him in OOP and in HBP, oh my, Regulus is probably my favorite minor character in the books now and their stories (Darco and his) are supposed somehow to be sympathetic. I don't know about Regulus much, he probably behaved at school just as bad ( from my POV of course) as Draco - looked down at muggle borns and stuff, but since the only thing I know about him is his fall and redemption - love, love, love it. Does it make sense? Of course younger generation is portrayed in more depth, so we shall see. I know one thing - I was not sympathising with Draco's crying in HBP, it was like - oh yes, you finally get what you deserve little shmack and assasin to be, you finally know what it is to be bullied. But that may led a foundation for me to feel something for Draco in book 7, unlikely but could happen, so would be nice to see Dudley suffer, hehe ;) Alla, with apologies to Ceridwen for rearranging her post From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 16:02:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:02:50 -0000 Subject: James as worthless person WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <001101c6ee13$38f816d0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159525 Marion: > Just because people act heroically once as an adult doesn't mean they were nice people during their life or in their youth. We saw that with James. James was a worthless person. A rich bully. Alla: One scene. **One** and the conclusion is made that James was a worthless person during his whole youth? Okay. Marion: The only people who actually liked him were his Marauder friends, and what does that mean? Alla: My recollection is that the only person who dislikes adult James is the one who used to belong to the gang of racists and murderers and what does that mean? Marion: He was liked by a werewolf, a traitorous sycophant and a juvenile deliquent who tried to murder another schoolboy when he was 15! Alla: No, we don't know about **tried to murder** part, at least not yet. JMO, Alla From whytewytch76 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 14:59:47 2006 From: whytewytch76 at yahoo.com (NightChade) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:59:47 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159527 Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always so depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. What if Ron takes over for V. Will JKR kill off the deatheaters and V? Then there has to be something to fill the void. Maybe Percy hmmmmmm. Sherry From rkelley at blazingisp.net Thu Oct 12 15:47:57 2006 From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:47:57 -0500 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys (and other family connections) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159528 There are so many things wrong with the Dursleys that I cannot begin to list them all - they are hypocritical, self-centered, and they most certainly are abusive, even more so emotionally than physically - (making Harry work while Dudley plays, depriving him of anything which makes him happy, never celebrating Harry's birthday while completely spoiling Dudley - the list goes on and on). But IMHO their greatest abuse of Harry is denying him love and affection. It appears that Petunia did not take Harry into her home because of any emotional attachment, but rather out of fear. Children sense the emotions of their environments. They must receive warmth and love for normal development, and if Harry were not so exceptional he might have become incorrigible by the age of ten. The only sympathy I can show Dudley is the fact that his parents seem incapable of showing him any mature love, either. Instead they drown him in overindulgences while failing to teach him any of the requirements of living in civilized society. They seem to think that is love, but they are clueless. They even chose to send him to a school where he is rewarded for physical violence. We know that although Dudley will someday make his own choices and can choose to overcome his lack of teaching, in all likelihood will be a complete failure as an adult, multiplying his parents' faults exponentially. (This is what DD was trying to tell them, but they couldn't understand.) We know they love Dudley because they were truly concerned about him after the dementor attack, but they either don't have the capacity, or are too lazy to be responsible in their love. Instead they satisfy only their own needs by seeing their Ickle Dudders happy at all times. That's a much easier role as a parent than saying no. Unless there is some type of major intervention, I don't see that Dudley has a chance. Since both Vernon and Marge are boorish, we can only assume they are perpetuating the cycle from their own childhoods. The question then becomes, why does Petunia act as she does? She is obviously trying to please Vernon, but why did she make such a complete break with her own family? Why there is never any mention of Harry's extended family? You'd think Petunia would have photos of her parents around, and that she would also have aunts or cousins who would visit occasionally. We know Petunia was bitter about the attention Lily received, but was that enough to make her completely give up all family connections? It's just never made sense to me that Harry grew up in his aunt's house, but never knew anything at all about his grandparents or the rest of his mother's family. (In the same way, it never made sense to me that Molly Weasley's Prewitt brothers were killed by LV, but her children made no mention of a family connection to them.) Did JKR just decide not to devote the time it would take to explain the family ties, or is there some reason why those connections were hush-hush? Anyone have any ideas? Anders [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 12 17:54:57 2006 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:54:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World Message-ID: <20061012175457.3053.qmail@web25615.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159529 Betsy Hp wrote: >But then again, I suppose proper credentials are easily forged. And >there must be *some* sort of passing going on for "half-bloods" to >occur. Though I wonder how the Ministry would view wizards taking up posts in Muggledom without permission. Sounds like a prima facie breach of the Statute of Secrecy to me. >Though I will say, I think modern technology has it all over the WW >in many ways. And I think the WW thinks so as well. How else to >explain the WW wireless? It must have been a grab from the muggle >world. No way wizards would come up with the name "wireless", >seeing as they don't generally deal with wires. I'd beg to disagree on that. First of all because I think that most RW technology is designed to do things that the WW has either never needed to do or things that it can already do magically with much less effort and expenditure of energy. _Are_ there any limits to doing magically what Muggles do with technology? I'm not sure that there are. I think, though, that Muggleborn wizards are the means by which the WW comes into congruence with the Muggle world. Very slowly, because I also think that Muggleborns are a very small proportion of wizards in a very large population. But I'd be willing to speculate that the wizards who have worked out magical means to do things that Muggles do technically are ones who've seen the technology and thought "There must be an easier way to do this with a spell". Magical databases can't be far away! cheers Ffred ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From ward6369 at charter.net Thu Oct 12 15:13:04 2006 From: ward6369 at charter.net (Donna Ward) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:13:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thestrals, death (was Re: newbie with questions) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <452E5B80.6060009@charter.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159530 > Carla: > The death of Quirrell was the death of an enemy. Harry > didn't suffer a loss there. I think the death that must be > witnessed is that of someone you care about....a friend or > relative. The death Luna witnessed was that of her Mother. It > must be a personal loss in order to see the Thestrals. Cedric > was his friend. He felt a loss. Donna: I am a newbie here, but if remember correctly, Harry has it explained that you see the thestrals when you have witnessed death, not necessarily experienced a loss...so Harry saw Cedric die, but they weren't actually friends, more like acquaintances ...just my observations... From pswann at kc.rr.com Thu Oct 12 15:55:30 2006 From: pswann at kc.rr.com (Swann, Patricia) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:55:30 -0500 Subject: Petunia & Family Message-ID: <00C05AEDD0982640A4F8A246E68D97F2015C138C@kcexch1.mri-kc.int> No: HPFGUIDX 159531 Hi, I'm new here and I've been hesitant to speak up but here it goes: does anybody find it odd that we don't know more about Harry's grandparents, paternal and maternal? There seems to be a gap in knowledge there that may be important. Also, unless she was adopted, Harry's mother being a witch while Petunia is not is interesting. Could Petunia actually be a witch who refuses to accept/not realize the fact and be the unwitting shield that protected Harry at the Dursley's? Now, don't be mean to me...this is my first outing into the group. I just wanted to get these thoughts out in the open. PS 


This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity 
to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information 
that is confidential, proprietary, privileged or otherwise legally 
exempt from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, 
please notify the sender immediately by facsimile, e-mail or phone 
and delete all copies of the message.
From unicornspride at centurytel.net Thu Oct 12 17:51:17 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:51:17 -0500 Subject: House elves loyalty References: Message-ID: <026501c6ee27$04edb3e0$ecd3ced1@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 159532 > Lana: > But... Harry is family and the owner of the house. Isn't he? Since Sirius is Harry's God-Father, that makes him heir to the house and the son of a Black. Maybe not by blood, but definitely by law. < a_svirn: < No, he most definitely isn't. Not even in canon law, much less < in common or civil law. Lana: Could you elaborate? I am not sure that I understand then. If it means nothing, then why was it such a big deal in POA? It has to mean something if everyone was so riled up about it. Lana From cadtitanic at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 16:51:59 2006 From: cadtitanic at yahoo.com (cadtitanic) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:51:59 -0000 Subject: ***WHAT IF.........???*** Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159533 It were the Dursleys ( Petunia & Vernon ) that got killed in a car crash and Dudley went to live with Lily, James & Harry Potter ??? I just wonder what treatment the Potters would give toward Dudley??? My guess is that he would immediately become a part of this loving & caring family. WITH love AND discipline. Your thoughts ??? Hmmmm ??? cadtitanic From jenswack2006 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 17:57:53 2006 From: jenswack2006 at yahoo.com (Jennifer Swackhamer) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 10:57:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Thoughts on Ron W In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061012175753.96005.qmail@web57110.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159534 Sherry/NightChade wrote: >> Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always so depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. What if Ron takes over for V. Will JKR kill off the deatheaters and V? Then there has to be something to fill the void. Maybe Percy hmmmmmm. << Jennifer: New to this group...big Harry Potter dork, my son (6) got me addicted. I think Percy will turn to the Deatheaters and follow Voldemort, I think Ron will be killed in the last book, and so will his father and mother. I think Harry will be killed also. I think Hermione and Draco will become a couple. I also think that Snape killed Dumbledore under Dumbledore's orders to protect Draco and that Snape will be the hero of the last book. I hope that we get to see Harry reunited with his parents in death, I am like 98% positive that Harry will be killed in the next book, and WOAH I so don't want it to be so, however, JK Rowling has stated that killing off Harry would prevent others from picking up the series, with Harry dead, there is no Harry Potter series. Does anyone else feel like these people (Harry, Hermione, Ron, Hagrid, Voldemort)...like they are so close to you that you take it personally when something happens to them? I feel so foolish but I really care about Harry and all the rest deeply, and of course I realize they don't exist. If Hogwarts was a real place, and witches and wizards were real, the world would probably be a lot better off...who else is as crazy as me??? :) From jenswack2006 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 18:08:52 2006 From: jenswack2006 at yahoo.com (Jennifer Swackhamer) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 11:08:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Petunia & Family In-Reply-To: <00C05AEDD0982640A4F8A246E68D97F2015C138C@kcexch1.mri-kc.int> Message-ID: <20061012180852.11324.qmail@web57110.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159535 PS wrote: >> I'm new here and I've been hesitant to speak up but here it goes: does anybody find it odd that we don't know more about Harry's grandparents, Also, unless she was adopted, Harry's mother being a witch while Petunia is not is interesting. Could Petunia actually be a witch who refuses to accept/not realize the fact and be the unwitting shield that protected Harry at the Dursleys'? << Jennifer: I am new too, just joined today actually. I have wondered where Harry's family is and also wondered if James Potter wasn't a little like Draco growing up too. I have heard rumors that Dudley is a wizard and it will come out in book 7. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 12 18:34:30 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:34:30 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159536 Alla: Could somebody who indeed feels that Dursleys are horrible, but feel something for Dudley explain why? I mean if for you all Dursleys are great, ( for hypothetical you, or like for Betsy, they are just not abusive, I get it), I am just trying to feel something for Dudley and cannot, assuming that I am hundred percent sure that his parents are abusive monsters It is like with Draco - I do feel that he is likely headed to redemption and am feeling rather sorry for myself, because usually I eat those stories with the spoon, but I hated him for so long and for five books JKR did not give me ONE deed of Draco which is worth sympathy ( that is only my impressionn of course), so this redemption story will leave me untouched, most likely. I want to buy Dursleys as abused child and want to sympathise with him. Help me? Magpie: Grrr! My response to this seems to have been eaten, so I'll do it again. As somebody who likes both Dudley and Draco..:-) Dudley I don't feel sorry for?not because I dislike him, there just doesn't seem much reason to do so. He's not in such bad shape. He's a jerk and a bully, but he doesn't seem so different from any number of jerks his age probably hanging around and he honestly doesn't seem unhappy. I can see him growing up, getting a job he expends the minimum amount of effort at, getting married and having kids who don't see him as much more than average. He doesn't even seem to have inherited Vernon's temper. Vernon and Petunia are abusive in an ironic sense, that they indulge him too much, but they still seem to have more of the basics down than, say, many of the parents on Nanny 911. When he needs to lose weight they actually do put him on a diet, one that they all participate in. He seems like somebody who might be quite happy leading an ordinary life. The moment after Dumbledore tells them that Dudley's terribly abused is probably supposed to underscore how awful they are, but it's just kind of funny?they aren't offended, because they are happy with each other. So do Dumbledore's words have any meaning outside of his own judgment of the family that they don't care about? Now, Draco is a different story. Harry immediately connects the two as spoiled, but fandom tends to make them into doubles far more than they are. They're both bullies, but bullies are not all alike. Their physical looks?which JKR often uses for character?are completely opposite. Dudley is fat and soft. He is, as defenders of all the focus on his weight attest, the physical representation of overindulgence and intemperance and gluttony. His size is his advantage over Harry?as a fat kid who can squash him, then he grows into a big guy. Draco, otoh, is pinched and pale, defined within the story far more often as not getting what he wants. In the one scene where he's alone with his father, Lucius is acting completely differently than Vernon. Where Dudley bullies often for fun, carelessly throwing his weight around, Draco seems to have a much deeper need to hurt, especially hurt specific people. He's insecure, brittle and sensitive. Dudley could never have done Draco's story in HBP. None of which necessarily makes him sympathetic, but I'm not sure that's necessary to make for an enjoyable redemption story if that's what JKR has in mind. One of her strengths as a writer is the way she *doesn't* give in to urges to make her characters cuddly. With Draco in particular she seems to have been aware for years that people sympathize with him and does little to combat it in the books themselves?I mean, little extra to combat it since obviously there's plenty of places in the books where Draco's awful. In interviews she stresses his badness?but I think that was partially to throw people off the track of where she was going (and also because the harsher characters she's written is better than the schmoopy misunderstood soul). I think the only way to possibly miss out on the story is in refusing to allow it to happen because you want the character to have a particular outcome. I mean, for me the character's had my sympathy since the beginning. There are lots of scenes where he has it?particularly in PS/SS he doesn't at all seem like a kid bullying to bully, and he's stayed that same kid in every book. I see him always wanting something and working towards it, and it's not always something fundamentally bad (sometimes it's a good thing twisted into something bad). So I do think there's plenty of places where JKR refrains from making him completely unsympathetic to prepare for a storyline that isn't wholly unsympathetic. This is something that Draco fans are sometimes accused of making up?post HBP I've seen a number of comments insisting that however engaging the character was in HBP, there was no foreshadowing or build up to it at all (ironically sometimes from people who would mock others for making the same arguments about shipping). But it has at least sometimes been seen by others who don't particularly like the character but set themselves to looking at him closely. How sympathetic they are to him is a matter of taste, of course. From maccanena at gmail.com Thu Oct 12 18:43:16 2006 From: maccanena at gmail.com (Maria) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:43:16 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ***WHAT IF.........???*** In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1f40e2480610121143k2c12f7b4g73d9c508f75807b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159537 On 10/12/06, cadtitanic wrote: > > It were the Dursleys ( Petunia & Vernon ) that got killed in a car > crash and Dudley went to live with Lily, James & Harry Potter ??? I > just wonder what treatment the Potters would give toward Dudley??? > My guess is that he would immediately become a part of this loving > & caring family. WITH love AND discipline. > That is an interesting scenario. No doubt about the love part, I am sure they would be very loving parents to both. However, I have to question the part about the discipline. We have absolutely no knowledge about the type of parents they were, except that they love Harry so much that they gave their life for him. But having a comfortable economical situation, and seeing the kind of spoilt kid James was himself as a teenager... it makes me have second thoughts about how "disciplined" they would have raised either Harry or Dudley. I am not disagreeing, I am just questioning it. Maria From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 12 18:57:04 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:57:04 -0000 Subject: Thestrals, death (was Re: newbie with questions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159538 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spookedook" wrote: > > Carla: > If I might also venture another explanation. Harry was a baby when > his parents died, he has no memory of it. We also don't know if he > actually witnessed it. The confrontation between Lily and LV might > have been outside of Harry's line of sight. > > The death of Quirrell was the death of an enemy. Harry didn't suffer > a loss there. I think the death that must be witnessed is that of > someone you care about....a friend or relative. The death Luna > witnessed was that of her Mother. It must be a personal loss in order > to see the Thestrals. Cedric was his friend. He felt a loss. > > > Tinktonks: > > Also just to add to a very eloquent answer I'm pretty sure that Harry > was unconscious by the time Quirrell actually died. > I dont have the books with me but doesn't Harry ask DD what happened > to Quirrell (therefore canonically stating that he doesn't see him die) > > Hope that helps Geoff: I hate to be repetitive, but I posted this in message 159229 three days ago: With regard to the Thestrals, if you visit JKR's own website - www.jkrowling.com - she answers your question in the section FAQ>About the books. It's well down the list - the third (SPOILER WARNING)..... To save you looking it up, I decided the best thing to do was to quote the good lady's own words:: Why could Harry see the Thestrals 'Order of the Phoenix'? Shouldn't he have been able to see them much earlier, because he saw his parents/Quirrell/Cedric die? I've been asked this a lot. Harry didn't see his parents die. He was in his cot at the time (he was just over a year old) and, as I say in `Philosopher's Stone', all he saw was a flash of green light. He didn't see Quirrell's death, either. Harry had passed out before Quirrell died and was only told about it by Dumbledore in the last chapter.? ? He did, however, witness the murder of Cedric, and it is this that makes him able to see the Thestrals at last. Why couldn't he see the Thestrals on his trip back to the train station? Well, I didn't want to start a new mystery, which would not be resolved for a long time, at the very end of the fourth book. I decided, therefore, that until Harry is over the first shock, and really feels what death means (ie, when he fully appreciates that Cedric is gone forever and that he can never come back, which takes time, whatever age you are) he would not be able to see the Thestrals. After two months away from school during which he has dwelled endlessly on his memories of the murder and had nightmares about it, the Thestrals have taken shape and form and he can see them quite clearly. From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 12 18:48:06 2006 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:48:06 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial Message-ID: <20061012184806.28496.qmail@web25603.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159539 Potioncat wrote: >We need to be very careful anytime JKR uses numbers. Some of us (me) >have very vague notions of numbers and time. Others (well, Neri for >example) are very precise. > >JKR gives the impression of lots of students and great numbers of >wizarding folk. This 7 story castle has crowded halls, thundering >footsteps are heard between classes, students from the same house do >not know each other after years of attending school together. Yet she >only names 40 students for the one year, only has 5 boys in Harry's >dorm, says that there are 20 students in a particular class. Heck, >there are more than 40 new students every year in the local grade >school in my small community. It isn't crowded and it is not a 7 >story castle. JKR has said something to the effect of "don't trust me on the numbers". So I don't. What I do trust is the way she has drawn a world and the way it fits together. All of the things in it (Hogwarts, the Ministry, the World Cup stadium, the Quidditch league, the Daily Prophet, and so on) have implications for the number of wizarding folk around, and all of them point to a large community rather than a small one. As the scientists have proved, the harder you look at something, the less you see it, and I think that's as true of the WW as it is of anything else. Cheers Ffred ___________________________________________________________ All New Yahoo! Mail ? Tired of Vi at gr@! come-ons? Let our SpamGuard protect you. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From mrs6321 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 18:24:57 2006 From: mrs6321 at yahoo.com (mrs6321) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:24:57 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W In-Reply-To: <20061012175753.96005.qmail@web57110.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159540 Sherry/NightChade whytewytch76 at ... wrote: > > Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always > > so depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. What if Ron > > takes over for V. Will JKR kill off the deatheaters and V? Then > > there has to be something to fill the void. Maybe Percy hmmmmmm. Jennifer: > I think Percy will turn to the Deatheaters and follow Voldemort, I > think Ron will be killed in the last book, and so will his father > and mother. I think Harry will be killed also. I think Hermione and > Draco will become a couple. I also think that Snape killed > Dumbledore under Dumbledore's orders to protect Draco and that > Snape will be the hero of the last book. > Does anyone else feel like these people (Harry, Hermione, Ron, > Hagrid, Voldemort)...like they are so close to you that you take it > personally when something happens to them? I feel so foolish but I > really care about Harry and all the rest deeply, and of course I > realize they don't exist. Oh, I think I'm right there with you!!! When Dumbldore died I actually cried. That's the way I think it is with books though. You get so involved with each character (espcially when you have a quality writer). I love getting that involved. It will be hard when it's all over. I think Sherry's idea about Ron is a good one. I could see him turning (at least for a short amount of time) to the dark side. Jealousy makes people do crazy things! mrs6321 From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 12 19:29:35 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:29:35 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159541 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mrs6321" wrote: > > Sherry/NightChade whytewytch76@ wrote: > > > Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always > > > so depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. > > mrs6321: > I think Sherry's idea about Ron is a good one. I could see him turning (at least for a short amount of time) to the dark side. Jealousy makes people do crazy things! Magpie: I think Ron's jealousy arc pretty much ended in GoF, unfortunately. I say unfortunately because in GoF I thought the Harry/Ron fight was wrapped up in a way that just swept most of the issues under the rug, as if once Ron believe Harry about the Goblet (due to seeing him in danger) everything else was just erased, including the "maybe you'll have a scar now--that's what you want, isn't it?" comment. In the last two books Ron's been happily dealing with his own issues independently of Harry. Plus with one book to go I don't think there's time for Ron, who's never been much tempted by the Dark Side, to switch, unless it was giving information by accident or something, particularly after what Fenrir did to his brother. Of the Trio Ron seems the one with the least stomach for anything Death-Eater-ish. Speaking of brothers, I would hope Percy doesn't become a DE, since his loyalty seems to have been to Crouch and the Ministry, not anything Voldemort related. In OotP he took the Ministry line that LV hadn't returned and that was the book of Sirius' words on not everyone being either good or a DE. I hope Percy reconciles with his family in a way that isn't all about Percy groveling, that acknowledges that both sides should apologize. Dumbledore says it's easier to forgive someone for being right than wrong, and I don't think Percy's the only one who demonstrates that. Personally, I'd like to see the Twins do something sinister due to their own focus on money. Ron's not the only Weasley whose desire for money and respect could be a weakness. The Twins were helpful to the kill Dumbledore plot throughout HBP without ever consciously turning to the dark side. -m From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 12 20:08:21 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:08:21 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159542 > > Sherry/NightChade whytewytch76@ wrote: > > > > Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always > > > > so depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. > > > > > mrs6321: > > > I think Sherry's idea about Ron is a good one. I could see him > turning (at least for a short amount of time) to the dark side. > Jealousy makes people do crazy things! > > Magpie: > I think Ron's jealousy arc pretty much ended in GoF, Speaking of brothers, I would hope Percy doesn't become a DE Tesha: I really think that Ron is comfortable in his life, I can't see him even thinking bad thoughts. Not the twins either, they like being naughty - but not EVIL. The brother who's dark is Percy... he's unhappy, needs to follow, and is ripe for manipulation - he might not even mean to be bad, but could easily be lead. Whoever it is, I think he will come up against Neville and Neville will be the one to die. Maybe that's why the confusion between Harry and Neville in the prophesy! When Neville dies - the whole WW rises up and finally vanquishes LV forever... From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 21:04:13 2006 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:04:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Headmaster portraits Message-ID: <20061012210413.49648.qmail@web30902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159543 >Tim: >Good point,and even if Dumbledore is really dead, his portrait >is hanging in the Headmasters office to give guidance and I'm >sure there are portraits of him all over the wizarding world >that he will be able to travel between. Who knows, Harry might >be able to carry him with all the time in a card that comes with >a chocolate frog. >I know, I'm reaching but..... Kimberly here: After reading HBP, I initially thought/assumed we'd see Dumbledore as a portrait in the Headmaster's office. Many references were made to "previous Headmasters" and I thought this to be a hopeful indication that while Dumbledore is indeed dead, that we'd still have contact with him through his portrait. I'm wondering now though what causes someone to be a portrait or not. Do you become a portrait if you die during your headmastership ? What if you retire and then you die ? Do you still become a portrait ? Do all previous headmasters become portraits ? I don't recall and was wondering if anyone knew. Kimberly From dougsamu at golden.net Thu Oct 12 21:13:53 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:13:53 -0400 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159544 Ceridwen: I've had the idea that Petunia is acting out her resentment at her parents for favoring Lily, by feeding Dudley (giving love) while nearly starving Harry (withholding love). What an interesting observation, in light of the complete absence of Love from Voldemorts life, and the power that Harry is supposed to have in abundance - which everyone assumes to be Love - and compare Harry's lack of "Love" from Petunia with the lack of Love from Merope, and the twisted love-from-a-bottle origin of the son. Why are Humans the only primates with chins and nuclear weapons? ____________________ From royallydoyley at yahoo.co.uk Thu Oct 12 20:29:11 2006 From: royallydoyley at yahoo.co.uk (royallydoyley) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:29:11 -0000 Subject: MY theory as to 'How It All Ends' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159545 Hello I'm new here so bear with me if you've read/heard this theory a thousand times already. I reckon that in the last book... In order for Harry to defeat Voldemart, he himself must die. The two are magically linked and therefore thats the only way he'll acomplish it... Plus its a good way for JK to end the books as she says clearly there will be no more written about him EVER!!! What'd ya think??? royallydoyley From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 21:08:48 2006 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:08:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World Message-ID: <20061012210848.51930.qmail@web30914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159546 Tonks: Well it is no different than people who give up modern comforts to go to under developed countries, like with the Peace Corp, etc. Or those who go to some of the more strict monasteries where, while they have furnaces, it is still freezing cold in the winter and they lack most of the modern conforts that the rest of us take for granted. And then there are those who leave the modern world to live in the backwoods places. I have met people who were happy to leave the city and go deep into the woods of Northern Michigan without electricity or running water. Not my cup of tea, but people do do it. So it doesn't seem that odd to me that Muggleborns would be willing to give up the comforts of the Muggle world to be with their own kind. After a while you just forget what you have left behind. Tonks_op Kimberly here: After having just returned from a quiet, splendorous 4 day trip to Shenandoah Valley and then returning to cell phones, traffic, mail, voice mails, etc... I don't think it would take much for me to give it all up. Kimberly From k.coble at comcast.net Thu Oct 12 21:34:28 2006 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:34:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] MY theory as to 'How It All Ends' ...I dispute the "Must Die" theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17C133D2-19CF-412B-BA0A-4290677E36F2@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159547 On Oct 12, 2006, at 3:29 PM, royallydoyley wrote: > Hello I'm new here so bear with me if you've read/heard this > theory a thousand times already. > > I reckon that in the last book... In order for Harry to defeat > Voldemart, he himself must die. The two are magically linked > and therefore thats the only way he'll acomplish it... > > > What'd ya think??? > > royallydoyley > . > > Welcome, new person. Yes, we've heard this theory about sixty hundred thousand times already. And no offense to you personally, but I'm tired of it. Because I, like many people, don't want Harry to die. He's had a really difficult entirety of life as it is. Killing him is the ultimate bring-down to what are supposed to be morality tales for young people. I personally don't think Harry has to die in order to defeat Voldemort. As I said in a recent post, I believe that when Voldemort used Harry's blood for his (V's) resurrection, he removed any link between the two SOULS that would cause Harry to die in order to defeat Voldemort. Hence Dumbledore's "look of triumph" at the end of book 4. Any remaining linkage--parseltongue, scars, emotional links--are something like genetic residue. We've already seen JKR make repeated reference to Harry's resemblances to his father and his mother. However, having such visible links to James and Lily did not mean that Harry had to die when they did. I look at Harry's current "resemblences" to Voldemort in much the same way. The prophecy does say that "either must die at the hands of the other". I think this is significant because I think it means that MAGIC will not kill Voldemort. That he will have to be killed at Harry's HANDS. And that Voldemort can't use Magic to kill Harry. Think of all of the times he's tried to kill Harry with MAGIC and failed. Voldemort has a history of underestimating humanity, placing all his reliance in magic. Therefore, I think it is through humanity that Harry will kill Tom Riddle, and the magic elements such as Horcruxes have no bearing on Harry's having to die. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From caaf at hotmail.com Thu Oct 12 22:14:15 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:14:15 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 22, After the Burial > > 5. Harry didn't actually have 24 hours' worth of Felix Felicis, he > only had a 12-hour dose. Is it possible that his "measured" gulp > didn't last as long as he thought it would? Might he have been on > his own at the end of the conversation in Hagrid's hut? Or was that > just a flint? Cyril here: Just to check, in my version of HBP (Bloomsbury First edition - pg 445), the words used by Harry are: "Yeah, I s'pose I'd better," said Harry. "I don't reckon I'll need all of it, not twelve hours' worth, it can't take all night ... I'll just take a mouthful. Two or three hours should do it." Based on this, there is no discrepancy with what Slughorn had first provided. Just wondering if this is different from other Versions (Scholastic?... other versions) Cyril - typing this at nearly 4 in the morning, after re-reading the paragraph numerous times to ensure that my eyes are not playing tricks From caaf at hotmail.com Thu Oct 12 22:42:03 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:42:03 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: <013c01c6ee06$e902b100$ecd3ced1@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159549 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" wrote: > > > Kimberly here: > > This is where I think the allegiance to the house comes in. If > Kreacher wasn't > > bound to the house but the family, then he would have passed on to > the next > > blood line in the Black family, not the next owner of the house. > It seems the > > ownership of the house takes precedant over the family. Whomever owns > > the house, gets Kreacher rather than whomever is next on the bloodline. > > It's like splitting a hair, it is a very fine line I believe. > Cyril: Just thought I would throw my 2 knuts in. IMO, the use of the term house does not represent the place 12 GP, but the House of Black - that is the bloodline. If for any reason, the Black family had decided to move say to 13 Grimmauld Mansion - Kreacher would still be serving them there. As we saw in OotP, the Black family tree is called - The Noble and Most Ancient House of Black. It is in this reference that the term House is being used. So, the question remains, why doesn't Kreacher pass onto someone within the BLack family rather than Harry. My answer on this a little further... > > Lana: > But... Harry is family and the owner of the house. Isn't he? Since Sirius is Harrys God-Father, that makes him heir to the house and the son of a Black. Maybe not by blood, but definately by law. Regardless of magical or non magical law. They are bound by that which was made by Harrys parents and Sirius. > > So either way, Harry is Kreacher's master. Not that he really wants him. LOL > > This is just my take on it. > Lana > Yes - Harry is the owner of the house - not because he is family (he is not), and not because he is Sirius' god son. It is because that was the will of Sirius that Harry be owner of all Sirius' personal possessions. This include not only 12 GP (including all its property - and remember that in the WW, the house elves are Property of the Wizarding family) but also Sirius' gold in Gringotts. Only because of the will did this transfer of ownership take place - else all of Sirius' possessions may well have been Bellatrix's. The test used by DD in Chapter Will and Won't is that if Kreacher is forced to obey Harry, then it is proof that Sirius' Will was working, and had overcome other barriers (charms placed on the house such as only belonging to a pure-blood etc) that may have prevented Harry taking ownership of all of Sirius' possessions. Cyril - wondering why Vernon picked up on Sirius being dead, but not on the comment by DD about the (additional) gold owned by Harry in Gringotts. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 22:47:09 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:47:09 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W (and Percy and the twins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159550 > >>Magpie: > > I think Ron's jealousy arc pretty much ended in GoF, > > Speaking of brothers, I would hope Percy doesn't become a DE > > > >>Tesha: > I really think that Ron is comfortable in his life, I can't see him > even thinking bad thoughts. Not the twins either, they like being > naughty - but not EVIL. Betsy Hp: I agree that Ron would never turn evil. (Hermione is the trio member skating close to that particular fall, IMO.) But the twins? For the record, I'm not a twin fan. I don't think they're funny, and I actually see them quite capable causing quite a bit of harm. In many ways I think they're living examples of what is wrong in the Weasley family. Of course, I'm not sure JKR agrees with me. But I do think it's meaningful that it's the twins' prank that begins the fall of dominoes leading to the death of Dumbledore. I think it's meaningful that it's the twins' smuggling operation that leads to Ron's near death. And I think it's meaningful that their product is of such use to the Death Eaters' invasion of Hogwarts. The twins *are* naughty. They don't listen. They don't seem to think before taking action. I'm not sure that they'll turn *actively* evil. But I do wonder if one of them might take something too far and end up giving Voldemort an assist. Strictly by mistake of course. > >>Tesha: > The brother who's dark is Percy... he's unhappy, needs to follow, > and is ripe for manipulation - he might not even mean to be bad, > but could easily be lead. > Betsy Hp: He's also the only brother we've seen show genuine worry over his siblings (except for Ron of course). And he's the only Weasley to step out of his family's shadow and try and do his own thing. I'm not sure if JKR sees that as a good thing (I'm not sure how she sees the Weasleys really -- I mean, she's the one who came up with all their foibles, but does she see them the same way I do?) but I personally love Percy for it. So what *I'd* love to see is one of the twins (because one is so much more emotionally punchy than both of them) does something colossally stupid for either a laugh or money (or more likely, both) and Percy rescues them. Ooh, I'd love it! But I'm not sure JKR is going there. I'd especially love it if Percy does turn out to be Dumbledore's eyes and ears at the Ministry... but I'm not holding my breath. Betsy Hp From caaf at hotmail.com Thu Oct 12 22:52:12 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:52:12 -0000 Subject: Ways of the Wizarding World - are all sentences Life Sentences? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159551 Hi, I was doing some re-reading of the series, and a thought struck me about the sentences that people get to Azkaban. In all cases, it seems that when someone is sentenced to Azkaban - it is a life sentence. There does not seem to be an option such as - Sentenced to Azkaban for the next 5 years. IIRC - only three people ever got out of Azkaban legally (and there maybe more that do not come to mind) a) Hagrid in CoS - when it was proved that he was not responsible for opening by Chamber b) Reference to Karkaroff in the Pensieve memory - got out by giving away names of DE's - which was in essence a pardon or reduction of a sentence for information. c) Uncle Morphin - when DD was able to show that he probably did not commit the crimes that he was charged with in the Pensieve memory in HBP So, it seems only that people get out of Azkaban legally if they sell info or if it can be shown that they are not guilty (not to mention the ones that slip through the bars or mass breakouts, that would be classified as illegal) However, when they are initially being jailed there - apparently it is with intent for life. Cyril - wondering why the WW does not have the opportunity for witches and wizards from returning after paying their debt to sociery... From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 12 23:24:19 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:24:19 -0000 Subject: Ways of the Wizarding World - are all sentences Life Sentences? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159552 Cyril: > In all cases, it seems that when someone is sentenced to Azkaban - > it is a life sentence. There does not seem to be an option such as - > Sentenced to Azkaban for the next 5 years. Ceridwen: Grandfather Marvolo. He was sentenced to Azkaban and released after three years, I think it was. I think the problem is that we rarely hear about anything but the capital offenses, like killing twelve Muggles and a wizard, and driving a couple permanently insane. Ceridwen. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 23:26:14 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:26:14 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W (and Percy and the twins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159553 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: >> I agree that Ron would never turn evil. (Hermione is the trio > member skating close to that particular fall, IMO.) But the twins? > For the record, I'm not a twin fan. I don't think they're funny, > and I actually see them quite capable causing quite a bit of harm. In many ways I think they're living examples of what is wrong in the Weasley family. Of course, I'm not sure JKR agrees with me. > [snip] Steven1965aaa: Remember, Ron is the guy who vomited slugs all over Tom Riddle's award for special services to the school! With respect to the twins, I agree with you that they are quite capable of causing harm, and they did so accidentally with the cabinet, but IMO their heart is in the right place and they're not going over to the dark side anytime soon. A few examples come to mind: In SS helping Harry get his trunk on the train before they even knew who he was, in COS they went bezerk when Malfoy called Hermione a "mudblood", in POA giving Harry a gift of the invaluable and priceless Marauder's map (if they were looking for $ they could have tried to sell that map to Malfoy or some other rich student for big bucks), in OOP expressing their desire to join the Order, etc. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 23:17:48 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 23:17:48 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cyril A Fernandes" wrote: > > So, the question remains, why doesn't Kreacher pass onto someone > within the BLack family rather than Harry. My answer on this a > little further... > > Steven1965aaa: One additional factor: in his Will, Sirius left all of his "possessions" to Harry. In the crazy mixed up way of slavery, Kreacher is a "possession". From MadameSSnape at aol.com Fri Oct 13 00:15:24 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:15:24 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159555 In a message dated 10/12/2006 6:25:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, luv2readhp at yahoo.com writes: After having just returned from a quiet, splendorous 4 day trip to Shenandoah Valley and then returning to cell phones, traffic, mail, voice mails, etc... I don't think it would take much for me to give it all up. ------------------------ Yes, it's a difference, isn't it? As a Civil War reenactor (strictly civilian!), I've spent many weekends without cell phones, radios, telly, pants for women (long dresses only!), computers, even flushing necessaries - cooking over an open fire, sewing by hand, reading by the light of a candle... And I am neither young nor particularly hardy. Coming back is always something of a shock - I've always wished we could see Hermione after she leaves the station one summer. How does she adjust? I imagine it'd be a bit easier, once she was able to use magic outside school, but still... Though somehow, I don't see Hermione as that much different at home than she is at school. If she has a computer (she never mentions one), it's probably used for research. Much as at school, I believe she spends her free time with her books. Sherrie (who waits til the last minute to wash her dress after a reenactment, to savor that woodsmoke-and-black-powder smell as long as possible...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sobernme at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 22:43:52 2006 From: sobernme at yahoo.com (sobernme) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:43:52 -0000 Subject: Neville WAS: Re: Thoughts on Ron W In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159556 > Tesha: > Whoever it is, I think he will come up against Neville and Neville > will be the one to die. Maybe that's why the confusion between Harry > and Neville in the prophesy! When Neville dies - the whole WW rises > up and finally vanquishes LV forever... > I never thought about Neville, wouldn't that be a kick in the pants to Voldermort to have Neville be the chosen one after all. sobernme From sobernme at yahoo.com Thu Oct 12 22:40:58 2006 From: sobernme at yahoo.com (sobernme) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:40:58 -0000 Subject: Headmaster portraits In-Reply-To: <20061012210413.49648.qmail@web30902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159557 > Kimberly here: > I'm wondering now though what causes someone > to be a portrait or not. Do you become a portrait if you die during your > headmastership ? What if you retire and then you die ? Do you still > become a portrait ? Do all previous headmasters become portraits ? > I don't recall and was wondering if anyone knew. > > I thought that I read that all Headmasters had portrait's hanging the the current Headmaster"s office to give him/her guidance and support. Am I wrong????? sobernme From ik8tey at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 00:08:13 2006 From: ik8tey at gmail.com (kate yerger) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:08:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Headmaster portraits In-Reply-To: <20061012210413.49648.qmail@web30902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <20061012210413.49648.qmail@web30902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159558 > > Kimberly here: > After reading HBP, I initially thought/assumed we'd see Dumbledore > as a portrait in the Headmaster's office. Many references were made to > "previous Headmasters" and I thought this to be a hopeful indication that > while Dumbledore is indeed dead, that we'd still have contact with him > through his portrait. I'm wondering now though what causes someone > to be a portrait or not. I'm wondering if Dumbledore will have to go through a long resting period before he can talk. And I'm wondering if there any limits to what a portrait can say. -- Kate www.cafepress.com/african_violets [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 00:14:43 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:14:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: References: <013c01c6ee06$e902b100$ecd3ced1@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610121714i17acb31n69857b309daca7d1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159559 > Cyril: > > Just thought I would throw my 2 knuts in. > > IMO, the use of the term house does not represent the place 12 GP, > but the House of Black - that is the bloodline. Except "House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that; you wouldn't catch one in our house". Also, that's more consistent with them being based on Brownies There is every indication that House Elves are not personal property but are in fact real property. (in the same sense of the word in which land itself, or buildings, or fixtures within buildings, are real property) -- Random832 -- Random832 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 00:38:48 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:38:48 -0000 Subject: Headmaster portraits In-Reply-To: <20061012210413.49648.qmail@web30902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159560 --- , Kimberly wrote: > > >Tim: > >Good point,and even if Dumbledore is really dead, his > > portrait is hanging in the Headmasters office to give > > guidance and I'm sure there are portraits of him all > > over the wizarding world that he will be able to > > travel between. ... > > >I know, I'm reaching but..... > > > Kimberly here: > After reading HBP, I initially thought/assumed we'd see > Dumbledore as a portrait in the Headmaster's office. > Many references were made to "previous Headmasters" ... > I'm wondering now though what causes someone to be a > portrait or not. ... > > Kimberly > bboyminn: I think you are maybe looking to deeply into the problem to actually see it. In the wizard world, just as in the muggle world, portraits are created to honor a revered person. Dumbledore was a long time Headmaster, and held may other national and international offices. He is also respected as the greatest wizard of the age. So certainly Dumbledore is revered and honored, and would therefore be further honored by one or more a portraits upon his death. I suspect ALL headmasters have a portrait somewhere at Hogwarts. That would seem pretty common if you enter any private school; they likely have portraits of all the headmasters for the entire history of that particular school, and I don't see why Hogwarts would be any different. If they had distinguished careers before or after Hogwarts, those institution where they worked may also honor them. I hadn't thought about it until just a few days ago, but it is likely that Dumbledore has protraits in other locations. We know he was the head of the Wizengamot court. Plus he was senior representative to the International Confederation of Wizard. That might qualify him with a portrait somewhere at the Ministry. That could certainly come in handy. So, I think any wizard of any social or political significants probably gets a public protrait somewhere. Other wizards may have private portraits, say a family portrait, etc.... The confusing part is, where do the portraits come from? I suppose Dumbedore could have sat for his portraits many years ago, and when he finally died, they were automatically placed in the various position that were pre-planned. I'm convinced that the only way that Dumbledore lives on is through his portrait, and while helpful, I think it will be a very unsatisfying model of Dumbledore. It will have all his character but little of his essense. Still it will probably be helpful. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Fri Oct 13 01:00:48 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:00:48 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys (and other family connections) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159561 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rick & LeAnn Kelley" Anders wrote: (In the same way, it never made sense to me that Molly > Weasley's Prewitt brothers were killed by LV, but her children made no > mention of a family connection to them.) Did JKR just decide not to devote > the time it would take to explain the family ties, or is there some reason > why those connections were hush-hush? With the Prewett brothers' deaths, I was under the impression that Molly, Arthur and the elder two Weasley boys, Bill and Charlie, were keeping something under wraps from the younger children. I read a post somewhere that suggested that Arthur's enemity to Lucius was because Lucius had cast, or been involved in casting, Imperius on Arthur, something which caused Arthur to betray his family. This post was written some time ago, when there was a rumour running that there had been an extra Weasley child in the (rather sizaeable) age gap between Charlie and Percy, who had somehow died. I think that the same theory could be used to purport that Arthur unwittingly betrayed the Prewett brothers. IT IS a longshot, but an interesting one at that. Recall that Ron was rather susceptible to forms of mind control - the imperius in Barty Crouch Jnr's class in GoF and to the Veela powers of Fleur Delacour. Also that Bill seems rather protective of Arthur. Link is here: http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000128.html An interesting talking point if nothing else, Cheers, Nate. From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Fri Oct 13 01:11:44 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 01:11:44 -0000 Subject: Headmaster portraits In-Reply-To: <20061012210413.49648.qmail@web30902.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159562 > Kimberly here: > After reading HBP, I initially thought/assumed we'd see Dumbledore > as a portrait in the Headmaster's office. Nate writes: When McGonagall takes Harry to the Headmaster's office, Harry sees that there is a portrait of Dumbledore. Dumbledore doesn't interact with them, he's sleeping, as if untroubled about the circumstances surrounding his death. "Dumbledore was slumbering in a golden frame over the desk, his half moon spectacles perched upon his crooked nose, looking peaceful and untroubled." pg 584, UK, 2005 Bloomsbury Edition, Chapter called - 'The Phoenix Lament' From penhaligon at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 01:44:09 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:44:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Respecting the Dursleys (and other family connections) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <003001c6ee69$17b82a40$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 159563 Nate wrote: > I read a post somewhere that > suggested that Arthur's enemity to Lucius was because Lucius > had cast, or been involved in casting, Imperius on Arthur, > something which caused Arthur to betray his family. This post > was written some time ago, when there was a rumour running > that there had been an extra Weasley child in the (rather > sizaeable) age gap between Charlie and Percy, who had somehow > died. I think that the same theory could be used to purport > that Arthur unwittingly betrayed the Prewett brothers. IT IS > a longshot, but an interesting one at that. Recall that Ron > was rather susceptible to forms of mind control - the > imperius in Barty Crouch Jnr's class in GoF and to the Veela > powers of Fleur Delacour. Also that Bill seems rather > protective of Arthur. I agree completely. One bit of canon that has always stuck out for me is from Chapter 14, The Unforgivable Curses, from Goblet of Fire, as Fake Moody is teaching the students about the Imperius curse: 'Er,' said Ron tentatively, 'my dad told me about one ... Is called the Imperius curse, or something?' 'Ah, yes,' said Moody appreciatively. 'Your father *would* know about that one. Gave the Ministry a lot of trouble at one time, the Imperius curse.' This exchange grabbed me the first time I read GoF, and I find myself going back to it again and again. I think you're on to something, Nate. Panhandle penhaligon at gmail.com From SMacLagan at msn.com Fri Oct 13 01:37:47 2006 From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:37:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Headmaster portraits References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159564 Tim wrote: ...even if Dumbledore is really dead... LG writes: New here--maybe an old thought--but I've wondered if Dumbledore won't somehow come back from the dead. His character is so intertwined with the image of the Phoenix, and his body did burn up in fire and smoke. Thoughts? London Granddaughter [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 13 02:04:27 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:04:27 -0000 Subject: Difference between editions (Re: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159565 Allie, from chapter questions: >5. Harry didn't actually have 24 hours' worth of Felix Felicis, he > only had a 12-hour dose. Is it possible that his "measured" gulp > didn't last as long as he thought it would? Might he have been on > his own at the end of the conversation in Hagrid's hut? Or was > that just a flint? Cyril here: > Just to check, in my version of HBP (Bloomsbury First edition - pg > 445), the words used by Harry are: > "Yeah, I s'pose I'd better," said Harry. "I don't reckon I'll need > all of it, not twelve hours' worth, it can't take all night ... >I'll just take a mouthful. Two or three hours should do it." Jen: We tried to hash this out when HBP was released because the Scholastic edition does indeed say 24 hours' worth. I looked this up in the Lexicon to see if there's been a resolution, but it only notes the difference here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html My personal opinion is that the Bloomsbury edition is correct. Slughorn states he is giving away 12 hours' worth of Felix in both editions. So unless JKR plans to revisit the night Harry obtained the memory to point out that Harry was *not* under the influence of Felix (and would it matter?), I'd say we're meant to believe he took a dose that lasted 2-3 hours. Jen R. From jmmears at comcast.net Fri Oct 13 02:04:47 2006 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:04:47 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159566 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "NightChade" wrote: > > Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always so > depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. What if Ron takes > over for V. Will JKR kill off the deatheaters and V? Then there has to > be something to fill the void. Maybe Percy hmmmmmm. > Sherry Coming out of years of lurkdom to say "certainly not!" to the thought of Ron turning to the dark side. As for the notion of Ron's jealousy of Harry, I'd suggest that everyone with an interest in the topic read the HPfGU classic "Anatomy of a Rift, Parts 1 & 2" by the brilliant Dicentra. It can be found way back beginning in post #52038, continuing in post #52039. Jo Serenadust, defending Ron Weasley since 2001 From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Oct 13 02:23:21 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 22:23:21 EDT Subject: Why Snape turned Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159567 > > Neri: > > Are you saying you don't think Snape owed a life debt to James at all? > > Or that he did, but that this wasn't the reason he "turned"? > > > > Hickengruendler: > > The later. >Neri: In this case Snape would have *two* motivations to "turn" ? Lily and his life debt to James. So even assuming we will find in Book 7 that he was in love with Lily, how can we ever know for sure what was the relative importance of each of these two motivations in his decision? >LOLLIPOPS+Life Debt seems to be a good option for JKR if she wants to leave us with an ambiguous Snape even *after* the end of the series. It's possible, of course, that this is what she means to do. But if, as she once promised, after Book 7 we will know everything we need to know and won't have any need for prequels, then shouldn't she give Snape a single motivation to "turn"? Nikkalmati I am sooo behind in reading the posts, I am afraid I can never catch up with all of them, but I very much want to address this topic, because I think it is central to understanding the plot. I have been playing around with OFHSnape, even though I am basically in the DDMSnape camp, so this theory is just put out there to see if the pieces fit. I was struck with the quote from JKR that no one would want Snape to be in love with them, just read Book 7. Note she didn't say no one would want to be in love with Snape. Who was it that Snape loved who came to grief? Snape may have been in love with Lily. We have seen that she was beautiful and the kind of person everyone would like. Even if she was just nice to him, Snape could have loved her and if the students in the old days had double potions, Gryfs and Slitherins, they would have interacted. I do not see the life debt as compelling Snape to protect James or Harry, mostly because JKR has shown us that Peter is not restricted from harming Harry in the Graveyard, so a life debt IMO is not a compulsion. However, Snape, after the Prank, may have felt indebted enough to James that he had to stand by and see him court Lily and win her. What if that was the price he felt he had to pay for his life? After they were married, SS could have joined Voldemort, because his only friends were there, he was in despair over losing Lily etc. The marriage was in June after graduation let's say. That fall he overheard the prophesy and reported it to LV. When then did he feel remorse over LV's plan? Well, LV could have announced his intent the next July, when Harry and Neville were born. July 1980? That means SS would have spied for DD from the time Harry was born until the Halloween after Harry was a year old, - for over a year. On the other hand, LV could have waited until shortly before he acted to let SS and the DE know his plan. In that case SS, would have gone to DD shortly before he was hired as a teacher, say July 1981. His remorse in either case would have been over the danger he had put Lily in. He went to DD hoping she could be saved and he could have asked LV, as a reward for telling him the prophesy, to let Lily live. (We know that didn't work out) After Lily died, he could have hated Harry as the reason Lily died. We know even fathers have hated their own children if the mother died in childbirth. Not common, but it happens. He also hates Neville, because if he had been the Chosen One, Lily would have lived. Nevertheless, he hates LV more. He protects and aids Harry so that, in case the prophesy is fulfilled, LV will be destroyed for sure. He is probably going to help Harry in Book 7 or even die in the attempt so that LV will be killed and Lily revenged. Speculation, but does it fly (or float)? I have some trouble in this OFHSnape scenario fitting in the UV and explaining why SS killed DD on the tower, when he could have at least taken the time to urge Draco to do it himself with better results. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From technomad at intergate.com Fri Oct 13 02:31:14 2006 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:31:14 -0500 Subject: The Doom That Is Coming To Dudley Message-ID: <003d01c6ee6f$a818dca0$35560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 159568 Personally, while I dislike Dudley intensely (wrote a whole fanfic where the point of the story was one of my OCs setting on him and opening up a whole shipment of whoop-a$$ all over his carcass) I do feel really sorry for him, too. I think that sooner or later, his behavior is going to get him into Serious Trouble that his Mummy and Daddy can't get him out of. Either he's going to get caught doing something serious enough to get him hauled into (whatever British people call) Juvenile Court, (or even adult-level court, if it's serious enough or the Day is delayed for much longer) or he's going to tangle with the wrong person or people, and get hauled home on a shutter. I could see him and his idiot friends finding a "defenseless" littler kid, and starting in on the beating-up, just in time for the littler kid's big brother-the-Hells-Angel, and about five other Hells Angels, to come along. *Oooops!* Dudders may be the terror of his suburban neighborhood, at least among the smaller, younger children, but he'd be 'way out of his league against that sort of opposition. Or, if you don't like the Hells Angels, think of what would have happened had he run afoul of the Krays in their days of glory by picking on one of their weaker relatives. Another scenario involves Dudders & Co. getting carried away and doing something that's really, really illegal, beyond the "kids will be kids" sort of thing they've mostly been up to. Like really injuring someone badly or killing them, or trashing a store and setting it on fire, or something like that. I wonder how Dudders, Piers and the rest of them would handle Dartmoor, or someplace like that? I think they'd find out very quickly just how heavily outclassed they were. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 13 02:42:50 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:42:50 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159569 Alla: > And after book 6 it is rather clear to me that that is what JKR is > trying to promote - that Dudley was abused too, but I am just soo > not buying it, I mean I am buying it on intellectual level, but not > on the emotional, because JKR did not manage to make me feel one > ounce of sympathy for Dudley. I want to buy Dursleys as abused > child and want to sympathise with him. Help me? Jen: Well, I can't help because I have a problem with the whole scenario myself. The primary reason is what you said above, emphasis mine: "And **after** book 6..." Where was this concept in books 1-5? I'm not talking what I believe in real life but what was actually written on the page. Weren't we meant to laugh at the jokes about Dudley's size? Cheer when Harry discovered he could threaten him with magic? Roll our eyes at the Dursleys' stupendously poor parenting? I didn't know until Dumbledore's dramatic speech that I was supposed to feel sorry for Dudley and consider him an abused child *in the story*. That's a hard message to sell in my book when JKR spent 5 books presenting Dudley as the boy we should love to hate. I'm not saying everyone felt that way or read Dudley as I did, but those were the responses I thought a reader was meant to have, just as Fred & George are meant to be funny. Like you said in another post Alla, I did feel something for Dudley during the Dementor scene and wondered afterward what his worst memory was. I do think JKR is headed to a point where *Harry* will finally feel sympathy for Dudley and see the pathos in the situation, and readers will be meant to feel the same in that moment. Unfortunately, JKR could have done more to show this along the way than just have Dumbledore blurt it out as we near the final act. Jen R. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 02:49:32 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:49:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610121949h6bbb9dbbt77c5966f47bd3913@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159570 Tonks_op: Note: when I suggest that Snape made a vow to DD, I did not mean an `unbreakable vow' which IMO is dark magic, but rather just a pledge to follow him. Lynda: I would like to make a note here myself. I do think there is a strong possibility that Snape made an unbreakable vow with DD. I do not, however, think that it was in any way forced, but made of his own free will. As for the UV being dark magic, I do not know that such is always true although when used by dark wizards for dark purposes, of course it would be. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dk59us at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 02:49:12 2006 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:49:12 -0000 Subject: Headmaster portraits In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159571 "Steve" wrote: > The confusing part is, where do the portraits come from? > I suppose Dumbedore could have sat for his portraits many > years ago, and when he finally died, they were > automatically placed in the various position that were > pre-planned. Eustace_Scrubb: Though there doesn't seem to be any canon that would confirm or contradict this, I'm inclined to agree with you. I suspect there are wizards with the artistic and magical skill to create these portraits. In the somewhat-related area of photography, Colin Creevey says he was told he needed to develop his photos in a special potion to get them to move--you still have to have the normal skills of a photographer, the magic is an added step (not a replacement). So a painter would still need to know paint and canvas, perspective and all that, but would also need to know how to capture the subject's personality. As in the muggle world (especially pre-photography), influential and well-to-do folks employ these artists to perpetuate some part of their personality as well as their image. Where do they hone their skills or do their work? Not at Hogwarts, as far as we can tell. Unless this is covered in Book 7, I guess we'll never know. Steve again: > I'm convinced that the only way that Dumbledore lives on > is through his portrait, and while helpful, I think it > will be a very unsatisfying model of Dumbledore. It will > have all his character but little of his essense. Still > it will probably be helpful. Eustace_Scrubb: I'm afraid you're right, though maybe how much "essence" might depend on the skill of the particular artist? Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From juli17 at aol.com Fri Oct 13 02:54:18 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:54:18 -0000 Subject: Difference between editions (Re: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159572 > > Jen: We tried to hash this out when HBP was released because the > Scholastic edition does indeed say 24 hours' worth. I looked this up > in the Lexicon to see if there's been a resolution, but it only > notes the difference here: > > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html > > My personal opinion is that the Bloomsbury edition is correct. > Slughorn states he is giving away 12 hours' worth of Felix in both > editions. So unless JKR plans to revisit the night Harry obtained > the memory to point out that Harry was *not* under the influence of > Felix (and would it matter?), I'd say we're meant to believe he took > a dose that lasted 2-3 hours. > > Jen R. > Julie: The Scholastic trade paperback edition of HBP that came out earlier this year has that passage amended to "12 hours worth" thus matching the Bloomsbury edition. I can only assume it was an editing error in the original Scholastic hardback version. It was meant to be 12 hours all along. Julie From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 03:31:38 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:31:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610122031t1f9c78eekf4f4e6ba4ddad155@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159573 Alla: I want to buy Dursleys as abused child and want to sympathise with him. Help me? Lynda: No kid deserves to be in a situation in his life in which he feels that he has a need to be careful in what he says or does around his parents. Neither does any kid need to be spoiled to the extent that he thinks bad behavior is excusable. But when you have both extremes in one household, that's one way of creating a monster (or a bully). So Dudley's behavior can be explained by his parents coddling, but then again, if his Dad is willing to yell at him and hit him out of temper and then he gets sent to a school in which expected behavior is to be bullyish (let's not forget the Smelting Stick), the kid hasn't got much chance of coming out ahead of the game. He'll grow up to be just like his parents, and that's sad and a little pathetic. No kid deserves that fate. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 13 03:35:17 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:35:17 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610120726i55372966sbde975bf0491c4e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159574 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > On 10/11/06, 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? > > > montims: > Well, 7/7/7 is the anninversary of the London bombing, so I am not convinced > it is probable. Where did you get your information from? Secca adds: As was mentioned earlier in this thread, the movie comes out 7/13. There is no way any business person in their right mind would allow these two major events to interfere with each other in any way. They (not meaning Mrs. Rowling)will want to milk *both* of these media events for maximum profit. To me this simple fact of the capitalist society we live in precludes any possibility of 7/7/07 (which is a shame, because it would have been the perfect date!) My 2 knuts... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 03:54:07 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 03:54:07 -0000 Subject: Ways of the Wizarding World - are all sentences Life Sentences? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cyril A Fernandes" wrote: > I was doing some re-reading of the series, and a thought struck me > about the sentences that people get to Azkaban. > > In all cases, it seems that when someone is sentenced to Azkaban - > it is a life sentence. There does not seem to be an option such as - > Sentenced to Azkaban for the next 5 years. zanooda: Morfin was sentenced to 3 years (the first time, for hexing Riddle Sr. and attacking Ogden), and Marvolo to 6 months (HBP "The house of Gaunt" ch.). Sturgis Podmore was sentenced to 6 months for his attempt to enter the DoM (OotP, "Percy and Padfoot" ch.). The life sentences are for killers and UC users, I think :-) From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 13 04:08:07 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:08:07 -0000 Subject: Sevens/What's next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159576 > Geoff wrote: > I'm not also sure that he will marry Ginny. Not so long ago, I suggested in a > post that he might want to remain a bachelor at least for the time being; many UK folk today do not marry ? or get involved with partners ? until they are well into their twenties. > > Again, Harry has never come across as being a ladies' man. He tends to be a loner and think of what "Witch Weekly" would have to print about dark-haired, fascinating, handsome, brooding and eligible Harry Potter! > Perhaps I say this because I'm not much of a Ginny fan as far as a suitable match for him. > > Secca adds: It is okay, I'm not a shipper, don't run!!! (I am *firmly* in the Harry will live camp though.) But I do believe that Harry will end up with Ginny... because *Jo* feels that Ginny is his soul-mate... JK Rowling said, in her Interview with Mugglenet & Leaky Cauldron's Emerson & Melissa: /QUOTE/JKR: Well, no, not really, because the plan was, which I really hope I fulfilled, is that the reader, like Harry, would gradually discover Ginny as pretty much the ideal girl for Harry. She's tough, not in an unpleasant way, but she's gutsy. He needs to be with someone who can stand the demands of being with Harry Potter, because he's a scary boyfriend in a lot of ways. He's a marked man. I think she's funny, and I think that she's very warm and compassionate. These are all things that Harry requires in his ideal woman. But, I felt ? and I'm talking years ago when all this was planned ? initially, she's terrified by his image. I mean, he's a bit of a rock god to her when she sees him first, at 10 or 11, and he's this famous boy. So Ginny had to go through a journey as well. And rather like with Ron, I didn't want Ginny to be the first girl that Harry ever kissed. That's something I meant to say, and it's kind of tied in. One of the ways in which I tried to show that Harry has done a lot of growing up ? in "Phoenix," remember when Cho comes into the compartment, and he thinks, `I wish I could have been discovered sitting with better people,' basically? He's with Luna and Neville. So literally the identical thing happens in "Prince," and he's with Luna and Neville again, but this time, he has grown up, and as far as he's concerned he is with two of the coolest people on the train. They may not look that cool. Harry has really grown. And I feel that Ginny and Harry, in this book, they are total equals. They are worthy of each other. They've both gone through a big emotional journey, and they've really got over a lot of delusions, to use your word, together. So, I enjoyed writing that. I really like Ginny as a character. /End of Quote/ Secca Again: As you said, though, they may have a long engagement... I expect all of that to happen Out of Book regardless, and simply be glossed in the Epilouge. Now, as to how I personally feel about Ginny? I rather dislike the actress who portrays her in the films, and I realized this was coloring my view of Ginny in the books. On my last re-read, I realized I quite like her, especially in OotP. I like when she flat out lies to her mother about the dungbombs in OoTP.. I like her "Well that was a bit stupid.." remark when Harry is thinking he is Possessed by Voldemort in OotP... etc. *Not* being a shipper, I was ambivilant when they actually got together in HBP, but happy for Harry... From followingmytruth at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 04:04:58 2006 From: followingmytruth at yahoo.com (Sean-Michael) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 21:04:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Middle Age ways of the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: <20061012210848.51930.qmail@web30914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061013040458.7000.qmail@web33708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159577 hi all, new here so this is my first post (been lurking and reading) Just a thought: I don't think it's all that much that they're "giving up" tho I suppose it would depend on their skills and abilities as a wizard. It seems like just about anything you can do with technology can be done with magic, just need to learn how, or find someone who does. And also imo, there are magical people out there amongst the muggles all the time, they just aren't supposed to be using their magic in sight of the muggles. So there's nothing to say that they can't spend time in both places (the muggle born) Like they do when they go home for breaks. Just my 2 knuts Sean-michael Kimberly wrote: Tonks: Well it is no different than people who give up modern comforts to go to under developed countries, like with the Peace Corp, etc. Or those who go to some of the more strict monasteries where, while they have furnaces, it is still freezing cold in the winter and they lack most of the modern conforts that the rest of us take for granted. And then there are those who leave the modern world to live in the backwoods places. I have met people who were happy to leave the city and go deep into the woods of Northern Michigan without electricity or running water. Not my cup of tea, but people do do it. So it doesn't seem that odd to me that Muggleborns would be willing to give up the comforts of the Muggle world to be with their own kind. After a while you just forget what you have left behind. Tonks_op Kimberly here: After having just returned from a quiet, splendorous 4 day trip to Shenandoah Valley and then returning to cell phones, traffic, mail, voice mails, etc... I don't think it would take much for me to give it all up. Kimberly 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/ Before posting to any list, you MUST read the group's Admin File! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin_Files/HBF_Text__MUST_READ Yahoo! Groups Links Sean-Michael http://smbryceart.etsy.com http://smbryceart.pbwiki.com http://smbryceart.livejournal.com http://www.artbyus.com/auctions.php?a=6&b=4533 --------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1?/min. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From friedman30126 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 02:52:51 2006 From: friedman30126 at yahoo.com (Alan Friedman) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:52:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Respecting the Dursleys (and other family connections) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061013025251.2200.qmail@web51107.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159578 Anders wrote: > (In the same way, it never made sense to me that > Molly Weasley's Prewitt brothers were killed by LV, but > her children made no mention of a family connection to them.) Did > JKR just decide not to devote the time it would take to explain the > family ties, or is there some reason why those connections were hush- > hush? I'm guessing that JKR just didn't spend the time - she has a bio for everybody in the books... I read somewhere that she can describe their background and history! friedman30126 From dragonarm1979 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 04:15:01 2006 From: dragonarm1979 at yahoo.com (dragonarm1979) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 04:15:01 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159579 Carol wrote: > > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. dragonarm1979: Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow and children have tried to ban all the books. I live in South Carolina and they had a very welcome reception in my town because here a lot of people believe freedom of speech and expression should be quashed because after all did God give these rights in the Bible. You are right whomever you speak of is crazy, because she does not realize what country she lives in and the GOD-given rights that we are supposed to have. The Kings's tried to have all major bookstores ban the books, but thanks to the MANY loyal Harry Potter fans that did not go over so well with the big corporations. People ultimately fear what they do not understand and it robs them of their ability to reason. So, honestly, I believe we should feel sorry for these people and their inability to open their minds to fantastic literature. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 13 06:41:23 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:41:23 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610112038v21f712dfw75248742c8696c9f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159580 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: x_dreamsmadeflesh_x: > I find it humerous when people try to say HP is > bad, but when you ask them why they can't give a good reason at all. > Most of the people trying to ban them have never even read them and > that annoys me so much! Lynda: > I think my church is divided about 1/3 to 2/3's on this matter and its not a > fundamentalist church but a major protestant denomination (Disciples of > Christ). Some of my friends are set dead against them but most of the > children and many of the adults have read them. > > One of my friends who is married to a Baptist minister was against them at > first, but after several years she picked up SS at the library and the rest, > so to speak is history. Most lately, she ask me to tell her all about Half > Blood Prince because she lives in a rural section of Maryland and the > library doesn't carry the books. Quite a change from the woman who told me > the books were nothing more than trash that could not possibly be > interesting. And this is the woman who introduced me to David Eddings, > Katherine Kurtz and Patricia McKillip among other recognizable fantasy > writers. Geoff: I have said in the past that I was initially against the books because I allowed myself to be influenced by members of my home church - a UK Baptist church. Like your friend, I found my way into the stories by seeing the second film - almost by accident - in November 2002 just after release. Since then I have found that many folk in my church are HP fans. I find the books a good talking point with the young people and have used ideas from them formally in church youth work. A good apologia is "The Gospel according to Harry Potter" by Connie Neal (published by Westminster John Knox Press of Louisville and London in 2002) which takes each book in turn up to GOF and cites incidents which can be seen "as glimmers of the Christian Gospel" - to quote the cover blurb. From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 09:54:03 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:54:03 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ways of the Wizarding World - are all sentences Life Sentences? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061013095403.2292.qmail@web38304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159581 --- Cyril A Fernandes wrote: >Cyril - wondering why the WW does not have the > opportunity for > witches and wizards from returning after paying > their debt to > sociery... --- zanooda2 wrote: > The life sentences > are for killers and UC users, I think :-) > I wonder, if the length of the sentence still matters after some time. We know that Dementors drive prisoners insane (literally), so after spending in Azkaban several years, a person goes mad and weather he is free is no longer important for him/her. So, there's no real opportunity for them to return to normal life, is it? Like, Hagris spent very little time in Azkaban and seemed quite fine afterwards, but Marvolo died quite soon after being released Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From elsa_bard at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 06:46:19 2006 From: elsa_bard at yahoo.com (elsa_bard) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:46:19 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610121714i17acb31n69857b309daca7d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159582 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > There is every indication that House Elves are not personal property > but are in fact real property. (in the same sense of the word in which > land itself, or buildings, or fixtures within buildings, are real > property) Elsa: However, we have seen that House Elves can be (unlike fixed real property) shifted from one location to another. A freed House Elf can shift to another location, for example. I believe if Harry takes up residence in a different house (he really doesn't seem keen on living at 12 GP) Kreacher would still be his. If he took Kreacher to his new home, I don't think ownership of Kreacher would transfer if he sold 12 GP. Elsa From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 11:48:36 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:48:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: House elves loyalty In-Reply-To: <026501c6ee27$04edb3e0$ecd3ced1@UnicornsPride> References: <026501c6ee27$04edb3e0$ecd3ced1@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610130448j253d580ufe73ba4e905eaef3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159583 > > Lana: > > Could you elaborate? I am not sure that I understand then. > If it means nothing, then why was it such a big deal in POA? It > has to mean something if everyone was so riled up about it. montims: as I understand it, there are 2 separate issues: Sirius is Harry's godfather AND his appointed guardian. That he was Harry's godfather (and best man at the wedding) made it such a terrible betrayal when he was believed to have led LV to GH. That he was Harry's guardian meant that he could sign Harry's permission slips, have Harry to live with him, and leave all his possessions to him if he wishes. All things being equal, a godfather just has to look out for the child and give him gifts and advice occasionally. (Leaving aside any religious duty, as these were English wizards, and apparently secular, like most Brits). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 11:58:54 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:58:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50610121714i17acb31n69857b309daca7d1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610130458x164dfdf9u98867dc4fe9937ac@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159584 > > Elsa: > However, we have seen that House Elves can be (unlike fixed real > property) shifted from one location to another. A freed House Elf can > shift to another location, for example. I believe if Harry takes up > residence in a different house (he really doesn't seem keen on living > at 12 GP) Kreacher would still be his. If he took Kreacher to his new > home, I don't think ownership of Kreacher would transfer if he sold 12 > GP. montims: taking it further then - Harry has inherited 12 GP, as well as Kreacher. Do people believe that if he sells GP, Kreacher remains as "fixtures and fittings" with the house, and belongs to the new owners? I would have expected him to stay with the family, notwithstanding all his ancestors' heads... For example, the Malfoys - up and coming family - I can't imagine every time they move (if they do - my speculation, not canon) they have to leave behind (or kill) their house elves and then reacquire others (with the new house or at some kind of a market - where ARE house elves bought and sold?). If I think about it at all, I envisage house elves as something like the loyal family dog, that sticks with its family through thick and thin, but is sometimes abandoned by them beside some motorway, or given away to another family... Now the Weasley ghoul belongs to the Burrow, and will not follow any of the Weasley members if they move. I suspect this is another detail of JKR's, used for dramatic and comedic purpose, but not intended to be investigated in such depth... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 12:12:21 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:12:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610130512o5ff541d3la45d5caab178831b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159585 > > Magpie: > He seems like somebody who might be quite happy leading an ordinary > life. The > moment after Dumbledore tells them that Dudley's terribly abused is > probably supposed to underscore how awful they are, but it's just > kind of funny?they aren't offended, because they are happy with each > other. So do Dumbledore's words have any meaning outside of his own > judgment of the family that they don't care about? montims: see, I don't really understand this problem with the Dursleys at all. Until Harry is thrown into the mix, they are a family whose members are happy and secure with each other, and "normal, thank you very much". If Harry had never arrived, they woiuld have continued, content in their lifestyle - Petunia happy at home raising Dudley and entertaining for Vernon's business - Vernon doing well at work, and pleasing the clients enough to get a holiday home in Majorca, as well as other perks. So they're not great parents? At least they all love each other. It was throwing Harry in the mix that upset things. And if he had been chubby, and instinctively went along with their mindset, and if his hair had conformed, and he hadn't shown any magical ability, they might still have rubbed along fine together. But he was the grain of sand in their oyster shell... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From annemehr at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 12:28:36 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:28:36 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159586 > Alla: > > And after book 6 it is rather clear to me that that is what JKR is > > trying to promote - that Dudley was abused too, but I am just soo > > not buying it, I mean I am buying it on intellectual level, but not > > on the emotional, because JKR did not manage to make me feel one > > ounce of sympathy for Dudley. I want to buy Dursleys as abused > > child and want to sympathise with him. Help me? > > > Jen: Well, I can't help because I have a problem with the whole > scenario myself. The primary reason is what you said above, emphasis > mine: "And **after** book 6..." > > Where was this concept in books 1-5? I'm not talking what I believe > in real life but what was actually written on the page. Weren't we > meant to laugh at the jokes about Dudley's size? Cheer when Harry > discovered he could threaten him with magic? Roll our eyes at the > Dursleys' stupendously poor parenting? > > I didn't know until Dumbledore's dramatic speech that I was supposed > to feel sorry for Dudley and consider him an abused child *in the > story*. That's a hard message to sell in my book when JKR spent 5 > books presenting Dudley as the boy we should love to hate. Annemehr: Well, that's just it, isn't it? "Meant to...?" "Supposed to...?" "Should...?" I'm thinking, it's "tempted to." JKR can't dictate our responses, even if she wanted to. She did lay out all the facts (we hope!), including Harry's point of view. And you both noticed the abuse yourselves, as you mention, on an intellectual level. I say "tempted to" because I think JKR does that on purpose -- she's hoping to entice readers to one reaction but is planning to reverse a lot of those impressions in book 7. Potentially, for a fair few of the characters. A "rude awakening" is inevitable for many of us, just because our reactions are so polarized about so many of them. Think Dumbledore is kind and wise, or a puppetmaster (or both)? Think Snape is a mean, evil bastard or one of the heroes of the story? Is Percy ultimately sympathetic, or the twins ultimately dangerous? Is Draco also a victim of his upbringing? It's all part of the fun. But if, in the end, my emotional response doesn't match his outcome, it's okay -- in that case JKR and I may differ on something. What I'm really hoping for is that I've sussed out the ultimate dispositions of the most interesting characters based on clues in the text, and despite any emotional red herrings JKR may have planted along the way. We'll see. Annemehr From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 12:25:05 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:25:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ways of the Wizarding World - are all sentences Life Sentences? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610130525g63cc027v88142e264cfbab6c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159587 > Cyril: > > In all cases, it seems that when someone is sentenced to Azkaban - > > it is a life sentence. There does not seem to be an option such as - > > Sentenced to Azkaban for the next 5 years. > > Ceridwen: > Grandfather Marvolo. He was sentenced to Azkaban and released after > three years, I think it was. I think the problem is that we rarely > hear about anything but the capital offenses, like killing twelve > Muggles and a wizard, and driving a couple permanently insane. montims: Sturgis Podmore sent to Azkaban for 6 months, Mundungus Fletcher sent to Azkaban for a time for impersonating an inferius, etc. I think it works well as an ordinary prison, and is a good deterrent. It is where the DEs are concerned that it became an instrument of extreme torture and injustice under Barty Crouch and again today (in the HP meaning of the word) - comparisons could be drawn with the 21st century throwing of so-called enemy combatants or dissidents into indefinite confinement without trial, and I don't know whether JKR intended that comparison to be drawn, but I do know that she promotes Amnesty International among other charities... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 12:54:40 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:54:40 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610121949h6bbb9dbbt77c5966f47bd3913@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0610121949h6bbb9dbbt77c5966f47bd3913@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610130554r5d95c7fft3f2bb4cb217c1aa3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159588 Lynda: > I would like to make a note here myself. I do think there is a strong > possibility that Snape made an unbreakable vow with DD. I do not, however, > think that it was in any way forced, but made of his own free will. As for > the UV being dark magic, I do not know that such is always true although > when used by dark wizards for dark purposes, of course it would be. I think a key 'lesson' we see in the books is that the ministry defines whatever it feels like as being dark or not. If the UV is only dark when used for certain purposes, why not also AK? Surely it would not be dark as a method of execution of murderers, it'd certainly be more humane/painless than the dementor's kiss. or even if then, still not for something as mundane as slaughtering livestock. Right or wrong, "dark magic" is defined in the books as specific spells or types of spells, not as "the intention of the wizard using it". And I think it's presented as being that there is something deeply wrong with that way of classification. -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 13:04:51 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:04:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610130458x164dfdf9u98867dc4fe9937ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50610121714i17acb31n69857b309daca7d1@mail.gmail.com> <8ee758b40610130458x164dfdf9u98867dc4fe9937ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610130604m28641cdcv76ed7a654ab241eb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159589 > montims: > taking it further then - Harry has inherited 12 GP, as well as Kreacher. Do > people believe that if he sells GP, Kreacher remains as "fixtures and > fittings" with the house, and belongs to the new owners? "House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like that" - one would assume, then, that if the Weasleys came into some money and bought such a house, they would then have house elves. > montims: > I would have expected him to stay with the family, notwithstanding all his > ancestors' heads... Why? They're house elves, not family elves, and it's never been ambiguous that it refers to "house" literally as in the place itself, not "house" as in bloodline/clan/whatever. The line I quoted above is probably the clearest textual evidence one way or the other, but the fact that they're based on the Brownies of myth strongly supports this view, as is the fact that Harry inheriting Kreacher was used as a test as to whether he'd inherited 12GP. If there was a chance that he might have inherited 12GP but not Kreacher along with it, it wouldn't have been a very useful test. If there was a chance of the opposite (inheriting Kreacher but losing 12GP), it would even have been dangerous to rely on that test. > montims: > For example, the Malfoys - up and coming family I got the impression that they were a fairly old and well-established family - i.e. they always had money (but maybe not always will - there's a theory I read once about Lucius being in serious financial debt as of book 2 and beyond) > montims: > I can't imagine every time > they move (if they do - my speculation, not canon) they have to leave behind > (or kill) their house elves and then reacquire others (with the new house or > at some kind of a market - where ARE house elves bought and sold?). One would assume that if they did (for whatever reason) move, they wouldn't buy a house that was small enough to lack elves unless they had to (and, if they did have to, e.g. the debt theory above, then they'd just have to live without having any) -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 13:11:24 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:11:24 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ways of the Wizarding World - are all sentences Life Sentences? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610130525g63cc027v88142e264cfbab6c@mail.gmail.com> References: <8ee758b40610130525g63cc027v88142e264cfbab6c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610130611v39de17ap4791a68b5d6c2d5a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159590 > montims: > I think [Azkaban] works well as an ordinary prison, and is a good deterrent. It is > where the DEs are concerned that it became an instrument of extreme torture I think it's always been an instrument of extreme torture - there's no reason to think the dementors haven't always been there. The WW is not a nice place. JKR has said that it's no better than the real world, and it's only better for Harry because he meets nice people. I think that Azkaban is probably the wizarding equivalent of "Federal PMITA Prison", with Dementors acting as a substitute for the PMITA. (if you don't know what that stands for, watch Office Space) except there apparently aren't any other, 'nicer' prisons. Maybe there were before Crouch, maybe not - who knows? -- Random832 From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 13:35:17 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 08:35:17 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ***WHAT IF.........???*** In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610130635g493a023w5a4acfea385764ba@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159591 On 10/12/06, cadtitanic wrote: > > It were the Dursleys ( Petunia & Vernon ) that got killed in a car > crash and Dudley went to live with Lily, James & Harry Potter ??? I > just wonder what treatment the Potters would give toward Dudley??? > My guess is that he would immediately become a part of this loving > & caring family. WITH love AND discipline. > > Your thoughts ??? Hmmmm ??? montims: Or he could be made to feel a complete squib and a freak, and mocked by all their smart wizarding friends (we're assuming a lack of LV, right, so just life as normal?) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Oct 13 13:53:52 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:53:52 -0000 Subject: Dark Arts (was Re: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130554r5d95c7fft3f2bb4cb217c1aa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159592 > Random832 > Right or wrong, "dark magic" is defined in the books as specific > spells or types of spells, not as "the intention of the wizard using > it". And I think it's presented as being that there is something > deeply wrong with that way of classification. Potioncat: Actually, I think it's the other way around. I think JKR is saying that some acts are Dark regardless of the intention and that those Dark Arts have a negative effect on the person performing them. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 13 13:54:53 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:54:53 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130604m28641cdcv76ed7a654ab241eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159593 Random 832: > Why? They're house elves, not family elves, and it's never been ambiguous that it refers to "house" literally as in the place itself, not "house" as in bloodline/clan/whatever. The line I quoted above is probably the clearest textual evidence one way or the other, but the fact that they're based on the Brownies of myth strongly supports this view, as is the fact that Harry inheriting Kreacher was used as a test as to whether he'd inherited 12GP. If there was a chance that he might have inherited 12GP but not Kreacher along with it, it wouldn't have been a very useful test. If there was a chance of the opposite (inheriting Kreacher but losing 12GP), it would even have been dangerous to rely on that test. Ceridwen: I was under the impression that testing to see if Kreacher was really Harry's was a test of the validity of Sirius's will, not merely of his ownership of #12. Both Kreacher and #12 are willed to Harry. If one is valid, then the other would be valid as well. It would be more sensible to summon Kreacher if possible, than to traipse over to #12 when it could be that Bellatrix has inherited through some sort of entailment (property could only be passed on to blood relations, for example) and was now ensconced as Mistress of the House. The Order had temporarily moved headquarters because of this possibility, if I recall right. Of course, I could very well be reading this wrong. *g* I have only read one story about a brownie. But I recall that the householders were worried that the brownie might get it into his head to leave. House elves are tethered to whatever it is they are tethered to, and can only be released by being given clothes. I can certainly see where they have come from the brownie story or legend, but there are significant differences in the Harry Potter series. Random 832: > One would assume that if they did (for whatever reason) move, they wouldn't buy a house that was small enough to lack elves unless they had to (and, if they did have to, e.g. the debt theory above, then they'd just have to live without having any) Ceridwen: The Malfoys, or at least Lucius, have always reminded me of an up-and- coming family rather than a very old, established family. Not that Lucius is the first of his family to have money and position, but that the bloom hasn't left the rose yet. Lucius seems to be active and dynamic in his social roles and obligations, making at least the show of concern for the well-being of the students in his role as a governor of the school. I've read the theory that Lucius has been strapped for money since CoS, too, and it is an interesting idea. Greasing the wheels, being seen as some sort of patron, requires a lot of money. Either there is a business connected to the fortune - manufacturing, trade, farming - or Lucius is spending beyond his means when he provides the best brooms for the Slytherin team among any other expenditures. This is a future investment, not one to bring quick cash. The theory that I read also suggests that he has found some way of supplementing his income, although it may not be enough to bring the fortune back up to suitable levels. I can see Lucius doing what he needs to do to maintain his position in the WW, even to the extent of living in a smaller home and without house elves. I had a harder time imagining Narcissa in the same position before HBP. Now, I think it's possible that she too would do whatever is necessary for the family. I think it would be harder on Draco, since he probably wouldn't have much of a say in the matter, and only an imperfect idea of why it would have to be, if the Malfoys keep anything from him. While he seems to know a lot about his father's business, his parents might try to shield him as much as possible from this sort of harsh reality. Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 13:56:06 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:56:06 -0000 Subject: Dark Arts (WAS Re: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130554r5d95c7fft3f2bb4cb217c1aa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159594 random832: > I think a key 'lesson' we see in the books is that the ministry > defines whatever it feels like as being dark or not. If the UV is only > dark when used for certain purposes, why not also AK? Surely it would > not be dark as a method of execution of murderers, it'd certainly be > more humane/painless than the dementor's kiss. or even if then, still > not for something as mundane as slaughtering livestock. > > Right or wrong, "dark magic" is defined in the books as specific > spells or types of spells, not as "the intention of the wizard using > it". And I think it's presented as being that there is something > deeply wrong with that way of classification. zgirnius: I am not so sure we are supposed to think all spells are innocuous, it is all in how you use them. There's the issue Bellatrix brings up, when she taunts Harry about his inability to use the Cruciatus Curse, of whether the successful use of some (dark) spells requires 'dark', 'anti- social', 'evil', or however you want to term it, feelings/intentions on the part of the caster. Perhaps it is really best to slaughter livestock and execute murderers using Muggle means, than for wizards to do so using their minds and magical powers. When the Ministry authorized the use of Unforgivables by Aurors, Dumbledore did not approve. While Dark Magic is sometimes referred to in ways suggesting it is widespread and not such a big deal (like Sirius claiming Snape, as a kid, was up to his neck in it) I have tried to keep a running list of actual bits of magic that someone knowledgeable has called Dark, and they are all fairly nasty pieces of magic: 1) Horcruxes (so dark it is not in the library) 2) The cursed necklace 3) The cursed ring (both these curses apparently deadly to the run-of-the-mill witch/wizard if an expert like Snape is not around to provide treatment in a timely manner, both Dark because this is why Snape treated them, not Pomfrey) 4) The creation of Inferi (Snape's definition in DADA class states a Dark wizard would do this) 5) The restoration of Voldemort's body 6) Sectumsempra (Snape states that it is Dark Magic in the HBP chapter of the same name) 7) The three Unforgivable Curses. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 13 13:58:03 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:58:03 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dragonarm1979" wrote: > > Carol wrote: > > > > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the > > Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the > > books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. > > dragonarm1979: > Martin Luther King Jr.'s widow and children have tried to ban all > the books. I live in South Carolina and they had a very welcome > reception in my town because here a lot of people believe freedom of > speech and expression should be quashed because after all did God > give these rights in the Bible. You are right whomever you speak of > is crazy, because she does not realize what country she lives in and > the GOD-given rights that we are supposed to have. The Kings's > tried to have all major bookstores ban the books, but thanks to the > MANY loyal Harry Potter fans that did not go over so well with the > big corporations. People ultimately fear what they do not > understand and it robs them of their ability to reason. So, > honestly, I believe we should feel sorry for these people and their > inability to open their minds to fantastic literature. > Ken: The woman is not crazy, just wrong. All kinds of people in every society that has ever existed have tried to ban things they do not like, often successfully. Liberal atheists are as likely to ban things as conservative religionists. Both will also do the inverse: try to force you to adopt behaviors that they believe are correct. I am a conservative Christian, a Baptist, and I have never had anything against Harry Potter. In the beginning no one had any problems with him but I did not read the books because I rarely read children's literature. Even when I was a child I tended to read books that were above my age level and so I have read almost none of the common children's books. And then, one by one, prominent and obscure conservative christians in the US started coming out against Harry. My reaction was "here we go again, people who've never read the books are going to give society at large another reason to ridicule us". And I was right, that is exactly what has happened. I have seen it happen too many times to be taken in by the concern over Harry Potter, even for an instant. The problem is that the Bible proscribes witchcraft and sorcery. That is why some conservative Christians oppose HP and not Star Wars which in many ways is the same story and just as "magical". Conservative Christians take the Bible literally and will rarely if ever bend it to fit modern social ideas. And that is fine as long as we do not try to impose our beliefs on others. In this case though I, and quite a few others if this list is representative, do not believe that the magic portrayed in HP is the type of magic that the Bible proscribes. Biblical magic is all about opposing God and skirting God's will. It is something that evil people seek out in order to further their evil plans. As we here all understand the witches and wizards in the HP books are people that God (for those of us who believe in God) created with the natural gift of doing magic. This is not our world, it is our world with this one very important difference. Those who are able to do magic in the Potterverse are no more rebelling against God by doing magic than those of us with the ability to do calculus are when we do calculus. The evil among us can indeed use any human gift that they possess to act in opposition to God's will and the evil people in the Potterverse do likewise. Clearly the good people in the Potterverse are using their gifts to oppose those who do evil. What more could a Christian ask? It seems to me that the HP books are overtly neutral on the subject of religion. But they come out quite clearly in support of good over evil. That stance is compatible with every religion that I have any familiarity with. So, I wasn't the least bit interested in having these books banned and in fact I do not believe that banning books is compatible with the constitution or traditions of the United States. I wasn't going to read them simply because they were children's books. My plan was to just watch the movies on DVD. When the first one came out I put it on my Christmas list. My sister-in-law didn't catch the DVD part and decided that I should have not one, but all four--of the books. That is how I became a Harry Potter reader. My religious beliefs are about as conservative as anyone's but I was not reluctant to read the books because they were about witches, I was reluctant because I do not generally find children's books interesting. Ms. Rowling has proved to me that this is not universally the case and even though I might sound quite critical of the books when I get wound up on a topic on this list, I genuinely enjoy them. As an engineer I naturally gravitate toward problems with the books because fixing problems is an engineer's delight. If I had children I would encourage them to read Harry Potter, there is no conflict between them and a fundamentalist Christian faith. Conservative Christianity is not a monolithic society of inflexible robots. We are individuals and our opinions vary widely. All humans can be curiously blind to things that should be obvious. The founders of the United States argued the cause of freedom nightly at their dinner tables with great force and never once considered extending these noble ideals to the black slaves who served their dinner and listened to this table talk of freedom with broken hearts. And now the heirs of the man who challenged us all to finally make good the promise of freedom and equality for all and to judge our fellows on their character, not the color of their skin, make the same mistake with Harry Potter. They are judging him on an inherited physical characteristic, not on his character. But let's not judge them too harshly either because we all are inconsistent in applying the principles we believe in. The thing to do is to try to help each other see our individual blind spots. As the Bible says, two are better that one because when one stumbles, the other may help him up (from the Ken Hutchinson paraphrase edition). Ken From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Oct 13 14:11:28 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 10:11:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159596 >Lynda: >I just listened to SS again last week when I was doing housework. Vernon >Dursley "hitting Dudley around the head" was mentioned. That's actionable. >Should be for both kids really. Not letting a kid out of his room other than >for bathroom breaks could also be considered abusive. What's most >compelling though, is the way Harry reacts to Vernon. Keeps out of his way, >due to his temper and his reach. That's not good. Nikkalmati BTW we have talked about DD placing Harry with the Dursleys and what authority he had or did not have to do that. What about Harry's position in the Muggle world? Who authorized the Dursleys to take him and who arranged it? Was he adopted or given out as a foster child? In that case, wouldn't he have a case worker? You can't just take in a child without formalities. Especially when he goes to school, the authorities are going to say: wait a minute, who are you and who is this child? Nikkalmati >Pippin >When he bullies we don't see him taking pleasure in scaring or hurting >people the way Draco does -- Dudley does it to impress his gang and keep >them entertained. Maybe that was the point of naming the victim Evans? >It could be Dudley's not as different from James as you might think. Nikkalmati I certainly felt some sympathy for Petunia when she revealed her feelings about her sister because she was obviously someone who had suffered as a child. It is so often true that poor parenting is passed down more frequently than an inheritance. She doesn't know how to parent Duddley and he is suffering as a result ( she also made a poor choice of marriage partner ). We have not seen any good qualities in Duddley, so it is hard to have feelings for him, unlike Draco whom we have seen suffer and who has love for his family. Duddley has shown no feelings for his parents and hasn't any self-awareness. Maybe he will thank Harry for saving him from the Dementors some day, but until then I can't identify with his situation. As for James, I was appalled at his behavior in the Pensieve and I don't believe it was intended by JKR to be an exaggeration. OTOH there was probably more to James than the spoiled, rich bully revealed in that scene. He did work for the Order and DD seemed to like him. .Nancy >.So... what baggage are the adults all carrying? Snapes past eludes me. Also.. DE... >I .really can't grasp how >they work, why they become DE etc. Nikkalmati I think JKR has given us a hint in the Pensieve scenes why Snape went to LV. He apparently came from a poor home and maybe an abusive one. He was bullied at school and we have seen in RL that bullying can result in violent acting out. That may be all we ever get to know. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 13 14:24:43 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:24:43 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610130512o5ff541d3la45d5caab178831b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159597 > > montims: > see, I don't really understand this problem with the Dursleys at all. Until > Harry is thrown into the mix, they are a family whose members are happy and > secure with each other, and "normal, thank you very much". Pippin: They thought they were normal. But Dudley was "kicking his mother all the way up the street, screaming for sweets" before Harry arrived. Petunia was already unable to assert herself against her child's demands. My "armchair psychologist" opinion is that she subconsciously feared that if she set limits for Dudley, her son would reject her the way her sister and parents did (in her perception.) As for Vernon, he considered it normal to spend the morning shouting at his colleagues. He thinks bullying is normal. But my guess is Dudley knows it isn't, because he's defensive about his treatment of Mark Evans. Vernon and Petunia keep up a facade of contentment (though how quickly it crumbles under any threat) but when have we ever seen Dudley looking contented? Someday it's going to dawn on him that he's never really been happy, and since he's been taught that his parents are responsible for the way he feels, Petunia's fear of rejection will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Annemehr: I say "tempted to" because I think JKR does that on purpose -- she's hoping to entice readers to one reaction but is planning to reverse a lot of those impressions in book 7. Potentially, for a fair few of the characters. Pippin: Exactly. When have our sympathies ever been a reliable guide to the nature of a Potterverse character? In the real world, those who suffer are seldom made cute and cuddly by their ordeals. We forget that the sweet, resiliant Oliver Twist/Harry Potter types whose stories are told to sell novels and newspapers are not a representative sample and we think we would automatically feel sympathy for any abused child. IMO, JKR means to show us how wrong we are. Arguably, Dudley needs help far more than Harry does, but how many of us have ever felt moved to hope that he gets it? Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 13 14:39:15 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:39:15 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159598 > Pippin: > When he bullies we don't see him taking pleasure in scaring or hurting > people the way Draco does -- Dudley does it to impress his gang and keep > them entertained. Maybe that was the point of naming the victim Evans? > It could be Dudley's not as different from James as you might think. Magpie: I'm not sure what you mean about either Dudley or James here. They do indeed take pleasure in scaring and hurting people--isn't that what bullying mostly is? Impressing and entertaining your friends is also a plus, something I don't see as much different in Draco, but this just seems an odd distinction to make. Canonically, bullying seems to be one of Dudley's favorite pastimes that he does, imo, do for fun--Harry is his "favorite punchbag" at 11. That he, like James, seems less personally desperate to wound as Draco does at times doesn't make him enjoy bullying less. Draco also has what's described as a vague obsession with the "Dark Arts"--dark, scary things appeal to him, though he's just as afraid of them as attracted to them, it seems. The other main difference between Draco and these other two when focusing on this one aspect of their personalities seems to me to simply be that Draco, unlike the other two, gets hurt or humiliated back--that's what brings out the more serious need to hurt others. When he's more secure in his position of power he gets more pleasure out of it--he is like James, Dudley and Snape, taking pleasure in hurting or scaring others. Of the three James and Dudley are far more successful at bullying--and are ironically the less conflicted characters. -m From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 14:44:36 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:44:36 -0000 Subject: Dark Arts (WAS Re: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159599 > random832 wrote: > > I think a key 'lesson' we see in the books is that the ministry > > defines whatever it feels like as being dark or not. If the UV is only > > dark when used for certain purposes, why not also AK? Surely it would > > not be dark as a method of execution of murderers, it'd certainly be > > more humane/painless than the dementor's kiss. or even if then, still > > not for something as mundane as slaughtering livestock. > > > > Right or wrong, "dark magic" is defined in the books as specific > > spells or types of spells, not as "the intention of the wizard using > > it". And I think it's presented as being that there is something > > deeply wrong with that way of classification. If you remember correctly, the Ministry of Magic (at Barty Crouch Sr.'s urging)approved the use of the Unforgivable Curses against Death Eaters and Voldemort. How else do you think Harry got away with using the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix? She's a Death Eater, so his use of this was legal. The Avada Kedavra curse will come in handy against Voldemort. Harry needs to learn how to properly perform it though. I think that the Unforgivable Curses are only illegal if used against people, so the livestock thing is actually possible. Just wondering if it would alter the meat of the livestock and it would be edible or not? HMMMM. If it doesn't alter it, then Harry could kill two birds with one stone. Learn how to do the curse so he'll be ready to face Voldemort and have supper too ;) Jenni from Alabama From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 13 14:54:58 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:54:58 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159600 Annemehr: > Well, that's just it, isn't it? "Meant to...?" "Supposed > to...?" "Should...?" I'm thinking, it's "tempted to." JKR can't > dictate our responses, even if she wanted to. She did lay out all > the facts (we hope!), including Harry's point of view. And you > both noticed the abuse yourselves, as you mention, on an > intellectual level. > I say "tempted to" because I think JKR does that on purpose -- > she's hoping to entice readers to one reaction but is planning to > reverse a lot of those impressions in book 7. Potentially, for a > fair few of the characters. Jen R.: Hey, Annemehr! I don't rule out tempted to, not at all. Just that ultimately I think any reversals are meant for Harry rather than the reader. If JKR's goal is to write the story for herself rather than 'entice' the reader, which is her stated intention, then she is taking Harry through the journey of discovery. That's why I do think something will come of the Dementor memory with Dudley, something which will spark sympathy in Harry. Likely the same will happen with Snape, IMO. We've already seen moments of Harry identifying with both Dudley and Snape (when Dudley described the feeling Dementors invoke and after the Pensieve scene with Snape). Sympathy could be the next step in both situations if JKR intends for Harry to grow in his compassion. That's basically what I meant about Dumbledore's speech. Why introduce a new concept into the mix when all the story called for is Dumbledore to come down on the Dursleys for their treatment of Harry? Maybe there's going to be more to it, his speech will initiate a change in Petunia perhaps. That would be great as long as it leads somewhere or ties into the reasons behind Petunia's mystery. If it's left hanging though, the moment will be a 'but...why?' part of the story for me. Annemehr: > A "rude awakening" is inevitable for many of us, just because our > reactions are so polarized about so many of them. Think > Dumbledore is kind and wise, or a puppetmaster (or both)? Think > Snape is a mean, evil bastard or one of the heroes of the story? > Is Percy ultimately sympathetic, or the twins ultimately > dangerous? Is Draco also a victim of his upbringing? Jen R: Haven't these already happened though? I'm not waiting for huge awakenings anymore since OOTP. Her reversals started in the eyes of Harry during that book and have kept on coming. Snape will likely be the last one, but there JKR introduced an ambiguity that could go either way. That's consistency to me, when you leave a door open for the possibility. Dumbledore's sudden interest in Dudley's welfare is admirable, but inconsistent with his characterization up to that point. I can better accept a character with a different agenda from mine than one who appears to act passionately for no particular reason. Annemehr: > But if, in the end, my emotional response doesn't match his > outcome, it's okay -- in that case JKR and I may differ on > something. What I'm really hoping for is that I've sussed out the > ultimate dispositions of the most interesting characters based on > clues in the text, and despite any emotional red herrings JKR may > have planted along the way. Jen R: Everyone will likely have a different process to go through when all is said and done. I may feel disappointed along the way but ultimately will make peace. That's my hope anyway. Just as Dumbledore's speech was long forgotten once we entered the cave, any problems I have will dissipate in the wake of the *whole* story instead of the sum of the parts. Jen R. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Oct 13 15:44:26 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:44:26 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159602 Pippin: > Exactly. When have our sympathies ever been a reliable guide to > the nature of a Potterverse character? In the real world, > those who suffer are seldom made cute and cuddly by their ordeals. > We forget that the sweet, resiliant Oliver Twist/Harry Potter types > whose stories are told to sell novels and newspapers are not a > representative sample and we think we would automatically feel > sympathy for any abused child. IMO, JKR means to show us how wrong > we are. > Arguably, Dudley needs help far more than Harry does, but how > many of us have ever felt moved to hope that he gets it? Jen: One paragraph does not a reversal make. It's more like venting. Funny, I don't feel wrong to hold my opinion that Harry's likely identification with and sympathy for Dudley will be more important than my own. I don't need JKR to tell me about the reality of abused children when her entire series justifes that particular issue so her plot will work!! When have our sympathies been a reliable guide? Well, I'm willing to bet my sympathy for Harry is right on the money. That my feeling of compassion for the beleagured Order members, despite their flaws, will not turn out to be a 'gotcha' by JKR. That believing in the Weasley family will not steer me wrong. That agonizing with and cheering for the Trio will not end up in a surprising twist. I've already confirmed to my own satisfaction that Dumbledore was meant to be essentially good after HBP. Sympathy is a movable feast. I don't think JKR is toying with readers so much as prioritizing her plot over her characterization sometimes. She's definitely willing to sacrifice adult characters to keep the children as the heroes. We see this in the graveyard, the MOM battle, Dumbledore's 'mistakes' in OOTP, the Shrieking Shack, and so on. That's fine, it works in the story. The moral high ground is a slippery slope though. Jen R. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Oct 13 15:45:52 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:45:52 EDT Subject: Azkaban (was Ways of the Wizarding World ) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159603 >montims: >Sturgis Podmore sent to Azkaban for 6 months, Mundungus Fletcher sent to >Azkaban for a time for impersonating an inferius, etc. Nikkalmati: ok, how do you impersonate an inferius? Why would MF do that? Does anybody know what that is about? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 13 15:47:26 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:47:26 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159604 > Jen: > Where was this concept in books 1-5? I'm not talking what I believe > in real life but what was actually written on the page. Weren't we > meant to laugh at the jokes about Dudley's size? Cheer when Harry > discovered he could threaten him with magic? Roll our eyes at the > Dursleys' stupendously poor parenting? Hickengruendler: I'm not sure how much in the minority I am, but I felt sorry for Dudley from the first chapter in PS onwards, when we saw him as a baby/toddler. His behaviour wasn't that bad at this time (obviously, given his age), even though he undoubtedly showed already first signs of what he would become. But then was still the time for Vernon and Petunia to correct this, in not giving their son everything he wants. Personally, I was already apalled by their parenting skills even before I knew how they would treat Harry, simply because by the glimmer we saw of them raising Dudley. Another reason, why I think JKR encourages us to have some sympathy for Dudley, is the regular come-uppances he gets, starting in chapter 2 of PS, with the birthday trip to the zoo and practically continuing over the whole course of the storyline. In many ways, despite his horrible behaviour, Dudley is still an innocent. At the very least he was so in the first couple of books. And yet he always gets the worst punishment of the Dursleys. Compare what happened to him to what happened to Vernon and Petunia, and it's obvious that he always has the worstd eal of all the Dursleys. In fact, *nothing* bad ever happened to Vernon and Petunia personally within the storyline, except for the bouncing glasses in HBP, (which was the most harmless Dursley-magic incident of them all). The destroyed Living Room does not count, as Arthur repared the damage at once. IMO telling is the scene, where Hagrid fetches Harry from the Dursleys. Dudley, nasty as he may be otherwise, did absolutely *nothing* wrong here, and was just cowering in the corner. And yet he is the one, who gets the pigtail in the end, because Vernon insulted Dumbledore. So Dudley literally had to pay for the "sins" of his parents. The movie producers seem to have their problems with the scene as well, as they invented Dudley eating the cake, so that Hagrid had a better reason to hex him. There are other scenes pretty similar to this in course of the books. Of course the counter argument would be, that the scenes are mostly comical, except for the Dementor attack. We are not meant to feel sorry for Dudley, but rather laugh at him. But I'm not sure, if this is really the whole truth. We for example know now after the climax of HBP, that some of the twins' pranks lead to Fenrir Greyback entering Hogwarts and to Bill's face being disfigured forever. (In a way, Fred and George's storyline in HBP mirrors Percy's in Goblet, in that all of them aid unwittingly the Death Eaters Eaters, simply by being themselves and because of their flaws). Therefore the TTT scene with the nearly choking-to-Death Dudley can easily interpreted as foreshadowing, that the Twins recklessness and carelesness might have much bigger consequences, then they themselves intend, even if the main character doesn't agree with this, and despite of the overall grotesque tone of the scene. And from this point of view, it's only one more step to feel sorry for the victim of the prank. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Fri Oct 13 16:00:04 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:00:04 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159605 > > Ken: > >Liberal atheists are as likely to ban things as conservative >religionists. Tesha: No, I do believe you're quite wrong. Liberals would like you to read everything, and cogitate deeply and discover your own belief. And as an Agnostic, I feel that anything that makes you be a better person is fine - but it is your "doing" - not your "saying" that makes it so. In fact the "Liberal atheists' would probably do just the opposite of "ban" books, they're likely to hand you a book and say.."What do you think now?" HP and all the other banned books should be the FIRST you read! So what would you say the world can learn from HP that would make better people of all of us? Loyality? Strength? Study? what else? From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 13 16:26:46 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:26:46 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159606 Jen: > When have our sympathies been a reliable guide? Well, I'm willing to > bet my sympathy for Harry is right on the money. That my feeling of > compassion for the beleagured Order members, despite their flaws, > will not turn out to be a 'gotcha' by JKR. That believing in the > Weasley family will not steer me wrong. That agonizing with and > cheering for the Trio will not end up in a surprising twist. I've > already confirmed to my own satisfaction that Dumbledore was meant > to be essentially good after HBP. > > Sympathy is a movable feast. I don't think JKR is toying with > readers so much as prioritizing her plot over her characterization > sometimes. Pippin: Maybe I should have said infallible, not reliable. Weren't we supposed to feel sorry for p-poor, stuttering Professor Quirrell? For poor but brilliant, parentess but brave Tom Riddle? As for readers feeling they've been toyed with, of course that never happens, just ask any H/H shipper . Some people think that because there haven't been any startling reversals lately, JKR is all through with them. But then, the wizards let themselves think that Voldemort was finished just because he'd been quiet for a while. And IMO JKR's satirical purpose is to show us that while we're happy to think we could be as brave and noble as the Trio, we're more than likely to resemble her characters in their faults as well. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 16:38:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:38:18 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159607 > Jen R: >> When have our sympathies been a reliable guide? Well, I'm willing to > bet my sympathy for Harry is right on the money. That my feeling of > compassion for the beleagured Order members, despite their flaws, > will not turn out to be a 'gotcha' by JKR. That believing in the > Weasley family will not steer me wrong. That agonizing with and > cheering for the Trio will not end up in a surprising twist. I've > already confirmed to my own satisfaction that Dumbledore was meant > to be essentially good after HBP. Alla: I will say even more - so far my sympathies did not suffer one reversal whatsoever, at least not a complete reversal. There is always book 7, but I doubt so. I mean, I certainly am harsher on Dumbledore in general than I am used to be ( I used to be quite harsh on some of his deeds, but in general like him a lot), but all I have to do is indeed to reread the cave and a lot of it comes back. Jen R: > Sympathy is a movable feast. I don't think JKR is toying with > readers so much as prioritizing her plot over her characterization > sometimes. She's definitely willing to sacrifice adult characters to > keep the children as the heroes. We see this in the graveyard, the > MOM battle, Dumbledore's 'mistakes' in OOTP, the Shrieking Shack, > and so on. That's fine, it works in the story. The moral high ground > is a slippery slope though. Alla: YES, precisely. I think it is a pity, but I do think that a lot of her adult characters took a hit to sustain the plot. > Pippin: > Maybe I should have said infallible, not reliable. Weren't we supposed > to feel sorry for p-poor, stuttering Professor Quirrell? For poor but > brilliant, parentess but brave Tom Riddle? As for readers feeling they've > been toyed with, of course that never happens, just ask any > H/H shipper . Alla: Weren't we? I don't know, I know that I certainly did not have time in one book to care for them that much as to feel sorry for them. Honestly, I did not dislike them, but I did not sympathise with them either, I was indifferent and I think that was done on purpose for the reversal to not be as radical as to go from sympathy to hatred, but from indifference to hatred, in my case at least. Because when JKR wants to she certainly could make me feel for the character in one book - Sirius, Lupin, Cedric after all. Pippin: > Some people think that because there haven't been any startling > reversals lately, JKR is all through with them. Alla: Hehe, there is one reversal I do not expect to happen :) But if it would be, I sure will be the first to bow to your greatness publicly. JMO, Alla From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 16:44:43 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:44:43 -0000 Subject: Inferni (was Azkaban /was ways of the WW) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159608 > Nikkalmati: > > ok, how do you impersonate an inferius? Why would MF do that? Does anybody know what that is about? > Tonks: Very interesting question, which brings up even more questions. We know that Dung is both a sneak-thief and a member of the Order. He must have been doing it for one of these reasons. I wonder where and under what circumstances he was caught? He could have been just trying to scare someone into giving up their money or something. On the other hand if it involved his work for the Order this bit of information could be one of those throw away lines that really mean sometime that we need to explore. And there is also the possibility that he was trying to get IN to Azkaban to spy there. I had assumed that Inferni were only in the cave, but I guess that they are not. Very creepy idea, even for an Auror, I tell you! LV and the DE are using them, for what purpose? Is it just to terrorize and scare people or is there some other purpose? If Dung was working for the Order, what could he have been doing and why? Is it important to the rest of the story? And back to the WOMBAT test. Can Inferni talk? I said that they can't. I think we really need to know the correct answer to that question. The Inferni in the cave were very creepy because Harry saw them come to life, but what if they are used, as some here have suggested, to impersonate themselves so that others don't know that they are dead? If someone was killed and then the body was used for LV's end, really, how is that all that much different that putting someone under Imperious? I would think that unless they were a powerful wizard that could fight the Imperious, it would be better to use them while they were still alive. Of course Inferni can not be killed, so that could be a reason to send them into a conflict where you thought a real person would be killed. And thinking about all of this, making an Inferni is a violation of the human being in the worse possible way, other than splitting of the soul. Every culture has respect for the dead, so to use their bodies in this way is a violation of the highest form, IMO. Pure Evil. Tonks_op From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 13 12:49:17 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:49:17 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159609 Sherry/NightShade wrote: >> Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always so depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. << Jo Serenadust: >> Coming out of years of lurkdom to say "certainly not!" to the thought of Ron turning to the dark side. << Tinktonks says: Here here to the defence of Ron!!!!!!!!!!! I am a HUGE Ron fan, he is my favorite character. I think we are all guilty of bending the rules we want to, and feeling a bit sorry for ourselves - or jealous. Ron is a very understandable character. Not a bad guy - just a guy!!! Dah dah dahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh If I got a penny for everytime my boyfriend was rude, sarcastic, jealous, showed low self-esteem or self pity I'd have enough money to buy all the HP merchandise in the world MWAH HA HA.. All strangeness aside WE LOVE RON, leave him be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tinktonks From senorkhoa at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 13:56:02 2006 From: senorkhoa at yahoo.com (senorkhoa) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:56:02 -0000 Subject: What do you think? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159610 Which spell do you think is the strongest in all the book? From courtneyccox at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 13:16:41 2006 From: courtneyccox at yahoo.com (Courtney (Cox) Grauvogl) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:16:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159611 > > chandelle: > > I am new to the group but from what I've read Harry's a > > goner. Would we really want to see him as a heroic figure > > and then live the rest of his life teaching at Hogwarts > > and leading a normal life? I don't want his character to > > die but after Voldemort is killed (which we know will > > happen) what does Harry have to do? > > Julie: > Nothing I've read has said Harry's a goner. At least nothing > from JKR. She's said she understands why some authors kill off > their main characters, but she's never said she plans to do so. > In fact she's let slip a couple of comments that seem to > indicate Harry will have a future beyond book 7. > > That's how I expect the saga to end, with the bang of > Voldemort's demise, and the comforting knowledge of Harry's > continuing existence outside our purview. Courtney: I'm not sure exactly which route to think; however, in an interview (can't remember which one) JKR has said that there will be NO MORE Potter books, which leads me to believe that she will somehow end it so that no OTHER author can pick the story up and run with it (barring any trademark or rights issues). I really hate to think that it will end in Harry's death, however, she may have some other ingenious way that will satisfy both theories. Courtney From pswann at kc.rr.com Fri Oct 13 14:29:42 2006 From: pswann at kc.rr.com (Swann, Patricia) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 09:29:42 -0500 Subject: Why Snape turned, Snape and Lily Message-ID: <00C05AEDD0982640A4F8A246E68D97F2015C14C3@kcexch1.mri-kc.int> No: HPFGUIDX 159612 > Neri: >> In this case Snape would have *two* motivations to "turn" - Lily and his life debt to James. So even assuming we will find in Book 7 that he was in love with Lily, how can we ever know for sure what was the relative importance of each of these two motivations in his decision? << PS: Or...how about this? Lily is actually Snape's sister or half- sister? (Snape and Petunia look somewhat alike, after all.) He discovers this after Lily dies and is remorseful. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 17:20:36 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:20:36 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130604m28641cdcv76ed7a654ab241eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > I can't imagine every time they move (if they do - my speculation, not canon) they have to leave behind(or kill) their house elves and then reacquire others (with the new house or at some kind of a market - where ARE house elves bought and sold?). > Steven1965aaa: House elves need not stay with the house. For example, Harry sends Kreacher to go work in Hogarts, in the kitchens. In a system of slavery, slaves are considered the property of the owner. If that applies to the WW, then as a slave Kreacher was Sirius' personal property. Sirius had a Will in which he left all his property to Harry. From k.coble at comcast.net Fri Oct 13 17:21:15 2006 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:21:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8657BAEA-E77F-4E13-B984-CDC8977A03A0@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159614 > Courtney: > I'm not sure exactly which route to think; however, in an > interview (can't remember which one) JKR has said that there > will be NO MORE Potter books, which leads me to believe that > she will somehow end it so that no OTHER author can pick the > story up and run with it (barring any trademark or rights > issues). I really hate to think that it will end in Harry's > death, however, she may have some other ingenious way that > will satisfy both theories. Katherine: JKR has long said that one of her favourite books is _The Little White Horse_ by Elizabeth Goudge. I tracked that book down at my local library and read through it for possible clues to JKR's story-telling methods. I think she'll end book 7 in a similar way to TLWH. That book had many confrontations, a heroine who triumphed over evil and a chapter of epilogue. I think HP will end similarly, with a decent "where are they now" ending. As for there being no more Potter books, I think I recall her saying that there will be no more Potter stories but there may be future books about Hogwarts, TWW, and other encyclopaedic works. K d [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Oct 13 17:51:48 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:51:48 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159615 > > Alla: > > I will say even more - so far my sympathies did not suffer one > reversal whatsoever, at least not a complete reversal. There is > always book 7, but I doubt so. |snip| > > Weren't we? I don't know, I know that I certainly did not have time > in one book to care for [Quirrell and Tom Riddle] that much as to feel sorry for them. > Honestly, I did not dislike them, but I did not sympathise with them > either, I was indifferent and I think that was done on purpose for > the reversal to not be as radical as to go from sympathy to hatred, > but from indifference to hatred, in my case at least. Hickengruendler: I mostly agree with you. I think part of this is also because both of them had very limited screentime. Riddle was only in one scene prior to the revelation, and Quirrell only had very few appereances. Therefore I guess while one could easily like them, or feel sympathy for them, I also think it is very hard (I won't say impossible), to have them among your favourite characters prior to the reversal. Of course it is possible, but JKR gave them less time to shine than other characters, even secondary ones. However, what about the fake Moody? Granted, we learn that he's not the real Moody, therefore we can still like Mad-Eye. But nonetheless, neither Harry nor the readers ever met the real Mad-Eye prior to the end of GoF. The person, who gained our trust and sympathy, was the villain. Of course I don't know how much symapthy you personally had for the fake Moody, but he definitely got more screentime than the previous surprise villains. And he also was the first villain, whom Harry definitely trusted, and who was nearly a mentor for him. That's definitely a difference to how Quirrell (about whom Harry really did not care at all) or Tom Riddle (whom Harry didn't really know, although he sort of identified himself with him) were portrayed. From tonks_op at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 17:54:14 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 17:54:14 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159616 > > Ken: > > > >Liberal atheists are as likely to ban things as conservative > >religionists. > > Tesha: > > No, I do believe you're quite wrong. Liberals would like you to > read everything, and cogitate deeply and discover your own belief. And as an Agnostic, I feel that anything that makes you be a better person is fine - but it is your "doing" - not your "saying" that makes it so. > > In fact the "Liberal atheists' would probably do just the opposite of "ban" books, they're likely to hand you a book and say.."What do you think now?" > > HP and all the other banned books should be the FIRST you read! > > So what would you say the world can learn from HP that would make > better people of all of us? Loyality? Strength? Study? > what else? Tonks: I agree with Ken on this one. Liberal atheists DO try to ban as many things as the Conservative Christians do. Basically they try to ban anything that has any religious overtones, everything from "under God" in the pledge of allegiance to the term "Merry Christmas", not just in government but in the whole of society. And they do ban books from schools too. As to what do the Harry Potter books teach all of us? How do they help us become better people? Let us begin with the saying of DD. All around us people are quoting what I call "wise words of wisdom" from DD. From him we have learned much. We have learned the power of Love, we have learned the importance of loyalty to your friends, and we have learned to do what is right over what is easy, we have learned to look for the best in people. That is only the beginning; I could go on and on. Since folks here are labeling themselves, I will have to say, as many of you old timers know, I am what can be called a Liberal Christian. I am a high church Episcopalian. From my POV, I see the HP books as the teaching of Jesus written in such as way as to take the `label' out of it and serve it up for all people in all places, no matter what their religious beliefs. And this is a very good thing. As Ken said many Christian do things that shed a bad light on all of us and on Christianity as a whole. I myself was once an Atheist and I know the shear hatred that I use to have for `those people'. Many people the world over feel as I once did and this closes their minds to the good that can be found in the teaching of Jesus. JKR has said time and again that there is something about her religious belief that she does not want us to know until after the last book. I think it is because she has rewritten the Good News so that all can hear it openly without bias. I also think if we look at the person of DD and his teaching we will see the teaching of Christ. I love the fact that he is a really cool wizard. Tonks_op From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 13 18:14:04 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:14:04 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159617 > Tonks: > I agree with Ken on this one. Liberal atheists DO try to ban as > many things as the Conservative Christians do. Basically they try > to ban anything that has any religious overtones, everything > from "under God" in the pledge of allegiance to the term "Merry > Christmas", not just in government but in the whole of society. And > they do ban books from schools too. Magpie: OTT, but this is a pet peeve of mine. I do agree with Ken that conservative Christians don't have the monopoly on censorship by any means--there are countries where religion has been banned so it can hardly be said that being an atheist=being tolerant or open-minded. It just means you lack a belief in a deity. However, removing "under God" from the Pledge of Allegience is not an example of such. It simply removes a statement in the belief of a deity from a Pledge that has nothing to do with such--two words that were only added in the 1950s in order to connect a certain religious belief with having allegience to the American flag, two things that do not have to go together at all. (The idea was to say that we weren't communists--we all believed in the entity called "God" in America.") Nor have I seen any evidence that anyone has tried to ban "Merry Christmas" from the whole of soceity. Every time I've heard of this it's been someone claiming that anyone using the more inclusive "Happy Holidays" (which has always been an alternate greeting for Christmas-celebrators since it includes New Years) instead of the more specific "Merry Christmas" is some sort of attack on Christmas. Sorry, but it really irritates me when anyone claims that not making everyone say they believe in God in any way equates to banning God from society. As to what the HP books teach, it probably can't be boiled down. I tend to think they teach rather wonky lessons a lot of the time, so I hold off from commenting, but obviously the kids are against bigoted slurs, they stand up for people who are being picked on. I think the best lessons are yet to be learned when we see the chances Dumbledore takes with Slytherins pan out, and especially when Harry learns to work with people who don't make it easy. (Perhaps then I'll see "right versus easy" in action--I haven't seen it much yet, to be honest.) -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 13 18:26:49 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:26:49 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159618 > Magpie: > I'm not sure what you mean about either Dudley or James here. They > do indeed take pleasure in scaring and hurting people--isn't that > what bullying mostly is? Impressing and entertaining your friends > is also a plus, something I don't see as much different in Draco, > but this just seems an odd distinction to make. Pippin: The bullies in JKR's books all scare and hurt people but they don't all have the same motives for doing it. JKR shows Draco lighting up when he thinks someone is going to get hurt. That's not something we see in either James or Dudley, though we do see it in Pettigrew. I got the impression in the pensieve scene that if James had happened to think of another way of showing off in front of the girls and keeping Sirius entertained, he would have used it. He was perfectly happy messing around with the snitch until Sirius told him to lay off. Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 13 18:30:14 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:30:14 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159619 Ken: > >Liberal atheists are as likely to ban things as conservative > >religionists. Tesha: > No, I do believe you're quite wrong. Liberals would like you to read everything, and cogitate deeply and discover your own belief. And > as an Agnostic, I feel that anything that makes you be a better person is fine - but it is your "doing" - not your "saying" that makes it so. In fact the "Liberal atheists' would probably do just the opposite of "ban" books, they're likely to hand you a book and say.."What do you think now?" Ceridwen: I think that anyone, liberal or conservative, Christian, Athiest or Agnostic, will try to force people into thinking or acting a certain way if they strongly feel it would be beneficial, or to prevent others from reading or viewing something they strongly feel should be restricted. I believe this is the core of such deep-seated beliefs, that the person believes strongly enough that they also believe that their personal feelings should inform everybody else. That is one reason why I think, in part, that one aspect of Harry's story will be for him to have to re-think some of the beliefs he has held dear throughout the books. I think there was a small taste of this in OotP when he went into Snape's memory in the Pensieve and saw his father acting like less than the Noble Hero. Harry's world was shaken at that point, and he went so far as to feel ashamed of his father's actions and to begin to feel some sympathy for Snape. That was shattered as fast as Snape could break a jar of cockroach parts, but the emotion was there, even if fleetingly. I think it will be one of the things which will return to haunt, then to strengthen, Harry in Book 7. And, it's an ongoing process. Harry is growing up. Children who have their parents go through a time when they see their parents as very flawed and very *wrong*, out of step, out-dated. The Pensieve memory allowed him that sort of revelation despite his parents' absence from his life. *Everyone* has their blind spots. Part of life is learning to grow past them. Funny that this whole fundimentalist flap echoes what I believe to be one of the themes in the books themselves. Ceridwen. From cadtitanic at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 18:34:03 2006 From: cadtitanic at yahoo.com (Mare Cad TITANIC) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What do you think? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061013183403.19408.qmail@web34912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159620 senorkhoa wrote: > Which spell do you think is the strongest in all the book? The strongest is the A K curse, the killing curse is NOT reversable, erog, the most potent. Cadtitanic Marianne ( Mare ) CadTITANIC From unicornspride at centurytel.net Fri Oct 13 17:55:55 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 12:55:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Future References: Message-ID: <018101c6eef0$d4fcb210$8bd3ced1@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 159621 >>Courtney: >> which leads me to believe that >>she will somehow end it so that no OTHER author can pick the >>story up and run with it (barring any trademark or rights >>issues). I really hate to think that it will end in Harry's >>death, however, she may have some other ingenious way that >>will satisfy both theories. Lana: Playing devils advocate here... I am not sure that there is any real way to stop someone from bringing the character back other than the protection of copyright laws. A very creative person could come up with a storyline to bring anyone back. Even from death. I would not appreciate anyone but JKR bringing our characters to life. I would be more likely to be offended. I would probably read them, but wouldn't be a HUGE supporter of the author like I am with JKR. Realistically killing Harry wouldn't be a definitive way to make sure that Harry doesn't come back. Just like a storyline could be made to bring Sirius or Dumbledore back. Which I would LOVE to see happen. Hugs, Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 13 18:47:16 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:47:16 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159622 > Pippin: > The bullies in JKR's books all scare and hurt people but > they don't all have the same motives for doing it. > > JKR shows Draco lighting up when he thinks someone is going to > get hurt. That's not something we see in either James or > Dudley, though we do see it in Pettigrew. I got the impression in > the pensieve scene that if James had happened to think of another > way of showing off in front of the girls and keeping Sirius entertained, > he would have used it. He was perfectly happy messing around with > the snitch until Sirius told him to lay off. Magpie: But what's the important distinction? I tend to agree with Elkins' view that Draco's "lighting up" moments are the ones where he's teetering on the edge--when Voldemort is doing his thing. He looks "hungry" at the idea of Harry being punished in OotP, but that's no different than Harry and his friends feel at him being punished. But what's the significance that James is simply amused at humiliating Snape or Dudley just grins or whatever he does when he beats on Harry? It's just that to me it seems like Draco's the character being shown to be far more conflicted at the same time as reacting to more disturbing things. His whole character is connected to things far darker than James and Dudley. I just don't see how this makes them any less enjoying their bullying that they just casually enjoy picking on Snape to pass the time while Draco looks bright eyed and flushed at the site of a petrified cat. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 19:02:28 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:02:28 -0000 Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159623 bboyminn wrote: > > I've always said that magic is just science we haven't > discovered yet. I also think the central general public > would probably react well, OK moderately well, but it > is not the general public we have to worry about, it is > those 'off-center'. > > So, while I can speculate perfectly logical reasons why > magic could exist and why its knowledge would be > infinitely valuable to modern science, I really fear the > social and psychologial aspects of it. I still claim that > those with financial, political, military, religious, and > moral power and wealth would fight to control or attempt > to destroy magic if it were discovered in our modern > world. > > Further, those with finacial, political, military, > religious, and moral power and wealth also have tremendous > influence over the sheep that follow them. If religious > fanatics can rally so much support against a quaint book > of fiction, I shutter at their reaction to it being real. > > Chaos I tell you, chaos; social upheaval and riots in the > streets. I know it is a sad thought, a sad commentary on > human existance, and hopelessly pessimistic, but I think > to deny it is naive. > Carol responds: Without getting into the scientific aspect of what makes magic work (and JKR is as much of a scientist as I am, meaning none at all), I think the point is that some people are born with magical ability and some aren't. It can't be acquired: it's in the blood. So Wizards can live without modern technology or imitate it without (much) cost to themselves (e.g., fire without fuel, "wireless" without electricity) and with no harm to the environment (no fossil fuels or atom splitting, for example). Unfortunately, these options aren't available to Muggles. I'm not sure about riots in the streets, but I'm certain that if Muggles discovered that magic really existed it would do them no good at all. JKR has said that Muggles can't use wands, cast spells, or even brew potions. I disagree that magic is science that hasn't been discovered yet; I think it's something else altogether, a form of power that's forever denied to any Muggle. Some Muggles might be happy to discover that a relative or wife or husband had such a power (think of the money you'd save on electricity if that power could be used undetected), but many others would be envious of such "unnatural" powers. Could a witch or wizard live comfortably among neighbors who knew of his or her powers? Probably not, even if his or her safety was not in question. And mass hysteria does occur even in advanced civilizations. I can see why the Wizards want to live undisturbed and undetected, with their own values (however politically incorrect) and customs and traditions, even if there's no danger of persecution, effectual or otherwise in our supposedly enlightened times. Carol, who feels that she's mixed two topics in this post and hopes that her message isn't hopelessly jumbled From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 19:16:40 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:16:40 -0000 Subject: House-elves loyalty In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130604m28641cdcv76ed7a654ab241eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159624 --- "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > montims: > > taking it further then - Harry has inherited 12 GP, as > > well as Kreacher. Do people believe that if he sells > > GP, Kreacher remains as "fixtures and fittings" with > > the house, and belongs to the new owners? > Jordan (Random): > > "House-elves come with big old manors and castles and > places like that" - one would assume, then, that if the > Weasleys came into some money and bought such a house, > they would then have house elves. > bboyminn: But let us examine /why/ Elves come eith big old manors and castles. I suspect that humble as they are Elves have pride. The measure of a house-elf's worth is the quality of the family he serves. What self-respecting House-Elf would want to serve a homeless bum? On the other hand, at the annual House-Elf's Ball (figuratively), who wouldn't want the bragging rights to working for an old-money pureblood prestigious house like that of Malfoy, Crouch, or Black. I'm sure many a drunken brawl has broken out at the House-Elf's Ball over who serves the best family. So, in that context, House-Elves coming with big old manors and castles can be explained in the context of the family living in that manor or castle. It is true? Can I prove it? No, but that is my story and I'm sticking to it. > > montims: > > I would have expected him to stay with the family, > > notwithstanding all his ancestors' heads... > Jordan/Random: > > Why? They're house elves, not family elves, and it's > never been ambiguous that it refers to "house" literally > as in the place itself, not "house" as in > bloodline/clan/whatever. > bboyminn: I used the term 'super-patriarch' to refer to the current supreme authority within a family. His house (the building) is the center of his House (the family). Being tied to the patriarch, means being tie to the house the patriarch lives in. However, don't you suppose that if the Patriarch moved into another house, that his current house-elves would move with him? They seem extremely loyal and dedicated to the family members, and I can't imagine that they would not move together. Especially when you consider that generations of a bloodline of house-elves serve generations of a bloodline of a family. In Sirius's case, being the last of his direct line of decendancy, that made him the super-patriarch of that family. He had more control and authority being in the directly line than any tangental cousins would have. Therefore, it is Sirius who decides the fate of the family fortune and property, and by extension, it is he who decides the fate of Kreacher. Kreacher must follow the will and the Will of the family patriarch and the family patriarch said that Kreacher would now serve the House of Potter, who was also the new owner of all the direct-line Black family possessions including the Black House. So, yes, in a sense, Kreacher and the house go together, but only because the Patriarch of the House willed it to be so. Under other circumstances, Sirius could have just as easily have willed that this cousin gets the house, this cousin gets the money, and that cousin gets Kreacher. Which should indicate, if you accept the premise, that Kreacher is property to be willed and directed at the discretion of the current leader of the House of Black. > Jordan/Random: > The line I quoted above is probably the clearest textual > evidence one way or the other, but the fact that they're > based on the Brownies of myth strongly supports this > view, as is the fact that Harry inheriting Kreacher was > used as a test as to whether he'd inherited 12GP. If > there was a chance that he might have inherited 12GP > but not Kreacher along with it, it wouldn't have > been a very useful test. ... > bboyminn: I agree with others that the 'Kreacher test' was not a test of Kreacher's ownership as a unique and individual aspect. I think it was a test of the Will and it's validity. It was a test as to whether Sirius has the authority to determine the fate of the Black family estate which included Kreacher. Since Kreacher was bound to obey Harry, it indicated that Sirius not only had the authority but that he had excersized that authority properly; no technical loopholes. An additional point, someone raise the question, though I can't find the post at the moment, what would happen if the Weasley suddenly came into a fortune and were able to buy a new mansion? Would the house-elves be part of the mansion or would they have to find house-elves on their own? I think it could go either way. I think it is possible the estate of the deceases owner of the mansion may have included his own house-elves as part of the deal. But it would be owner's choice, I don't see the elves automatically attached to the house. If the new mansion did not come with elves, then the Weasleys would just go down to the House-Elf Relocation Office at the Ministry of Magic and review whatever house-elves were currently between 'jobs', then select one or two that suited them. While not specifically stated, it is likely that the 'House Elf Relocation Office' is on Level Four which is the 'Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures'. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 19:23:18 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:23:18 -0000 Subject: WOMBAT In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610081939j238902f2h4b91383c87a4e45e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159625 > Mark Hyder wrote: > > > > What's the origin of WOMBAT and how relate to Harry > > Potter? > > > > How did JK Rowling came up with the word? > > > > montims: > "Wizards' Ordinary Magic and Basic Aptitude Test" > and I hope I don't get into trouble for that being a 1 line answer... Carol responds: To elaborate a teeny bit, it's an animal-based acrony, like NEWT (Nasty Exhausting Wizarding Tests, IIRC) and OWL (Ordinary Wizarding Level), so WOMBAT is just a test for Muggles to reveal our knowledge of the WW, roughly paralleling the tests that the Hogwarts students have to take but with no essays and no practical component. Owls, of course, are used as pets and for mail delivery (at least, the magical ones are) and newts are (IIRC) an ingredient in potions and must have some magical qualities. Wombats, OTOH, are just large rodents that resemble large hamsters or small capybaras. I think that JKR chose a thoroughly unmagical animal that started with "W" (so that "Wizard" could fit into the acronym) and made up the rest of the name to fit the letters in the word (as she must also have done with NEWT and OWL, both of which also contain a W). Carol, just speculating, naturally From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 19:33:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:33:00 -0000 Subject: Impersonating Inferius ( was: Azkaban ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159626 --- puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > >montims: > >... Mundungus Fletcher sent to Azkaban for a time for > > impersonating an inferius, etc. > > Nikkalmati: > > ok, how do you impersonate an inferius? Why would MF do > that? Does anybody know what that is about? > > Nikkalmati bboyminn: Mundungus is a sneak-theif, and not the most savory of characters. Most likely he used the current fear of inferius to enter a home with the intent of robbing it, and in the event that the owners discovered him, he could sufficiently intimidate them but impersonating an inferius that it would allow him time to make his escape. As to how one impersonates an inferius, I think that is reasonably simple. As an illustration, ask one of your young sons or daughters, nephews or neices, or neighbor kids to impersonate a Zombie, which is essentially what a Inferius is, and I'm sure they will all do exactly the same thing. They will walk around stiff legged and stiff necked with their arms out in front of them staring blankly forward. I suspect impersonating an inferius would be roughly the same. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Fri Oct 13 19:36:49 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:36:49 -0000 Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159627 > Carol responds: > Without getting into the scientific aspect of what makes magic work > (and JKR is as much of a scientist as I am, meaning none at all), I > think the point is that some people are born with magical ability and > some aren't. It can't be acquired: it's in the blood. Tesha: Or maybe not in the blood, how about in the brain? And extra lobe that focuses energy or allows a specific chemical release? or anything? We don't know the function of most of the brain anyway - why not make "magic" just another no-yet-understood function of the human brain? This could be why young wizards and witches can't control it - and why they spend so much time in school learning to develop it. Perhaps puberty begins the real magic time - and Neville was late evelopmentally. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 13 19:50:24 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:50:24 -0000 Subject: Inferni (was Azkaban /was ways of the WW) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159628 Tonks: *(snip)* > And back to the WOMBAT test. Can Inferni talk? I said that they can't. I think we really need to know the correct answer to that question. The Inferni in the cave were very creepy because Harry saw them come to life, but what if they are used, as some here have suggested, to impersonate themselves so that others don't know that they are dead? If someone was killed and then the body was used for LV's end, really, how is that all that much different that putting someone under Imperious? I would think that unless they were a powerful wizard that could fight the Imperious, it would be better to use them while they were still alive. Of course Inferni can not be killed, so that could be a reason to send them into a conflict where you thought a real person would be killed. Ceridwen: It's interesting that the singular, 'Inferius', sounds a lot like 'Imperius'. Animating the corpse is very much like forcing someone to do one's bidding, though it is no longer a violation of that person's will, since the personality, soul and spirit are no longer left. It would be frightening indeed to have a Dark wizard like Voldemort in charge of the re-animated corpse of someone dear, or someone in a position of authority, a dead Scrimgeour, for instance, as the living Crouch was under Imperius in GoF. If they could talk, and if someone didn't know that person was dead, then it would be even worse, if the Inferi was someone trusted as well as dear. The Inferi could lead unsuspecting people into traps, or lead them into accidentally giving information to LV. Ceridwen. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Fri Oct 13 20:07:49 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:07:49 -0000 Subject: Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159630 > Tesha: > Or maybe not in the blood, how about in the brain? And extra lobe > that focuses energy or allows a specific chemical release? or anything? > We don't know the function of most of the brain anyway - why not make > "magic" just another no-yet-understood function of the human brain? > > This could be why young wizards and witches can't control it - and > why they spend so much time in school learning to develop it. Perhaps > puberty begins the real magic time - and Neville was late evelopmentally. > Tesha: First let me apologize for the typos - I need to vaccum my keyboard again (crackers for lunch). Thank you for understanding... now, I went to the lexicon to read the official word on how magic works and I found this... "There are three properties to a spell, and physical laws aren't involved at all. The three are intention, focus of power, and focus of mind." This fits in perfectly with the theory of the magic working because of the brain of the witch or wizard. What do you think? From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 13 20:09:28 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:09:28 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tesha" wrote: Ken: > >Liberal atheists are as likely to ban things as conservative > >religionists. Tesha: > No, I do believe you're quite wrong. Liberals would like you to > read everything, and cogitate deeply and discover your own belief. And > as an Agnostic, I feel that anything that makes you be a better person > is fine - but it is your "doing" - not your "saying" that makes it so. Geoff: Speaking purely personally, I would agree with the sentiment of your last sentence except that I believe that the "anything" has to be from a Christian angle. Tesha: > In fact the "Liberal atheists' would probably do just the opposite of > "ban" books, they're likely to hand you a book and say.."What do you > think now?" > > HP and all the other banned books should be the FIRST you read! > > So what would you say the world can learn from HP that would make > better people of all of us? Loyality? Strength? Study? > > what else? Geoff: Well, obviously: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." (1 Corinthians 13:13 New International vesion of the Bible) And, before you say it, I agree that's true for anybody..... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 13 20:33:38 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:33:38 -0000 Subject: Harry's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159633 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Courtney (Cox) Grauvogl" wrote: > > > > chandelle: > > > I am new to the group but from what I've read Harry's a > > > goner. Would we really want to see him as a heroic figure > > > and then live the rest of his life teaching at Hogwarts > > > and leading a normal life? I don't want his character to > > > die but after Voldemort is killed (which we know will > > > happen) what does Harry have to do? > > > > Julie: > > Nothing I've read has said Harry's a goner. At least nothing > > from JKR. She's said she understands why some authors kill off > > their main characters, but she's never said she plans to do so. > > In fact she's let slip a couple of comments that seem to > > indicate Harry will have a future beyond book 7. > > > > That's how I expect the saga to end, with the bang of > > Voldemort's demise, and the comforting knowledge of Harry's > > continuing existence outside our purview. > > > Courtney: > I'm not sure exactly which route to think; however, in an > interview (can't remember which one) JKR has said that there > will be NO MORE Potter books, which leads me to believe that > she will somehow end it so that no OTHER author can pick the > story up and run with it (barring any trademark or rights > issues). I really hate to think that it will end in Harry's > death, however, she may have some other ingenious way that > will satisfy both theories. Geoff: JKR has said in the FAQ section of her website that it is very unlikely that she will write any further HP novels. If she holds to this, then under UK copyright, no one else can use the characters as long as copyright remains in force - which I think currently is 50 years so that would, for the foreseeable future, be a correct presumption. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 20:38:47 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:38:47 -0000 Subject: House elves loyalty In-Reply-To: <026501c6ee27$04edb3e0$ecd3ced1@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159634 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" wrote: > > > > > Lana: > > But... Harry is family and the owner of the house. Isn't he? > Since Sirius is Harry's God-Father, that makes him heir to the > house and the son of a Black. Maybe not by blood, but definitely > by law. > > < a_svirn: > < No, he most definitely isn't. Not even in canon law, much less > < in common or civil law. > > Lana: > > Could you elaborate? I am not sure that I understand then. > If it means nothing, then why was it such a big deal in POA? It > has to mean something if everyone was so riled up about it. > > Lana > I didn't say it means nothing. I only pointed out that Harry's being Sirius's godson does not make him his son and heir by law. a_svirn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 20:48:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:48:42 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159635 > > Alla: > |snip| > > > > Weren't we? I don't know, I know that I certainly did not have time > > in one book to care for [Quirrell and Tom Riddle] that much as to > feel sorry for them. > > Honestly, I did not dislike them, but I did not sympathise with > them > > either, I was indifferent and I think that was done on purpose for > > the reversal to not be as radical as to go from sympathy to hatred, > > but from indifference to hatred, in my case at least. > > Hickengruendler: > > I mostly agree with you. I think part of this is also because both of > them had very limited screentime. Riddle was only in one scene prior > to the revelation, and Quirrell only had very few appereances. > Therefore I guess while one could easily like them, or feel sympathy > for them, I also think it is very hard (I won't say impossible), to > have them among your favourite characters prior to the reversal. Of > course it is possible, but JKR gave them less time to shine than > other characters, even secondary ones. > > However, what about the fake Moody? Alla: Hmmm, Moody is an interesting thing. I am trying to remember what was my emotional reaction about him when I read the book the first time and while I do not remember everything for sure, I remember one thing - I did not sympathise with Fake Moody fully either. Of course I did not suspect that he was a villain or anything like that, he was just, I don't know - too cold for me, I guess. Again, I cannot guarantee that this was my reaction after the first read, since I had plenty of time to read it again and again and again, but I think so. It is like while I could respect the character, I guess, I did not feel much for him either. Even when he tells Harry that he would make a good auror, something that would help me sympathise with the character a great deal ( a genuine affection for Harry), for some reason that did not do the trick either. As I said, do not want to give an impression that I suspected anything, certainly not, but even in the case of Moody that was not a complete reversal either. But when we discovered real Moody, who spent several months in the truck, helpless, bound, etc. Oh, YES - when I imagined this hardened in the battles, tough Auror who could not do anything about what happened , then when I was able to sympathise with Real Moody. JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 21:05:15 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:05:15 -0000 Subject: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130604m28641cdcv76ed7a654ab241eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159636 >Jordan Abel: > "House-elves come with big old manors and castles and places like > that" - one would assume, then, that if the Weasleys came into some > money and bought such a house, they would then have house elves. a_svirn: Or one could assume that they could buy a house and an elf separately. > > > montims: > > I would have expected him to stay with the family, notwithstanding all his > > ancestors' heads... > >Jordan Abel: Why? They're house elves, not family elves, and it's never been > ambiguous that it refers to "house" literally as in the place itself, > not "house" as in bloodline/clan/whatever. The line I quoted above is > probably the clearest textual evidence one way or the other, a_svirn: No, it isn't. There are clearer lines in COS: "The wizard family Dobby serves, sir ... DOBBY'S is a house-elf - bound to serve one house and one family ffor ever ..." "A house-elf must be set free, sir. And the family will never set Dobby free ... Dobby will serve the family until he dies, sir ..." The quotations above show that Dobby is bound to the family, rather than to the house as a place. Granted, the first quote is somewhat ambiguous, yet still Dobby indicates that he's bound to a family. Also, there is the fact that house-elves are slaves to all intends and purposes. Slaves are personal property rather than real estate (as serfs for instance). >Jordan Abel: ... the > fact that they're based on the Brownies of myth strongly supports this > view, a_svirn: That hardly matters. All components of the Potterverse are based on some fictional or folklore characters, but they acquire another meaning in the world Rowling created. Besides, it is conceivable that initially house-elves were indeed very much like brownies and were bound to houses, however, after wizards tricked them into enslavement they become bound to them rather than to their houses. >Jordan Abel: as is the fact that Harry inheriting Kreacher was used as a test > as to whether he'd inherited 12GP. If there was a chance that he might > have inherited 12GP but not Kreacher along with it, it wouldn't have > been a very useful test. a_svirn: The test was based on the fact that Kreacher was part of the inheritance that's all. It would be tricky to scan the whole place for any known jinx and course, that would prevent am *impure*blood to inherit it, but it was easy to test Kreacher. >Jordan Abel: If there was a chance of the opposite > (inheriting Kreacher but losing 12GP), it would even have been > dangerous to rely on that test. a_svirn: I'd say it's dangerous in any case. But Kreacher was probably a primarly concern for Dumbledore. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 21:10:55 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:10:55 -0000 Subject: What do you think? In-Reply-To: <20061013183403.19408.qmail@web34912.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159637 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mare Cad TITANIC wrote: > Which spell do you think is the strongest in all the book? > > The strongest is the A K curse, the killing curse is NOT reversable, > erog, the most potent. > > Cadtitanic > Steven1965aaa: Love? Would Lilly's protection be considered a spell? According to Slughorn, the love potion was probably the most dangerous potion in the room. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 21:29:45 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:29:45 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130554r5d95c7fft3f2bb4cb217c1aa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159638 > Random832 > I think a key 'lesson' we see in the books is that the ministry > defines whatever it feels like as being dark or not. If the UV is only > dark when used for certain purposes, why not also AK? Surely it would > not be dark as a method of execution of murderers, it'd certainly be > more humane/painless than the dementor's kiss. or even if then, still > not for something as mundane as slaughtering livestock. a_svirn: Well, maybe it's not Dark in all those cases? I mean, Crouch Jr. did use all three unforgivables on spiders and the Imperius on his students. Granted, he was a villain in disguise, but he did not blow his cover by doing so. And his father authorised Aurors to use unforgivables as they saw fit. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 21:37:44 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:37:44 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159639 > >>Pippin: > > Exactly. When have our sympathies ever been a reliable guide to > > the nature of a Potterverse character? > > > > Arguably, Dudley needs help far more than Harry does, but how > > many of us have ever felt moved to hope that he gets it? Betsy Hp: I think part of the issue is that JKR takes an odd direction when she tries to build either sympathy or revulsion. So odd, IMO, that it leaves me not entirely sure of how she's wanting things to come across. Because by the time OotP came around I was actually kind of proud of Dudley for hitting back at Harry. And I'm not sure I was supposed to feel that way. (Of course, I can feel however I please, but I kind of like to have an idea of where the author is trying to take me.) JKR did a good job at the very beginning of the series, I thought, of sending Dudley up as your stereotypical bully; someone it's fun to sneer at. But then she started pulling out bits and pieces of her own foundation. Dudley is genuinely frightened when Vernon takes his family on that mad flight from the Hogwart's invites. He's about as innocent a victim as you can find when he gets hit by Hagrid. And he *knows* that Harry is stronger than him. By CoS, Dudley has taken Harry's old route of *verbally* taking on Harry ("don't you have any friends?"), because he knows he can't physically best Harry. So, JKR has *told* us that Dudley made Harry's life in elementary school a hell. But what we *see* is Dudley's life made hell by Harry and his much more powerful pals. (One wonders if Dudley doesn't roam his neighborhood for the same reason Harry did pre- Hogwarts. Trying to avoid the dangerous family member back home.) JKR does the same thing with Slytherin, and, IMO, the same thing with Draco. We're told Slytherin House is the big bad, and Draco swaggers like he's the cock of the walk. But we only ever see Slytherin lose. And Harry's a much bigger man on campus than Draco ever was, without putting in half the effort. > >>Jen R.: > > When have our sympathies been a reliable guide? Betsy Hp: After HBP, I think I was right to feel some sympathy for Draco. But... > >>Jen R.: > Well, I'm willing to bet my sympathy for Harry is right on the > money. That my feeling of compassion for the beleagured Order > members, despite their flaws, will not turn out to be a 'gotcha' > by JKR. That believing in the Weasley family will not steer me > wrong. That agonizing with and cheering for the Trio will not end > up in a surprising twist. I've already confirmed to my own > satisfaction that Dumbledore was meant to be essentially good > after HBP. > Betsy Hp: I do for the most part agree. Harry is and will remain, the hero we're supposed to be cheering for. The Order is on the right side (traitor in the ranks or no). Dumbledore had the right idea, even if some of his methodologies were a bit off. But Hermione worries me. Since HBP she worries me a lot. But am I supposed to be worried? And I think there's something rotten within the Weasley clan. But am I supposed to think that? It's those issues that throw me for a loop. And I'm honestly not sure if it's because JKR and I differ on some things, or if she's actually putting in stuff to trigger these sort of reactions. Betsy Hp From milcg at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 21:47:12 2006 From: milcg at yahoo.com (Mil) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:47:12 -0000 Subject: Ways of the Wizarding World - are all sentences Life Sentences? In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130611v39de17ap4791a68b5d6c2d5a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159640 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > I think it's always been an instrument of extreme torture - there's no > reason to think the dementors haven't always been there. Maybe there were before Crouch, maybe not - who knows? > Mil: IIRC, before Crouch, there were Dementors (Hagrid remembers that well)... But Dumbledore says he's always been against using Dementors in Azkaban (or any place for that matter, remember POA?) And further more... as of book 6, Dementors joined with Voldemort (Crouch told the Prime Minister this) so I'm guessing their using some other kind of gaurds for Azkaban right now... Aurors maybe? From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Oct 13 22:21:18 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:21:18 -0400 Subject: What do you think? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159641 senorkhoa : Which spell do you think is the strongest in all the book? doug: Fascinatus There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. ____________________ From vinkv002 at planet.nl Fri Oct 13 22:31:38 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:31:38 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159642 > > > Alla: > >> > > > > > Weren't we? I don't know, I know that I certainly did not have > time > > > in one book to care for [Quirrell and Tom Riddle] that much as to > > feel sorry for them. > > > Honestly, I did not dislike them, but I did not sympathise with > > them > > > either, I was indifferent and I think that was done on purpose > for > > > the reversal to not be as radical as to go from sympathy to > hatred, > > > but from indifference to hatred, in my case at least. > > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > I mostly agree with you. I think part of this is also because both > of > > them had very limited screentime. > > > > However, what about the fake Moody? > Renee: He had a lot of screentime, and Harry trusted him, but I began to feel uneasy about him from the moment he used the Unforgivables on the spiders, especialy Crucio. (Spiders don't have the best of reputations, but they're useful animals, and in the HP series they're the enemies of the IMO irreversably evil Basilisk.) The bouncing ferret scene sealed it for me: this was not a character I was going to root for. And by Book 4 I had learned not to trust too firmly in Harry's judgement. So, even though I never suspected "Moody" was really someone else, or that he had put Harry's name in the Goblet, I wasn't too shocked to find he was no good. Back to Dudley: even though it was obvious he was an unlikeable character, I always felt vaguely sorry for him, in a cartoonish sort of way that had nothing to do with true compassion. Though he's the least unpleasant of the Dursleys, he seems to be the scapegoat for the entire family. Maybe he deserves to be punished for his nastier actions, but he rarely deserves the "punishment" he actually gets. I would have felt far less sorry for Vernon. If there is a reversal, I'm inclined to say it started at the beginning of OotP: how many readers really wanted Dudley to be Kissed by that Dementor? And Dumbledore's little speech about Dudley in HBP is prefigured by his much longer speech at the end of OotP, when he essentially says that, yes, Harry's treatment by the Dursleys was bad, but it would have been worse if Harry had been "a pampered little prince" - like Dudley Dursley, for instance. DD's words in HBP are merely the logical consequence of this statement; he is absolutely consistent here. Renee [who suddenly thought of Snape when typing "pampered little prince" - he seems to have been anything but a pampered little half blood prince...] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 13 23:13:28 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:13:28 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159643 > Pippin: > > The bullies in JKR's books all scare and hurt people but > > they don't all have the same motives for doing it. > > > > JKR shows Draco lighting up when he thinks someone is going to > > get hurt. That's not something we see in either James or > > Dudley, though we do see it in Pettigrew. > Magpie: > But what's the important distinction? Pippin: I think there's an important distinction, especially for DDM!Snape theorists, because we have to ask, if James was a bully but got over it, then why didn't Snape, if he truly returned to the right side? JKR's answers could be that some bullies get a charge out of bullying, perhaps because they are damaged in a certain way, while others do not. If the bully's conduct is being reinforced internally and by society, then he will not able to feel that he is doing anything wrong, and he will not see any reason to change his ways. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 23:40:26 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:40:26 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159644 > >>Pippin: > > The bullies in JKR's books all scare and hurt people but > > they don't all have the same motives for doing it. > > > > JKR shows Draco lighting up when he thinks someone is going to > > get hurt. That's not something we see in either James or > > Dudley, though we do see it in Pettigrew. > >>Magpie: > > But what's the important distinction? > >>Pippin: > I think there's an important distinction, especially for DDM!Snape > theorists, because we have to ask, if James was a bully but got > over it, then why didn't Snape, if he truly returned to the right > side? JKR's answers could be that some bullies get > a charge out of bullying, perhaps because they are damaged > in a certain way, while others do not. If the bully's conduct > is being reinforced internally and by society, then he will not > able to feel that he is doing anything wrong, and he will not > see any reason to change his ways. Betsy Hp: Do we really see Snape, especially young!Snape as a bully though? I'd always seen him as a victim that took the wrong path in search of vengence. I'm not sure that I really do see a strong, identifiable, difference between certain forms of bullying and/or bullies. I'm not sure JKR is being that methodical. I can see various links and similarities between various characters, but I don't think they're that consistant. Actually, I think the links can be frustratingly *in*consistant for people looking for that sort of thing. (Even Harry falls down in trying to link characters together.) As to Draco lighting up when someone is going to get hurt, yes Pettigrew does the same thing, but so do Harry and Ron. It just depends on who is getting hurt. In many ways I think JKR is remarkably sloppy about things like that. Which is also frustrating. And I'm still uncertain about how much of that sloppiness is deliberate. Betsy Hp From milcg at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 22:35:05 2006 From: milcg at yahoo.com (Mil) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:35:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159645 > Julie: > Nothing I've read has said Harry's a goner. At least nothing from JKR. > As for what Harry has to do after Voldemort is killed, how about > "live"? Harry hasn't been able to do that yet, not without the > threat of death hanging over his head. Mil: Oooooh!!!... I so love the way you put that... just because the moment I read your post, the "... for shall neither can live while the other survives..." popped into my head instantly, it just fits in perfectly... Besides that, I totally agree with you... Harry after having all this time in this quest he deserves a bit of peace and quiet... still I'm guessing, he'll turn out to be a Dumbledorish kind of man... A man not looking for great praises or glory, but happy to help anytime he is needed (and helpful of course) just because of how much wisdom he'll end up with at such a young age... No, I don't think he'll be an Auror, but not because he didn't have his heart on it but because after demising LV he'll definitely have had his fair share of questing... Just my 2 knuts... MIL From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 22:52:05 2006 From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (sarah barthell) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:52:05 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159646 There are seven Weasley children: Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, George, Ron, and Ginny. Sarah Barthell From milcg at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 23:25:56 2006 From: milcg at yahoo.com (Mil) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:25:56 -0000 Subject: MY theory as to 'How It All Ends' ...I dispute the "Must Die" theory In-Reply-To: <17C133D2-19CF-412B-BA0A-4290677E36F2@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble wrote: Therefore, I think it is through > humanity that Harry will kill Tom Riddle, and the magic elements such > as Horcruxes have no bearing on Harry's having to die. > > Mil: I agree that *humanity* will play a big role in defeating LV... My take is that this bit of *humanity* is what DD has been saying all along: It's Harry's ability to *LOVE* that'll actually defeat LV (for it is the power LV knows not).... OK... here comes my 2 knuts... It is believed that the *ULTIMATE* demonstration of *LOVE* is *FORGIVENESS*... So in book 7, I believe, HP will go on with his quest on destroying the horcruxes... but he will be found one horcrux short before actually vanquishing LV. Yes, I'm a strong believer of Horcrux! Harry so... what will happen is that in his journey of looking for and destroying the other horcruxes he will actually also find a way to FORGIVE LV, this effectivly releasing the last (or actually 6th) bit of LV soul and thus, when LV comes in attack to HP, he yes will fight back and vanquish him but in a sort of "self-defense" way... Did this make any sense? I'll stop rambling now... hoping somebody actually understood what I was trying to say... MIL From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 01:36:05 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:36:05 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159648 Betsy Hp wrote: > I do for the most part agree. Harry is and will remain, the hero > we're supposed to be cheering for. The Order is on the right side > (traitor in the ranks or no). Dumbledore had the right idea, even > if some of his methodologies were a bit off. > > But Hermione worries me. Since HBP she worries me a lot. But am I > supposed to be worried? And I think there's something rotten within > the Weasley clan. But am I supposed to think that? > > It's those issues that throw me for a loop. And I'm honestly not > sure if it's because JKR and I differ on some things, or if she's > actually putting in stuff to trigger these sort of reactions. > hpfan_mom now: Hermione's actions in HBP were so interesting to me, not because she hasn't broken rules before (starting with lying about why the Trio had to take on the troll, moving on to taking a book from the Restricted Section, making Polyjuice Potion, etc.). But now her rule-breaking was directed against specific people and did not have such a noble purpose as before (bonds of friendship, fighting evil). IMHO, JKR needed to make it crystal clear how Hermione feels about Ron, besides her usual "Honestly, Ron!" with a big sigh. Apparently anvil-sized hints were not doing the trick. So in HBP we have a Hermione who performs the Confundus Charm on McClaggen, who sends canaries after Ron, who can be cruel, devious, downright mean, all because she really likes a boy. She's acting like a typical 16 year old girl with a crush, and that's pretty startling. I think that by the end of HBP she's settling into a more mature relationship with Ron. So I believe that in Book 7 we'll get our old Hermione back, more or less. With the added benefit of being in love, that "power the Dark Lord knows not." hpfan_mom From unicornspride at centurytel.net Sat Oct 14 01:14:12 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:14:12 -0500 Subject: Sirius and Harry legal relationship WAS: Re: House elves loyalty References: Message-ID: <012401c6ef2e$0f5c2930$c7c2e6cf@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 159649 a_svirn: I didn't say it means nothing. I only pointed out that Harry's being Sirius's godson does not make him his son and heir by law. Lana: I didn't mean to imply that you did. I guess I just figured since everyone made such a big deal of it, that it had to mean something big. Bigger than just words and signing permission slips.. Especially since it was backed by the will. Lana From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 02:22:22 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:22:22 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159650 > Betsy Hp: > I do for the most part agree. Harry is and will remain, the hero > we're supposed to be cheering for. The Order is on the right side > (traitor in the ranks or no). Dumbledore had the right idea, even > if some of his methodologies were a bit off. > > But Hermione worries me. Since HBP she worries me a lot. But am I > supposed to be worried? And I think there's something rotten within > the Weasley clan. But am I supposed to think that? Alla: So the preface that I of course cannot tell you how to feel, but you asked the question in regards of possible JKR intentions, right? I am going to answer it that way as I understand. Could be wrong obviously. NO, I am betting that JKR does not want you to feel that there is something wrotten within Weasley clan. They are supposed to be portrayed as the model of how family should be IMO in JKR's view. Now of course she gave them some flaws ( rows with Percy, etc), but IMO she contrasts them with Malfoys and Blacks and we supposed to see that Weasleys truly love each other, as families should. They fight of course, but love each other they do and they are at the right side too. I mean Malfoys and Blacks love each other too, but I guess on the wrong side of the equation. Oh, and since I am at telling you how to feel , may as well add that no Twins will not become DE either. Now, Hermione is actually more interesting situation. I am also pretty safe at betting that she should not worry you, etc, **but** the main reason I am doing so is because JKR as much as called Hermione her alter ego and I sincerely doubt that she would make her alter ego evil. Otherwise I would not feel as safe to bet that Hermione would not do something idiotic ( not evil but harmful) > Renee: > He had a lot of screentime, and Harry trusted him, but I began to feel > uneasy about him from the moment he used the Unforgivables on the > spiders, especialy Crucio. (Spiders don't have the best of > reputations, but they're useful animals, and in the HP series they're > the enemies of the IMO irreversably evil Basilisk.) Alla: Oooooo, of course. Use of unforgivables and enjoying himself a bit too much, Now again I am not sure how much of this part I am projecting - not sure if I thought so after first read, but I don't think I liked it much. Renee: The bouncing > ferret scene sealed it for me: this was not a character I was going to > root for. Alla: See to me that should have been another reason to like Fake Moody - I certainly enjoyed this scene and by GoF Draco did not suffer nearly enough, so I should have liked Fake Moody and I still in general did not feel for the character much. Wierd :) JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 02:32:18 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:32:18 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: <2795713f0610121949h6bbb9dbbt77c5966f47bd3913@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159651 > >>Lynda: > > I do think there is a strong possibility that Snape made an > unbreakable vow with DD. I do not, however, think that it was in > any way forced, but made of his own free will. > Betsy Hp: I really, really doubt that Dumbledore's trust is based on such a gimmicky thing. In Battlestar Galactica (totally awesome show) Adm. Adama (totally awesome character played by the unbelievably awesome Edward James Olmos) is sending a former enemy on a crucial mission. The future of the human race rides on her being trustworthy. Before heading off, she asks Adama, "How do you really know that you can trust me?" And he answers, "I don't. That's what trust is." I know that we're going to have to have some sort of scene that shows us the moment Dumbledore realizes he really can trust Snape completely. But I think it's going to have to be something that gives Dumbledore an insight, or an understanding, of who exactly Snape is. If it's all based on a magical vow, or a magical life debt, or some other gimmick or test, than Snape isn't Dumbledore's man, he's Dumbledore's dog. He's not someone Dumbledore trusts; he's someone Dumbledore controls. I cannot see JKR taking that route. Betsy Hp (meant to post this earlier, forgot, watched Battlestar, remembered) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 02:52:08 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:52:08 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159652 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But Hermione worries me. Since HBP she worries me a lot. But > > am I supposed to be worried? And I think there's something > > rotten within the Weasley clan. But am I supposed to think that? > > > >>Alla: > So the preface that I of course cannot tell you how to feel, but > you asked the question in regards of possible JKR intentions, > right? > Betsy Hp: That's exactly right. I mean, obviously there are times a reader can disagree with an author: "She wants me to like character X, but I'm just not buying it." And that's perfectly valid. But there are characters and situations with JKR that leave me wondering if she's actually *wanting* me to have the issues I'm having. > >>Alla: > NO, I am betting that JKR does not want you to feel that there is > something wrotten within Weasley clan. They are supposed to be > portrayed as the model of how family should be IMO in JKR's view. > Now of course she gave them some flaws ( rows with Percy, etc), > but IMO she contrasts them with Malfoys and Blacks and we supposed > to see that Weasleys truly love each other, as families should. > They fight of course, but love each other they do and they are at > the right side too. > I mean Malfoys and Blacks love each other too, but I guess on the > wrong side of the equation. Betsy Hp: But see, that's the issue. If the Weasleys are supposed to be seen in such strong contrast to the Blacks and the Malfoys (this is a good family, this is a bad one) why aren't the lines drawn more clearly? Why have Arthur's treatment of Percy echo Mrs. Black's treatment of Sirius? Why have the twins openly mocking and disrespecting their dad? Why the odd tension between Arthur and Molly? And for that matter, why have a demonstration of the real love Narcissa has for her husband and child? > >>Alla: > Oh, and since I am at telling you how to feel , may as well > add that no Twins will not become DE either. Betsy Hp: I don't think they'll become Death Eaters either. But don't you think they've come pretty close to inadvertently aiding the enemy? Why did JKR do that? > >>Alla: > Now, Hermione is actually more interesting situation. I am also > pretty safe at betting that she should not worry you, etc, **but** > the main reason I am doing so is because JKR as much as called > Hermione her alter ego and I sincerely doubt that she would make > her alter ego evil. > Otherwise I would not feel as safe to bet that Hermione would not > do something idiotic ( not evil but harmful) Betsy Hp: See it's the "not really evil" thing that makes it a bit more scary. I have no worries that Hermione is going to sell Harry out to Voldemort because she's suddenly decided she's evil. I *do* worry that she'll do something idiotic and harmful because she's so certain that she knows best. (Frankly, I think that she's JKR's alter ego might make the stupid and harmful thing even *more* possible. Aren't we always hardest on ourselves?) Betsy Hp From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 02:55:25 2006 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:55:25 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: 'Banning the books' thread Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159653 Hello, everyone-- A reminder: posts must be relevant to HP, must tie in to HP. This goes for all posts, not only the ones in this thread. If you can't make it about HP, please make your post on the OTC list instead: http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/HPFGU-OTChatter Please do not bash groups here, be it a religious group, a nationality/race, political group, etc. This is not acceptable. Please, if you wish to discuss the banning of the HP books specifically, try to say something more than "I don't know what's wrong with the people who want to ban the books. I love HP, think it's great!" It's quite likely most people here feel that way, so try to give your post some substance, something that will advance the discussion. And please, everyone, remember to regularly check the email account you use for this group; if you're wondering why a post you've made has not come through to the list, you may have been contacted by one of the elves about it. So please, check your account frequently! If anyone has any questions, please contact the elves at HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com . Thanks, everyone! --The Elves From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 03:01:02 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:01:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: WOMBAT In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40610081939j238902f2h4b91383c87a4e45e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610132001j46ba1db2q921b589f91347dd2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159654 On 10/13/06, justcarol67 wrote: > > I think that JKR chose a thoroughly unmagical animal that started with "W" > (so that > "Wizard" could fit into the acronym) and made up the rest of the name > to fit the letters in the word (as she must also have done with NEWT > and OWL, both of which also contain a W). montims: Oh my goodness - I never thought about the W thing - so what will the next test be? Weasel anybody? Wagtail??? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 14 03:00:52 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:00:52 -0000 Subject: Why Snape turned, Snape and Lily In-Reply-To: <00C05AEDD0982640A4F8A246E68D97F2015C14C3@kcexch1.mri-kc.int> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159655 > > > Swann wrote: > Or...how about this? Lily is actually Snape's sister or half- > sister? (Snape and Petunia look somewhat alike, after all.) He > discovers this after Lily dies and is remorseful. Potioncat(trying to look like McGonagall, but not managing it) We've been told that Petunia is Harry's only living relative. That leaves Snape out. However...I will bring up an old, very old theory. An anagram of Snape's name gives us Perseus Evans---which had the list going crazy at one time. Don't get too excited though, an anagram of Draco's name give us Lord of a YMCA. Potioncat, nodding at Ginger. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 14 03:05:44 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:05:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione References: Message-ID: <009201c6ef3d$a4b2e9b0$4bb4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159656 > Alla: > > See to me that should have been another reason to like Fake Moody - I > certainly enjoyed this scene and by GoF Draco did not suffer nearly > enough, so I should have liked Fake Moody and I still in general did > not feel for the character much. Wierd :) Magpie: I can't help but feel like that's not an unusual reaction, actually. When I read the book the scene put me off Moody, but when all was revealed I thought it was cleverly intended to do both. It makes Moody a sort of an automatic ally of Harry's by giving Malfoy this unexpected punishment for his actions against Harry and his friends. Had he done that to a character like the Twins Moody would have outed himself as a guy not to be trusted immediately. But I feel like what's so great about the scene is that it plays fair with the audience by showing us Crouch acting on his own impulses (impulses that are bizarrely the same as our heroes in that he hates DEs that went free) and, as usual, getting sadistic. But it also knowingly plays into the expected sympathies of a lot of the audience, knowing the scene will be funny, having Draco being obnoxious, knowing we're set up to automatically see any enemy of Malfoy's as a friend and any friend of Harry's as an enemy of Malfoy's etc. But I think that even if one does enjoy Malfoy being punished in the scene, it's objectively not a scene that makes *Moody* look good. That is, even if you enjoy the scene, you're not given any reason to like Moody personally for it, even if you're tricked into thinking you were. Underneath, perhaps, one is aware of what's happening: this guy just walked into a confrontation between two students that's not all that out of the ordinary, and began pummelling and humiliating one of them. Whether or not one really focuses on it when reading, the language used to describe Draco's experience describes real pain and Draco's reaction is one of his worthy of criticism. JKR doesn't take the opportunity to make him comic. So I think that one can read the scene enjoying the idea of Draco's being smacked down, but unconsciously still process the signals JKR is giving us in the writing and not transferring that enjoyment into sympathy for Moody without being able to explain why one never warms up to him the way one does to, say, Lupin. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 03:11:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 03:11:28 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters? Weasleys v Malfoys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159657 > Betsy Hp: > But see, that's the issue. If the Weasleys are supposed to be seen > in such strong contrast to the Blacks and the Malfoys (this is a > good family, this is a bad one) why aren't the lines drawn more > clearly? > > Why have Arthur's treatment of Percy echo Mrs. Black's treatment of > Sirius? Why have the twins openly mocking and disrespecting their > dad? Why the odd tension between Arthur and Molly? And for that > matter, why have a demonstration of the real love Narcissa has for > her husband and child? Alla: Oh, but to me lines are drawn very clearly and I guess to me lines are drawn on which political side they are first and foremost. I cannot agree with Arthur's treatment of Percy echoes Mrs. Black treatment of Sirius for example precisely because the actions while similar are drawn from different ideologies. Arthur does not want Percy to believe in what Crouch and Umbridge believe IMO and Mrs. Black well IMO pure blooded bigot whose disparaging treatment IMO helps drawing Sirius to the **right** side as portrayed in the books. And why have demonstration of love Narcissa has? Well, IMO to make them more human, less caricature, and to show that Draco was not abused at home maybe or anything like that and that he is responsible for all his choices and must choose the right side too. Speculating here of course. But as I said, to me lines are drawn very clearly, because no matter how much Draco loves his dad for example and his dad loves him, I would still remember always always always that Lucius is the one who stood in awe of Voldemort at Graveyard, while witnessing and by silence participating in the torture of fourteen year old child and something tells me that Lucius dear participated in more than one torture, etc. No matter how much Narcissa loves her child she still did not hesitate to help selling her cousin to Voldemort, etc. Malfoys seniours are murderers and racists to me and the love they have for their child frankly does not make them much more sympathetic to me. Weasleys,where love is blossoming IMO is totally different story. They are **not** perfect, but if I were to choose which family to have as mine. I would not hesitate one second. > > >>Alla: > > Oh, and since I am at telling you how to feel , may as well > > add that no Twins will not become DE either. > > Betsy Hp: > I don't think they'll become Death Eaters either. But don't you > think they've come pretty close to inadvertently aiding the enemy? > Why did JKR do that? Alla: To show that actions have consequences? They had to learn the lesson somehow. I think this was it, I doubt it will get more serious than that, IMHO of course. Alla From blueeyes4477 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 13 20:42:49 2006 From: blueeyes4477 at yahoo.com (Peggy) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:42:49 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159658 Carol wrote: > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to > ban the Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. > She said that the books teach our kids witchcraft. Peggy: I think that is ridiculous. The Harry Potter books and movies certainly do not teach anyone witchcraft. From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Oct 14 03:41:46 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:41:46 -0400 Subject: Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159659 As a librarian, I have encountered and read about liberals attempting to ban books as 'racist' or 'sexist' or otherwise presenting ideas that they find obnoxious. Idiocy is not confined to Conservatives. BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 14 04:18:34 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:18:34 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159660 Sarah Barthell wrote: > There are seven Weasley children: Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, > George, Ron, and Ginny. Secca adds: Jo said somewhere in an interview that she was playing off the old "seventh son of a seventh son" myth... Ginny is the first female in a while in the Weasley family, and is the seventh daughter... which is one of the reasons she has posited for Ginny being such a powerful wizard... something that has been hinted at in the books so far, and something that might come in to play in "The-book-that-is- yet-to-be-named." /QUOTE:/ From the *same* Leaky Mug/Mugglenet interview , by Melissa and Emerson JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that old tradition of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a seventh son, so that's why she's the seventh, because she is a gifted witch. I think you get hints of that, because she does some pretty impressive stuff here and there, and you'll see that again. /End of QUOTE/ Secca again: Hopefully it will be something more interesting than a really good bat-bogey hex... From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Oct 14 03:36:23 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 23:36:23 -0400 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159661 Yes, we laughed at Dudley at the beginning, but that doesn't mean that we won't feel sympathy for him by the end. Anyone here familiar with Dylan Thomas' "Under Milkwood"? He wrote it as a pilot for a BBC radio series about a small town in Wales where everyone is crazy--some are just mildly eccentric, at least two are right over the edge, and most are somewhere in between. He died before BBC could pick it up or reject it, so how the series might have developed nobody will ever know. It is a staple of "readers' theater" as a 'play for voices'. By doubling the enormous cast of characters can be done with six to eight performers more-or-less evenly divided between the sexes, and one needs very little in the way of costumes, sets, props, etc. I know that this seems off-topic, but bear with me. Early in the play there is a character called "Bessie Bighead" who is depicted as laying flowers on the grave of Gomer Owen who 'kissed her once by the pigsty when she wasn't looking, and never did it again although she was looking all the time.' Now, that line always gets a laugh. Later in the play we learn more about Bessie. She's what we today would call Down Syndrome or something similar, and Gomer Owen kissed her because his friends dared him to. At this point, the audience always gasps, realizing what they had been laughing at earlier. I suspect that JKR may do something similar with Dudley and his parents. BAW From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 14 04:44:27 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 04:44:27 -0000 Subject: WOMBAT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159662 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hyder" wrote: > > I was think if WOMBAT will be used in the Harry > Potter book. > > I know it's on the JK Rowling web site. > > What's the origin of WOMBAT and how relate to Harry > Potter? > > How did JK Rowling came up with the word? > > I also got an Acceptable on the WOMBAT test. > > Mark > Secca responds: Well, I actually have a theory about the 'purpose' of the WOMBAT'S. I think that Jo is telling us that it is Okay to extrapolate... it is okay to take givens from the canon and *apply* them. 2 + 2 *still* equals four even though Jo never mentions that fact in canon. This may just be springing from a personal bias of mine... but I have seen many fruitful, original ideas shut down by someone saying "That is not supported by canon." Even if the idea seems to clearly fit within the paramaters of the Harry Potter world... Hmmm. I can not think of a good example right now. Perhaps some of you know what I mean, and some of you agree? But I was very much left with the feeling of 'Loosen up, have fun, think, let your imagination run wild, don't stagnate" after taking WOMBAT 2 (my first, so I can't speak to WOMBAT 1) As ever, just my 2 knuts... From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 05:26:04 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:26:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thoughts on Ron W (and Percy and the twins) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0610132226t2a14cc9ap2a10eb985e6ee92@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159663 Tesha: > The brother who's dark is Percy... he's unhappy, needs to follow, > and is ripe for manipulation - he might not even mean to be bad, > but could easily be lead. > Betsy Hp: He's also the only brother we've seen show genuine worry over his siblings (except for Ron of course). Lynda: To keep it straight who was being referred to I snipped part of Tasha's post along with Betsy's Basically, I've never been a Percy fan. Where some people see him caring for his family, I see him separating himself from them as early as SS. And it seems to me that the twins show concern for their family as well. As for stepping out on their own, Charlie lives in Rumania and Bill spent the first several books in Egypt although both came home for vacation. We aren't told how soon after Hogwarts either Bill or Charlie moved out of the Burrough, but it might have been more quickly than Percy's physical move, although he was certainly emotionally distanced from the family before he moved out. As for the twins, it seems they moved as soon as their shop got enough business. Certainly, coming home for holidays is not considered abnormal and Percy's the only one who lives in England and doesn't. Even Charlie makes it home every so often. Now, I'll end this by saying, I hope that Percy reconciles with his family, but his distancing himself from them was pretty much what I expected from his previous behavior. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 09:51:33 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 02:51:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40610140251r1b44a2c5of1328bb48640e4ec@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159664 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > As a librarian, I have encountered and read about liberals attempting to ban > books as 'racist' or 'sexist' or otherwise presenting ideas that they find > obnoxious. Idiocy is not confined to Conservatives. Kemper now: I agree. Nat Hentoff (who once worked for the ultra-patriotic American Civil Liberties Union) wrote a book called 'Free Speech for Me ? But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other'. If some uber-Lefty is telling me the Left attempts to censor the right, I'm gonna believe it. But I have to wonder how it compares between how many Lefties fight to censor versus how many Righties fight to censor. Especially based on the the ALA's (American Library Association) top 10 list of most challenged. The fundamental right is not the same as Conservatives. But Idiocy is definitely not confined to the fundamental right but perhaps it is more considerable. But to get this back to HP... Who would Dumbledore ban? (Horcruxes, anyone?) Who would Harry ban? (Maybe T. Riddle. But then what's next? A. Frank?) Who would Hermione ban? (Maybe... anything Severus Snape wrote under the pseudonym of the Half Blood Prince. But what about Samuel Clemens and his sobriquet?) -Kemper, From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 11:32:33 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:32:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: <700201d40610140251r1b44a2c5of1328bb48640e4ec@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40610140251r1b44a2c5of1328bb48640e4ec@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610140432u74a9be58ga56c7848866fc5b8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159665 > > Kemper now: > Who would Dumbledore ban? (Horcruxes, anyone?) > Who would Harry ban? (Maybe T. Riddle. But then what's next? A. Frank?) > Who would Hermione ban? (Maybe... anything Severus Snape wrote under > the pseudonym of the Half Blood Prince. But what about Samuel Clemens > and his sobriquet?) montims: I'm sorry - I don't understand - why would Harry ban Anne Frank, or Hermione ban Mark Twain? I would add, not wishing to be provocative or anything, and willing to be corrected, that I feel the banning is more of an American than a British thing, for whatever political or religious reason. Do they try to censor books as much in Britain? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 11:44:24 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:44:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130604m28641cdcv76ed7a654ab241eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50610121714i17acb31n69857b309daca7d1@mail.gmail.com> <8ee758b40610130458x164dfdf9u98867dc4fe9937ac@mail.gmail.com> <7b9f25e50610130604m28641cdcv76ed7a654ab241eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610140444w5b6209fex70a43be861a0e679@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159666 Jordan Abel wrote: > > montims: > > I would have expected him to stay with the family, notwithstanding all > his > > ancestors' heads... > > Why? They're house elves, not family elves, and it's never been > ambiguous that it refers to "house" literally as in the place itself, > not "house" as in bloodline/clan/whatever. montims: I believed from Dobby and Winky that their loyalty was to the family till death, but primarily, if I were a pureblood (especially if I were also a DE) I would worry about my secrets being revealed if they remained with the house I had sold and were now subject to the will of new purchasers. I would also be very irritated at having to start all over again with a new house elf - Kreacher, for example, was raised into the family from birth, as had many of his ancestors. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 11:49:27 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 06:49:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610130554r5d95c7fft3f2bb4cb217c1aa3@mail.gmail.com> References: <2795713f0610121949h6bbb9dbbt77c5966f47bd3913@mail.gmail.com> <7b9f25e50610130554r5d95c7fft3f2bb4cb217c1aa3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610140449s7a003f45q6a530dfce2616b84@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159667 > > Lynda: > > I would like to make a note here myself. I do think there is a strong > > possibility that Snape made an unbreakable vow with DD. I do not, > however, > > think that it was in any way forced, but made of his own free will. As > for > > the UV being dark magic, I do not know that such is always true although > > when used by dark wizards for dark purposes, of course it would be. montims: Ooh - I just flew off on a flight of fancy - if they HAD made the UV, who would have cast the spell? So I thought of Aberforth, and I realised it could have been done after the prophecy eavesdropping incident - Aberforth held on to Snape, DD finished with Sybill, they all three sat down for a little chat, Snape convinced them of his good intentions, bada bing bada boom, the UV was cast and Snape was forever after DDM. Well, it plays out... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From whimsymoondesigns at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 05:06:50 2006 From: whimsymoondesigns at yahoo.com (Angela) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:06:50 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159668 HI All, I'm new here...so forgive the "newbie" smell!!! I am enjoying reading this list....almost as good as the books....well, that's stretching it a bit, but this list does make for some good reading! This topic interested me for number of reasons, so I thought I would give it a go. The main reason that I would hate to see the books banned is that they are so well written. They have captured the hearts and imaginations of multitudes of people from all different walks and backgrounds. I remember before I had even read any of the series, I was traveling in Canada and stopped in a bookstore for a magazine. The man that waited on me was especially happy, friendly....you name it...if it was in any way a good mood, he was there! I asked him why he was so "up" ....was he about to get off work?....but he just grinned ( a bit maniacally, but still friendly) and said that no, the newest Harry Potter book was on it's way. At the time that would have been PoA. I thought the man was a lunatic! But after having read them myself, I'm right there with him. I would have to say that I have not found anything book-wise, that has been as engrossing as these books in years! People that focus on the witchcraft or some other pet peeve (and have perhaps never actually read the books) are missing some great literature. I do think that some people just like to be contrary. ( If product A is sooooo popular, well then I will have nothing to do with it.) I was like that with the Harry Potter books. I had never, ever planned to read one. Since "everyone" liked them, they must be a fad... or, even worse, they could be dangerous!!! LOL Another thing I love about the books, is that nothing seems accidental or an after- thought. (Like...." I need a bad guy for book 3....hey! why not use the rat!") JKR seems to have given lots of thought, time, effort to plot line and development. I can't help but admire someone that pours that much thought and energy into achieving excellence. So in summation...don't ban the books...read them, and if you still hate them, start your own yahoo group to talk about how dreadful they are. That would be a lively group of about 3 or so! Angela From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sat Oct 14 13:20:44 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:20:44 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159669 > > >>Pippin: > > > Exactly. When have our sympathies ever been a reliable guide to > > > the nature of a Potterverse character? > > > > > Betsy Hp: > I think part of the issue is that JKR takes an odd direction when > she tries to build either sympathy or revulsion. So odd, IMO, that > it leaves me not entirely sure of how she's wanting things to come > across. > >(Of course, I can feel however I please, but I kind of like to have >an idea of where the author is trying to take me.) > > > > > >>Jen R.: > > Well, I'm willing to bet my sympathy for Harry is right on the > > money. That my feeling of compassion for the beleagured Order > > members, despite their flaws, will not turn out to be a 'gotcha' > > by JKR. That believing in the Weasley family will not steer me > > wrong. That agonizing with and cheering for the Trio will not end > > up in a surprising twist. I've already confirmed to my own > > satisfaction that Dumbledore was meant to be essentially good > > after HBP. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I do for the most part agree. > But Hermione worries me. Since HBP she worries me a lot. But am I > supposed to be worried? And I think there's something rotten within > the Weasley clan. But am I supposed to think that? > > It's those issues that throw me for a loop. And I'm honestly not > sure if it's because JKR and I differ on some things, or if she's > actually putting in stuff to trigger these sort of reactions. Renee: This is an interesting issue! Is JKR deliberately challenging us, or are we dealing with a difference in ethics? Or both? Many readers of the HP series probably don't have exactly the same set of ethics that JKR has; there are bound to be differences. I bet some of our reactions are not at all what JKR intended. (Disliking & condemning Dumbledore would be a good example, I think, given her `epitome of goodness' comment.) Other reactions are. We are meant to question Harry's POV, given the number of mistakes he makes - suspecting Snape, trusting Diary!Riddle, etc. Arthur's reaction to the Ton-tongue-toffee and Ron's remark about the twins selling Peruvian Darkness powder to Draco seem good indications that she wants us to be critical of the twins. Her interviews also contain indications of her intentions, whether you like her comments or not. But sometimes, there's just no way we can be sure until we've got Book 7. Did Marietta deserve what she got in OotP, or not? If we don't hear anything more about it in the last book (which, frankly, wouldn't really surprise me), I think all those people who condemn Hermione for cursing the parchment, may have an ethical issue with JKR. Just like people who want Snape to apologise to Harry, if that doesn't happen. Ren?e From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 13:26:44 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:26:44 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W (and Percy and the twins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159670 > Betsy Hp (writing of Percy Weasley): > And he's the only Weasley to > step out of his family's shadow and try and do his own thing. Other than Fred and George and Charley and Bill, you mean. Amiable Dorsai From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 14:17:58 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:17:58 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610140449s7a003f45q6a530dfce2616b84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159671 > montims: > Ooh - I just flew off on a flight of fancy - if they HAD made the UV, who > would have cast the spell? So I thought of Aberforth, and I realised it > could have been done after the prophecy eavesdropping incident - Aberforth > held on to Snape, DD finished with Sybill, they all three sat down for a > little chat, Snape convinced them of his good intentions, bada bing bada > boom, the UV was cast and Snape was forever after DDM. zgirnius: I don't believe Snape made a UV with Dumbledore. (I loved BetsyHP's explanation of this with the Battlestar Galactica quote!). But *if* he did, the Bonder *had* to be Hagrid. How could Rolwing resist? Dumbledore and Snape, kneeling, with their hands clasped under Hagrid's pink umbrella. Priceless... From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 14 14:50:50 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:50:50 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159672 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tesha" wrote: > > > > > > Ken: > > > >Liberal atheists are as likely to ban things as conservative > >religionists. > > Tesha: > > No, I do believe you're quite wrong. Liberals would like you to > read everything, and cogitate deeply and discover your own belief. And > as an Agnostic, I feel that anything that makes you be a better person > is fine - but it is your "doing" - not your "saying" that makes it so. Ken: I think that there are books that liberals try to have banned. The various writings of white supremicists come to mind. If there are any books that should be banned they would surely make the short list but I am not sure there are books that should be banned. In any event I did not say books in my original statement I said things and liberals do occasionally try to ban behaviours they disagree with. My general impression is that conservatives are more likely to ban things and liberals are more likely to mandate things but there are plenty of exceptions both ways. Also, I did not mean to pick on liberal atheists in case anyone suspects me of that. Liberal is the opposite of conservative, athiest is the opposite of christian so liberal atheist is merely the most opposite of conservative christian that I could think of. I should imagine that there are conservative atheists. Even though I am very conservative in my christianity when it comes to political and social issues I agree with liberal democrats about as often as with conservative republicans. I don't know what that makes me but I think it points out the limited utility of labels like liberal and conservative. > Tesha: > > In fact the "Liberal atheists' would probably do just the opposite of > "ban" books, they're likely to hand you a book and say.."What do you > think now?" > > HP and all the other banned books should be the FIRST you read! > > So what would you say the world can learn from HP that would make > better people of all of us? Loyality? Strength? Study? > > what else? > Ken: In regards to the first question, how do you regard Lenin? He certainly was an atheist. Many people seem to regard Communists as liberal when in fact they seem the epitome of conservative to me. Again this illustrates the limits of these labels. None of us are all that different from each other in most respects. Extreme liberals and extreme conservatives generally converge on much the same types of behaviour. If you consider Lenin to be a liberal atheist did he not once say something on the order of "ideas are more powerful than guns, if we do no allow our enemies to have guns why would we allow them to have ideas?" That sounds like a book-banner's attitude to me and in fact Communist states do ban all manner of books, music, theater, and movies. Naturally this example has no force if you regard Communism as conservative in nature. You list three things that HP teaches all of us. I have to agree with Geoff (who is stating Dumbledore's as well as Paul's position) about Love. We do not agree 100% on what the right is but the notion that Right should be chosen over Ease is a good one. The books illustrate the power of family and friendship. They may yet illustrate that mean, difficult people are not necessarily evil. They illustrate the danger of jumping to conclusions and also the danger of failing to reach conclusions. That is a tough lesson because in real life as in HP it is hard to discern between the two in the heat of the moment. Those are the ones that come first to mind, I am sure there are others. Ken From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 15:01:12 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:01:12 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610140449s7a003f45q6a530dfce2616b84@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159673 > montims: > Ooh - I just flew off on a flight of fancy - if they HAD made the UV, who would have cast the spell? So I thought of Aberforth, and I realised it could have been done after the prophecy eavesdropping incident - Aberforth held on to Snape, DD finished with Sybill, they all three sat down for a little chat, Snape convinced them of his good intentions, bada bing bada boom, the UV was cast and Snape was forever after DDM. Tonks: I like the idea. This would leave Aberforth able to tell Harry about Snapes loyalties. The only problem with this idea is that I don't think that Snape switched side until AFTER he gave the informantion to LV. So while this idea gives us someone to tell Harry the truthabout Snape, the time line is not quite right. Tonks_op From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 14:04:52 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:04:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159674 I am not really commenting specifically on anyone's ideas but rather got an idea from other people's thoughts that fit in with this thread. I think it is quite possible that he is using his pensive. As we saw in HBP DD was able to extract memories from people and place it in his pensive for viewing. I personally feel it is not too much of a stretch to think that DD can and has extracted memories from himself, his staff, and possibly the students. Also I don't know if it is possible he is able to extract memories from the portraits. The portraits I believe play a more valuable role than what we have seen so far. As quoted from GoF. "At these times," said Dumbledore, indicating the stone basin, "I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, purs them into the basin , and examines them at one's leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form." At first I assumed that one can only use the Pensieve for your own thoughts as seen in use by DD and Snape. Except in HBP we see that DD was able to use other people's thoughts. So it is quite possible that instead of having some kind of omniscent power that DD just uses his wisdom to spot patterns in people's daily interactions. katie From amis917 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 14 16:12:30 2006 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (Amie) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:12:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and The Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159675 Katie: I am not really commenting specifically on anyone's ideas but rather got an idea from other people's thoughts that fit in with this thread. I think it is quite possible that he is using his pensive. As we saw in HBP DD was able to extract memories from people and place it in his pensive for viewing. I personally feel it is not too much of a stretch to think that DD can and has extracted memories from himself, his staff, and possibly the students. Also I don't know if it is possible he is able to extract memories from the portraits. The portraits I believe play a more valuable role than what we have seen so far. As quoted from GoF. "At these times," said Dumbledore, indicating the stone basin, "I use the Pensieve. One simply siphons the excess thoughts from one's mind, purs them into the basin , and examines them at one's leisure. It becomes easier to spot patterns and links, you understand, when they are in this form." At first I assumed that one can only use the Pensieve for your own thoughts as seen in use by DD and Snape. Except in HBP we see that DD was able to use other people's thoughts. So it is quite possible that instead of having some kind of omniscent power that DD just uses his wisdom to spot patterns in people's daily interactions. Amie now: Peering out of lurkdom to make one quick note... I'm not 100% sure what Katie meant by "I think it is quite possible that he is using his pensive." I took it to mean that DD is using his pensive to help with the portriats...or something to that effect. It made me think, what happened to DD's pensive after his death? We know that Harry has gone into Pensive memories without the owner's permission. What is stopping him from going into DD's pensive now. This would give us an opportunity to go back and relive the fateful moment when Snape gained DD's trust. I'm also not sure what controls which memory the observer goes to. It's a great plot device, because it gives an accurate representation of that person's memory of the event. Have we ever been told *why* that particular memory is chosen? Pensives to me are a mystery.... -Amie From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 16:21:08 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 16:21:08 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159676 > Annemehr, previously [re: readers' emotional responses to Dudley]: > > Well, that's just it, isn't it? "Meant to...?" "Supposed > > to...?" "Should...?" I'm thinking, it's "tempted to." JKR can't > > dictate our responses, even if she wanted to. > > > I say "tempted to" because I think JKR does that on purpose -- > > she's hoping to entice readers to one reaction but is planning to > > reverse a lot of those impressions in book 7. Potentially, for a > > fair few of the characters. > > Jen R.: Hey, Annemehr! I don't rule out tempted to, not at all. Just > that ultimately I think any reversals are meant for Harry rather > than the reader. If JKR's goal is to write the story for herself > rather than 'entice' the reader, which is her stated intention, then > she is taking Harry through the journey of discovery. Annemehr: Hey, yourself! Certainly JKR is writing for herself, as in writing the story that pleases her. But we know she is deliberately enticing her readers into theorising and drawing conclusions, because she's often spoken of laying clues and red herrings in the text. These apply to plot, yes, but also to characterisation, because the two are intertwined. Jen R: > That's basically what I meant about Dumbledore's speech. Why > introduce a new concept into the mix when all the story called for > is Dumbledore to come down on the Dursleys for their treatment of > Harry? Maybe there's going to be more to it, his speech will > initiate a change in Petunia perhaps. That would be great as long as > it leads somewhere or ties into the reasons behind Petunia's > mystery. If it's left hanging though, the moment will be > a 'but...why?' part of the story for me. Annemehr: I doubt it will be left hanging. I expect it will tie into what becomes of Dudley in the final book. Even without JKR's interview/chat hints that Dudley has a bit more in store for him, we at least look forward to finding out about what he heard when the Dementor attacked, as you pointed out before. We also saw Dudley frowning over DD's statement that he had received "appalling damage" at the hands of his parents -- perhaps we'll find that sinks in a bit. In addition, and maybe most importantly, the speech tells us a bit about Dumbledore -- that he is very well aware of what's been happening to both the boys in that house. Perhaps he felt the need to give Petunia and Vernon the feeling that "big brother" was indeed watching them, very closely. > Annemehr: > > A "rude awakening" is inevitable for many of us, just because our > > reactions are so polarized about so many of [the characters]. > > Jen R: > Haven't these already happened though? I'm not waiting for > huge awakenings anymore since OOTP. Annemehr: Oh, I'm expecting some more reversals. 'Course, it depends on each reader, how they're perceived. One who's picked up all the clues will enjoy a satisfying twist; one who's followed red herrings will be a bit more surprised. And, no, I have no huge confidence in my ability to tell clues from little fish. ;) Jen R: > Dumbledore's sudden interest in Dudley's > welfare is admirable, but inconsistent with his characterization up > to that point. I can better accept a character with a different > agenda from mine than one who appears to act passionately for no > particular reason. Well, if JKR's doing her job well, it's not an inconsistency but rather a bit of information that informs the whole. And, DD is complicated. It's hard to see where everything fits (well, for me, at least). I don't think it will turn out that Dumbledore will have done things for no particular reason. And, you know, I'm still waiting to find out what that dang Plan of DD's is. Annemehr From tthinc at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 04:45:11 2006 From: tthinc at yahoo.com (Thomas Burbridge) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 21:45:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: MY theory as to 'How It All Ends' ...I dispute the "Must Die" theory Message-ID: <20061014044511.70335.qmail@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159677 Katherine Coble > Therefore, I think it is through humanity that Harry will kill Tom Riddle, and the magic elements such as Horcruxes have no bearing on Harry's having to die. << Mil >> I agree that *humanity* will play a big role in defeating LV... My take is that this bit of *humanity* is what DD has been saying all along: It's Harry's ability to *LOVE* that'll actually defeat LV (for it is the power LV knows not).... << Thomas: Personally, I believe that the prophecy has been very misleading. Something about neither can live while the other does... What gets me is that they were talking about a boys, this prophecy was talking about was both Harry and Neville. So maybe that part had nothing to do with you know who. Cheers, Thomas From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 16:57:16 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:57:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610140432u74a9be58ga56c7848866fc5b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40610140251r1b44a2c5of1328bb48640e4ec@mail.gmail.com> <8ee758b40610140432u74a9be58ga56c7848866fc5b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <700201d40610140957i35ece0fcx78ab8541f24447e7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159678 > > Kemper earlier: > > Who would Dumbledore ban? (Horcruxes, anyone?) > > Who would Harry ban? (Maybe T. Riddle. But then what's next? A. Frank?) > > Who would Hermione ban? (Maybe... anything Severus Snape wrote under > > the pseudonym of the Half Blood Prince. But what about Samuel Clemens > > and his sobriquet?) > > montims: > I'm sorry - I don't understand - why would Harry ban Anne Frank, or Hermione > ban Mark Twain? I would add, not wishing to be provocative or anything, and > willing to be corrected, that I feel the banning is more of an American than > a British thing, for whatever political or religious reason. Do they try to > censor books as much in Britain? Kemper now: It's not that Harry or Hermione would ban Anne; it's that banning one book makes it easier to ban others. So starting off with what seems a legitimate and righteous ban, sets the ground work to ban for reasons less reasonable. So the book on Horcruxes is banned, but why not the book that tells Hermione the magical words to kill someone, Avada Kedavra? I don't think there's canon to support that Hermione actually read the Unforgivables in a book, but come on. She's Muggle-born and reared, how is it that she knows of the curse and not Harry? I don't want to hear the lame excuse that he's not curious. Hermione is a voracious reader. She spends a bit of time in the library where I'm sure she not only studies hard but picks up a book or two. Which gets me thinking... would she have read it in the All Ages section or the Restricted section? What age does a student need to be to read from the Restricted section? Back to Hermione knowing the curse.... She knows the language necessary for the curse. Which is nearly the same as a junior high school or senior high school having a book about guns along with an actual gun, unloaded of course, and a box of ammo write next to it. Hermione probably naturally understood for the curse to work you would have to aim your wand at your intended victim. After we read that Hermione knew about the Avada Kedavra while in Crouch!Moody's Unforgivable lesson, we know that throughout the rest of the series she (and her classmates) bring an unloaded weapon to school all the time. But that's cool. Hogwarts doesn't seem to have a culture of violence, so even if the wand was loaded it wouldn't be used. Or for those of you who are pro-NRA (I happen to love the Second Amendment and guns but appall the NRA) and don't appreciate gun metaphors, replace 'gun' with 'bow' and 'ammo' with 'arrows'. So... why wasn't the book with the Avada Kedavra banned? It seems a pre-req for the Horcrux. Kemper, pleased as punch for bring this thread back to HP From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Oct 14 17:11:07 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:11:07 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610140432u74a9be58ga56c7848866fc5b8@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40610140251r1b44a2c5of1328bb48640e4ec@mail.gmail.com> <8ee758b40610140432u74a9be58ga56c7848866fc5b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1289701189.20061014101107@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159679 Saturday, October 14, 2006, 4:32:33 AM, Janette wrote: J> I'm sorry - I don't understand - why would Harry ban Anne Frank...? Dave: I guess because she kept a diary... But of course hers wasn't a horcrux. (And she was killed by the "Death Eaters" of her age.) -- Dave From poojatarang at yahoo.co.in Sat Oct 14 12:16:15 2006 From: poojatarang at yahoo.co.in (poojatarang) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 12:16:15 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159680 [:)] Pooja,India. Hogwarts is really a dream school. It has changed the meaning of schools all together. The cool subjects, common rooms, dormitories, hidden dangers, adventures, flying lessons, Hogsmeade, Hagrid and true friends like Ron and Hermione, and of course Harry himself make it a magical place on earth. I really like Ron a lot. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 18:11:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:11:47 -0000 Subject: Reversals of the characters WAS: Re: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159681 > Annemehr: > Oh, I'm expecting some more reversals. 'Course, it depends on each > reader, how they're perceived. One who's picked up all the clues > will enjoy a satisfying twist; one who's followed red herrings will > be a bit more surprised. > > And, no, I have no huge confidence in my ability to tell clues from > little fish. ;) Alla: Hi Annemehr. Out of curiosity what other reversals do you expect in book 7 ? You are not talking about Snape by any chance? ;) I mean Snape of course can turn out to be DD!M ( Oooops, did I say it out loud?), but would it be a reversal, really? I mean, to me of course he is a really bad guy, really really bad guy, but I can certainly see a possibility of him being a bastard who is loyal to Dumbledore due to all those possible hints discussed here multiple times that do not need to be said again :) Didn't JKR left enough ambiguity in the text to let it go either way without looking as complete reversal? Or are you talking about other characters? I mean ESE!Lupin would obviously be a complete reversal of the character, if you are buying that one, but is there another character you have in mind? Thanks, Alla From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 17:41:37 2006 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:41:37 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159682 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > Yes, we laughed at Dudley at the beginning, but that doesn't > mean that we won't feel sympathy for him by the end. SNIP > Early in the play there is a character called "Bessie Bighead" > who is depicted as laying flowers on the grave of Gomer Owen > who 'kissed her once by the pigsty when she wasn't looking, > and never did it again although she was looking all the time.' > Now, that line always gets a laugh. Later in the play we learn > more about Bessie. She's what we today would call Down Syndrome > or something similar, and Gomer Owen kissed her because his > friends dared him to. At this point, the audience always gasps, > realizing what they had been laughing at earlier. > > I suspect that JKR may do something similar with Dudley and his > parents. BEATRICE: I agree with Dumbledore (although, I didn't care for this scene as it seemed a bit out of character -more like JKR's agenda than a scene that came "organically" from the characters). I have always seen both Harry and Dudley as horribly abused. In different ways certainly, but while Harry may be more sympathetic, I think that Dudley deserves more pity than Harry. If you would indulge me... Harry gains the readers sympathy, in part, because he is so viciously abused by his aunt and uncle. And as good readers we do what we are meant to: we care about Harry and we despise or resent PD and VD. Dudley as a member of the household, treats Harry in much the same way as his parents and thus earns our disdain. One of the primary differences between Harry and DD is that Harry is capable of kindness, friendship, and love. Why? Because he was once loved by his mother which as we are frequently told "marked" him. So taking this into consideration, we must conclude that Dudley who is incapable of kindness, true friendship, or true love (I can give example of this if you wish - but I am not writing a dissertation here) has never actually been loved. While both boys are raised in the same household, they are abused in different ways. Harry's abuse, however, does not rob him of the ability to be a compassionate individual. Dudley's abuse is prehaps worse than Harry's as it not only turns him into an abuser (of Harry and as we have seen of other children), but it will probably prevent him from ever experiencing actual love. Who could ever love Dudley? Only someone who is abusive like himself or someone who is abused. Any relationship he may have will either be based on a desire to abuse others or may be locked in a master and servant like relationship, neither of which could ever be truly loving. Vernon and Petunia's spoiling of Dudley really needs to be seen as abusive and as insidious as their treatment of Harry. I think that they set out as many parents do thinking that overindulging their child is an appropriate way to demonstate the depth of their love, what they never realize (perhaps because they are unloved or they simply never realized what love was) is that they never actually demonstrate real love for their child. They never help him to becoming a "loving," and thus a "lovable" individual by setting limits, teaching that love is not measured in material possessions, and that love cannot be approximated in large quantities of food. As an adult, Dudley will be a miserable failure (unless he is able to see the damage that has been done to him and work to change himself). He will be unable to care for himself, unable to function as a productive adult, unable to set goals and limits for himself, and above all incapable of love. A spoiled child isn't a "well- loved" or even an over-loved child, he or she is simply a neglected and abused child who deserves our sympathy even more than a child like Harry, because they have been so marked, so scarred by the abuse that they are incapable of evoking the love and compassion of others. From cjones0380 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 18:02:25 2006 From: cjones0380 at yahoo.com (cjones0380) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:02:25 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159683 Pooja wrote: > Hogwarts is really a dream school. It has changed the meaning > of schools all together. I really like Ron a lot. cjones0380: Well, I like Harry Potter because he does what he's told, no if's or buts about it. My favorite book is Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. His friends are the best; I like Hermione the best. From chezcreations at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 17:01:11 2006 From: chezcreations at gmail.com (Chez) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:01:11 -0000 Subject: Time travel in JKR books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159684 Raven Heart: > In the > version of time travel JKR uses, time travelling doesn't cause > anything that changes the course of history, it only allows it to > become the history that it already is. If someone goes back in time > to prevent Harry's death after it has already happened, either they > have no effect on the outcome, or they discover that it was their > use of the time turner that causes Harry's death. Granted, that may > not stop someone from trying to use this to continue the story of > Harry Potter, but it would break JKR's rules, which would probably > make it less believable for the faithful readers. My question would be more about Dumbledores death and time turning rather than HP's at this stage because that will in effect impact on Book 7. Chez From jrbb96 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 18:21:56 2006 From: jrbb96 at yahoo.com (BECKY BROWN) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:21:56 -0000 Subject: The Prophecy (was Re: MY theory as to 'How It All Ends' ...I dispute the "Must Die" theory) In-Reply-To: <20061014044511.70335.qmail@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159685 > Thomas wrote: > Personally, I believe that the prophecy has been very > misleading. Something about neither can live while the > other does... > > What gets me is that they were talking about a boys, this > prophecy was talking about was both Harry and Neville. > So maybe that part had nothing to do with you know who. Becky: The prophecy itself was from the divination professor (sorry can't spell her name to save my life). She did talk about 2 boys born at the same time with the potential of becoming the one to fulfill the prophecy. Yes, Neville was the other boy. But if you remember the Prisoner of Askaban, McGonagall talked about Lily and James being marked for death. Meaning that Voldemort was going after them specifically with the intent to kill them and their son. One of the reasons Voldmort was after the Potters was because Snape overheard the prophecy and told him. Lily protected Harry by sacrificing herself to save him. As for one can not live peacefully while the other still lives is referring to the last battle that must take place between Harry and Voldemort. In this battle one must kill the other and determine the fate of the wizarding world. From gwiddy2000 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 19:09:42 2006 From: gwiddy2000 at yahoo.com (gwiddy2000) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 19:09:42 -0000 Subject: Snape is loyal only to Snape. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159686 Could it be that Snape wants to be the Dark Lord himself. He has heard the entire prophecy and knows that Harry (as the one marked by Voldemort) is the only one that can kill Voldemort. Snape give only the information that he wants to Voldemort knowing that he will fail in his attempt to kill the child in the prophecy and mark that child as his equal. Voldemort is damaged, but not dead. So Snape joins Dumbledore. Because he knows that Dumbledore will not give up until he knows for sure that Voldemort is dead. There is no better place that could be. He will be on the inside of the search of Voldemort. Using Dumbledore as his watchdog. Waiting for his turn to rise and kill Harry. After Harry has killed Voldemort. And then he will be the New Dark Lord. gwiddy2000 From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 20:20:30 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:20:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and The Future In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159687 Aime says: > I'm not 100% sure what Katie meant by "I think it is quite possible > that he is using his pensive." Katie: Sorry this seemed unclear. When I read it over it made sense in my head. I was following the thread about people wondering how DD seemed to know what was going on and around the school either by use of the time turners, premition, etc. I was suggesting that maybe he was using his pensive and extracting thoughts from students, teachers, and possibly portraits. Than sifting through these thoughts to find patterns and information he has not picked up yet. Basically using his wisdom than a sixth sense. Once again sorry if that was unclear. Katie From luv2readhp at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 20:15:22 2006 From: luv2readhp at yahoo.com (Kimberly) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 13:15:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Thoughts on Ron W Message-ID: <20061014201522.35416.qmail@web30907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159688 >Sherry: >Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always >so depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. What if >Ron takes over for V. Will JKR kill off the deatheaters and V? >Then there has to be something to fill the void. Maybe Percy >hmmmmmm. Kimberly here: No, I personally don't. There were times during the books that I wondered and then the scene in GoF when Harry's name comes out of the Goblet, the image of Ron seething with an expression of something awful (hate, jealousy, etc..) swayed me even more that way. That, thankfully, was movie contamination which I was quick to dismiss. There are several moments in HBP that solidify my feeling that Ron won't turn against Harry. The moment when Harry tells Ron what happened to his nose and JKR writes...."It was a mark of the strength of their friendship that Ron didn't laugh." (HBP, pg. 169 Amer. Ed.) That was, for me, a profound statement revealing the depth of their friendship. Kimberly From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 20:57:53 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:57:53 -0000 Subject: Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: <700201d40610140957i35ece0fcx78ab8541f24447e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159689 > >>Kemper now: > It's not that Harry or Hermione would ban Anne; it's that banning > one book makes it easier to ban others. So starting off with what > seems a legitimate and righteous ban, sets the ground work to ban > for reasons less reasonable. > So the book on Horcruxes is banned, but why not the book that tells > Hermione the magical words to kill someone, Avada Kedavra? > Betsy Hp: The interesting thing is that even with the ban, the knowledge of horcruxes is out there. Which, IMO, demonstrates the futility of banning things. Knowledge will out. All the banning of information on horcruxes did was make it harder for the good guys to take down Voldemort. (Frankly, I think Voldemort would be all for the ban, which should say something.) I do agree that Hermione would be all over the sort of social engineering that leads to people banning Twain (he uses icky words). And Hermione's dealings with both the half-blood Prince and Luna suggests that she would be against anything suggesting that the status quo might be wrong. I'm not sure she'd out and out ban, but she'd want to protect people (like Ron and Harry) from getting confused by possibly wrong information. Which is how it can start. I know better than you, so I'll just moniter what information you receive. (There are many ways in which Hermione echos Umbridge, especially when she's given her head.) > >>montims: > > I would add, not wishing to be provocative or anything, and > willing to be corrected, that I feel the banning is more of an > American than a British thing, for whatever political or religious > reason. > Betsy Hp: >From what I've seen the US is actually the country with the strongest freedom of speech, and all that entails. We might have more wackos out there demanding books be burned (and doing some burning), but our government isn't as involved as it is in other countries. (Which always surprises me, but there you are.) Betsy Hp From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 20:27:45 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:27:45 -0000 Subject: MY theory as to 'How It All Ends' ...I dispute the "Must Die" theory In-Reply-To: <20061014044511.70335.qmail@web30405.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159690 > Thomas: > Personally, I believe that the prophecy has been very misleading. Something about neither can live while the other does... > > What gets me is that they were talking about a boys, this prophecy > was talking about was both Harry and Neville. So maybe that part > had nothing to do with you know who. Charles: Actually, DD explains the prophecy *does* mean Harry and He-Who-Must- Usually-Be-Hyphenated near the end of HBP. Since I only own it on audiobook, I can't quote exactly, but it is something along the lines of Voldietwit choosing to mark the "half-blood" Harry as his equal, rather than the "pureblood" Neville. AFAIC, "neither can live while the other survives," simply means that as long as both live, they will be at war. On to *my* theory...We know from canon that love is the "power the Dark Lord knows not," but most people seem to take that as Harry having to sacrifice himself. I think that the *willingness* to sacrifice himself for the wizarding world will bring about the power he needs to make the actual sacrifice unnecessary. He won't come out of the final battle unscathed, but he'll 86 He-Who-Should-Have-Been- Spanked-As-A-Kid and have a good rest of his life, winning the Quidditch World Cup several times as England's seeker. From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 20:38:46 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:38:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: <700201d40610140957i35ece0fcx78ab8541f24447e7@mail.gmail.com> References: <700201d40610140251r1b44a2c5of1328bb48640e4ec@mail.gmail.com> <8ee758b40610140432u74a9be58ga56c7848866fc5b8@mail.gmail.com> <700201d40610140957i35ece0fcx78ab8541f24447e7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610141338q5d47f7b3jb69833691dde263e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159691 > Kemper: > So the book on Horcruxes is banned, but why not the book that tells > Hermione the magical words to kill someone, Avada Kedavra? I don't > think there's canon to support that Hermione actually read the > Unforgivables in a book, but come on. She's Muggle-born and reared, > how is it that she knows of the curse and not Harry? montims: I understand now what you were saying, and I'm not arguing with you, but when we first meet Hermione, on the train, she knows all about Harry from reading about him being AK'd in various modern history books. And the words to the Avada Kadavra spell are precisely that, surely - all you need are the words and the intent. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 21:52:28 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:52:28 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159692 > >>Renee: > This is an interesting issue! Is JKR deliberately challenging us, > or are we dealing with a difference in ethics? Or both? Betsy Hp: I suspect it's both. > >>Renee: > Many readers of the HP series probably don't have exactly the same > set of ethics that JKR has; there are bound to be differences. > I bet some of our reactions are not at all what JKR intended. > > But sometimes, there's just no way we can be sure until we've got > Book 7. Did Marietta deserve what she got in OotP, or not? If we > don't hear anything more about it in the last book (which, > frankly, wouldn't really surprise me), I think all those people > who condemn Hermione for cursing the parchment, may have an > ethical issue with JKR. Just like people who want Snape to > apologise to Harry, if that doesn't happen. Betsy Hp: I agree that there's no way JKR will please all of us. And the fallout will be interesting. At that point, I guess, the discussion will rest solely on questions of ethics rather than wondering what JKR thinks. I do think the Potter books have benefited (or been cursed, I suppose ) by the internet. Have any other books been so discussed *while* the author is still writing them? And I think JKR does encourage questioning things. (Fake Moody is a perfect example of that, I think.) I'm curious, though, as to how *much* she wants us to question. It'll be interesting to find out. Betsy Hp From juli17 at aol.com Sat Oct 14 22:16:39 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:16:39 EDT Subject: Snape is loyal only to Snape. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159693 gwiddy2000: Could it be that Snape wants to be the Dark Lord himself. He has heard the entire prophecy and knows that Harry (as the one marked by Voldemort) is the only one that can kill Voldemort. Snape give only the information that he wants to Voldemort knowing that he will fail in his attempt to kill the child in the prophecy and mark that child as his equal. Voldemort is damaged, but not dead. So Snape joins Dumbledore. Because he knows that Dumbledore will not give up until he knows for sure that Voldemort is dead. There is no better place that could be. He will be on the inside of the search of Voldemort. Using Dumbledore as his watchdog. Waiting for his turn to rise and kill Harry. After Harry has killed Voldemort. And then he will be the New Dark Lord. Julie: This theory has been suggested before, but I don't buy it. It just doesn't fit Snape's character. Voldemort wants power over others. Snape wants respect from others, acknowledgement of his skills. Voldemort wants to rule the world from a throne, to make every wizard his puppet and pull their strings according to his whims. Snape wants to be left alone in his dungeon/lab/study to work on his potions and spells. Voldemort loves to having people around, fearing him, worshipping him, and doing his bidding. Snape doesn't like people, and would prefer to have as few of them around as possible--he has a difficult enough time carrying on a civil conversation with just one person, after all. (And though he'd certainly be pleased to received letters acknowledging his greatness and skill, I can't see him enjoying anyone kneeling at his feet in adoration as Voldemort does. It would just disgust him.) Of course anything is possible, and your theory certainly isn't ruled out. But nothing in Snape's character and actions so far have indicated any interest on his part in becoming the next Dark Lord. If he did turn out to be "out for himself" it'd be more likely he would be set on getting rid of Dumbledore and Voldemort (via Harry) and even perhaps Harry just so he could be FREE of them, not so he could become the next Dark Lord. Julie, still dedicated to the theory of DDM!Snape until and if JKR squashes that theory in Book 7. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 22:41:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:41:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159694 > Alla: > > Well, of course I cannot say for sure whether Dumbledore would have > done something or not , although I am with you obviously based on > the pattern of his behaviour through the book. > > What I am completely not buying is the idea that Harry is somehow to > blame for Dumbledore not taking him seriously about Draco. > > Through the book Harry was the **only** one AFAIK who insisted over > and over and over again that Draco is up to something. Harry went to > everybody - kids and adults included, was dismissed by > **everybody** - kids and adults included ( yes, I know Arthur > checked, but IMHO not enough), went to Dumbledore when Draco was > whooping, was dismissed **again** - really hope that he was not > dismissed because Dumbledore thought that Harry was too angry about > the person who contributed to him becoming an orphan and now the > argument is made that if only Harry did not forget to tell him about > Trelawney, Dumbledore would have behaved differently? > > I am very sorry, but I am not convinced. Carol responds: Harry didn't go to *everybody.* He wrongly assumed that Snape, the one person (other than DD) who knew for sure that Draco was up to something, was part of Draco's plan. As we know, he knew no more about the Vanishing Cabinet than Dumbledore did. I realize that the long-standing misunderstanding (or hatred, if you prefer) between them prevented him from doing so, but nevertheless, it's ironic that the two people who most needed each other's help here failed to seek it because they continue to mistrust eadh other. As of Arthur Weasley, Harry also forgot to tell *him* a key piece of information that he's known since CoS: the Malfoy's have a hidden chamber beneath their drawing room. Borgin said in CoS that if the rumors are true, Lucius Malfoy hadn't sold him anywhere near all the Dark objects in his manor, and even if the Dark objects are gone, I'm betting that a certain Dark witch is hiding there. Let's hope that Harry remembers that information in Book 7 and that this time the raid on the Malfoy manor will be successful (whether or not Narcissa and Draco turn themselves in). I agree with Pippin that if Harry hadn't let his hatred of Snape get in the way and simply sounded angry and vindictive, he might have remembered the crucial information that Draco had kicked Trelawney out. Dumbledore would have realized that he had no choice to confront Draco at that point, and he might have prevented the DEs from entering Hogwarts (they were waiting until Dumbledore was out of the building). It's not Harry's fault so much as an unfortunate coincidence that the eavesdropper revelation prevented Trelawney herself to go to Dumbledore as she was planning to do before Harry learned about Snape's supposed treachery and angrily prevented her. It's a common tactic in the HP books--something almost happens and then something else prevents it from happening. If only trelawney had kept her mouth shut about the young man supposedly eavesdropping to get tips for job interviews! I guess a woman who drinks cooking sherry and dumps the bottles in the RoR can't be relied upon for discretion. Carol, who thinks that Dumbledore must have had good reason for believing that he had matters under control (and to trust Snape) but wishes that he had not chosen to fly to the astronomy tower after he returned from the cave From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 14 23:11:26 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:11:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159695 > Carol responds: > Harry didn't go to *everybody.* He wrongly assumed that Snape, the one > person (other than DD) who knew for sure that Draco was up to > something, was part of Draco's plan. Alla: I stand corrected. Harry went to everybody who he had a reason to believe will help him. Harry went to everybody who he had a reason to believe is on his side. Yeah, he did not include Snape in that. Was he wrong? We shall see. And Snape may not have been the part of Draco's plan, but as far as I am concerned he sure could have been a part of Voldemort's plan to back up Draco if he fails to kill Dumbledore. And as we also know he indeed backed Draco up. For the reasons we differ on of course, but I sure do not exclude the possibility that Snape did what he wanted to. Carol: As we know, he knew no more about > the Vanishing Cabinet than Dumbledore did. Alla: Is that somehow excludes Snape's agreeing to kill Dumbledore regardless of whether he knew of the cabinet or not? Carol: I realize that the > long-standing misunderstanding (or hatred, if you prefer) between them > prevented him from doing so, but nevertheless, it's ironic that the > two people who most needed each other's help here failed to seek it > because they continue to mistrust eadh other. Alla: I am really really not ready to say that Harry needed Snape help here. Carol: > I agree with Pippin that if Harry hadn't let his hatred of Snape get > in the way and simply sounded angry and vindictive, he might have > remembered the crucial information that Draco had kicked Trelawney > out. Dumbledore would have realized that he had no choice to confront > Draco at that point, and he might have prevented the DEs from entering > Hogwarts (they were waiting until Dumbledore was out of the building). Alla: Dumbledore would have realised that he had no choice? Magpie wrote really well about it, much better than I can. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159265 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gwiddy2000" wrote: > > Could it be that Snape wants to be the Dark Lord himself. Alla: Yep, sure it could be as far as I am concerned. It is not ruled out by anything yet IMO and Snapey dear sure has big enough ego to pull it off. IMO of course. Welcome to the list :) From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Oct 15 00:27:43 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:27:43 -0000 Subject: The Doom That Is Coming To Dudley In-Reply-To: <003d01c6ee6f$a818dca0$35560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159696 JKR does say that the Dursley's will play a bigger role in book seven. And some careful readers have noted that Dumbledore gave all three Dursleys the address of Grimmauld Place, twice. It seems a reasonable guess Petunia will move her family to Grimmauld Place for protection from whatever she is afraid of. And this will chase Harry back to Hogwarts. I'm sure you are right - Dudders is going to suffer some unpleasantness. Abergoat From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 15 00:27:19 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:27:19 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159697 > Betsy Hp: > I think part of the issue is that JKR takes an odd direction when > she tries to build either sympathy or revulsion. So odd, IMO, that > it leaves me not entirely sure of how she's wanting things to come > across. > > Because by the time OotP came around I was actually kind of proud of > Dudley for hitting back at Harry. And I'm not sure I was supposed > to feel that way. (Of course, I can feel however I please, but I > kind of like to have an idea of where the author is trying to take > me.) > Pippin: Maybe she's trying to take you in the direction of having an open mind? Of not relying on cliches and stereotypes to form your expectations about how people are going to behave and where your sympathies ought to lie? If you no longer think Dudley is just the wicked stepbrother and you wonder if Hermione can be trusted just because she's a "good guy" and you think that she needs to get a handle on that self-righteous streak, then maybe you're right where JKR wants you to be. Betsy HP: > JKR did a good job at the very beginning of the series, I thought, > of sending Dudley up as your stereotypical bully; someone it's fun > to sneer at. But then she started pulling out bits and pieces of > her own foundation. Pippin: This is what JKR loves to do: tell us enough about a character to evoke a stereotype, then take it to pieces and show us how wrong we were. It's not that she's trying to con us, IMO, she's trying to show us the danger of letting stereotypes do our thinking for us. Of course the technique doesn't always work. Sometimes the stereotype is so powerful that it corrupts one's memory of the text. For example, I was sure that Dudley had flashed a wicked grin at Harry when Aunt Marge slipped him a twenty pound note, but no. The twenty is there but we're not told how Dudley reacted to it. AFAIK, we don't see him lighting up while he tortures people or thinks about it. We are told that all the Dursleys laughed when Harry was treed by Aunt Marge's dog, but then *she* is a sadist, who wants to know whether Harry is beaten regularly at school and so forth. It's not clear to me that that Dudley is the same type, while it's very clear that Draco is. OTOH, Ron and Molly do have a mean streak, and IMO, that's not haphazard either. Ron's occasional nastiness comes between him and Hermione in PS/SS and causes trouble in every single book. But unlike Draco, Ron doesn't get reinforced for it. Ron may gloat over the ferret bounce, but Hermione is disapproving, and though Ron may pretend not to care, we know her opinion matters to him. Of course the Weasleys are, over all, a nice family, but we get to see that it's partly Gryffindor values that make them so. It's not haphazard that there's usually someone to rein Molly or Ron in when they start to go too far. There is a very strong Gryffindor taboo about picking on people weaker than yourself, and it's constantly being enforced by the Gryffindors themselves. It's shocking in the Pensieve scene when we see it ignored, but it points up that this taboo is a choice, not a law of nature, and it could at any moment be set aside, if people don't care enough to enforce it. Pippin From kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 00:38:21 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:38:21 -0000 Subject: Snape is loyal only to Snape. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159698 Julie snipped reply to gwiddy2000: Of course anything is possible, and your theory certainly isn't ruled out. But nothing in Snape's character and actions so far have indicated any interest on his part in becoming the next Dark Lord. If he did turn out to be "out for himself" it'd be more likely he would be set on getting rid of Dumbledore and Voldemort (via Harry) and even perhaps Harry just so he could be FREE of them, not so he could become the next Dark Lord. Snow: If Snape is out for himself (OFH) (which I now believe Snape is, after many, many years of teetering on the fence and once believing in DDM) I agree with Julie that it is not so that Snape can become the source of All Evil! Snape is not out for the all mighty position of controlling anyone. I really believe that Snape's ultimate goal is to overcome his present existence, which is a fate worse than death unless he can rectify it. Snape lives between two realms no matter which side of the fence you are on. He is neither good nor bad and yet he is good and bad. No one can live this way forever you must choose and he did. If Snape can perform a good deed it will exonerate whatever evil he had previously succumbed to as a Deatheater, if it is as powerfully good as the bad that had been, then Snape can be freed from his penitence. This exoneration has to do with either Lily and/or James saving his life or maybe a bit of each. What I do feel is that Snape has very little loyalty to Dumbledore other than his help in achieving the goal that needs to be reached to help himself escape the Voldemort connection via the dark mark and all it entails. What drove Snape to embark on this path is up for grabs. Like I said, either Lily or James touched Snape's life, which caused him to act. But how do you just turn in resignation to the deatheaters to save the life of someone you love or someone you are indebted to? The Order of Merlin was one of Snape's most eager endeavors and yet it was thwarted, to Dumbledore's not so hidden pleasure. Snow From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Oct 15 00:36:55 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:36:55 -0000 Subject: Petunia & Family In-Reply-To: <20061012180852.11324.qmail@web57110.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159699 Welcome to both of you! Here is what little JKR has given us: Leaky Cauldron Interview, 2005 JKR: They [James' parents] were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them. MA: That sort of shuts down Heir of Gryffindor [theories], as well. JKR: [Pause.] Yeah. Well - yeah. MA: Another one bites the dust. JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat - 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. Abergoat writes: There is an earlier quote where she says something similar to the World Day Book Chat, without the 'they are not particularly important'. Some posters noticed that James is obsessed with the snitch (doodles it on his OWL paper and plays with one) even though JKR has said he is a chaser rather than a seeker. Someone speculated James's 'inherited wealth' may come from the fact he is descended from the inventor of the Golden Snitch (600 years ago as described in JKR's charity books). I thought it was a fun idea. It is also thought that JKR's hesitation of the 'not the heir of godric' might mean the James's family had collected the sword even if they weren't related to him. I thought that was a fun idea too and would explain why they are 'mentioned' in book seven without being particularly important. Abergoat From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 00:05:17 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore- Time, Wisdom, & Spies Message-ID: <20061015000517.89305.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159700 > >>katie: >> As we saw in HBP DD was able to extract memories from people and place it in his pensive for viewing. I personally feel it is not too much of a stretch to think that DD can and has extracted memories from himself, his staff, and possibly the students. Also I don't know if it is possible he is able to extract memories from the portraits. The portraits I believe play a more valuable role than what we have seen so far. << J: Oh! OOHH!!! I never even thought of that. At the end of HBP McGonagall asks Harry what he and DD were up to. It could be possible that MG wanted to know how much Harry knew and if there were more memories, or if she knew what was going on, Harry has yet again set himself up for a road block. JKRowling likes to do that to him. LOL. J From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Oct 15 00:50:19 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:50:19 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159701 > montims: > Ooh - I just flew off on a flight of fancy - if they HAD made the UV, >who would have cast the spell? So I thought of Aberforth, and I >realised it could have been done after the prophecy eavesdropping >incident - Aberforth held on to Snape, DD finished with Sybill, they >all three sat down for a little chat, Snape convinced them of his good >intentions, bada bing bada boom, the UV was cast and Snape was forever >after DDM. >Tonks: >I like the idea. This would leave Aberforth able to tell Harry about >Snapes loyalties. The only problem with this idea is that I don't think >that Snape switched side until AFTER he gave the informantion to LV. So >while this idea gives us someone to tell Harry the truthabout Snape, >the time line is not quite right. Nikkalmati: Query: Why would DD allow SS to walk out of the Hog's Head with that information? He hired ST as Divination teacher to protect her from LV, so he realized the importance of the prophecy. Aberforth had SS by the collar. Why would DD let him go? I suspect SS and DD reached an understanding on that night. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Oct 15 00:50:14 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:50:14 -0000 Subject: What's next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159702 Fun ideas everyone! Ron and Luna...I'm hoping she ends up with Krum! My thoughts are no where near as entertaining, but here we go! Ron - Dies doing something truly heroic, he is the real reason Voldemort fails and his name goes down in history - far surpassing any exploits of his siblings. Except for F&G's joke shop... Hermione - She has to go first so Ron has nothing to lose. Definitely a shame. Harry & Voldemort - Harry survives, Voldemort his his remaining soul removed by his dementors in a 'fate worse than death'. That isn't 'survival' so Harry can live without violating the prophecy (which DD tells us is just words anyway). Harry marries Ginny and they name there first girl and boy Ronald and Hermione. The houses pulled together in 'unity' as the sorting hat requested (does Harry use a true Hufflepuff, a true Ravenclaw and a true Slytherin to pull the relics/horcruxes from their Voldemort protected hiding places?). That hat returns to sorting once the threat has past just as it always does per Nearly Headless Nick. Abergoat (Or JKR will mirror real-life and Ron will die frustrated that he never 'measured up'. That that would be the ending to an adult story not a children's book. But it would be one of life's little lessons learned...how depressing) From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Oct 15 00:58:31 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:58:31 -0000 Subject: hagrid, detention, Lupin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159703 n8483483 wrote: > I am curious as to how much Hagrid knows about Tom Riddle being > Voldermont. Abergoat writes: Welcome to the group! I love speculating on Hagrid and CoS because JKR said the working title of CoS was HBP. Add that to the date of the potions book putting the owner within a year of Hagrid at school and I think we have a possible connection between Eileen Prince and Rubeus Hagrid - explaing Hagrid's constant support of Snape to the point of calling Harry 'stupid' at the end of HBP. Where Eileen and Hagrid friends? n8483483 wrote: > Is Hagrid allowed to do magic now? I can't seem to figure that out! Abergoat writes: Isn't it fascinating how Hagrid can do some rather advanced magic even though he had only three years of education, a broken wand and, lets face it, he isn't the brightest man? I suspect Eileen comes in to play here. If she had reason to believe that Tom Riddle was the culprit, not Hagrid, and didn't manage to keep Hagrid from being kicked out of school I could see her pulling a 'Hermione' and continuing Hagrid's education on her own. Abergoat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 01:09:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:09:20 -0000 Subject: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159704 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 22, After the Burial Carol: I'm going to respond without having read anyone else's answers to avoid being influenced by them. My apologies if I duplicate anyone. > Discussion Questions: > > 1. Why does a girl deliver Harry's note from Hagrid, rather than an > owl? Why isn't that girl named? Carol: I think it's part of the overall safety precausions. Owls are being checked, or maybe owl-sent messages are forbidden in HBP. Certainly, Hagrid doesn't want Filch reading the note. Both Dumbledore and Snape use students to carry messages to Harry in HBP. Snape's message about Harry's flobberworm detention isn't even written down. (If it had been, would Harry have noticed a similarity between Snape's writing and the HBP's?) > > 2. The Montgomery boy was attacked because his mother refused to > help the Death Eaters. The books make it seem like the Death Eaters > are constantly threatening random and numerous wizards who refuse to > help them. Are there enough Death Eaters for this to be realistic? > How many Death Eaters do we think there are? What did they want > from the Montgomery witch? Will we hear more about her? Carol: I think the incident is merely used to show that Hogwarts students and their families are in real danger and to prepare us for the piece of filth that is Fenrir Greyback (already mentioned at least twice in HBP, once by Draco in "Draco's Detour" and once by Snape in "Spinner's End." Interesting question, but I doubt we'll hear more about Mrs. Montgomery. (Remember Mark Evans!) > > 3. Harry was surprised to hear that werewolves sometimes kill their > victim. Were you? In PoA, didn't Snape seem to imply that Lupin > could have killed him during the Prank? Why doesn't Harry remember > that? Carol: I'm not sure about Harry, but the reader certainly needs to know that werewolves can sometimes kill, which shows that Snape's belief that Sirius Black tried to kill him in their sixth year is not baseless. Harry tunes it out, of course. Anything that makes Black (or Lupin?) look bad and Snape look like a victim (or justified in his hatred of Black) would immediately bypass his conscious mind. I think, though, that the reader is supposed to recall the so-called Prank. (I hate that name because it diminishes the potential seriousness of the incident, as Lupin may have intended when he referred to it as "a schoolboy prank.") Harry wants to think badly of Snape and blame him for Black's death. The last thing he wants is to think that his furture godfather realized that Severus Snape could have been killed (or worse). > > 4. Do you think there's any possibility that Harry took something > other than Felix Felicis? Carol: Nope. I think that the Felix Felicis not only made him feel lucky but actually guided his instincts. May I have some, please?) > > 5. Harry didn't actually have 24 hours' worth of Felix Felicis, he > only had a 12-hour dose. Is it possible that his "measured" gulp > didn't last as long as he thought it would? Might he have been on > his own at the end of the conversation in Hagrid's hut? Or was that > just a flint? Carol: "Measured gulp" is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it? But once Slughorn is drunk and Harry know what he needs to do, it doesn't much matter, does it? (Except that Harry is discovering the uses of psychological manipulation, which sounds bad but is a skill required in parenting and in many occupations, including teaching, IMO.) > > 6. How much of the effect of Felix Felicis do you think is placebo? Carol: I think that the placebo effect affects the state of mind (self-confidence, feeling lucky) as we see with Ron in "Felix Felicis" (what a sneaky chapter title!), but surely the inspiration to go to the greenhouse, to reveal his presence to Slughorn and tell him the truth, etc., were the effect of the potion. (Other potions, e.g. polyjuice, wolfsbane, veritaserum, and love potions do what they're purported to do. Why should Felix be any different?) > > 7. Do you think Harry acted recklessly under the influence of > Felix? We know that when taken in excess, the potion can be > harmful. Is there any possibility that something bad could have > happened to Harry even with this limited use? Carol: I doubt that Slughorn would have given a dose large enough to have harmful effects as a prize for students. I think "excess" probably means frequent use to, say, get high marks or dates with popular girls. Or maybe it refers to an addiction to FF like winky's to butterbeer. > > 8. Harry thinks how upset Hermione would be by Slughorn making a > house-elf taste wine that could be poisoned. Are we EVER going to > see something come of Hermione's obsession with house-elves? Carol: Alas, yes; I'm sure we are or we wouldn't have had SPEW inflicted on us in Books 4 and 5. But in this instance, Hermione would certainly be right to protest. Wonder what would have happened to Slughorn if the house-elf had died? > > 9. What do you think would have happened if Harry had drank the > wine at Hagrid's? Would it just have interfered with retrieving the > memory, or could there be some type of bad interaction between the > two drinks? Carol: I think that his thinking would have been clouded and possibly the Felix would have been less effective. I doubt that there would have been a toxic interaction. > > 10. Slughorn acquires unicorn hair and Acromantula venom at > Hagrid's hut. Are we going to see those items again, and how? Carol: I doubt it. Slughorn just needs them either for potions (in the case of the venom) or to get extra cash (in the case of the unicorn hair). I doubt that he's making wands. Maybe Ollivander, now in hiding somewhere, will buy the unicorn hair from him? > > 11. Felix tells Harry that Slughorn won't remember their > conversation in the morning. Do you think that's true? Even if it > is, a Legilimens like Voldemort could probably see the truth. Is > Slughorn in great danger now that he has given Harry the memory? Carol: Yes, I think it's true, and I doubt that Voldemort will see this particular memory even if he captures Slughorn because Legilimency (IMO) involves seeing whatever thought or memory is presently in the recipient's conscious mind, especially if it's something the recipient (the person being Legilimensed) is trying to hide (cf. the HBP's potions book, which Harry is trying to conceal from Snape). I don't think it detects memories the person can't even remember. (The Legilimens *spell* can release such memories, but they seem random. As Snape tells Harry, the mind is not a book that can be perused at will.) I'm not sure that Slughorn was ever really in danger (unless the DEs were really trying to recruit him). I doubt that Voldemort thinks that Slughorn would reveal the Horcrux discussion to Dumbledore or anyone else, and what good would it do to capture him to discover that information now? Dumbledore is dead, and if Harry knows about the Horcruxes, it's Harry that LV has to fear. > > 12. What was your reaction to the "remorseless" way Harry described > his parents' murder in this scene? Do you think he only did that > because he had to, or is he less sensitive about the subject now? > Is this a different side to Harry than what we usually see? What > does this tell us about Harry's growth since we met him as an eleven-year-old? Carol: I think we're seeing Harry's Slytherin side and that he's going to have to use cunning, along with any other skill or weapon available, to complete his quest. As for using about his parents' murder to manipulate Slughorn, IMO he gets a bit of vindictive pleasure out of it. Like Hermione, Harry is not (yet) above revenge. I hope that changes but I'm not sure that JKR's sentiments coincide with mine. One additional note since you didn't ask: I think we've seen the last of the references to Harry having his mother's eyes. That particular motif has, IMO, fulfilled its purpose. (I'm a bit tired of reading it in every book, anyway--almost as bad as people repeatedly cringing at the name Voldemort. Enough, already! Well, that's my view, anyway.) Carol, who finally has a chance to catch up on posting and hopes she can manage in three or four hours! From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 15 01:20:22 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:20:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys References: Message-ID: <014a01c6eff8$16c90b00$f76c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159705 > Pippin: > Of course the Weasleys are, over all, a nice family, but we get > to see that it's partly Gryffindor values that make them so. > It's not haphazard that there's usually someone to rein Molly > or Ron in when they start to go too far. There is a very strong > Gryffindor taboo about picking on people weaker than yourself, > and it's constantly being enforced by the Gryffindors themselves. > It's shocking in the Pensieve scene when we see it ignored, but > it points up that this taboo is a choice, not a law of nature, and > it could at any moment be set aside, if people don't care enough > to enforce it. Magpie: I've always thought that strong Gryffindor taboo of not picking on those weaker than you are was one of those things where the memory of the text is corrupted--it's not there. The Twins go after people two against one. They go after Percy, they try to join Harry in beating up Draco (only one can), they turn Neville into a canary, they shove Montague into a Cabinet two against one, they hex Zach from behind, they give Dudley the toffee. "Deserving it" always trumps "weaker." If there's one thing that *isn't* a shock to me in the Pensieve it's that Gryffindors don't mind outnumbering, or going after the weaker or younger. I don't think James was the first Gryffindor to easily slip back and forth between protector of the weak and bully. Ron and Molly have never stood out in my mind as the two Weasleys with the mean streak. I'd describe Ron as far more having confidence undermined by his family than getting reined in by them. In fact, in my memory (which could also be corrupted) when Ron feels the Twins need to be reined in he doesn't think he can do it. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 15 01:43:13 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 01:43:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159706 Just_Carol: > Carol, who thinks that Dumbledore must have had good reason for > believing that he had matters under control (and to trust Snape) but > wishes that he had not chosen to fly to the astronomy tower after he > returned from the cave > Pippin: "Every secret passageway out of the school was covered. We knew nobody could fly in. There were powerful enchantments on every entrance into the castle. I still don't know how the Death Eaters could possibly have entered..." -McGonagall, HBP ch 29 Notice that they knew the enchantments hadn't been breached. They must therefore have a way of monitoring the defences. Dumbledore would have expected to know if the whooping meant Draco had done something to enable the DE's to get in. What is it Dumbledore should have done if he'd been listening to Harry? Dumbledore could have searched the RoR's chamber of hidden things as long as he liked and not found what Draco was working on, and maybe he did. Trelawney's tale could have shortened the search considerably if she could have pointed out where the voice came from. I am not saying it is Harry's fault, just pointing out that AFAWK, there was nothing in Harry's report that would have alerted Dumbledore to anything that he didn't already know. There was nothing more to be done, short of confronting Draco himself. But Dumbledore believed that it was Voldemort's plan that he, Dumbledore, should be the instrument of Draco's death, and that if this plan failed, Voldemort would kill Draco himself. DD had all the more reason to believe this if Snape had revealed the third portion of the vow, because the only thing it protects Draco from is Dumbledore -- it doesn't do anything to stop Voldemort from trying to kill Draco, it just removes one possible means of doing the job. Thus, to confront Draco without the means to protect him would be to do to Draco what Snape did to Harry when he revealed the prophecy to Voldemort: mark an innocent child for death on the basis that he is to be feared. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 02:04:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:04:47 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159707 Pippin: > There was nothing more to be done, short of confronting Draco > himself. But Dumbledore believed that it was Voldemort's plan that > he, Dumbledore, should be the instrument of Draco's death, and > that if this plan failed, Voldemort would kill Draco himself. DD had > all the more reason to believe this if Snape had revealed the third > portion of the vow, because the only thing it protects Draco from > is Dumbledore -- it doesn't do anything to stop Voldemort from > trying to kill Draco, it just removes one possible means of doing > the job. > > Thus, to confront Draco without the means to protect him would > be to do to Draco what Snape did to Harry when he revealed the > prophecy to Voldemort: mark an innocent child for death on the > basis that he is to be feared. Alla: I am going to offer very simple suggestion of what Dumbledore should have done knowing as he claims of what Draco was doing all along. How about indeed confronting Draco, grabbing him by the colar and dragging him to protective custody. NO, not throwing him into prison, although personally I think Draco would have really benefited from stay in Azkaban - may have been huge eye opening, I understand that throwing to prison would bring unwelcome assosiations of Dumbledore with Barty Crouch, etc, but dragging him into protective custody, even if he does not want to? Eh, who cares? He is about to kill one person and almost kills two and he is not going to jail, and after all of that said and done Dumbledore can offer him same excuse he offered Harry of why he made Sirius to stay in the house he hated - I was trying to keep you alive, you stupid child. Be grateful that I did it for you while you were trying to kill me. Granted, Sirius **chose** to do it on Dumbledore suggestion, but Sirius was not planning Dumbledore association, he had a very doubtful luxury to choose it, if Draco is not allowed to choose whether he wants protection or not, I am not going to be too upset. And what is the most infuriating to me is that Dumbledore does exactly that - offers him protection on the Tower. Gee, how about doing it a bit earlier? I mean, yes, Draco may not have wanted it then, but IMO dragging him to protection is not denying him due process or something, it is indeed saving him. So, yeah that is what Dumbledore should have done IMO. The fact that he did not, well tells me that he was convinced all along that he knew better how to deal with Draco and whether Harry would have told him about Trelawney or not would not have made a slightest difference. IMO of course, Alla From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Oct 15 02:45:12 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:45:12 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAP DISC: HBP 22, After the Burial Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159708 > Carol >One additional note since you didn't ask: I think we've seen the last >of the references to Harry having his mother's eyes. That particular >motif has, IMO, fulfilled its purpose. (I'm a bit tired of reading it >in every book, anyway--almost as bad as people repeatedly cringing at >the name Voldemort. Enough, already! Well, that's my view, anyway.) Nikkalmati Yes, I think that motif may have played itself out. The big build up turned out to be just that Slughorn was reminded of Lily by Harry's eyes and decided to give him the memory. I still harbour a hope that only Harry can read Snape's potion notes because they were spelled for Lilly only to read. (Not sure who first suggested it, but it wasn't me). There is also the possibility that Snape will remember Lily by looking at Harrry's eyes too at some crucial point in book 7, so be prepared. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 02:37:57 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:37:57 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm In-Reply-To: <8o8bpr+hel8@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159709 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, msmacgoo at ... wrote: i've puzziling how Wizard > Baruffio finishes up with a Buffalo on his chest when there is no "f" > in Wingardiun Leviosa to misspronounce as a "s". > So how come ? [HP1 page 126 UK Ed] The nearest I can figure is the way they pronounce the v in leviosa as more of an f sound instead of a v. Another reason could be that he used Wizard Buaruffio as an example of how missing on letter in a spell can cause bad results. We can probably assume that the spell Flitwick is referring to is not necessarily Wingardium Leviosa but another spell in which the f was replaced with an s and he ended up with a buffalo. Katie From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 02:53:03 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:53:03 -0000 Subject: FILK: I love my Mum Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159710 Welcome to all the newbies! Around here we sometimes get creative and rewrite lyrics of songs. If you see "Filk" in the subject line, you've found one! The ones you'll find here, plus a whole lot of others from other sources can be found here: http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm Harry Potter Filks is a wonderful site to lose yourself in for a few hours if that is your cup of tea. It is run by our own CMC, to whom I dedicate this little tune. "I Love My Mum" to the tune of "I Love this Bar" by Toby Keith. Midi here (left side, scroll down): http://www.hanel-m.de/unten.htm Somewhere in the depths of Romania, Norbert sits with his dragon buddies, each remembering the day he was hatched. Although Norbert realized that his Mum is a bit different than the scaly females who hatched his pals, he still has a soft spot in his heart for his Mummy. He sings: He likes monsters. He likes dragons. Drinks his mead by the flagons. Yeah, he likes spiders, big and scary. Likes a kid name of Harry. He's big and wide and some say he's real dumb. Hmm, mmm, mmm, I love my Mum. Yeah, he gave me my first Teddy. Rocked me to sleep in my beddy. Gave me dead rats, and good chew toys, Although some tasted like school boys. He said, "Don't nip at the redhead, he's my chum." Hmm, mmm, mmm, I love my Mum. I love my Mum. It's no disgrace. I get a tear remembering His big ol' honest face. I get lonesome for where I'm from. Hmm, mmm, mmm, I love my Mum. It don't matter if you're a leaper, Runner, crawler or creeper. If in the Forest, you're a-livin' Love and protection he'll be givin'. In my eyes, he's a bigger hero than Vic Krum. Hmm, mmm, mmm, I love my Mum. I liked his hut. (I LIKED that hut!) I liked his three friends. ('Specially the redhead) I liked the way he fed me dinner. I liked the drinking at the end. But I love my Mum. That big, honest face. Even though we're seperated By lots and lots of space. I know where I'm from; when I get glum... Hmm, mmm, mmm, I love my Mum. Hmm, mmm, mmm, I love my Mum. Now I've got friends here of my own kind. I've got a lil Swedish Short-Snout on my mind. We've got food here for the eatin' And internal combustion central heatin'. I'd send an invitation if I thought he'd come. Hmm, mmm, mmm, I love my Mum. (ad lib and fade) Ginger, who hopes Norbert will come back in Book 7. From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 02:49:50 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 02:49:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the Rat, Map In-Reply-To: <8ovabt+1qjn@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan McGee" wrote: "But, I want to agree, Fred and George just did not notice "Peter Pettigrew" among hundreds of names. The name didn't have the significance to them that it did to Lupin, Sirius, etc. " It is quite possible that Fred and George saw Peter Pettigrew's name and just assumed it was another student by the same name. They had no reason to believe that he was alive. Only James, Remus, and Sirius knew that he could change into a rat so there was really no reason to think that Scabbers was actually Peter. I do agree with your statement that the name did not have much significance to the twins as it did to some of the other characters. Katie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 03:02:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 03:02:21 -0000 Subject: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159712 (New) Carol wrote: > > Don't know if you heard about that woman that wants to ban the Harry Potter books, but I think she is crazy. She said that the books teach our kids witchcraft. I think she is nuts. > Bruce responded: > Another Carol. Carol Matricino (or something like that). In the > late 70's, early 80's she made a lot of money with books and tapes > about the evils of the New Age Movement. > The "witches" of Harry Potter are genetically different human > beings, not converts to the religion of Wicca. There are as many > real witches in Harry Potter as there were in Salem (NONE). I am > really sensitive to the issue, because one of my ancestors was > Rebecca Addington (AKA Rebecca Shelley, Rebecca Chamberlain) who > died in a Salem jail awaiting trial on a false charge of > witchcraft. I also know a member of the church of Wicca, who is > more opposed to Harry Potter than most of the Christian > fundamentalists - it misrepresents her religion. I fight the lunacy > of those against Harry Potter all the time. > Carol (not the new one) notes: One of my ancestors was Martha Carrier, who was hanged at the Salem witch trials. Her granddaughter married a man named Stallworthy Waters, and my father's maternal grandmother was a Waters. I like to pretend that Martha Carrier's gene for witchcraft was Carried by the Waters down to me. But of course you're right: There's no such thing as a real witch, much as I'd like to believe that the WW is real, and not all fundamentalists believe in book banning, as some of our list members illustrate. My apologies to the List Elves for being OT here. I'll get back to my usual canon-based arguments at the first opportunity, but first I'd like to recommend to the spate of newbies that they try out our improved search engine, which will lead you to threads on RAB, Horcruxes, DDM!Snape (DDM = Dumbledore's Man), and just about any other topic you can think of. I recommend using multiple search terms as "Snape" or "Horcrux" will give you too many results for the search engine to handle. Carol, wanting to unconfuse any list members who may have thought that the new Carol's post was mine (who knew there were so many Carols?) and to commiserate with Bruce over the tragic fate of our "witch" ancestors From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 03:01:05 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 03:01:05 -0000 Subject: Magical Cures for Medical Maladies In-Reply-To: <39A8482F.9809A51@hic.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159713 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer wrote: > > "This ties in with the why would any wizard need to wear glasses (why > can't they just fix Harry's eyesight)" > (snip) > Any takers on this wild & crazy theory??? Just my thought it is probably an ethics kind of thing. There are probably certain kind of magics that are considered dark magic. To do these would be considered unethical, just like horcruxes. While they have magic for everything certain magics to do certain things require the wizard or witch to go into dark magic. Do they ever really mention a wizard who went bad that had glasses? It seems like the good wizards have glasses, Harry, DD, etc. but I don't recall reading any of the bad wizards and witches that have glasses. I could be wrong. Katie From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 15 03:12:45 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 03:12:45 -0000 Subject: comments on Two Weeks of Posts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159714 Dillgravy wrote in : << I was hoping to start a discussion on Dementors and their possible origins. Do we know how they came to be? Were they ever human? They aren't "beasts" because they're not mentioned in the "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them".>> It has been suggested that Lethifolds are juvenile Dementors. Because both are dispelled by Patronus, and because the lethifold looks like a black cloak and the dementor looks like it's wearing a black cloak. Potioncat wrote in : << The funny thing is, Sirius says Karkaroff put lots of DEs in prison and they were very mad at him. Yet we didn't see that in the Pensieve. He only came up with one new name. So--is Sirius wrong? Did someone else name names that Karkaroff was credited/blamed for? >> IIRC the one new name mentioned by Karkaroff was Rookwood, who was in the Department of Mysteries, and Rookwood was the spymaster using Ludo Bagman. Maybe Rookwood was running a *lot* of spies, who blamed Karkaroff for Rookwood's files being seized. On another tentacle, IIRC Sirius said that lots of DEs in prison were screaming against Pettrigrew for getting their Master de-corporated, and that has never made any sense to me -- if all the DEs knew that Pettigrew was the traitor, why didn't Snape know? (Or if Snape knew, then he knew that Sirius wasn't the traitor, so he was willing to turn over an innocent man to the Dementor's Kiss.) Listies offered some other possibilities. One was that the DEs were shouting against 'WOrmtail', not 'Pettigrew'; they knew only the code name, not the real name or the face, and Snape thought 'Wormtail' was Sirius. Another was that it was only Bellatrix and maybe a couple of other inner-circle DEs who knew about the traitor; their cries were magnified in Sirius's head to the noise of a crowd; Snape was not one of that inner circle. This possibility offers that only one DE in Azkaban was screaming against Karkaroff -- Rookwood himself, and Sirius multiplied it in his head. Laurawkids wrote in : << How about Snape being an animagus as a Thestral? The same batty clues can still support the Thestrals' huge bat-like wings, "...vast, black leathery wings that looked as though they ought to belong to giant bats." OotP >> Someone used the same evidence to 'prove' that Snape's animagus form is a Hebridean Black Dragon. In which case, Snape in the tunnel or even in the Shrieking Shack could not have saved himself from the werewolf by taking animal form, as a dragon is too big to fit in the tunnel or the shack. I don't know if the Animagus spell can turn people into magical beasts or is it limited to normal beasts. << There is no listing for Thestrals in Fantastic Beasts, is the ommision telling? >> As someone posted, the Thestrals *are* in FABULOUS BEASTS under "Winged Horses", altho' the description of black winged horses who are sometimes invisible didn't mention the reptilian faces, skeletal (bodies? then how to sit on them?), fangs, or relationship with death. Katssirius wrote in : << like the Wizard Baruffio they may end up on the floor with a Buffalo on their chest. He says that a s replaced an f. I do not get it. Can someone help me. What did the Wizard really want to happen? >> That would be so much easier to spin if the F replaced an S. Accio Buffalo instead of Accio Bussalo, with only the need to figure out what Bussalo is. The thing that landed on his chest might have been a Water Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) or an American Bison (Bison bison). but both are in the cow family, Bovidae, from Latin word for 'cow', Bos. Maybe he said Accio Bos when he meant Accio Bof. Maybe it's more closely related to levitating a feather with Wingardium Leviosa -- he meant to levitate a toad with Bufium Leviosa but instead said Busium Leviosa (of which I would never have thought if not for some long-ago post explaining why 'wingardium' is Wizardish for 'feather'.) Laurawkids wrote in : << If PP had not been saved by Harry, would there have even been someone who would cut off his hand for LV?! >> Barty Crouch was loyal enough and Bellatrix was loyal enough. I don't know about the Lestrange brothers -- loyal enough or merely under Bella's control. If LV had known that young Crouch was in old Crouch's house, he could have sent Quirrell to free young Crouch rather than to chase the Philosopher's Stone. But he didn't know until he interrogated poor Bertha. Aussie Hagrid wrote in : << We found out in OOTP that Sirius had a nice safe hiding place in Grimauld Place. Did he go there straight after leaving Harry in POA? SB sent messages to Harry , not with owls, but with tropical birds. (personally, I hoped they came from Australia to forshadow a DADA teacher that wrestled Crocodiles) But in light of OOTP, I am wondering if that was a decoy. >> Accio Quote led me to the desired JKR interview: <> That allows Australia or the Canary Islands, altho' my preference is a Caribbean island. It rules out London. Tonks_op wrote in : << I think we are going to see the "other ways to destroy a man". When I heard that phrase, I assumed some horrible method know to Wizards and Muggles alike, >> Well, one method is well known both to wizards and to readers of the Potter ouevre: the Dementor's Kiss. Tonks_op wrote in : << And are there no male veela? I guess common sense would be that there must be to continue the race, but we never hear about them, do we? >> As someone posted, the 'real' veela (the ones that real humans in the real world have folktales about) start as the ghosts of girls who die unmarried. I doubt that's the origin of Potterverse veela, but they *might* grow on trees. They might reproduce parthenogenically -- there are real world species of lizards who do that -- the whole species is genetically identical because it started with one female lizard who mutantly produced eggs with a full set of chromosomes, no need to get any chromosomes from a sperm. The magic would be that Veela, unlike those lizards, can ALSO reproduce sexually. In which case, a full Veela was produced parthenogenically; a half-Veela was fathered by a male from an interfertile magical humanoid species, such as human, goblin, troll. Some listies suggested that all Veela offspring are fathered by (humans or whatever), with the daughters being Veela and the sons being half-Veela. Carol wrote in : << But if that's the case, how could Fleur be *part* Veela? If her "grandmuzzer" was a Veela who married a human man, then she and her mother would (and little Gabrielle) also be full-blood Veelas. >> LIke Maria , I assume that Fleur's Veela ancestor was her paternal grandmother, so that her father was half-veela. We saw Fleur's mother and little Gabrielle come to see Fleur before the third task and there was no mention of Fleur's mother being exceptionally handsome for her age. Allie summarized Chapater 22 in : <<6.How much of the effect of Felix Felicis do you think is placebo?>> I think Rowling meant for the Felix Felicis potion to be a mere placebo that only gives Harry confidence, not abilities. Because of the conversation the Trio has about it: <<"It's a great feeling when you take it," said Ron reminiscently. "Like you can't do anything wrong." "What are you talking about?" said Hermione, laughing. "You've never taken any!""Yeah, but I thought I had, didn't I?" said Ron, as though explaining the obvious. "Same difference really ..." >> But the description of Harry' experience sounds like FF potion really is magic, something akin to Divination but more reliable: <> and so on. << 8. Harry thinks how upset Hermione would be by Slughorn making a house-elf taste wine that could be poisoned. Are we EVER going to see something come of Hermione's obsession with house-elves? >> Would the House Elf have been killed/sickened by the poison, or just detected it by taste? From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 03:16:13 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie Bogdan) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:16:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore, Heads of House, and Portkeys Message-ID: <20061015031613.98259.qmail@web80411.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159715 > Sister Mary Lunatic says: > > > "I wonder if there is an explanation as to why a person can > PORTKEY > > into Hogwarts and out of Hogwarts, when Apparating is impossible." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Katie (butterflykisses427) response: As demonstrated by the times Harry got in trouble from underage > magic the MOM can detect when, where, and what kind of spell is being cast. The only thing is that you do not know who is doing the spell. So if a DE was to do a portkey if the ministry of magic was looking for it they could know where the spell was being cast. I have a feeling that the use of the portkey spell is watched closely. In the beginning of OoP we learn that you need permission to create a portkey. Ex: This is after Harry discovers the guards who are there to take him to no. 12 and he asks how they are going to get there. Lupin responds: "Brooms," said Lupin, "Only way. You're too young to Appartate, they'll be watching the Floo Network, and it's more than our life's worth to se up an unauthorized Portkey." (page 31) So I am assuming that just like they are able to find out underage magic (in the case Harry is the only wizard in his area) they are probably able to tag the spell for the portkey to make sure no one is doing it illegally. So if a DE was to do a portkey spell, the MOM of magic would be able to immediately apparate to the spot and pretty much catch them. Plus they always say Hogwarts has high level of security so they probably have a spell that prevents people from being able to use a portkey in. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Rita says: > > > > "I wonder how expensive a spell Portkey is? An American wizarding > > school could be a day school for kids from half the continent if > they > > each were issued a Portkey that went to school in the morning, > each > > morning, and home in the afternoon." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Katie (butterflykisses427) says: > > The spell is actually quite simple as demonstrated by DD in OoP "Dumbledore was now rummaging in a cupboard behind Harry and Ron. He emerged from it carrying a blackened old tea kettle, which he placed carefully upon his desk. He raised his wand and murmured 'Portus'; for a moment the kettle trembled, glowing with an odd blue, light, then it quivered to a rest, as solidly black as ever." (page 472) So the spell is really quite simple so it is possible that an American wizard can visit a wizarding day school across the globe. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 15 03:00:41 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:00:41 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of References: Message-ID: <017001c6f006$1a8c2520$f76c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159716 > Alla: > The fact that he did not, well tells me that he was convinced all > along that he knew better how to deal with Draco and whether Harry > would have told him about Trelawney or not would not have made a > slightest difference. Magpie: I'd also note (and I could be wrong here and not remembering something) that in response to Harry's information about the RoR Dumbledore wouldn't necessarily have had to take Draco into custody. He could have just set guards outside the RoR so that Draco couldn't make a move that night--or told Snape to be there waiting outside the RoR. Does Snape even know Draco's spending a lot of time there? He quite possibly doesn't because he doesn't have the map and Draco actually is taking special precautions to make sure no one knows he's there by polyjuicing Crabbe and Goyle outside. Since what Draco was really doing was bringing DEs, a guard outside the room would have just seen them that much earlier. Hindsight's always 20/20 and I can't say just how different everything would have been this way--DD *did* have guards in the castle anyway who fought the DEs who came through. But I do think that that final discussion between Harry and Dumbledore is about driving home the fact that Dumbledore is making the mistake of thinking he knows more than Harry so that there's no chance of forgetting on the Tower that the very thing Harry had been focused on was the very thing that made a difference and that Dumbledore did not want to hear or consider. -m From fluorite at swbell.net Sun Oct 15 04:06:58 2006 From: fluorite at swbell.net (Jeff) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 04:06:58 -0000 Subject: The Scar Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159717 Hi Everyone. I've been having my first discussion with another member, and we disagree on the seventh horcrux. She feels it is Nagini, and I cannot help but feel it is Harry's scar (because of the powers he got from Voldemort). Any comments? You can also see some of my other ideas at www.hp7ch1.com Look forward to your input. Jeff >^.^< From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Oct 15 03:36:27 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:36:27 -0400 Subject: Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159718 Kemper: "So... why wasn't the book with the Avada Kedavra banned? It seems a pre-req for the Horcrux." Not necessarily. There are other ways of murdering someone. Even Muggles know of many of them. BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 01:36:50 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 18:36:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys Message-ID: <20061015013650.14765.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159719 Magpie: I've always thought that strong Gryffindor taboo of not picking on those weaker than you are was one of those things where the memory of the text is corrupted--it's not there. The Twins go after people two against one. They go after Percy, they try to join Harry in beating up Draco (only one can), they turn Neville into a canary, they shove Montague into a Cabinet two against one, they hex Zach from behind, they give Dudley the toffee. "Deserving it" always trumps "weaker." J: Well, I think you have to realize what is done as "fun" and what is done to truely hurt someone. The Weasley twins turning Neville into a canary (With their Canary Creams) isn't some thing to be concidered "cruel" maybe rude, not increadibly nice, but they weren't trying to harm him... the same with Dudley. They just wanted to give Dudley a taste of his own medicine and he was returned to normal. As far as Anyone being horrible to Draco or other "bad-guys" in the series (sorry to all you Draco enthusiasts) but they have earned their punishment. But that's just the way I see it. J From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Oct 15 04:40:38 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 21:40:38 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <20061015013650.14765.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159720 Magpie: I've always thought that strong Gryffindor taboo of not picking on those weaker than you are was one of those things where the memory of the text is corrupted--it's not there. The Twins go after people two against one. they turn Neville into a canary, Sherry now: We've all often discussed the twins on here, so I'm only responding to the thing about Neville. I never saw the canary cream incident as mean or even slightly on the mean side. It seemed to be a normal fun party joke. Neville even laughed, which seems to me that he enjoyed it and found it a good joke too. The skiving snack boxes seemed much more dangerous to me than the canary creams. sherry From jolenelukeemily at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 03:27:37 2006 From: jolenelukeemily at yahoo.com (Jolene Pope) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 20:27:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore and the Rat, Map In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061015032737.50065.qmail@web39207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159721 Susan McGee wrote: But, I want to agree, Fred and George just did not notice "Peter Pettigrew" among hundreds of names. The name didn't have the significance to them that it did to Lupin, Sirius, etc. Katie: It is quite possible that Fred and George saw Peter Pettigrew's name and just assumed it was another student by the same name. They had no reason to believe that he was alive. Jolene: I think that Fred and George were just looking to see where the teachers were so that they wouldn't get in trouble and did not think about the students on the map. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 05:23:41 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:23:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Liberal Bans, Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40610142223tc431dffk8d404410ec3ee142@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159722 > Kemper earlier: > "So... why wasn't the book with the Avada Kedavra banned? It seems a > pre-req for the Horcrux." > > Bruce: Not necessarily. There are other ways of murdering someone. Even Muggles know > of many of them. > Kemper now: Too true... but how many of them are in the Hogwarts' Library? And if quite a few are in there, why shouldn't the an informational book on Horcruxes be in there? Kemper From darksworld at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 06:34:57 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:34:57 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159723 > Nikkalmati: > > Query: Why would DD allow SS to walk out of the Hog's Head with that > information? He hired ST as Divination teacher to protect her from LV, so he > realized the importance of the prophecy. Aberforth had SS by the collar. Why > would DD let him go? I suspect SS and DD reached an understanding on that night. > Charles: If indeed DD and Snape reached an understanding that night, then DD is much more inextricably linked with the death of James and Lily Potter than we have been led to believe. We know for a fact from canon that Voldie got info on the prophecy from Snape and that the info made him seek out and destroy Harry's parents. It fits in with a theory I have but don't much like, that Dumbledore is a b*****d who doesn't give a rodent's posterior about people as long as Voldemort gets it in the end. Like I said, I don't like it much, but it fits all the facts that I have. I'm new here, but I'm going to try the acronym thing for this theory anyway: DAM BUILDER(Dumbledore's A Menace! B*****D Uses Intrigue, Lies, and Deception with Egregious Ruthlessness) From Jen at alveymedia.com Sun Oct 15 04:40:31 2006 From: Jen at alveymedia.com (Jennifer Nielsen) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 22:40:31 -0600 Subject: Harry's Future In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48DD58BF-4F50-46E0-A9B5-794BB1B06937@alveymedia.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159724 >snipping a lot> > > Courtney: > > I'm not sure exactly which route to think; however, in an > > interview (can't remember which one) JKR has said that there > > will be NO MORE Potter books, which leads me to believe that > > she will somehow end it so that no OTHER author can pick the > > story up and run with it (barring any trademark or rights > > issues). I really hate to think that it will end in Harry's > > death, however, she may have some other ingenious way that > > will satisfy both theories. Keep in mind that whether JK kills Harry off, there is nothing to stop her or any other writer (assuming copyright issues aren't in play, which I know they are) from continuing on the story. JK has created more than a character - she's created a world. Anyone who's scanned the fan fiction list knows how many stories have been written in a future world with no Harry. In short, I don't think the issue of future books is relevant to whether Harry will live or die. Jen, who really hopes Harry lives From blue_dragon_53 at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 05:15:07 2006 From: blue_dragon_53 at yahoo.com.au (blue dragon) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 05:15:07 -0000 Subject: WOMBAT - OT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159725 justcarol67 said: > Wombats, OTOH, are just large rodents that resemble large > hamsters or small capybaras. I think that JKR chose a > thoroughly unmagical animal that started with "W" (so that > "Wizard" could fit into the acronym) and made up the rest > of the name to fit the letters in the word (as she must > also have done with NEWT and OWL, both of which also > contain a W). Blue Dragon says: Can I say, as an Australian, that a wombat is NOT a rodent? :) The wombat is a burrowing marsupial, (a mammal that raises its young in a pouch). The better-known marsupials are kangaroos. Now how can I bring this on topic? Ah - perhaps there are wombats living at The Burrow? :) From cute_janers at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 06:15:24 2006 From: cute_janers at yahoo.com (Addicted to flip-flops) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:15:24 -0000 Subject: Snape is still working for Dumbledore in book 6 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159726 Hello everyone, I'm new to this community as well. And I love the HP books!!! I am very addicted. I'm kind of at a battle here. I was thinking "Dumbledore can't be gone..." but I've decided to not settle on anything. I'll see when the book comes out. I'd rather see then get my hopes up. :-D As for working with Snape, I'm not sure on that either. I was so convinced that Snape was...well...not GOOD, but not capable of KILLING. But it looked so much like death, you know? It just looked like he was helping Draco out so Voldemort would perhaps not kill him. But...I don't know for sure. There was just so much confusion, and I could see how it could go both ways...hmm... cute_janers From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 11:23:06 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:23:06 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159727 > wynnleaf, > I think is that Snape is the type of person to habitually make > over-the-top threats. > But > there's other personality types that just don't > seem to "get" this method of communcating and take these kinds of > threats as the real thing. These kinds of threats can really > upset them, because they think the person making the treats will > really kill the toad (or the dog, in a case I'm thinking of), or > poison the student, or some other dread punishment. AD: So, what you're saying is, Snape is too incompetent a teacher to understand the damage he's doing, or too lacking in empathy to care? I can live with that. Amiable Dorsai From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 12:08:52 2006 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:08:52 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159728 Jeff: "I've been having my first discussion with another member, and we disagree on the seventh horcrux. She feels it is Nagini, and I cannot help but feel it is Harry's scar (because of the powers he got from Voldemort)." The Horcrux being Harry's scar (or Harry himself) doesn't meet the conditions for creating a Horcrux as we know them, which seem to require a lot of preparation by Voldemort. He certainly didn't go to Harry's home intending to create one, he intended to off Harry. But there could be some way a semi-demi-defective kind of horcrux could be created by accident, maybe the last tiny bit of evil that has to be destroyed to make Voldemort's destruction complete. One thing I still believe is that Voldemort's final destruction will require a tremendous sacrifice from Harry, more than Harry's own life. Jim Ferer From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Oct 15 12:51:53 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 07:51:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159729 > > wynnleaf, > > I think is that Snape is the type of person to habitually make > > over-the-top threats. > > > > But > > there's other personality types that just don't > > seem to "get" this method of communcating and take these kinds of > > threats as the real thing. These kinds of threats can really > > upset them, because they think the person making the treats will > > really kill the toad (or the dog, in a case I'm thinking of), or > > poison the student, or some other dread punishment. > >AD: >So, what you're saying is, Snape is too incompetent a teacher to >understand the damage he's doing, or too lacking in empathy to care? > >I can live with that. > wynnleaf What do you think an "incompentent" teacher is? Apparently, from OOTP info, Snape's students do very, very well in potions as a whole, even if there are some like Neville that don't do well. So most are clearly learning the material and learning it quite well. "Lacking in empathy" Hm. Well, I don't know that Snape does care if some people are pretty clueless to that sort of over-the-top threat. But you know, very sweet teachers do not necessarily "reach" everyone either. There are many people that are actually quite turned off by people who are the overly kind and empathetic types of teachers, because they seem just too fluffy. Do those teachers "lack empathy" because they won't change and accomodate those of us who really respond better to a much more down to earth style? Thing is, no teacher can adapt their style of teaching to fit every single kind of student. There also has to be a point where students adapt to learning from different kinds of teachers. It seems evident that most students at Hogwarts *are* able to learn from Snape, even if they don't like him personally. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live Spaces http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.get.live.com/spaces/features From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 15 13:21:01 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:21:01 -0000 Subject: WOMBAT - OT In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159730 --- "blue dragon" wrote: > > justcarol67 said: > > I think that JKR chose a thoroughly unmagical animal that > > started with "W" (so that "Wizard" could fit into the > > acronym) and made up the rest of the name to fit the > > letters in the word (as she must also have done with > > NEWT and OWL, both of which also contain a W). > > > Blue Dragon says: > > Can I say, as an Australian, that a wombat is NOT a rodent? :) > > The wombat is a burrowing marsupial, (a mammal that raises its > young in a pouch). The better-known marsupials are kangaroos. Aussie_lol: There are other Australian animals that have made it into JKR's lesser known book (Fantastic Beasts and where to find them). There are the BILLY WIGS (Said to be the main ingrediant in Fizzing Whizzbees) and ANTIPODEAN OPALEYE DRAGON. There is another animal from origins unknown - probably Africa, though I'd like to think it was Australian - and that is the bird Sirius uses to send messages to Harry in GOF. Large Tropical Birds, is all we ever hear of them. Was Sirius staying with a Wombat breeder in Australia at the time? ... lol aussie From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 15 14:30:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:30:34 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159731 Alla: > Eh, who cares? He is about to kill one person and almost kills two > and he is not going to jail, and after all of that said and done > Dumbledore can offer him same excuse he offered Harry of why he made > Sirius to stay in the house he hated - I was trying to keep you > alive, you stupid child. Be grateful that I did it for you while you > were trying to kill me. Granted, Sirius **chose** to do it on > Dumbledore suggestion, but Sirius was not planning Dumbledore > association, he had a very doubtful luxury to choose it, if Draco is > not allowed to choose whether he wants protection or not, I am not > going to be too upset. Pippin: I do not consider the difference between putting myself under ' orders at the dictate of my own conscience as opposed to being dragged off without due process at the dictates of someone else's a doubtful luxury. I doubt that JKR, who has links to Amnesty International on her website, and is campaigning fiercely for the rights of children kept in cage beds, is quite as ready to discard due process or take a benign view of protective custody as you are. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 15 14:36:18 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:36:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys References: <20061015013650.14765.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <008101c6f067$479913f0$416c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159732 > Magpie: > > I've always thought that strong Gryffindor taboo of not picking on > those weaker than you are was one of those things where the memory of > the text is corrupted--it's not there. The Twins go after people two > against one. They go after Percy, they try to join Harry in beating > up Draco (only one can), they turn Neville into a canary, they shove > Montague into a Cabinet two against one, they hex Zach from behind, > they give Dudley the toffee. "Deserving it" always trumps "weaker." > J: > > Well, I think you have to realize what is done as "fun" and what is done > to truely hurt someone. > > The Weasley twins turning Neville into a canary (With their Canary Creams) > isn't some thing to be concidered "cruel" maybe rude, not increadibly > nice, but they weren't trying to harm him... the same with Dudley. They > just wanted to give Dudley a taste of his own medicine and he was returned > to normal. > > As far as Anyone being horrible to Draco or other "bad-guys" in the series > (sorry to all you Draco enthusiasts) but they have earned their > punishment. Magpie: But that's my point. If something is taboo you don't do it, period. And if you do it's a huge deal, something shameful. It's not something you don't do unless it's in fun, or you don't really mean to hurt the person (whether or not they're aware of it), or you think the person has earned having it done to them. If you did it three times last week and it was no big deal, it's probably not a taboo. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 15 14:49:46 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:49:46 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: <014a01c6eff8$16c90b00$f76c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159733 > Magpie: > I've always thought that strong Gryffindor taboo of not picking on those > weaker than you are was one of those things where the memory of the text is > corrupted--it's not there. Pippin: Oh, it's in the text alright. "Their daring, nerve and chivalry/Set Gryffindors apart" It's the chivalry that sets the Gryffs apart from the "any means to achieve their ends" Slytherins. After all, the Slytherins are also daring and resourceful, the difference being, as Phineas points out, that they save their own skins first. Percy has age, authority, twelve OWLs and Molly on his side. I think he'd be highly insulted if you told him he was weaker than the Twins. When the Twins do go after someone weaker than themselves they get called on it, usually by the Gryffs themselves. Hermione tries to protect the first years, and while she doesn't entirely succeed, the Twins seem to regard it as a fair cop and don't retaliate against her, contrary to what Ron seems to fear (perhaps because he is the one with the mean streak.) The cabinet was not chivalrous, and Hermione considers turning the twins in. It may be that Bill's mutilated face is also the innocent victim of her cowardice and/or zealotry --would her own anti-snitching curse have struck her down if she had? Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Oct 15 14:47:39 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:47:39 EDT Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159734 --- In _HPforGrownups at HPforGrownupHPf_ (mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) , msmacgoo at ... wrote: i've puzziling how Wizard > Baruffio finishes up with a Buffalo on his chest when there is no "f" > in Wingardiun Leviosa to misspronounce as a "s". > So how come ? [HP1 page 126 UK Ed] >Katie >The nearest I can figure is the way they pronounce the v in leviosa as >more of an f sound instead of a v. >Another reason could be that he used Wizard Buaruffio as an example of >how missing on letter in a spell can cause bad results. We can >probably assume that the spell Flitwick is referring to is not >necessarily Wingardium Leviosa but another spell in which the f was >replaced with an s and he ended up with a buffalo. Nikkalmati I assume this is a play on the wizard's own name, not on the spell he used. Nikkallmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 15 15:13:47 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 11:13:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys References: Message-ID: <009201c6f06c$86610fc0$416c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159735 > Pippin: > Oh, it's in the text alright. > > "Their daring, nerve and chivalry/Set Gryffindors apart" > > It's the chivalry that sets the Gryffs apart from the "any > means to achieve their ends" Slytherins. > > After all, the Slytherins are also daring and resourceful, the > difference being, as Phineas points out, that they save their > own skins first. Magpie: In fiction, what characters do is generally more convincing than what people say about them. They may make claims to chivalry, they certainly see themselves as chivalrous, but there are plenty of actual scenes demonstrating that they do not shrink away from having fun with someone who is overpowered. I suspect in boarding school books of the past you would see this sort of thing in action a lot more. We would probably see more older students putting a stop to fights between younger ones and never raising a hand to one. Pippin:> > Percy has age, authority, twelve OWLs and Molly on his side. > I think he'd be highly insulted if you told him he was weaker > than the Twins. Magpie: I think he knows perfectly well that when they go after him two against one they're intimidating him. But I will give Percy the fact that he's older than they are, even if I think they do take advantage of ways they have more power. Pippin: > When the Twins do go after someone weaker than themselves > they get called on it, usually by the Gryffs themselves. Hermione > tries to protect the first years, and while she doesn't entirely > succeed, the Twins seem to regard it as a fair cop and don't > retaliate against her, contrary to what Ron seems to fear > (perhaps because he is the one with the mean > streak.) Magpie: Yes, Hermione sometimes scolds them for it--and they still do it. It's not exactly a taboo, then. Hermione scolds for a lot of things. And the idea that Ron is the one with the mean streak continues to amaze me. Not seeing how he's so set apart from some of his family there and in fact would be totally defeated in a mean-off were they ever to have one. Pippin: > The cabinet was not chivalrous, and Hermione considers > turning the twins in. Magpie: She doesn't exactly consider turning them in. Hermione, upon seeing the Montagues coming to the school weeks later, worriedly asks if they shouldn't somehow explain what happened in case it will help Montague get better. The twins may actually be already gone at this point, I can't remember. She could do this without turning the Twins themselves in, but she's quickly convinced not to say anything when the boys counter more trouble for Umbridge is a good thing. So no, not seeing much horror here at the whole thing. There are moments in canon where Gryffindor characters are held back by a sense that going after a certain person would be bullying. It's just that there are plenty of other times when they aren't. Since we end up with a canon where the most examples of aggression against the weaker come from Gryffindors (their being the main characters so the ones we see do most everything) I can't take seriously the idea that this is something so naturally repellent to them. That's why, imo, James is a perfectly good example of them. He no doubt sees himself as a defender of the weak and acts that role at times, but also finds times when it's okay to do the opposite. They definitely have an image of themselves as protectors of the weak, enemy of bullies everywhere, but I don't think that particular self-image is the best way to avoid ever abusing your power. I don't think it was back in the traditional days of chivalry either. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 15:56:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:56:41 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W (and Percy and the twins) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159736 BetsyHP wrote: > >> I agree that Ron would never turn evil. (Hermione is the trio > > member skating close to that particular fall, IMO.) But the twins? > > For the record, I'm not a twin fan. I don't think they're funny, > > and I actually see them quite capable causing quite a bit of > harm. In many ways I think they're living examples of what is wrong > in the Weasley family. Of course, I'm not sure JKR agrees with me. > > > [snip] > Steven1965aaa responded: > > Remember, Ron is the guy who vomited slugs all over Tom Riddle's > award for special services to the school! > > With respect to the twins, I agree with you that they are quite > capable of causing harm, and they did so accidentally with the > cabinet, but IMO their heart is in the right place and they're not > going over to the dark side anytime soon. A few examples come to > mind: In SS helping Harry get his trunk on the train before they > even knew who he was, in COS they went bezerk when Malfoy called > Hermione a "mudblood", in POA giving Harry a gift of the invaluable > and priceless Marauder's map (if they were looking for $ they could > have tried to sell that map to Malfoy or some other rich student for > big bucks), in OOP expressing their desire to join the Order, etc. > Carol adds: Although I'm not much more amused by the Twins than Betsy is (except for an embarrassed giggle when Fred said "Shut up, Weatherby!" in GoF--which is odd because even then I felt sorry for Percy and was later quite touched when he waded into the water in concern for Ron after the second task), I don't see them as clones. Everyone says "the Twins" as if they were identical in personality as well as appearance, but perhaps it's significant that Harry and others can tell them apart after a brief acquaintance. It's Fred who wants to blackmail Ludo Bagman and George who protests against it (but when Ron objects, it's George who ties the letter to the owl's leg in a gesture of solidarity). It's George who offers to help Harry with his trunk and calls Fred over. Perhaps significantly, Harry stuffs his TWT gold into George's hands, not Fred's. In general, I see the Twins as too mischievous for their own good and as occasional bullies, rather like dear James Potter (I hated what they did to Dudley, a helpless Muggle, even though he's a bully himself), but I see George as being slightly more perceptive, slightly more aware of other people's feelings, slightly more conscientious, but just as inventive and just as money-oriented as his brother and all too willing to follow his lead when it comes to, say, testing their products on first-years or Muggles. (Note that George was in on the plan to test ton-tongue toffees on Dudley--he's the one who defends it on the grounds that Dudley is a bullying git--but it's Fred who actually drops the toffees.) It's strange, but I feel a real affection for George that doesn't extend to Fred, and yet George is just as responsible for stuffing Montague into the Vanishing Cabinet as Fred is. He has a conscience but doesn't always listen to it, maybe because his loyalty to Fred is stronger than his sense of right and wrong. I have a feeling that the two unplanned deaths JKR recently spoke about are those of the Twins. I think that's more likely than their going over to Voldemort (though I wouldn't be surprised if the DEs use more of their products, causing them to do something reckless in a failed attempt to retrieve them). Their deaths (if I'm right) would prompt Percy to rejoin his family. (He does love them, as his reaction to Ron's reappearance after the Second Task shows.) Carol, thinking that not even JKR would be ruthless enough to kill off one Twin and leave the other grieving for life From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 16:43:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:43:35 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Ron W In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159737 "NightChade" wrote: > > > > Does anyone think Ron will turn to "the dark side?" He's always so > > depressed about his finances, and jealous of Harry. What if Ron takes over for V. Will JKR kill off the deatheaters and V? Then there has to be something to fill the void. Maybe Percy hmmmmmm. > > Sherry > Serenadust responded: > Coming out of years of lurkdom to say "certainly not!" to the thought of Ron turning to the dark side. > > As for the notion of Ron's jealousy of Harry, I'd suggest that > everyone with an interest in the topic read the HPfGU classic "Anatomy of a Rift, Parts 1 & 2" by the brilliant Dicentra. It can be found way back beginning in post #52038, continuing in post #52039. > > Jo Serenadust, defending Ron Weasley since 2001 > Carol chimes in: Ah! The third-person limited narrator who usually reflects Harry's pov but sometimes shifts to other characters or even outside the characters altogether. Textual analysis of JKR's deliberate use of misdirection. Canon-based defense of a maligned character against assumptions mistaken for canon. *That's* what this list is supposed to be about, at least in part. Close reading and canon support, preferably with some knowledge of what has already been said onlist. Thank you, Serenadust! Note to newbies: Before posting on, say, whether Harry is a Horcrux or whether DD is dead (he is; JKR has said so publicly) or whether Snape is or is not loyal to Dumbledore, it might be a good idea to read the first hundred or so messages posted immediately after HBP came out to get an idea of what has and has not already been discussed and of the general style of posting expected here (canon support for arguments, etc.). You can also use the search engine for posts on particular topics (e.g., Nagini Horcrux). Sorry, List Elves, but the one-liners and unsupported generalizations are getting on my nerves. Carol, hoping that Dicentra's lovely and lively old post will inspire more of the same kind of in-depth analysis, close reading, and canon-supported arguments From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 15 17:01:29 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 15 Oct 2006 17:01:29 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/15/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1160931689.21.54959.m32@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159738 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 15, 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: From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Sun Oct 15 17:19:42 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:19:42 -0000 Subject: Ginny? with a little of LV's soul??? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159739 So I've read the books over and over - and I love them. But this time I'm reading for content, and I just found something I don't know how to parse. In CoS ch.17, almost the end - Harry is confronting Tom Riddle, with Ginny on the ground almost gone. Tom is explaining about how the diary really works and how he got Ginny to help him. Then this line from Tom. "Powerful enough to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of MY secrets, to start pouring a little of MY soul back into her..." His SOUL?!? Ginny has received some of his soul?!? What could this mean? perplexed, Tesha From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 17:43:27 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:43:27 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: <017001c6f006$1a8c2520$f76c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159740 Magpie wrote: > Since what Draco was really doing was bringing DEs, a guard outside the room would have just seen them that much earlier. Hindsight's always 20/20 and I can't say just how different everything would have been this way--DD *did* have guards in the castle anyway who fought the DEs who came through. But I do think that that final discussion between Harry and Dumbledore is about driving home the fact that Dumbledore is making the mistake of thinking he knows more than Harry so that there's no chance of forgetting on the Tower that the very thing Harry had been focused on was the very thing that made a difference and that Dumbledore did not want to hear or consider. Carol responds: I'm not so sure. As I stated earlier, if Harry had told Dumbledore about Draco throwing out Trelawney, or allowed her to speak for herself about the incident, Dumbledore might have realized that the danger was now acute and placed a watch on the RoR. The events on the tower might have been averted, not by a direct confrontation between DD and Draco (which might have activated the UV and killed Snape) but by placing guards outside the RoR, which he might then have realized was the DEs' route into the castle. (How else to explain the whoop and throwing out Trelawney? He knows that Draco is trying to kill him and, through Snape, that Draco has some sort of "better" backup than Crabbe and Goyle, which can only mean DEs.) Even with the Peruvian Darkness Powder, the Order could have blocked or at least encumbered the DEs, preventing them from getting to the Tower. (Draco, holding the Hand of Glory, was the only one who could see.) Or he might have chosen to leave the castle undetected rather than pretending to visit a publ (DD, we know, has ways of becoming invisible.) But Harry, focused on his rage at Snape as the eavesdropper, forgets to mention that Draco has thrown Trelawney out of the RoR, a missed opportunity like so many others in the books. (Why does Harry always forget crucial details like that room beneath the Malfoys' drawing room? Oh, yeah. So they can come out later, presumably in Book 7, or so that events will happen the way JKR wants them to. Sigh.) As it is, what might have worked out well (no DE invasion or a thwarted one) is averted by an interruption, a new piece of information that disrupts the previous plan. Harry and DD go after the (fake) Horcrux and the DEs get into the castle, unhindered by the two kids watching the door of the RoR. Something similar happens after Harry and DD return from the cave: Harry would have gone, however reluctantly, to fetch Snape if Madam Rosmerta hadn't shown up to point out the Dark Mark over the castle, presumably under Draco's orders. Since Snape saved DD from the ring Horcrux curse and since he has prodigious healing skills (previously unrecognized by Harry and therefore not presented to the reader by the narrator), it's possible that he might have saved Dumbledore again (though probably he couldn't have restored him to full health and strength), but that event is averted by Rosmerta's revelation and by Dumbledore's decision to fly (with the invisible Harry) to the tower. At that point Dumbledore knows that Draco is plotting to kill him and he must realize that Draco has succeeded against all odds in getting DEs into the castle (there's no other explanation for the Dark Mark), yet he *chooses*, even in his weakened state, to go to the Astronomy Tower, where he almost certainly expects to encounter Draco. Why? He now knows that Harry was right about Draco being up to something dangerous in the RoR and that he has succeeded in doing what he's been trying to do all year. Perhaps Dumbledore knew that all along and it made no difference to his plans. He did, after all, have Order members on guard duty in Hogwarts that night. He did make sure that Snape was not among them, perhaps to make sure that the DEs didn't suspect his true loyalties if they succeeded in entering Hogwarts. IMO, he insisted on finding the Horcrux (which, of course, he thought was real) that very night rather than staying in the castle because he knew that he might have no other opportunity. He knew that Draco might succeed. He suspected, apparently, that he might die that night, perhaps from the protections on the Horcrux (see his instructions to Harry), perhaps from Draco's plan or the activated UV. But why did he go up to the tower? Between the whoop (and what he already knew from Snape of Draco's mission), the previous murder attempts traced to Draco, the UV, the curse on the DADA position, his own weakened state because of the ring curse and the poisoned memory (or whatever the green stuff was), he must have knowhat this would be his last night on earth if he went up to the tower. Why, then, did he go there? Did he know that he had to die and that Snape, and only Snape, had to kill him? I'm not sure, but I think that he knew perfectly well what was likely to happen. He didn't listen to Harry because he knew that they had to go after the Horcrux that night. The next time he left the castle would be his last. Carol, not blaming Harry but also not blaming Dumbledore or Snape for what DD himself seems to regard as his inevitable fate From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 17:45:53 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:45:53 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159741 >AD: > >So, what you're saying is, Snape is too incompetent a teacher to > >understand the damage he's doing, or too lacking in empathy to > > care? > > > >I can live with that. wynnleaf: > What do you think an "incompentent" teacher is? AD: I think a pretty good example of an incompetent teacher would be one who refuses to change his teaching style, even when he has his nose rubbed in the fact that a particular student can be reached by other methods. An especially incompetent teacher would abuse his authority to take out his embarrassment on that student, instead. wynnleaf: > Apparently, from OOTP info, Snape's students do very, very well > in potions as a whole, even if there are some like Neville that > don't do well. AD: We learn this little nugget from... who was it? Oh yes, Severus Snape. Couldn't have a less biased source than that, could we? wynnleaf: > "Lacking in empathy" Hm. Well, I don't know that Snape does > care if some people are pretty clueless to that sort of over-the-top > threat. But you know, very sweet teachers do not necessarily > "reach" everyone either. There are many people that are actually > quite turned off by people who are the overly kind and empathetic > types of teachers, because they seem just too fluffy. AD: A competent teacher would change styles when dealing with that particular student. Sadly, this appears to be beyond Snape's capabilities. Fortunately for him, Hogwarts makes an effort to hire the handicapped. wynnleaf: > Do those teachers "lack empathy" because they won't change and > accomodate those of us who really respond better to a much more > down to earth style? AD: The use of threats, insults, and vendettas is a meaning of the phrase "down to earth" with which I was not previously familiar. Thank you for enlarging my horizons. wynnleaf: > Thing is, no teacher can adapt their style of teaching to fit every > single kind of student. AD: Yes, I can see how much extra effort it would be for Snape to refrain from gratuitous insults outside of class, mustn't overwork our delicate little flower. Amiable Dorsai From kennclark at btinternet.com Sun Oct 15 13:29:22 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:29:22 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159742 Jeff wrote: > I've been having my first discussion with another member, > and we disagree on the seventh horcrux. She feels it is > Nagini, and I cannot help but feel it is Harry's scar > (because of the powers he got from Voldemort). Ken says: Two things here 1. Voldemort has spent the past few years trying to kill Harry, which I should imagine would destroy his horcrux if indeed he had been foolish enough to put one there. In fact, when he tried to kill him as a child he would have destroyed his horcrux then too, so I think the notion that there is a horcrux anywhere on Harry is a non starter. 2. You are all assuming that Voldemort has made all his 7 horcruxes already. I would have thought he would be keeping one for his murder of Harry - that's why he tells the DeathEaters to lay off Harry and leave him to be dealt with by their master. Ken From deepblue972000 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 14:27:02 2006 From: deepblue972000 at yahoo.com (Charles Dias) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 14:27:02 +0000 (GMT) Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061015142702.3938.qmail@web34206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159744 Jim Ferer escreveu: >> The Horcrux being Harry's scar (or Harry himself) doesn't meet the conditions for creating a Horcrux as we know them, which seem to require a lot of preparation by Voldemort. He certainly didn't go to Harry's home intending to create one, he intended to off Harry. But there could be some way a semi-demi-defective kind of horcrux could be created by accident, maybe the last tiny bit of evil that has to be destroyed to make Voldemort's destruction complete. One thing I still believe is that Voldemort's final destruction will require a tremendous sacrifice from Harry, more than Harry's own life. << Jim, Very nice this theory of Harry's scar to be a horcrux itself. I've never think about it. But if it's so, Ms. JK has just prepared the death of Harry Potter since the very first book because the horcrux (Harry) must be destroyed in order to get Voldemort destroyed too. Charles Dias From write2stephenie at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 15 14:52:58 2006 From: write2stephenie at bellsouth.net (StephanieCurrier) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:52:58 -0400 Subject: Snape Message-ID: <001a01c6f069$9b6249a0$6501a8c0@S0027642347> No: HPFGUIDX 159745 I'm a first time poster so forgive me if my format is wrong here, not having a previous post to tie this one onto, but I'd love to see someone write a comparison between the Snape character and Spock from Star Trek. Spock, having no emotions until the end, was a character that you couldn't quite pin down or predict. Although he was loyal as an employee to Kirk, he wasn't a clear character and until the end we couldn't tell where or if he would turn into something more. If there is already something along these lines, as it seems there almost invariably is, I'd love to be directed. Thanks. Stephanie From fluorite at swbell.net Sun Oct 15 18:39:35 2006 From: fluorite at swbell.net (Jeff Starr) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:39:35 -0500 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45328067.8030707@swbell.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159746 Charles Dias wrote: > Very nice this theory of Harry's scar to be a horcrux itself. > But if it's so, Ms. JK has just prepared the death of > Harry Potter since the very first book because the horcrux > (Harry) must be destroyed in order to get Voldemort destroyed > too. Jeff: Well, I got around that. See my site: www.hp7ch1.com Kenneth Clark wrote: > 1. Voldemort has spent the past few years trying to kill Harry, > which I should imagine would destroy his horcrux if indeed he > had been foolish enough to put one there. > > 2. You are all assuming that Voldemort has made all his 7 > horcruxes already. I would have thought he would be keeping one > for his murder of Harry Jeff: Very interesting, and well said. Thanks. I do believe that Harry's Horcrux was unplanned. You can see how I played it out on my site. From darksworld at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 19:13:10 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:13:10 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159747 > Pippin: > The cabinet was not chivalrous, and Hermione considers > turning the twins in. It may be that Bill's mutilated > face is also the innocent victim of her cowardice and/or > zealotry --would her own anti-snitching curse have struck > her down if she had? Charles: Hermione seems to want to turn people in for everything throughout the books. I am having trouble understanding what you mean about the anti-snitching jinx having something to do with Bill's injury, though. Indeed, when I started this reply I was going to frame a couple of questions to point you in a direction that would help me understand, but I just can't wrap my head around it enough. Could you elaborate a little? From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Sun Oct 15 19:54:34 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:54:34 -0000 Subject: Ginny? with a little of LV's soul??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159748 "Tesha" > His SOUL?!? Ginny has received some of his soul?!? and again: I don't mean another horcrux - I mean when the final battle happens will Ginny be there - be strong enough - be able to resist LV - or will he have some kind of hold on her from before? From xmp_ at hotmail.com Sun Oct 15 19:22:48 2006 From: xmp_ at hotmail.com (XMP .) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:22:48 +0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: <45328067.8030707@swbell.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159749 >>Jeff: >Very interesting, and well said. Thanks. > >I do believe that Harry's Horcrux was unplanned. You can see how >I played it out on my site. If Harry's scar is a Horacrux, then it's possible it was made so at the death of Cedric Diggory which would be why Dumbledore was so pleased that Voldemort touched Harry. just a thought. Beannachd leibh, ---Caitrin a Masaitiusadh From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 20:16:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:16:45 -0000 Subject: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159750 Nikkalmati wrote: > After they were married, SS could have joined Voldemort, because his only friends were there, he was in despair over losing Lily etc. The marriage was in June after graduation let's say. That fall he overheard the prophesy and reported it to LV. When then did he feel remorse over LV's plan? Well, LV could have announced his intent the next July, when Harry and Neville were born. July 1980? That means SS would have spied for DD from the time Harry was born until the Halloween after Harry was a year old, - for over a year. On the other hand, LV could have waited until shortly before he acted to let SS and the DE know his plan. In that case SS, would have gone to DD shortly before he was hired as a teacher, say July 1981. Carol responds: I'm also behind in responding to posts (and I also managed somehow to delete some offlist messages from HPfGU members and admin.--List Elves, dears, if it was a Howler, could you please resend?). I don't want to get into the complex question of Snape's motives, which IMO could involve both the life debt to James and concern for Lily and her unborn child, with the death of Regulus Black as added incentive (a revelation of how ruthless the DEs really were, perhaps). I just want to say that I agree that young Snape would have been hired around July of 1981 (don't the booklists usually come out then, and DD would have advertised for a new DADA teacher, the post for which Snape was applying, around the end of June?), but I think your first guess at the timing is more likely than the second to be accurate. After all, Snape spied for Dumbledore "at great personal risk," which implies a fairly extended period, not just a month or two, and his spying on Voldemort would have begun just after Harry's birth on July 31, 1980, effectually ended when he began teaching at Hogwarts on September 1, 1981, some thirteen months later. I'm not sure why Dumbledore waited so long to try to persuade the Potters to use the Fidelius Charm or how Snape, who was at Hogwarts, could have known that they were in danger at that point (though how else could Dumbledore have known)? Carol, still sure that Snape is DDM and that he was nowhere near Godrics Hollow when LV fell, but confused on a number of points From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 20:20:58 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:20:58 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159751 > Pippin: > > I do not consider the difference between putting myself under ' > orders at the dictate of my own conscience as opposed to being > dragged off without due process at the dictates of someone else's > a doubtful luxury. > > I doubt that JKR, who has links to Amnesty International on her > website, and is campaigning fiercely for the rights of children > kept in cage beds, is quite as ready to discard due process or > take a benign view of protective custody as you are. Alla: As I said, we seem to be taking a different view of what protective custody or protection is, if you consider it the same as prison or caged bed , then sure I am with you, but if this is the same as what Dumbledore offers at the Tower, as in taking Draco and his sorry excuse for the family to safe place, then **NO**, I do not consider Dumbledore doing it even against Draco's wishes to be sufficient analogy for the denial of due process. But it is not even a given that he would have refused IMO, because if poor dear was indeed already near the breaking point, as Murtle reported, maybe Dumbledore indeed would have gotten through to him? Who knows. The fact is he did not even try and that bugs me *a lot* ETA: I just reread your post and realised that I wanted to add something and I did not. When I said a doubtful luxury as to Sirius **choosing** to be in that house, I meant that this was not a choice that Sirius really wanted to make,IMO. I think that was shown rather clearly in OOP. IMO He made that choice partly out of necessity, partly because Dumbledore wanted him too, but not because that was his conscience dictated him. Sirius' conscience IMO dictated to him that he needed to fight just as everybody else. He listened to Dumbledore instead, I respect him greatly for that, but Draco is in a very different place IMO. In any event, Sirius IMO had a luxury of making choices, since he was not wanna be assasin when he had to make that choice. Draco, well, as I said above may be he would have taken that offer, if not - well, tough, as far as I am concerned. The funny thing is that IMO Dumbledore sure demonstrated that he absolutely **can** make people's choices for them. Harry is the best example of course, I do not remember Dumbledore giving Harry much choice whether to stay with Dursleys or not( I am not even talking a toddler Harry, but Harry who is already in school), but suddenly when Draco is running around the school trying to kill him and almost killing two students, Dumbledore is hesitant about making a choice for Draco that truly **is** the best one for him, whether Draco realises that or not? And again, I sure understand that this is how JKR wanted the story to unfold, but do I see internal logic in Dumbledore's actions? Frankly, I have to answer NO, because if I answer Yes, than I have to say that Dumbledore's modus operandi is an arrogant **I know better all the time**. JMO, Alla From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Sun Oct 15 20:32:54 2006 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:32:54 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm In-Reply-To: <8o8bpr+hel8@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159752 > Hallo everyone and loverly to met you all, now, down to bussness, can > anyone explain the joke in the wl charm - i've puzziling how Wizard > Baruffio finishes up with a Buffalo on his chest when there is no "f" > in Wingardiun Leviosa to misspronounce as a "s". > So how come ? [HP1 page 126 UK Ed] I was never confused by that. Look at this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg First word on there is 'Congress'. Wow, that first S looks like an F. MercuryBlue From e_spehr_99 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 20:43:18 2006 From: e_spehr_99 at yahoo.com (e_spehr_99) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:18 -0000 Subject: Ginny? with a little of LV's soul??? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159753 > Tesha wrote: > His SOUL?!? Ginny has received some of his soul?!? > > I don't mean another horcrux - I mean when the final battle > happens will Ginny be there - be strong enough - be able to > resist LV - or will he have some kind of hold on her from > before? e_spehr_99: I don't think Ginny will have any lasting effects from LV. If anything LV my use her as a pawn to get to Harry.... In my opinion I have a sneaking suspicion that the person who will play a major role in the 'final battle' with LV, aside from LV and Harry is Wormtail.... I think Wormtail has been underlooked in previous posts, and the reason I think this is because of what Dumbledore said to Harry at the end of Prisoners of Azkabahn.... Ms. Rowling likes to throw in subtle hints and revisit them later.... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 21:57:56 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:57:56 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610130512o5ff541d3la45d5caab178831b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159754 montims wrote: > see, I don't really understand this problem with the Dursleys at all. Until Harry is thrown into the mix, they are a family whose members are happy and secure with each other, and "normal, thank you very much". If Harry had never arrived, they woiuld have continued, content in their lifestyle -Petunia happy at home raising Dudley and entertaining for Vernon's business - Vernon doing well at work, and pleasing the clients enough to get a holiday home in Majorca, as well as other perks. So they're not great parents? At least they all love each other. It was throwing Harry in the mix that upset things. And if he had been chubby, and instinctively went along with their mindset, and if his hair had conformed, and he hadn't shown any magical ability, they might still have rubbed along fine together. But he was the grain of sand in their oyster shell... Carol responds: The Dursleys a normal, happy family? McGonagall may be judging them prematurely as "the worst sort of Muggles," but her judgment is based on sixteen-month-old Dudley kicking his mother and demanding sweets. He's also just learned a new word, "won't," and he hasn't even reached the "terrible two's." Clearly, he's already indulged, if not spoiled, and he's less than a year and a half old. And Mr. Dursley apparently abuses his underlings at work, yelling at five different people on the second page of SS/PS. Granted, Petunia and Vernon love each other in their way, and they love Dudley (as shown by their reaction to the on-tongue toffee incident), but they're afraid of their own child, catering to his every whim for fear that he'll throw a tantrum. Or rather, Petunia is afraid of him and Vernon encourages bullying and tantrums as foreshadowing what he considers manly behavior ("Little tyke!"). The first sentence of SS/PS reminds me of the first sentence of "Pride and Prejudice" in its comic/ironic presentation of a point of view that is not the author's own judgment. Just as Austen didn't really believe that "a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife" (that "truth universally acknowledged" is really the opinion of Mrs. Bennett and some of the other female characters in P&P), JKR doesn't really believe that "Mr. and Mrs. Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive" were "perfectly normal, thank you very much." As the wording of the sentence ("were proud to say") indicates, this normality is the Dursleys' view of themselves. "You" (the reader) wouldn't expect them to be "involved in anything strange and mysterious" because "they didn't hold with such nonsense"--an odd attitude for a couple who know that magic exists because the wife's sister is a witch. From the opening sentences of the first two books, it's clear that the Dursleys, especially Vernon, are deluding themselves. (It's interesting that the first part of this chapter is told from Vernon's pov and none of it directly from Petunia's--a hint that JKR is keeping what Petunia thinks and knows from the reader, and, IMO, from Vernon.) I do think that if Harry had been Marge's son or if Lily and her husband had been "normal" (nonmagical), the Dursleys would have attempted to treat him better (by their definition of that term)--more like they treat Dudley, if not quite so indulgently--rather than attempting to squash the magic out of him (trying to force him to be "normal"). Yes, he's the sand in their oyster shell, a shameful secret that they can't admit to the neighbors (and really, what *would* the neighbors think if Harry turned Dudley into a toad and the Dursleys tried to explain their son's disappearance by telling the truth?), but they were already a dysfunctional family and, IMO, Dudley never had a chance of being a genuinely normal boy with or without Harry. Carol, regretfully reaching her limit of posts without having caught up on reading the list! From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 15 22:04:54 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:04:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of References: Message-ID: <012301c6f0a5$f2df0510$416c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159755 > Carol responds: > I'm not so sure. As I stated earlier, if Harry had told Dumbledore > about Draco throwing out Trelawney, or allowed her to speak for > herself about the incident, Dumbledore might have realized that the > danger was now acute and placed a watch on the RoR. Magpie: I guess that's the thing I don't quite see--why would Draco's throwing Trelawney out be so important? He doesn't want her there, doesn't want her to see what he's doing--I don't quite see how that changes things so much from Harry's report that whatever Draco's been trying to do, he's done. It seems to me he might have thrown Trelawney out just the same had she wandered in there in March as this night. But that's not meant to say that I don't think Harry's anger at Snape is a distraction. Harry isn't making a really reasonable argument for Dumbledore checking the place. Just as I think that final conversation before they leave is setting up that Dumbledore has a plan with Draco he's sticking to (a plan we finally see on the Tower) I think it's also solidifying Harry's anger at Snape taking precedence over everything for him. You also bring up another thing that really interests me here: Carol: (Why does Harry always > forget crucial details like that room beneath the Malfoys' drawing > room? Oh, yeah. So they can come out later, presumably in Book 7, or > so that events will happen the way JKR wants them to. Sigh.) Magpie: This is one of those things where I'm honestly not sure what we're supposed to think happened. For instance, in CoS we specifically see Draco *not* being given the Hand of Glory, but later JKR refers to him having one, and in Book Six Ron mentions him as having one as if we know he's got it. In CoS I believe it's Ron who announces his intention to tell his father about the secret place under the Malfoy's floor--but did he? I'm honestly not sure if I'm supposed to think that Ron forgot and so each time we've heard about the Manor being searched they didn't search the secret compartment (so both Ron and Harry keep forgetting to bring it up or have forgotten it themselves--not entirely impossible since Hermione was not with them in the CoS common room). But maybe I'm supposed to assume that Ron has told Arthur and that his statement of his intention to do so should means I should assume that's exactly what he did. Is Draco's mentioning it a throwaway "haha they got something on him there" moment or an important piece of information dropped in, mentioned once more, and then forgotten? Carol: > At that point Dumbledore knows that Draco is plotting to kill him and > he must realize that Draco has succeeded against all odds in getting > DEs into the castle (there's no other explanation for the Dark Mark), > yet he *chooses*, even in his weakened state, to go to the Astronomy > Tower, where he almost certainly expects to encounter Draco. Why? He > now knows that Harry was right about Draco being up to something > dangerous in the RoR and that he has succeeded in doing what he's been > trying to do all year. Perhaps Dumbledore knew that all along and it > made no difference to his plans. He did, after all, have Order members > on guard duty in Hogwarts that night. He did make sure that Snape was > not among them, perhaps to make sure that the DEs didn't suspect his > true loyalties if they succeeded in entering Hogwarts. Magpie: That's true--as I said I don't think we can honestly say that things would have been *so* different if DD had listened to Harry since he did leave a guard behind regardless. It's not like Harry has a clue that what Draco is trying to do is get DEs into the castle. He could have been doing anything in there. Dumbledore intends to leave and get the Hogwarts that night so he's not going to stay and deal with Draco instead. (And ultimately perhaps if they hadn't done that Harry would never have gotten the fake Horcrux, which will lead to the real one--or wouldn't have had DD to help him.) Carol: > I'm not sure, but I think that he knew perfectly well what was likely > to happen. He didn't listen to Harry because he knew that they had to > go after the Horcrux that night. The next time he left the castle > would be his last. > > Carol, not blaming Harry but also not blaming Dumbledore or Snape for > what DD himself seems to regard as his inevitable fate Magpie: Yes, that's pretty much how I read it. The DEs breaking through the school defenses is a surprise to Dumbledore, but I don't think one that's such a surprise that he doesn't know how to respond to it--or Snape doesn't (by the time he gets to the Tower he Snape seems to know what's got to be done, imo, as does Dumbledore). In general I think that everything that happened that night, including the mistakes, will wind up helping the good guys. That is, everything but Dumbledore's death. I doubt that's going to be a "for the best" thing except for in a meta way. But the Horcrux being a fake, Snape killing Dumbledore or the Malfoys not being taken into protective custody that night might not be be bad things. -m From wrexx at hotmail.com Sun Oct 15 23:09:11 2006 From: wrexx at hotmail.com (wrexx1) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:09:11 -0000 Subject: Mandrake Restorative Potion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159756 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 From jferer at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 23:30:59 2006 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:30:59 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: <20061015142702.3938.qmail@web34206.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159757 > Very nice this theory of Harry's scar to be a horcrux itself. > I've never think about it. But if it's so, Ms. JK has just > prepared the death of Harry Potter since the very first book > because the horcrux (Harry) must be destroyed in order to get > Voldemort destroyed too. > > Charles Dias > Charles, I've always had in mind a much harder sacrifice than mere physical life; Harry would make that without hesitation. I once thought that Harry would have to give up his ability to do magic and become a Muggle in order to destroy Voldemort. There would be an awful dilemna. Jim Ferer From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 16 00:03:00 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:03:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159758 > >AD: > > >So, what you're saying is, Snape is too incompetent a teacher to > > >understand the damage he's doing, or too lacking in empathy to > > > care? > > > > > >I can live with that. > >wynnleaf: > > What do you think an "incompentent" teacher is? > >AD: >I think a pretty good example of an incompetent teacher would be one >who refuses to change his teaching style, even when he has his nose >rubbed in the fact that a particular student can be reached by other >methods. wynnleaf Snape is not a pleasant person. But in general, the idea that a teacher should be changing teaching styles to accomodate the changing needs of *every* student is simply not possible. You're basically asking for a sort of kaliadascope of changing styles which is not really workable in the classroom. I think that what you're really saying is that Snape shouldn't do things that upset Neville or other students. Well, certainly some things Snape says and does are sarcastic and mean. But that's not "teaching style," that's more Snape being mean. "Mean" is not a teaching style (more expanding horizons I suppose?). In Neville's case, he does not only do incompentent things in Snape's classroom, so it's not purely Snape being scary that causes Neville to mess up. Snape's manner may exacerbate Neville's incompentence, but it doesn't cause it. Snape's teaching style -- some lecture, putting instructions on the board, lots of hands on projects, assignments of essays, etc., has little to nothing to do with Neville's problems. >An especially incompetent teacher would abuse his authority to take >out his embarrassment on that student, instead. wynnleaf That doesn't make him an incompetent teacher. That just means he's doing some unpleasant things. You're equating being pleasant with teaching ability. Also, you're judging a teacher's competence based on the performance of a very few students. While *you* might do that, almost no schools would judge that way. >wynnleaf: > > Apparently, from OOTP info, Snape's students do very, very well > > in potions as a whole, even if there are some like Neville that > > don't do well. > >AD: >We learn this little nugget from... who was it? Oh yes, Severus >Snape. Couldn't have a less biased source than that, could we? wynnleaf, Well, fortunately you don't have to take his word for it. In HBP, we see 12 students in NEWT level potions. Only Harry and Ron appear to have arrived unprepared with textbooks, so everyone else seemed to have expected to take Potions, even though they would have thought Snape was teaching. That means the other 10 students made O's on their OWLs. I think we can *probably* assume that not every single person who made an O on their OWL decided to take potions. It's optional, after all. The Lexicon thinks there's approximately 40 students in each year. Perhaps a few more, but there seem to be about 10 kids per year in each house. So if 10+ students scored O's on their potions OWL, out of 40+ students in that year -- well, AD, that's 25% or more making the highest level possible OWL in Potions. I think that's probably an excellent record, wouldn't you? Even Harry and Ron, who mess up lots of potions in class, copy off of Hermione, and have Hermione check their homework, still made an E, which is pretty good. That means that two kids who get the brunt of a lot of Snape's sarcasm and who he supposedly treats unfairly (I don't agree with this, but just for argument's sake...) and who absolutely hate Snape and Potions class, are still able to achieve an E on the OWL. They clearly learned the material, didn't they? >AD: >A competent teacher would change styles when dealing with that >particular student. Sadly, this appears to be beyond Snape's >capabilities. Fortunately for him, Hogwarts makes an effort to hire >the handicapped. wynnleaf What a slur on the handicapped! Do you regularly do this? Back to the topic at hand. I already said that a compentent teacher does not change styles constantly to accomodate every need of every student. Further, as I pointed out, Snape's teaching style really isn't Neville's problem, nor did Snape's unpleasant manner cause Neville's overall difficulties which follow him in many areas of Hogwarts, not just potions. And neither his teaching style, nor his demeanor in class, nor even his supposed unfairness stopped Harry and Ron from learning the material. > >wynnleaf: > > Do those teachers "lack empathy" because they won't change and > > accomodate those of us who really respond better to a much more > > down to earth style? > >AD: >The use of threats, insults, and vendettas is a meaning of the phrase >"down to earth" with which I was not previously familiar. Thank you >for enlarging my horizons. wynnleaf As I did not equate being "down to earth" with threats, insults, etc., nor, in fact, Snape's sarcastic manner, I would suggest in enlarging your horizons, you read posts more thoroughly. >AD: >Yes, I can see how much extra effort it would be for Snape to refrain >from gratuitous insults outside of class, mustn't overwork our >delicate little flower. wynnleaf, What?? Not sure what you mean. Neville, of course, *is* a bit delicate in that way -- in that he is easily made nervous and uncertain. Harry, Ron, and many others aren't the least delicate. Actually, I've had a couple of teachers sort of like Snape. Some people hated them. Others of us really, really appreciated them. Three of my kids have had a very similar teacher when they were 10 years old. My daughter (now 16) refers to him as "ruthless." Most of the kids actually liked him. Many parents wanted their kids in his class. The kids who got in a lot of trouble tended not to like him much at all. The school loves him. Snape-type teachers really aren't hated by everybody, regardless of how it looks in the HP books. I've seen a lot of posters write that if there was a teacher like Snape in their school he'd be fired. Maybe. Maybe not. Schools do like good results and often aren't quite as upset at being extremely strict, or even being extremely unpleasant, as one might think. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ SearchYour way, your world, right now! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 00:37:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:37:33 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159760 > wynnleaf >> Further, as I pointed out, Snape's teaching style really isn't Neville's > problem, nor did Snape's unpleasant manner cause Neville's overall > difficulties which follow him in many areas of Hogwarts, not just potions. > And neither his teaching style, nor his demeanor in class, nor even his > supposed unfairness stopped Harry and Ron from learning the material. Alla: Erm, I think many areas in Hogwarts would be slight exaggeration, IMO of course. In **all** classes where Neville is treated not abusively he does well. Charmes and of course Herbology are examples at hand. Oh, and No, I do not think Minerva treated him well either, but at least she learned and changed, that is what I consider just as AD does to be the mark of Good teacher. And I am not sure I can equate Harry getting an E in Potions in OWL with any teaching ability of Snape, because it is made quite clear that Snape was not breathing down Harry neck at the exam, I think that Harry learned **despite** Snape not thanks to him and if Snape did not carry his vendetta against James to Harry, I wonder how much **more** Harry would have learned. IMO of course. > >AD: > >Yes, I can see how much extra effort it would be for Snape to refrain > >from gratuitous insults outside of class, mustn't overwork our > >delicate little flower. > > wynnleaf, > What?? Not sure what you mean. Neville, of course, *is* a bit delicate in > that way -- in that he is easily made nervous and uncertain. Harry, Ron, > and many others aren't the least delicate. Alla: I cannot speak for AD of course, but I think he referred to Snape as delicate little flower and the one who could not even refrain his tongue from insulting his students ***outside** of his class. NO, I do not think it is acceptable what Snape does to Harry and Neville in class in any way, shape or form, but under certain circumstances sure teachers can use sarcasm as teaching means ( NO, I do not think Snape does that, but I can see that sometimes acceptable in RL), but outside of the class - belittling Neville in front of Lupin's class, putting down Harry when he wants help about Moody? I want to strangle Snape when I read those moments, frankly. wynnleaf: > Even Harry and Ron, who mess up lots of potions in class, copy off of > Hermione, and have Hermione check their homework, still made an E, which is > pretty good. That means that two kids who get the brunt of a lot of Snape's > sarcasm and who he supposedly treats unfairly (I don't agree with this, but > just for argument's sake...) and who absolutely hate Snape and Potions > class, are still able to achieve an E on the OWL. They clearly learned the > material, didn't they? Alla: I already said above that I do not think that Harry getting an E on the Potions OWL is a sign of Snape's teaching ability, but I guess you think that Harry and Ron are treated fairly in general at Snape lessons? That truly makes me laugh. Do you think it is fair to attack the kid on his first lesson for not knowing something if most likely the homework was not even given out? Do you think it is **fair** to punish Harry for **not** helping Neville on his first lesson, but then in PoA punish Hermione for helping him? Oh, we definitely have a very different definitions of what constitutes fairness of course. I am not even talking about whether Snape is being abusive, I am talking about basic fairness, which to me is a few degrees down on the Snape **jerkiness** scale. Do you think it is fair to take a points from the child who was **reading a book outside** and take this book away? I brought up multiple examples of Snape **fairness** before, don't want to repeat all of them here, but surely can. But frankly I don't call such behaviour fair, quite the opposite. Which is not to say of course that sometimes Snape catches Harry when he truly did something wrong, but the funny thing is he always guesses the reasons wrongly too. Oh, and Ron of course does not get the full degree of Snape so called fairness ( I am sorry I cannot in good conscience to call such behaviour fair), after all Ron does not have green eyes and black messy hair, but the example of making Ron chop the roots for Malfoy also stands out to me as really really nor fair. JMO of course, Alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 01:49:07 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:49:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159761 "The Hog's Head Inn, ... has long attracted, shall we say, a more interesting clientele... it is a place where it is never safe to assume you are not being overheard." (DD in OotP, p.843, US) *************************************************************** How convienent that JKR gave us that red herring of the DA meeting in the Hog's Head being overheard. Works out perfectly for Dumbledore when he later claims that Sibyll's prophesy was overheard, doesn't it? Let's take a little closer look at what Dumbledore wants Harry to believe (not that Harry has taken a closer look ). We are to believe that Snape was still working as a loyal DE at the time of the prophesy. How does this work with the information we've since received from HBP? Snape is following Dumbledore, spying I suppose, on Voldemort's orders, although it is possible that Snape was freelancing, I doubt Voldemort would condone it. How feasible is it that Dumbledore was unaware of Snape? *************************************************************** "He has even attempted to have me followed. Amusing, really. He set Dawlish to tail me. It wasn't kind. I have already been forced to jinx Dawlish once; I did it again with the greatest regret." (DD in HBP, p.358, US) *************************************************************** So an experienced and trained Auror wasn't able to tail Dumbledore when Dumbledore didn't want to be tailed. And note that Dumbledore jinxed this Auror to shake the tail, regretably, but he did it. Would Dumbledore have any compunction against jinxing a DE to shake the tail? I think not. What are the chances that a wet behind the ears Snape was able to tail Dumbledore well enough to be able to be in a position to overhear the prophesy, without Dumbledore knowing Snape was there? None IMO. So that means that Dumbledore was allowing a DE to tail him. But, you say, Dumbledore was only going to meet Trelawney for a teacher interview. He didn't care if he was being followed. Not the point. Would Dumbledore allow any DE to tail him for any reason? He doesn't need the extra baggage at any time, and this is nearing the height of VoldWar I. How could Dumbledore allow his moves to be tracked by Voldemort's spy? Especially when we've seen that he has no compunction against jinxing an Auror to lose the tail. Problem #1: Dumbledore is allowing Snape (LV's spy) to tail him. On what pretense is Snape-the-spy hounding Dumbledore? Well supposedly Snape was after a teaching job. The first thing we have to ask is how feasible is this story? What happened when Voldemort tried to get a job at Hogwarts, the first time? ***************************************************************** "But he didn't get the job, sir?" "No, he did not. Professor Dippet told him that he was too young at eighteen, but invited him to reapply in a few years, if he still wished to teach." ..... "I did not give the reasons I have given you, for Professor Dippet was very fond of Voldemort and convinced of his honesty." (HBP p.432, US) ***************************************************************** So Voldemort himself couldn't get a job from an admiring Dippet, didn't have a chance with Dumbledore 10+ years later, and yet the still young Snape was suppose to get a job from Dumbledore. OK, I guess it's feasible that they would try. So what story is Snape going to give Dumbledore for why Dumbledore should trust him as a teacher of children? Can he "spin him a tail of deepest remorse"? Sorry, but haven't we all been told that Snape's remorse was over the telling of the prophesy? That hasn't happened yet. You see the problem here? Snape is lacking a decent reason for hanging around Dumbledore, one that LV and Snape could expect Dumbledore to believe. I don't see any way that Dumbledore could be expected to believe Snape-the-DE is legitimately seeking a teaching job. BTW, where did Sibyll get that story about Snape seeking a teaching post if not from Dumbledore? Problem #2: Snape seeking a teaching post at this time does not have an air of legitimacy with respect to Dumbledore. LV doesn't have a good enough cover story for Snape, yet. Now let's go into the Hog's Head. Dumbledore is allowing himself to be followed by a DE, a DE without a decent story as to why he's following Dumbledore. Why let Snape stay in the first place? We know Snape was thrown from the bar later for eavesdroppoing. But Aberforth could have denied him admittance with something like: 'We don't allow spies in here.' or simply, 'we don't serve your kind.' After all, Abe had no compunction ejecting Mundungus 20 years ago and still denying him admittance to this day. Does Abe even need a reason to eject Snape, knowing that Snape is "one of them"? At the very least, Aberforth should keep an eye on Snape, not give him free run of the place, not with his brother upstairs. Again you say, how does Aberforth know that Snape is a bad guy. ***************************************************************** Dumbledore raised his eyebrows. "And what will become of those whom you command? What will happen to those who call themselves - or so rumor has it - the Death eaters?" Harry could tell that Voldemort had not expected Dumbledore to know this name; ... ..... "You are mistaken," said Voldemort. "Then if I were to go to the Hog's Head tonight, I would not find a group of them - Nott, Rosier, Mulciber, Dolohov - awaiting your return? ..." There could be no doubt that Dumbledore's detailed knowledge of those with whom he was traveling was even less welcome to Voldemort; however, he rallied almost at once. "You are omniscient as ever, Dumbledore." "Oh no, merely friendly with the local barman," said Dumbledore... (HBP pp.444-5, US) ***************************************************************** What do you want to bet that Aberforth was the one who told Albus of the name "Death Eater"? So, 40 years ago Aberforth was already Albus' eyes and ears, picking up things and passing them on. Aberforth also became an Order member. With our information to date, it seems far more likely that Aberforth was the one who told Albus that Snape was a DE rather than the other way around. Canon does not state unequivocally that Aberforth knew Snape was a DE, but canon does tell us that Aberforth knows what to look for and has done it before. And Aberforth knows people. Problem #3: Snape-the-DE is allowed to roam freely in the H.H. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Now let's turn to the "eavesdropping" incident itself. First, Steve/bboyminn from message # 159329: > For example, ...the eavesdropper was discovered "only a > short way into the prophesy and thrown from the building". > All that is true but details are left out. In this > example, Aberforth discovered Snape a short way into the > Prophecy (fact), Mike: I'm not conceding that Snape heard any of the prophesy. In my scenario, Snape heard nothing from Sibyll. Steve/bboyminn: > Snape was thrown from the building (fact), Mike: The question remains, whether Snape was ejected for eavesdropping or whether the ejecting was staged. But, go on. Steve/bboyminn: > that is all Harry needs to know at that point. In > fact, given the animosity between them it is probably > critical that Harry NOT know it was Snape, so Dumbledore > leaves out the middle part, the part that was related to > us by Trelawney in which, after a struggle, Snape is > brought into the room, and Dumbledore suggests > (supposition) to Aberforth that Snape be thrown out. Mike: As I have previously stated (message # 159319) you are correct that this reading works with the information at hand. I also credit you with pointing out that Dumbledore had 10 years to learn from Snape exactly what he overheard and what he told Voldemort. But my main argument does not go away with the acknowledgement of this reading. Before I get there, another couple of questions needs answering: >From message # 159034, montims: I've missed something. Why was Snape there at all? OK, he was following DD around, and spying for LV. OK, he was told by LV to get a job at Hogwarts, and maybe this didn't displease him. But why, actually, was he listening (or trying to listen) to DD interviewing Sybill? Mike: To ask Janette's question slightly differently: Once Snape realized that this was an interview for a teaching post, why would he bother to continue eavesdropping? He would be in a compromising position in the hallway, not worth the risk to continue eavesdropping on a teacher's interview. I hope you don't expect me to believe that he first started eavesdropping at the start of the prophesy. Nice try, but not buying it . Problem #4: Snape continues to eavesdrop for no apparent reason while putting himself in a compromising position. Then after the eavesdropping incident is over. >From message # 159701, Nikkalmati: Query: Why would DD allow SS to walk out of the Hog's Head with that information? He hired ST as Divination teacher to protect her from LV, so he realized the importance of the prophecy. Aberforth had SS by the collar. Why would DD let him go? I suspect SS and DD reached an understanding on that night. Mike: I think the deal was struck beforehand, but, nonetheless, Nikkajmati's question/problem stands. Problem #5: Dumbledore just lets Snape go after the eavesdropping incident, despite the fact that Aberforth has him "collared". ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Finally, to my main problem with believing the "eavesdropping" scenario. I hold my ground on Dumbledore's and Sibyll's differing versions. I still want to know why Dumbledore didn't say, "the eavesdropper was discovered part way into the prophesy and *PREVENTED* from hearing the rest." If Snape was indeed still working for Voldemort at the time, then this is a more accurate version of events and matches Sibyll's version. There is no conflict between stories and whether Snape was thrown from the building afterward becomes immaterial. Steve has said that Dumbledore was just being conversational with Harry. I do not buy this. Dumbledore has had 15 years to decide how he was going to explain the "eavesdropper" to Harry. And he has to explain it without a hint that Snape was involved. Add to that, the prophesy and how much of it was released is one of the pillars the whole series rests upon. The idea that Dumbledore's words used and scenario proposed has not been thought out in advance would be very much OOC for Dumbledore. Dumbledore also has to deal with the wild card: Sibyll Trelawney. Dumbledore is going to have to tell Sibyll what's going on and he can't rely on her to keep her mouth shut. Like Red Hen said, Sibyll is a barfly from a long way back and she's probably going straight down to the bar to celebrate her new job, and she'll want to tell the *whole* story. This forces Dumbledore to go with the *likely story* that Snape was eavesdropping and thrown from the building. Eventually, Dumbledore knows he will have to explain the *whole* story to Harry. But in the mean time only he and Snape (and maybe Abe) even know about the prophesy, until Snape tells LV. The cover story can never include anything about the prophesy until Dumbledore is ready to tell Harry. When that time comes, Dumbledore choses to continue with the same *likely story*. The only addition is to include *when* the eavesdropper was discovered. Stories are hard to keep track of, if they change. This is the cover story that Snape and Dumbledore have been using for 15 years and there is no reason to change it for Harry. Or rather, Dumbledore can see a danger if he alters the cover story that Snape is relying upon. That means that the best Dumbledore can do is hope that Sibyll never gets to telling the story in front of Harry, after Harry has been told about the prophesy. Just bad luck, because that is what happens. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv If I believe Dumbledore is lying to Harry, I must have a version that I believe, right? Well, I do. Here's my version: Dumbledore didn't even close the door fully when he was in the room interviewing Sibyll, he's a gentleman, you don't go to a stange woman's room above the bar and close the door. He turned to leave. When he was almost to the door, Sibyll starts into the prophesy. Dumbledore stops and listens, when Sibyll finishes, Dumbledore hits her with a stupefy, or the like, before she returns to normal. He summons Snape and Aberforth upstairs from the bar and tells them to make some noise in the hallway then bust into the room with the story that this guy was eavesdropping. Dumbledore goes back into the room and performs the counter-curse which revives Sibyll so she can see Snape and Aberforth. Then Aberforth hustles Snape downstairs and ejects him from the bar. In the mean time, Dumbledore tells Sibyll that Snape is also seeking a job and was probably looking for pointers on interviewing. After Dumbledore tells Sibyll that she has the job, he excuses himself, goes down the back way and meets up with Snape and maybe Abe. Dumbledore tells Snape which words to tell Voldemort and sends him off. Now, Sibyll has the eavesdropping story but she is unaware of the time loss. Any of the lowlifes in the bar would have seen Aberforth throw Snape from the bar so, in case Voldemort checks up on that part, it will be confirmed. And later when Sibyll is downstairs drinking and celebrating, she tells the rest of the lowlifes that Snape was eavesdropping. Now you have a real tight story for Voldemort with all the witnesses confirming that Snape was thrown from the bar for eavesdropping on Dumbledore and Sibyll. Like I said above, I don't think Dumbledore ever expected Harry to hear Sibyll's version, so I think he felt the version he told Harry was safe from questioning. Why does Dumbledore lie to Harry after Harry finds out it was Snape? Partly because Dumbledore needs Harry to still trust him (DD). He is not through with Harry's lessons and they are about to set out on a perilous mission. I'm sure part of Dumbledore's pause (on HBP p.549) before he answered Harry was thinking, "Can I afford to get Harry pissed off at me right now?" Of course the answer is no, the true story will have to wait. Although Dumbledore knew he was dying, I'm not so sure that he thought he would be killed that night. The second reason why he doesn't tell Harry the truth is that he knows that Snape is going to go into deep cover soon, as LV's most faithful servant. Dumbledore doesn't trust Harry with Snape's safety, never has. Dumbledore is afraid that if he tells Harry the truth about Snape that it won't do any good towards repairing their relationship and Harry might reveal that information to the wrong person. There could still be a spy in the Order, or Harry might react wrongly to Snape in the future which could tip off another DE or Voldemort himself. Dumbledore wants Harry to spread the word that Snape is still a loyal DE and furthermore wants any word that might leak out about the prophesy to confirm that it was Snape who overheard it, because that matches Snape's cover story from way back. And his supposed remorse over Lilly's and James' deaths is part of that cover story. He has to have taken some part in their death's for that part of the cover story to work. The reason Snape turned must be another post, another time. Mike From sherriola at earthlink.net Mon Oct 16 02:09:27 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:09:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159762 Mike: Why does Dumbledore lie to Harry after Harry finds out it was Snape? Partly because Dumbledore needs Harry to still trust him (DD). He is not through with Harry's lessons and they are about to set out on a perilous mission. I'm sure part of Dumbledore's pause (on HBP p.549) before he answered Harry was thinking, "Can I afford to get Harry pissed off at me right now?" Of course the answer is no, the true story will have to wait. Although Dumbledore knew he was dying, I'm not so sure that he thought he would be killed that night. S hurry: In other words, are you saying that you think Dumbledore, Snape and Abe, purposely, coldly and with definite malice aforethought, set up an innocent family, a child? If this scenario is true, it makes Dumbledore into a monster equal to Voldemort. The way I'm reading what you're saying is that DD told Snape what to say to Voldemort. He couldn't possibly have thought this would not cause Voldemort to go after children born as the seventh month dies. I don't think JKR could conceivably call Dumbledore the epitome of goodness and then try to have us swallow this scenario. It would be Dumbledore's fault, that the Potters were murdered and Harry orphaned. No matter how much he may have done it for the supposed greater good--how I hate that concept--it doesn't lessen his culpability in the deaths. It makes everyone involved into mind-boggling terrible people, that they would risk a child's life for some idiotic plan to set up Voldemort. I'd have to go looking for Lupinlore's mulching machine and hope that cassettes and CD's would make fine mulch for his garden. I do want to say however, that you really laid out a brilliant theory, even if it is quite sinister! Very impressive. Sherry From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Oct 16 02:23:15 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:23:15 EDT Subject: Why Snape turned Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159763 Nikkalmati Now for the DDMSnape view which IMHO works better with what we know and makes more pieces fit and tucks in more lose ends. The Lexicon suggests the Marauders and SS graduated in 6/77. The events we are interested in happened between 6/77 and 10/81. First a nod to those who think SS may have been working for DD from the beginning and never was a true DE. Canon allows this, I think, but it does not fit with the redemption/second chance theme of the books. A significant event for SS may have occurred in this time period. Probably James and Lily married and SS joined the DEs in 77 sometime after graduation. RAB Regelus Black would have graduated in 78, and joined the DEs, but he changed his mind and tried to get out of the DEs after, or at the same time, stealing the horcrux/necklace. (Yes, I agree RAB is likely to be Sirius' little brother). Maybe the death of RAB, possibly in '79 or 80, had something to do with turning SS. He is likely to have known RAB (they were only a year apart and in the same House). They both joined the DEs. at a young age and SS may even feel RAB joined because of him. If RAB was killed by LV, SS may have realized how dangerous it was to work for LV and that there was not going to be any glory and power for anyone but LV. SS may also have such hatred and contempt for Sirius because he feels Sirius abandoned his brother and was not there to help him at a time of need. RAB had to have been killed before Harry defeated LV at Godrick's Hollow. I know DD said to Harry in HBP that the interpretation of the prophesy was the greatest regret of SS's life and the reason he returned, but he still could have come to DD before the prophesy was interpreted by LV. Maybe his purpose in being at the Hog's Head that night in Oct 79 or January 80 was to turn himself in to DD. That might explain why ST's version of events in the Hog's Head are different from what DD told Harry. SS and DD agreed to tell LV part of the prophesy without knowing that Harry and/or Neville would be targeted, because the 2 boys were not yet born or had just been conceived. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Oct 16 02:47:23 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:47:23 EDT Subject: Why Snape turned Message-ID: <537.9075778.32644cbb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159764 >Carol >snip> >I don't >want to get into the complex question of Snape's motives, which IMO could involve both the life debt to James and concern for Lily and her unborn child, with the death of Regulus Black as added incentive (a revelation of how ruthless the DEs really were, perhaps). I just want to say that I agree that young Snape would have been hired around July of 1981 (don't the booklists usually come out then, and DD would have advertised for a new DADA teacher, the post for which Snape was applying, around the end of June?), but I think your first guess at the timing is more likely than the second to be accurate. After all, Snape spied for Dumbledore "at great personal risk," which implies a fairly extended period, not just a month or two, and his spying on Voldemort would have begun just after Harry's birth on July 31, 1980, effectually ended when he began teaching at Hogwarts on September 1, 1981, some thirteen months later. I'm not sure why Dumbledore waited so long to try to persuade the Potters to use the Fidelius Charm or how Snape, who was at Hogwarts, could have known that they were in danger at that point (though how else could Dumbledore have known)? Nikkalmati I tend for a number of reasons to think SS is DDMan and I am perfectly willing to see him spying for over a year before he took the job at Hogwarts. I would think DD would not have much faith in a spy who worked for him for only a few months. But remember ST said SS was applying for a job at the time he was at the Hog's Head in say 10/79.. Presumably then LV put him up to making the application. If DD and AD unwisely let him go off to LV at that time, SS had to come back to apply for the DADA job again (but of course got Potions). It seems there is a bit of a gap here. If he switched sides once Harry was born, 7/80, why didn't he start teaching 9/80 instead of 9/81 or some earlier time. We have seen MM and ST started teaching in midyear. He would have been replacing Slughorn, right? Something must have happened just after the time SS started teaching to alert DD that the attack on the Potters was imminent. There was much concern that there was a spy in the Order. Snape seems to have been aware that James preferred Sirius as SK over DD. That means he was in on the initial planning f or the SK. I have always been puzzled how DD knew so much about what had happened at GH. Did he read baby Harry's memory? Did he have a spy there and if so why didn't that person help Harry? Why did DD have to send Hagrid? Was it a portrait? Supposedly, DD no longer even knew where the Potters were hiding, after the FC was cast. Nikkalmati (lots of questions too). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 16 02:54:22 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:54:22 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters WAS: Respecting the Dursleys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159765 > Charles: > Hermione seems to want to turn people in for everything throughout > the books. I am having trouble understanding what you mean about > the anti-snitching jinx having something to do with Bill's injury, > though. Indeed, when I started this reply I was going to frame a > couple of questions to point you in a direction that would help me > understand, but I just can't wrap my head around it enough. Could > you elaborate a little? Pippin: Hermione's anti-snitching jinx caused Marietta's face to be mutilated, and her refusal to tell what she knew about the vanishing cabinet led to Bill's face being mutilated. I wondered whether she was afraid that the curse she put on the parchment would strike her if she were questioned and let something slip about the DA. But anyway she would have looked like a hypocrite after visiting such a severe punishment on Marietta. The boys lightly persuaded her that Montague would recover and anyway it would just be more trouble for Umbridge. But Montague's troubles turned out to mean trouble for everyone. That both Marietta and Bill suffered facial disfigurement seems to be a deliberate parallel by the author. I think it is meant to show that while it may seem fair to visit injustice and cruelty on those who are unjust or cruel, the effects often multiply themselves and affect innocent people. Pippin From random832 at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 03:03:09 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:03:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy_ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610152003r3ef744cdn34af890cd6e395a0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159766 > Carol responds: > So Wizards can > live without modern technology or imitate it without (much) cost to > themselves (e.g., fire without fuel, "wireless" without electricity) > and with no harm to the environment (no fossil fuels or atom > splitting, for example). Unfortunately, these options aren't available > to Muggles. Not directly - but all it takes is for one wizard to charm one wheel to continue spinning at a specific speed 'no matter what' - in other words, a perpetual motion machine. This wheel can be attached to any number of electric generators. Or, in order to make things work within current infrastructure - transfigure water into oil. (even if it can't be done infinitely as suggested above, it would be a way to convert the still obviously abundant "magic energy" into something muggles can use) -- Random832 From tfaucette6387 at charter.net Mon Oct 16 02:49:49 2006 From: tfaucette6387 at charter.net (anne_t_squires) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:49:49 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159767 > Charles Dias wrote: > > Very nice this theory of Harry's scar to be a horcrux itself. > > I've never think about it. But if it's so, Ms. JK has just > > prepared the death of Harry Potter since the very first book > > because the horcrux (Harry) must be destroyed in order to get > > Voldemort destroyed too. Jim Ferer wrote: > > I've always had in mind a much harder sacrifice than mere physical > life; Harry would make that without hesitation. I once thought that > Harry would have to give up his ability to do magic and become a > Muggle in order to destroy Voldemort. There would be an awful dilemna. > Anne Squires responds: I also have always thought that Harry might have to give up his magic in order to defeat Voldemort. In CoS DD tells Harry that Voldemort passed on more than a scar to Harry when he attacked him as a baby. At the time DD is refering to Parseltongue; but, he seeems to imply that Harry got more than just Parseltongue from LV. When I first read that I immediately started wondering if Harry got all of his magic from LV. I also wonder if this was what was being investigated during the time between the attack on the Potters and when Hagrid delivered Harry to the Dursleys. Since I read DD's comment in CoS I've been on the lookout for another talent which LV might have passed on to Harry, and I haven't been able to identify one. (If anyone has found another talent from LV, please let me know.) Maybe this means _all_ of Harry's magic comes from LV. Maybe Harry was born a squib. The way I see it, the scar is a horcrux. The trio will somehow figure this out. They will also figure out a way to destroy the scar without destroying Harry himself --- just his magic. (Don't ask me how because I'm not sure exactly.) In the end Harry is alive, but no longer a wizard. To me it ties into the idea that great sacrifice is needed to obtain great benefit. There is the precedents of Lily sacrificing herself for Harry. Perhaps Harry will become a living sacrifice. I also like the idea that Voldemort dies at the hand of someone who was born a squib. And I love the irony of the WW owing the defeat of the latest Dark Lord to a squib. Also, does anyone else think that Harry was able to destroy the horcrux in the diary without injuring himself because he is a horcrux, or rather has a horcrux in him (the scar)? When DD destroyed the horcrux in the ring he was obviously grievously injured; however, Harry suffered no ill effects from destroying the horcrux in the diary. Maybe by being marked as Voldemort's equal LV inadvertently gave Harry the ability to destroy horcuxes without injuring himself. Perhaps Harry is the only person alive who can destroy a horcrux and suffer no ill effects. ~Anne Squires From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 03:55:23 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:55:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159768 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > Sherry: > > In other words, are you saying that you think Dumbledore, Snape > and Abe, purposely, coldly and with definite malice aforethought, > set up an innocent family, a child? If this scenario is true, it > makes Dumbledore into a monster equal to Voldemort. The way I'm > reading what you're saying is that DD told Snape what to say to > Voldemort. He couldn't possibly have thought this would not cause > Voldemort to go after children born as the seventh month dies. I > don't think JKR could conceivably call Dumbledore the epitome > of goodness and then try to have us swallow this scenario. Mike: I'll answer you with Dumbledore's own words: "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy? I never dreamed that I would have such a person on my hands. (OotP p.839, US) Now you might say, OK, Dumbledore might admit that, but only in deference to protecting Harry. I respond with the prior page: "Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan now? I had fallen into the trap I had forseen, that I told myself I could avoid, that I must avoid." "I don't --" "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed...." (OotP p.838, US) What trap was Dumbledore telling himself he could avoid, must avoid? !Caring about Harry! His plan did not include caring about Harry, that was the trap to avoid. He admits it! He had *planned* to be a cold-hearted ba***rd and to follow his *plan*. What more do you need? And JKR's "epitome of goodness" is a general guideline for how she wants Dumbledore to be perceived by her reading public. How many times does she have to give us a Harry-POV answer in her interviews before we believe that she isn't telling us anything that Harry doesn't know? IOW, it's a Harry-centric position that Dumbledore is the "epitome of goodness". > Sherry cont: > It would be Dumbledore's fault, that the Potters were murdered > and Harry orphaned. No matter how much he may have done it for > the supposed greater good--how I hate that concept--it doesn't > lessen his culpability in the deaths. > It makes everyone involved into mind-boggling terrible people, > that they would risk a child's life for some idiotic plan to set > up Voldemort. Mike again: Yes, but he's already made his excuse, don't you know. Try this: "The consequences of our actions are always so complicated, so diverse, that predicting the future is a very difficult business indeed...Professor Trelawney, bless her, is living proof of that.." (DD in PoA, p.426, US) He even manages to get Trelawney mixed in there as a sort of foreshadowing that using her predictions to tell the future is just impossible to do. Prophesies are very ambiguous monsters, we may be expecting too much of Dumbledore to have figured out the exact outcome of releasing the prophesy part to Voldemort. Since Dumbledore admits to "never having studied the subject myself", he's covered, right? > Sherry cont: > I'd have to go looking for Lupinlore's mulching machine and hope > that cassettes and CD's would make fine mulch for his garden. Mike: I don't have any response, this just made me laugh, so I didn't want to cut it. > Sherry cont: > I do want to say however, that you really laid out a brilliant > theory, even if it is quite sinister! Very impressive. Mike: Thanks. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 16 04:18:20 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:18:20 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159769 > Alla: > > As I said, we seem to be taking a different view of what protective > custody or protection is, if you consider it the same as prison or > caged bed , then sure I am with you, but if this is the same as what > Dumbledore offers at the Tower, as in taking Draco and his sorry > excuse for the family to safe place, then **NO**, I do not consider > Dumbledore doing it even against Draco's wishes to be sufficient > analogy for the denial of due process. Pippin: There's a famous quote, "Stone walls do not a prison make, nor iron bars a cage." To be confined under house arrest, as Sirius shows us, can be miserable even if one is there of one's own choosing. But Draco would be more equivalent to Kreacher in his plight, and like Kreacher would be plotting revenge or escape every moment. Let's not forget that both the attacks were launched from outside Hogwarts. Removing Draco from Hogwarts wouldn't protect the students in the slightest. If Draco would have accepted protection, fine. But he wouldn't take it from Snape, whom he had far more reason to think might help him, so why would he take it from Dumbledore? And if he refused, and Voldemort learned of it, Voldemort would kill him. Would be assassin or not, Draco had done nothing for which he deserved to be marked for death. Even successful mass murderers only got life in Azkaban. There's another problem. Dumbledore seems to have guessed that Draco's accomplice in Hogsmeade was under the Imperius. That would mean that someone had put the accomplice under the Imperius curse, made sure it stayed in effect, and done it so well that neither Dumbledore in his frequent visits to Hogsmeade nor the aurors stationed in the village could detect it. Even if that person was not actually a member of the Order, it had to be someone they trusted and a powerful wizard or witch. Quite apart from Voldemort's orders, that person would surely silence Draco if it seemed his or her secret was about to be discovered. Alla: > When I said a doubtful luxury as to Sirius **choosing** to be in > that house, I meant that this was not a choice that Sirius really > wanted to make,IMO. I think that was shown rather clearly in OOP. Pippin: You mean if Sirius choses to do what Dumbledore thinks is right because he thinks that Dumbledore's judgement is better than his, he's not acting of his own free will? How do you work that out? In any case, Sirius said he came back to Britain because Harry needed him. That meant he had to give up a life of travel and adventure, something parenting often requires us to do. Tough. Alla: > The funny thing is that IMO Dumbledore sure demonstrated that he > absolutely **can** make people's choices for them. Harry is the best > example of course, Pippin: The situations are not comparable. Draco's mother was not dead or in Azkaban. Dumbledore is not in loco parentis outside Hogwarts, nor was she likely to surrender her authority as Sirius gave his to Dumbledore. In any case, Draco on the tower has passed his 17th birthday and is no longer a child by WW standards. Anyway, I don't recall Harry ever asking Dumbledore to let him live elsewhere. Unlike you, he seems to trust Dumbledore on that, wisely or not we shall see. As for me, I have to say for Dumbledore what Gandalf said when he was challenged, "You may ask what is the use of my deeds when they are proved useless." Magpie: I guess that's the thing I don't quite see--why would Draco's throwing Trelawney out be so important? Pippin: Draco denied to Snape that he had anything to do with the attacks. As long as he was denying it, it would have been useless to offer him protection. I do not believe Dumbledore was willing to take anyone into custody lacking evidence that they'd committed a crime. (Of course Dumbledore being sure it was him is not evidence.) But the attack on Trelawney was evidence, a crime in itself (yes, it is assault. Draco has no business to lay hands on her, nor to forcibly remove her from a room where she has as much right to be as he does.) Even if Draco was not willing to answer any questions about what he'd been doing, he could still have been arrested, with due process. In Azkaban he'd be safe from Voldemort. BTW, I don't think the DE's were waiting in the RoR until Dumbledore left the castle. I can't imagine anyone, even DE's, willingly being confined for an indefinite period, possibly days or even weeks, with a hungry Greyback for company. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 05:20:14 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:20:14 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159770 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > ...edited... > > In any event, Sirius IMO had a luxury of making choices, > since he was not wanna be assasin when he had to make > that choice. Draco, well, as I said above may be he > would have taken that offer, if not - well, tough, as >far as I am concerned. > > The funny thing is that IMO Dumbledore sure demonstrated > that he absolutely **can** make people's choices for > them. Harry is the best example of course, I do not > remember Dumbledore giving Harry much choice whether to > stay with Dursleys or not..., but suddenly when Draco > is running around the school trying to kill him and > almost killing two students, Dumbledore is hesitant > about making a choice for Draco that truly **is** the > best one for him, whether Draco realises that or not? > > And again, I sure understand that this is how JKR > wanted the story to unfold, but do I see internal logic > in Dumbledore's actions? > > ... > > JMO, > > Alla > bboyminn: I think Dumbledore understood that you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, so it was important for Draco to ask for help or at least consciously accept Dumbledore's offer of help. Regardless of what you destructive predilection may be, whether drug, alcohol, sex, generally self-destructive behavior, or being a DE, until you are willing to accept that you are on the wrong path, until you are willing to accept that you need help, until you are actually willing to accept help when it is offerred, you are doomed. If Dumbledore had taken Draco into 'protective custody' Draco would have resented him for it. He would have takens the same attitude he took with Snape, 'you just want all the glory for yourself'. So, I think Dumbledore did the right thing. He let Draco fall until he could fall no more. He let Draco go until Draco stood at the crossroads of destiny, and then he tried to give him a shove in the right direction. But again, it had to be Draco's choice for it to work. In the case of Harry, when Harry was an infant, Dumbledore did what was necessary to keep Harry alive. As Harry got older, he accepted however begrudingly, that he needed to return to the Dursley's. Eventually, he learned WHY he had to return there, and continued to accept it. He accepted, just as Sirius did, that Dumbledore knew best. Now many people think that FAR TOO MANY people have been accepting that Dumbledore knew best, but he is the oldest and wisest of them all, and flawed as he is, Dumbledore has a history of knowing what is best within the bounds that it is humanly possible. I think part of what we are seeing in seeing Dumbledore as flawed is seeing Harry grow up. I noticed in the earlier books Harry describes the commons room with a sense of awe. But in the later books, the carpets are threadbare, the tables are rickety, the stuffing is coming out of the torn chair, the luster and awe have worn off. The shades of grey are starting to show through in his otherwise youthful black and white world. I think that is an intentional part of the process on the part of the author; to show us that even the best of life has it flaws, that it is tattered and torn. So, at to Draco, I think he had to want help and know that he needed it before he could ever accept it. As to Dumbledore, he carries the weight of the world on his shoulders. It is very easy for us as readers and for other characters in the books to second guess Dumbledore when that weight is not baring down on us. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 05:45:10 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:45:10 -0000 Subject: Mandrake Restorative Potion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159771 --- "wrexx1" 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 > bboyminn: Well, the answer is both easier and harder than you think. Of course, you can alway do what I do and make something up, but you have to make it up in a fair, reasonable, and consistent way. For example, how do you know the Restorative Potion is not a salve? Well, one way is to realize that it is not the Mandrake Restorative Balm, but the Restorative 'Draught'. 'Draught' or 'Draft' implies drinking, but it also implies inhaling, so, they may have simply created a steam of Mandrake Draft and let the fumes waif over the injured person. That could just as easily explain Nick, may be they just infused the steam into Nick and he revived. Or, just as easily we could suppose that Nick was only Stunned since he was already dead, and he revived on his own. Another explanation is that they dropped drops of Draft into the victum's mouth. Even if the victum couldn't eat, swallow, move, whatever, the Draft would have still seeped into their mouth and then into their stomach and then into their bloodstream where it would work it's magic. Again, I can't prove any of these, I'm just trying to illustrate that reasonable explanations can be made up if you assume there is one, and then...well...make it up. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From gg682000 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 03:27:55 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (Louis) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:27:55 -0000 Subject: Question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159772 Hi everyone, I just joined tonight and I haven't had time to read everything just yet. So if this was covered please forgive me, but it's something that has been eating at me for a little while now. Harry is going to have to train up without a doubt. Could he use The Room of Requirement for part of that training. Even if Hogwarts is closed I'm sure he can arrange to be allowed to use the Room. I know that there is only so much he could do in the Room too. Also what's going to happen to Dumbledore's pensieve. I think that could be a useful thing to have around also. Louis From darksworld at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 04:37:54 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 04:37:54 -0000 Subject: Bill's injury WAS:Re: Sympathy to the characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159773 > Pippin: > Hermione's anti-snitching jinx caused Marietta's face to be > mutilated, and her refusal to tell what she knew about the > vanishing cabinet led to Bill's face being mutilated. I > wondered whether she was afraid that the curse she put on the > parchment would strike her if she were questioned and let > something slip about the DA. But anyway she would have looked > like a hypocrite after visiting such a severe punishment on > Marietta. The boys lightly persuaded her that Montague would > recover and anyway it would just be more trouble for Umbridge. > But Montague's troubles turned out to mean trouble for everyone. > > That both Marietta and Bill suffered facial disfigurement seems > to be a deliberate parallel by the author. I think it is meant > to show that while it may seem fair to visit injustice and > cruelty on those who are unjust or cruel, the effects often > multiply themselves and affect innocent people. Charles: Speaking up about the cabinet would *not* have been letting something slip about the DA. The DA had nothing to do with Gred and Forge shoving Montague into that vanishing cabinet. And while the action itself was over the top and excessive, it was not necessarily *injust*. As far as Hermione even being able to tell someone about the cabinet: The nature of the WW is for adult witches and wizards to generally ignore what underage witches and wizards tell them anyway (plenty of examples of this, from the beginning). In any case, for Hermione to have been able to alert someone to the fact that Draco was going to use that vanishing cabinet, she would have to know that that was what he was trying to fix. Last but not least, IMNSHO, Marietta got what she deserved. It was not over the top, nor overly cruel. She betrayed the DA. Not only was it a broken promise, but she knew that she was going to get many of her friends expelled and possibly criminally prosecuted by what she knows is an unjust government. AFAIC, having the word "sneak" across her face is a light punishment, considering what could have happened to the rest of the DA. As to this all relating to Bill's injury, it's an interesting theory, but I cannot subscribe to it. I believe that the twofold purpose of Bill's injury are to: 1.)Show the viciousness of Fenrir Greyback on a non-full-moon night to contrast with the gentle nature of Lupin on the same. and 2.)Provide a means to reconcile Fleur and the other females in Bill's life. Charles Walker- Who really wonders what Bill is going to be like at the full moon. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 11:44:29 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:44:29 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159774 > Pippin: > If Draco would have accepted protection, fine. But he wouldn't > take it from Snape, whom he had far more reason to think might > help him, so why would he take it from Dumbledore? And if he > refused, and Voldemort learned of it, Voldemort would kill > him. Would be assassin or not, Draco had done nothing for > which he deserved to be marked for death. Even successful > mass murderers only got life in Azkaban. Alla: Let me repeat again - I am not talking about Azkaban and yes, if Draco refused he would have been in danger, therefore he should have been protected regardless of whether he would have accepted or not,IMO. But we simply disagree here. > > Alla: > > When I said a doubtful luxury as to Sirius **choosing** to be in > > that house, I meant that this was not a choice that Sirius really > > wanted to make,IMO. I think that was shown rather clearly in OOP. > > Pippin: > You mean if Sirius choses to do what Dumbledore thinks is right > because he thinks that Dumbledore's judgement is better than his, > he's not acting of his own free will? How do you work that out? Alla: No, I said that this was not a choice that Sirius truly wanted to make, if that clarifies things, I'd say that he convinced himself to do so just as Remus convinced himself that he needs to go to werewolves even if he truly dislikes it. Does it mean that I think that the choice was not truly free? Yes, I do, at least partially, but not by Imprerius or anything, but by great Albus DUmbledore puitting all his weight to convince them to do it. Sirius wanted to be closer to Harry, sure, but why exactly he can be closer to Harry only in Grimmauld place? Pippin: > In any case, Sirius said he came back to Britain because Harry needed > him. That meant he had to give up a life of travel and adventure, > something parenting often requires us to do. Tough. Alla: Yes,shows again how responsible Sirius is about Harry and how much better Harry would have been off growing up with Sirius, IMO. Sirius did not come back to spend all his days in Grimmauld place, he came back to fight, to do something useful for the Order. Dumbledore thought that something useful for the Order would be to keep Sirius confined to keep him alive. I do not remember anything in canon that Sirius thought so. > > Alla: > > The funny thing is that IMO Dumbledore sure demonstrated that he > > absolutely **can** make people's choices for them. Harry is the best > > example of course, > > Pippin: > The situations are not comparable. > > Draco's mother was not dead or in Azkaban. Dumbledore is not > in loco parentis outside Hogwarts, nor was she likely to surrender > her authority as Sirius gave his to Dumbledore. In any case, > Draco on the tower has passed his 17th birthday and is no longer > a child by WW standards. Alla: No, Sirius did not give him any authority about Harry, I really do not remember anything to that effect, unless you of course consider Hagrid taking Harry and Sirius agreeing to that to be giving that authority, then we have to agree to disagree. And even more reason to take Draco to protection before Tower IMO. Pippin: > Anyway, I don't recall Harry ever asking Dumbledore to let him live > elsewhere. Unlike you, he seems to trust Dumbledore on that, > wisely or not we shall see. Alla: That's funny. I remember Harry **jumping** at the possibility to live with Sirius, I remember Harry wanting to leave Dursleys as soon as possible **every summer** pretty much ( have to double check all the books, but several examples stood up), I remember Harry not wanting to return there when Summer starts. I have to double check if he asks Dumbledore directly in OOP anything to that effect, but even if he did not, I think it shown sufficiently that he does not **want** to live there and I do not believe for one second especially after Dumbledore OOP end speech that Dumbledore does not know it. Pippin: > As for me, I have to say for Dumbledore what Gandalf said when > he was challenged, "You may ask what is the use of my > deeds when they are proved useless." Alla: I actually never wanted to challenge Gandalf, ever. Maybe because he acted as a good and powerful being supposed to act IMO pretty much all the time. As to asking Dumbledore about that, well let's see all his acts towards Sirius pretty much proved not only useless but wrong so far, aren't they? He took Harry from innocent man, not from the traytor, he admitted that keeping Sirius in that house was a mistake. I am convinced so far that blood protection is quite useless thing, I can be proven wrong of course in book 7, but so far I had not been shown anything to convince me to the contrary. It would be interesting to see of course whether his trust in Snape turned out to be useless and wrong, to me for now it surely does. Yeah, I think I already can ask Dumbledore about his deeds :) > > bboyminn: > > I think Dumbledore understood that you can't help someone > who doesn't want to be helped, so it was important for > Draco to ask for help or at least consciously accept > Dumbledore's offer of help. >> If Dumbledore had taken Draco into 'protective custody' > Draco would have resented him for it. He would have > takens the same attitude he took with Snape, 'you just > want all the glory for yourself'. Alla: Precisely. I think this is exactly the reason why Dumbledore did it, he wanted Draco to see the wrongness of his ways, to realise that he is on the wrong path, etc,etc, etc. The only thing is I think it was actually very wrong thing of DUmbledore to do. I mean, I am sure that this is what JKR intends to show - Dumbledore saving Draco's soul, etc. It just looks to me that Dumbledore was saving Draco's soul at expense of many other souls under his protection. The blood of Ron and Kathie, had they died would have been not only on Draco's hands but Dumbledore's as well, as far as I am concerned. Yes, Ideally Draco should have been realised and asked for help - as we see on the Tower - he **still** does not. Yes, he would not have killed Dumbledore and probably Dumbledore gotten through to him, but Dumbledore still has to make a very long speech to get through to him, even when Draco realises in what predicament he landed himself in. IMO Dumbledore should have done that earlier. bboyminn: >> Now many people think that FAR TOO MANY people have been > accepting that Dumbledore knew best, but he is the oldest > and wisest of them all, and flawed as he is, Dumbledore > has a history of knowing what is best within the bounds > that it is humanly possible. > Alla: Actually, I would like **one** example in canon that shows that Dumbledore has a history of knowing what is best? Please exclude blood protection for now, because as I said above and many times before I have to see it to believe it ;), but anything besides it, because I really really do not remember him having that history, more like us hoping that he does. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 12:01:49 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:01:49 -0000 Subject: Order threatening Dursleys at the end of OOP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159775 I just had a thought - as I wrote in the past, I used to think that JKR would be much much better off without that scene because if she wanted to maintain some kind of credibility over Dumbledore not checking on Harry, well IMO that was not it. Thunderstorm did not struck and Harry was not thrown out on the streets. But I just thought that maybe indeed we do have the example of Order members exercising independent thinking and doing what great Albus Dumbledore did not approve of or at least did not know of, since he is not here. Of course I am dreaming since most likely Dumbledore ordered them to do so and did not come because he did not want to make Harry more angry, but I can dream, can I? So maybe they do use their brains sometimes without asking Dumbledore first. Oh, and even if it served no other purpose but cheering Harry up a bit that they are on his side, I think this was useful. JMO, Alla From random832 at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 12:42:50 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:42:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610160542r18c33c9bu5a1fa5ed9a3adf01@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159776 > Alla: > Now, Hermione is actually more interesting situation. I am also pretty > safe at betting that she should not worry you, etc, **but** the main > reason I am doing so is because JKR as much as called Hermione her > alter ego and I sincerely doubt that she would make her alter ego evil. I dunno (maybe not evil, but like you say below, idiotic) - she did make her a hypocrite. Not ministry approved, indeed! What you're saying is basically because Hermione's the author's favorite character / "alter ego" / whatever, she can't have any flaws - you're effectively asking for "Hermione Sue". When in reality, she has already been shown to have flaws. > Otherwise I would not feel as safe to bet that Hermione would not do > something idiotic ( not evil but harmful) I think you're wrong in "betting" on this on that basis - you're basically betting against the author's ability to write. -- Random832 From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 12:10:37 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:10:37 -0000 Subject: Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159777 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Louis" wrote: > > Hi everyone, I just joined tonight and I haven't had time to read > everything just yet. So if this was covered please forgive me, but > it's something that has been eating at me for a little while now. > Harry is going to have to train up without a doubt. Could he use The > Room of Requirement for part of that training. Even if Hogwarts is > closed I'm sure he can arrange to be allowed to use the Room. I know > that there is only so much he could do in the Room too. Also what's > going to happen to Dumbledore's pensieve. I think that could be a > useful thing to have around also. Louis welcome! I for one think that DD's pensieve could be a wealth of information. Also, since DD is dead, Harry could also go to his old office and get advice from his portrait that is now there on the wall. Also from any of DD's portraits that will be scattered here in there in 'important' buildings in the WW. DD was a very powerful and decorated wizard. His portraits will be all over the WW. Jenni from Alabama From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 14:29:30 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:29:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40610130512o5ff541d3la45d5caab178831b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610160729i765e3dc4n78346b3306579ca1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159778 > > montims wrote: > > see, I don't really understand this problem with the Dursleys at > all. Until Harry is thrown into the mix, they are a family whose > members are happy and secure with each other, and "normal, thank you > very much". If Harry had never arrived, they woiuld have continued, > content in their lifestyle -Petunia happy at home raising Dudley and > entertaining for Vernon's business - Vernon doing well at work, and > pleasing the clients enough to get a holiday home in Majorca, as well > as other perks. So they're not great parents? At least they all love > each other. It was throwing Harry in the mix that upset things. And > if he had been chubby, and instinctively went along with their > mindset, and if his hair had conformed, and he hadn't shown any > magical ability, they might still have rubbed along fine together. > But he was the grain of sand in their oyster shell... > > Carol responds: > > The Dursleys a normal, happy family? McGonagall may be judging them > prematurely as "the worst sort of Muggles," but her judgment is based > on sixteen-month-old Dudley kicking his mother and demanding sweets. > He's also just learned a new word, "won't," and he hasn't even reached > the "terrible two's." Clearly, he's already indulged, if not spoiled, > and he's less than a year and a half old. And Mr. Dursley apparently > abuses his underlings at work, yelling at five different people on the > second page of SS/PS. Granted, Petunia and Vernon love each other in > their way, and they love Dudley (as shown by their reaction to the > on-tongue toffee incident), but they're afraid of their own child, > catering to his every whim for fear that he'll throw a tantrum. montims: And yet, exaggerated as they are, this is normal behaviour, even these days. I lived in South Yorkshire for 5 years with my husband, and we were surrounded by this sort of family, and worse. I think when people talk about the way families *should* interact, that is exaggerated and unreal. But then, my family was disfunctional, and however happy families appear, when I get to know members of it, I see that they are disfunctional also. Maybe I mix with the wrong people, but I have only seen these perfect people in books or on American sitcoms... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Oct 16 14:47:08 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:47:08 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159779 > Magpie: > I guess that's the thing I don't quite see--why would Draco's throwing > Trelawney out be so important? > > Pippin: > Draco denied to Snape that he had anything to do with the attacks. > As long as he was denying it, it would have been useless to offer > him protection. I do not believe Dumbledore was willing to > take anyone into custody lacking evidence that they'd committed > a crime. (Of course Dumbledore being sure it was him is not > evidence.) > > But the attack on Trelawney was evidence, a crime in itself (yes, > it is assault. Draco has no business to lay hands on her, nor > to forcibly remove her from a room where she has as much right > to be as he does.) Even if Draco was not willing to answer any > questions about what he'd been doing, he could still have been > arrested, with due process. In Azkaban he'd be safe from > Voldemort. Magpie: I have a hard time believing this is true. By your own logic Dumbledore can't do anything about the attack on Trelawney anyway. Trelawney doesn't know who threw her out of the room, neither does Harry and Draco can deny it. It's not evidence of any other crime at all--Draco could have been doing something merely embarassing in the room and thrown out whoever entered. I can't imagine he'd be arrested for ejecting Trelawney from a room any more than the Trio would have been arrested for knocking Snape out in PoA. I'm not convinced this rule about laying hands on the teacher=serious crime with sentence in Azkaban actually exists in canon. (Dumbledore also does not seem to know Draco has any accomplice under Imperio until the Tower when he realizes Rosemerta was involved.) It just seems really silly to think that Dumbledore, who knows perfectly well Draco is behind the near-deaths of Katie and Ron, can't make a move--but would have leapt to take Draco into custody once had he only known that somebody neither Trelawney nor Harry actually saw ejected her from the RoR. Steve: So, I think Dumbledore did the right thing. He let Draco fall until he could fall no more. He let Draco go until Draco stood at the crossroads of destiny, and then he tried to give him a shove in the right direction. But again, it had to be Draco's choice for it to work. Magpie: Yes, I think this is more the way DD is thinking with Draco and I think ultimately it will be a gamble that pays off, that this is what JKR is going for. But it is a gamble, imo, one that Dumbledore is taking knowingly. I don't think it's something he feels forced to do. I think it's his plan. -m From random832 at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 13:07:50 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:07:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Houseelves loyalty In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50610130604m28641cdcv76ed7a654ab241eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610160607k228f900fv2c72e12ebf4f765c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159780 > a_svirn: > The quotations above show that Dobby is bound to the family, rather > than to the house as a place. Granted, the first quote is somewhat > ambiguous, yet still Dobby indicates that he's bound to a family. > > Also, there is the fact that house-elves are slaves to all intends > and purposes. Slaves are personal property rather than real estate > (as serfs for instance). A distinction that, however smart she is, Hermione might not get (or might not care about) at 12. And besides, slavery is a more outrageous accusation, and she wants to get support for spew. sorry, ess-pee-ee-doubleyou (smart as she is, she also doesn't seem to get that if you don't want people pronouncing your organization's name, you shouldn't have it spell something). For that matter, slaves haven't been any kind of property in the muggle world for over a century, since property is defined by law and slavery is illegal. > a_svirn: > The test was based on the fact that Kreacher was part of the > inheritance that's all. But what if he got the Kreacher part of the inheritance but not the house? I think it's evident that that _could not_ have happened because they're inseparable. They were checking to see if he had inherited the house, and seeing if he can order Kreacher around is not useful for that unless he is (legally) part of the house. > It would be tricky to scan the whole place > for any known jinx and course, that would prevent am *impure*blood > to inherit it, but it was easy to test Kreacher. But if not inheriting the house wouldn't automatically prevent him inheriting Kreacher, the test is useless and dangerous to rely on. > a_svirn: > I'd say it's dangerous in any case. But Kreacher was probably a > primarly concern for Dumbledore. No, the primary concern was that the OOTP's wards (unplottable, fidelius, etc) hinged on the consent of the owner of the property, and/or would not work against the owner. And wasn't it demonstrated that Kreacher was still capable of passing information despite being owned by an OOTP member? -- Random832 From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Oct 16 14:42:43 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:42:43 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610160542r18c33c9bu5a1fa5ed9a3adf01@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159781 > > > Alla: > > Now, Hermione is actually more interesting situation. I am also pretty > > safe at betting that she should not worry you, etc, **but** the main > > reason I am doing so is because JKR as much as called Hermione her > > alter ego and I sincerely doubt that she would make her alter ego evil. > Random832: > I dunno (maybe not evil, but like you say below, idiotic) - she did > make her a hypocrite. Not ministry approved, indeed! What you're > saying is basically because Hermione's the author's favorite character > / "alter ego" / whatever, she can't have any flaws - you're > effectively asking for "Hermione Sue". When in reality, she has > already been shown to have flaws. Renee: Eh, I don't think I'm following this. Is claiming that someone won't turn evil the same as claiming they're flawless? Or did you snip something essential here? From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Oct 16 16:38:28 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:38:28 -0000 Subject: Sirius and Dumbledore WAS: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159782 > Alla: > Sirius wanted to be closer to Harry, sure, but why exactly he > can be closer to Harry only in Grimmauld place? > Sirius did not come back to spend all his days in Grimmauld place, > he came back to fight, to do something useful for the Order. > Dumbledore thought that something useful for the Order would be to > keep Sirius confined to keep him alive. I do not remember anything > in canon that Sirius thought so. Renee: Because it was only at Grimmauld Place he didn't run the risk to be caught and end up Kissed by the Dementors? That's also behind Harry's negative reaction when Sirius wants to come to Hogwarts - DD is not the only one who thinks it's unwise for Sirius to show himself anywhere outside (even as Padfoot). In fact, Sirius realises it, too, however much he hates it: he does not leave more than once after his escapade to King's Cross Station, and when he does, it is to save Harry - nothing and no one could keep him back then. Sirius has the freedom to make his own choices. He's *not* locked up at Grimmauld place and the other Order members don't restrain him, those few times he does leave. If he's confined, it is because of circumstances beyond the control of even someone like Dumbledore. Of course he says repeatedly he wants to leave, but ultimately he chooses to stay for Harry's sake and to sacrifice even his freedom for him (and why question the meaning of this sacrifice?). It's only when Harry's own life is a stake that he leaves. So, when Dumbledore largely blames himself for Sirius's tragedy, I don't think he means to say it's his fault because Sirius wasn't free to leave. What he means (I believe), is that he failed to solve the problem - because he underestimated the extent of it and didn't even begin to try. He more or less admits as much when he says he's forgotten what it is to be young - and I don't think he's merely talking about Harry here; Sirius was still young, too, certainly compared to Dumbledore. > Alla: > >I remember Harry wanting to leave Dursleys as soon > as possible **every summer** pretty much ( have to double check all > the books, but several examples stood up), I remember Harry not > wanting to return there when Summer starts. > > I have to double check if he asks Dumbledore directly in OOP > anything to that effect, but even if he did not, I think it shown > sufficiently that he does not **want** to live there and I do not > believe for one second especially after Dumbledore OOP end speech > that Dumbledore does not know it. Renee: Of course Harry didn't want to live with the Dursleys; I'd doubt his sanity if he did! But unlike someone else in the series who ran away from home at sixteen, Harry stays at Privet Drive (just like the aforementioned person chose to stay at home later in life). Maybe because he actually believes what DD says about the blood-protection, and because he realises that circumstances don't always allow us to do what we want most? > Alla: > > I am convinced so far that blood protection is quite useless thing, > I can be proven wrong of course in book 7, but so far I had not been > shown anything to convince me to the contrary. Renee: It's notoriously difficult to prove a negative. "Why not do away with all the extra locks on our doors and windows - no one has broken in to our home in ages." Still, showing is always better than telling, and I agree we haven't been shown how it works; Voldemort's words in the graveyard are just another case of telling, not showing. All the same, I don't doubt they were meant to corroborate DD's claims about the blood-protection by the author. If this isn't enough, JKR has obviously failed to convince you (and some others on this list), but personally, I don't think there's much room for doubt if two enemies both say the same thing. Ren?e From nancy.hannah at mac.com Mon Oct 16 14:33:53 2006 From: nancy.hannah at mac.com (Nancy Hannah) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:33:53 -0400 Subject: The Scar Message-ID: <6882989.1161009233818.JavaMail.nancy.hannah@mac.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159783 (snip) From Anne Squires: Nancy: Anne... I always think back to the first book and the incident when Harry buys his wand. He has the feather of the Phoenix in it, and only one other has this, LV. That was just let drop (like a bomb to me). This relic like thing interests me in the religious connotation, being of the Protestant persuasion by birth, I didn't understand this tradition from the RC church, until later in life. Nancy From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 16:56:18 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:56:18 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159785 > wynnleaf > Snape is not a pleasant person. But in general, the idea that a > teacher should be changing teaching styles to accomodate the > changing needs of *every* student is simply not possible. You're > basically asking for a sort of kaliadascope of changing styles > which is not really workable in the classroom. AD: Isn't the point of this discussion that Snape seems to have a different approach to Neville than to, say, Gregory Goyle? All I'm suggesting is that, if he is going to handle Neville as a special case anyway, that he might, just for fun, try an approach that has actually been demonstrated to work. wynnleaf: > I think that what you're really saying is that Snape shouldn't do > things that upset Neville or other students. AD: No, that's not what I'm saying at all, else I would also be complaining about McGonagall. Over the years, I've had the great good fortune to have several strict teachers, to my considerable profit. I have no problem with a teacher being strict, nor with the occasional use of sarcasm or even... irony. On the other hand, I think it might be nice if a teacher were to occasionally wipe the foam from his mouth, and, well, teach. wynnleaf: "Mean" is not a teaching style... AD: In this, we are in perfect agreement. wynnleaf: > (more expanding horizons I suppose?). In Neville's case, he does > not only do incompentent things in Snape's classroom, so it's not > purely Snape being scary that causes Neville to mess up. Snape's > manner may exacerbate Neville's incompentence, but it doesn't cause it. AD: Ah, we've come to the nub. Snape's manner exacerbates Neville's problems, there's no "may" about it. It ought to be within Snape's ability to change this; he needn't become Mr. Chips, not bring Neville hot cocoa and sing him lullabies, he need merely, as a start, refrain from gratuitous insults. Sadly, this seems to be beyond his capabilities. wynnleaf: > Snape's teaching style -- some lecture... putting instructions on > the board, lots of hands on projects, assignments of essays, etc., > has little to nothing to do with Neville's problems. AD: I note that you do not include a teacher's behavior toward students as part of "teaching style". My horizons grow even broader. and more AD: > >An especially incompetent teacher would abuse his authority to > > take out his embarrassment on that student, instead. > > wynnleaf > That doesn't make him an incompetent teacher. That just means he's > doing some unpleasant things. You're equating being pleasant with > teaching ability. Also, you're judging a teacher's competence based > on the performance of a very few students. While *you* might do > that, almost no schools would judge that way. AD: Nope, I'm judging him on his behavior toward several students, Neville chief among them. > wynnleaf, > Well, fortunately you don't have to take his word for it... ...So if 10+ > students scored O's on their potions OWL, out of 40+ students in > that year -- well, AD, that's 25% or more making the highest level > possible OWL in Potions. > > I think that's probably an excellent record, wouldn't you? AD: I think it's statistically meaningless--we know nothing about how the other teachers did, whether OWL scores are curved, or how Snape's students do on a year-to-year basis (other than Snape's self-serving comment in OOTP). If you insist on it, though, what say we analyze those ten "O" students? Let's see, we have Hermione Granger, a student who managed to brew Polyjuice Potion under improvised conditions in her second year; four Ravenclaws, who, while probably not in Hermione's class, must certainly be quite bright; Ernie MacMillan, whose 5th year study schedule made Hermione look like a slacker; and four Slytherins. So we have six students who likely would have received "Outstanding" grades even if Filch taught the class, and four Slytherins. Alright, Snape knows how to teach Slytherins. > >AD: > >... Fortunately for him (Snape), Hogwarts makes an effort to hire > >the handicapped. > > wynnleaf > What a slur on the handicapped! AD: You're right! Comparing Snape to a handicapped person does slur the handicapped! So let's see, what shall we compare Snape to? Hmmm... pond scum? No... sewage sludge? Not quite... Blast-ended Skrewts? Nope, can't do it. Can't think of anything to compare Snape to that doesn't insult that thing. My apologies to any pond scum, sewage sludge, or Blast-ended Skrewts that may have been offended. Wynnleaf: > Back to the topic at hand. I already said that a compentent teacher > does not change styles constantly to accomodate every need of every > student. AD: Yes, you said that. What a remarkable thing to say. You claim that a competent professional would not change his technique to suit the job at hand. I had no idea horizons could get so broad! > wynnleaf > As I did not equate being "down to earth" with threats, insults, > etc., nor, in fact, Snape's sarcastic manner, I would suggest in > enlarging your horizons, you read posts more thoroughly. AD: Ah, forgive me; you see, as the subject was Snape, Snape's behavior, Snape's teaching style (or lack thereof) and Snapetudenalism in general, I thought you were somehow, when you used the phrase, referring to Snape. What have we changed the subject to, then? > >AD: > >Yes, I can see how much extra effort it would be for Snape to > > refrain from gratuitous insults outside of class, mustn't > > overwork our delicate little flower. > > wynnleaf, > What?? Not sure what you mean. Neville, of course, *is* a bit > delicate in that way -- in that he is easily made nervous and > uncertain. Harry, Ron, and many others aren't the least delicate. AD: I'm sorry, what was it you were saying about careful reading? Amiable (well, actually, feeling a little snotty today) Dorsai From nancy.hannah at mac.com Mon Oct 16 14:48:06 2006 From: nancy.hannah at mac.com (Nancy Hannah) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:48:06 -0400 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat Message-ID: <14090022.1161010086389.JavaMail.nancy.hannah@mac.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159786 >From Alla Nancy: I have to say, I am a fan of Snape. (Must admit to loving Alan Rickman as an actor anyhow). In his sliminess at Hogwarts, my feeling is, a lot of it is smoke and mirrors. In Book 1, his little speech about "putting a stopper on death", after admonishing Harry for not paying attention, I think he grabbed Harry's attention, and curiosity. The kids are all thinking he is evil, and the evidence all points this way, but I think he is there to protect them and teach them in whatever way he can. He shows up at all the right times... when Harry is caught out of bed in the restricted libary with Quirrell on his heels.. Quirrell's appearance was never really explained, and he was containing the Dark Lord. Something is brewing with Snape to my estimation, but I can't put my finger on it yet, so I am going to reread all the books again starting today. Thanks for indulging me again, Nancy From fawn_2_u at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 14:57:47 2006 From: fawn_2_u at yahoo.com (fawn_2_u) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:57:47 -0000 Subject: Question -- Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159787 Louis wrote: > Hi everyone, I just joined tonight and I haven't had time to > read everything just yet. So if this was covered please forgive > me, but it's something that has been eating at me for a little > while now. Also what's going to happen to Dumbledore's > pensieve. I think that could be a useful thing to have around > also. fawn_2_u: Hello and welcome, Louis. I, too, joined yesterday, and so far I'm enjoying the site. I think Dumbledore's pensieve will play a very improtant part in Harry's road to discovery. The pensieve is an excellent way for Harry to see things Dumbledore has seen, and without his professor's physical guidance what better tool to use? I also think Dumbledore was too smart to leave Harry without some help...without some way to tap into secrets others may not be privileged to. My meaning? Dobby. House elves keep their master's secrets, and Harry will turn to Dobby for help (just my opinion). From dougsamu at golden.net Mon Oct 16 14:33:38 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:33:38 -0400 Subject: The Scar Message-ID: <5A73BE99-F196-40C3-83A3-8CB04320CD3C@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159788 Jim Ferer: I've always had in mind a much harder sacrifice than mere physical life; Harry would make that without hesitation. I once thought that Harry would have to give up his ability to do magic and become a Muggle in order to destroy Voldemort. There would be an awful dilemna. Doug: That said, and it has been a suspicion all along too, what would Muggle!Harry's consequent choice be? To live a live amongst us knowing there is a far more fascinating world elsewhere, or to live in the world of Magic with no powers? In a world were he is unknown and has to make a brand new human life from scratch? or stay in the world where he has history, identity, and friends? Either way he is 'dead' to us. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. ____________________ From rosemary.murrell at virgin.net Mon Oct 16 16:23:42 2006 From: rosemary.murrell at virgin.net (rsmrymurrell) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 16:23:42 -0000 Subject: New to group -- Dumbledore, Luna, the Veil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159789 Just found this group and somewhat astounded! But here is a thought: IF Dumbledore is dead and we subscribe to the theory that the dead are 'just beyond the curtain' is it likely that, for example, Luna, might be contacted by Dumbledore to help Harry. Just a thought, will have to read all the previous messages! Chocolate frogs to everyone! Rosemary From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 16 17:30:28 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:30:28 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159790 Anne Squires: > Also, does anyone else think that Harry was able to destroy the > horcrux in the diary without injuring himself because he is a horcrux, > or rather has a horcrux in him (the scar)? When DD destroyed the > horcrux in the ring he was obviously grievously injured; however, > Harry suffered no ill effects from destroying the horcrux in the > diary. Maybe by being marked as Voldemort's equal LV inadvertently > gave Harry the ability to destroy horcuxes without injuring himself. > Perhaps Harry is the only person alive who can destroy a horcrux and > suffer no ill effects. SSSusan: I have looked at this in a very different way. I believe the difference between the diary horcrux, which was fairly easily destroyed by Harry with the basilisk fang, without damage to himself, and the ring horcrux, which caused significant injury to DD, was how the two objects were intended to be *used.* IOW, the ring horcrux was designed only to house a soul bit and not for some other purpose. Whereas the diary was an artifact designed *to be used* -- to be read, to be written in, to interact with the person holding it. For this reason alone I would say that the two horcruxes were "set up" differently, and that could explain why Harry did not suffer ill effect while destroying the diary. In addition to this, the diary hx was likely the first made by Tom, correct? The ring came later, when, presumably, he was more adept at the magic involved in creation & protection of horcruxes. I could easily see each subsequent horcrux having more elaborate (and more deadly) protections placed upon it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 17:27:53 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:27:53 -0000 Subject: Teaching Styles / Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159791 Alla: > > Erm, I think many areas in Hogwarts would be slight exaggeration, > IMO of course. In **all** classes where Neville is treated not > abusively he does well. Charmes and of course Herbology are examples > at hand. Oh, and No, I do not think Minerva treated him well either, > but at least she learned and changed, that is what I consider just > as AD does to be the mark of Good teacher. > > And I am not sure I can equate Harry getting an E in Potions in OWL > with any teaching ability of Snape, because it is made quite clear > that Snape was not breathing down Harry neck at the exam, I think > that Harry learned **despite** Snape not thanks to him and if Snape > did not carry his vendetta against James to Harry, I wonder how much > **more** Harry would have learned. IMO of course. Carol responds: Do you have any evidence that Neville does well in, say, COMC or History of Magic? IIRC, we're only aware that he's good at Herbology, reasonably good at Charms, and merely adequate in Transfiguration. And he learned enough in Potions, despite his fear of Snape, not to fail that exam. Other than that, I don't think we know Neville's OWL results, do we? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that *anyone* is taking NEWT-level COMC or History of Magic because the teachers of those classes, unlike Snape, either produce no students with good enough scores to take those classes or no Charlie Weasleys, who would excel and want to take NEWT-level COMC no matter who taught it. Hagrid liked him, remember. Charlie would have wanted dragons (and maybe Manticores) for his NEWT COMC class, but probably had to settle for hippogriffs because he had Professor Kettleburn instead of Hagrid. > Carol, who agrees with Wynnleaf that Snape's teaching methods (a bit of lecturing, lots of hands-on lab work, and out-of-class reading and essays) are exactly what's required to teach Potions (he even knows exactly what has gone wrong when a potion is made incorrectly) From gg682000 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 17:21:39 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (Louis) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:21:39 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: <6882989.1161009233818.JavaMail.nancy.hannah@mac.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159792 > Anne Squires: > I also have always thought that Harry might have to give up > his magic in order to defeat Voldemort. In CoS DD tells Harry > that Voldemort passed on more than a scar to Harry when he > attacked him as a baby. At the time DD is refering to > Parseltongue; but, he seeems to imply that Harry got more than > just Parseltongue from LV. When I first read that I immediately > started wondering if Harry got all of his magic from LV. Louis: I really don't think Harry has to give up any magic. I myself think there is more magic that LV transferred to Harry that is yet to be tapped into. Let's face it, although love is a powerful and moving force Harry will need ability as DD told him in HBP. Can the scar guide him in his quest for the Horcruxes??? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 18:22:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:22:41 -0000 Subject: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: <537.9075778.32644cbb@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159793 Nikkalmati wrote: > > I tend for a number of reasons to think SS is DDMan and I am perfectly willing to see him spying for over a year before he took the job at Hogwarts. I would think DD would not have much faith in a spy who worked for him for only a few months. But remember ST said SS was applying for a job at the time he was at the Hog's Head in say 10/79.. Presumably then LV put him up to making the application. If DD and AD unwisely let him go off to LV at that time, SS had to come back to apply for the DADA job again (but of course got Potions). It seems there is a bit of a gap here. If he switched sides once Harry > was born, 7/80, why didn't he start teaching 9/80 instead of 9/81 or some earlier time. We have seen MM and ST started teaching in midyear. He would have been replacing Slughorn, right? Carol responds: But why would young snape be applying for a job in, say, October 1979 (BTW, I think that the date was october 31, Harry's presumed conception date, but that's neither here nor there). If young snape were really applying for or interested in the perennially open DADA position at that date, he'd have applied in summer and would have been teaching if he were hired, which of course he we know he wasn't, since September 1. Trelawney is clearly applying for a sudden vacancy after the death or incapacitation of the current Divination teacher. (DD is even thinking of discontinuing the subject.) This is not a standard summer job interview such as Snape would have gone through if he were really interested in applying, or sent to apply, at this early date. We know nothing about DD turning him down after a first application for the DADA position because he was too young. And there's still another twenty-two months or so before he actually starts teaching, the time between the Prophecy and Harry's birth, when Snape apparently returned to Dumbledore and became a spy for him, and another thirteen months after that before he actually began teaching. I conjecture that LV sent him to apply for the DADA job, perhaps to get him out of the way, in the summer of 1981, and DD, to protect his spy, gave him the newly vacated Potions position (Slughorn must have just retired) instead of the cursed DADA position. (LV can't complain; Snape has his cover story that DD doesn't want him anywhere near the Dark Arts and at least Snape is at Hogwarts where LV wants him. No doubt Snape and DD want him there, too, but for altogether different reasons.) So to answer your question directly, he couldn't have taken the Potions position until it became available, and I don't think it was available during that year when Snape was spying for DE. It's just possible that teaching at Hogwarts was Snape's or DD's idea, presented to LV as a chance to spy on DD. LV would of course have wanted him to apply for the DADA position, but maybe DD and Snape agreed in advance that he'd be given Potions. I like that scenario, and it would eliminate any problems created by young Snape's repeatedly being turned down for the DADA position when he's been told that DD doesn't want him to be tempted to the Dark side by exposure to the Dark Arts (not a real hazard of that class unless you're Barty Jr.) but being given Potions on the third application. I think it's most unlikely that Snape was looking for a teaching job at the time of the Prophecy whether he was a loyal DE or not. Mike could be right that it's a cover story (at least what DD told Trelawney after Snape actually became a teacher nearly two years later). It could be that Trelawney's memory is confused by time and cooking sherry. Or it could be that JKR's math is so bad that we have a missing twelve months to account for. It seems to me most likely that we have: ca. Oct. 31, 1979: Young Snape, a loyal DE, hears part of the Prophecy (but see Mike's arguments against this idea) Soon after July 31, 1980: Young Snape, already conflicted over the death of Regulus, learns that the Potters and Longbottoms have babies that could be the Prophecy child and realizes that LV intends to kill one or both rather tnan waiting to see which child is the greater threat. He goes to Dumbledore with his tale of remorse and agrees to spy for him "at great personal risk." Ca. July 1981: Slughorn resigns, so that both the Potions and DADA positions are open. Young Snape applies for DADA on LV's orders (with perhaps a little manipulation by SS and DD thrown in) and is given the Potions position instead. There is, IMO, no earlier attempt on Snape's part to get a teaching position, and no interest in teaching at Hogwarts pre-Prophecy. (What would be LV's motive in sending him there if he thought himself in no danger from DD or an unborn child or anyone else?) Sept. 1, 1981: SS begins teaching, nearly two years after Trelawney. October 31, 1981: The Potters are killed. Snape is almost certainly at Hogwarts. Carol, who agrees with Nikalamati that Snape is DDM and spying for DD for at least a year before teaching at Hogwarts but also agrees with Mike that the incompatibility of Trelawney's and DD's versions of the eavesdropping story requires some explanation beyond details we don't know yet From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 18:13:49 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:13:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Scar Message-ID: <20061016181350.65468.qmail@web54504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159794 > Anne Squires: > I also have always thought that Harry might have to give up > his magic in order to defeat Voldemort. In CoS DD tells Harry > that Voldemort passed on more than a scar to Harry when he > attacked him as a baby. At the time DD is refering to > Parseltongue; but, he seeems to imply that Harry got more than > just Parseltongue from LV. When I first read that I immediately > started wondering if Harry got all of his magic from LV. Louis responded: I really don't think Harry has to give up any magic. I myself think there is more magic that LV transferred to Harry that is yet to be tapped into. Let's face it, although love is a powerful and moving force Harry will need ability as DD told him in HBP. Can the scar guide him in his quest for the Horcruxes??? ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremiah: I'm of the camp that does not think that Harry is a Horcrux. Also, I think that the magic Harry has performed shows that Harry's magic is his own. The patronus he produces is the stag, a symbol of his father. Also, I do not think that Harry has to give up his magic to defeat LV, but I do think Harry will not survive the final book... Of course, I may be wrong about all of this... LOL. From gg682000 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 17:36:57 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (Louis) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:36:57 -0000 Subject: How about a twist? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159795 Harry does get DD's pensieve and sees the argument between Snape and Dumbledore at the edge of the woods and Snape is vindicated. The argument was about how Snape being on the inside was more important than Dumbledore living. Say Snape didn't want to carry out the deal and die via the unbreakable vow. In that case does Harry hunt down Snape and come clean he now knows all and gets his help? Wouldn't that be a twist? Louis From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Mon Oct 16 18:53:47 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:53:47 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159796 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Louis" wrote: > > > Anne Squires: > > I also have always thought that Harry might have to give up > > his magic in order to defeat Voldemort.> > Louis: > I really don't think Harry has to give up any magic. > Tesha: I wonder if LV won't be defeated by love. It appears to be JKR's idea of the strongest magic there is, and there are many characters that Harry loves enough to give his all for, and many who in return would do the same. Not just his friends, not just students - for instance Hagrid would give his life to save Harry! Can't you just see the scene, Hagrid with his pink umbrella - LV laughing at him, not knowing what the umbrella holds, a broken but very usable wand. Perhaps, just like when his mother saved him - someone will save him again - and in doing so give up their life giving Harry the chance to -this time- finish off LV for good. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 19:12:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:12:19 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159797 > > > Alla: > > > Now, Hermione is actually more interesting situation. I am also pretty > > > safe at betting that she should not worry you, etc, **but** the main > > > reason I am doing so is because JKR as much as called Hermione her > > > alter ego and I sincerely doubt that she would make her alter ego > evil. > > > Random832: > > I dunno (maybe not evil, but like you say below, idiotic) - she did > > make her a hypocrite. Not ministry approved, indeed! What you're > > saying is basically because Hermione's the author's favorite character > > / "alter ego" / whatever, she can't have any flaws - you're > > effectively asking for "Hermione Sue". When in reality, she has > > already been shown to have flaws. > > > Renee: > Eh, I don't think I'm following this. Is claiming that someone won't > turn evil the same as claiming they're flawless? Or did you snip > something essential here? > Alla: leaving all the post in there, because I need to clarify and basically to say that yes, you are right Renee. Nowhere did I say that because Hermione is JKR admitted alter-ego she cannot have any flaws. What I **did** say is that this is the reason that she won't turn evil. I guess it can be considered a flaw, but personally I consider evilness to be um, the ultimate flaw. So, to hopefully make myself clear I am betting that Hermione can have **any** flaws, except becoming the follower of Voldemort. Moreover, I thought I was expressing myself clear enough that Ieven would see a potential of Hermione doing something very bad, but for the fact that she is JKR alter-ego. So, certainly am not asking for Hermione Sue and do not think she exists :) Alla From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 17:38:08 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question -- Pensieve Message-ID: <20061016173809.72327.qmail@web54513.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159798 Louis wrote: > Also what's going to happen to Dumbledore's > pensieve. I think that could be a useful thing to have around > also. -fawn_2_u: --The pensieve is an excellent way for Harry to see things Dumbledore has seen, and without his professor's physical guidance what better tool to use? I also think Dumbledore was too smart to leave Harry without some help...without some way to tap into secrets others may not be privileged to. My meaning? Dobby. House elves keep their master's secrets, and Harry will turn to Dobby for help (just my opinion). Jeremiah: Well, The Pensive has been a very useful tool and Harry knows how to use it. I would think that a Head Master's stuff stays at Hogwarts unless he has someone who wants it... in this case, Aberforth (whom J K Rowling has mentioned is the barman a the Hog's Head). Maybe Aberforth will be the next helping hand to Harry, seeing as how we have never seen him do magic (Aberforth, that is...) he might be a the character who suddenly comes out with the spells! So, if Aberforth has the Pensive and is hiding it in Hogsmead, or even if it's in McGonagall's Head Mistress office, then Harry has access to it nearly any time he wants it. (Since he can legally apparate in Book 7). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 20:07:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:07:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore would not perform a UV (Was: Snape is still working for Dumbledore ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159799 montims: > > Ooh - I just flew off on a flight of fancy - if they HAD made the UV, > who would have cast the spell? So I thought of Aberforth, and I > realised it could have been done after the prophecy eavesdropping > incident - Aberforth held on to Snape, DD finished with Sybill, they > all three sat down for a little chat, Snape convinced them of his good > intentions, bada bing bada boom, the UV was cast and Snape was forever > after DDM. > > Tonks: > I like the idea. This would leave Aberforth able to tell Harry about > Snapes loyalties. The only problem with this idea is that I don't think that Snape switched side until AFTER he gave the informantion to LV. So while this idea gives us someone to tell Harry the truth about Snape, the time line is not quite right. > Carol responds: It isn't just the timing that's wrong. It's the concept. Not only is an Unbreakable Vow based on compulsion, the antithesis of Dumbledore's philosophy of choice, it may be Dark magic as well. The person who breaks the vow dies. Would Dumbledore do that to anyone? Would he say that he *trusts* Severus Snape completely? I don't think so. A *bond* based on compulsion does not generate trust, and IMO, even if Snape offered to take a UV to show his loyalty, DD would have refused the offer. He trusts Snape because Snape *chose* what right over what was easy (or so DD believes), and he's not going to take that choice away. Let's look at the imagery of the UV, which filled me with horror (and fear for Snape) when I first read it. He's hand in hand with a Dark witch and a Darker witch is pointing her wand at him: "A thin tongue of brilliant flame issued from the wand and wound its way around their hands like a red-hot wire. . . .A second tongue of flame shot from the wand and interlinked with the first, making a fine, glowing chain. . . . Bellatrix's astounded face glowed red in the blaze of a third tongue of flame, which shot from the wand, twisted with the others, and bound itself thickly about their clasped hands, like a rope, like a fiery snake" (HBP Am. e.d. 36-37). Flame, red-hot wire, flame, chain, glowed red, blaze, flame, bound, rope, fiery snake. These are hellish images of fire and bondage, along with a snake image, with all the connotations of Slytherin and the Basilisk and Nagini and Voldemort conveyed by that image in the HP books, with or without further suggestions of, say, the serpent in the Garden of Eden in the Bible or any other negative connotations that snakes may have for the reader. And JKR ends the chapter with Snape on his knees, bound with ropes of fire to Narcissa Malfoy. I cannot imagine Dumbledore as either the person stating the terms of the vow, the person to whom Snape is bound not by loyalty but by darkly magical chains of fire, or as the *binder* from whose wand the fiery ropes shoot out. Whatever bond, in the metaphorical sense, exists between Snape and Dumbledore, it is based on mutual trust, a mutual sense of purpose, perhaps even mutual affection. Or at least, that Dumbledore's perception, and I believe it to be the correct one. Trust cannot be compelled or it ceases to be trust. "It is our choices that reveal who we are." And it is, it must be, Snape's choices that cause Dumbledore to trust him. As McGonagall says very early on, there are some forms of magic that Dumbledore is too noble to use. And IMO, the Unbreakable Vow, which compels another wizard to keep his word or die, is one of them. Narcissa may suggest it and Bellatrix perform it, but Dumbledore is another sort of person altogether. As for a binder, we know nothing about Aberforth, but I'm sure that zgirnius' image of Hagrid as binder (upthread) was meant to be comic. I can't see Hagrid performing Dark magic with that umbrella even if he could, or DD asking him to, or Hagrid keeping it a secret if he had done it. (I mentioned the same idea in a forgotten post, if it matters.) Carol, leaving out Snape's motives to focus solely on Dumbledore in this post From followingmytruth at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 19:18:31 2006 From: followingmytruth at yahoo.com (Sean-Michael) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:18:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question -- Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061016191831.89490.qmail@web33712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159800 fawn_2_u: I think Dumbledore's pensieve will play a very improtant part in Harry's road to discovery. The pensieve is an excellent way for Harry to see things Dumbledore has seen, and without his professor's physical guidance what better tool to use? I also think Dumbledore was too smart to leave Harry without some help...without some way to tap into secrets others may not be privileged to. My meaning? Dobby. House elves keep their master's secrets, and Harry will turn to Dobby for help (just my opinion). Sean-Michael: not to mention DD's portrait which a lot of people have been discussing. Personally the fact that his portrait didn't wake right up and start talking to McGonagle made me think that he'd not actually been killed, but thinking on it more, I think he probably was, but that portraits just take a while to wake up. I think that McG will be a lot of help to Harry in the last book, tho she's liable to end up dead as are many of his friends and helpers at this rate! Poor lil guy's cursed not blessed it seems sometimes. Anyway :) them's 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 rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 19:43:21 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:43:21 -0000 Subject: Order threatening Dursleys at the end of OOP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159801 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > I just had a thought - as I wrote in the past, I used to think that > JKR would be much much better off without that scene because if she > wanted to maintain some kind of credibility over Dumbledore not > checking on Harry, well IMO that was not it. Thunderstorm did not > struck and Harry was not thrown out on the streets. > > But I just thought that maybe indeed we do have the example of Order > members exercising independent thinking and doing what great Albus > Dumbledore did not approve of or at least did not know of, since he > is not here. > Chuckle. You mean the adults in the Potter series acting as something other than incompetent, unsupportive morons? That would indeed be a first! This does raise an interesting set of issues. To what extent do the Order members know of DD's plans? To what extent do they approve of them? How often, if ever, do they "defy" Dumbledore even in small things? How often would DD be better served by listening to them rather than playing the Sphynx? We really know very little about the internal workings of the Order. OOTP was badly misnamed, as we find out very little about the Order at all, and our ignorance is not lifted in HBP. It will be interesting to see if the final book opens things up a little, or if the Order simply remains a "black box" for plot purposes. My suspicion is the latter, but we will see. Lupinlore, who once again marvels at how anybody can have any respect for the insensitive, unsupportive idiot adults who surround Harry From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Mon Oct 16 20:39:43 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:39:43 -0000 Subject: Order threatening Dursleys at the end of OOP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159802 > > Chuckle. You mean the adults in the Potter series acting as > something other than incompetent, unsupportive morons? > Lupinlore, Tesha: Always remember - These are children's books and Adults are seen mostly through the eyes of Harry - still a child Personally I enjoy seeing some of the characters as one or two dimentional, it means I can love/hate them as JKR intended and I don't have to clutter a perfectly good read with developing conflicting emotions. 8^) From gg682000 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 19:59:36 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (louis ruggiero) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Question -- Pensieve In-Reply-To: <20061016173809.72327.qmail@web54513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061016195936.70386.qmail@web82401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159803 > >>Jeremiah: > Well, The Pensive has been a very useful tool and > Harry knows how to use it. I would think that a Head > Master's stuff stays at Hogwarts unless he has > someone who wants it... in this case, Aberforth > > So, if Aberforth has the Pensive and is hiding it in > Hogsmead, or even if it's in McGonagall's Head > Mistress office, then Harry has access to it nearly > any time he wants it. (Since he can legally apparate > in Book 7). Louis: Well we learn that wills work in the wizarding world as was the case with Sirius. Could Dumbledore will Harry his pensieve as well as other things too??? Louis From graverobber23 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 21:12:03 2006 From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:12:03 -0000 Subject: Question - Room of Requirement & Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159804 > >>Louis: > >> Harry is going to have to train up without a doubt. Could he use The Room of Requirement for part of that training. Even if Hogwarts is closed I'm sure he can arrange to be allowed to use the Room. I know that there is only so much he could do in the Room too. Also what's going to happen to Dumbledore's pensieve. I think that could be a useful thing to have around also. << graverobber23: I don't see anything that the Room of Requirement wouldn't allow Harry to do. All you have to do is have a need for it, walk past it 3 times thinking about it and it will apear. As far as being able to use it, not to many people know about it. I am not sure if all the teachers know about the room? As far as the pensieve, it would be a wonderful tool to be able to sort out all of Harry's thoughts. Especially the ones that he doesn't want Voldemort to find. If he could learn how to use it, it could possibly help him to win. But if he were to pull the wrong thing out, it would hurt him. If he pulls out the things that he loves (friends, quidich, etc..), he might not have the courage or encouragment to keep fighting to defeat Voldemort. Here would be an interesting twist on Dumbledore for you. What if the magical trading cards could be used as well? Think of it. Harry already has a card of Dumbledore and it vanished shortly after he opened it. Asumming that he travels from card to card would mean that he could come back to Harry's at anytime. So in theory, Harry could have Dumbledore with him at all times for advice. graverobber23 From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 20:28:38 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore would not perform a UV (Was: Snape is still working for Dumbledore ) Message-ID: <20061016202838.38778.qmail@web54507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159805 > >>montims: >> Ooh - I just flew off on a flight of fancy - if they HAD made the UV, who would have cast the spell? << > > >>Tonks: > >> The only problem with this idea is that I don't think that Snape switched side until AFTER he gave the informantion to LV. So while this idea gives us someone to tell Harry the truth about Snape, the time line is not quite right. << > >>Carol: >> It isn't just the timing that's wrong. It's the concept. Not only is an Unbreakable Vow based on compulsion, the antithesis of Dumbledore's philosophy of choice, it may be Dark magic as well. The person who breaks the vow dies. Would Dumbledore do that to anyone? << > =============================================== Jeremiah: Carol, I love that you looked at the imagery. Yes, it would seem to be very dark magic. However, I feel that if Snape had taken the UV with Draco's mother and told DD all about it, there is no need to make another UV with Dumbledore. the vow was to kill DD. I think DD wanted Snape to do it so Draco would not fracture/harm his soul. he wanted to keep Draco innocent of such a crime against nature and since Snape has probably killed before (or is simply older) Snape could afford to commit the murder. I guess I'm agreeing with you, Carol, just with different reasoning. Jeremiah From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 16 21:35:09 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:35:09 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159806 Pippin: > > But the attack on Trelawney was evidence, a crime in itself (yes, > > it is assault. Draco has no business to lay hands on her, nor > > to forcibly remove her from a room where she has as much right > > to be as he does.) Even if Draco was not willing to answer any > > questions about what he'd been doing, he could still have been > > arrested, with due process. In Azkaban he'd be safe from > > Voldemort. > > Magpie: > I have a hard time believing this is true. By your own logic > Dumbledore can't do anything about the attack on Trelawney anyway. > Trelawney doesn't know who threw her out of the room, neither does > Harry and Draco can deny it. Pippin: He can deny it, but there are two witnesses who can testify to the attack itself. If Draco is still in the RoR, that's certainly up to the WW's usual standard of evidence, unlike the situation with the mead or the necklace, where AFAWK there's no witness who can show that Draco was ever anywhere near the bottle or the package. Magpie: I can't imagine he'd be arrested for ejecting Trelawney from a room any more than the Trio would have been arrested for knocking Snape out in PoA. Pippin: The only reason they didn't get in trouble is that Snape gave evidence that they'd been confunded. Hermione was quite sure they were in for it and so was Sirius. "You shouldn't have done that," said Black, looking at Harry. "You should have left him to me..." Harry avoided Black's eyes. He wasn't sure, even now, that he'd done the right thing. "We attacked a teacher...We attacked a teacher...", Hermione whimpered staring at the lifeless Snape with frightened eyes. "Oh, we're going to be in so much trouble--" Magpie: > It just seems really silly to think that Dumbledore, who knows > perfectly well Draco is behind the near-deaths of Katie and Ron, > can't make a move--but would have leapt to take Draco into custody > once had he only known that somebody neither Trelawney nor Harry > actually saw ejected her from the RoR. Pippin: But that's exactly the situation in real life when the police have a suspect but not enough evidence to arrest them. And if there weren't such a right in the WW, then Umbridge could have had Harry imprisoned on suspicion without even bothering to set up the dementor attack, and Snape could have had Harry deprived of Quidditch in CoS for refusing to explain why he was in that corridor. Even Dumbledore isn't always right in his beliefs on who is innocent and who is guilty, and he knows it, so how could he trust himself with such despotic power, let alone be trusted by others? Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 22:05:40 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:05:40 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159807 > >>Magpie: > > It just seems really silly to think that Dumbledore, who knows > > perfectly well Draco is behind the near-deaths of Katie and Ron, > > can't make a move--but would have leapt to take Draco into > > custody once had he only known that somebody neither Trelawney > > nor Harry actually saw ejected her from the RoR. > >>Pippin: > But that's exactly the situation in real life when the police have > a suspect but not enough evidence to arrest them. > > Even Dumbledore isn't always right in his beliefs on who is > innocent and who is guilty, and he knows it, so how could he trust > himself with such despotic power, let alone be trusted by others? Betsy Hp: I think I see your point here, Pippin. That it would have been illegal (and therefore unethical) for Dumbledore to just wisk Draco away to some undisclosed location because he's got an idea that Draco is out to assassinate him. But while I agree with the sentiment, and I think Dumbledore would as well (to an extent anyway, I do think Dumbledore is willing to set aside the law if he feels it's standing in the way of a higher principle), I don't think this is Dumbledore's main motivation when it comes to Draco. It's odd, because Dumbledore has come across as dismissive of Slytherins as the next guy, but I think Dumbledore is genuinely worried about Draco's well-being. I think Dumbledore doesn't force the issue for precisely the reasons Magpie and Steve (IIRC) have put forth. He's waiting for Draco to come to a realization of his own. IOWs Dumbledore is showing the same sort of consideration for Draco's well-being that he's shown for Harry. Even though the presence of both boys at Hogwarts can and does put members of the student body in danger, Dumbledore sees them both as worth the risk. I mean, obviously Dumbledore puts in some safe-guards (generally in the form of one Severus Snape), but he's still taking a risk. But I don't think the risk is based solely on legal considerations. I think it goes deeper than that. It's interesting but in many ways I think Dumbledore showed a similar love for Draco on the Tower that he's shown for Harry in the past. And I think that's what made the risk worth it. If that makes any sense. Betsy Hp From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 22:03:29 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:03:29 -0500 Subject: Slavery - was Houseelves loyalty Message-ID: <8ee758b40610161503g4dab5904j7eee51c663411a16@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159808 Jordan Abel wrote: > > For that matter, slaves haven't been any kind of property in the muggle > world for over a > century, since property is defined by law and slavery is illegal. montims: nitpicking here, but it's a bit of a hobby horse of mine since discussing it in TLC - the muggle world is larger than the USA, and in the last century, to our shame, there have been many, many slave cultures - in the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, South Africa until the fall of apartheid in 1990. That is not to mention the smaller nations, such as Sudan, practising slavery even today, child slavery, human trafficking, and the minor levels of domestic slavery carried out in "civilised" nations including the USA today, who employ illegals and keep their documents to prevent them from leaving. >From wikipedia (admittedly not always accurate) - According to a broader definition used by Kevin Bales of Free the Slaves, another advocacy group linked with Anti-Slavery International, there are 27 million people (though some put the number as high as 200 million) in virtual slavery today, spread all over the world (Kevin Bales, *Disposable People*). This is, also according to that group: - The largest number of people that has ever been in slavery at any point in world history. etc... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 16 22:09:24 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:09:24 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159809 Alla: > As to asking Dumbledore about that, well let's see all his acts > towards Sirius pretty much proved not only useless but wrong so far, > aren't they? > > He took Harry from innocent man, not from the traytor, he admitted > that keeping Sirius in that house was a mistake. > Pippin: Where does Dumbledore admit that? IIRC, he admits that having Snape teach Harry occlumency was a mistake and that not telling Harry about the prophecy was a mistake. I don't recall him saying anything about keeping Sirius in the house. We don't even know if Sirius's recklessness had anything to do with it. That's only Molly's claim, which Sirius refused to discuss. There is also no canon that Dumbledore wanted to take Harry from Sirius because Sirius was a traitor. His reason for wanting Harry was given in GoF "The real Moody would not have removed you from my sight after what happened tonight." IOW, knowing that there was a traitor at large, Harry would be safest in Dumbledore's presence, which is where Hagrid was taking him. Alla: > It just looks to me that Dumbledore was saving Draco's soul at > expense of many other souls under his protection. > > The blood of Ron and Kathie, had they died would have been not only > on Draco's hands but Dumbledore's as well, as far as I am concerned. Pippin: This I don't understand. Even if he had taken Draco into custody, how would that have made Ron and Katie safer? Draco could have been locked up the moment he arrived at Hogwarts and still have ordered the attacks. In fact, deprived of access to the RoR, he might have been even more desperate to do so. I think you are maybe expecting Draco to act like the mature DE's in OOP, who tamely gave themselves up as soon as Dumbledore arrived. But Draco is young, and not likely to think, "Oh well, better to be locked up by Dumbledore than punished by Voldemort for failing" -- not until he realized that he had no chance of success, not because Dumbledore was preventing him but because he was no killer. > Alla: > > Actually, I would like **one** example in canon that shows that > Dumbledore has a history of knowing what is best? Pippin: He defeated Grindelwald. He removed the Stone from Gringotts before it could be stolen by Quirrell. He knew that Voldemort would return and was prepared to take action immediately. He knew that Hagrid was innocent in Riddle's day and saved him from Azkaban. He recognized that Sirius was innocent and could be saved if Harry and Hermione used the time turner. He recognized that Moody was a fake and rescued Harry. He realized that Kreacher was lying and rescued Harry and the other Order members. He fought Voldemort in the MoM and rescued Harry -- is that enough? Dumbledore may not have always acted as quickly as we would like, but he still acted before anybody else did. QED. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 22:42:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:42:42 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159811 Betsy: > It's odd, because Dumbledore has come across as dismissive of > Slytherins as the next guy, but I think Dumbledore is genuinely > worried about Draco's well-being. I think Dumbledore doesn't force > the issue for precisely the reasons Magpie and Steve (IIRC) have put > forth. He's waiting for Draco to come to a realization of his own. Alla: That's the thing, hehe - any argument about Dumbledore being dismissive of Slytherins after what he had done for this one Slytherin, who tried to kill him, just makes me laugh. Betsy: > IOWs Dumbledore is showing the same sort of consideration for > Draco's well-being that he's shown for Harry. Even though the > presence of both boys at Hogwarts can and does put members of the > student body in danger, Dumbledore sees them both as worth the > risk. I mean, obviously Dumbledore puts in some safe-guards > (generally in the form of one Severus Snape), but he's still taking > a risk. Alla: The thing is Harry's absence in Hogwarts would have put WW in much greater danger IMO, since Harry is its supposed saviour, so while technically I agree with you - Harry's presence in Hogwarts puts students in increased danger, I think they really would not have wanted to not have Harry there. With Draco though - yeah, that is a risk all right IMO. Betsy Hp: > But I don't think the risk is based solely on legal considerations. > I think it goes deeper than that. It's interesting but in many ways > I think Dumbledore showed a similar love for Draco on the Tower that > he's shown for Harry in the past. And I think that's what made the > risk worth it. If that makes any sense. Alla: Sure it does, if we concentrate on Draco's story, then it is a touching story of the teacher who leads the idiotic child away from evil IMO( if that is where Draco is headed, still won't be 100% sure, but as I said before I am pretty convinced of that), but if we think about other students, I do not know if it makes any sense at all. And again,Harry is IMO in a very different position. I mean he loves Hogwarts and he considers its his home and has dearest friends, etc, but do you think that if he was offered to take his friends away ( in hypothetical sort of way) and never come back, he would be terribly upset? Harry may put Hogwarts students at risk, but at the same time I sincerely doubt that anybody would let Harry to just walk away from WW. I mean, he would not do it - after all he is a hero who supposed to save them all, I just do not think that Dumbledore was taking **equal risks** in regards to Draco and Harry, because without Harry, um WW appears to be doomed so far, no? > > Alla: > > > > Actually, I would like **one** example in canon that shows that > > Dumbledore has a history of knowing what is best? > > Pippin: > He defeated Grindelwald. He removed the Stone from Gringotts > before it could be stolen by Quirrell. He knew that Voldemort > would return and was prepared to take action immediately. > He knew that Hagrid was innocent in Riddle's day and saved him > from Azkaban. He recognized that Sirius was innocent and could > be saved if Harry and Hermione used the time turner. He recognized > that Moody was a fake and rescued Harry. He realized that Kreacher > was lying and rescued Harry and the other Order members. He fought > Voldemort in the MoM and rescued Harry -- is that enough? Alla: Erm.... my question was where in canon it shows that Dumbledore **has a history of knowing what is best**. So, let's go through your examples - he defeated Grimdewald, indeed - if we will learn that he indeed did without hurting many people in process that is indeed a good one. He removed the stone from Gringotts - you are joking, right? He brought the stone to Hogwarts to *give Harry a chance to fight Voldemort** ( paraphrase) - NO, I do not think that this is what was best from within the story. He knew that Voldemort would returned, erm and he failed to recognise the DE in Hogwarts and actually prevent Harry from being tortured? Not again, not in my book. He knew that Hagrid was innocent and what exactly he did to show this to the world? What exactly he did to make sure Hagrid completes his education?He took him in as a groundkeeper, not nearly enough IMO. And yes, indeed he recognised that Sirius was innocent, took him thirteen years. Thank goodness for Sirius escaping I guess. He recognised that Moody was fake? Erm, after Harry was tortured. Sorry, too late, way too later. Oh, and no, Harry's heart saved him per Dumbledore himself IMO. So, that leaves Grindelwald maybe, I guess that counts since I asked for one example, but still really really not impressive IMO. Pippin: > > Dumbledore may not have always acted as quickly as we would like, > but he still acted before anybody else did. QED. > Alla: He did not act quickly enough, when he and only he was in the position to act IMO. That in my book translates in **not** having a history of knowing what is best, at all. JMHO, Alla From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Mon Oct 16 22:58:39 2006 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:58:39 +0200 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned References: Message-ID: <00de01c6f176$a40edbf0$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 159812 Mike wrote: > Dumbledore didn't even close the door fully when he was in the room > interviewing Sibyll, he's a gentleman, you don't go to a stange > woman's room above the bar and close the door. He turned to leave. > When he was almost to the door, Sibyll starts into the prophesy. > Dumbledore stops and listens, when Sibyll finishes, Dumbledore hits > her with a stupefy, or the like, before she returns to normal. He > summons Snape and Aberforth upstairs from the bar and tells them to > make some noise in the hallway then bust into the room with the > story that this guy was eavesdropping. Dumbledore goes back into the > room and performs the counter-curse which revives Sibyll so she can > see Snape and Aberforth. Then Aberforth hustles Snape downstairs and > ejects him from the bar. In the mean time, Dumbledore tells Sibyll > that Snape is also seeking a job and was probably looking for > pointers on interviewing. After Dumbledore tells Sibyll that she has > the job, he excuses himself, goes down the back way and meets up > with Snape and maybe Abe. Dumbledore tells Snape which words to tell > Voldemort and sends him off. Miles: Thank you for the brilliant theory. I used to write about a similar one, but yours is much better. My idea was that Snape heard the entire prophecy and was ordered by Dumbledore to only deliver the first part of it to LV. The problem with this is the HBP situation in the broom shed - there was no reason for DD to simply lie to Harry - your version does not have this problem, so it is better. > Sherry: > In other words, are you saying that you think Dumbledore, Snape > and Abe, purposely, coldly and with definite malice aforethought, > set up an innocent family, a child? If this scenario is true, it > makes Dumbledore into a monster equal to Voldemort. The way I'm > reading what you're saying is that DD told Snape what to say to > Voldemort. He couldn't possibly have thought this would not cause > Voldemort to go after children born as the seventh month dies. I > don't think JKR could conceivably call Dumbledore the epitome > of goodness and then try to have us swallow this scenario. Miles: Harry was not born when the prophecy was made. There was no reason to believe that the wizard to vanquish the Dark Lord was yet to be born, he could as well been 75 years old then. As we know, it was LV who chose the person (here: the baby) that will be his end. So, when Dumbledore made up the plan to get LV out of his hide, he couldn't know what would happen. Anyway, AFTER it happened, Dumbledore feels guilty - and responsible for Harry. That would fit into the theory, as Dumbledore does care very much about Harry, not only because he is the required tool to destroy LV. Miles From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 16 23:20:24 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:20:24 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159813 > Alla: > > Erm.... my question was where in canon it shows that Dumbledore **has > a history of knowing what is best**. > > So, let's go through your examples - he defeated Grimdewald, indeed - > if we will learn that he indeed did without hurting many people in > process that is > indeed a good one. > > He removed the stone from Gringotts - you are joking, right? He > brought the stone to Hogwarts to *give Harry a chance to fight > Voldemort** ( paraphrase) - NO, I do not think that this is what was > best from within the story. Hickengruendler: Did he really, though? I know that this is what Harry speculates, but do we know that this really was Dumbledore's motivation? Hagrid said, that Gringotts was the safest place in Britain except for Hogwarts, therefore I assume it makes sense to transfer the Stone from the second safest to the safest place. However, I will give Dumbledore both plus points and a minus point. A plus point for realizing, that the Stone was in danger in Gringotts and that something needed to be done to safe it. An additional plus point for having the idea to use the Mirror of Erised. This really was a great idea. Quirrell never would have gotten the Stone out of the mirror, if it weren't for Harry appearing, therefore I assume the Stone was indeed as safe as possible. But a negative one, because he could have guessed that putting the Stone into Hogwarts would endanger the students, because of Fluffy and because of Voldemort. That's not good, even though I am sure this was mostly done for the plot. Alla: > He knew that Voldemort would returned, erm and he failed to recognise > the DE in Hogwarts and actually prevent Harry from being tortured? Hickengruendler: According to Neville, Augusta Longbottom also said, that Voldie would return someday. Therefore I don't think this is a question of Dumbledore knowing best anyway, it's more a question about Dumbledore being realistic, instead of putting his head into the sand. But whatever Dumbledore's flaws may be, I will not condem him for not recognizing every Death Eater as a such. And after all, Gandalf trusted Saruman in the beginning as well. (In the beginning of LoTR that is, in "reality" he trusted him for several centuries). Alla: > He knew that Hagrid was innocent and what exactly he did to show this > to the world? What exactly he did to make sure Hagrid completes his > education?He took him in as a groundkeeper, not nearly enough IMO. Hickengruendler: What could he have done, though? He knew it was Riddle and kept an eye on him. And Riddle was clever enough, not to do anything anymore. One could argue, that Dumbledore, afte rhis talk with Tom in the orphanage, should have had a very close eye on him even earlier. However, I would argue Dumbledore was in a lose/lose situation from the very beginning. First of all, I assume it wasn't in his decision, to allow Tom entering Hogwarts. Dippet was the headmaster at this time. And even if Dumbledore had some say in it, as creepy as Tom-Boy in the orphanage was, he hadn't done anything yet, to deserve being expelled from Hogwarts before his schooltime there even begins. No matter what became of him, not allowing Riddle to enter to enter the school, would have been the worse crime, IMO, since he would have written an eleven years old boy off, simply because of this one conversation. I believe him, when he said, that he kept an eye on him from the very beginning, but he's also a teacher and can't be everywhere all the time. The real question is, if he should have told some other teachers about Tom (maybe not the gullible SLughorn, but someone, who might have listened to Dumble). Maybe, but then, his reasoning, that he wanted to give Tom the chance for a fresh start also is a pretty good one, therefore I'll give him a pass on this. But about Hagrid? I really don't know, what else he could have done. I assume Hagrid told him the story about Aragog and Dumbledore believed it, but like he said, he does not have the power to make anyone see the truth. He helped Hagrid as good as he can, IMO, which sadly is more than can be said about the next case. Alla: > And yes, indeed he recognised that Sirius was innocent, took him > thirteen years. Thank goodness for Sirius escaping I guess. Hickengruendler: You know, I have been a Dumbledore defender in this case in the beginning, but the more I read, the more I am convinced by his critics in this case. At the very least Dumbledore should have tried to convince Crouch, to give *everyone* a fair trial. Considering that Crouch went to Dumbledore and not to the ministry, after his escape and shortly before his murder in goF, he might have listened to old Albus' advice. But then, maybe Dumbledore did try to give everyone a trial and Crouch did not listen. He certainly is one of the very few adult characters, who actually went through a development, therefore he might have changed regarding his stubborness in this case as well. I think I'll continue to assume, that Dumbledore did try his best at least in this case, but simply hadn't the power to convince Crouch. It makes me help to continue liking him. Hickengruendler From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Oct 16 23:40:27 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:40:27 -0000 Subject: " In-Reply-To: <00de01c6f176$a40edbf0$15b2a8c0@miles> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159814 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Miles" wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > Dumbledore didn't even close the door fully when he was in the room > > interviewing Sibyll, he's a gentleman, you don't go to a stange > > woman's room above the bar and close the door. He turned to leave. > > When he was almost to the door, Sibyll starts into the prophesy. > > Dumbledore stops and listens, when Sibyll finishes, Dumbledore hits > > her with a stupefy, or the like, before she returns to normal. He > > summons Snape and Aberforth upstairs from the bar and tells them to > > make some noise in the hallway then bust into the room with the > > story that this guy was eavesdropping. Dumbledore goes back into the > > room and performs the counter-curse which revives Sibyll so she can > > see Snape and Aberforth. Then Aberforth hustles Snape downstairs and > > ejects him from the bar. In the mean time, Dumbledore tells Sibyll > > that Snape is also seeking a job and was probably looking for > > pointers on interviewing. After Dumbledore tells Sibyll that she has > > the job, he excuses himself, goes down the back way and meets up > > with Snape and maybe Abe. Dumbledore tells Snape which words to tell > > Voldemort and sends him off. > > > Sherry: > > In other words, are you saying that you think Dumbledore, Snape > > and Abe, purposely, coldly and with definite malice aforethought, > > set up an innocent family, a child? If this scenario is true, it > > makes Dumbledore into a monster equal to Voldemort. The way I'm > > reading what you're saying is that DD told Snape what to say to > > Voldemort. He couldn't possibly have thought this would not cause > > Voldemort to go after children born as the seventh month dies. I > > don't think JKR could conceivably call Dumbledore the epitome > > of goodness and then try to have us swallow this scenario. > > Miles: > Harry was not born when the prophecy was made. There was no reason to > believe that the wizard to vanquish the Dark Lord was yet to be born, he > could as well been 75 years old then. As we know, it was LV who chose the > person (here: the baby) that will be his end. Hickengruendler: "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches". That does not sound, as if he's already around on this planet. "Born to those, who have thrice defied him." Again, this rules out quite a lot of people. Nor many wizards and witches managed to meet Voldemort and survived to tell the tale, much less three times. Besides, Voldemort was only openly fighting society for around ten years at this time. The boys parents didn not have *that* much time. "Born, when the seventh month dies" Again, this clearly implies, that the boy will be born the following July. Particularly in addition to the very first line. The boy approaches and he will be there at the end of the following July. Admittingly, Voldemort did choose his equal, but the prophecy as worded made it pretty clear, that he had not that many people to choose from. And even if, what change would it make? Let's say Dumbledore thought it possible, that, say, Voldemort thought Stubby Boardman or even someone really nasty like Lucius Malfoy were the one mentioned in the prophecy. Dumbledore knew, that this information would endanger *someone*, no matter whom. So that still makes the plan pretty evil, for someone, who is supposed to be the epitome of goodness. And as much as Rowling's writing of Dumbledore is sometimes dictated by the plot, I am sure she wouldn't go that far. Sorry, but I am not a fan of this theory, to put it mildly. It might explain a few minor inconsistencies in the plot, which have IMO been explained upthread anyway as good as they probably will in Canon, but it would be the nail in the coffin of Dumbledore's character, and I rather take the minor inconsistencies any day. At least in regards to the Draco storyline, Dumbledore himself was the intended victim and he put himself in the line of fire. Granted, Ron and Katie were hurt, which is partly Dumbledore's fault, but at least he didn't intend them to get hurt. Hickengruendler From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Oct 17 00:52:09 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:52:09 EDT Subject: the Pensieve Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159815 > >>Jeremiah: > Well, The Pensive has been a very useful tool and > Harry knows how to use it. I would think that a Head > Master's stuff stays at Hogwarts unless he has > someone who wants it... in this case, Aberforth > > So, if Aberforth has the Pensive and is hiding it in > Hogsmead, or even if it's in McGonagall's Head > Mistress office, then Harry has access to it nearly > any time he wants it. (Since he can legally apparate > in Book 7). Nikkalmati: This is a minor point, but I think the Pensieve itself is empty. The memories are returned to the owner's head or little storage bottles, after they are viewed. I don't think anything is stored in the Pensieve.It is just a magical container. NikkalmatI [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjones at telus.net Tue Oct 17 00:53:12 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:53:12 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] " In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45342978.8050605@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159816 >>> Sherry: >>> In other words, are you saying that you think Dumbledore, Snape >>> and Abe, purposely, coldly and with definite malice aforethought, >>> set up an innocent family, a child? If this scenario is true, it >>> makes Dumbledore into a monster equal to Voldemort. The way I'm >>> reading what you're saying is that DD told Snape what to say to >>> Voldemort. He couldn't possibly have thought this would not cause >>> Voldemort to go after children born as the seventh month dies. I >>> don't think JKR could conceivably call Dumbledore the epitome >>> of goodness and then try to have us swallow this scenario. KJ writes: I still remember Dumbledore saying to Harry,"more for your life than the lives that might be lost if my plan failed..." and "What did I care if nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy"? This sentence makes it obvious to me that Harry was a sacrifice to the greater good from the beginning. It was only after getting to know Harry that he began to have a little trouble with his conscience. I think that it would be totally ironic if one of our issues in this series is to actually separate the epitome of good and the epitome of evil. They are perhaps much the same. To me, Dumbledore makes it plain that Harry's life is likely to be forfeit in the interests of preserving thousands of others. In the same way, Snape is bad and Lupin is good, but many of us have doubts about the accuracy of that as well. Perhaps Snape was equally against Dumbledore's plans as he was Voldemort's and is treading a very fine line in serving both masters while trying to keep Harry in one piece, if not exactly happy. KJ From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 01:12:05 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:12:05 -0000 Subject: Harry's powereRe: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159817 Anne Squires wrote: > > I also have always thought that Harry might have to give up his magic in order to defeat Voldemort. In CoS DD tells Harry that Voldemort passed on more than a scar to Harry when he attacked him as a baby. At the time DD is refering to Parseltongue; but, he seeems to imply that Harry got more than just Parseltongue from LV. When I first read that I immediately started wondering if Harry got all of his magic from LV. I also wonder if this was what was being investigated during the time between the attack on the Potters and when Hagrid delivered Harry to the Dursleys. Since I read DD's comment in CoS I've been on the lookout for another talent which LV might have passed on to Harry, and I haven't been able to identify one. (If anyone has found another > talent from LV, please let me know.) Maybe this means _all_ of > Harry's magic comes from LV. Maybe Harry was born a squib. Carol responds: Interesting idea, Anne, but Harry isn't a Squib. His name has been down since birth for enrollment in Hogwarts courtesy of the magical quill that records the births of all magical children in England. It seems clear that Harry inherited his skill at Quidditch and some of his power from James, though he seems to have a special flair for DADA rather than Transfiguration like James (an illegal Animagus from his fifth year) or Charms like Lily ("nice wnd for Charm work"). Possibly DADA and the Dark Arts are so closely affiliated (look at Snape) that this talent for DADA is part of Voldemort's legacy. However, since Dumbledore mentioned that Harry acquired "powers" from Voldemort and that these powers will help him in some way to defeat Voldemort, I think it's more productive to look at the powers peculiar to Voldemort, powers that James and Snape and even Dumbledore don't (or didn't) have. These include Parseltongue, which will perhaps come in handy when he fights Nagini (as I don't doubt he'll have to do, whether or not she's a Horcrux), Legilimency, which may explain Harry's unique ability to enter Voldemort's thoughts (and only his), and Possession. Voldemort can't possess Harry because of Harry's ability to love, but perhaps Harry can possess him. I like to imagine Harry's entering the Veil in Voldemort's body (his own body left behind). Voldemort would be unable to leave but Harry could possess Sirius Black's body, leaving Sirius's soul behind. Harry's soul could then reenter his body and Sirius Black's body would finally be available for burial. At any rate, we know that Harry has "powers" acquired from Voldemort. We do not know that those powers were acquired from a soul bit. And I think it would be fitting that Voldemort, who destroyed Quirrell and a great many animals by possessing them would be hoist on his own petard. I think Harry will survive, and this scenario would enable him to do so (and retain at least the powers he was born with) as Harry!Horcrux would not. Carol, who does not want to see Harry!Horcrux accepted as canonical when there's no mention of the possibility in Book 6 and so many questions remain unanswered From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 00:03:06 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] " Message-ID: <20061017000306.24518.qmail@web54507.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159818 > Mike wrote: > > Dumbledore didn't even close the door fully when he was in the room> > interviewing Sibyll, he's a gentleman, you don't go to a stange > > woman's room above the bar and close the door. He turned to leave. > > When he was almost to the door, Sibyll starts into the prophesy. > > Dumbledore stops and listens, when Sibyll finishes, Dumbledore hits> > her with a stupefy, or the like, before she returns to normal. He > > summons Snape and Aberforth upstairs from the bar and tells them to> > make some noise in the hallway then bust into the room with the > > story that this guy was eavesdropping. Dumbledore goes back into the> > room and performs the counter-curse which revives Sibyll so she can> > see Snape and Aberforth. Then Aberforth hustles Snape downstairs and> > ejects him from the bar. In the mean time, Dumbledore tells Sibyll > > that Snape is also seeking a job and was probably looking for > > pointers on interviewing. After Dumbledore tells Sibyll that she has> > the job, he excuses himself, goes down the back way and meets up > > with Snape and maybe Abe. Dumbledore tells Snape which words to tell> > Voldemort and sends him off. Jeremiah: That's very complicated and riddled with possibilities for disaster. Well, all I can think of for this idea is that there wasn't a conspiracy, but what if Dumbledore had a timeturner, saw Snape eavesdropping and then when back in time, sounded the alarm (possibly why he had Jame's cloak... so DD wouldn't frighten himself by detecting his invisibility through other means... who knows!) and made sure Snape was ejected before he could report back to LV. No need to stupefy a thuroughly decent person like Trelawney (bizare, but decent) or involve Aberforth. Maybe that's why it is mentioned that changing the past could be so very dangerous. Ah, well. I'm grasping at straws here. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 17 01:35:11 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:35:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of References: Message-ID: <004e01c6f18c$7dde8b90$4766400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159819 >> Magpie: >> I have a hard time believing this is true. By your own logic >> Dumbledore can't do anything about the attack on Trelawney anyway. >> Trelawney doesn't know who threw her out of the room, neither does >> Harry and Draco can deny it. > > Pippin: > He can deny it, but there are two witnesses who can testify to the attack > itself. If Draco is still in the RoR, that's certainly up to the WW's > usual > standard of evidence, unlike the situation with the mead or the necklace, > where AFAWK there's no witness who can show that Draco was ever > anywhere near the bottle or the package. Magpie: Well, we never hear that anyone tries to track down who might or might not have been near the mead or the necklace, which is handily explained by the fact that Dumbledore and Snape both are said to know who did it and be trying to protect him. Trelawney doesn't know who pushed her out; Harry assumes it's Draco based on the fact the whooping sounded more male than female--if Draco was in the room later he might have just arrived. But I see no evidence that Dumbledore cares about any of this. His own descriptions of his motivations have nothing to do with any of it. He's not worried about evidence. He's not interested in the investigation of Draco. He's already trying to make sure none of his attempts hurt anyone else. If he were wanting actual evidence that Draco was up to something he could just go to the RoR and see what's up. He wouldn't need to have a reason to take Draco himself. > Magpie: > I can't imagine he'd be arrested for ejecting Trelawney from a room any > more than the Trio would have been arrested for knocking Snape out in > PoA. > > Pippin: > The only reason they didn't get in trouble is that Snape gave evidence > that they'd been confunded. Hermione was quite sure they were in for > it and so was Sirius. > > "You shouldn't have done that," said Black, looking at Harry. "You > should have left him to me..." > Harry avoided Black's eyes. He wasn't sure, even now, that he'd done > the right thing. > "We attacked a teacher...We attacked a teacher...", Hermione whimpered > staring at the lifeless Snape with frightened eyes. "Oh, we're going to > be in so much trouble--" Magpie: And you thought that Hermione saying "we're going to be in so much trouble" for knocking out Snape with a spell meant that they had committed a crime that would force Dumbledore to put them in Azkaban had not Snape had said they were Confunded? I thought it was Hermione being her usual hyperactive teacher's pet Hermione self--Dumbledore knows they weren't Confunded; does he think it was a serious crime? Usually we're always hearing how the WW is so rough-and-tumble that broken bones and skin disfigurement is normal. Trelawney herself, iirc, doesn't even consider telling Dumbledore what happened. She's indignant and that's about it. I thought it was only after Harry said they had to tell Dumbledore (because he thinks Draco's celebrating and not because he's in any way shocked by someone shoving Trelawney out of a room) that she sees the chance for some attention. > > Magpie: >> It just seems really silly to think that Dumbledore, who knows >> perfectly well Draco is behind the near-deaths of Katie and Ron, >> can't make a move--but would have leapt to take Draco into custody >> once had he only known that somebody neither Trelawney nor Harry >> actually saw ejected her from the RoR. > > Pippin: > > But that's exactly the situation in real life when the police have a > suspect but not enough evidence to arrest them. Magpie: And we're not in real life and Dumbledore is not a character on Law & Order trying to get evidence that will stand up in court. He's a guy who knows a kid in his school is trying to kill him and is trying to protect the kid. If we were in real life we're talking about the difference between knowing somebody sent poisoned mead that Ron drank, somebody had Katie try to smuggle in a cursed necklace that put her in a coma (and also knowing that somebody in the school is supposed to be committing a murder) and somebody forcefully ejected Trelawney from the RoR in the dark. But for some reason only the third crime means Dumbledore must bring Malfoy into custody. Had Ron died Dumbledore might have been on the receiving end of the kind of slap Chief Brody got from Alex Kitner's mother. Pippin: And if there weren't > such a right in the WW, then Umbridge could have had Harry imprisoned > on suspicion without even bothering to set up the dementor attack, and > Snape could have had Harry deprived of Quidditch in CoS for refusing to > explain why he was in that corridor. Magpie: Yes, the WW has rights and not when the plot allows, but you haven't convinced me that this right is in any way driving Dumbledore's actions in the story, so that had Harry simply told Dumbledore that Trelawney was ejected from the room by some unknown person, Dumbledore would have immediately arrested Malfoy. Pippin: Even Dumbledore isn't always > right in his beliefs on who is innocent and who is guilty, and he knows > it, so how could he trust himself with such despotic power, let alone > be trusted by others? Magpie: And I keep having the same problem with this argument as I did at the beginning-there is absolutely nothing in the book that suggests that this is in any way a question of protecting Malfoy's civil rights (until the moment Harry forgets to tell Dumbledore that the person who whooped also shoved Trelawney out of the room--then suddenly Dumbledore's got the equivalent of DNA evidence and he's committed a crime so serious Dumbledore must bring him in). Throughout the book Dumbledore doesn't want to hear about *any* evidence that Harry might have about Malfoy--the main suspect. He's not, imo, motivated by lack of evidence, he is hoping that Malfoy will come around to being in the right state of mind to make the right choice freely. It just seems like the text makes it clear this is Dumbledore's gamble--one for which he takes actual serious risks. It seems like these restraints on Dumbledore only appeared when people had trouble with the gamble. Now, I happen to think Dumbledore's plan is ultimately a good one for the story and no, I wouldn't want him to just start snatching kids away to get them away from Voldemort. (Alla is arguing the other side of this, that it would be better to curtail Draco's freedom than risk others getting hurt.) But Dumbledore is not investigating these crimes, not trying to find evidence. He's giving Draco room to try and fail. If he had evidence that Draco was behind the murder attempts (and I suspect that being Dumbledore he could get it if he wanted--he could probably set up a trap for him even easier) he imo wouldn't use that either. He knows Draco is trying to kill him all year, he knows these attempts lead to other people getting hurt, and his plan is not to confront him or get evidence on him but to assign Snape to run interference. I thought he said all this himself. It seems like if you take that away from him and define his actions through outside plot circumstances you lose the essence of Dumble "Second Chances and Our Choices Make Us Who We Are!" Dore. Alla may not approve of the risks that Dumbledore is taking but she seems to have the same idea of Dumbledore's motivations. -m From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 00:58:11 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:58:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: the Pensieve Message-ID: <20061017005811.81376.qmail@web54509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159820 Nikkalmati: This is a minor point, but I think the Pensieve itself is empty. The memories are returned to the owner's head or little storage bottles, after they are viewed. I don't think anything is stored in the Pensieve.It is just a magical container. Jeremiah: Well, I was thinking that DD might have let McGonagall have the memories. Do we know for a fact that she is not following DD's path to try and defeat LV? If so, maybe she does have access to some of DD's memories and some of the others DD collected. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 01:47:07 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:47:07 -0000 Subject: the Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159821 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > Nikkalmati: > > This is a minor point, but I think the Pensieve itself is > empty.The memories are returned to the owner's head or little > storage bottles, after they are viewed. I don't think anything > is stored in the Pensieve. It is just a magical container. Mike: Add "for viewing memories" to your last sentence :-) A thought occurred to me while pondering the Hog's Head "eavesdropping" scene vs. what DD showed of it to Harry. Every other Pensieve memory (including the diary memory) Harry visited by diving in to view the whole memory. Of course, DD did not want Harry to view the *whole* HH scene so he swirls the Pensieve and Sibyll rises up and rotates about while prophesying. Then it occurred to me that DD did this one other time, when he showed Harry the Burke memory about buying the locket from Merope. Was this just for expediency, or was DD hiding something from Harry on *that* memory too? Mike, who can't see where this might lead but, nevertheless, still passing it along From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 01:58:46 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 21:58:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50610160542r18c33c9bu5a1fa5ed9a3adf01@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610161858g23e01ba0kd005a58925b2beab@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159822 > Renee: > Eh, I don't think I'm following this. Is claiming that someone won't > turn evil the same as claiming they're flawless? Or did you snip > something essential here? You' said (below, as i mentioned - i think i left the quote in too, but i might have snipped it in a later editing pass) that you didn't believe she would end up doing something stupid (your word was "idiotic") that would put the group in danger, solely because she's JKR's "alter ego". I don't buy that, because it doesn't make sense that she'd be exempt from having flaws (or even that she'd somehow only have harmless "quirky" flaws) just because of that - because JKR is a good author. -- Random832 From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 17 02:10:08 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:10:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Pensieve (was Re: Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159823 Jeni wrote: > Louis welcome! I for one think that DD's pensieve could be a wealth > of information. Also, since DD is dead, Harry could also go to his old > office and get advice from his portrait that is now there on the > wall. Also from any of DD's portraits that will be scattered here in > there in 'important' buildings in the WW. DD was a very powerful and > decorated wizard. His portraits will be all over the WW. Potioncat: If you mean that a Pensieve would be a good tool to have---well, yes it would be. Someone would have to teach Harry how to remove the thoughts from his head and then how to put them back in. I'm not sure he's up to that sort of magic---maybe in a couple of decades. If DD left a few memories behind in well marked bottles, along with the Pensieve then Harry could make use of that. The Pensieve would not be sitting there, full of memories for the taking. Except for situations that caused an interruption, Dumbledore and most certainly Snape, put their thoughts back in their heads as quickly as possible. The memories DD had were from those who didn't really need them any more. It's hard to say what would happen if you pulled out a memory and left it out. For example, does Slughorn have any memory now of the conversation with Riddle? So I'm not sure if DD could have left behind any of his memories in a bottle. Dumbledore's Portrait will be of service to McGonagall and would probably speak to Harry. But it won't "be" Dumbledore. It will be a good likeness of him---so to speak---and it may have some important memory. But to tell you the truth, I am not looking forward to that encounter. Potioncat, humming Jim Croce's "Time in a bottle." From jzare02 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 23:26:53 2006 From: jzare02 at yahoo.com (jzare02) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:26:53 -0000 Subject: Question - Room of Requirement & Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159824 > graverobber23: > Here would be an interesting twist on Dumbledore for you. What if > the magical trading cards could be used as well? Think of it. Harry > already has a card of Dumbledore and it vanished shortly after he > opened it. Asumming that he travels from card to card would mean > that he could come back to Harry's at anytime. So in theory, Harry > could have Dumbledore with him at all times for advice. The card thing is wild and would be a pocket-sized answer to almost everything but how Harry will make him talk. I think that, other than Harry's friends, he'll have to do it alone and he'd better be mastering Occlumency (rather) than using a Pensieve. Don't forget, it was the thoughts of loved ones that kicked old Voldy out of Harry's head in OotP. jzare02 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 02:38:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 02:38:46 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159825 > > Alla: > > > > Erm.... my question was where in canon it shows that Dumbledore > **has > > a history of knowing what is best**. > > He removed the stone from Gringotts - you are joking, right? He > > brought the stone to Hogwarts to *give Harry a chance to fight > > Voldemort** ( paraphrase) - NO, I do not think that this is what > was > > best from within the story. > > Hickengruendler: > > Did he really, though? I know that this is what Harry speculates, but > do we know that this really was Dumbledore's motivation? Hagrid said, > that Gringotts was the safest place in Britain except for Hogwarts, > therefore I assume it makes sense to transfer the Stone from the > second safest to the safest place. Alla: I snipped what you wrote and what can sure be Dumbledore's motivations, but I find myself thoroughly persuaded by Dicentra's lovely post, called "Dumbledore wrote book I" Jo Serenadust brought another post of Dicentra recently, which I also love love love and here is the link to this one: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/33289 As to whether Harry speculates about it, didn't you find those words of his to be very erm.... not Harry's? In a sense that this was IMO clearly JKR talking through Harry. LOL, I mean she always does of course, but those words sounded sort of out of place, I don't know if it makes any sense. > Alla: > > > He knew that Voldemort would returned, erm and he failed to > recognise > > the DE in Hogwarts and actually prevent Harry from being tortured? > > Hickengruendler: > > According to Neville, Augusta Longbottom also said, that Voldie would > return someday. Therefore I don't think this is a question of > Dumbledore knowing best anyway, it's more a question about Dumbledore > being realistic, instead of putting his head into the sand. But > whatever Dumbledore's flaws may be, I will not condem him for not > recognizing every Death Eater as a such. And after all, Gandalf > trusted Saruman in the beginning as well. (In the beginning of LoTR > that is, in "reality" he trusted him for several centuries). Alla: But I am not condemning Dumbledore, really, truly I am not :) I am just taking an issue with Dumbledore *having a history of knowing what is best* I am arguing that Dumbledore has a history of making mistakes upon mistakes upon mistakes and often those mistakes are made with the best motivation in heart, sometimes they are not IMO, but this is still a very long road to travel to condemn a character. So far, I condemn Snape ;) and think that Voldemort condemned himself long time ago, that is about it in the short list of characters I condemn, moreover I fully accept the possibility that JKR may not condemn Snape either ( does not mean that I will agree with that though ;) Dumbledore,well I do want to slap him often enough, but I still want to hug him sometimes,so not everything is lost. > Hickengruendler: > > He helped Hagrid as good as he can, IMO, which > sadly is more than can be said about the next case. Alla: Again, entirely plausible and even understandable if he was indeed as conflicted as you describe and did not have much power, etc, I just take an issue with has a history of knowing what's best and all that. > Alla: > > > And yes, indeed he recognised that Sirius was innocent, took him > > thirteen years. Thank goodness for Sirius escaping I guess. > > Hickengruendler: > > You know, I have been a Dumbledore defender in this case in the > beginning, but the more I read, the more I am convinced by his > critics in this case. At the very least Dumbledore should have tried > to convince Crouch, to give *everyone* a fair trial. < SNIP> I think I'll continue to assume, that Dumbledore did try his best at > least in this case, but simply hadn't the power to convince Crouch. > It makes me help to continue liking him. Alla: You know, I honestly never write to convince people to change their mind, well, maybe in my earlier days when I was in more mood for out and out debate I wrote to try to convince hypothetical reader, but this was just how I tried to structure my writing, not directing at any list members to change their mind, but if somebody decided to change their mind, well this is a nice and unexpected bonus :) Thank you. And yes, I would like to assume what you assume as well :) Maybe I can convince myself to do so, because I do not want to end up hating Dumbledore. I have Snape for that Magpie: He knows Draco is trying to kill > him all year, he knows these attempts lead to other people getting hurt, and > his plan is not to confront him or get evidence on him but to assign Snape > to run interference. I thought he said all this himself. It seems like if > you take that away from him and define his actions through outside plot > circumstances you lose the essence of Dumble "Second Chances and Our Choices > Make Us Who We Are!" Dore. Alla may not approve of the risks that > Dumbledore is taking but she seems to have the same idea of Dumbledore's > motivations. Alla: I randomly cut your post to say that absolutely I have the identical idea of Dumbledore's motivations, we just disagree on whether he was careless in doing it, I suppose. I will tell you even more, I can totally buy your idea that everything that happened on the Tower, except Dumbledore's death, may end up helping good guys, unintended consequences and all that. Unintended consequences are indeed happening all the time in Potterverse, like Snape telling the Prophecy to Voldemort brought not only the deaths of innocents, but the peace to WW for more than decade. That does not mean that because of unintended good consequences the bad action will look any better for me, although maybe you are right and everything what happened would be intended consequence, hehe. I totally get the storyline, I just think that Dumbledore concentrated on one soul and neglected many others, but I do not think that JKR thinks the way I do. I think her reasoning is exactly as yours, that it was all worth it. JMO, Alla From jzare02 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 23:33:19 2006 From: jzare02 at yahoo.com (jzare02) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:33:19 -0000 Subject: Question -- Pensieve In-Reply-To: <20061016173809.72327.qmail@web54513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159826 > Jeremiah: > So, if Aberforth has the Pensive and is hiding it in Hogsmead, or even if it's in McGonagall's Head Mistress office, then Harry has access to it nearly any time he wants it. (Since he can legally apparate in Book 7). > jzareo2: Jeremiah have you not read Hogwarts a History? No apparating in the castle though I am sure Mcgonagall would let him in. From kernsac at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 02:49:47 2006 From: kernsac at earthlink.net (Peggy Kern) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:49:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: the Pensieve References: Message-ID: <071e01c6f196$e9884c50$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 159827 Mike said: Every other Pensieve memory (including the diary memory) Harry visited by diving in to view the whole memory. Peggy now: I've been thinking, as I've been rereading the books for the zillionth time, that Harry always has someone take him out of the pensieve. He never actually leaves by himself. I wonder if he'd know how to get out of a memory if he needed/wanted to. How do Dumbledore and Snape get out? We never see any spells or anything that they use. I just wonder if Harry really knows how to use the pensieve. He knows what it is and what it does and how to get into a memory; but can he get out by himself? This probably won't have anything to do with anything that happens in the seventh book; I just think it's interesting. Peggy From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 03:11:43 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 03:11:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159828 ? Mike wrote: > > Dumbledore didn't even close the door fully when he was in the room > > interviewing Sibyll, he's a gentleman, you don't go to a stange > > woman's room above the bar and close the door. He turned to leave. > > When he was almost to the door, Sibyll starts into the prophesy. > > Dumbledore stops and listens, when Sibyll finishes, Dumbledore hits > > her with a stupefy, or the like, before she returns to normal. He > > summons Snape and Aberforth upstairs from the bar and tells them to > > make some noise in the hallway then bust into the room with the > > story that this guy was eavesdropping. Dumbledore goes back into the > > room and performs the counter-curse which revives Sibyll so she can > > see Snape and Aberforth. Then Aberforth hustles Snape downstairs and > > ejects him from the bar. In the mean time, Dumbledore tells Sibyll > > that Snape is also seeking a job and was probably looking for > > pointers on interviewing. After Dumbledore tells Sibyll that she has > > the job, he excuses himself, goes down the back way and meets up > > with Snape and maybe Abe. Dumbledore tells Snape which words to tell > > Voldemort and sends him off. Snow: A few tweaks to propose try to envision the very same synopsis that happened when Harry was confronted over DD's Army and equate it. Dumbledore is sitting in his office and is confronted; you wonder how he is going to get out of this one with Marietta and suddenly Kingsley puts a spell on the kid. The same may hold true in this situation. Dumbledore is in conference with Trelawney and Snape appears listening in; along comes Dumbledore's brother Alberforth with a quick wit and places a similar spell on Snape. Snape doesn't remember anything beyond the first few stanzas of the prophecy. Trelawney wakes from the trance and views Snape apprehended. What would Trelawney believe but that Snape heard all? From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 17 03:23:32 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:23:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of References: Message-ID: <008b01c6f19b$a000f500$4766400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159829 > Alla: > > I randomly cut your post to say that absolutely I have the identical > idea of Dumbledore's motivations, we just disagree on whether he was > careless in doing it, I suppose. > > I will tell you even more, I can totally buy your idea that > everything that happened on the Tower, except Dumbledore's death, > may end up helping good guys, unintended consequences and all that. > > Unintended consequences are indeed happening all the time in > Potterverse, like Snape telling the Prophecy to Voldemort brought > not only the deaths of innocents, but the peace to WW for more than > decade. > > That does not mean that because of unintended good consequences the > bad action will look any better for me, although maybe you are right > and everything what happened would be intended consequence, hehe. > > I totally get the storyline, I just think that Dumbledore > concentrated on one soul and neglected many others, but I do not > think that JKR thinks the way I do. > > I think her reasoning is exactly as yours, that it was all worth it. Magpie: Just wanted to make the distinction that when I say it's a good plan etc., I mean for the story. It's going to work out because, as I think you're saying here, the author means to make a point about Dumbledore's way of giving people a chance being the epitome of goodness. However, your argument from an ethical pov is pretty darn valid--it's one thing for Dumbledore to risk Draco hurting him, but it becomes clear pretty quickly that he's risking the lives of others besides Dumbledore. I mean, if Ron had died, could Dumbledore's character have survived it? I know plenty of readers could be persuaded to just say that Draco did it so the responsibility is all his (and obviously there's truth in that) and not Dumbledore's fault but really...wouldn't it be a little creepy that Ron died as part of this kind of plan: "I just heard that a girl got killed here last week and you knew it and you let people go swimming anyway!" -m -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 04:27:45 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:27:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" wrote: > > Snow: > > > > Dumbledore is in conference with Trelawney and Snape appears > listening in; along comes Dumbledore's brother Alberforth with > a quick wit and places a similar spell on Snape. Snape doesn't > remember anything beyond the first few stanzas of the prophecy. > Trelawney wakes from the trance and views Snape apprehended. > What would Trelawney believe but that Snape heard all? Mike: I'd like to answer you with another's post: >From message # 159701, Nikkalmati: Query: Why would DD allow SS to walk out of the Hog's Head with that information? He hired ST as Divination teacher to protect her from LV, so he realized the importance of the prophecy. Aberforth had SS by the collar. Why would DD let him go? Mike again: Now, I invite anyone to answer this question: Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate" and erase any memory of the prophesy from Snape? I can't see how anyone can come up with a credible reason for Albus and Aberforth to let Snape-the-still-faithful-DeathEater leave with this knowledge intact to deliver to Voldemort. Not when there is such an easy answer to the problem at hand. I've been surprised before, anyone want to give this one a shot? Mike, acknowledging Nikkalmati's most elegant yet simplisticly beautiful question , while still intending to defend Dumbledore (coming soon, to a theatre... I mean list... near you) From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 17 04:56:48 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:56:48 -0000 Subject: the Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159831 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98@ wrote: > > > Nikkalmati: > > > > This is a minor point, but I think the Pensieve itself is > > empty.The memories are returned to the owner's head or little > > storage bottles, after they are viewed. I don't think anything > > is stored in the Pensieve. It is just a magical container. > > Mike: > Add "for viewing memories" to your last sentence :-) > > A thought occurred to me while pondering the Hog's > Head "eavesdropping" scene vs. what DD showed of it > to Harry. Every other Pensieve memory (including the > diary memory) Harry visited by diving in to view the > whole memory. Of course, DD did not want Harry to view > the *whole* HH scene so he swirls the Pensieve and Sibyll > rises up and rotates about while prophesying. > > Then it occurred to me that DD did this one other time, > when he showed Harry the Burke memory about buying the > locket from Merope. Was this just for expediency, or was > DD hiding something from Harry on *that* memory too? > > Mike, who can't see where this might lead but, > nevertheless, still passing it along > Secca adds: He does this another time that I know of -- In GoF, after the two of them have come out of the Pensieve (Harry's first time) -- they sit discussing it and Dumbledore uses the same technique to show Harry his memory of Bertha Jorkins 'as I remember her at school' In this scene, it definitely seems that this technique is used for expediency, not to hide something from Harry. No point -- just FYI From sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 01:47:31 2006 From: sbarthell2001 at yahoo.com (sarah barthell) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:47:31 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159832 > Sarah Barthell wrote: > > There are seven Weasley children: Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, > > George, Ron, and Ginny. > > Secca adds: > Jo said somewhere in an interview that she was playing off the > old "seventh son of a seventh son" myth... Ginny is the first > female in a while in the Weasley family, and is the seventh > daughter... Sarah: I just figured out that seven is the number of times Hogwarts had to send letters to Harry with the seventh time being brought by Hagrid. I know this means nothing. I just thought I'd point it out. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 17 06:40:02 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:40:02 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159833 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sarah barthell" wrote: > > > Sarah Barthell wrote: > > > There are seven Weasley children: Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, > > > George, Ron, and Ginny. > > > > Secca adds: > > Jo said somewhere in an interview that she was playing off the > > old "seventh son of a seventh son" myth... Ginny is the first > > female in a while in the Weasley family, and is the seventh > > daughter... > > Sarah: > I just figured out that seven is the number of times Hogwarts > had to send letters to Harry with the seventh time being brought > by Hagrid. I know this means nothing. I just thought I'd point > it out. Geoff: It's more than seven times. Here's my rollcall: 1: The first one addressed to "The Cupboard under the stairs". 2: After the room move, one addressed to "The Smallest Bedroom". 3: Three letters after he treads on Vernon who is hiding behind the front door. 4: Twelve letters on Friday. 5: Twenty-fours letters on Saturday. 6: No post on Sunday but the thirty or forty letters down the chimney. 7: The hundred or so letters addressed to "Room 17, Railview Hotel". 8: The letter brought by Hagrid addressed to "The Floor, Hut-on-the-Rock" So I think we can safely cross that one off the "sevens" list. From two_flower2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 06:59:22 2006 From: two_flower2 at yahoo.com (two_flower2) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:59:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159834 Interesting points about the prophecy situation, Mike. Reading your arguments, I start thinking that may be Snape NEVER was a DE, he was a DDM, in fact Dumbledore's most trusted lieutenant all along, that he infiltrated DEs on Dumbledore's orders and later he and Dumbledore cooked up various Le Carre-ish schemes, too outrageous for other, less extreme people to participate in, the latest of such schemes being Dumbledore's murder. Two2, a lurker From vinkv002 at planet.nl Tue Oct 17 08:32:22 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:32:22 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610161858g23e01ba0kd005a58925b2beab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159835 > > > Renee: > > Eh, I don't think I'm following this. Is claiming that someone won't > > turn evil the same as claiming they're flawless? Or did you snip > > something essential here? Random832: > You' said (below, as i mentioned - i think i left the quote in too, > but i might have snipped it in a later editing pass) that you didn't > believe she would end up doing something stupid (your word was > "idiotic") that would put the group in danger, solely because she's > JKR's "alter ego". I don't buy that, because it doesn't make sense > that she'd be exempt from having flaws (or even that she'd somehow > only have harmless "quirky" flaws) just because of that - because JKR > is a good author. > Renee: Sorry, but I didn't say anything of the kind; it was Alla who said it. I merely wondered how `flawed' could equal `evil'. In my book, doing something very bad/idiotic/stupid is still not the same as turning evil. From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 11:22:04 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:22:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50610161858g23e01ba0kd005a58925b2beab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610170422l204befb8gcbc3f5aaf927f3a9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159836 > Renee: > Sorry, but I didn't say anything of the kind; it was Alla who said it. > I merely wondered how `flawed' could equal `evil'. In my book, doing > something very bad/idiotic/stupid is still not the same as turning evil. Oh. Well, my message was replying to her - I was confused by the fact that you were reacting as if I had been talking about something you said. You still missed the fact that I _wasn't_ saying she would turn evil, I was rejecting the idea that she wasn't flawed because of being the author's "alter ego". -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 11:19:34 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:19:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sevens. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610170419i3573decaicc3801a0be8215a2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159837 > Geoff: > 1: The first one addressed to "The Cupboard under the stairs". [...] > 8: The letter brought by Hagrid addressed to "The Floor, Hut-on-the-Rock" > > So I think we can safely cross that one off the "sevens" list. That's seven times. She wasn't counting the one Hagrid brought, since it was delivered personally. I think that it's really just because it's the number of days in a week, nothing more significant Secca: > Jo said somewhere in an interview that she was playing off the > old "seventh son of a seventh son" myth... Ginny is the first female > in a while in the Weasley family, and is the seventh daughter... I don't recall the other six Weasley sisters, so ITYM seventh child. And Arthur and Molly aren'th the seventh anything - we know each had only two brothers (well, I suppose we don't _know_ Molly didn't have more, but JKR's said Arthur didn't) and we don't know relative ages. Secca again: > JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive > in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that old tradition > of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a > seventh son, so that's why she's the seventh, Well, apart from being in fact the first daughter, those old traditions don't, as far as i can tell, include anything about the seventh son/daughter/child of someone who was not a seventh whatever him/herself. -- Random832 From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 17 11:55:30 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:55:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's staffing problems (was Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159838 > Carol responds: > But why would young snape be applying for a job in, say, October 1979 >snip< Trelawney is clearly applying for a sudden vacancy after > the death or incapacitation of the current Divination teacher. Potioncat: It seems that Trelawney is applying for a sudden vacancy, but we don't know that. Before HBP most of us thought she was applying in the spring for an expected opening the coming fall. (most of us guessing spring because of the weather.) If ---big if--- Trelawney's statements in HBP are intended by JKR to be clues and are accurate, she was applying in October. So why is she applying now? Sudden vacancy at Hogwarts? Position unfilled at Hogwarts and sudden need by Trelawney? She appears to be single but could be a widow. So, the previous teacher could have had a sudden change in health or Trelawney could have had a sudden need for an income due to a change in marital status--or for other reasons. We also don't know if her statement about Snape looking for hints has any base in reality. It would mean that as she remembered it, there were two openings that October. I think with a war going on, two vacancies might not be unheard of. We don't know if he was applying or had applied for DADA at that point, but I don't think we should completely dismiss it. Carol: I conjecture that > LV sent him to apply for the DADA job, perhaps to get him out of the > way, in the summer of 1981, and DD, to protect his spy, gave him the > newly vacated Potions position (Slughorn must have just retired) > instead of the cursed DADA position. (LV can't complain; Snape has his > cover story that DD doesn't want him anywhere near the Dark Arts and > at least Snape is at Hogwarts where LV wants him. No doubt Snape and > DD want him there, too, but for altogether different reasons.) Potioncat: I agree that LV sent Snape to apply, but I think Snape applied in 79, 80 and 81. I'm not sure when DD found out that Snape was a DE. But I think Snape had been kept pretty much under cover. I suspect he had done very well on his DADA and LV was planning to put him in Hogwarts. I don't think he put him there because a child was to be born or had been born. LV never expected that child to go to Hogwarts. I think he wanted someone at Hogwarts for two reasons. One to keep an eye on DD and the other to mine the castle for its secrets and magic. When I say I'm not sure when DD knew Snape was a DE, I mean I'm no longer sure he knew in 79. If he merely suspected Snape, it may be why he placed Trelawney in protection and he may have kept a very close eye on defiant couples. >Carol: LV would of course have wanted him to > apply for the DADA position, but maybe DD and Snape agreed in advance > that he'd be given Potions. I like that scenario, and it would > eliminate any problems created by young Snape's repeatedly being > turned down for the DADA position when he's been told that DD doesn't > want him to be tempted to the Dark side by exposure to the Dark Arts > (not a real hazard of that class unless you're Barty Jr.) but being > given Potions on the third application. Potioncat: I keep wondering why Slughorn retired at what was an early age--he seems pretty fit 15 years later. Was someone pressuring him to leave Hogwarts? What has he been doing all these years? Did DD encourage him to leave in order to create a position for Snape? So now we have 2 openings. Potions and DADA and we readers have reason to think Snape was good at both. DD says he'd like try Snape at Potions first. I think we have canon via an interview that DD said that, but I'm not sure if we have canon for DD saying that DADA would "bring out the worst in him." It may just be that JKR said that. Still, it's a lovely play on meaning. I agree with Carol that getting Snape into Hogwarts pleased LV and I think at this point it was planned between Snape and DD. I'm no longer so sure that Snape understood why DD wasn't giving him DADA. > Carol, who agrees with Nikalamati that Snape is DDM and spying for DD > for at least a year before teaching at Hogwarts but also agrees with > Mike that the incompatibility of Trelawney's and DD's versions of the > eavesdropping story requires some explanation beyond details we don't > know yet Potioncat--me too. From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 11:55:33 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 06:55:33 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sevens. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610170419i3573decaicc3801a0be8215a2@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b9f25e50610170419i3573decaicc3801a0be8215a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610170455i19894628l23ec7ae8a1f93dd8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159839 Secca: > JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive > in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that old tradition > of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a > seventh son, so that's why she's the seventh, Jordan Abel: *>*Well, apart from being in fact the first daughter, those old >traditions don't, as far as i can tell, include anything about the >seventh son/daughter/child of someone who was not a seventh whatever >him/herself. montims: Well, if she has 7 children herself, she can start a new tradition, I suppose... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 12:30:23 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:30:23 -0000 Subject: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610170422l204befb8gcbc3f5aaf927f3a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159840 > > Renee: > > Sorry, but I didn't say anything of the kind; it was Alla who said it. > > I merely wondered how `flawed' could equal `evil'. In my book, doing > > something very bad/idiotic/stupid is still not the same as turning evil. Random: > Oh. Well, my message was replying to her - I was confused by the fact > that you were reacting as if I had been talking about something you > said. You still missed the fact that I _wasn't_ saying she would turn > evil, I was rejecting the idea that she wasn't flawed because of being > the author's "alter ego". Alla: Yes, but you were rejecting the idea which I was not arguing :) So, I am not sure where you are getting this idea from. YES, I agree with you - the fact that Hermione is author alter ego does not mean that she is not flawed. What it does mean to me is that she will not turn evil - she can be rude, reckless, annoying, anything - I am just not sure that JKR will make her alter ego the servant of Voldemort,that's all. Am I any clearer now? Too bad I cannot find my original message with Yahoo stupid threading system, but I thought I was saying the only thing there - that Hermione will not turn evil, and even on that I can be wrong of course. JMO, Alla From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 17 12:59:35 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:59:35 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610170419i3573decaicc3801a0be8215a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159841 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > 1: The first one addressed to "The Cupboard under the stairs". > [...] > > 8: The letter brought by Hagrid addressed to "The Floor, Hut-on-the-Rock" > > > > So I think we can safely cross that one off the "sevens" list. Random832" > That's seven times. She wasn't counting the one Hagrid brought, since > it was delivered personally. I think that it's really just because > it's the number of days in a week, nothing more significant Geoff: Sorry to be picky but she was.... What Sarah wrote in message 159832 was: "I just figured out that seven is the number of times Hogwarts had to send letters to Harry with the seventh time being brought by Hagrid. I know this means nothing. I just thought I'd point it out." Although, like you, I don't attach much importance to the sevens theory. From katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au Tue Oct 17 13:18:57 2006 From: katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au (katrinalisa2002) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:18:57 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159842 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" wrote: BEATRICE: > I agree with Dumbledore (although, I didn't care for this scene as > it seemed a bit out of character -more like JKR's agenda than a > scene that came "organically" from the characters). > > I have always seen both Harry and Dudley as horribly abused. In > different ways certainly, but while Harry may be more sympathetic, I > think that Dudley deserves more pity than Harry. > Katrina: I have to agree with you. I actually liked Dumbledore's scene because I didn't feel it came from nowhere. It seemed to me, that apart from the first few books which were obviously far less sophisticated, Dudley was someone Dumbledore would feel sorry for. I think Mr. Weasley's reaction to Dudley (kindly pity) in Book 4 was another indicator of how we should feel for Dudley. Of course, Book 6 also reveals that Dudley has become an abuser like his father, whilst simultaneuosly showing us that Dudley has a terrible fear that causes him to react similarly to how Harry does to Dementors...and I don't believe this is unintentional. I'm not sure what it means yet, but I don't think it's nothing. I think he's someone Dumbledore would feel sorry for, in the same way he feels sorry for Draco. Both spoiled children, but both lacking in the kind of love Mrs. Weasley gives her children, or the love that Lily presumably gave Harry. Although I would argue that Petunia is just as likely to sacrifice herself for Dudley as Lily was for Harry. JMO without wax, Katrina From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 14:22:09 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 10:22:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sympathy to the characters? Fake Moody, Weasleys, Hermione In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50610170422l204befb8gcbc3f5aaf927f3a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610170722v847fc53g27328ddcc4dfb400@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159843 > Alla: > > Yes, but you were rejecting the idea which I was not arguing :) So, I > am not sure where you are getting this idea from. YES, I agree with > you - the fact that Hermione is author alter ego does not mean that > she is not flawed. You said earlier: > Otherwise I would not feel as safe to bet that Hermione would not do > something idiotic ( not evil but harmful) Rephrased, you're saying that since she _is_ the author's alter ego, you _do_ feel safe betting that. Which I think is a bit ridiculous - it's basically either an argument that she's not flawed, or, at the very least, that none of her flaws will have consequences. That was what I was responding to. -- Random832 From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 17 14:46:45 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 14:46:45 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159844 > Katrina: Of course, Book 6 > also reveals that Dudley has become an abuser like his father, whilst > simultaneuosly showing us that Dudley has a terrible fear that causes > him to react similarly to how Harry does to Dementors... Magpie: I'm not sure what you mean here--what's Dudley doing in Book VI that suddenly shows us he's become an abuser like his father? Katrina: > I think he's someone Dumbledore would feel sorry for, in the same way > he feels sorry for Draco. Both spoiled children, but both lacking in > the kind of love Mrs. Weasley gives her children, or the love that > Lily presumably gave Harry. > > Although I would argue that Petunia is just as likely to sacrifice > herself for Dudley as Lily was for Harry. Magpie: Of course she would. I would say Dudley and Draco were raised with different values than Harry would have been, but I am very disturbed by the casual judgment that the love of these mothers is somehow inferior to Lily's or Molly's--especially Molly given that there are plenty of people in fandom who think Molly's a nightmare of a mother, one that pushes all their buttons (they tend to get into arguments with other fans who see Molly as what Good Mothers Are Supposed To Be Like). One of the interesting things about the HP-verse is that there really are no truly happy families--except the Potters who got that way by dying. Even the Weasleys currently have a painful rift going on--one that some people are happy to dismiss as just a cuckoo in the nest turning out to be a DE but which seems to me much more realistically described as pointing to some of the long-running flaws in the Weasley family. I am not, of course, trying to suggest the Weasleys are the worst family in canon by a long shot. But while love is obviously a great power in this universe, it's not a protection against pain, misery or bad behavior. -m From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 17 15:10:32 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 15:10:32 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159845 > brothergib: > > On finding out from Flitwick that DE's have invaded the castle, Snape > > runs straight for the tower, without even stopping to consider the > > battle raging within Hogwarts. > > zgirnius: > There are other Order members attempting to deal > with the battle. There is no other Order member who knows what Snape > knows, so it makes sense for him to leave them to it. Eddie: Remember that we don't actually know WHAT Flitwick told Snape: * "Death Eaters in the castle, near the tower!" ? * "Dark Mark over the tower!" ? * "Hurry! Come help! Follow me!" ? I'm wondering why would Snape, upon seeing the battle, not join in? Why would Snape even think that he should go up ONTO the top of the tower? I may be wrong, but I don't recall any evidence that was available/visible to Snape to indicate that the top of the tower was important in any way. So, all these questions push me into the "Snape knew something beforehand" camp. Just what, I'm uncertain. Eddie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 16:02:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:02:45 -0000 Subject: Question -- Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159846 fawn_2_u wrote: > I think Dumbledore's pensieve will play a very > improtant part in Harry's road to discovery. The pensieve is an > excellent way for Harry to see things Dumbledore has seen, and > without his professor's physical guidance what better tool to use? > I also think Dumbledore was too smart to leave Harry without some > help...without some way to tap into secrets others may not be > privileged to. My meaning? Dobby. House elves keep their master's > secrets, and Harry will turn to Dobby for help (just my opinion). > Carol responds: I'm not sure, but it appears to me that the function of the Pensieve is rather widely misunderstood. Except in GoF, when Dumbledore is constantly adding new memories to the Pensieve and *sifting* them ("sieve" = "sift" or "sifter") to find a new perspective and a new understanding of how the events fit together, the Pensieve is not used for longterm storage. Snape uses it for temporary storage of memories he doesn't want Harry to see during the Occlumency lessons, but after the lessons, he places them back inside his head (presumably DD put all his own memories back in after GoF as well and the Pensieve returned to its normal, empty state). In HBP, Dumbledore takes his own memories and those he has taken from others (with their consent), presumably through the same process (wand to the head to remove a silvery substance) from vials, which I take to be the usual form of long-term storage, rather like the Prophecy orbs in the DoM. There's no indication that the memories that Harry sees in his first lesson with Dumbledore remain there. They must have been rebottled afterwards, or, if they're DD's own memories, replaced in his head. So Harry is not going to find a Pensieve overflowing with memories ready to explore. At best, he'll find labeled (or unlabeled) vials of Dumbledore's memories. Possibly, the most important of these memories are in Aberforth's keeping. (That would be a good way to find out why Dumbledore trusts Snape, for example.) However, even if Dumbledore wills Harry the Pensieve, Harry won't be able to place his own memories in the Pensieve to enter them or study them because he doesn't know how to remove memories from his own head. Only two people that we've seen know how to do that. One of them, Dumbledore, is dead. The other is Snape, whom Harry thinks (wrongly, IMO) is his enemy. It seems to me that removing memories from your own head, or the head of someone else, requires Legilimency (to cause the right memory to rise to the forefront of the mind) combined with some nonverbal spell that Harry does not yet know. For a variety of reasons (by no means all of them Snape's fault), Harry failed to master *Occlumency,* but it may be that the "powers" he acquired from Voldemort include *Legilimency,* in which case he can learn to explore his own memories in the Pensieve. I would love to have Snape teach him, but I doubt that's going to happen. Or how about Snape removing the memory of GH from Harry's head, placing it in the Pensieve, and entering it with him? Never happen, unfortunately. I just realized that Slughorn can also remove memories from his own head--and badly alter them. Maybe he's the one who'll help Harry here.) On a sidenote, the consequences of the Twins stuffing Montague in the Vanishing Cabinet (which led to Draco's discovery of a way to get DEs into the school) also include the end of the Occlumency lessons. Snape left his office to rescue Montague, who was stuck in a toilet, leaving Harry alone with the Pensieve. Wouldn't have happened if the Twins hadn't taken "justice" into their own hands. Carol, hoping that Harry will use the Pensieve to explore his own past (and Snape's) in Book 7 but noting that it's no simple matter From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 16:25:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:25:40 -0000 Subject: Luna and the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rsmrymurrell" wrote: > > Just found this group and somewhat astounded! But here is a > thought: IF Dumbledore is dead and we subscribe to the theory > that the dead are 'just beyond the curtain' is it likely that, > for example, Luna, might be contacted by Dumbledore to help > Harry. Just a thought, will have to read all the previous > messages! Chocolate frogs to everyone! > > Rosemary > Carol responds: That's an interesting idea. Luna hears voices behind the Veil and believes that she'll rejoin her dead mother some day. She must be connected in some way with the archway, our key to understanding it. Apparently, the archway with the veil was never an execution chamber, as I once thought (JKR has vetoed that idea) but there's an amphitheater around it, *as if* it had once been used for human sacrifice. Evidently, something can happen there, some interaction that can be watched and studied by the Unspeakables who work in the Death Chamber in the DoM. (Luna's future career if she survives?) Luna is unusual in other ways, as well. She can see thestrals, of course, but that's explained by her mother's death when she was nine. She's eccentric (like Trelawney) and she gets along well with Trelawney, who's disappointed that Luna isn't in her class in HBP (she's taking Divination with Firenze). She seems to me the antithesis of Hermione, who depends on reference books and facts to find what she considers to be the truth. Luna (like her father) apparently depends on intuition but she's not devoid of common sense. It was her idea to ride the Thestrals to the MoM. (Who'd ride one sidesaddle, though? ;-) ) And she has silvery eyes like Mr. Ollivander's, which perhaps see things that others can't see. (Mr. O. must be a Legilimens since he suspects that Hagrid has kept his broken wand. Maybe Ollivander and Luna are related?) Carol, wondering if Luna is a true Seer or will at least help Harry to see his situation from a new perspective From gg682000 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 14:41:39 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (louis ruggiero) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 07:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061017144139.49625.qmail@web82415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159848 BEATRICE: > > I have always seen both Harry and Dudley as horribly abused. In > > different ways certainly, but while Harry may be more > > sympathetic, I think that Dudley deserves more pity than Harry. Katrina: > I have to agree with you. I actually liked Dumbledore's > scene because I didn't feel it came from nowhere. It > seemed to me, that apart from the first few books which were > obviously far less sophisticated, Dudley was someone Dumbledore > would feel sorry for. I think Mr. Weasley's reaction to Dudley > (kindly pity) in Book 4 was another indicator of how we should feel > for Dudley. Of course, Book 6 also reveals that Dudley has become > an abuser like his father, whilst simultaneuosly showing us that > Dudley has a terrible fear that causes him to react similarly to > how Harry does to Dementors...and I don't believe this is > unintentional. I'm not sure what it means yet, but I don't think > it's nothing. Louis: I think there may be more to Dumbledore feeling sorrow for Dudley. Remember he heard something when the Dementors attacked him and Harry. I'm thinking maybe he recieved some of his aunt's ability and it was squashed out of him over time? I may be wrong but I don't think Muggles re-live their worst memories when confronted by Dementors; they just feel horrible. Louis From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 17:00:58 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:00:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Question -- Pensieve In-Reply-To: <20061016173809.72327.qmail@web54513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20061016173809.72327.qmail@web54513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610171000p2c66e0f9h52f11d66cd058cb3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159849 > Jeremiah: > > Well, The Pensive has been a very useful tool and Harry knows how to use > it. montims: well, that depends on what you mean by "use" - he certainly knows how to enter a memory (although he needs someone up top to pull him back out again, it seems). But does he know how to extract a memory and place it in the pensieve? I guess Hermione could read up on this for him, but it appears quite a complex non-verbal spell to this muggle! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 17:02:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:02:35 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159850 Anne Squires wrote: > > Also, does anyone else think that Harry was able to destroy the horcrux in the diary without injuring himself because he is a horcrux, or rather has a horcrux in him (the scar)? When DD destroyed the horcrux in the ring he was obviously grievously injured; however, Harry suffered no ill effects from destroying the horcrux in the diary. Maybe by being marked as Voldemort's equal LV inadvertently gave Harry the ability to destroy horcuxes without injuring himself. Perhaps Harry is the only person alive who can destroy a horcrux and suffer no ill effects. > > > SSSusan: > I have looked at this in a very different way. I believe the difference between the diary horcrux, which was fairly easily destroyed by Harry with the basilisk fang, without damage to himself, and the ring horcrux, which caused significant injury to DD, was how the two objects were intended to be *used.* IOW, the ring horcrux was designed only to house a soul bit and not for some other purpose. Whereas the diary was an artifact designed *to be used* -- to be read, to be written in, to interact with the person holding it. For this reason alone I would say that the two horcruxes were "set up" differently, and that could explain why Harry did not suffer ill effect while destroying the diary. Carol responds: I agree with this paragraph completely. The original purpose of the diary was to continue "Salazar Slytherin's noble work" and in doing so, prove Tom to be Slytherin's heir. When he put the memory of his sixteen-year-old self into the diary, presumably as soon as he realized that he could not continue to release the Basilisk without causing the school to be closed down, he had not killed anyone except Myrtle (using the Basilisk) and was concerned about killing Mudbloods, not making Horcruxes. The diary retained this purpose after he made it into a Horcrux, but he needed at least one more that was not interactive or easily destroyed to serve the usual purpose of a Horcrux, anchoring the soul to the earth and consequently preventing death even after the body is destroyed. Harry did, of course, come near death in the destruction of the diary (only Fawkes's tears saved him), and he used the fang of the Basilisk that bit him to destroy the diary, or rather the soul bit and the memory of young Tom that lived inside it, but it's possible that the diary could have been destroyed by burning. Too bad Ginny didn't take that route rather than throwing it into a toilet, which had no effect on its magical powers. > SSS: > In addition to this, the diary hx was likely the first made by Tom, > correct? The ring came later, when, presumably, he was more adept at the magic involved in creation & protection of horcruxes. I could > easily see each subsequent horcrux having more elaborate (and more > deadly) protections placed upon it. Carol: Here I only partly agree with you. Yes, the diary was probably the first Horcrux, but it was not a Horcrux when it was first made, only an instrument for preserving Tom's *memory* and releasing the Basilisk, as Diary!Tom tells Harry in CoS. He must have "written" it before he killed his parents and before he talked to Slughorn, i.e. before he knew how to create a Horcrux. And of course the ring is not yet a Horcrux in Slughorn's memory or he wouldn't be wearing it or asking how to create a Horcrux. (I disagree with those who think he would wait behind simply to ask whether you can make multiple Horcruxes. Shy not just try it and see?) I think he found out just enough from Slughorn (you have to split your soul through murder, which he had already done, and you have to perform a spell) to spur him to do more research. With Dumbledore watching him, he would not have found what he needed at Hogwarts, but maybe he visited Grindelwald after the murders or maybe he found what he needed at Borgin and Burkes'. IMO, he created those first two Horcruxes at about the same time, after graduation but before he killed Hepzibah Smith and escaped from England, probably because his changed appearance from the two new Horcruxes made it impossible to return to B&B (or because he had no more use for them). I don't think sophistication has anything to do with it. If you can create a Horcrux, you can add a terrible protective curse like the one on the ring if you want to. In the case of the diary, he didn't want to. It had to be used for its original purpose as well as for housing the soul bit, and it could not be hidden or locked away or protected by a curse because the person it interacted with had to write in it. I suspect that the locket and the cup, like the ring, are protected by curses that will be activated when they are opened (the "unopenable" locket) or cracked open (the cup) as the ring was. (I also suspect that the Curse Breaker Bill Weasley will be the victim of the locket's curse and will either die or be saved by Snape, but I'm getting a bit OT.) As to whether Harry is the only one who can destroy a Horcrux without being harmed, that remains to be seen. The diary, an interactive Horcrux, proves nothing one way or the other, and Dumbledore didn't die from the ring Horcrux because he was saved by Snape (though I do think it greatly weakened him). Maybe the "powers" that Harry inherited from Voldemort include the ability to destroy a Horcrux without being harmed by the curse, but I doubt it, just as I doubt that either he or his scar is a Horcrux. (Surely, Dumbledore would know and would owe him that explanation?) Carol, sure that Snape's knowledge of the Dark Arts and his surprising healing powers fit into the Horcrux picture somewhere From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 17:10:13 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:10:13 -0000 Subject: Question -- Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159851 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: However, even if Dumbledore wills Harry the Pensieve, Harry won't be able to place his own memories in the Pensieve to enter them or study them because he doesn't know how to remove memories from his own head. Only two people that we've seen know how to do that. One of them, Dumbledore, is dead. The other is Snape, whom Harry thinks (wrongly,IMO) is his enemy. Steven1965aaa: Horace Slughorn can do it as well. From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 17:15:09 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:15:09 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: <20061017144139.49625.qmail@web82415.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159852 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, louis ruggiero wrote: > > BEATRICE: > > > I have always seen both Harry and Dudley as horribly abused. In different ways certainly, but while Harry may be more sympathetic, I think that Dudley deserves more pity than Harry. > > Katrina: > > I have to agree with you. I actually liked Dumbledore's > > scene because I didn't feel it came from nowhere. It > > seemed to me, that apart from the first few books which were > > obviously far less sophisticated, Dudley was someone Dumbledore > > would feel sorry for. I think Mr. Weasley's reaction to Dudley > > (kindly pity) in Book 4 was another indicator of how we should feel for Dudley. Of course, Book 6 also reveals that Dudley has become an abuser like his father, whilst simultaneuosly showing us that Dudley has a terrible fear that causes him to react similarly to how Harry does to Dementors...and I don't believe this is > > unintentional. I'm not sure what it means yet, but I don't think > > it's nothing. > Louis: > I think there may be more to Dumbledore feeling > sorrow for Dudley. Remember he heard something when > the Dementors attacked him and Harry. I'm thinking > maybe he recieved some of his aunt's ability and it > was squashed out of him over time? I may be wrong but > I don't think Muggles re-live their worst memories > when confronted by Dementors; they just feel horrible. > Steven1965aaa: Also, when Dumbledore talked about the abuse of Dudley, Dudley and his father looked mystified but Petunia looked oddly flushed. I'm not sure what that means, but I think it probably does mean something. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 17:21:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:21:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore would not perform a UV (Was: Snape is still working for Dumbledor In-Reply-To: <20061016202838.38778.qmail@web54507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159853 Carol earlier: > >> It isn't just the timing that's wrong. It's the concept. Not only is an Unbreakable Vow based on compulsion, the antithesis of Dumbledore's philosophy of choice, it may be Dark magic as well. The person who breaks the vow dies. Would Dumbledore do that to anyone? << > > > > Jeremiah: > > Carol, I love that you looked at the imagery. Yes, it would seem to be very dark magic. > > However, I feel that if Snape had taken the UV with Draco's mother and told DD all about it, there is no need to make another UV with Dumbledore. the vow was to kill DD. I think DD wanted Snape to do it so Draco would not fracture/harm his soul. he wanted to keep Draco innocent of such a crime against nature and since Snape has probably killed before (or is simply older) Snape could afford to commit the murder. > > I guess I'm agreeing with you, Carol, just with different reasoning. > > Jeremiah > Carol responds: Yes, exactly. But the posters I'm arguing against are suggesting that Snape made a *much earlier* Unbreakable Vow with Dumbledore (around the time that young Snape first switched sides and began spying for Dumbledore). They think that this hypothetical earlier UV is the reason that Dumbledore trusts Snape. That's what I'm arguing against. DD wouldn't use such Dark magic, involving death and compulsion, nor would he mistake compulsion for trustworthiness. I only used the UV that Snape took with Narcissa to show the darkness of the imagery, which fits the Black sisters beautifully but is altogether at odds with Albus (meaning "white") Dumbledore. The name alone suggests that DD would not be involved with such Dark magic, setting aside the arguments I made in the post you're responding to. Carol, suggesting that anyone who's still confused go upthread to read the entire argument From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 17:55:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:55:13 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159854 Alla earlier: > > > > > > Actually, I would like **one** example in canon that shows that > > > Dumbledore has a history of knowing what is best? > > Pippin responded: > > He defeated Grindelwald. He removed the Stone from Gringotts before it could be stolen by Quirrell. He knew that Voldemort would return and was prepared to take action immediately. > > He knew that Hagrid was innocent in Riddle's day and saved him from Azkaban. He recognized that Sirius was innocent and could be saved if Harry and Hermione used the time turner. He recognized that Moody was a fake and rescued Harry. He realized that Kreacher was lying and rescued Harry and the other Order members. He fought Voldemort in the MoM and rescued Harry -- is that enough? > > Alla: > > Erm.... my question was where in canon it shows that Dumbledore **has a history of knowing what is best**. > > So, let's go through your examples - he defeated Grimdewald, indeed - > if we will learn that he indeed did without hurting many people in > process that is indeed a good one. > > He removed the stone from Gringotts - you are joking, right? He > brought the stone to Hogwarts to *give Harry a chance to fight > Voldemort** ( paraphrase) - NO, I do not think that this is what was > best from within the story. > Oh, and no, Harry's heart saved him per Dumbledore himself IMO. > > So, that leaves Grindelwald maybe, I guess that counts since I asked > for one example, but still really really not impressive IMO. > Carol: Do you have canon evidence that DD placed the stone in Hogwarts to test Harry? Surely, he really did need to get it away from Quirrell and had he not had Hagrid remove it when he did, Voldemort would have risen at the beginning of Harry's second year. Dumbledore only provided Harry with the means of defeating Quirrel!mort via the Mirror of Erised after he knew that Harry and friends were trying to protect the stone. Also, Dumbledore saved Harry from several AKs and drove Voldemort away from the MoM. Harry's love saved him from possession, but Dumbledore saved him from death. But if those examples won't work for you, how about this one? Dumbledore provided the means by which Harry saved himself and Ginny from Diary!Tom and the Basilisk--Fawkes and the Sword of Gryffindor in the Sorting Hat. All that was required was to be in need and loyal to Dumbledore, the enemy of Voldemort. Granted, DD didn't find the CoS and destroy the Basilisk himself, but only a Parseltongue could do that. He had to leave the school, but he didn't leave it (or Harry) unprotected. He knew exactly how to get Harry to summon Fawkes, who had apparently been instructed to bring the Sorting Hat with the sword (which only a true Gryffindor could pull out) concealed inside it. Very Harrycentric protections, don't you think? Carol, hoping that Alla will remember the relevant quotes from CoS and that I won't need to look them up From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 18:01:30 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:01:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159855 > Mike again: > > Now, I invite anyone to answer this question: > > Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate" and erase any > memory of the prophesy from Snape? Piece of cake: 1) Dumbledore, suspecting for the first time that Snape might be a Death Eater, decides to let him go in hopes of following him to other crypto-Death Eaters, or of finding Voldemort himself. He hopes to be able to take out Snape and his contact before Snape can pass along the information. Sadly, he underestimates Snape, who escapes surveillance and makes his report. 2) Dumbledore does attempt to Obliviate Snape, but Snape uses Occlumency to counter DD's spell without DD realizing it. 3) DD just blew it. He doesn't act quickly enough to prevent Aberforth from tossing Snape out, and Snape seizes the opportunity and escapes. 4) Fill in the blank yourself. It's trivially easy to come up with ways the scenario could play out without DD and Snape colluding, once you get over the idea that Dumbledore is all-knowing and infallible. Amiable Dorsai Amiable Dorsai From capturedelegance at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 17:11:49 2006 From: capturedelegance at yahoo.com (Erica) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 17:11:49 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159856 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jeff" wrote: > > Hi Everyone. > > I've been having my first discussion with another member, and we > disagree on the seventh horcrux. She feels it is Nagini, and I cannot > help but feel it is Harry's scar (because of the powers he got from > Voldemort). I don't believe that Harry is a horcrux. Voldemort has taken great lenghts to stay alive. Why would he make the person he is trying to kill a horcrux. Voldemort chooses what becomes a horcrux. Why would he have choosen Harry if he was going to kill him. Erica From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 17 19:13:23 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:13:23 -0000 Subject: Luna and the Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159857 Carol: > Luna (like her father) apparently depends on intuition but she's not > devoid of common sense. It was her idea to ride the Thestrals to the > MoM. (Who'd ride one sidesaddle, though? ;-)) And she has silvery > eyes like Mr. Ollivander's, which perhaps see things that others > can't see. (Mr. O. must be a Legilimens since he suspects that > Hagrid has kept his broken wand. Maybe Ollivander and Luna are > related?) > >Carol, wondering if Luna is a true Seer or will at least help Harry to > see his situation from a new perspective. Jen: I couldn't pass up a Luna post; she's one of my favorite secondary characters. Radish earrings and all. I do think Luna's a Seer in the making although one very different from Trelawney. She is very intuitive and her openess leads her to consider possibilities others may not have thought of or which they fear to consider, such as the meaning of the veil. I think that's what being a true Seer in Potterverse is about really, keen observation and seeing possible outcomes. Trelawney's absolute certainty about her predictions comes across as insecurity to prove herself more than anything else. As for Luna's future, I agree she and Ollivander might be related, or if not, they share the gift of intuition necessary to help children select the correct wand. The wand may choose the wizard but with so many choices, a person could be there for days if the wandmaker doesn't have some sense of which ones to offer in the first place. Plus Luna seems good with animals and that would help in tracking down dragons, unicorns and phoenixes. Or maybe she would choose different wand cores from Ollivander's. I wondered after OOTP if Harry might notice Luna's eyes were the same color as Ollivander's because it's not always the case he notices eyecolor. Didn't we have to ask JKR what color Ron's eyes are? It's hard to say though, JKR may have simply liked the idea of Harry seeing the thestrals reflected in Luna's "silvery" eyes from an artistic standpoint rather than for plot purposes. ;) One thing for sure--Luna doesn't fear new ideas nor is she mesmerized by them. It's doubtful she feared seeing the threstrals on her first day like Harry did. If someone does contact her from behind the veil, I could see her carrying on a perfectly normal conversation and not feeling compelled to walk through or take other rash action like another person might. So, I like your idea Rosemary! Jen, hoping Luna is more than just comic relief in book 7. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 19:38:25 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:38:25 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159858 > Magpie: > Of course she would. I would say Dudley and Draco were raised > with different values than Harry would have been, but I am very > disturbed by the casual judgment that the love of these mothers is > somehow inferior to Lily's or Molly's--especially Molly given that > there are plenty of people in fandom who think Molly's a nightmare > of a mother, one that pushes all their buttons (they tend to get > > into arguments with other fans who see Molly as what Good Mothers > Are Supposed To Be Like). > > One of the interesting things about the HP-verse is that there > really are no truly happy families--except the Potters who got > that way by dying. Even the Weasleys currently have a painful > rift going on--one that some people are happy to dismiss as just a > cuckoo in the nest turning out to be a DE but which seems to me > much more realistically described as pointing to some of the long- > running flaws in the Weasley family. I am not, of course, trying > to suggest the Weasleys are the worst family in canon by a long > shot. But while love is obviously a great power in this universe, > it's not a protection against pain, misery or bad behavior. -m The twins and others have said that Molly knows how to 'push all their buttons'. Well, in my opinion she KNOWS her family well so she knows what buttons to push! My mom knew exactly what buttons to push with me. Still does, drives me nuts! But she loves me, is good to me and wants the best for me. She does what she does out of love and concern for me. She is human and makes mistakes. No mother is perfect but she's pretty darn close. Strong willed and determined, but sweet and loving too. Any mother who is halfway decent would give their life for their child. I think the books play up Lily's sacrifice for Harry way too much. I agree that Petunia would more than likely give her life for Dudley. But I don't agree that Petunia (or Vernon)is a good parent - at all. Petunia is suspicious, rude, intolerable of anything slightly not normal, and so wrapped up in her own little world, she is missing out on life! It's truly sad! Her whole world revolves around just her little niche in it. She doesn't have a life outside of #4 Privet Drive, so she spies on the lives of others from her window looking out on the world that she has chosen to isolate herself from. She could go out, play bridge with the girls, make friends and have tea. But she closes herself into her little cocoon. Why Petunia does this, we don't know. Her parents could very well have favored Lily. But we don't know that for certain. We do know that they were proud of Lily for her abilities, as any parent should be when their child succeeds at something. They should encourage and praise them! We know that Lily was known to be a good person - kind and good hearted (according to those in the WW who knew her and James). However, we DO know that Petunia refers to her own sister, her own flesh and blood, as a freak! If my sister called me a freak, I would certainly not be all too fond of her! Petunia's refusal to accept anything 'different' and 'abnormal' speaks volumes about the kind of person she is. I have a son with Autism. He is about as 'different' from society's "norm" as can be. He thinks differently, perceives differently and I swear it even seems sometimes like he's from another planet his ways are so 'alien'! I had to learn to speak his language, operate according his customs and burst through those language and perception barriers around him to get into his world and his head and slowly bring him out of himself and into our world. It's been a slow process, but he's doing well. When I read of the Dursley's shunning and mistreating Harry, and looking down their noses at anything/anyone different or 'abnormal', I think of my son and how people (like the Dursleys) treat him because he is different. I've encountered them many times in my life. They are pathetic! How totally ignorant and stupid they are!! I just hope that eventually they stop procreating and the world is rid of those kinds of close minded idiots! One could argue that Harry is a constant reminder to Petunia of her parents' 'supposed' favor of Lily. But that is so very petty and small of her! To think that she and Vernon would mistreat a child! It's just so horrible, and they are horrible people for doing so, in my opinion. And to allow Dudley to treat Harry so horribly too is twice as horrible of them! If they couldn't properly care for Harry the way he desperately needed them to, they should have sent him to an orphanage where he could have been given to people who desperately wanted a child! Or contacted Dumbledore and insisted he find someone else to care for Harry. They should never have kept him. Living with them has been horrible for Harry! Also what angers me is what they have done to Dudley. They haven't shown Dudley that the choices he makes have consequences. He thinks that the whole world and universe revolves around him. That whatever he wants should just be handed to him - and handed to him IMMEDIATELY! He is spoiled, pampered, a bully to those who dare to stand in the way of what he wants, and extremely self-centered. He surrounds himself with people are also bullies but who are easily manipulated. He loves being the center of attention and will do anything to keep the focus on himself. He's always been center stage, so he must keep the spotlight on himself. If it isn't, his world turns upside down because that is what he's always known. Anything else is unfamiliar, different (which is not tolerable in his world) and must be made to conform to what he's been taught. This is the fault of Petunia and Vernon! Vernon yells and bullies people so therefore Dudley does the same thing. He lives by example, mirroring his father. Petunia overindulges Dudley, gives him anything he wants and therefore feeds the idea that the world is there to serve him. What a slap in the face Dudley is going to get when he goes out into the real world to get a job or even apply for one and finds out he must compete with others and comply with what his superiors want or be fired. He must do what they say instead of doing his own thing. I don't fault Dudley. He is who he is because that is what has been drilled into him from birth. He's been brought up to think the world should be handed to him on a golden, diamond studded platter. He's in for a very rude awakening. Molly Weasley IS a good mother figure. She has a wonderful heart for others. She is supportive of her husband and shows genuine affection for him , both to him and in front of her children and others. She is human so she'll make mistakes, but she always tries to do the right thing by her kids. She adores them, the twins too! She didn't approve of the Joke Shop thing and tried to steer them away from it. Being a mom, I would have too! It wouldn't seem like a very wise investment to me either. But she does support their decision when they go against her advice as adults and open one up anyway. You can show your children the way you feel they should go, but when they are grown, you have to let go. Molly did. Molly loves her children, accepting their different personalities and quirks but she also disciplines them. (Like having them de-gnome the garden or peel potatoes without using magic or being grounded). She doesn't just let them have their way. They have to answer to her for their misbehavior - as well they should. She is a disciplinarian, but she is also respectful and kind. Truly a lady! She has a life, contributing to a wonderful cause! Though her family is her top priority, she has other interests outside her home. She lives her life, doesn't shut herself up in her little Burrow. Concerning the 'rift' - as far as Percy is concerned, I just have this gut feeling that he isn't acting of his own free will at the present time. I think he is being controlled by the Imperius Curse by someone who has been placed inside the ministry by the DE's. I think this because all the way through the books (though he may have been a little bit more stand-offish than the others) he has always been supportive of Harry, friendly even. And he's always loved his parents and shown them respect. Then all the sudden in book 5 he's moved out and turned on Harry? I don't buy it at all!! Something happened during the summer after Crouch Sr. was killed. Someone got to Percy and did SOMETHING to him. What I don't know, but something happened. Sometimes I think it's Scrimgeour. He seems like another Crouch Sr. to me. Acting before thinking things through (like putting Stan Shunpike in jail. It's the kind of thing Crouch Sr. would have done.) Percy is his personal assistant, so I understand his being right with Scrimgeour all the time. But Scrimgeour gives me the creeps, don't know exactly why but he does. I can't bring myself to believe that Percy has really turned his back on his family - or Harry. I think Scrimgeour (or someone) has done something to him. I have no respect for the Dursleys whatsoever. I don't think Harry owes them one single thing. Well yeah, come to think of it I do think he owes them one thing - a darn good hex when he finally is able to leave them behind for good. Jenni from Alabama From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 18:55:41 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:55:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Scar Message-ID: <20061017185542.52059.qmail@web54515.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159859 Erica: I don't believe that Harry is a horcrux. Voldemort has taken great lenghts to stay alive. Why would he make the person he is trying to kill a horcrux. Voldemort chooses what becomes a horcrux. Why would he have choosen Harry if he was going to kill him. ------------------------------------------ Jeremiah: HERE! HERE!!!! That's exactly why I think the "accidental" horcrux theory is a load of horse pucky. (Sorry... I don't mean to offend those of you who believe in that theory, but there are huge flaws). Some say that Lily and James' deaths would make the whole "Harry the Horcrux Who Lived" theory plausible would have to remember that we don't know how one is made but we know it isn't easy. I would think that Dumbledore would have at least suspected this idea and would have told Harry (since he was in "untrustworthy" waters at the time). The idea is fun but doesn't pan out. JKR would have a whole lot of explaining to do if this was her intention and I don't think a book could be long enough to incorporate that idea as well as the many others that need tidying up in this series. From slg2001uk at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 19:20:15 2006 From: slg2001uk at yahoo.com (sara griffin) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:20:15 +0100 (BST) Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610170455i19894628l23ec7ae8a1f93dd8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061017192015.17290.qmail@web53111.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159860 Secca: > JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to > arrive in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that > old tradition of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter > and a seventh son of a seventh son, so that's why she's the > seventh, Sara: Not sure if it quite fits into the theory, but in HBP the potion Harry makes that wins him the luck potion was stirred once anticlockwise after being stirred seven times clockwise ?? From gg682000 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 19:23:43 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (louis ruggiero) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Horcrux!Harry / Re: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061017192343.31693.qmail@web82407.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159861 > Erica : > I don't believe that Harry is a horcrux. Voldemort > has taken great lenghts to stay alive. Why would he > make the person he is trying to kill a horcrux. > Voldemort chooses what becomes a horcrux. Why would > he have choosen Harry if he was going to kill him. Hi Erica, I tend to disagree with that theory too. The reason I feel like this is that we all know that Lord Voldemort was trying to kill Harry that night and it all backfired. Also in the graveyard when Harry was at their mercy he could have used the scar horcrux but opted for a different one. But that doesn't mean I'm right. Louis From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 20:31:59 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:31:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159862 > Mike: > > Problem #1: Dumbledore is allowing Snape (LV's spy) to tail him. > Neri: We don't know that Snape indeed tried to tail Dumbledore. I think he was probably subtler than Dawlish. For all we know, Snape may have just rented a room in the Hog's Head and applied for a post at Hogwarts, exactly as Trelawney did. His mission seems to have been long-term infiltration rather than tailing. > Mike: > Problem #3: Snape-the-DE is allowed to roam freely in the H.H. > Neri: Why do you assume that Dumbledore knows Snape is a DE at this time? I doubt Voldemort would have sent Snape to spy at Hogwarts in the first place if he had any reason to think Dumbledore already knows what Snape is. > Mike again: > > Now, I invite anyone to answer this question: > > Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate" and erase any > memory of the prophesy from Snape? > Neri: Dumbledore may not know at this point that Snape is a DE. Snape has a good cover story for listening at the door: he is interested in a post himself and looking for tips (it may even be true, in the sense that he needed to get a post in order to infiltrate into Hogwarts, and therefore indeed attempted to get these tips). This merits throwing out of the building, perhaps, but not an Obliviate. Dumbledore probably doesn't know at this point how much Snape had managed to hear of the prophecy, if he had heard anything at all. It is possible that only when Snape "turned", perhaps months or even more than a year after that, he told Dumbledore what he had heard. But most of all, at this point when Dumbledore hears the prophecy, he has no way to know it's a true prophecy. He has already reached the conclusion that Trelawney is a fraud. Her words don't include any information that he can verify at this moment, except that he may know already (or not) that both the Potters and the Longbottoms escaped Voldemort three times, but this isn't much of a verification. Dumbledore may not even know that Lily and/or Alice are pregnant, if they even *are* already pregnant at this point. He surely doesn't know yet that Neville and Harry are going to be born in the end of July. So at this point the prophecy might be just worthless mumbo jumbo to him. Dumbledore may think it's just not worth obliviating someone who *might* be a DE because he *might* have heard some part of something that *might* be important. My question is: what is your alternative theory? Do you propose that Dumbledore just hears the prophecy, and in few moments, before even knowing when (or if) Harry is going to be born, before knowing if and how Voldemort is going to mark Harry, before knowing that James and Lily are going to be killed, before knowing Lily's sacrifice will protect Harry, before knowing Voldemort would become vapor, Dumbledore already has a plan that includes telling Voldemort the first part of the prophecy? So what was this plan??? > Mike: > > "Do you see the flaw in my brilliant plan now? I had fallen into the > trap I had forseen, that I told myself I could avoid, that I must > avoid." > "I don't --" > "I cared about you too much," said Dumbledore simply. "I cared more > for your happiness than your knowing the truth, more for your peace > of mind than my plan, more for your life than the lives that might > be lost if the plan failed...." > (OotP p.838, US) > > What trap was Dumbledore telling himself he could avoid, must > avoid? !Caring about Harry! His plan did not include caring about > Harry, that was the trap to avoid. He admits it! He had *planned* to > be a cold-hearted ba***rd and to follow his *plan*. What more do you > need? > Neri: If your theory is correct then Dumbledore's words "I cared more for your happiness than your knowing the truth" are going to sound extremely ironic, because he *wasn't* telling Harry the truth when he said that. He was lying to him. But maybe this is what is called "ironic juxtaposition"? Neri From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 17 20:42:19 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:42:19 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159863 J from A: > The twins and others have said that Molly knows how to 'push all > their buttons'. Well, in my opinion she KNOWS her family well so she > knows what buttons to push! My mom knew exactly what buttons to push > with me. Still does, drives me nuts! But she loves me, is good to me > and wants the best for me. She does what she does out of love and > concern for me. She is human and makes mistakes. No mother is > perfect but she's pretty darn close. Strong willed and determined, > but sweet and loving too. Magpie: No, I didn't say "the Twins and others" say Molly knows how to push their buttons, I said that many *readers* find that Molly pushes their buttons and they can't stand her. And those people are disagreed with by people with exactly the same argument you're giving here--My mother drives me nuts but she loves me and wants what's best for me, etc. My point wasn't that Molly is a bad mother, but that not everyone views her with the same amount of affection. Fans often wind up accusing each other of projecting their own mother issues onto Molly, and they're probably sometimes perfectly right. Only that goes both ways. J from A: > Petunia is suspicious, rude, intolerable of anything slightly not > normal, and so wrapped up in her own little world, she is missing > out on life! It's truly sad! Her whole world revolves around just > her little niche in it. She doesn't have a life outside of #4 Privet > Drive, so she spies on the lives of others from her window looking > out on the world that she has chosen to isolate herself from. She > could go out, play bridge with the girls, make friends and have tea. > But she closes herself into her little cocoon. Magpie: I also didn't say Petunia is a good parent. I said she loved her son. Just as you defend Molly Weasley from criticism by comparing her to your mother Dudley might defend Petunia from this description (and I'm sure there are plenty in fandom who could offer a negative description of Molly as well, if not as negative as Petunia, since after all, Molly has never locked a child in a cupboard!). The Dursleys display bad behavior in all kinds of ways. The way they raise their child is often bad. But I see now signs that they don't start out loving their child, that they don't love him now. J from A: > Any mother who is halfway decent would give their life for their > child. I think the books play up Lily's sacrifice for Harry way too > much. I agree that Petunia would more than likely give her life for > Dudley. But I don't agree that Petunia (or Vernon)is a good parent - > at all. Magpie: I hope you're not suggesting that I *do* consider Petunia a good parent! J from A: If my sister called me a freak, > I would certainly not be all too fond of her! Petunia's refusal to > accept anything 'different' and 'abnormal' speaks volumes about the > kind of person she is. Magpie: Or it speaks to her reaction to something in her life. You yourself said that she'd closed herself in a cocoon. This may not just be the kind of person she is but her basic personality + events of her life that she reacted to this way. If Petunia was made to feel inferior for being ordinary, she may think she's righting that wrong by making the ordinary the only good thing to be. Not that I'm saying she did this well, if that's what she was doing. J from A: > I have a son with Autism. He is about as 'different' from > society's "norm" as can be. He thinks differently, perceives > differently and I swear it even seems sometimes like he's from > another planet his ways are so 'alien'! I had to learn to speak his > language, operate according his customs and burst through those > language and perception barriers around him to get into his world > and his head and slowly bring him out of himself and into our world. > It's been a slow process, but he's doing well. > > When I read of the Dursley's shunning and mistreating Harry, and > looking down their noses at anything/anyone different or 'abnormal', > I think of my son and how people (like the Dursleys) treat him > because he is different. I've encountered them many times in my > life. They are pathetic! How totally ignorant and stupid they are!! > I just hope that eventually they stop procreating and the world is > rid of those kinds of close minded idiots! Magpie: I agree--though Harry isn't really abnormal at all by society's terms. Sorry, it's just I find it hard to talk about the book's early claims that Wizard=different and Muggle=ordinary with much conviction because it's just not really true. Wizards are superifically weird to Muggles but their society isn't all that open to the different. If it was then not-all-that-eccentric Luna wouldn't be considered so strange, and Neville wouldn't be dropped out of windows to bring out his magic. But of course Petunia's treatment of Harry is particularly cruel-- he's a little boy living in her house and she tells him he's repulsive every day of his life. I wouldn't be so sure that she would have treated Dudley that way had he had something "wrong" with him--she might have thought he was perfect just the way he was, because he was hers. J from A: > One could argue that Harry is a constant reminder to Petunia of her > parents' 'supposed' favor of Lily. But that is so very petty and > small of her! To think that she and Vernon would mistreat a child! > It's just so horrible, and they are horrible people for doing so, in > my opinion. And to allow Dudley to treat Harry so horribly too is > twice as horrible of them! Magpie: Yes, but again you're talking about their abilities as parents to raise children, not questioning whether they love their child. You can love your child and be a terrible parent; you can be a good parent and not love your child. All kinds of people are parents. J from A: > If they couldn't properly care for Harry the way he desperately > needed them to, they should have sent him to an orphanage where he > could have been given to people who desperately wanted a child! Or > contacted Dumbledore and insisted he find someone else to care for > Harry. They should never have kept him. Living with them has been > horrible for Harry! Magpie: Well, actually they couldn't do that because Dumbledore needs Harry at their house. They can't just send him to an orphanage. Had they absolutely refused to take him in DD would have had to make other arrangements, but he seems find with their barely complying to the deal to protect Harry and doesn't interfere with their treatment of him. J from A: > Molly Weasley IS a good mother figure. She has a wonderful heart > for others. She is supportive of her husband and shows genuine > affection for him , both to him and in front of her children and > others. She is human so she'll make mistakes, but she always tries > to do the right thing by her kids. She adores them, the twins too! > She didn't approve of the Joke Shop thing and tried to steer them > away from it. Being a mom, I would have too! It wouldn't seem like a very wise investment to me either. But she does support their > decision when they go against her advice as adults and open one up > anyway. You can show your children the way you feel they should go, but when they are grown, you have to let go. Molly did. > > Molly loves her children, accepting their different personalities > and quirks but she also disciplines them. (Like having them de- gnome the garden or peel potatoes without using magic or being grounded). > She doesn't just let them have their way. They have to answer to her > for their misbehavior - as well they should. She is a > disciplinarian, but she is also respectful and kind. Truly a lady! > Magpie: This is a nice testament to the character of Molly Weasley as a fan, but the fact remains that plenty of readers don't see her as so wonderful. I don't happen to be one of them--I'm fine with Molly. I don't see her as a particular role model, though. Not because I have something much against her, but just she seems like a woman with a certain personality and this is how she mothers. I'm so different from her she might as well be an alien. I tend to like her most at her worst, when she's at her most Petunia-ish, actually. If I were a kid I don't think I'd have wanted to spend much time at her house at all. But that was my point in the argument--How one raises one children, what values one raises them with is different from whether on loves them or not. It just seems to draw too much of the kind of distinction I'd think the books counsel against--bad people can love their families too. J from A: > Concerning the 'rift' - as far as Percy is concerned, I just have > this gut feeling that he isn't acting of his own free will at the > present time. I think he is being controlled by the Imperius Curse > by someone who has been placed inside the ministry by the DE's. Magpie: I believe JKR shot this theory down. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 21:23:04 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:23:04 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159864 > Alla earlier: > > > > > > > > Actually, I would like **one** example in canon that shows that > > > > Dumbledore has a history of knowing what is best? > Carol: > Also, Dumbledore saved Harry from several AKs and drove Voldemort away > from the MoM. Harry's love saved him from possession, but Dumbledore > saved him from death. > > But if those examples won't work for you, how about this one? > Dumbledore provided the means by which Harry saved himself and Ginny > from Diary!Tom and the Basilisk--Fawkes and the Sword of Gryffindor in > the Sorting Hat. All that was required was to be in need and loyal to > Dumbledore, the enemy of Voldemort. > > Granted, DD didn't find the CoS and destroy the Basilisk himself, but > only a Parseltongue could do that. He had to leave the school, but he > didn't leave it (or Harry) unprotected. He knew exactly how to get > Harry to summon Fawkes, who had apparently been instructed to bring > the Sorting Hat with the sword (which only a true Gryffindor could > pull out) concealed inside it. Very Harrycentric protections, don't > you think? a_svirn: But none of these examples qualifies as "knowing what the best is". It does show that Dumbledore *saved* Harry on a number of occasions, yet all those situations had little to nothing to do with his "knowing". The sequence of events that led to Harry's being saved in the Ministry battle was something Dumbledore had tried to avert of all costs and failed. He admitted as much, by the way. As for Basilisk-Fawkes situation I am not sure what do you mean by calling it "protection"? Suppose Harry had turned out to be less loyal? Or not so quick-thinking? If he had failed that test he would have ended up dead. (As well as Ginny, and who knows how many others). Not only the whole deal doesn't look like "protection", I'd say, it is somewhat dubious from the ethical point of view. If, that is, you are right in assuming that it was "Harrycentric". From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 21:22:28 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:22:28 -0000 Subject: Mother Molly & The Family Weasley (was:Respecting the Dursleys...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159865 > >>Magpie: > > ...there are plenty of people in fandom who think Molly's > > a nightmare of a mother, one that pushes all their buttons (they > > tend to get into arguments with other fans who see Molly as what > > Good Mothers Are Supposed To Be Like). > > > >>Jenni from Alabama > The twins and others have said that Molly knows how to 'push all > their buttons'. Well, in my opinion she KNOWS her family well so > she knows what buttons to push! Betsy Hp: I'm not sure if this is what Magpie meant, but as someone less than fond of Molly I can say that she pushes *my* buttons. There are many scenes with Molly that leave me absolutely cringing. > >>Jenni from Alabama: > > Molly Weasley IS a good mother figure. She has a wonderful heart > for others. She is supportive of her husband and shows genuine > affection for him, both to him and in front of her children and > others. Betsy Hp: See, I think Molly disrespects Arthur terribly. It's no wonder the younger Weasleys (Percy on down) see Arthur and his passion as a bit of a joke. That's how Molly plays it and they follow her lead. Arthur is thrilled that he's working in Muggle-relations, and he's sorry to have to leave it due to the war. Molly see Arthur as being stuck in a dead-end position and is thrilled when he's forced to move on. (This is part of the reason I see their marriage as hanging on by a string.) A perfect example of Arthur and Molly being anything but a team is the aftermath of the ton-tongue toffee prank in GoF. By the time Molly is through, Arthur's point is lost and the twins feel like their actions were fine. To my mind Molly was far too comfortable over-riding and dismissing her husband. (And Arthur was too accommodating, IMO.) > >>Jenni from Alabama: > She is human so she'll make mistakes, but she always tries > to do the right thing by her kids. She adores them, the twins too! Betsy Hp: Absolutely, Molly loves her children. Especially the twins (her favorites, I'd say). And I do think she tries to do the right thing. I just think she generally fails. Human, yes. But it's why I dislike the idea that she represents some sort of ideal mother. > >>Jenni from Alabama: > Molly loves her children, accepting their different personalities > and quirks but she also disciplines them. > Betsy Hp: See, I think Molly tries to force all of her children (or all her sons, anyway) into her one perfect mold. And she emotionally punishes them if they fail by withdrawing her approval. Which is a form of discipline, but not one I admire. The twins have managed to work around her system by being so loudly disobedient they demand her attention. Percy does his best to fulfill her expectations. But poor Ron, not wanting to suffer as Percy does from the twins, is left in a sort of no-mans land. He cannot please Molly without earning the wrath of the twins. But he can't please the twins without earning the wrath of his mother. So he keeps his head down and is subsequently ignored. Since Molly is the adult in this situation, I hold her responsible. > >>Jenni from Alabama: > She has a life, contributing to a wonderful cause! Though her > family is her top priority, she has other interests outside her > home. She lives her life, doesn't shut herself up in her little > Burrow. Betsy Hp: Really? I'vw always thought of Molly as very isolated. Hence her rather narrow view of the world. And her disappointment in her husband. > >>Jenni from Alabama: > Concerning the 'rift' - as far as Percy is concerned, I just have > this gut feeling that he isn't acting of his own free will at the > present time. I think he is being controlled by the Imperius Curse > by someone who has been placed inside the ministry by the DE's. > Betsy Hp: It's an interesting theory. But remember, Arthur threw Percy out. Percy didn't just up and walk away, he was asked to leave. I don't think the fight was something Percy could have predicted. Especially as he'd achieved exactly what his mother asked of him. > >>Jenni from Alabama: > Something happened during the summer after Crouch Sr. was killed. > Someone got to Percy and did SOMETHING to him. What I don't know, > but something happened. > Betsy Hp: Personally, I love the idea of Percy being Dumbledore's eyes and ears at the Ministry. Very little canon, though. But again, we have to remember that it was *Arthur* who started the fight. It was Arthur who made it impossible for Percy to stay. (Well, yes, Percy could have chosen to quit. That would have appeased Arthur. Which is highly bizarre considering that Arthur was asking Percy to leave an institution Arthur works for himself.) > >>Magpie: > > One of the interesting things about the HP-verse is that there > > really are no truly happy families--except the Potters who got > > that way by dying. Even the Weasleys currently have a painful > > rift going on--one that some people are happy to dismiss as just > > a cuckoo in the nest turning out to be a DE but which seems to me > > much more realistically described as pointing to some of the > > long-running flaws in the Weasley family. > > Betsy Hp: I'm betting there are worms under the Potter family rock too. It's just we've never had a chance to look at them. Not because of anything in the books, but I just don't think JKR is capable of writing a "perfect" or even just "truly happy" family. I think she's too cynical when it comes to families for that. (This is a gut call on my part. I obviously don't know JKR personally, but that's the sense I get from the books.) Betsy Hp From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Oct 17 21:38:29 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:38:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159866 Hickengruendler: Neri, I agree with you regarding the main points you made, therefore an apologize in advance, that I will come back to a comparatively minor point in your post. > Neri: > But most of all, at this point when Dumbledore hears the prophecy, he > has no way to know it's a true prophecy. He has already reached the > conclusion that Trelawney is a fraud. Hickengruendler: And yet he changed his decision and hired her on the spot, to bring her to Hogwarts, where she was. Therefore he might not have been sure, if it really was a true prophecy, but at the very least, he considered the possibility, and therefore I assume he would do almost everything to keep it's content a secret from Voldemort. > Mike again: > > Now, I invite anyone to answer this question: > > Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate" and erase any > memory of the prophesy from Snape? Hickengruendler: Because Snape simply disapparated? He might have been surprised by Aberforth catching him, and desperatly trying to hear the rest of the prophecy and to fight off Aberforth, did not do so at once, so that Dumbledore and Trelawney could see him as well. But after this he could have been disapparated any day. Or he simply ran away, before Dumbledore could do anything, and apparated from outside the pub. Sure, Dumbledore is strong, but he's not almighty. Bella managed to escape from his as well, so why not Snape? From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 17 22:18:38 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:18:38 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: <004e01c6f18c$7dde8b90$4766400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159867 > Magpie: > Well, we never hear that anyone tries to track down who might or might not > have been near the mead or the necklace, which is handily explained by the > fact that Dumbledore and Snape both are said to know who did it and be > trying to protect him. Trelawney doesn't know who pushed her out; Harry > assumes it's Draco based on the fact the whooping sounded more male than > female--if Draco was in the room later he might have just arrived. Pippin: Dumbledore said he would take all appropriate measures to investigate anyone who might have had a hand in Katie's accident. I know it's rather a novel suggestion, especially coming from me, but we could try taking him at his word. We know that Katie was questioned, because she said she didn't remember anything. We know that McGonagall was sure Draco couldn't have gotten the necklace into the castle. The Malfoy home was searched and Snape was told to make investigations in Slytherin. Somebody was sure as heck looking for evidence. > > > > Pippin: > And if there weren't > > such a right in the WW, then Umbridge could have had Harry imprisoned > > on suspicion without even bothering to set up the dementor attack, and > > Snape could have had Harry deprived of Quidditch in CoS for refusing to > > explain why he was in that corridor. > > Magpie: > Yes, the WW has rights and not when the plot allows, but you haven't > convinced me that this right is in any way driving Dumbledore's actions in > the story, so that had Harry simply told Dumbledore that Trelawney was > ejected from the room by some unknown person, Dumbledore would have > immediately arrested Malfoy. Pippin: JKR could have chosen any issue to split Harry off from the Ministry and emphasize his loyalty to Dumbledore. She chose civil rights. They drive Dumbledore's actions and Harry's decision to be Dumbledore's man. As far as I can see, Dumbledore is very interested in evidence. What he's not interested in is accusations made without it, and he's not interested in having Harry ignore his assigned tasks to indulge his obsession with Malfoy. Snape is in a far better position to keep tabs on Malfoy and Draco isn't likely to try crucio-ing him for it. I actually agree with you that Dumbledore's main objective is to show Draco that he's not a killer. What I disagree with is that there was such a great risk of Draco murdering someone that Dumbledore would have been justified in depriving Draco of his civil rights. He knew that Draco would not kill if he had a choice, since he didn't kill Harry when he had the chance. If Dumbledore showed by his actions that it's okay to imprison without due process then he'd be protecting people from the remote danger of Draco at the cost of bringing the Crouch-ists back to power, and quite frankly they scare me a lot more than Draco would even if he had managed to kill somebody. How many innocent people were killed by Crouch's aurors? Lots, I take it. I realize I am extrapolating a bit from the books, but so is Alla, IMO. Dumbledore said he did try to stop Draco. Alla, if I understand her correctly, doesn't really believe that and thinks he was bluffing because if he was trying to stop Draco he should have put him into protective custody. I was explaining the reason I don't think Dumbledore could do that -- it's one of the powers that he is too noble to use. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Oct 17 22:42:00 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:42:00 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159868 > > > > Alla: > > > > > > Actually, I would like **one** example in canon that shows that > > > Dumbledore has a history of knowing what is best? > > > > Pippin: > > He defeated Grindelwald. He removed the Stone from Gringotts > > before it could be stolen by Quirrell. He knew that Voldemort > > would return and was prepared to take action immediately. > > He knew that Hagrid was innocent in Riddle's day and saved him > > from Azkaban. He recognized that Sirius was innocent and could > > be saved if Harry and Hermione used the time turner. He recognized > > that Moody was a fake and rescued Harry. He realized that Kreacher > > was lying and rescued Harry and the other Order members. He fought > > Voldemort in the MoM and rescued Harry -- is that enough? > > Alla: > > Erm.... my question was where in canon it shows that Dumbledore **has > a history of knowing what is best**. > > So, let's go through your examples - he defeated Grimdewald, indeed - > if we will learn that he indeed did without hurting many people in > process that is indeed a good one. Pippin: Not hurting many people? Gandalf was ready to sacrifice the whole kingdom of Gondor, man, woman and child, if it meant even a seed survived the darkness. I can't quote the exact passage because my LOTR is packed, but he says something like "I shall not have wholly failed of my task, though Gondor should perish, if anything survives this darkness that can still grow fair or bear fruit in times to come." (apologies if I have mangled the quote.) Gandalf didn't recognize Saruman's treachery in time to save the children of Westfold, he insisted that Gollum not be killed, which resulted in the deaths of children in Mirkwood, he wouldn't let Merry and Pippin be sent back to the Shire to warn their people, leaving the Shirefolk to be beaten, starved and sometimes killed by Saruman's lackeys, he insisted that underage Pippin be allowed to join the Fellowship, and allowed him to swear allegiance to that maniac Denethor, and let *him* send his own son on a suicide mission. Oh, and as a general, Gandalf made very poor use of the Eagles, although to be fair Tolkien said they were spiritual powers, not a taxi service. My point is not to tear down Gandalf, but to show that you aren't going to make much progress in fighting evil if you're unwilling to let anyone get hurt. > Pippin: > > > > > Dumbledore may not have always acted as quickly as we would like, > > but he still acted before anybody else did. QED. > > > > Alla: > > He did not act quickly enough, when he and only he was in the > position to act IMO. That in my book translates in **not** having a > history of knowing what is best, at all. Pippin: We appear to have different definitions of 'best'. You haven't shown that anyone in the WW could have or has done half as much. Why is it he and only he was in a position to act? Because nobody else was alert to the danger and willing to take their head out of the sand and do something about it. Do you really think Harry would have been safer in Sirius's hands? I remind you that Sirius's first plan to protect Harry was the Secret Keeper Switch. His second plan was murdering Pettigrew, which would have put Sirius in Azkaban even if he'd succeeded. Even if Dumbledore was wrong about the blood protection and wrong about Snape, which I don't believe for a minute, he still wasn't *that* stupid. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Oct 17 22:44:54 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:44:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Snape turned Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159869 Carol I think it's most unlikely that Snape was looking for a teaching job at the time of the Prophecy whether he was a loyal DE or not. Mike could be right that it's a cover story (at least what DD told Trelawney after Snape actually became a teacher nearly two years later). It could be that Trelawney's memory is confused by time and cooking sherry. Nikkalmati: Hmmm, so DD gave Trelawney a fake story to explain why she saw SS at the Hogs Head? Sounds like collusion had already begun between SS and DD to give him a cover story. Hi Mike. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Oct 17 22:51:22 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:51:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] How about a twist? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159870 >Louis >Harry does get DD's pensieve and sees the argument between Snape >and Dumbledore at the edge of the woods and Snape is vindicated. The >argument was about how Snape being on the inside was more important than Dumbledore >living. Say Snape didn't want to carry out the deal and die via the unbreakable vow. In that >case does Harry hunt down Snape and come clean he now knows all and gets his help? >Wouldn't that be a >twist? Nikkalmati Just a theory. Something like that may happen, but I be somebody else figures it out and is working as an intermediary with SS to help Harry. Possibly Hermione, Lupin, McGonagall, even Dobby? Harry is horrified that he has been betrayed when he finds out. However, he has to admit eventually that SS is working for the good and accept his assistance. I have the hardest time featuring SS and LV together on the losing side against the Trio. That's a big reason I believe SS will help the Order defeat LV. Nikkalmati. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 22:48:02 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:48:02 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159871 > Pippin: > > I actually agree with you that Dumbledore's main objective is to > show Draco that he's not a killer. What I disagree with is that there > was such a great risk of Draco murdering someone that Dumbledore > would have been justified in depriving Draco of his civil rights. > He knew that Draco would not kill if he had a choice, since he > didn't kill Harry when he had the chance. a_svirn: Yet your assertion is somewhat at variance with the fact that Draco sent a bottle of poisoned firewhiskey to Slughorn. Which could have been fatal to any number of people (presumably Dumbledore does not drink whiskey alone), and nearly resulted in three deaths. One of those was only very narrowly averted. Not to mention the necklace plan, which was less likely to succeed, yet no less murderous in its intent. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 23:13:54 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:13:54 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159872 > J from A: > > Concerning the 'rift' - as far as Percy is concerned, I just have > > this gut feeling that he isn't acting of his own free will at the > > present time. I think he is being controlled by the Imperius Curse > > by someone who has been placed inside the ministry by the DE's. > > Magpie: > I believe JKR shot this theory down. > JK has also said other things that made us believe we were on the wrong path, then it turned out our suspicions were correct the first time. I think (though I hate to give up hating Snape's guts) that she tried to throw us a curve ball and have us think Snape is a bad guy when he's going to turn out somehow, someway on the Order's side. I stand by what I said before, something is really fishy about Percy's behavior - may not be Imperius Curse but something is up!! I really hope that you didn't think I was accusing you of anything in my posts. I was just giving my opinion. No, I don't think you thought Petunia was a good parent! Who could? If you got offended in the least, I apologize. That was not my intention, just putting in my two cents worth. I was also responding to some things that others had said. Sorry, should have cut and pasted those in there. I try not to hypothesize too awfully much about what will happen in the last book. I have a lot of theories, but we will just have to wait to see what happens - hopefully next year. Jenni from Alabama From jrbb96 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 22:47:37 2006 From: jrbb96 at yahoo.com (BECKY BROWN) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:47:37 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159873 > >>Jeff: >> Hi Everyone. I've been having my first discussion with another member, and we disagree on the seventh horcrux. She feels it is Nagini, and I cannot help but feel it is Harry's scar (because of the powers he got from Voldemort). << Becky Brown: Hi Jeff, I really don't think Harry is a horcrux. Voldemort was not able to destroy him because Harry's mother sacraficed herself for him. But if you think about it. It would provide JKR with a good way to end the series. With Harry killing Voldemort and then himself to keep him from coming back. Becky Brown From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 00:37:23 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:37:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159874 > > Neri: > > But most of all, at this point when Dumbledore hears the prophecy, > he > > has no way to know it's a true prophecy. He has already reached the > > conclusion that Trelawney is a fraud. > > Hickengruendler: > > And yet he changed his decision and hired her on the spot, to bring > her to Hogwarts, where she was. Therefore he might not have been > sure, if it really was a true prophecy, but at the very least, he > considered the possibility, and therefore I assume he would do almost > everything to keep it's content a secret from Voldemort. > Neri: Well, IIRC we don't really know that he changed his decision and hired her "on the spot". This decision may have taken him two weeks, or two days, or two hours, or just two minutes. The point is, it took him longer than it took Aberforth to "throw Snape out of the building" and Snape "hastening to tell his master". I can buy that. Dumbledore may have decided it's worth hiring Trelawney just to keep an eye on her. For all he knows she might be making a prophecy on the Dark Lord every evening, and he has no idea if they come true or not. Maybe just the ones she makes on Fridays do. Only months later, when Harry and Neville are indeed born in the end of July, Dumbledore has a real reason to think the prophecy is true. This is probably when Voldemort too decides to act on it. Neri From lesliehuffman at yahoo.com Tue Oct 17 23:44:19 2006 From: lesliehuffman at yahoo.com (Leslie Huffman) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:44:19 -0000 Subject: Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159875 > >>Katrina: > >> I think Mr. Weasley's reaction to Dudley (kindly pity) in Book 4 was another indicator of how we should feel for Dudley. > >> I think he's someone Dumbledore would feel sorry for, in the same way he feels sorry for Draco. Both spoiled children, but both lacking in the kind of love Mrs. Weasley gives her children, or the love that Lily presumably gave Harry. << > Leslie Huffman: Mrs. Weasley was always very good to Harry, better than his own family. That's her nature. Seems like she treated him as normally as she could, just like her own kids. Which is probably what Harry needed. Leslie Huffman From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 01:30:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:30:28 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ some Gandalf/Sirius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159876 > > Alla: > > > > Erm.... my question was where in canon it shows that Dumbledore **has > > a history of knowing what is best**. > > > > So, let's go through your examples - he defeated Grimdewald, indeed - > > if we will learn that he indeed did without hurting many people in > > process that is indeed a good one. > > Pippin: > Not hurting many people? > My point is not to tear down Gandalf, but to show that you > aren't going to make much progress in fighting evil if you're > unwilling to let anyone get hurt. Alla: Erm... thank you for examples of Gandalf not so good behaviour ( as far as I am concerned of course), I certainly forgot some of them, but when I said upthread that I do not feel the need to question Gandalf's behaviour ever, I did not mean that he always behaved well. I know, I know - I said that he behaved as good person would, but let me try to clarify again. I've been doing it a lot lately, unfortunately ;( I suppose that the correct thing to say would be that I never felt a need to question Gandalf's behaviour, because I always felt that he had a **right** to behave that way, the authority if you may. The answer why I felt that way is probably quite simple is that Gandalf is one of the divine beings, so even if he is hurting people, and I completely agree with you,even more so after you brought some examples I forgotten, he certainly did hurt many people, I always felt that this is still for the best. But it seems to me that many people want to have it both ways - Dumbledore makes mistakes, because he is not infallible, but when asking whether he has authority to behave that way, he suddenly becomes God-like ( not saying that you did, just replying in general) I suppose I should not have brought up Gandalf in the first place, because he is in my eyes unquestionably God like and Dumbledore is not. > > Pippin: > > > > > > > > Dumbledore may not have always acted as quickly as we would like, > > > but he still acted before anybody else did. QED. > > > > > > > Alla: > > > > He did not act quickly enough, when he and only he was in the > > position to act IMO. That in my book translates in **not** having a > > history of knowing what is best, at all. > > Pippin: > We appear to have different definitions of 'best'. You haven't > shown that anyone in the WW could have or has done half as much. Alla: Oh, yes, we certainly do have different definitions of what is best. Pippin: > Why is it he and only he was in a position to act? Because nobody > else was alert to the danger and willing to take their head out of > the sand and do something about it. Alla: Sorry, but No, not in my book of course. He and only he was in the position to act IMO because he took upon himself the positions of leadership and thus the acting in those multiple examples became primarily his responsibility ( excluding of course when he IMO assumed the responsibility that he should have stayed away from). He is the Headmaster of Hogwarts and the Leader of Order of Phoenix, so if say Minerva Mcgonagall or anybody else was the Headmistress, I would certainly say that to help Hagrid was her responsibility. I would also say that whoever was in charge of Hogwarts had a duty to not let DE kidnap and torture Harry, etc. If say, I don't know Remus Lupin was the Leader of the Order, it would be his responsibility first and foremost to organise resistance. With assuming positions of leadership comes responsibility, it became Dumbledore's when he agreed to lead and just as a_svirn does, I find it very telling that Dumbledore refused one position of leadership in which he could have been somehow accountable for what he did. Pippin: Do you really think Harry > would have been safer in Sirius's hands? I remind you that Sirius's > first plan to protect Harry was the Secret Keeper Switch. His > second plan was murdering Pettigrew, which would have put > Sirius in Azkaban even if he'd succeeded. Even if Dumbledore > was wrong about the blood protection and wrong about Snape, > which I don't believe for a minute, he still wasn't *that* stupid. Alla: Oh, I don't know if it turns out that Dumbledore's trust in Snape was wrong, and he trusted everything to a man, who murdered him, I'd say Dumbledore stupidity would be pretty big IMO. But whom do you compare Harry safety with Sirius to? If it is to Dumbledore's then my answer would be probably not, but Dumbledore did **not** raise Harry himself, didn't he? So, I really cannot make that comparison, but if you are asking whether Harry would have been safer with Sirius than with Dursleys? I don't know, but considering all that I saw, I certainly think that Sirius should have had that chance to try and Dumbledore contributed as far as I am concerned to taking this chance away from him. And again, if we are comparing Harry growing up with Sirius and Harry growing up with Dursleys, I do not see many signs that Harry would have been so much unsafer with him, and certainly more loved. As to stupidity of Sirius' plans, if Peter would not have turned a traitor, seemed like rather good plan to me. What ifs, what ifs. :) And certainly while I absolutely get that Harry saving Peter will play out at the end with Peter saving him somehow or something like that, I do think that murdering Peter could have also resulted in postponing Voldemort's resurrection, etc. So, not do not think it was that stupid, at all. But wait, we do have one instance in canon where we can certainly compare Dumbledore and Sirius' wisdon in regards to Harry, since they act in the same situation and Sirius turns out to know better what is best for Harry. Yeah, if you ask me Sirius if given a chance had quite a good potential of good guardian. He has plenty of flaws and I certainly think that he should not have gone after Peter in the beginning, but yeah, altogether I would choose Sirius hands down. Oh, just realised something else - there is another instance where Sirius may have turned out wiser than Dumbledore. I realise that you do not believe it for a minute, but since it is not disproven yet, I will keep my hopes for now. "Dumbledore thinks that you are reformed but I know better"" ( paraphrase) - hmmmmm, so I will hold off deciding that Dumbledore is not as stupid as Sirius. Sirius did lots of stupid things, as far as I am concerned, but as Dumbledore himself says because of his wisdom his mistakes are of much greater magnitude as well. ( paraphrase). JMO, alla From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 01:36:41 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:36:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159877 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > > > Mike previously: > > > > Problem #1: Dumbledore is allowing Snape (LV's spy) to tail him. > > > > Neri: > We don't know that Snape indeed tried to tail Dumbledore. I think > he was probably subtler than Dawlish. For all we know, Snape may > have just rented a room in the Hog's Head and applied for a post > at Hogwarts, exactly as Trelawney did. His mission seems to have > been long-term infiltration rather than tailing. Mike now: Well, I suppose it could all have been a coincidence, that's possible. But as far as Dawlish vs. Snape, Dawlish is a trained Auror, training that included stealth per Tonks. I would give his tailing ability the nod over a 20-year-old untrained Snape. > > Mike previously: > > Problem #3: Snape-the-DE is allowed to roam freely in the H.H. > > > > Neri: > Why do you assume that Dumbledore knows Snape is a DE at this > time? I doubt Voldemort would have sent Snape to spy at Hogwarts > in the first place if he had any reason to think Dumbledore > already knows what Snape is. Mike: I guess I have more confidence in Dumbledore's power of obvervation. He didn't seem to have any problem ascertaining that the fab four that followed Voldemort to the Hog's Head were DEs. He watched Snape for seven years (at least), we know he had at least one up close and personal talk with him following the werewolf caper. We see that he can identify the budding DE in Draco (he recognized Draco's tendencies in PS/SS and identified him as Harry's antagonist then). Do you doubt that Dumbledore is very much aware of Draco's DE leanings by year six? As well as who Draco hangs with and their tendencies. How about Lucius, Bella and the others when they were in school and who hung around with them (read: Snape)? Besides, the portrayal we get of Dumbledore throughout the book is one of almost omniscience, I can easily see Dumbledore identifying Snape. Or, more correctly, I would be astounded if Dumbledore had not made the connection, wouldn't you? As to Voldemort assigning Snape; 20 years before Voldemort openly walked into Hogwarts for a meeting with Dumbledore. I'm sure he is more secretive himself 20 years later, however many of his Death Eaters are operating in the open these days even though there may be suspicions about them. Also, like I said above, I think Dumbledore could easily determine where any other's loyalties lie and I believe Voldemort would be well aware of this ability. If Voldemort had to limit himself to who Dumbledore didn't suspect, well, the list would be extremely limited. Add on Legilimency and Dumbledore's wizarding prowess, I think you might have to concede this point. ****[This is extremely hard; to put aside what I believe happened, in order to put myself in your shoes, to then propose what might have happened in that scenario when I don't believe that happened in the first place!]**** > > Mike previously: > > > > Now, I invite anyone to answer this question: > > > > Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate" and erase > > any memory of the prophesy from Snape? > > > > Neri: > Dumbledore may not know at this point that Snape is a DE. Snape > has a good cover story for listening at the door: he is > interested in a post himself and looking for tips (it may even be > true, in the sense that he needed to get a post in order to > infiltrate into Hogwarts, and therefore indeed attempted to get > these tips). Mike: I refer you to Carol's post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159793 and my argument in the original post. I don't see Snape with a good cover story at all. > Neri: > This merits throwing out of the building, perhaps, > but not an Obliviate. Mike: Thrown from the building happened, in my scenario, as part of the Dumbledores' ruse. In the other scenario? I think anything the bartender wants to be offended at can get you thrown from the building. I get the impression patrons of the Hog's Head get treated slightly better than patrons of Borgin & Burkes. Besides, even Rosemerta throws someone out now and then. See below for the Obliviate. > Neri: > Dumbledore probably doesn't know at this point how much Snape had > managed to hear of the prophecy, if he had heard anything at all. > It is possible that only when Snape "turned", perhaps months or > even more than a year after that, he told Dumbledore what he had > heard. Mike: This has been thoroughly hashed over, I shant bore you again. Simply put, my theory does not rely on how much Snape heard. > Neri: > But most of all, at this point when Dumbledore hears the prophecy, > he has no way to know it's a true prophecy. He has already reached > the conclusion that Trelawney is a fraud. Mike: Ahh, but a 13 year old Harry recognized when Sibyll was not being Sibyll and cottoned on to her, that maybe, possibly, this was a real prophesy. I'm gonna guess that 10 times older Dumbledore might figure it out too. > Neri: > Her words don't include any information that he can verify at > this moment, except that he may know already (or not) that both > the Potters and the Longbottoms escaped Voldemort three times, > but this isn't much of a verification. Dumbledore may not even > know that Lily and/or Alice are pregnant, if they even *are* > already pregnant at this point. He surely doesn't know yet that > Neville and Harry are going to be born in the end of July. Mike: Snipping here to make a point. You are falling into the trap that JKR relies upon to keep us guessing, you're using the Harry-centric POV. At this point in time, Dumbledore neither knows nor cares to whom the prophesy might be referring. Leave this out of it and your argument is strengthened. > Neri: > So at this point the prophecy might be just worthless mumbo jumbo > to him. Dumbledore may think it's just not worth obliviating > someone who *might* be a DE because he *might* have heard some > part of something that *might* be important. Mike: Dumbledore thinks all prophesies are mumbo jumbo and illegitimate, isn't that the way you perceive his opinion of the whole field of Divination? I sure do. The problem with prophesies is always the "Macbeth syndrome", when someone who believes in the rot, acts on the rot. And this prophesy was about the Dark Lord. ****[( Arguing using the DD released scenario frame of mind)]**** ****[(i.e. not my belief, doing that thing I said above)]**** Dumbledore absolutely cannot allow this prophesy to see the light of day, if there is any chance that Voldemort might act on it. And knowing Tom Riddle as well as anyone, Dumbledore is quite sure that he *will* act on it. Of course hindsight, being 20/20, I could say that canon backs up this. I won't. I will only claim that Dumbledore would not have wanted the prophesy released, regardless to whom it referred. Dumbledore *must* stop Snape at all costs. (He can't let him go and hope to track him, must stop Aberforth before he throws him from the building. Too much at stake and Dumbledore would know it. ) Sixteen years later in the MoM, Dumbledore proved that he is still quick enough on his feet and in his mind to be able to react to a critical situation. I have no doubt that Dumbledore would feel that a prophesy about Voldemort, allowed to reach Voldemort, qualifies as a critical situation. Snape is under Aberforth's control, can't even defend himself. There is no reason for Dumbledore to not act proactively and preventively and Obliviate *any* piece of memory about the prophesy. (And, Occlumency is a defense against Legilimency. AFAWK and AFAMS {as far as makes sense} Occlumency does not work against an "Obliviate", setting aside whether a 20-year-old Snape could block Dumbledore. ) > Neri: > My question is: what is your alternative theory? Do you propose > that Dumbledore just hears the prophecy, and in few moments, > before even knowing when (or if) Harry is going to be born, > before knowing if and how Voldemort is going to mark Harry, > before knowing that James and Lily are going to be killed, before > knowing Lily's sacrifice will protect Harry, before knowing > Voldemort would become vapor, Dumbledore already has a plan that > includes telling Voldemort the first part of the prophecy? So > what was this plan??? Mike, pausing to admire Neri's wordsmithing abilities. Even when I argue against your point, I love your writing. I tip my hat, sir! ...... OK, back to work..... I'm not trying to pull a JKR, no really I'm not, but I am putting together a post that indirectly addresses this. I will say that I don't think Dumbledore had a true *plan* at this point in time, more of an oppurtunity that he decided to act on. I did say, in my main post, that I conceived of Dumbledore hitting Sibyll with a "Stupefy" before she regained her senses (and, no it doesn't hurt her. If you insist, a sleeping charm, how's that). This would give Albus, Aberforth and Snape time to plan their deception and give Albus *some* time to project this course of action into the future. I just finished arguing why Dumbledore wouldn't let Snape leave the Hog's Head with the prophesy in His Head, when my position is that Dumbledore was the one who orchestrated the prophesy release. Now it's your turn, Neri. You try arguing why Dumbledore would want the prophesy released, when you believe the opposite. > Neri: > If your theory is correct then Dumbledore's words "I cared more > for your happiness than your knowing the truth" are going to sound > extremely ironic, because he *wasn't* telling Harry the truth when > he said that. He was lying to him. But maybe this is what is > called "ironic juxtaposition"? Mike: Actually, I think this is Dumbledore admitting that he fell into the *trap* that he told himself he "must avoid". The "truth" he is referring to there is the prophesy, not who heard it or how. So maybe it's "bitter irony" that he ended up loving the boy he marked for a life of turmoil, before he was born. From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 18 01:50:17 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:50:17 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm In-Reply-To: <8o8bpr+hel8@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159878 Ms Macgoo wrote: > > Hallo everyone and loverly to met you all, now, down to bussness, can > anyone explain the joke in the wl charm - i've puzziling how Wizard > Baruffio finishes up with a Buffalo on his chest when there is no "f" > in Wingardiun Leviosa to misspronounce as a "s". > So how come ? [HP1 page 126 UK Ed] > > This has probably been discussed a number oftimes, just that I > haven't come across it. > > would love to know. Secca adds: (I hope this doesn't double post, as I just wrote a reply, and it seems either my computer or yahoo ate it, but I'm almost certain it did not go through. Just in case, I'll keep it short.. Some websites claim that this is a typo. That what was meant to be written was "Said F instead of S" ... which means 'Wingardium Leviofa' would conjure a buffalo... This idea doesn't make sense to me. Nor do any others I've heard. I decided it might be a personal joke of Jo's, maybe some kind of bi- lingual pun. I tried Latin... Nothing I could make work. Then tried Portuguese... nothing I could find other than this: "No assoalho com um b?falo em sua caixa." Which is Portuguese for "On the floor with a buffalo on his chest". I don't think this has *anything* to do with what Flitwick said, but it did make me laugh. Then I came up with the following silliness: Wizard Baruffio sounds Italian. I know that a 'compass' in Italian is called a 'bussola'. One day Baruffio, after having a bit too much red wine, gets lost. He decides to summon his compass. "Accio Barussio's Bu-falo"... From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 02:24:59 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:24:59 -0000 Subject: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159879 > Eddie: > I'm wondering why would Snape, upon seeing the battle, not join in? > Why would Snape even think that he should go up ONTO the top of the > tower? I may be wrong, but I don't recall any evidence that was > available/visible to Snape to indicate that the top of the tower was > important in any way. zgirnius: I gather that the Death Eaters were defending the foot of the tower stairs.. The Order members who describe the battle to Harry refer to Death Eaters going up and down those stairs, suggesting they control the access to the Tower. The voices Harry hears while onthe Tower, of Order members, sound like they are trying to get up the stairs. Another reason for Snape to suppose that something is happening up the stairs. This would make joining the battle a mistake. Unliek the others, he has a chance of getting up there without a fight, if he does not reveal his loyalties immediately by fighting one of the others. If he simply runs up the stairs, there is a good chance the other Death Eaters will accept that he is one of them and not stop him. (As in fact happened). From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 02:01:31 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:01:31 -0000 Subject: Molly and Harry (was:Respecting the Dursleys...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159880 > >>Leslie Huffman: > Mrs. Weasley was always very good to Harry, better than his own > family. That's her nature. Seems like she treated him as normally > as she could, just like her own kids. Which is probably what Harry > needed. Betsy Hp: I do agree that Molly treats Harry better than the Dursleys. But I don't think she treats Harry as one of her own. Actually, I think Molly sets Harry up as an honored guest right from the get go. Not that this is a bad thing. I don't think Harry was looking to be treated exactly like an extra Weasley. He's never as comfortable around Molly as her children are. So I don't think he'd appreciate being treated like one of them. Betsy Hp From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Oct 18 02:41:10 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:41:10 EDT Subject: The Diary Message-ID: <4bd.3bb184d.3266ee46@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159881 >Carol >IMO, he created those first two Horcruxes at about the same time, >after graduation but before he killed Hepzibah Smith and escaped from >England, probably because his changed appearance from the two new >Horcruxes made it impossible to return to B&B (or because he had no >more use for them). I don't think sophistication has anything to do >with it. If you can create a Horcrux, you can add a terrible >protective curse like the one on the ring if you want to. In the case >of the diary, he didn't want to. It had to be used for its original >purpose as well as for housing the soul bit, and it could not be >hidden or locked away or protected by a curse because the person it >interacted with had to write in it. Nikkalmati I've been wondering, where was the diary after LV left Hogwarts? Did he take it with him or hide it there? He apparently gave it to Lucius before the Godric's Hollow disaster (maybe the same time he gave Mrs. Lestrange the Slytherin necklace). While he was wandering the world he could have had it with him, but who did he think would use it to open the Chamber? Possibly, he had given up that idea entirely, but he would have wanted to keep it safe after it became a Horcrux. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Oct 18 02:33:51 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:33:51 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159882 > Nikkallmati: > I assume this is a play on the wizard's own name, not on the spell he used. Eddie: Maybe Baruffio needs a spelling spell. :-) Sigh, Eddie From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 02:43:02 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:43:02 -0000 Subject: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159883 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > Carol > > I think it's most unlikely that Snape was looking for a teaching job > at the time of the Prophecy whether he was a loyal DE or not. Mike > could be right that it's a cover story (at least what DD told > Trelawney after Snape actually became a teacher nearly two years > later). It could be that Trelawney's memory is confused by time and > cooking sherry. > > > Nikkalmati: > Hmmm, so DD gave Trelawney a fake story to explain why she saw SS at the > Hogs Head? Sounds like collusion had already begun between SS and DD to give him > a cover story. Hi Mike. > Nikkalmati > zgirnius: Personally, I do not think Trelawney ever approached Snape to ask why he was listening at the door during her job interview. And she certainly could not have asked Dumbledore at the time, since he would not have known the answer, one (certainly Trelawney ought to) presumes. So how does she know? I think, when Snape ended up one of her colleagues something like 2 years later, she drew her own conclusion, which is not necessarily correct. From unicornspride at centurytel.net Wed Oct 18 03:20:23 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:20:23 -0500 Subject: Snape References: Message-ID: <002901c6f264$5961c970$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 159884 Hi, Are we even sure at this point if Snape is even on DD's side? Is it possible that he has just been "pretending" to be good. With all the things that have happened ( leading up to and including the battle), is it possible that Snape really did kill DD out of hatred for him? Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 18 03:30:22 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:30:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books) References: Message-ID: <008101c6f265$d8a63df0$3c7e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159885 J: > JK has also said other things that made us believe we were on the > wrong path, then it turned out our suspicions were correct the first > time. I think (though I hate to give up hating Snape's guts) that > she tried to throw us a curve ball and have us think Snape is a bad > guy when he's going to turn out somehow, someway on the Order's side. Magpie: She has said things that throw us off, but I honestly don't think she's ever outright lied. I believe she was asked if Percy was under Imperius and she said he was responsible for all his behavior. Jenni from Alabama: > I stand by what I said before, something is really fishy about > Percy's behavior - may not be Imperius Curse but something is up!! Magpie: Really? That's interesting, because to me it just seems very believable the way he's acting. Though I'd certainly be open to anything in that vein. What seems fishy about it to you? (I'm sure there's probably a theory out there that agrees with you!) Jenni from Alabama: > I really hope that you didn't think I was accusing you of anything > in my posts. I was just giving my opinion. No, I don't think you > thought Petunia was a good parent! Who could? If you got offended in > the least, I apologize. Magpie: Oh no, not at all. No problem.:-) Jenni from Alabama: > I try not to hypothesize too awfully much about what will happen in > the last book. I have a lot of theories, but we will just have to > wait to see what happens - hopefully next year. Magpie: Me neither. I have no confidence whatsoever in my abilities to say what will happen. Sometimes I'll hit something on the nose--but I figure it's that "even a broken clock is right twice a day" thing. I just like looking at what's happened already! -m From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 18 03:30:20 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:30:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of References: Message-ID: <008001c6f265$d6902f30$3c7e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 159886 Pippin: > > Dumbledore said he would take all appropriate measures to investigate > anyone who might have had a hand in Katie's accident. I know it's rather > a novel suggestion, especially coming from me, but we could try taking > him at his word. Magpie: I am taking him at his word.:-) At the end of the book he says he knows what Draco's been doing all year and had been trying to stop him--through Professor Snape. He does investigate--but not to find evidence to take Draco in, imo. Pippin: > We know that Katie was questioned, because she said she didn't remember > anything. We know that McGonagall was sure Draco couldn't have gotten > the necklace into the castle. The Malfoy home was searched and Snape > was told to make investigations in Slytherin. Somebody was sure as > heck looking for evidence. Magpie: I believe the Malfoy home was searched by Arthur because Harry told him Malfoy was up to something early in the year, wasn't it? We know Dumbledore was on the case of Malfoy in general--we do not know that he was mostly looking for evidence of who was behind these acts and if he thinks it's Draco he still doesn't have evidence--when Harry suggests some clues Dumbledore seemed to always respond that Harry shouldn't bring him this sort of thing. At the end of the story he says he knows what Draco has been doing and had Snape on it. > Pippin: > JKR could have chosen any issue to split Harry off from the Ministry and > emphasize his loyalty to Dumbledore. She chose civil rights. They drive > Dumbledore's actions and Harry's decision to be Dumbledore's man. > As far as I can see, Dumbledore is very interested in evidence. Magpie: I honestly don't remember anything in HBP that indicated that the thrust of the Dumbledore/Malfoy storyline is Dumbledore not believing that Draco is doing anything and searching for evidence before he accused him or acted. I thought Dumbledore's motivation with Malfoy was that he knew he was trying to kill him and was trying to protect him and ultimately get him to change sides, which he did.When Harry tried to tell him Malfoy was up to something I didn't get the feeling DD was disappointed Harry didn't consider Draco innocent until he had proof he was guilty. I thought he really did know more about it than Harry did. Pippin: What > he's not interested in is accusations made without it, and he's not > interested in having Harry ignore his assigned tasks to indulge his > obsession with Malfoy. Snape is in a far better position to keep > tabs on Malfoy and Draco isn't likely to try crucio-ing him for it. Magpie: I honestly don't remember Dumbledore ever seeming annoyed by Harry's making accusations without evidence. He seemed to just be trying to get Harry to back off because he knew what was going on and didn't want Harry involved--and also wanted Harry to concentrate on the Horcrux hunt. He wanted Snape to handle it not just because he was less of a loose cannon than Harry, but because Snape, like Dumbledore, was watching Draco to protect him and stop any murder attempts, not get evidence to bring him in. I think he would have still wanted to concentrate on the Horcrux Hunt that final night if Harry had told him that the unknown person who whooped in the RoR also pushed Trelawney out of it. Pippin:> > I actually agree with you that Dumbledore's main objective is to > show Draco that he's not a killer. What I disagree with is that there > was such a great risk of Draco murdering someone that Dumbledore > would have been justified in depriving Draco of his civil rights. Magpie: That particular argument isn't actually mine. I do think, though, that clearly there was a rather large risk of Draco's murdering someone. Two people almost do get murdered, so it can't really be said to not be a risk at all. Pippin: > He knew that Draco would not kill if he had a choice, since he > didn't kill Harry when he had the chance. > > If Dumbledore showed by his actions that it's okay to imprison > without due process then he'd be protecting people from the > remote danger of Draco at the cost of bringing the Crouch-ists > back to power, and quite frankly they scare me a lot more than > Draco would even if he had managed to kill somebody. How > many innocent people were killed by Crouch's aurors? Lots, > I take it. Magpie: Right, but he almost killed Ron and Katie by accident, which I assume is what Alla means in considering him a danger. I agree that protecting civil rights is very important--I'm definitely on the side of not imprisoning etc without evidence. I just don't see any indication that that's what's holding Dumbledore back in the book. One of the main things that struck me as kind of hilariously missing in HBP was any major investigation. The two almost-murders don't seem to be much interest to anybody. The only reference to an investigation we hear of besides Harry is Hagrid's claim that Dumbledore surely must be investigating and just not know who done it yet--which I think is ultimately proved to be inaccurate. Since there's no official investigation, it seems like Dumbledore's already working around official law to me. Pippin:> > I realize I am extrapolating a bit from the books, but so is Alla, > IMO. Dumbledore said he did try to stop Draco. Alla, if I understand > her correctly, doesn't really believe that and thinks he was bluffing > because if he was trying to stop Draco he should have put him > into protective custody. I was explaining the reason I don't think > Dumbledore could do that -- it's one of the powers that he is > too noble to use. Magpie: Oh--well there I do agree. I think Dumbledore was trying to stop Draco through Snape--I agree he had good reason for not wanting to just lock him up, and those reasons do go back to his views on people choosing, and believing in personal freedom. A form of that comes up on the Tower, I think, when Dumbledore says that Voldemort would assume that Dumbledore would actually kill Draco to protect himself or others, or to remove him as a threat. It's the same idea, I think--Voldemort treats people like objects and Dumbledore wants to treat them like individual people. Voldemort remove enemies or force them into his service, Dumbledore tries to genuinely turn them. I do see a danger in Dumbledore acting by just saying, "Oh, we all know this kid's a DE so I'm just going to lock him up." I just agree with Alla that in not doing that Dumbledore knew that he was taking a serious risk, especially once Katie was hurt. He tried to minimize the risk by getting Snape to watch Draco, but I think the fear on Snape's face at the Xmas party was a sign that that wasn't going to cover it. -m From amis917 at hotmail.com Wed Oct 18 04:05:20 2006 From: amis917 at hotmail.com (Amie) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 04:05:20 -0000 Subject: Ginny Wesley and Dumbledore's Frog Cards Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159888 Secca: Jo said somewhere in an interview that she was playing off the old "seventh son of a seventh son" myth... Ginny is the first female in a while in the Weasley family, and is the seventh daughter... Random832: I don't recall the other six Weasley sisters, so ITYM seventh child. And Arthur and Molly aren'th the seventh anything - we know each had only two brothers (well, I suppose we don't _know_ Molly didn't have more, but JKR's said Arthur didn't) and we don't know relative ages. Secca again: JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that old traditionvof the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a seventh son, so that's why she's the seventh, Random832: Well, apart from being in fact the first daughter, those old traditions don't, as far as i can tell, include anything about the seventh son/daughter/child of someone who was not a seventh whatever him/herself. Amie now: Well, regardless of what the old traditions are, the only the that matters is was JRK thinks they are. She seems to have a habit of twisting traditions to fit her particular needs. I think that it's a good plot device, but it also means that we can't take the traditions at was we percieve to be their face value. As in the JKR interview that Secca quoted (which can be found here - http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm) JKR says all of the seventh/son/daughter stuff because "[Ginny] is a gifted witch". She goes on to say that we've seen glimpses of this and will see more in the future. This would lead me to believe that Ginny will indeed play a greater role in Book 7. So, while *all* of the instances of seven in the book may not be meningful (some I think have been quite a stretch), this one will turn out to be. On a completely different and unrelated note - There has been some discussion about Dumbledore's portriats and the use of the Chocolate Frog Cards. While I think that the portriats will turn out to be useful (specifically because they could be everhwere) I think the frog cards will not be. The whole usefulness of the portriats comes from their ability to talk. When in cannon have we seen the cards talk? I mean, he could write a note - or start performing sign language - but I'm not sure the Dumbledore on the cards will start chatting it up with Harry (or anyone else) any time soon. -Amie, hoping I don't have too many typos and have spoken in a way that makes sense because it's past my bedtime and frankly, I'm tired. From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Oct 18 04:09:06 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:09:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: <008001c6f265$d6902f30$3c7e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159889 Pippin: What > he's not interested in is accusations made without it, and he's not > interested in having Harry ignore his assigned tasks to indulge his > obsession with Malfoy. Snape is in a far better position to keep > tabs on Malfoy and Draco isn't likely to try crucio-ing him for it. Sherry now: Really? Sirius Black might not quite agree with that idea, if he was alive to give an opinion. After all, Dumbledore sure didn't go looking for the truth on his behalf. He gave Draco Malfoy a hell of a lot more room and freedom and chances than he gave Sirius. Sherry From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 04:24:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 04:24:55 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Dumbledore as civl rights defender In-Reply-To: <008001c6f265$d6902f30$3c7e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159890 > Magpie: > Right, but he almost killed Ron and Katie by accident, which I assume is > what Alla means in considering him a danger. Alla: Yes :) Magpie: I agree that protecting civil > rights is very important--I'm definitely on the side of not imprisoning etc > without evidence. I just don't see any indication that that's what's holding > Dumbledore back in the book. Alla: Yeah, me too, absolutely and if I had seen this analogy in Dumbledore and Draco story, I would have certainly said Bravo Dumbledore. But what I do see is Dumbledore giving Draco second chance, civil rights or not and everything else is pretty much secondary, even the lifes of the students. Oh, and about Dumbledore and civil rights analogies - frankly, not so sure about that. I mean, second chances and all are great, but I think it is a bit different theme tham civil rights champion. I was watching news today about signing a law on tougher interrogation ( Grrrr, gives me such creeps that law) and was strongly reminded for some reason of Dumbledore kicking Young Barty. Um, I hate Barty dear, but this Dumbledore I thought comes off rather like as giving in his rage of not figuring out earlier who Barty is, then civil rights supporter and not kicking the suspect when he is already down. Sigh. Magpie: One of the main things that struck me as kind > of hilariously missing in HBP was any major investigation. Since there's no > official investigation, it seems like Dumbledore's already working around > official law to me. Alla: Precisely, YES, YES. I see Dumbledore throughout the books as showing huge contempt for the law, and don't get me wrong often in the books that laws of WW do deserve that, but Dumbledore as looking for evidence ? I just do not see it. JMO, Alla From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 18 04:22:34 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 04:22:34 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610170419i3573decaicc3801a0be8215a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159891 random832 wrote: > Secca again: > > JKR: The backstory with Ginny was, she was the first girl to arrive > > in the Weasley family in generations, but there's that old tradition > > of the seventh daughter of a seventh daughter and a seventh son of a > > seventh son, so that's why she's the seventh, > > Well, apart from being in fact the first daughter, those old > traditions don't, as far as i can tell, include anything about the > seventh son/daughter/child of someone who was not a seventh whatever > him/herself. Secca replies: Well, this is Jo's world being discussed, and her quote... So when she said this, I took it that *she* meant 'seventh child of a seventh child'... being a very modern and Politically Correct interpretation of the old wives tale (Which, BTW, is *not* how I personally feel the addage was meant 'back in the day'.) This infers, in my opinion, that Jo must feel Molly Prewitt was also a seventh child. There is nothing in Canon that specifically precludes this possibility. Back to topic: I also have never put much store by the number seven in the books. 7 and 12 are reputed to be magical numbers, historically. So Jo has used them many times in her own 'magical' works... Now 17 Sickles to a Galleon, and 29 knuts to a sickle; Here we have a different story! This implies that Wizard!Math is base(439) rather than base(10); which implies that a midget wearing glasses is being born... (The Seventh Son?) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 18 06:35:34 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:35:34 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159892 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "secca_pk" wrote: Secca: > Back to topic: > I also have never put much store by the number seven in the books. 7 > and 12 are reputed to be magical numbers, historically. So Jo has used > them many times in her own 'magical' works... > > Now 17 Sickles to a Galleon, and 29 knuts to a sickle; Here we have a > different story! This implies that Wizard!Math is base(439) rather than > base(10); which implies that a midget wearing glasses is being born... > (The Seventh Son?) Geoff: Just to avoid any confusion, I /think/ you mean that Wizard!Maths is base 493. Geoff (retired Maths teacher) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 06:49:52 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:49:52 -0000 Subject: Molly and Harry - Treated Like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159893 --- "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Leslie Huffman: > > Mrs. Weasley was always very good to Harry, better > > than his own family. That's her nature. Seems like > > she treated him as normally as she could, just like > > her own kids. Which is probably what Harry needed. > > Betsy Hp: > I do agree that Molly treats Harry better than the > Dursleys. But I don't think she treats Harry as one of > her own. Actually, I think Molly sets Harry up as an > honored guest right from the get go. Not that this is > a bad thing. I don't think Harry was looking to be > treated exactly like an extra Weasley. He's never as > comfortable around Molly as her children are. So I > don't think he'd appreciate being treated like one of > them. > > Betsy Hp > bboyminn: Oddly, while I agree with you on general principle, I can't agree with your last sentence. I even wrote a fan fiction expressing exactly the opposite view. Molly does treat Harry as a guest. She makes him breakfast in bed, doesn't require him to do chores, although she does seem to extend an expectation of reasonable social behavior. In other words, she expects him to be a polite and considerate guest. Though as we all have seen, she certainly has no worries about this from Harry. Now, my fan fiction, though it is not directly relevant, can still serve as an illustration of my point. The story revolves around Harry not having any real family or connection to anyone. In this sense, he envies Ron. I'll skip the details, but it ends with Molly scolding Harry, and rather than being shocked or put off, Harry is very touched by it. It is a signal to him that he REALLY IS home, that he really is with family. Molly runs 'a very tight ship', but I think most of her kids know that, for the most part, it is bluster. Seldom do the tellings-off every come with any real punishment. When there IS punishment, it is usually of the firm-but-fair variety. Most kids, once they have grown older, typically say they wish their parents were more strict. I think Molly works hard to keep her crew on the straight and narrow, and she does her best, within her means, to reward success. I don't know, but that sounds like good parenting to me. So, I think of Molly suddenly treated Harry 'like one of the family', Harry would be very touched by it. It would instill in him a true sense of belonging, which I think is very important to Harry, or at least will be. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From random832 at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 11:20:55 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 07:20:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sevens. In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50610170419i3573decaicc3801a0be8215a2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610180420h2155889dwd449d8d8b2c608bf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159894 > Secca replies: > Well, this is Jo's world being discussed, and her quote... So when she > said this, I took it that *she* meant 'seventh child of a seventh > child'... being a very modern and Politically Correct interpretation of > the old wives tale (Which, BTW, is *not* how I personally feel the > addage was meant 'back in the day'.) I don't see how there's anything non-politically-correct in the first place about "seventh [of a particular gender] child of a seventh [of the same gender] child", which is essentially how it actually goes. There's no inequality in that. > This infers, in my opinion, that Jo must feel Molly Prewitt was also a > seventh child. There is nothing in Canon that specifically precludes > this possibility. Wouldn't she have said something, then? At least mentioned siblings other than Gideon and Fabian? > Now 17 Sickles to a Galleon, and 29 knuts to a sickle; Here we have a > different story! This implies that Wizard!Math is base(439) No more than British!Math is base 240. > which implies that a midget wearing glasses is being born... True or false, I don't see how anything follows from it being base 439 -- Random832 From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 12:39:54 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:39:54 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Dumbledore as civl rights defender In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159895 > > Magpie: > > Right, but he almost killed Ron and Katie by accident, which I > assume is > > what Alla means in considering him a danger. > > Alla: > > Yes :) a_svirn: Actually, it wasn't "by accident". It was very much "by design". Certainly Katie and Ron weren't Draco's primarily targets, yet he knew his plans could prove fatal to any number of innocent bystanders. Knew it and went for it nonetheless. It's no different from a terrorist attack. For instance, in Brighton hotel bombing Thatcher survived, but five people died. I don't think you can call their death "accidental". Same thing here. Just because Draco's murder attempts weren't particularly discriminative it doesn't make them less premeditated. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Oct 18 12:57:44 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:57:44 -0000 Subject: Molly and Harry (was:Respecting the Dursleys...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Leslie Huffman: > > Mrs. Weasley was always very good to Harry, better than his own > > family. > Betsy Hp: > I do agree that Molly treats Harry better than the Dursleys. But I > don't think she treats Harry as one of her own. Tesha: I think she treats Harry with respect and kindness. She knows what he's gone through, and wants to give him a little peace. She makes him sweaters and fudge, gives him a kiss and {perhaps} let's him feel almost normal. Just think of what he's gone through, the ups and downs. The calmness he finds in her must be wonderful for him. Now if she just didn't scream so loudly at her own bunch! From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 13:23:30 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:23:30 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: References: <537.9075778.32644cbb@aol.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610180623x1eeccaebq67b3b7c490a25b0d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159897 > > Carol: > >Big snip< >I think it's most unlikely that Snape was looking for a teaching job >at the time of the Prophecy whether he was a loyal DE or not. montims: Wonderful timeline, and I admire everybody's piecing together of events, but I have been led off on to one of my digressions. From Snape leaving Hogwarts to his taking the teaching job some 3 or 4 years pass - I wonder what he was doing - I can't imagine him working in a shop or in the Ministry, but equally I imagine he couldn't afford to be unemployed. I know (or believe) that there is nothing in canon, but can anyone speculate? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 13:22:26 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:22:26 -0000 Subject: Molly and Harry - Treated Like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159898 > bboyminn: > > Oddly, while I agree with you on general principle, I > can't agree with your last sentence. I even wrote a fan > fiction expressing exactly the opposite view. Molly does > treat Harry as a guest. She makes him breakfast in bed, > doesn't require him to do chores, although she does seem > to extend an expectation of reasonable social behavior. > In other words, she expects him to be a polite and > considerate guest. Though as we all have seen, she > certainly has no worries about this from Harry. > > Now, my fan fiction, though it is not directly relevant, > can still serve as an illustration of my point. The story > revolves around Harry not having any real family or > connection to anyone. In this sense, he envies Ron. I'll > skip the details, but it ends with Molly scolding Harry, > and rather than being shocked or put off, Harry is very > touched by it. It is a signal to him that he REALLY IS > home, that he really is with family. > > Molly runs 'a very tight ship', but I think most of her > kids know that, for the most part, it is bluster. Seldom > do the tellings-off every come with any real punishment. > When there IS punishment, it is usually of the > firm-but-fair variety. > > Most kids, once they have grown older, typically say they > wish their parents were more strict. I think Molly works > hard to keep her crew on the straight and narrow, and she > does her best, within her means, to reward success. I don't > know, but that sounds like good parenting to me. > > So, I think of Molly suddenly treated Harry 'like one of the > family', Harry would be very touched by it. It would instill > in him a true sense of belonging, which I think is very > important to Harry, or at least will be. I think the reason Molly doesn't have Harry doing chores is because she knows that he has been treated so badly at the Dursleys, she sort of pampers him a bit. She feels maybe that she can undo the bad stuff that's been done with a lot of spoiling, I guess. It's like buying your daughter a tub of ice cream after her boyfriend breaks up with her and letting her sleep till noon and doing her chores for her that week. Just something a mom would do. I think Harry eats it up, drinks it in. She's the closest thing he's ever known to a mother. And I firmly believe he would love the chance to be a part of the family. All the Weasleys would welcome him in with open arms. They already do treat him like family in many ways. Before the final task in the Goblet of Fire, Molly and Bill surprise Harry by being in the chamber reserved only for family members of the champions. They spend the day with Harry touring Hogwarts before the last task begins. When Sirius and Molly argue about telling Harry what is going on with Voldemort at Grimmauld Place in the Order of the Pheonix, Molly answers back after being told that Harry is not her son that he's as good as hers. Sirius had been Harry's father figure, Dumbledore like a grandfather figure to him, Molly is like a mother, Hermione like a sister and Ron like a brother. Harry also has Lupin, Author, Tonks, Charlie, Bill and the twins. They've all been by his side during the best and the worst times of his life. I'd say Harry does have family ;-) Jenni from Alabama From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 18 14:16:17 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:16:17 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159900 > a_svirn: > Actually, it wasn't "by accident". It was very much "by design". > Certainly Katie and Ron weren't Draco's primarily targets, yet he knew > his plans could prove fatal to any number of innocent bystanders. Knew > it and went for it nonetheless. It's no different from a terrorist > attack. For instance, in Brighton hotel bombing Thatcher survived, but > five people died. I don't think you can call their death "accidental". > Same thing here. Just because Draco's murder attempts weren't > particularly discriminative it doesn't make them less premeditated. Magpie: Sorry--yes, that's true. I was using "accident" in response to the idea that Dumbledore might have assumed that he was the only person in danger because he was the one Draco was targetting. But absolutely the deadliness of the mead and necklace were both intentional--which is why there is a real danger of Draco hurting or killing someone as long as he's doing this. Ironically, as far as I can see what keeps Draco from killing anyone else the way he almost killed Ron and Katie isn't Dumbledore's or Snape's precautions at all, but the fact that Draco doesn't try any more stunts like that. So he's batting two for two up until the cabinet--two murder attempts and two near-deaths. Their surveillance seems to be fairly useless. The only time we see it having any effect is when Draco is unable to work on the Cabinet the night of the Christmas party (we assume). Steve: So, I think of Molly suddenly treated Harry 'like one of the family', Harry would be very touched by it. It would instill in him a true sense of belonging, which I think is very important to Harry, or at least will be. Magpie: While I think Harry has it in him to appreciate that Molly's scolding would be like treating him like family, I think he's shown in canon to take advantage of his role as not family just as much and not really have a problem with not belonging in that way. He does not recognize Molly's authority as a mother over himself and if she tried asserting it Harry would reject it in no uncertain terms, imo. Actually, I don't really think he's all that desirous of belonging to the Weasleys to that extent. I mean, he loves them for what they are and is touched when they are thoughtful in including him and show they care about them. But I don't think he feels there's something missing because he's not one of the kids. He's aware that the line drawn between actual family and not is drawn on both sides. He sees a clear difference in the way he reacts to Arthur's attack in OotP and the way his children do, for instance. He doesn't think of Molly as his mother, he thinks of her as Mrs. Weasley--his only mother is his mother. If there was any person he really thought of as family in a positive way it was Sirius. Other people in his life are certainly like family in being a constant support system he counts on, but Harry doesn't seem to need for them to be more than that, imo. I thought he saws Sirius as family because of his official status as appointed godfather by his parents. -m From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 17:04:41 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:04:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159901 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > Mike previously: > > > > Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate" and erase > > any memory of the prophesy from Snape? > > Hickengruendler: > > Because Snape simply disapparated? He might have been surprised > by Aberforth catching him, and desperatly trying to hear the rest > of the prophecy and to fight off Aberforth, did not do so at once, > so that Dumbledore and Trelawney could see him as well. But after > this he could have been disapparated any day. Or he simply ran > away, before Dumbledore could do anything, and apparated from > outside the pub. Sure, Dumbledore is strong, but he's not almighty. > Bella managed to escape from his as well, so why not Snape? Mike now: Snape disapparating is not what happened, according to Dumbledore. Dumbledore told Harry he was "thrown from the building". If you take any other position than the one that Dumbledore used for his version of events, you have made my point for me, i.e. Dumbledore Lied to Harry. **That** is the entire basis of my position. If what *really* happened is in any way different from what Dumbledore *said* happened, ipso facto Dumbledore is lying. Then, we must assume that Dumbledore is lying to hide something. As far as Bella; She deflected Dumbledore's spell as she was running out the door. Snape was collared by Aberforth, not in any position to defend himself or make his escape. Besides, don't make the mistake that just because Bella is a fanatic that she isn't also a powerful witch. I read her as both, the worst combination (or best if you are Voldemort). Mike From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Oct 18 17:32:52 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:32:52 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: <002901c6f264$5961c970$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159902 > Lana: > Are we even sure at this point if Snape is even on DD's side? > Is it possible that he has just been "pretending" to be good. > With all the things that have happened ( leading up to and > including the battle), is it possible that Snape really did kill > DD out of hatred for him? Eddie: Speaking for myself, I'm _SURE_ of very little. An A-Number-One mystery to be resolved in Book 7 is the true nature of Snape. But _IF_ Snape is essentially evil, or at least essentially NOT on Dumbledore's side, then I have lots of questions about his behavior. Here's the main question: Why not grab Harry and take him to Voldemort any number of times he could have? Surely that is worth more to Voldemort than maintaining Snape's spy status? Even if maintaining spy status is more important, surely _THAT'S_ been blown by the end of HBP. Why parry and dual with Harry during the flight for the front gates? Why continue to _TEACH_ Harry? (paraphrased quote: "Again and again until learn to close your mind and keep your mouth shut!") I've come to believe that Snape is a conflicted, tormented, person. He's perhaps the most 3-dimensional character in the whole series. He is attracted to the power of the Dark Arts and Voldemort, but he's horrified by it as well. Dumbledore holds the Defense Against the Dark Arts (DADA) job from Snape so Snape won't be lured by the dark side. Otherwise it would be like asking an alcoholic to be a bartender. On these points I think I'm reasonably supported by canon. Less well supported by canon, but (in my mind) consistent with my above analysis: * Snape loves/hates Lily (admires her Potions skill plus she was probably one of the few people at Hogwarts who was somewhat kind to him, but then she went and married his worst enemy, James) * Snape loves/hates Dumbledore (admires his skills and position plus he represents the enlightened side of magic, but then Dumbledore went and helped Sirius escape right from under his (Snape's) nose). Did Snape kill Dumbledore out of hate? Yes, and no. Maybe out of love/hate. * Snape loves/hates Harry on sight (loves his eyes (Lily's eyes) and hates Harry's hair (James' hair). OK, that's pretty lame, but I was reaching for a third example) In the end, I believe Snape will help overthrow Voldemort, but he may die in the process, perhaps killed by Voldemort if/when Voldemort realizes Snape's treachery. I believe Harry will ultimately come to some measure of respect, admiration, and even gratitude for Snape. Eddie From pcotu at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 16:03:41 2006 From: pcotu at yahoo.com (pcotu) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:03:41 -0000 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159903 I just joined, so forgive me if this has already been asked. I think in this last book, Harry sees Snape's memories. He sees Snape's muggle father abusing his witch mother. I thought this was a major flaw, for no witch would put up with this. I have worked in a women's shelter. I am not new to the issue of domestic abuse. The thing is that women always try to escape--their attempts may be too feeble and they may get squashed in the backlash to any attempt to escape the abus. *BUT* if the woman is a witch, all she has to do is cast a spell. So.....come on! a witch could not get trapped in domestic abuse with a muggle for years. Gimme a break. I thought this was a major fumble for JK. Prechi From BCs at BonniDune.com Wed Oct 18 16:26:51 2006 From: BCs at BonniDune.com (Kelly Whiteman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:26:51 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159904 Magpie wrote: > While I think Harry has it in him to appreciate that Molly's > scolding would be like treating him like family, I think he's shown > in canon to take advantage of his role as not family just as much > and not really have a problem with not belonging in that way. I don't have it in front of me, but in OOP doesn't Molly's reaction to the Boggart indicate that she considers Harry as one of her children? But Harry cannot feel like one of the family, or his feelings for Ginny would be incestuous. Thoughts from a newbie, BonniDune From robinboss at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 16:48:29 2006 From: robinboss at gmail.com (Sajid Muhaimin Choudhury) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:48:29 -0000 Subject: The new protection charm by Dumbledore? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159905 At a public reading in NY this summer (2006) JK Rowling revealed that Dumbledore was really dead. As we all know the protection charm that Harry's mother gave him by putting herself infront of Voldemort was to be expired with Harry's 17th birthday. Now the question is, was Snape really bad? or did Dumbledore ordered him to kill him. In this theory, Dumbledore took Harry intentionally, protected him with stupification, and was hit by the AK from Snape. This also helped him to convince Draco to change sides. Was this the Dumbledore's plan that Snape was arguing with him that Hagrid overheard? robinboss From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Oct 18 18:19:21 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:19:21 -0000 Subject: Bill & Fleur's Wedding (Was: Sevens) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159906 > Secca replies: > This infers, in my opinion, that Jo must feel Molly Prewitt was also a > seventh child. There is nothing in Canon that specifically precludes > this possibility. Eddie: Maybe we'll meet a lot of Molly's family at Bill & Fleur's wedding. Speaking of the wedding: I speculate that we're going to discover a lot of things about the wizarding world (and plot development) at this wedding: * Is there any canon yet to see if there are any similarities to Muggle weddings? (There is a photograph from Lily & James' that had a "Best Man" (Sirius)) * Who officiates? * His and Hers broomsticks? * What presents does one give to a witch and wizard? * Is the marriage a magical contract that has all kinds of horrible consequences if broken? We haven't seen any magical divorces. Maybe this is why? * Is an unbreakable vow involved? Question: Will Voldemort or his Death Eaters try to crash the wedding? Will hundreds of guests blast them out of the sky? Eddie, who wishes he could score an invitation (for 5... my wife and kids will want to come too) From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Oct 18 18:24:35 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:24:35 -0000 Subject: Molly and Harry - Treated Like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159907 > bboyminn: > Molly runs 'a very tight ship', but I think most of her > kids know that, for the most part, it is bluster. Seldom > do the tellings-off every come with any real punishment. > When there IS punishment, it is usually of the > firm-but-fair variety. Eddie: With 7 kids, 'a very tight ship' is a requirement. Much of what I've read in this thread is pretty consistent with every large family I've known. It doesn't reflect badly on Molly, to me. She's just being practical. As for Arthur's fascination with electricity: I find it pretty fascinating too. It's almost magical in it's properties: defies gravity (in non-black hole situations anyway), works at the speed of light, works invisibly, etc, etc, etc. Eddie From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 14:39:19 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:39:19 -0000 Subject: Molly and Harry - Treated Like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159908 Jenni from Alabama wrote: > Sirius had been Harry's father figure, Dumbledore like a > grandfather figure to him, Molly is like a mother, Hermione like a > sister and Ron like a brother. Harry also has Lupin, Author, Tonks, > Charlie, Bill and the twins. They've all been by his side during the > best and the worst times of his life. I'd say Harry does have > family ;-) Jenni adds: Oh my goodness! I can't believe I forgot Hagrid! Harry has Hagrid too! Jenni from Alabama From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 18:39:31 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:39:31 -0000 Subject: Question -- Pensieve In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159909 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > However, even if Dumbledore wills Harry the Pensieve, Harry won't be > able to place his own memories in the Pensieve to enter them or study them because he doesn't know how to remove memories from his own head. Only two people that we've seen know how to do that. One of them, Dumbledore, is dead. The other is Snape, whom Harry thinks > (wrongly,IMO) is his enemy. > > Steven1965aaa: > > Horace Slughorn can do it as well. Steven1965aaa: Whoops! I just realized that Carol did in fact mention Slughorn, later on in her post. That will teach me to read these posts carefully and thoroughly before responding. Sorry about that Carol. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Wed Oct 18 18:58:17 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:58:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159910 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pcotu" wrote: > > Prechi: > I have worked in a women's shelter. I am not new to the issue of > domestic abuse. The thing is that women always try to escape--their > attempts may be too feeble and they may get squashed in the backlash > to any attempt to escape the abus. > > *BUT* if the woman is a witch, all she has to do is cast a spell. > So.....come on! a witch could not get trapped in domestic abuse with > a muggle for years. Gimme a break. I thought this was a major fumble > for JK. > Tesha: Perhaps all the women who come to your shelter attempt to escape - but all abused women do not make it to the shelter. Here in NH last year, a very old woman was finally saved from a lifetime of abuse. I believe a neighbor turned her husband in - she went to the hospital again, this time to finally escape. Its not that she didn't have the physical strength, she couldn't stand up to the mental abuse that went with it. Nasty stuff - abuse. I think JKR is right on the button, she covers all kinds of abuse, doesn't she? From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Oct 18 19:02:31 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:02:31 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's mom-domestic abuse References: Message-ID: <001101c6f2e7$f700cdb0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 159911 Prechi: >>>I just joined, so forgive me if this has already been asked. I think in this last book, Harry sees Snape's memories. He sees Snape's muggle father abusing his witch mother. I thought this was a major flaw, for no witch would put up with this. I have worked in a women's shelter. I am not new to the issue of domestic abuse. The thing is that women always try to escape--their attempts may be too feeble and they may get squashed in the backlash to any attempt to escape the abus. *BUT* if the woman is a witch, all she has to do is cast a spell. So.....come on! a witch could not get trapped in domestic abuse with a muggle for years. Gimme a break. I thought this was a major fumble for JK.<<< Marion: But really, who says that the 'hooknosed man' was Snape's father? What if Tobias Snape had died or left, and Eileen had no other choice than return to her family. Snape takes after the Prince's side in colouring and ability, after all. Perhaps the 'hooknosed man' was Eileen's father or brother. I can imagine, since marriages between muggles and magical folk are so rare (we only know of *three* and Eileen's is one of them), that daddy Prince was not happy when Eileen eloped with a Muggle. Can you imagine, daughter Eileen returning to her family and dad is screaming at her, "how dare you return with your halfbreed child in tow!" They'd probably take Eileen and Severus in... reluctantly (like Vernon and Petunia took Harry in - reluctantly) Maybe Eileen left with Severus, but she died after a while as well and Sev was taken in by the Princes. But I can't imagine he was taken into a loving home. He was described as looking like a 'plant that had been kept in the dark too long', after all. It would also go a long way to explain why he took 'the Half Blood Prince' as a secret nickname. If you've been told long enough by your family, "you? You are no Prince. You're a halfblood Prince", you might take that insult as a nickname in defiance ("I'll show them who's a Half Blood Prince!") I've always been rather annoyed at the ease that people put Toby Snape into the 'abusive husband' category and Eileen in the 'gormless victim' category. For all we know Toby and Eileen were a very happy couple, but put to an early grave - perhaps even by early Voldemort supporters (Eileen was a 'bloodtraitor' for marrying Toby, after all) Now *this* might explain quite a lot about Snape as well. People have been arguing recently about when Snape 'turned'. I don't think he 'turned' at all. *I* think he was DD's man right from the beginning. I think he even joined the DE's to infiltrate them. I mean, c'mon! Snape being a remorseful figure? *Snape?* Snape is a lot of things: strict, purposeful, nasty even and ruthless, but he is also a person who'd go all the way through Hell to achieve his aim, and if that aim was to avenge his mother's and father's death he'd infiltrate, spy and bring down the DE's without a thought on his own survival. Any means to achieve an end. But joining a club like the DE's and then crawling back to DD to beg forgiveness and DD grandiosely granting a 'second chance' and Snape living on charity... No chance! He's always struck me as too purposeful, too *focused*. No, Snape and DD have been cronies for a loooong time, from the time Snape was a student, would be my guess. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the reason that Snape was always 'spying on the Marauders' as Sirius claims was simply because DD was just as anxious about the Heir of the House of Black and a werewolf going the wrong way (not to mention James Potter, hexer of innocent children in corridors exraordinaire) as he was that the Heir of the Malfoys or any other of Slytherin House would turn out Dark. There is a *reason* that DD trusted Snape so completely. Oooohhh, I bet you anything that people are going to get a surprise in Book 7... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 19:08:55 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:08:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40610181208m5c7dce1fo2ac82becbd5bd795@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159912 > Prechi wrote: > > I just joined, so forgive me if this has already been asked. > > I think in this last book, Harry sees Snape's memories. He sees > Snape's muggle father abusing his witch mother. I thought this was a > major flaw, for no witch would put up with this. > > ... The thing is that women always try to escape--their > attempts may be too feeble and they may get squashed in the backlash > to any attempt to escape the abus. > > *BUT* if the woman is a witch, all she has to do is cast a spell. > So.....come on! a witch could not get trapped in domestic abuse with > a muggle for years. Gimme a break. I thought this was a major fumble > for JK. Kemper now: Welcome! Don't worry, everything is rehashed here. Back to Eileen... perhaps she lost her witchiness due to love loss the same as Merope lost her magic in book six, (the scene with the emotional abuse takes place in the 5th book during Occulemecy lessons). Or maybe she just turned away from it. Kemper From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 19:17:19 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:17:19 -0000 Subject: Molly and Harry - Treated Like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159913 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > Now, my fan fiction, though it is not directly relevant, > can still serve as an illustration of my point. The story > revolves around Harry not having any real family or > connection to anyone. In this sense, he envies Ron. I'll > skip the details, but it ends with Molly scolding Harry, > and rather than being shocked or put off, Harry is very > touched by it. It is a signal to him that he REALLY IS > home, that he really is with family. > Steven1965aaa: My memory fails me here (help please?) but I seem to remember one instance in either OOP or HBP where Molly does include Harry in a scold/don't do that type of statement, and while Harry feels a bit resentful he also can't help but feel touched by her concern. Also at the end of GOF(?) (if I remember correctly) she gives him a mother's hug, to which he has a kind of emotional reaction. So I think you're right, Harry has a sort of hunger for that type of connection. But even as an "honorary" Weasley and a potential future son-in-law / brother-in law down the line, I'm don't think that Molly will ever be as hard on Harry as she is on her own kids, first because in the end he's not her son, and second I think that she feels the need to protect Harry because of his lousy time with the Dursleys and other things. From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 18:28:02 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:28:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bill & Fleur's Wedding (Re: Gifts) Message-ID: <20061018182802.84425.qmail@web54511.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159914 Eddie: * What presents does one give to a witch and wizard? Jeremiah: LOL. I love this idea.. I think the newlyweds will be recieving a lot of Knitted items from Mrs. Weasley. (And that's why i love her). -Bedspread -Kitchen towels -Maybe Special Wedding Sweaters? LOL [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 17:52:34 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:52:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's mom-domestic abuse Message-ID: <20061018175234.48035.qmail@web54505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159915 Prechi: The thing is that women always try to escape--their attempts may be too feeble and they may get squashed in the backlash to any attempt to escape the abus. *BUT* if the woman is a witch, all she has to do is cast a spell. So.....come on! a witch could not get trapped in domestic abuse with a muggle for years. Gimme a break. I thought this was a major fumble for JK. --------------------------------------------- Jeremiah: I, for one, have never been physically abused. but I have been in an emotiaonlly abusive relationship. Rowling is trying to show that abuse is devestating and that even witches and wizards (Voldemort's mother, too) are subject to the emotional effects of abuse, neglect, indifference and violence. I'm 6'3", male, 280 lbs. My ex was 5'10, 180lbs and male. That didn't make a difference. If someone is desperate for love, then they stay. It is not until they are strong enough to love themselves that they can make a change. In my opinion there isn't a flaw in Rowling writing. The character is flawed and that makes them intriguing. it also makes for a rich back-story and explains Harry, Snape, Duddly, Draco, Kreatcher, Dobby, Barty Crouch, Voldemort and many other characters' desire for affection/attention. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 18:17:30 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] The new protection charm by Dumbledore? Message-ID: <20061018181730.43308.qmail@web54506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159916 robinboss: did Dumbledore ordered him to kill him. In this theory, Dumbledore took Harry intentionally, protected him with stupification, and was hit by the AK from Snape. This also helped him to convince Draco to change sides. Was this the Dumbledore's plan that Snape was arguing with him that Hagrid overheard? ========================= Jeremiah: In my opinion: Yes... sort of. Draco has yet to change sides because he is afraid of LV's power. But the seeds have been planted. Yes, I think this is the argument Hagrid overheard between Snape and DD. Of course DD took Harry intentionally. He needed to learn about sensing the presence of past magic, he needed to see DD die and he needed to see the type of henchmen associated with LV. In my opinion, the entire experience (from finding the horcrux to chasing Snape from the Hogwarts grounds) was something DD needed Harry to experience. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 19:55:57 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:55:57 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159917 --- "Mike" wrote: > > --- "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > > > Mike previously: > > > > > > Why doesn't Dumbledore hit Snape with an "Obliviate" > > > and erase any memory of the prophesy from Snape? > > > > Hickengruendler: > > > > Because Snape simply disapparated? He might have been > > surprised by Aberforth .... But after this he could > > have been disapparated any day. Or he simply ran away, > > before Dumbledore could do anything, and apparated > > from outside the pub. ... > > Mike now: > > Snape disapparating is not what happened, according to > Dumbledore. Dumbledore told Harry he was "thrown from > the building". If you take any other position than the > one that Dumbledore used for his version of events, you > have made my point for me, i.e. Dumbledore Lied to Harry. > **That** is the entire basis of my position. If what > *really* appened is in any way different from what > Dumbledore *said* happened, ipso facto Dumbledore is > lying.... > bboyminn: As I said before, Dumbledore and Trelawney are not giving 100% detailed accounts of the events. They are giving context driven summaries. There are many many details in the gaps in their summaries of these events, so if it turns out the Dumbledore merely omitted details because they weren't relevant at the time, then I will not consider that Dumbledore is lying. If however new details emerge and directly contradict what either Dumbledore or Trelawney said, I would certianly consider that a lie. As I also said before, I don't see a conflict between Dumbledore's and Trelawney's version. They are each emphasizing certain details and eliminating others. Because of different context, the details they include and exclude are different. So, I need not a different version of events, but something the directly and clearly contradicts what has alread been said before I will consider that anyone was lying. > Mike: > As far as Bella; She deflected Dumbledore's spell as she > was running out the door. Snape was collared by > Aberforth, not in any position to defend himself or make > his escape. ... bboyminn: Sort of a side note on Apparation. Remember when Dumbledore and Harry are walking up to Slughorn's near the beginning of HBP? Harry asks (paraphrased) why they didn't just Apparate directly to the house. Dumbledore explains two things; first, it is not polite to Apparate directly to someone's house, and certainly is NOT polite to Apparate directly into someone's house. Second, Dumbledore points out that most houses are protected by /wards/ that prevent Apparation directly into the interior of a house or shop. Consider how pointless locks are in the wizard world. What's the point of locking your door when you want privacy or security, if everyone you know (and don't know) can just Apparate directly into your living room? So, naturaly, all dwellings and shops, not just Hogwarts, are protected from Apparation. Though I suspect Hogwarts protections are stronger and more encompassing. So, there is a good chance that Snape could not have apparated out of the Inn. Like most polite persons, he would have had to walk outside the front door. Finally, as to the idea that Dumbledore Obliviated Snape, that leaves me uneasy. I have to assume that there are some ethics to the use of the 'Obliviate' Charm. We really don't see people using it willie-nillie. In most cases it is an excersize of the needs as declared under the Statue of Secrecy. For example, though my memories of the details are weak, some magical creature ravaged a beach in England. A wizard who happened to be on the spot performed the largest mass Obliviate on record to clear the minds of the sunbathers. So, his choices were to leave it to the muggle authorities to try and explain how and why hundreds of people witnessed a Dragon (or whatever) attack the beach, or to simple have a wizard eliminate that bit of memory. Thereby allowing the beach goers to return home thinking they had nothing more than a pleasant day at the beach. The only unauthorized and unjustified use of the Obliviate Charm we have seen was preformed by Lockhart, and I'm sure everyone would have considered its use in that case both illegal and unethical. So, I'm voting against the use of the Obliviate Charm in this case. I also remind people that Dumbledore's account of those events comes 10+ years later when he has had plenty of time to investigate events and get the story straight. For what it's worth. Steve/bboymin From teaneylisa at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 19:42:20 2006 From: teaneylisa at yahoo.com (tea1894) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:42:20 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: <002901c6f264$5961c970$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159918 Lana wrote: > Are we even sure at this point if Snape is even on DD's side? > Is it possible that he has just been "pretending" to be good. > With all the things that have happened (leading up to and > including the battle), is it possible that Snape really did > kill DD out of hatred for him? Lisa: This is the impression that I have gotten. After all if you remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape when in the great hall. Coincidence or not? I guess we'll just have to wait until the last book is out-after all the author has suprised us several times. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 20:12:36 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:12:36 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159919 --- "Kelly Whiteman" wrote: > > Magpie wrote: > > While I think Harry has it in him to appreciate that > > Molly's scolding would be like treating him like > > family, I think he's shown in canon to take advantage > > of his role as not family just as much and not really > > have a problem with not belonging in that way. > > I don't have it in front of me, but in OOP doesn't > Molly's reaction to the Boggart indicate that she > considers Harry as one of her children? > > But Harry cannot feel like one of the family, or his > feelings for Ginny would be incestuous. > > Thoughts from a newbie, > > BonniDune > bboyminn: In the fan fiction I alluded to, the Weasleys, to the last person, make a open declaration that they will accept Harry as family. A declaration, while not legal, carried much more weight than a general assumption. They say specifically that no matter what the future brings, friendship or estrangement, that Harry can always come home, that he can always have a place, actually many places, that he can come to when he needs it. Further, that there is a group of people who have made a life long pledge, in anger or in friendship, to be there for Harry anytime he needs them regardless of the circumstances. I have to believe, which is why I wrote the story, that this would be a very warm assurance to Harry. He is a boy alone in the world. He can find plenty of places to call 'house' but where in this world can Harry call 'home'? That's what, in this fiction, the Weasley's give Harry, a permanent home, a place he can always return to an know that he is welcome. I think that is part of what sustains Percy. As deep and thorough as his estrangement from his family is, in the back of his mind, he knows he can always come home. Of course, his first meal upon doing so would certainly be a heaping huge portion of 'Humble Pie', but none the less having that sense of belonging, having that sense of home though thick and thin, I personally think would be very heartwarming to Harry. As the real story seems to be going, that won't be a problem as Harry will probably marry Ginny and then he really will be a member of the family. He really will finally have home and family through the best and worst of times. Steve - who still makes a distinction between house and home; 'house' is where I live, 'home' is where my mother lives, and I know that I can always go back there. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 18 20:33:05 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:33:05 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159921 Steve: > As the real story seems to be going, that won't be a > problem as Harry will probably marry Ginny and then he > really will be a member of the family. He really will > finally have home and family through the best and worst > of times. > > Steve - who still makes a distinction between house and > home; 'house' is where I live, 'home' is where my mother > lives, and I know that I can always go back there. Magpie: Unless they get divorced.;-) Which I don't say because it's particularly likely, but to just say that Harry is exactly what he is to the Weasleys--a boy who's "like family" but is not one of Molly Weasley's children and not one of Ron's brothers, and they all know that. If he marries Ginny he'd be a brother-in-law/son-in-law, and have his own home with his own children. He has his own place with their family without being another son--his place isn't as assured as Percy's is (though of course I doubt Harry will be falling out with the Weasleys any time soon). He barely knows some of the Weasley children. I seriously doubt Charlie or Bill considers him a little brother like Ron. In OotP, as I mentioned, Harry is completely aware that his own reaction to Arthur's attack is not the same as his children's. Likewise his reaction to Sirius' death is different from Ron and Hermione's even though Harry doesn't know him much better. He's not emotionally connected to Percy's leaving as they are. The Weasley has a whole complicated dynamic completely outside of Harry that he sometimes sees, but is not part of--and that's fine. I am familiar with the popular fanfic cliche of Harry searching for a family/home that he finds in the Weasleys--it was particularly popular post-GoF; I just don't always buy it. Marrying Ginny would make him family, sure, but the head of his own family. Ironically the place where he must "call home" is the Dursleys--his blood family. And I don't see Harry searching for this the way he's sometimes described. When canon actually touches on this subject it tends to deal with different things: Sirius is family, Hogwarts is the place that feels like home. I think Harry will be a special part of the Weasley family his whole life, but always the same appropriate place. As a Potter. -m From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Oct 18 20:41:00 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:41:00 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159922 > Lisa: > After all if you > remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape > when in the great hall. Coincidence or not? I guess we'll just > have to wait until the last book is out-after all the author has > suprised us several times. Eddie: I think this was a red herring. My recollection of that event is that Snape was talking to Quirrell, who was turned towards Snape... meaning, the back of Quirrell's head (the Voldemort side) was facing Harry. I think it was Voldie who burned Harry's scar. Eddie, who has posted 4 messages today and still has one more in his quota. From hallie at thephoenixrises.org Wed Oct 18 20:37:21 2006 From: hallie at thephoenixrises.org (Hallie Tibbetts - Phoenix Rising) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:37:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Phoenix Rising Submissions Deadline Extended! Message-ID: <20061018203721.82274.qmail@web50512.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159923 Due to some planned upgrades by our website host, Phoenix Rising's programming submissions deadline has been extended from November 1 to November 4, 2006. 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! 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 online 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.thephoenixrises.org programming @ thephoenixrises.org From unicornspride at centurytel.net Wed Oct 18 20:35:20 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:35:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape References: Message-ID: <011e01c6f2f4$ede3d030$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 159924 >Eddie writes: > In the end, I believe Snape will help >overthrow Voldemort, but he may >die in the process, perhaps killed by >Voldemort if/when Voldemort >realizes Snape's treachery. I believe Harry >will ultimately come to >some measure of respect, admiration, and >even gratitude for Snape. Lana: I agree and this is what I hope happens. I think that SS has some type of feelings towards Harry in maybe he feels sympathy for both having such horrible childhoods. Just a thought anyway. >Lisa writes: >This is the impression that I have gotten. >After all if you >remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt >at the sight of Snape >when in the great hall. Coincidence or not? I >guess we'll just >have to wait until the last book is out-after all >the author has >suprised us several times I think that the scar may have been hurting not because SS looked at him, but because Voldermort was next to him inside PQ. That is the impression I got anyway. Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From scarah at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 20:20:41 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:20:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: <001101c6f2e7$f700cdb0$63fe54d5@Marion> References: <001101c6f2e7$f700cdb0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <3202590610181320x6122dba8j38e4ae0d49146ea7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159925 Marion: > I've always been rather annoyed at the ease that people put Toby Snape into the 'abusive husband' category and Eileen in the 'gormless victim' category. Sarah: You and me both. Even if that is Tobias (I think it probably is), he's *yelling.* How many people have never raised their voice at, or been spoken to in raised voices by another adult? I think it's a huge leap to immediately parlay this into a lifetime of abuse, yet everyone seems to. I know, I know, she was "cowering." Is it fair and accurate to judge his actions by her reactions? I know more overreactive professional victims than I know wife beaters, so why assume he's the crazy one? Sarah From gidget1225 at comcast.net Wed Oct 18 20:12:22 2006 From: gidget1225 at comcast.net (J Stevens) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:12:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45368AA6.5060305@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159926 > Lisa: > This is the impression that I have gotten. After all if you > remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape > when in the great hall. Coincidence or not? I guess we'll just > have to wait until the last book is out-after all the author has > suprised us several times. > > > Julie: Harry's scar hurt when he looked at Snape, who happened to be talking to Quirrell, who had his back turned - which would then have LV 'facing' Harry.. From bauercandace at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 21:06:08 2006 From: bauercandace at yahoo.com (bauercandace) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:06:08 -0000 Subject: Inferi and Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159927 Hello, all, I've been thinking quite a bit about Harry and Inferi. We know that Voldemort has used Inferi (dead bodies bewitched to do one's bidding) in the past, and that there is the possibility that he may call upon this army again. My thoughts are this: there is a very good chance that if Voldemort begins using Inferi in this 'war', Harry will have to face the bodies of people he has loved, namely Lily, James, Sirius, etc. It seems to me that Voldemort would have quite a bit to gain in using these people to fight Harry, as it would obviously shake him, perhaps to the point of not being able to overcome it. No where does it say that the body used has to be that of a person who was on the dark side to begin with. In fact, during Snape's DADA lesson in book 6, they spend the time to go over the differences between ghosts and inferi: ghosts being the 'spirit' of the person who had died, and inferi being simply the spent bodies, bewitched to do a Dark Wizard's bidding. In other words, the inferi have nothing left of the actual person or soul, they are merely a thing at that point. This said, is it impossible that we might see an inferi that we also have a ghost of? For example, Nearly Headless Nick or someone else who has died in the past that we haven't seen a ghost of as yet? If the two things are completely seperate, why could we not have both? How confusing could things get then? Just a thought. bauercandace From kyra_zaetseva at yahoo.com.mx Wed Oct 18 21:36:09 2006 From: kyra_zaetseva at yahoo.com.mx (kyra_zaetseva) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:36:09 -0000 Subject: Inferi and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159928 I don't think we will ever see Lily, James or Sirius as inferi, because one has to DO something to turn the dead bodies into "undead" beings and we know that Voldie didn't have time to do that on James nor Lily, as for Sirius... well, there is no body since he went through the veil. Could we have the ghost and the inferius from the same wizard/witch? Perhaps... it could be an interesting possibility, but I highly doubt we 'll see Nick or anybody who died eons before Voldie's era, I think to become an inferius one has to be killed by the same wizard/witch who will do the spell to have an undead sevant. Kyra From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 21:54:14 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:54:14 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159929 > Magpie: > I was using "accident" in response to the > idea that Dumbledore might have assumed that he was the only person > in danger because he was the one Draco was targetting. But > absolutely the deadliness of the mead and necklace were both > intentional--which is why there is a real danger of Draco hurting or > killing someone as long as he's doing this. a_svirn: Which only goes to show how poor his risk assessment was since it was an accident waiting to happen. > Magpie: >Ironically, as far as I > can see what keeps Draco from killing anyone else the way he almost > killed Ron and Katie isn't Dumbledore's or Snape's precautions at > all, but the fact that Draco doesn't try any more stunts like that. > So he's batting two for two up until the cabinet--two murder > attempts and two near-deaths. Their surveillance seems to be fairly > useless. The only time we see it having any effect is when Draco is > unable to work on the Cabinet the night of the Christmas party (we > assume). a_svirn: Exactly. Moreover, I don't quite see what the expected value of this gamble was supposed to be. If the whole thing was about waiting for Draco to make the right choice -- and with Dumbledore's life as an initial stake -- the outcome was already evident after Katie's incident and even more so after the poisoned wine debacle. On those two occasions Draco did chose ? to kill. Given that and with increasing unpredictability of Draco's actions, I simply don't comprehend how Dumbledore could possibly continue his "wait and see" policy. From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 22:02:23 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:02:23 -0000 Subject: The Plan--Long (was: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159930 N.B.I deleted the earlier version of this post (#159920)as one section was found to be out of order, hindering comprehension. For those who received a copy of the first post, I reccomend this slightly revised version. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > brothergib: > On finding out from Flitwick that DE's have invaded the >castle, Snape runs straight for the tower, without even >stopping to consider the battle raging within Hogwarts. Talisman: Yep. Eddie Message #159845 >Remember that we don't actually know WHAT Flitwick told Snape: Talisman: I think we *do* know what Flitwick said: pretty much what you noted in your post. Heremione reported the relevant information, up to and including the "thunk" when he hit the ground. IMO, the evidence is against Flitwick even knowing what was happening on the tower, let alone communicating that to Snape. (see below) If Rowling meant to portray Flitwick as a source of tower info, she screwed up repeatedly. I wouldn't count on it. Eddie, cont: >I'm wondering why would Snape, upon seeing the battle, not join in? >Why would Snape even think that he should go up ONTO the top of the >tower? I may be wrong, but I don't recall any evidence that was >available/visible to Snape to indicate that the top of the tower was >important in any way. Talisman: You are not wrong Eddie. There is *no* evidence that Snape could know what was transpiring on the ramparts, save all the evidence that there is a plan, in which he is a major player. Eddie, cont: >So, all these questions push me into the "Snape knew something >beforehand" camp. Just what, I'm uncertain. Talisman: He knew it all, Eddie. Or at least everything that has to do with DD's death, Draco, Harry and Voldemort. I'll allow the *possibility* that DD works his choreography in Snape's life, as well, but Snape has been his lieutenant throughout the series and is now carrying the ball into the critical denouement. There isn't *much* Snape doesn't know. bboyminn: Message #159470 >In general I don't have a problem with Snape and >Dumbledore having a plan, but I am very uneasy with the >idea that the plan was as specific as 'Dumbledore made >Snape agree to kill him when DE's entered the castle'. >That strikes me as a very narrow plan in such an anything >can happen wide open war. Talisman: Sorry bboy, I couldn't disagree more DD is great at precision planning. In this light, it is not an "anything can happen" war. DD has been controlling events all along, and you can bet he set his final dominoes in place, before he popped off the tower. Anticipating reactions, and setting things up in advance to induce the behavior he wants, is DD's modus operandi, throughout the series. He is the author of both Prophecies, after all. He set things in motion. He knew Wormtail was the spy. How could he not? He purposed GH. James left the IC to Harry and Lily didn't even raise her wand because they understood their respective roles in the plan--which necessitated their deaths. (Note how Order members have a habit of sacrificing their lives.) Most readers cottoned-on to the fact that the Philosopher's stone was basically bait, and that DD contrived to put Harry in Voldemort's way in Book 1. Sure, Harry got some testing/validation and a introduction to LV that helped make things personal, but the big set-up was Qmort's experience with the touch-me-not skin protection (before LV was put back on ice for a few years). (P.S. You don't think DD's DADA prof. du jour was just tripping through Albania by chance, do you? Even Voldemort finds it too good to be true. ::cough::) DD understood the reaction to Harry's rebuff of Draco and coalition with Hagrid and himself. Was Book 2 totally Lucius's idea? I look to double agent Snape as DD's provocateur. A Parseltongue himself (as we learned in HBP), DD delegated Snape to *out* Harry in the dueling lessons. You don't think Snape just volunteered to be pathetic Lockhart's *assistant,* do you? Nah, you know better. And, how lucky little Draco knew that Serpentsorsia spell, eh? By this, DD not only enabled Harry to utilize his rare talent, but put him under suspicion, making the resolution of affairs personal. We know DD can see through ICs, and his winking clues to Harry in Hagrid's hut only confirm his desire that Harry end up in the Chamber. So, Harry learns a lot, destroys a HX, and the whole imprudent thing sets Lucius up to be in hot water when Voldemort gets back. Then DD allows Harry to free Dobby and piss Lucius into a state of personal vendetta at the end of COS. >From the bad guy side, PoA was a plot to suck Harry (seems dangerous to attack him outright--let`s use the dementors!) Yeah, Harry was supposed to look like collateral damage, but he was actually the prime target. You can see this in the fact that the dementors only attack when Sirius and Harry are in close proximity--and then they always go for Harry first. Just following orders. I know I've set this out in posts, years ago. Some of it, at least, in the old *Crying Wolf* thread. For DD's part, Book 3 adventures accomplished, among other things, the two major goals of reuniting Harry and Sirius (in a controlled way) and sending Wormtail back for Voldie. Yes, DD allowed Sirius to rot in prison, and he played a role in Sirius's release. Perhaps just Snape's suggestion in Lucius's ear, but he instigated it, nonetheless. DD used Sirius (by reuniting him with Harry in Book 3, keeping him at arm's distance throughout 4, and a lot of 5, and killing him in Book 5) to activate the Love/Loss emotions that repelled Voldemort in the atrium. See Guilty!DD # 66983, et seq. Back to Book 4. Due to the skin-burning experience in SS/PS (as explained by Wormtail en route to Chez Riddle), and the earlier loss of the stone, Voldemort has to settle for the *ancient magic* body he works out in GoF. DD knows all about that ancient magic. He knows what LV needs, and so, where he'll go. DD (who owns Riddle Manor) monitors Wormtail & Co.'s return, and understands entirely that Voldie is bent on having Harry's blood (thanks to the burn). DD not only wants LV back (sent Wormtail to fetch him, didn`t he?) but he wants LV to use Harry's blood as well (gleam). Par usual, DD guides the baddies' schemes, and then co-opts them to his own ends. They are always working for him, they just don't know it. How's that for a metaphysical metaphor? The orb is the bait for Book 5. DD axes Sirius (Voldie-proofing Harry). He allows Bella to escape to the Atrium, er and Harry to follow her there. When its clear that the orb is gone, Voldie goes for the silver-lining of at least snuffing the brat. DD shows up just in time to get in the way, and then proceeds to vex Volemort by merely frustrating his efforts to kill anyone, until the DL goes for the possession gambit. DD's satisfaction that the Voldie-proofing has worked leads an instant reversal of his book-long behavior (now he wants to be (really) close to Harry, and won't stop talking). `Course he then misleads Harry into believing the Prohecy is *real.* tsk. Oh, yeah. And now Lucius has really screwed up. Snape's DE star, however, is on the rise. Perhaps he suggested the Draco plan? Seems consonant with activities, so far. And what is accomplished in Book 6? Well, as far as Harry goes, the very opposite of the *Sirius* plan. The *Snape* plan. Where Sirius's death set off a storm of love power, Snape as DD's murderer sets off a typhoon of hate. This is in line with DD's little hate/revenge pep talk (HBP 511-512). So, I predict that in Book 7 we will see events accomplished, that would not have been, were Harry not seething with hate and desire for revenge. By the end, of course, love will regain, and hold, the day. No, DD is not Jesus (Rowling flat out says so), but he does work in mysterious ways. So, the answer is, bboy, that not only was DD's death part of the plan, but his death by Snape's hand. In Harry's sight. On the night in question. zgirnius: Message #159405 > I kind of like the theory that Dumbledore's death was not planned in > advance, that I mentioned above. Because I think that would make it > the hardest for things to get straightened out in Book 7 (and thus, > the most exciting/suspenseful to read about.) Talisman: The fact that all is part of DD's great plan is what will allow Rowling to wrap up what so many readers consider to be *too many loose ends.* I think you're just bucking for a 2000 page book. Nice try. Nate Message #159422 >For more information on the latter theory, see Professor Mum's >theory 'Severus Stands In' on livejournal, linked below: >http://professor-mum.livejournal.com/5922.html#cutid1 - Part One >http://professor-mum.livejournal.com/6547.html#cutid1 - Part Two Talisman: Yeeees, well my own explanation of how Snape stands in for DD can be found in the Dark Phoenix posts from April of this year, at #151314, et seq. I wouldn't hang so heavily on conversational idiosyncrasies as professor-mum does. While she offers the same basic idea (now revised to allow Snape to live) my proofs and attitude differ. Rowling did me a great favor by clarifying that DD is really dead-- and that Snape is deliciously alive. No one was offering me a justified argument contra, and I really did want one. Her comment allowed me to review my analytical construct and to further refine it. Sure, it seems like a big deal, one person dead instead of another, but really, it's explained by a little zig vs. zag in my theory. Turns out I just wasn't being Byzantine enough! Once the change was located, I found that series wide canon verified my revised analysis. This has empowered a new series-wide theory, for which I am still gathering canon, as time permits. It goes much further than Dark Phoenix, and I expect to publish it, finished or not, around Christmas time--if not sooner (to allow time for discussion before Book 7 comes out). Magpie: Message #159446 >I think Snape and DD definitely have plans in certain emergencies, >but isn't it rather an important point that Dumbledore *didn't* know >DEs were close to getting into the castle? The Cabinet Plot is the >monkey wrench in everyone's plans. Talisman: No monkey wrench in my position, as set out below. zgirnius: Message #159879 >I gather that the Death Eaters were defending the foot of the tower >stairs.. The Order members who describe the battle to Harry refer to >Death Eaters going up and down those stairs, suggesting they control >the access to the Tower. Talisman: Take a closer look at your text. Gibbon went up and down early on, but was lying dead before Draco headed up stairs. The remainder of the DE invasion party went up stairs, except the big blonde, started blabbing and remained there until Snape led them down. There is absolutely *no* evidence of DE activity on or around the stairs at the time Snape ascended them. Everyone who had gone up had been in conversation with DD for quite awhile before Snape arrived. (see more fulsome description, below) zgirnius, cont. >The voices Harry hears while on the Tower, of Order members, sound >like they are trying to get up the stairs. Another reason for Snape >to suppose that something is >happening up the stairs. Talisman: Only two people tried (Neville and Lupin), and they were back to dodging Blondie's hexes well before Snape's arrival. Again, see below. Snape knew what was afoot long before Flitwick came tripping down the stairs, and the canon is against any *on the fly* explanation for Snape`s behavior. But I think we should back up and look at the big picture. **Some Evidence of The Plan** So, let's look at some of the evidence that demonstrates that DD not only knew how and when Draco would succeed in invading the castle, but co-opted the baddies' efforts, par usual, to his own ends. We should recall that the twins shoved Montague into the broken Vanishing Cabinet (OoP 627), and Snape retrieved him from the toilet (638-39), sometime before Easter (651) of Year 5--well before the end of term. Left in Snape's office, Harry wonders how much time he has to explore Snape's memories (639). We might do well to follow Rowling's lead, and consider for ourselves how much time Snape would invest in the situation, that night and later. Harry reasons that, inasmuch as Montague is Captain of the Slytherin Quidditch team, Snape will probably go as far as taking him to the hospital wing and making sure he's alright (639). Whatever Snape, the expert healer and head of Slytherin House, did that first night, we know that Montague was dangerously injured (OoP678-79), he almost died (HBP 587), and irate parents had to be reasoned with (OoP 678). We also know that, upon being called to extract Montague from the loo, the first question Snape asked was: "How did he get in there?" (OoP 639). I vouchsafe that, Quidditch Captain or no, Snape made it his business to find out *exactly* how. I am quite sure that, in the course of time, Snape turned on his handy Legilimens beams and knew everything about the matter that Montague did, and then some. Not that he would have needed his special powers, apparently Montague recovered before the end of term and became something of a celebrity relating his woeful tale: *Everyone thought it was a really good story...* (HBP 587). Undoubtedly, Snape heard the whole exciting tale. This includes Montague's description of his sojourn in limbo-- sometimes hearing what was going on at Hogwarts, sometimes what was going on in Borgin and Burkes (587). Young Malfoy flatters himself that only he could figure out that a pair of the Cabinets existed, which could be used as access ways between their two locations (587). Oddly, I don't share Draco's opinion. For one thing, when Draco has barely managed boasting of repairing the Hogwarts Vanishing Cabinet, DD helps him finish the explanation saying *There is a pair, I take it?* (587). Draco hasn't said anything about how he used the cabinet, but DD is way ahead. Whatever Draco realized (in Year 5) about the Cabinet, I'm confident that older, brighter, more experienced wizards would know how Vanishing Cabinets work, and would understand the implications immediately. (I wonder who put the Vanishing Cabinet in the room of Requirement, after Nick induced Peeves to smash it. Some tidy House Elf? Even if DD and Snape didn't already know where it was, all they'd have to do is ask an elf.) The other Cabinet was specifically identified by Montague as being at Borgin and Burkes. Snape knew, by the time of the UV, if not earlier, that Draco was on the mission to kill DD. (Again, I would not be surprised if it were his/DD's idea.) The Saturday after his birthday (max August 7) Harry sees and hears Draco's antics in Borgin and Burkes ( HBP 105, 124-25). He reports this all, plus his reasons for believing Draco bears Voldemort's mark, to Arthur Weasley (133-35), who--no matter how he pooh-poohs Harry at the time--takes the tip seriously enough to search the Malfoy residence, again. Now, Arthur is also a member of the Order. I think we must accept he also shared this information with DD. To underscore the fact that the Order would have standing orders to report anything suspicious, Rowling has DD caution students to do so at the start of term feast: *I implore you, should you notice anything strange or suspicious within or without the castle, to report it to a member of the staff, immediately* (HBP 168). Voldemort's back and hostile action is intensifying. I can't imagine any argument against the Order reporting all suspicions to DD, directly--as would any staff member who either had their own information or received it from a student. To recap: last spring Montague was telling all the Slyths about this broken Vanishing Cabinet that allowed him to hear both Hogwarts and Borgin and Burkes, then by summer Harry reports that Draco, who is known to be on a mission to kill DD, is threatening Borgin to help him fix one of a pair of something *too big to carry, and to keep the other one safe* (HBP 130). What could Draco mean? (She asks facetiously.) DD is an expert in magical objects and is, if he says so himself, blessed... with extraordinary brain power* (HBP 359 ). Snape's right up there with him. Between that and the evidence on the tower, the safe bet is that they understood all too well what Draco was up to, before the Year 6 term even began. Between witnessing Draco's detour, and spying on the train, Harry is obsessing over Draco's plan by the time he arrives at school. Snape meets him at the gate and apparently knows the contents of his porous little noggin, right there. Rowling goes to the bother of telling us that Snape's comments to Harry, denying him use of the Invisibility Cloak--just as he was considering using it--came "[a]s though he had read Harry's mind" (162). Well, yeah. But we don't have to settle for the obvious background knowledge that Snape and DD can review Harry's thoughts, at will. Halfway through October Katie Bell is injured by the cursed opals. Harry reminds McGonagall that the necklace was from Borgin and Burkes and insists that Draco is behind the attack (253). Harry has repeatedly raised the B &B connection. Even if DD/Snape had not investigated the B & B link in at the end of OoP, or early in HBP, certainly they would do so now. Poke about a bit. See what old Borgin had on his mind? They're not total incompetents. When Harry hears that Draco was with McG at the time of the incident, he immediately draws the conclusion that Draco has an accomplice--and says so. McGonagall is not prepared to believe that Draco's behind it, but indicates that she will relay Harry's concerns to DD (256). By page 260, DD confirms that McGonagall has indeed conveyed Harry's suspicions, and assures Harry that he will *take appropriate measures to investigate... .* Now, what would such an investigation entail? At a minimum: checking who purchased the opals from Borgin and Burkes; having a tactful little Legi-chat with Draco (oh, yes, Legi); and--inasmuch as it happened in the ladies room of the Three Broomsticks-- paying a visit to Madame Rosmerta. Wanna bet Madame was looking a little funny about the eyes? Remember F!Moody's instructions (as he demonstrates on Harry): "-- watch his eyes, that's where you see it" (GoF 232). I guarantee that someone with the magical acumen of DD or Snape can recognize when a person is acting under an Imperious curse. Note that the Order members share my belief. After the post-hearing encounter with Lucius and Fudge, Harry asks: " if Fudge is meeting Death Eaters like Malfoy how do we know they haven't put the Imperius Curse on him?" (OoP 155) Arthur answers: "Don't think it hasn't occurred to us [b]ut Dumbledore thinks Fudge is acting of his own accord at the moment " (And, yes, DD knew Crouch Sr. was under an Imperius that Halloween night in Book 4, but that`s another story.) By Slughorn's Christmas Party, we have Snape's counseling session with Draco. Likely there are readers who think this scene proves Draco was able to use Occlumency to cover his tracks. I say it proves the opposite. You may recall the pertinent dialogue: Draco: "--don't look at me like that! I know what you're doing, I'm not stupid, but it won't work--I can stop you!" "There was a pause [as Snape riffled the little gray cells] and then Snape said quietly, `Ah...Aunt Bellatrix has been teaching you Occlumency I see'* (322). *I see,* indeed. There are those who will cling to the gossamer strand that Snape merely guessed who had been teaching Draco, but let's remember the book that we are reading, and that our author is aware of the implications of her text. I say he just extracted that information from Draco's pissy little head. Draco may well have picked up some Occlumency over the summer, but hardly enough to handle Snape We can see that Occlumency (like Legilimens) is not an all or nothing proposition. Lupin says that Snape is a *superb Occlumens* (OoP 527); a *highly accomplished Occlumens* (HBP 615). The mere presence of the adjectives indicates that skills lie along a continuum; there are great Occlumens, and by the same coin, there are mediocre and inferior Occlumens. Draco would appear to be one of the less accomplished variety. Along with understanding that Bella is the teacher, Snape can perceive that Draco is *trying* to use Occlumency against him. Imagine the consequences if LV saw that sort of evidence in Snape's mind (substitute DD, if you're into ESE). When Snape asks: "What thoughts are you trying to conceal from your master, Draco?" (322), (emphasis on *trying*) it is a question facilitating the ongoing probe of Draco's mind. (BTW, the answer is: I don't have the balls for this.) The bottom line is that Snape and Dumbledore are both incredible Legilimens. Draco would have to be one puissant Occlumens to keep them out of his head, and the evidence indicates he's just not up to snuff. (By the way, did you notice how Snape is constantly monitoring Harry's cranium, even in the thick of battle? "Mustering all his powers of concentration, Harry thought, Levi--" "No, Potter!...you dare use my own spells against me?...no!" (604). He's streaming Harry's head, the whole time.) Both Draco and Harry have regular contact with Snape in DADA class, all year. Draco has extra Snape time, thanks to Narcissa's request and his membership in Slytherin House. Harry, on the other hand, has special bathroom and detention moments, plus extra quality time with Dumbledore, throughout the year. Neither one of them has any secrets. Nobody was fooled. So, the evidence reveals that at the time of the Christmas party Draco is making a clumsy attempt at Occlumency, and Snape is playing along. Why is he playing along? Part of your answer is out on the ramparts, where DD explains: *Why else do you think I have not confronted you before now? Because I knew that you would have been murdered if Lord Voldemort realized that I suspected you (591). Obviously DD believes Draco is susceptible to Voldmort's Legilimency. (The other part of the answer is that DD always controls matters so that they happen in his time. He wanted things to play out as they did on the tower, but not before he was finished preparing Harry for the final run.) Legilimency is not the only power to which Draco is susceptible. Notice how Rowling reiterates her little clue as we see Draco blabbering away: *as though he could not help himself...as though he was compelled to keep talking* (586, 589). DD is not as powerless as he might seem. Speaking of which, it is evident that DD is crafting his tower conversation equally to stall, to control the information Voldemort will later obtain from Draco's head, and to give Harry certain pieces of information. For instance, by playing out the Rosmerta ruse DD will keep LV from realizing that DD purposefully fed her misinformation--thereby alerting LV that DD had his own plan in play--and so whizzing in the covert cream. This also allows him to alert Harry to Rosmerta's predicament. We'll see later that Harry informs the Order, ensuring that Rosmerta will receive help and escape prosecution for her part in Draco's plot. We could vet the whole conversation, but that's another post. Evidence of the plan, per se, will take us long enough. So, onward. We see that Snape and DD would have realized the implications of Montague's experience, knew of the Draco plot, had further verification through Harry's repeated warnings of the B & B connection, and have been able to monitor Draco's progress any of the myriad times they had eye contact with him, over the course of the year. Then Ron ingests the poisoned meade on March 1st. I'm sure Dumbledore had a nice chat with Slughorn after the poisoning, and that the fact that it was Madame Rosmerta's *oak- matured mead* was overkill to point to problems at the Three Broomsticks. Hmmm, cursed opals and poisoned meade, both from Rosmerta's place. How dim would DD have to be? If not before, then surely by March, he would have had that *penetrating conversation* with our bodacious barkeep. Sometime later in March, Dobby gives his surveillance report and Harry knows Draco is carrying out his plan in the RoR (452). Soon thereafter, Harry figures out that Crabbe and Goyle are disguised by Polyjuice (454). Harry hears Malfoy celebrating, and knows what-ever-it-is is fixed (550). DD knows exactly what Draco has been working on. Indeed, because every book, including this one, is overflowing with evidence that DD not only knows what is going on, but controls it, I expect he insured the Cabinet would work on this particular night. It is time for DD's plan to go down. So, when Harry rushes to tell DD what he has overheard, we should not be surprised that the response (be it Albus or Severus ) is supremely blas?. Until Harry presses the point. Then it's time to shut down the line of inquiry. *Enough,* he commands, in a tone that lets Harry know he has *crossed some invisible line* *I do not wish to discuss the matter any further* (550) Gracious, no. A critical part of DD's plan is the manipulation of Harry's behavior in the final adventure. For this to work, Harry cannot be allowed to see DD's complicity in, let alone control of, the unfolding events. Back to the Evening's evidence: There is a mighty pedestrian beginning to the cave adventure. Harry and Dumbledore *made their way down the drive in the gathering twilight (553)...They turned out of the gates into the twilit, deserted lane to Hogsmeade. Darkness descended fast as they walked* (554). As we've discussed in the earlier posts, twilight occurred within moments of 11:00 PM throughout June 1997. We know that Snape was summoned near midnight (619) and AK-ed Dumbledore shortly thereafter. Ron tells us that Draco didn't emerge from the RoR until *about an hour after we started keeping watch* (618). Well, that would be about all of the same hour Harry was absent from the castle. Therefore, everything happened in close proximity to one side or the other of the stroke of midnight. The battle was brief. Draco had only just *succeeded* in repairing the Vanishing Cabinet a few moments before Harry was informed of the night's Hx outing. Thereafter, Rosmerta coin-messaged Draco to say that Dumbledore was having a few at the Hog's Head. During the greater part of this hour, Draco was summoning his cohorts and reviewing details of how to bait Dumbledore with the Dark Mark, etc. Near the end of the hour, Draco emerges, spots Ron et al, and the skirmish is on. Draco tosses a handful of Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder into the seventh floor corridor in front of the RoR, and leads the DEs downward toward the Astronomy tower entrance, on the fourth floor. Taken unaware, Ron and his DA team grope their way toward light, and meet up with Lupin (and apparently the rest of the Order, aka *us*) who manage to find the DE's *minutes later* (618). (Hmmm, makes one wonder why all the Order members are bunched up on the seventh floor, when they've supposedly got lots of corridors and secret passageways to cover. And, why wasn't the Order focused on Draco? Why didn't they follow him to the RoR? Why was the DA guarding it? Harry had warned the Order repeatedly, Snape knew about the plot, Lupin understood the Fenrir connection, etc., etc.) There is a brief engagement and chase, and everyone ends up in the corridor by the stairway to the tower (618). Gibbon heads up to the tower to cast the Dark Mark, comes running back, and is mowed down by friendly fire (618). Ron's evidence lends credence to Rosmerta's claim (Imperio-ed or not) that the Dark Mark appeared only moments before Harry and Dumbledore Apparated back to the High Street (581). Indeed, I'm sure it was part of Rosmerta's job to raise the alarm, and that if Dumbledore hadn't appeared in the street when he did, she would have been off to the Hog's Head to point out the Dark Mark, lest he miss it all whilst sipping another pint of meade. The DE hit squad wouldn't want to have to hang around all night waiting for Dumbly to totter back home. So, within moments of the opening fourth floor fracas, Dumbledore and Harry have seen the Dark Mark and are speeding toward the tower. Meanwhile Bill, Lupin, Tonks, McGonagall, Ron, Ginny, and Neville are mixing it up with Fenrir, Blondie, Alecto, Amycus, Brutal Face, and Draco. Dumbledore and Harry arrive on the ramparts only moments before Draco (buzzed by Rosmerta) shows up (584). Ten minutes, or less, of conversation (try it) and the DE's show up. Give the DE's another 5-10 minutes of sassy dialogue. While everyone is chatting in the night air, the Order members have nothing to do downstairs but dodge one blonde DE's erratic jinxes. (We won't dwell on how lame it is that they can't manage to neutralize him.) During this time Neville tries to go upstairs and is blasted back on his long bottom. Meanwhile, thanks to Draco's cold feet, events on the tower have reached an impasse. Suddenly Snape hurtles through the tower door, wand at the ready, fires off his AK and is back out the door in less than a minute. Let's us likewise cut to the chase with evidence that Snape and Dumbledore knew exactly what was going down that fateful night. Snape Knew to Go Straight to the Tower. Snape sped through the dark chaotic corridor where the rest of the Order/DA were dodging Blondie's wild jinxes, and--without hesitating to assess the situation or ask for information--raced directly to the top of the Astronomy Tower. He obviously was not waiting for McGonagall to tell him what was happening, or where. We aren't told exactly when McGonagall sent Flitwick for Snape. However, there is no description of Flitwick battling the DEs. Additionally, as most of the 11:00PM to midnight hour had elapsed before the DEs showed up, and it was still short of midnight when Flitwick arrived in the dungeons-- adding in the sad truth that it's a long way to run on short legs--he must have been dispatched right away. In which case, Flitwick would not even know that the DEs had repaired to the Tower. Moreover, Hermione reports hearing Flitwick in the corridor, *shouting about Death Eaters in the castle* then, entering Snape's office and *saying that Snape had to go back with him and help... [zap] ::loud thump:: *(619). We don't hear any explanation about tower action. Snape pauses long enough to direct Hermione and Luna to *take care of * Flitwick (what a sweetheart), and heads upstairs. (Flitwick's *errand* was just a good method of taking him out of harm's way, and Snape made sure he didn't go back into danger.) Back to the action: According to Tonks, by the time Snape arrives, it *was all dark...curses flying everywhere* (620). Neville and Bill are bleeding all over the floor and the rest of Order/DA seem to be held at bay. Note that even though Ron concludes that *no one* could get through the barrier, the evidence shows that only Neville and Lupin tried. Lupin says he was *thrown back just like Neville* (620) Not "just like the rest of them," "just like Neville." Only Neville and Lupin actually tried. Neville is flat on the floor by the time Snape shows up and Lupin doesn't make his attempt at the stairs until Snape has already passed the barrier ("I tried to follow him" HBP 620). The point being that there was *no* on-going activity at the stairs which might have constituted nonverbal evidence to make Snape think that he should run for the tower. Moreover, Tonks gives us an idea of how rapidly Snape comes on, darkness and confusion notwithstanding: "Then Snape was there...then he wasn't;" Ginny says she "saw him running towards us" but then ducked and lost sight of him; Lupin relates how Snape ran "straight through the cursed barrier as though it wasn't there"(620). Amazingly focused and accurate behavior from a man who supposedly wouldn't know anything if McGonagall hadn't sent for him, I'd say. *Bonus Mystery Kicker* Tonks reckons that one of the DEs *must have* created the barrier...but did they? After the barrier is up, aside from Neville and Lupin's attempts to mount the stairway, the Order/DA hang around doing nothing but avoiding the blonde DE's wandfire. Lupin later tells us that one of the blonde's hexes *damaged the ceiling and broke the curse blocking the stairs* (612). How would Lupin know--just by sight, in a dark, curse-filled, and now dust-filled corridor--that the barrier had even been broken? What reason did he have to believe that a battle hex would break the barrier? If what he said was true--which I doubt--and he knew that a hex would work in that manner, why didn't he cast a hex to break the barrier, himself? Notice that the barrier supposedly broke just before Snape and Draco emerged, exiting the tower stairs. If so, the event supports the idea that the barrier was created by Dumbledore and, like Harry's Body Bind, dissolved with Dumbledore's death. Further evidence, not only of a Dumbledorian plan, but of the Order's complicity in it. DD was Obviously Lying to Draco. While Draco may be pompous and self-deluded, neither Snape nor Dumbledore will hesitate to dissemble in the name of the cause. You can't sit back and expect a guided tour of the truth. You've got to compare what is said to more objective evidence. The conversation with Draco is fully *on stage* it is not a heart-to- heart in which Dumbledore is baring his soul. There is clear evidence that Dumbledore is lying (as well he should be). But let's work up to it with some merely provocative statements. At one point he says, of the Vanishing Cabinet plan, *It seems to have taken you a long time to work out how to do it.* (586) An odd statement if he's supposed to be surprised it was accomplished, at all. Later, when Draco is crowing about how his plan *worked,* Dumbledore says enigmatically: *Well...yes and no...* (590), and leaves it at that.. Point-blank he tells Draco: *we are quite alone* (590) and we know that isn't true. DD knows it, too. A little common sense should tell us that there's more fiction flying through the night air. Take that matter of Rosmerta's enslaved complicity. Dumbledore Knew Rosmerta Was Draco's Accomplice Long Before the Tower Scene. Halfway through October Katie Bell is injured by the cursed opals. Harry reminds McGonagall that the necklace was from Borgin and Burkes and insists that Draco is behind the attack (253). When Harry hears that Draco was with McG at the time, he immediately draws the conclusion that Draco has an accomplice--and says so. McGonagall is not prepared to believe that Draco's behind it, but indicates that she will relay Harry's concerns to DD (256). By page 260, DD confirms that McGonagall has indeed conveyed Harry's suspicions, and assures Harry that he will *take appropriate measures to investigate... .* Now, what would such an investigation entail? At a minimum checking who purchased the opals from Borgin and Burkes; having a tactful little Legi-chat with Draco; and--inasmuch as it happened in the ladies room of the Three Broomsticks-- paying a visit to Madame Rosmerta. Wanna bet Madame was looking a little wonky about the eyes? Yes, you can tell. Remember F!Moody's instructions (as he demonstrates on Harry): "--watch his eyes, that's where you see it" (GoF 232). I guarantee that someone with the magical acumen of DD or Snape can recognize the victim of an Imperious curse. Note that the Order members share my belief. After the post-hearing encounter with Lucius and Fudge, Harry asks: " if Fudge is meeting Death Eaters like Malfoy how do we know they haven't put the Imperius Curse on him?" (OoP 155) Arthur answers: "Don't think it hasn't occurred to us [b]ut Dumbledore thinks Fudge is acting of his own accord at the moment " (And, yes, DD knew Crouch Sr. was under and Imperius that Halloween night in Book 4, but that`s another story.) The Ruse *Dumbledore* clearly wants Rosmerta to see him and to believe he is spending his sickles at the Hog's Head. There was absolutely no other reason to walk all the way through town before Apparating. Yes, a signal undoubtedly passes between *DD* and Aberforth via the Hog's Head sign. But, he didn't need to walk all the way to town to signal that he was off to the cave. Rowling goes to the bother of telling us how long a walk it is from Hogsmeade to Hogwarts: "They set off toward the lane that led to the school (158) [t]hey trudged up the dark deserted lane... (158) ...they tramped on through the night in silence... (159) Having always traveled there by carriage, Harry had never before appreciated just how far Hogwarts was from Hogsmeade Station. With great relief he finally saw the...gate [to Hogwarts grounds]" (159). The dilligent reader recalls this very long walk when considering the long walk *DD* and Harry take on the fateful night. *DD* could have sent his patronus to the Hog's Head and Apparated with Harry once he was outside Hogwarts grounds--anywhere along that very long walk to town. *DD* clearly wanted to encounter Rosmerta, and tell her his tale of visiting the Hog's Head. That's also why Harry had to remain under the Invisibility Cloak. The rest of the WW will figure out soon enough that Harry was out with him. But--just for a little while--tonight--DD wants the DEs to remain in the dark. Earlier in the story, Rowling goes to the bother of informing us that Slughorn had warning (3 minutes) before DD and Harry walked up to his door. No matter what DD says about courtesy, they Apparated a fair stretch from Slughorn's borrowed residence. DD was "allowing" Slughorn to detect his arrival, and take whatever actions he would. It's logical to expect that part of Rosmerta's duties were to detect DD's arrival. I believe she staged her sudden appearance in the street, to confirm what DD was up to. And DD obliges. In his deceptive fashion. So Harry and DD walk all the way past the Three Broomsticks, and down another side street until they are in front of Hog's Head (HBP 554). The little *creak* of recognition--sans breeze (554). "....As long as no one sees us go "(554). And, DD now seems to be confident that no one does . We know that Rosmerta quickly informs Draco, as ordered, and that DD pretends to have just figured all this out during his conversation with Draco on the ramparts (where Draco seems *forced* to respond). But we can see that DD knew all along. DD used Draco's imperio-ed *assistant* for his own ends. I see I've gotten long-winded again. Here are just a few more thoughts, to wrap things up. Why didn't anyone follow Harry when he chased after Snape? Even if the rest of the Order/DA had been fooled by an ESE!Snape (which obviously, I'm not buying) *all* the other DE's give chase after Harry. And McG orders everyone to the infirmary ? And they go ? Heh? To hell with Harry. Either there is a plan, or the Order are a bunch of first rate wankers. And, how did Lupin know about the Dark Mark bait? Who told him? No one reports going up to the tower after Snape & Co. leave. And, even if they had, how in the world would he know Gibbon cast it? In fine: Extemporaneous!Dumbledore is a twinkly-eyed old reprobate who requires readers to avoid the plain text and resort instead to sweeping generalizations or fabricated alibis to keep him innocent of forethought. I'll have none of it. It's all about The Plan. Looking forward to Dark days ahead, Talisman From bauercandace at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 20:51:22 2006 From: bauercandace at yahoo.com (Candace Bauer) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061018205122.54822.qmail@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159931 Lana wrote: > Are we even sure at this point if Snape is even on DD's side? > Is it possible that he has just been "pretending" to be good. > With all the things that have happened (leading up to and > including the battle), is it possible that Snape really did > kill DD out of hatred for him? Lisa: This is the impression that I have gotten. After all if you remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape when in the great hall. Coincidence or not? I guess we'll just have to wait until the last book is out-after all the author has suprised us several times. Candy: Hello, all, this is my first time posting, but I just wanted to say- the argument for both sides of the Snape issue are good. However, we must remember that in the first book, Harry's scar hurt not at the sight of Snape, but of Professor Quirrell who was next to Snape at the head table. At that time we know that Voldemort had already begun using Quirrell's body, and that Harry's scar had begun to burn at the sight of 'him'. Also, there is some reason- still unknown to us- that Dumbledore trusted Snape so. Snape had, after all, made the unbreakable vow that if Draco was unable to carry through and kill Dumbledore, that he would do it. It could be that the greater good will be served in the end by not giving himself away at that time. Voldemort will have more reason than ever to believe, truly, that Snape is on his side. This will give Snape further access to Voldemort, and in the end it could be that Snape has to assist Harry in some way in killing Voldemort once and for all. After all, we all ready know that Snape is one of the most accomplished wizards in the dark arts. It would take someone great to finally do Voldemort in, and it may be here that we see Snape's 'true' colors, to the good. Just a thought, as we have had many surprises to this point. (`'?.?(`'?.? ?.?'?)?.?'?) ???* Candy *?`? (?.?'?(?.?'? `'?.?)`'.?) From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Wed Oct 18 21:21:25 2006 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (Terri) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:21:25 -0600 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse References: <001101c6f2e7$f700cdb0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: <009901c6f2fb$5e389f40$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 159932 Prechi: > I just joined, so forgive me if this has already been asked. > I think in this last book, Harry sees Snape's memories. He sees > Snape's muggle father abusing his witch mother. I thought this was > a major flaw, for no witch would put up with this. > I have worked in a women's shelter. I am not new to the issue of > domestic abuse. The thing is that women always try to escape--their > attempts may be too feeble and they may get squashed in the > backlash to any attempt to escape the abuse. > *BUT* if the woman is a witch, all she has to do is cast a spell. > So.....come on! a witch could not get trapped in domestic abuse > with a muggle for years. Gimme a break. I thought this was a major > fumble for JK.<<< Hello, Just a newbie with a thought. I've always found that an underlying theme of the books is magic doesn't solve problems. It is merely a tool to be used. If magic could be used to solve everything, then Molly only has to wave her wand and Percy is back and the twins are not in the joke shop business, VD's father and mother are still together, etc. A witch caught in a domestic abuse situation has to have the mental resources to be able to escape, all the magic in the world would not help. Terri From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 22:01:58 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:01:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Message-ID: <20061018220159.20510.qmail@web54503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159933 > Lisa: > This is the impression that I have gotten. After all if you > remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape > when in the great hall. Coincidence or not? I guess we'll just > have to wait until the last book is out-after all the author has > suprised us several times. > > > Julie: Harry's scar hurt when he looked at Snape, who happened to be talking to Quirrell, who had his back turned - which would then have LV 'facing' Harry.. Jeremiah: Julie's got it right, I think. it was a coincidence that Harry's scr hurt when Snape was looking at him in Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone. Snape admits to Bellatrix that LV didnt' trust him at that time. (What reason would he have for lying about that?) Snape would have know Quirrell was up to something, not suspecting that the Dark Lord had posessed the back of Quirrell's head. But I also agree with Lisa that we are going to get the full picture from Snape in the last book. (He likes to be long winded anyway). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 22:49:36 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:49:36 -0000 Subject: Inferi and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159934 --- "bauercandace" wrote: > > Hello, all, I've been thinking quite a bit about Harry > and Inferi. We know that Voldemort has used Inferi > (dead bodies bewitched to do one's bidding) in the past, and that there is the possibility that > he may call upon this army again. > > My thoughts are this: there is a very good chance that > if Voldemort begins using Inferi in this 'war', Harry > will have to face the bodies of people he has loved, > namely Lily, James, Sirius, etc. It seems to me that > Voldemort would have quite a bit to gain in using > these people to fight Harry, as it would obviously > shake him, perhaps to the point of not being able to > overcome it. > bboyminn: Well, we don't really know the details of the Inferi, so all we can do is speculate, and pose more questions. I do agree that using people who are known to the people being attacked has a tremendous psychological advantage. Imagine having to curse the body of your own son or father. On top of suffering the loss of that person, you now in a sense are forced to desecrate their body by fighting it. It's a terrible vision, and I'm sure Voldie plays it to his advantage. But I find myself wondering about the condition of the body in question. Nick's body as best is nothing but bones, at worst, a pile of dust. So, I don't think old bodies would be very effective. At the moment I am wondering if fresh bodies aren't stronger than long dead bodies. Do the available sinew and muscle of the body give it it's physical strength? Once made into a Inferi does deterioration stop? The Inferi in the lake in the cave have likely been there for many years as they lie there are they or are they not continuing to decay, and does it matter? So, I can accept that Voldemort would use the psychological impact of using familiar bodies. But I'm having uncertainties about the likelihood of him using long dead and decayed bodies. Certainly if he could the /horror/ factor would be huge, but I'm not certain that he can us old bodies as effectively and as functionally as new fresh dead bodies. > bauercandace continues: > > No where does it say that the body used has to be that of > a person who was on the dark side to begin with....edited... bboyminn: On this I agree completely, I don't think the bodies have to be of people who practiced Dark Magic; I think any available body will do. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 23:45:04 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:45:04 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: <20061018220159.20510.qmail@web54503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159935 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, J wrote: > Julie: >Harry's scar hurt when he looked at Snape, who happened >to be talking to Quirrell, who had his back turned - >which would then have LV 'facing' Harry.. Jeremiah: >I think. it was a coincidence that >Harry's scr hurt when Snape was looking at him in >Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone. Talisman: Tut. Harry's scar hurt because he was "picking up" Voldmort's hate vibe (via the scar link). Voldemort, who was on an entirely different mission (get the stone, gin up an immortal body, make a comeback), caught sight of his boy nemesis and was seriously pissed. But, by this time, we should know better than to attribute Snape's glance to mere happenchance. He could certainly "read" Voldmort in Quirrell's head, and followed the focus of Voldemort's attention right to where Harry was sitting. His look of hatred has a great deal to do with his hatred of Voldemort (Snape would never wear a turban, (i.e. serve Voldemort, etc.). Much like his look of hatred when he AKs Dumbledore. Of course once Harry decides that it is all about Harry, he has an instant issue with Snape--which is cultivated (by DD and Snape, as well) over the rest of the series--until Harry can't make any sort of objective or rational judgment where Snape is concerned. (Sort of like some fans. ) As we see in HBP, and will see in Book 7, having Harry all pumped up on hate (and gunning for Snape) is all part of The Plan. Jeremiah: >Snape admits to Bellatrix that LV didnt' trust him at that time. >(What reason would he have for lying about that?) Talisman: Not much of an "addmission." The DL doesn't enjoy a love relationship with any of his minions. `Cept maybe Barty Jr. Notice how he didn't call on ANY extra DE help in PS/SS or GoF, until he got his body back and had wand in hand. In each case, he limited reliance on as few as possible. Quirrell and Wormtail were his rides home. No real choice there. He would not have gone to Jr. if he hadn't 1) absolutely needed a Hogwarts mole; 2)had solid information from Bertha as to Jr's rabid loyalty. Jeremiah: >Snape would have know Quirrell was up to >something, not suspecting that the Dark Lord >had posessed the back of Quirrell's head. But I >also agree with Lisa that we are going to get the full picture >from Snape in the last book. Talisman: Snape and DD knew Voldemort was ridng with Q. That's why the Stone was moved to Hogwarts, and kept (instead of being destroyed earlier). It was to entice LV to work through the "protections" in proximity to Harry Potter, who was simultaneously being helped along to the ultimate confrontation. Jeremiah: >(He likes to be long winded anyway). Talisman: Hardly. If anything Snape's page time is all too terse. Good luck figuring the books out. T From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 23:56:19 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:56:19 -0000 Subject: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610180623x1eeccaebq67b3b7c490a25b0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159936 Carol earlier: > > >Big snip< > > >I think it's most unlikely that Snape was looking for a teaching job > >at the time of the Prophecy whether he was a loyal DE or not. > > montims: > Wonderful timeline, and I admire everybody's piecing together of events, but > I have been led off on to one of my digressions. From Snape leaving > Hogwarts to his taking the teaching job some 3 or 4 years pass - I wonder > what he was doing - I can't imagine him working in a shop or in the > Ministry, but equally I imagine he couldn't afford to be unemployed. I know (or believe) that there is nothing in canon, but can anyone speculate? Carol again: Glad you liked my timeline. I like the idea that in his DE/spy days he had a potions shop in Diagon Alley, outwardly perfectly respectable, with a lab in the basement, opened with the financial help of Lucius Malfoy (something similar to Harry's arrangement with the Weasley Twins but on a larger scale). In addition to selling legal potions, the shop was a front for a less savory business connection--poisons, antidotes, and other potions made for Voldemort's use, not only against his enemies but to aid LV in his quest for immortality. An arrangement of that sort would help to explain the Lucius Malfoy connection (Snape owes him a debt of friendship as well as money) and would also be an additional cause for remorse when Snape turned against Voldemort. I don't think there's more than a shred or two of canon evidence for this scenario, but I like it. Carol, just speculating as requested From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 00:06:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:06:08 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159937 > Magpie: > Sorry--yes, that's true. I was using "accident" in response to the > idea that Dumbledore might have assumed that he was the only person > in danger because he was the one Draco was targetting. But > absolutely the deadliness of the mead and necklace were both > intentional--which is why there is a real danger of Draco hurting or > killing someone as long as he's doing this. Ironically, as far as I > can see what keeps Draco from killing anyone else the way he almost > killed Ron and Katie isn't Dumbledore's or Snape's precautions at > all, but the fact that Draco doesn't try any more stunts like that. > So he's batting two for two up until the cabinet--two murder > attempts and two near-deaths. Their surveillance seems to be fairly > useless. The only time we see it having any effect is when Draco is > unable to work on the Cabinet the night of the Christmas party (we > assume). Carol responds: I don't think their surveillance is useless. Once Snape tells Draco that "already you are suspected of having an hand in it" (the cursed necklace incident) and that such tactics are amateurish and easily traceable to him, he goes back to his primary plan, the cabinet. Granted, Snape fails to get that information from him, but at least he did prevent any more near-deaths of innocent people. It was too late to do anything about the mead (the arrangements were already in progress), but after his talk with Snape in December, Draco does nothing else to endanger his fellow students. (That Slughorn opens the bottle of mead in March is beside the point; he acquired it before Christmas.) Carol, noting that Snape had to use DE-based pragmatic arguments rather than moral arguments to deter Draco, but they seem to have served their purpose From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 22:56:13 2006 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:56:13 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159938 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > > Lisa: > > After all if you > > remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape > > when in the great hall. Coincidence or not? I guess we'll just > > have to wait until the last book is out-after all the author has > > suprised us several times. > > Eddie: > I think this was a red herring. My recollection of that event is that > Snape was talking to Quirrell, who was turned towards Snape... > meaning, the back of Quirrell's head (the Voldemort side) was facing > Harry. I think it was Voldie who burned Harry's scar. > > Eddie, who has posted 4 messages today and still has one more in his > quota. > Snape's Witch replies: I think you're right, Eddie. Here's the scene curtesy of Willow Quotes: "Professor Quirrell, in his absurd turban, was talking to a teacher with greasy black hair, a hooked nose, and sallow skin. "It happened very suddenly. The hook-nosed teacher looked past Quirrell's turban straight into Harry's eyes -- and a sharp, hot pain shot across the scar on Harry's forehead." IIRC in the movie (I know, non-canon) Quirrell is turned toward Snape so that LordV is looking at Harry. Snape's Witch From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 01:51:18 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:51:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159939 > Mike now: > But as far as Dawlish vs. Snape, Dawlish is a trained > Auror, training that included stealth per Tonks. I would give his > tailing ability the nod over a 20-year-old untrained Snape. > Neri: It's not so much the difference between Dawlish and Snape as the difference in the type of mission. Tailing and infiltration are two very different missions that don't go well together. Dumbledore already knew who and what was Dawlish, and Dawlish was told by his boss to discover where does Dumbledore spend his nights, so he didn't have many options except tailing Dumbledore. It's not like he could apply to a teacher post at Hogwarts and win Dumbledore's trust, even if he had the time for it. If Snape's mission was indeed infiltration into Hogwarts (Trelawney tells us he was also looking for a job at that time, and in Spinner's End Bellatrix knows that Snape took the post "on the Dark Lord's orders") then it just doesn't go well with tailing Dumbledore. You don't tail someone if you want to get a post from him. If Voldemort wanted Dumbledore tailed, then he could easily put another DE (or five) on this. We know he didn't have any shortage of DEs at that time. But getting a job at Hogwarts, this is something that not any DE could do. > Mike: > I guess I have more confidence in Dumbledore's power of obvervation. > He didn't seem to have any problem ascertaining that the fab four > that followed Voldemort to the Hog's Head were DEs. Neri: Well, duh. They come with Voldemort, they stay with him, so they are his henchmen. Doesn't take that much power of observation. > Mike: > He watched Snape > for seven years (at least), Neri: Where's the canon? > Mike: > we know he had at least one up close and > personal talk with him following the werewolf caper. Neri: So? He also had at least one personal talk with Terry Boot. > Mike: > We see that he > can identify the budding DE in Draco (he recognized Draco's > tendencies in PS/SS and identified him as Harry's antagonist then). > Do you doubt that Dumbledore is very much aware of Draco's DE > leanings by year six? As well as who Draco hangs with and their > tendencies. Neri: Dumbledore has at least two very good reasons to watch Draco closely: 1) he's the son of a major and active DE. 2) he's a rival of "the Chosen One", and we know Harry is watched closely. But did Dumbledore have any reason to watch Snape closely during his school days? Not much that I see, except he was a good student. > Mike: > How about Lucius, Bella and the others when they were in > school and who hung around with them (read: Snape)? Neri: This is according to a comment by Sirius, and yet Sirius himself, who had several good reasons to watch Snape closely during their school days, still didn't know if Snape was a DE when he made this comment. So why would Dumbledore know in 1979? > Mike: > Besides, the > portrayal we get of Dumbledore throughout the book is one of almost > omniscience, I can easily see Dumbledore identifying Snape. Or, more > correctly, I would be astounded if Dumbledore had not made the > connection, wouldn't you? > Neri: Ah yes, I wrote something, long ago, about the myth of Dumbledore's omniscience. The new Yahoo search really helps in finding these forgotten posts. Here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/96085 Perhaps you're trying to say that you'd be astounded if Dumbledore didn't watch closely someone who in later years proved so important to the plot. I won't. Dumbledore isn't a seer and JKR has made that obvious. > Mike: > As to Voldemort assigning Snape; 20 years before Voldemort openly > walked into Hogwarts for a meeting with Dumbledore. I'm sure he is > more secretive himself 20 years later, however many of his Death > Eaters are operating in the open these days even though there may be > suspicions about them. Also, like I said above, I think Dumbledore > could easily determine where any other's loyalties lie and I believe > Voldemort would be well aware of this ability. If Voldemort had to > limit himself to who Dumbledore didn't suspect, well, the list would > be extremely limited. Add on Legilimency and Dumbledore's wizarding > prowess, I think you might have to concede this point. Neri: I'm not sure what I have to concede here. That Dumbledore suspected Snape? Of course he did. Canonically, during VW1 you suspected *anyone* you didn't know well (and if you had any brain, also some people you did know well). Suspicion isn't much help when everybody's a suspect. As for Leglimency, Voldemort is an expert Legilimenn himself so he's well aware of the problem, and I doubt he'd send Dumbledore a spy who isn't a good Occlumenn. Dumbledore also suspected Kreacher but not enough to do something about it. He didn't recognize that Fake!Moody wasn't his old time friend, he didn't recognize that Crouch Sr. was under the Imperius curse, he didn't know if young Crouch Jr. was guilty of the attack on the Longbottoms or not, he didn't realize three of his students had become unregistered animagi, and this is just the beginning of the long list of cases where Dumbledore's didn't see through people. Dumbledore isn't superhuman and he isn't omniscient. > > Neri: > > Dumbledore may not know at this point that Snape is a DE. Snape > > has a good cover story for listening at the door: he is > > interested in a post himself and looking for tips (it may even be > > true, in the sense that he needed to get a post in order to > > infiltrate into Hogwarts, and therefore indeed attempted to get > > these tips). > > Mike: > I refer you to Carol's post, > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159793 > > and my argument in the original post. I don't see Snape with a good > cover story at all. > Neri: I'm not sure to which of Carol's arguments you refer, and no post of yours appear in that thread. Most of Carol's canon in this post isn't very conclusive. We don't really know when the meeting in the HH took place, we don't know how much time after that Trelawney was actually hired, we don't know what posts were open then, and we don't know for what Snape was applying. He may have been applying for a replacement teacher position, or for the Astronomy post, or for the Ancient Runes post, or for the DADA position because the DADA teacher that year had incurred an early bad luck. Or there wasn't any post open but Snape still had some reasonable cover story. Trelawney tells us he was looking for a job at that time and we don't have any special reason to doubt this part of her story (except if our theories require otherwise, that is ). Since both Snape and Voldy aren't complete idiots, I assume they had a reasonable cover story for Snape. > Mike: > Ahh, but a 13 year old Harry recognized when Sibyll was not being > Sibyll and cottoned on to her, that maybe, possibly, this was a real > prophesy. I'm gonna guess that 10 times older Dumbledore might > figure it out too. > Neri: The fact that Sybil isn't Sybil doesn't necessarily imply that her prophecy is true. In HBP, Ch. 23 Dumbledore asks Harry rhetorically: "do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy has been fulfilled?" So Dumbledore is well aware that some prophecies come true and some don't. > Mike: > Dumbledore thinks all prophesies are mumbo jumbo and illegitimate, > isn't that the way you perceive his opinion of the whole field of > Divination? I sure do. The problem with prophesies is always > the "Macbeth syndrome", when someone who believes in the rot, acts > on the rot. And this prophesy was about the Dark Lord. > Neri: Then why did Dumbledore need Trelawney at all? He could just invent whatever mumbo jumbo he thought would trick Voldemort, and tell anybody that Trelawney or another fraud said it. According to your theory only Dumbledore ever heard Trelawney saying the prophecy. Snape never heard any part of it, Trelawney doesn't remember it at all, Pensieve memories can be forged, and Dumbledore does lie. So maybe Trelawney had never made the prophecy at all. Dumbledore invented it, and told everybody that Trelawney said it. > Mike: > Dumbledore absolutely cannot allow this prophesy to see the light of > day, if there is any chance that Voldemort might act on it. And > knowing Tom Riddle as well as anyone, Dumbledore is quite sure that > he *will* act on it. Of course hindsight, being 20/20, I could say > that canon backs up this. I won't. I will only claim that Dumbledore > would not have wanted the prophesy released, regardless to whom it > referred. Dumbledore *must* stop Snape at all costs. > Neri: Yes, but this requires that Dumbledore would understand the prophecy *might* be important (because he had no way to be *sure*) within the very short time it probably took Aberforth to throw Snape out. This was in the end of an interview in which Trelawney probably told Dumbledore lots of mumbo jumbo and convinced him she's a total fraud. Dumbledore had to change his opinion about her in a very short time. If he realized she might not be a *total* fraud ten seconds after Snape was out of the building then this was probably too late. You might not use 20/20 hindsight but you keep calling it "the prophecy". You have to remember that Dumbledore didn't know it was "the prophecy" at the time. He didn't know there even will be a prophecy. > Mike: > Sixteen years later in the MoM, Dumbledore proved that he is still > quick enough on his feet and in his mind to be able to react to a > critical situation. Neri: Heh. I have to warn you here that if you insist on mentioning the MoM battle you risk dragging me into one of my favorite Dumbledore bashing lectures. The number of critical mistakes he made on that day is appalling. Trust me, you don't want me to start going through them again . > Mike: > I have no doubt that Dumbledore would feel that > a prophesy about Voldemort, allowed to reach Voldemort, qualifies as > a critical situation. Neri: Do you think no other prophecies, true or false, were made about the Dark Lord during VW1? Do you think none of them ever reached Voldy? The Dark Lord was the most burning issue in the WW for eleven years. No doubt it was the most popular subject for prophesizing. These "prophecies" were probably all over the Daily Prophet twice a week (why d'you think it's called the Daily *Prophet*?) and I shudder to think what The Quibbler was printing. I wouldn't be surprised if Trelawney herself had made three or four Dark Lord predictions to Dumbledore during that very interview. Voldemort probably didn't think much of Trelawney's prediction when he first heard it. But several months later a part of Trelawney's prediction cane true ? two boys were born in the end of July to couples that defied Voldemort three times. That's probably when things got serious. JKR's timeline supports this view. The two years between the prophecy and GH are partly explained by this. Neri From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Oct 19 02:57:59 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:57:59 -0400 Subject: Molly and Harry - Treated Like Family Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159940 Sirius is the father; Molly the mother; Ron is the brother close to one's age, while Bill, Charlie and the Twins are like big brothers who alternatingly tease and torment and help and advise; Hermione is a sister; Tonks is either a big sister or a youngish aunt; Arthur, Lupin, and Hagrid are uncles; Dumbledore is grandfather. I guess Minerva would be a great-aunt. BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 03:15:34 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:15:34 -0000 Subject: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610180623x1eeccaebq67b3b7c490a25b0d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159941 > montims: > From Snape leaving > Hogwarts to his taking the teaching job some 3 or 4 years pass - I wonder > what he was doing - I can't imagine him working in a shop or in the > Ministry, but equally I imagine he couldn't afford to be unemployed. I know > (or believe) that there is nothing in canon, but can anyone speculate? > zgirnius: Well, in my fanfiction, I actually DO have him working in a shop, making Potions. I speculate that despite his talent, he could not land a prestigious job because of his lack of social connections and Muggle father. As you say, he could not afford to be unemployed. However, since you expressed a dislike for that theory...he could also have been undergoing advanced training for a profession. I expect he had strong NEWT grades in Potions, Charms, and DADA at the very least. (Based on his ability to invent Potions improvements, spells like Muffliato, and Dark spells like Sectumsempra). Could he have had more? I would guess maybe Herbology, he seems to know his ingredients. Anway, if he had been an Auror in training, I think we would have heard of it, but the profession I'll suggest is Healing, perhaps specifically anti Dark Arts healing. He certainly seems to be an expert on it in HBP. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 03:19:07 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:19:07 -0000 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159942 pcotu: > I just joined, so forgive me if this has already been asked. > > I think in this last book, Harry sees Snape's memories. He sees > Snape's muggle father abusing his witch mother. I thought this was a > major flaw, for no witch would put up with this. zgirnius: The story of Merope Gaunt Riddle is potentially relevant here, I believe. The abuse she suffered at the hands of her father and brother affected her ability to do magic, as did her anguish at being rejected by her Muggle husband. So a possible explanation is that Eileen was worn down by psychological abuse and was not able to defend herself with magic. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 03:25:02 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:25:02 -0000 Subject: Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159943 Lisa: > This is the impression that I have gotten. After all if you > remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape > when in the great hall. Coincidence or not? I guess we'll just > have to wait until the last book is out-after all the author has > suprised us several times. > zgirnius: At the moment Harry saw Snape, Quirrell had turned his head to talk to Snape. This means that Voldemort (in the back of Quirrell's head, hiding in the turban) was facing Harry for the first time. I am convinced it was Voldemort, and not Snape, that caused the scar to hurt. From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Oct 19 03:02:42 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:02:42 -0400 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159944 How do you know it was 'abuse'? He was yelling at her, yes. All couples fight. My parents went at it hammer-and-tongs sometimes (although they never hit each other), and when I was little it scared me. But now, as an adult, looking back, I realize that it was just normal squabbling; they did love each other. I agree that a witch would not allow a muggle to abuse her. She could just turn him into a frog, after all, if he annoyed her too much. BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 04:09:59 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:09:59 -0000 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159945 BAW: > How do you know it was 'abuse'? He was yelling at her, yes. All couples fight. > My parents went at it hammer-and-tongs sometimes (although they never hit each > other), and when I was little it scared me. But now, as an adult, looking back, > I realize that it was just normal squabbling; they did love each other. zgirnius: The bit that gets most people to the abuse conclusion is not that he is yelling. I agree, that can absolutely be part of a relationship which is basically sound. The problem is that the woman is 'cowering'. Not just listening, or arguing, not yelling or throwing crockery herself, but acting scared of the man. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 19 04:18:38 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:18:38 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159946 > > Pippin: > > > > I actually agree with you that Dumbledore's main objective is to > > show Draco that he's not a killer. What I disagree with is that there > > was such a great risk of Draco murdering someone that Dumbledore > > would have been justified in depriving Draco of his civil rights. > > He knew that Draco would not kill if he had a choice, since he > > didn't kill Harry when he had the chance. > > a_svirn: > Yet your assertion is somewhat at variance with the fact that Draco > sent a bottle of poisoned firewhiskey to Slughorn. Which could have > been fatal to any number of people (presumably Dumbledore does not > drink whiskey alone), and nearly resulted in three deaths. One of > those was only very narrowly averted. Not to mention the necklace > plan, which was less likely to succeed, yet no less murderous in its > intent. Pippin: A child's intent is by definition not fully formed. If adults entice a child to kill and help him to obtain weapons, then it is they who have the murderous intent, not he, and they who need to be locked up for the safety of others. Granted, Draco's half-formed intentions were very dangerous and could have caused several deaths, but the same could be said of many other Hogwarts students including Harry, Ron and Hermione. Preventing this sort of thing is extremely difficult, because the kids try things that no sane adult would even imagine, like stealing thestrals and flying off to the Ministry to challenge Voldemort, or poisoning a bottle bound for a castle with hundreds of people in it on the off chance that it might reach your target. I don't think the mead would have done much damage if it had arrived at its intended destination. Dumbledore wasn't as ostentatiously paranoid about what he drank as Moody is, but except for the cave I don't believe we ever saw him him drink anything that wasn't prepared by the Hogwarts Elves or conjured by his own magic. The bottle would probably have ended up in the RoR's storehouse of discarded items, where there seem to have been plenty of weapons and potions handy. That Draco felt nonetheless that he had to bring a weapon from outside the castle tells us something about his state of mind. I'm wondering now about Draco's attempt to crash Slughorn's Christmas party. I doubt he wanted to be a guest at a gathering where poisoned mead might be served. Could it be he was having second thoughts about his plan and realizing that the mead might go astray and harm his friends? He doesn't make any more attempts that we know of, but seems to go back to the cabinet plan. Harry realized immediately after the necklace attempt that Draco would have to have an accomplice in Hogsmeade. Presumably Dumbledore would have realized the same. Should he have put the whole town in protective custody then? Or does he care enough about civil rights not to do that? Sirius's case is different. He was thought to be insane, which AFAWK would have denied him a trial in any case, and the evidence against him was overwhelming. Pippin From karthik_vegeeta at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 02:43:21 2006 From: karthik_vegeeta at yahoo.com (Karthik Ramachandran) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:43:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape Message-ID: <20061019024321.94211.qmail@web37710.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159947 Lisa: This is the impression that I have gotten. After all if you remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape when in the great hall. Karthik_vegeeta: It hurt him because Quirrel was in the middle of Snape and Harry and as Quirrel's body was hosting Voldemort. From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Thu Oct 19 05:01:53 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:01:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: <009901c6f2fb$5e389f40$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159948 I completely agree with Prechi - the true question is whether the people in the memory are Snape's parents (assuming the crying boy is Snape). Terri wrote: > A witch caught in a domestic abuse situation has to have the mental > resources to be able to escape, all the magic in the world would not > help. Abergoat continues: I think Terri nails JKR's clue...JKR showed Eileen Prince as a woman with mental resources. She was captain of a team that played a popular game against other schools. If Eileen could take abuse from the gobstones of her opponents I find it highly unlikely she would cower in front of a muggle. Harry manages to perform magic without a wand when he is angry. Is it possible that Eileen was another Merope? We cannot rule it out completely but not protecting a child at all costs is extremely unusual. I don't think we need another Merope. JKR says Snape was loved, I assume Eileen loved him - JKR's clues point towards the need to question whether those people were Tobias and Eileen Snape. Abergoat From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 05:03:09 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:03:09 -0000 Subject: The Plan--Long (was: HBP theories... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159949 Neri: Not touching the conspiracy theory with a ten feet pole, naturally, but the reconstruction of the night events is the most comprehensive I've seen so far. Which is why I must correct two details: > Talisman: > Meanwhile Bill, Lupin, Tonks, McGonagall, Ron, Ginny, and Neville > are mixing it up with Fenrir, Blondie, Alecto, Amycus, Brutal Face, > and Draco. > > While everyone is chatting in the night air, the Order members have > nothing to do downstairs but dodge one blonde DE's erratic jinxes. > > (We won't dwell on how lame it is that they can't manage to > neutralize him.) > Neri: Actually there are also *at least* two more anonymous DEs with Blondie. We know this because when Harry is joining the fray (p. 599) we are told that "Ron, Professor McGonagal and Lupin, each of whom were battling a separate Death Eater". Who are these three DEs? McGonagall is probably dueling with Alecto, because too paragraphs later she seems to send a farewell jinx after her, but this still leaves two DEs. They can't be Brutal Face, Greyback or Amycus, all of them taken down by Harry just a few seconds before. Blondie is battling with Tonks and Gibbon is already down. Conclusion: there must be at least two more DEs, and they were not up on the tower so they were below with Blondie. Of course, if there are two additional DEs *for sure* then there may be even more that JKR doesn't bother to mention. The battle downstairs now appears more realistic. > Talisman: > Rowling goes to the bother of telling us how long a walk it is from > Hogsmeade to Hogwarts: > > "They set off toward the lane that led to the > school (158) [t]hey trudged up the dark deserted lane... > (158) ...they tramped on through the night in silence... (159) > Having always traveled there by carriage, Harry had never before > appreciated just how far Hogwarts was from Hogsmeade Station. With > great relief he finally saw the...gate [to Hogwarts grounds]" (159). > > The dilligent reader recalls this very long walk when considering > the long walk *DD* and Harry take on the fateful night. Neri: In fact, according to JKR's map of Hogwarts: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/hogwarts/atlas-h-jkrmap.html and better seen in the map drawn by El Cronista de Salem from JKR's map: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/hogwarts/atlas-h-ecmap.html the distance from the castle to Hogsmeade is considerably shorter than the distance to Hogsmeade Station. Hogsmeade is almost right out of the front gates, but the train station is all the way to the other side from the gates. This arrangement indeed concurs with the description in several books of the way from the Hogwarts Express: the first years travel across the lake by boat and the rest of the students in carriages that go some distance before they reach the front gates. Neri From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Thu Oct 19 05:08:50 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:08:50 -0000 Subject: How about a twist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159950 Louis wrote: > Harry does get DD's pensieve and sees the argument between Snape > and Dumbledore at the edge of the woods and Snape is vindicated. The > argument was about how Snape being on the inside was more important than Dumbledore living. Abergoat writes: The bizarre thing is why does Dumbledore tell Snape he needs to investigate his own house? Dumbledore suggests in the tower he knew it was Draco along, which fits with your theory that Dumbledore was insisting that Snape perform the task the vow required. So what was there to investigate? Draco refers to 'better help than you', does Dumbledore want Snape to figure out who that help is? Is Snape not really trying? How does this fit into the vow? Exposing the 'help' would actually be going against Draco...so I guess that is a point in favor of Dumbledore not knowing about the vow. But I don't really buy it. Anyone have ideas what the investigation was about? Abergoat From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 05:50:58 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:50:58 -0000 Subject: Who's the Meanie? (was Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159951 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > pcotu: > > I think in this last book, Harry sees Snape's memories. He sees > > Snape's muggle father abusing his witch mother. I thought this >>was a major flaw, for no witch would put up with this. > > zgirnius: > The story of Merope Gaunt Riddle is potentially relevant here... So a possible explanation is that Eileen was > worn down by psychological abuse and was not able to defend herself > with magic. Talisman: "--a hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in a corner--" (OoP 592). In like vein (to Merope's paternal woes), the meanie may be a father, not a husband. Maybe a blood-proud one who is refusing to acknowledge a Half-blood grandchild, or to reconcile with a daughter who married a Muggle. She would "take it" (not physical abuse so much as the yelling) if she were trying to regain a lost familial status for herself/her child. Get back on the tapestry, so to speak. No matter what kind of prick he might be, hexing Daddy wouldn't help. I rather expect Snape's familial outlook to be quite different from Voldemort's. I think we'll find he cared for his "Muggle" father. That's why he stays at Spinner's End. Indeed, the theory I usually go with is that Snape is a pureblood who only passes as a Half-blood, out of loyalty to the Muggle Step- father who..er, stepped up...and helped out his Mum, when the wizard daddy wouldn't do right by her. Sort of a reverse of Tom Riddle, Sr. In which case the meanie could be the wizard cad. Again, if she is pleading on behalf of her child's family status or well-being, she isn't likely to take a combative stance. She's appealing to his heart or sense of duty. And, afterall, he's magic, too. From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 19 06:10:44 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:10:44 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159952 > Nikkallmati: > I assume this is a play on the wizard's own name, not on the spell he used. Secca adds: I don't understand how this works -- so he said his own name as Barussio? Is that what you mean? How does that conjure a buffalo? If it just supposed to be funny that his name and 'buffalo' are similar, then why bring up the whole 's' instead of 'f' -- She could have just said "never forget Baruffio who mispronounced a spell and ended up with a buffalo on his chest." >Eddie wrote: >Maybe Baruffio needs a spelling spell. :-) Secca adds: Oh Eddie... No really... Oh Eddie... *Maybe* what he needed was to fit a fell... WAIT I meant Sit A Spell... Aghhh ::<-- Smooshed by buffalo:: .... "accio bussola" *All right then* -- Back to topic: Why *does* Flitwick say: "-- Never forget Wizard Baruffio who said 's' instead of 'f' and found himself on the floor with a buffalo on his chest." SS USpb 171 *No really*. I have puzzled over this for years now, it bugs me every reread. (Okay, not very much... but it does bug me.) I have never seen, anywhere (including archived HP4GU posts) a convincing explanation. Does anyone have one? The silliness I posted a couple of posts back almost works -- but not really. Nor does calling it a typo; (it should have been "f instead of s") as that makes more sense "Wingardium Leviofa" -- I don't buy this one either. (It *might* work if 'ofa' somehow meant buffalo... any thoughts?) The idea that makes the most sense to me is that Barrufio was saying something else, other than 'Wingardium Leviosa'; perhaps in Latin (or Portuguese if this is just a private joke of Jo's) -- but remember, this is Book 1. That means that we, as readers back then, did not know most of the spellnames we do now, so while "Accio bussalo" works for the joke... we don't know if Jo had invented 'Accio' yet when she wrote this... besides, 'bussalo' doesnt mean anything... details, details.(Well, actually, Busalo is a surname and Bussalo is a city in Togo, but *anyway*) I have seen as well, and tried myself to find, some play on words for the Latin names for Buffalo, and Bison and Bovine and similar things, but none of that seemed to work either... Anbody speak Portuguese? As I still think that is the best bet for a possible explanation for this, maybe a private joke of Jo's... (personally, given the nature of the word for 'floor' in portuguese, the joke might even be off-color, Jo had more leeway to have fun back with Book 1.. I imagine her learning portuguese and coming up with one of those 'only funny to non-native speakers' kind of pun on words... okay, so maybe I imagine a bit too much, but that *is* why I read HP in the first place!! I know this is an old, unimportant trifle, but I really am curious as a kneazle in Knightbridge. Besides, I think I need a break from "Book Seven: Harry Potter and the Neverending Snape!Theories" Inquiring Minds Want to Know! I want to know! Ms. Magoo wants to know!! (Great screename BTW!) From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 19 06:40:10 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:40:10 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159953 > Geoff wrote: > Just to avoid any confusion, I /think/ you mean that Wizard!Maths is base 493. Secca replies, abashedly: You are correct sir! Give that gentleman an "O"! Oh dearie me... dyslexic sarcasm. To paraphrase Jo and Milne -- "My maths is wobbly" From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 19 07:10:24 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:10:24 -0000 Subject: Sevens. In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610180420h2155889dwd449d8d8b2c608bf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159954 > Random 832 wrote: > I don't see how there's anything non-politically-correct in the first place about "seventh [of a particular gender] child of a seventh [of> the same gender] child", which is essentially how it actually goes.> There's no inequality in that. Secca replies: What I meant is this - The original, patriarchal saying referred to men only -- "7th son of a 7th son." Nothing anywhere about 7th daughter, as far as I know. So a slightly more PC version would be: "7th son of a 7th son OR 7th daughter of a 7th daughter." and the most PC version would be "7th child of a 7th child." > Random 832 wrote: > Wouldn't she have said something, then? At least mentioned siblings > other than Gideon and Fabian? Secca Replies: Umm -- What I am positing, is that she *did* say this. I believe Molly is the 7th daughter in her generation because of what Jo said in the aforementioned interview... Do you mean why has she never listed their names? Because it has, and may remain to be, unimportant to the storyline we are reading 'from Harry's POV'. We didn't know *Rons* eye color, or Patronus... except from interviews... >> Secca wrote: >> Now 17 Sickles to a Galleon, and 29 knuts to a sickle; Here we have a different story! This implies that Wizard!Math is base(493) > Random 832 replied: > No more than British!Math is base 240. Secca now adds: Well, that /would/ explain Cricket... >> Secca wrote: >> ...which implies that a midget wearing glasses is being born... > Random 832 replied: > True or false, I don't see how anything follows from it being base 493 Secca Now adds: It follows clearly, completely, and logically from the fact that Wizard!Math is Base(493) - because it is clear that I was completely joking, logically speaking that is [sid hoc procter ergo hoc]. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 07:09:42 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:09:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Does Lie - On the Tower and Before. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159955 --- "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Pippin: > > Thank you for illustrating the sort of pressure that > > got Sirius, Hagrid, Barty Jr, and Stan Shunpike thrown > > in jail regardless of the evidence because Something > > Must Be Done. ... > > Magpie: > But who said anything about throwing him in jail? > Dumbledore does know that Draco is guilty--it's not > like at the end he says anything about holding off > until he got proof. He's not looking for proof-- > he's not looking to act on Draco's "crime" in any way > but to protect him and try to get him on a better path. > He *does* share Harry's suspicions of Draco--they're > actually more than suspicions for him. And Dumbledore's > never been a particular mouthpiece for needing > evidence to know what's going on. > bboyminn: Magpie, in general I think you make a lot of good points, and while I may not support them down to the last detail, overal I think they are very reason. However, that said, I do want to raise a couple of small side points. We are all taking in by Dumbledore's seeming omniscience or at least his attempt to make everyone believe he is omniscient. At the top of the tower Dumbledore speaks very casually as if he has always known everything, and has simply chosen not to act on it. However, I suspect that a lot of that is just 'Dumbledore cool'. We don't actually know that Dumbledore has continued on-going knowledge of what Draco was doing. It is very possible that Dumbledore is just in that very moment pulling the pieces of the puzzle together and understanding what happened. Now as I implied, Dumbledore speaks as if he has always known, but I think that was for Draco's benefit. He is trying to make Draco think he is, as always, the wise all-knowing Dumbledore, and that he is now offerring Draco one last chance to change course and save himself. That I think is Dumbledore's priority, to turn Draco around. So, he must speak to Draco in a certain way, a way which may not reflect the true immediate reality. So, all I am saying is at least consider the possibility that Dumbledore didn't know everything he claimed to know and didn't know if for the amount of time that is implied. I really think Dumbledore is pulling all the pieces together on the spot. Yes, he certainly knew Draco was up to something; something big, but it may not have been that clear exactly what it was until that very moment. And, Dumbledore, in conversing with Draco so casually, gets Draco to reveal far more details of the plot than Draco would have ever intended. Which in turn gives Dumbledore more pieces of the puzzle to put together. I also think that knowing that he, Dumbledore, is in grave peril, he is having his conversation with Draco for Harry's benefit. He needs Harry to know details, to carry these details away from the meeting and relay them to other people. Harry now also knows that Dumbledore offerred Draco a chance to change course, a second chance, and Harry saw that Draco was tempted by it, but the timing of the arrival of more DE's robbed him of the chance to act on it. Yet having seen Draco's reluctance to kill Dumbledore, and seen Draco's frustration with being a DE, stuck with Harry, and may influence how Harry reacts when he and Draco confront each other in the future. So, on the issue of whether Dumbledore should have acted earlier, I don't think we can take Dumbledore direct and implied statements at that moment on the top of the tower as an indication of what he has always known. Again, I think he is piecing it together on the spot. Because of this and the general civil rights issues, plus the point I made before that you can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped, I find it hard to condemn Dumbledore for not acting. I really don't think he had as much foundation for acting as he seems to imply in that moment, and I don't think earlier intervention would have been productive. I think he had to let Draco come to a crossroads, and had to have Draco face a choice about his future and the path it was going to take. Since I don't see Dumbledore as all-the-time all-knowing as he tries to make us and Draco believe, I really don't see him having enough information to take action against Draco at an earlier point in the story. Certainly, I think if Harry had explained to Dumbledore what happened to Trelawney, he might have responded differently, but I think we also need to understand that at the moment, Dumbledore is very distracted. He is on the threshold of a critically important and very dangerous mission, he probably didn't see this as the time to be distracted by tangental problems like Draco. Consequently, even if Harry had explained, I suspect, being so narrowly focused at the moment, Dumbledore would have carried out the Horcrux Mission with the intention of dealing with Draco later. That is an easy tatical error to make. You simply can't be in all places all the time doing all things. You have to set priorities, and at the moment, minus a clear and direct threat, Draco could wait, but the Horcrux could not. I think a lot of these secondary factors come into play, and I think it is wrong to base our speculation on our total knowledge after the fact or on characters total knowledge after the fact, and use that to determine what a character should have done before all the after-the-fact facts became known. I think a great deal of Dumbledore's all-knowingness is bluff. It's just like your mother always knowing when and how you screwed up when you were a kid. Sometimes she knew things that were downright spooky, but I think she probably knew far less that you imagined, and I think you gave away far more than you suspected. Dumbledore is 150 years old, he has been working with kids for many many decades, he probably doesn't even need to use Legilimency to guess what they are up to and when, which to a kid would make him appear all-knowing, but would fall far short of that impression. Don't know how or if that affects the conversation, but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From jolenelukeemily at yahoo.com Wed Oct 18 23:03:40 2006 From: jolenelukeemily at yahoo.com (Jolene Pope) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:03:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: <009901c6f2fb$5e389f40$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> Message-ID: <20061018230341.28272.qmail@web39201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159956 Prechi: > He sees Snape's muggle father abusing his witch mother. > I thought this was a major flaw, for no witch would put up with > this. Jolene: Not true if he made her believe that she had no power by hitting her; witch or not, she may have just gave up -- look at Merope, Tom/Voldemrt's mother. From bauercandace at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 03:06:12 2006 From: bauercandace at yahoo.com (Candace Bauer) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:06:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Inferi and Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061019030612.74435.qmail@web32504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159957 Kyra wrote: >> I don't think we will ever see Lily, James or Sirius as inferi, because one has to DO something to turn the dead bodies into "undead" beings and we know that Voldie didn't have time to do that on James nor Lily, as for Sirius... well, there is no body since he went through the veil. I think to become an inferius one has to be killed by the same wizard/witch who will do the spell to have an undead sevant. << Candy: Okay, so I forgot about Siruis and the veil.... However, I don't remember anything about the killing wizard having to 'do' anything to anyone to later turn them into an inferi.... I was under the impression that the body could later be bewitched to do the dark wizard's bidding. (`'?.?(`'?.? ?.?'?)?.?'?) ???* Candy *?`? (?.?'?(?.?'? `'?.?)`'.?) From nikki_dolance at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 04:18:34 2006 From: nikki_dolance at yahoo.com (Nikki Dolance) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's Scar Message-ID: <20061019041834.3839.qmail@web35115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159958 Hi, first post so don't flame me too hard! I've had this thought since the 3d or 4th book... Is it possible that the scar on Harry is the final horcrux (sp) not Harry but just the scar? And perhaps the ending is Harry gives the scar/lightning bolt back to LV? I know a million miles off but has interested me.. Nikki From darksworld at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 05:58:16 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:58:16 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159959 > Pippin: > A child's intent is by definition not fully formed. If adults entice a > child to kill and help him to obtain weapons, then it is they who have > the murderous intent, not he, and they who need to be locked up > for the safety of others. Draco is **not** a child. While he is not yet of age, he can certainly act with full intent. I realize that we are not dealing with the real world here, but in any real world case where a 16 year old set up two seperate murder attempts you would see them tried as an adult. I would have to say the reason DD keeps blowing off the murder attempts is to keep Draco out of Azkaban, for whatever purpose. Charles Walker, who keeps reading more and more theories in this group that convince him that DD has many ruthless plots stashed in his robes. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 09:58:50 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:58:50 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159960 > Carol: > I don't think their surveillance is useless. Once Snape tells Draco > that "already you are suspected of having an hand in it" (the cursed > necklace incident) and that such tactics are amateurish and easily > traceable to him, he goes back to his primary plan, the cabinet. a_svirn: Then it was even worse than useless: Snape actually helped Draco, warned him about being watched and ensured that he would stick to the main objective. > Carol: > Granted, Snape fails to get that information from him, but at least he > did prevent any more near-deaths of innocent people. a_svirn: That's a strange thing to say, considering that the cabinet plan exposed Hogwarts to a death eaters' invasion. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 19 10:21:47 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:21:47 -0000 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159961 zgirnius: > The bit that gets most people to the abuse conclusion is not that he is yelling. I agree, that can absolutely be part of a relationship which is basically sound. The problem is that the woman is 'cowering'. Not just listening, or arguing, not yelling or throwing crockery herself, but acting scared of the man. Ceridwen: It could also be that she is regretful of something that happened. My theory - I use the term very loosely, others have mentioned it before so I didn't come up with it - is that Tobias had just suffered from some bout of accidental or breakthrough magic from Young Severus. He's angry about it, and yelling. Eileen would be cringing because she's very aware that whatever it is that happened was, at the least, disappointing for her husband, or worse, was painful. The child, Severus I take it, is crying because Dad just went off the deep end, and it was because of something that he did. My favorite scenario is Dad just home from work, reading the paper, when his trousers catch on fire. I'd yell too, and people would cringe. A woman afraid that her husband has had enough of the marriage might cringe: "He's angry, he's going to leave... Merlin, please don't leave me!" If she had been hiding the fact that the child could do magic, or even hiding the fact that she was a witch herself, she might think this was the end of everything, he would now walk out that door. Or if there had been other bouts of accidental magic and Tobias had stated that he didn't want to be subjected to it again, she might think, here it is, he's leaving. Everyone is emotional in this scene, so it could be just about anything. This could have been a random memory among others, of course. But it could also have been noteworthy because it was unusual. The question might be, what is Rowling trying to show with this scene? An echo of Merope and Tom, Sr.? Or a temporary rift to show Young Severus's love for both his parents, the way Draco loves his parents? Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 10:28:05 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:28:05 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159962 > Pippin: > A child's intent is by definition not fully formed. If adults entice a > child to kill and help him to obtain weapons, then it is they who have > the murderous intent, not he, and they who need to be locked up > for the safety of others. a_svirn: By what definition? There is an ongoing debate on whether or not children should be fully responsible for their actions. No one ever doubted, however, that they are capable of forming intent and committing crime. Besides, at sixteen Draco is hardly a child. In real life certain allowances would be made for him but certainly not to a point of dropping the chargers. In the world where seventeen is the age of majority this argument seems even less valid. Voldemort had at least four murders on his conscience at sixteen, would you shrug them off on the ground that he was but a child? And finally, if you are right, and Draco was too young to be held responsible, it follows that he was too young to be allowed a choice. >Piipin: > Granted, Draco's half-formed intentions were very dangerous and > could have caused several deaths, a_svirn: They weren't "half-formed". They were fully formed and executed. >Piipin: but the same could be said of > many other Hogwarts students including Harry, Ron and Hermione. > Preventing this sort of thing is extremely > difficult, because the kids try things that no sane adult would > even imagine, like stealing thestrals and flying off to the Ministry > to challenge Voldemort, or poisoning a bottle bound for a castle > with hundreds of people in it on the off chance that it might reach > your target. a_svirn: Actually, it's a very different sort of thing. The former is a rescue attempt, while the latter is a murder attempt. I am a little surprised that you cannot tell the difference. >Pippin: > I don't think the mead would have done much damage if it had > arrived at its intended destination. Dumbledore wasn't as > ostentatiously paranoid about what he drank as Moody is, but > except for the cave I don't believe we ever saw him him drink > anything that wasn't prepared by the Hogwarts Elves or conjured > by his own magic. The bottle would probably have ended up > in the RoR's storehouse of discarded items, where there seem > to have been plenty of weapons and potions handy. a_svirn: Say you are right ? for the sake of argument. Where does it leave us? So because Dumbledore felt reasonably secure himself, he allowed Draco to continue, even though his activity put others in jeopardy? I'd say you are a bit hard on the old man. Pippin: > Sirius's case is different. He was thought to be insane, which > AFAWK would have denied him a trial in any case, and the > evidence against him was overwhelming. a_svirn: I don't remember it's said anywhere in canon that people can avoid trial on the ground of insanity. Besides, in that case, Sirius would have ended up in St Mungo, rather than in Azkaban. From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Thu Oct 19 13:22:52 2006 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:22:52 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159963 > Nor does > calling it a typo; (it should have been "f instead of s") as that > makes more sense "Wingardium Leviofa" -- I don't buy this one either. I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. I already posted a link to a picture on Wikipedia of the Bill of Rights. Post 159752. The words in big letters across the top are obviously 'Congress of the United States', but the first word looks very much like 'Congrefs'. Old documents are weird that way. I always figured Baruffio was reading his spell out of a book and thought an F was actually a very-similar- appearing S. MercuryBlue From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 13:35:36 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:35:36 -0000 Subject: Snape never turned? WAS: Re: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: <001101c6f2e7$f700cdb0$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159964 marionros: > But joining a club like the DE's and then crawling back to DD to beg forgiveness and DD grandiosely granting a 'second chance' and Snape living on charity... No chance! He's always struck me as too purposeful, too *focused*. zgirnius: I find Dumbledore's statement about Snape to Harry in HBP is difficult to reconcile with the version of events where Snape became a Death Eater as Dumbldore's spy. I do not believe Dumbledore lies to Harry, for reasons of security or anything else, at this point in the series. If there is something he feels Harry cannot know, he just doesn't say it (such as his decision not to more fully explain why he trusts Snape.) "I believe it was the greatest regret of his life, and the reason that he returned-" It could be the greatest regret of his life, etc. even if he did it for Dumbledore, but not the reason that he returned, if he never left. I also think that you have described the 'remorseful Snape' story in language that, as you say, does not suit Snape all that well. But it did not necessarily happen in the way you describe. The way I see it, when Snape learned of the Potters' danger, he did not go crawling to Dumbledore to beg for a second chance. I think he approached Dumbledore for a simple practical reason: He hed decided he was not going to watch Voldemort kill the Potters because of Snape's own actions, and he realized that there was nothing he could do about it with the resources at his disposal. He didn't go to Dumbledroe begging for forgiveness, but to give him the information that would give the Potters a chance. And likewise Dumbledore's giving of a second chance to Snape was not some sort of charitable pittance. I think Dumbledore took a chance on him, in part because he saw the usefulness Snape could have to the war effort as a spy (and of course, in part because his understanding of people led him to believe that Snape would value that trust and live up to it). It was no small thing. Dumbledore had no hold on Snape, no way to ensure he would not be misled and betrayed by him. Since I think this all happened about a year before Voldemort's fall, Dumbledore had plenty of time working with Snape to determine that he had gambled and won. That's how I see it, anyway. From dougsamu at golden.net Thu Oct 19 13:40:09 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:40:09 -0400 Subject: The Plan--Long (was: HBP theories... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159965 Talisman, fascinating. I have no argument with it all. I remain pretty open-minded. :-) There is so much Mind-sharing (all the Legilimancy), and Body-sharing, (polyjuice potions) why do so many people have so much difficulty with a little soul sharing? (He certainly put something of himself into you that night). Anyway, I am wondering if The Plan doesn't suffer from some small confusion between Rowling manipulating the characters and Dumbledore manipulating the characters... in so much as what might be seen as a manipulation by Dumbledore is perhaps an artifact of Rowling needing the character in a certain place? Thoughts? Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From bauercandace at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 12:25:01 2006 From: bauercandace at yahoo.com (Candace Bauer) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 05:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Harry's Scar In-Reply-To: <20061019041834.3839.qmail@web35115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061019122501.8337.qmail@web32503.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159966 Nikki Dolance wrote: Hi, first post so don't flame me too hard! I've had this thought since the 3d or 4th book... Is it possible that the scar on Harry is the final horcrux (sp) not Harry but just the scar? And perhaps the ending is Harry gives the scar/lightning bolt back to LV? I know a million miles off but has interested me.. Candy: Hey, Nikki, thanks for joining. I don't think that Harry's scar will be the final horcrux. It seems to me that at some point I read a rumor to this effect on JK's website, and it was debunked. If my memory serves me correctly, as soon as Voldemort tried to kill Harry, the protection which his mother had afforded him made the curse some what 'backfire' onto Voldemort himself, which is what had rendered him powerless for so long. The result of the failed attempt on Harry was the scar, the scar of a killing curse gone wrong. Great idea, though. Obviously someone else has thought that, too, or there wouldn't have been the time taken to talk about it on JK's sight. (`'?.?(`'?.? ?.?'?)?.?'?) ???* Candy *?`? (?.?'?(?.?'? `'?.?)`'.?) From sirius_13_potter at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 11:54:08 2006 From: sirius_13_potter at yahoo.com (harry) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:54:08 -0000 Subject: Harry or Voldemort? Which one will win? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159967 What do you think about it? Harry? Or ? Voldemort? Harry has less chance than black lord. But everything is possible. harry. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 19 13:31:33 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:31:33 -0000 Subject: Magic (was Re: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: <009901c6f2fb$5e389f40$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159968 >Terri wrote: > Just a newbie with a thought. I've always found that an underlying theme of the books is magic doesn't solve problems. It is merely a tool to be used. If magic could be used to solve everything, then Molly only has to wave her wand and Percy is back and the twins are not in the joke shop business, VD's father and mother are still together, etc. > > A witch caught in a domestic abuse situation has to have the mental resources to be able to escape, all the magic in the world would not help. Potioncat: I think you've hit on a very good point. Look how excited Harry was to be going off to this magic school! The Big Friendly Giant was cool, the train was cool, the Great Hall was cool. Things were going to be so much better for him. Then there were a few surprises. The Potions Master was horribe. Quite a bit of the magic was unpleasant, the castle itself has some disagreeable habits. Magic not only 'doesn't solve problems' it creates a few more. It makes me think of our own magical thinking "things would be so much better if only..." and I'm sure that's what JKR has in mind. From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Oct 19 13:44:44 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 06:44:44 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape never turned? WAS: Re: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159969 zgirnius: I find Dumbledore's statement about Snape to Harry in HBP is difficult to reconcile with the version of events where Snape became a Death Eater as Dumbldore's spy. I do not believe Dumbledore lies to Harry, for reasons of security or anything else, at this point in the series. If there is something he feels Harry cannot know, he just doesn't say it (such as his decision not to more fully explain why he trusts Snape.) Sherry now: As I'm sure you know, I am in the Snape is a cold blooded murderer camp. However, having said that, if indeed Snape turns out to be DDM, it will be more compelling and believable for me, if he truly was a death eater and then went to Dumbledore as you described in your post. A Snape who was never truly a DE doesn't ring true with me. It uncomplicates him, in a way that wouldn't seem true to all the build up. Not to mention JKR's answer to a question about there being something redemptive about Snape. To be redeemed, one must have done something to cause one to need the redemption in the first place. Loved your post, even if I hope that's not the outcome, because I've seen about all of Snape that I want to see in the books. Sherry From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 19 14:04:00 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:04:00 -0000 Subject: Magic (was Re: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159970 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > >Terri wrote: > > Just a newbie with a thought. I've always found that an underlying > theme of the books is magic doesn't solve problems. > > Potioncat: > I think you've hit on a very good point. > > It makes me think of our own magical thinking "things would be so > much better if only..." and I'm sure that's what JKR has in mind. > Tesha: You folks are so right. The phrase my mom used was: "No matter where you go, there you are." Meaning that you're the same person, no matter what your circumstances. Harry is still the self reliant, private, stable guy he was before he knew his power - He's just facing his problems using a few added tools. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 19 14:03:47 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:03:47 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159971 > Pippin: > I'm wondering now about Draco's attempt to crash Slughorn's > Christmas party. I doubt he wanted to be a guest at a gathering > where poisoned mead might be served. Could it be he was having > second thoughts about his plan and realizing that the mead might > go astray and harm his friends? He doesn't make any more > attempts that we know of, but seems to go back to the cabinet > plan. Potioncat: Was he trying to crash Slughorn's party? I think he was either going to or coming from the RoR at the time. If I'm right, he used the party as as an excuse when Filch caught him out of bounds, but never expected for Filch to follow up. His grand entrance before Snape and Slughorn must have been particularly humilating for him. Poor thing. (As far as I can tell with the new threading, there hasn't been a direct reply to this post, if I've just repeated someone else, I'm sorry.) From nitharshini_kannan at yahoo.co.in Thu Oct 19 14:12:58 2006 From: nitharshini_kannan at yahoo.co.in (nitharshini_kannan) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:12:58 -0000 Subject: Harry or Voldemort? Which one will win? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159972 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "harry" wrote: > > What do you think about it? Harry? Or ? Voldemort? > Harry has less chance than black lord. But everything is possible. > Harry for sure. He is the one who is brave enough to fight with Voldemort I think so. nitharshini_kannan From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 19 14:37:15 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:37:15 -0000 Subject: Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159973 > zgirnius: > > However, since you expressed a dislike for that theory...he could also > have been undergoing advanced training for a profession. I expect he > had strong NEWT grades in Potions, Charms, and DADA at the very least. > (Based on his ability to invent Potions improvements, spells like > Muffliato, and Dark spells like Sectumsempra). Could he have had more? > I would guess maybe Herbology, he seems to know his ingredients. Anway, > if he had been an Auror in training, I think we would have heard of it, > but the profession I'll suggest is Healing, perhaps specifically anti > Dark Arts healing. He certainly seems to be an expert on it in HBP. Potioncat: I love Carol's ideas for his work. But I think "after" he gets out of Azkaban he'll open his own shop. As much as I like the idea, I can't the logic of a successful Potions wizard applying for a DADA teaching positon and giving up his business. I would also like to think he was an intern at St. Mungo's. It makes the most sense to me--even if Snape is no Dr. Kildare. However, who would give up a residency for a jinxed DADA position? His cover story would have to make sense. So, I've narrowed it down to his working for someone else. Either he had a job casting spells, or he worked at Potion making. I'm assuming that someone has to create the magic that makes mirrors talk, or brooms obey riders. Can't you see him now, working in a magical toy shop---enchanting dolls to talk? From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 19 14:40:47 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:40:47 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159974 Pippin: > I'm wondering now about Draco's attempt to crash Slughorn's > Christmas party. I doubt he wanted to be a guest at a gathering > where poisoned mead might be served. Could it be he was having > second thoughts about his plan and realizing that the mead might > go astray and harm his friends? He doesn't make any more > attempts that we know of, but seems to go back to the cabinet > plan. Magpie: He wasn't trying to crash; he was trying to work on the Cabinet and was caught on his way by Filch. The story about going to the party was a cover, and when Filch actually dragged him to the party where he wasn't really invited he chose to pretend to be crashing, despite it being humiliating. a_svirn: By what definition? There is an ongoing debate on whether or not children should be fully responsible for their actions. No one ever doubted, however, that they are capable of forming intent and committing crime. Besides, at sixteen Draco is hardly a child. In real life certain allowances would be made for him but certainly not to a point of dropping the chargers. In the world where seventeen is the age of majority this argument seems even less valid. Voldemort had at least four murders on his conscience at sixteen, would you shrug them off on the ground that he was but a child? And finally, if you are right, and Draco was too young to be held responsible, it follows that he was too young to be allowed a choice. Magpie: Yes, I don't actually think this is Dumbledore's thinking, that Draco isn't responsible. As I read the story, taking into account the themes and the ways things pan out with other people, it seems more not that Dumbledore doesn't consider Draco responsible for his actions but that he considers those murder attempts an acceptable part of things. To me it seems like the attempted murders did a couple of things--first they let Harry see that there was a murder plot going on. That was necessary just for that reason. Besides that I thought the idea was to actually give Draco some taste of what he was doing--he may have removed himself from the murder a bit by doing it from a distance, but it had a real consequence. I think that's part of where she's going with Draco's character so disagree with Carol's interpretation that these murders have no effect on Draco and he only stops these kinds of attempts when DE!Snape says it might get him caught. (Draco has no independent reason to think that, after all--he doesnt' seem to be brought in for questioning or anything like that.) So to me it seems like the "wait and see," for Dumbledore isn't at all "let's wait and see if he'd really kill someone." It's that he knows already what Draco's personality is and perhaps thinks that a couple of near-misses is fine for him. Characterwise I think he is correct and that every brush with death Draco puts him in a slightly different place on the Tower. Rather than just pointing his wand at Dumbledore and saying, "Hey, why am I hesitating?" he already knows he doesn't have the stomach for it from his own reactions to his previous attempts. But that of course still leaves us with Dumbledore considering the danger to others an acceptable risk. Him saying on the Tower that "no real harm has been done" seems to point to this as well. I'm not bothered by his not talking more about Ron and Katie's attacks only because I don't agree that they had no affect on Draco, but I did have to laugh a bit at Dumbledore's casual dismissal of the harm to other peoples' children as no real harm being done. Steve: We don't actually know that Dumbledore has continued on-going knowledge of what Draco was doing. It is very possible that Dumbledore is just in that very moment pulling the pieces of the puzzle together and understanding what happened. Magpie: Dumbledore is certainly playing it cool in the scene, but he's not pretending to know everything. I think JKR intentionally wrote it so that we can tell which pieces he's just putting together. The things he didn't know about he asks about or realizes in front of us. Had he just realized Draco was behind the attacks, imo, he would have spoken of them more like he did the Vanishing Cabinet or some of the details of the plan, which he obviously has just put together. But with the murder attempts there's no beat of understanding. He brings it up first and also claims to have taken action on them earlier, through Snape. He's also been claiming all year that he knows what's going on. Removing this knowledge of Dumbledore unravels much of his behavior throughout the book that's tied up with him saying he knew this. There's a lot of stuff Dumbledore didn't know; I just don't think this is one of those things. Knowing about the murders seemed to me the one thing Dumbledore brought to the meeting to intentionally use the way he did. Steve: Yet having seen Draco's reluctance to kill Dumbledore, and seen Draco's frustration with being a DE, stuck with Harry, and may influence how Harry reacts when he and Draco confront each other in the future....I think he had to let Draco come to a crossroads, and had to have Draco face a choice about his future and the path it was going to take. Magpie: Yes, I agree this was his thinking, and that it will be important to Harry for this reason. Storywise Dumbledore's decision not to act makes perfect sense to me. I just also think that the decision included the understood risk that we saw. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 19 14:46:40 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:46:40 -0000 Subject: Naming Posts--Special Request Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159975 Hi one and all. Wow, the list is hopping! I have a request, not casting stones because I'm as guilty as anyone. I tend to read a post, see what else has been added, then fire off a reply without really looking at the subject line. I really do try to read the following posts in the thread before posting myself. But right now we have several threads off of one topic and it's very hard to tell which topic a new post is really responding to. Not too bad during slow times, but particularly with the current system, it's hard to trace back. Could we all make an extra attempt to change the subject line if the topic no longer fits the original subject? Thanks! (Now is that several topics off one thread or several threads off one topic?) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Oct 19 15:28:12 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:28:12 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159976 > Steve: > Yet having seen Draco's reluctance to kill Dumbledore, and seen Draco's frustration with being a DE, stuck with Harry, and may influence how Harry reacts when he and Draco confront each other in the future....I think he had to let Draco come to a crossroads, and had to have Draco face a choice about his future and the path it was going to take. > > Magpie: Yes, I agree this was his thinking, and that it will be important to Harry for this reason. Storywise Dumbledore's decision not to act makes perfect sense to me. I just also think that the decision included the understood risk that we saw. Dungrollin: Interesting that you both seem to think that it was DD who wanted to let Draco come to the crossroads and make a choice. I think it was JKR who wanted that, and wanted Harry to witness it. Simply put, I reckon the reason that DD never 'brought Draco in' was that as soon as Draco was caught, he would have failed his task. Snape would then have a thin window in which to kill DD, or he would die himself, because of the vow. I know that not everyone sees the vow working in this way, but it's the only way I can make the whole thing work to my satisfaction. DD does not want to die until he really has to (presumably not until he's got the next Horcrux), bringing Draco in would only hasten his or Snape's demise. When DD said "Why else do you think I have not confronted you before now? Because I knew that you would have been murdered if Lord Voldemort realised that I suspected you" I think he was fibbing a bit. In chapter 15, Snape doesn't tell Draco that the unbreakable vow included him finishing the task if Draco failed, partly because JKR doesn't want Harry to know that yet (even though the readers do), but also because Draco already suspects Snape of wanting his glory, and the information would not make him more amenable to letting Snape know what he was up to. Sorry if others have already made this point - I think Carol touched on it earlier in the thread, but didn't see anyone present it in detail. Dung From nmangle at cox.net Thu Oct 19 15:38:23 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (nmangle at cox.net) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:38:23 -0500 Subject: Harry's Scar Message-ID: <32125375.1161272303369.JavaMail.root@centrmwml03.mgt.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159977 > > Candy: >> > I don't think that Harry's scar will be the final horcrux. It seems to me that at some point I read a rumor to this effect on JK's website, and it was debunked. If my memory serves me correctly, as soon as Voldemort tried to kill Harry, the protection which his mother had afforded him made the curse some what 'backfire' onto Voldemort himself, which is what had rendered him powerless for so long. The result of the failed attempt on Harry was the scar, the scar of a killing curse gone wrong. > > Great idea, though. Obviously someone else has thought that, too, or there wouldn't have been the time taken to talk about it on JK's sight. Candy, Here is my .02 Considering that obtaining a Horcrux is a dark magic act, that usually also involves a spell, something Voldy would have to do voluntarily (sp?). My theory I guess is that he would have to say a spell/perform a spell while killing someone and have the object he was turning into a Horcrux. So how could he do that with either Harry or his scar? That would be something done on accident, and I don't think he could have done that. He killed Lily, and when she fell, he walked towards the crib, and in thinking this baby would turn into the one who could destroy him, he tried to kill him. But because of what the prophacy said, he "marked him as his equal" by performing the AK curse. That scar is that mark, isn't it? or as Candy put it, a spell gone wrong. I agree completely. I just disagree that it could be a Horocrux. My biggest hope/theory is that since JK has stuck to the "scar is the last word in the 7th book " thing is = Harry kills Voldy, and Hermoine or Ron, or Ginny says to him, the last sentence in the book, "Harry, where is your scar?". Can we hope that Harry lives, and the scar is gone, since it was his mark as Voldy's equal? The mark of the failed curse? The Dark Lord is gone, so is the scar? That is my hope of course. Professor Shacklebolt. (My choice for DADA teacher) Nicole From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 15:52:27 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:52:27 -0000 Subject: How about a twist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159978 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" wrote: > > The bizarre thing is why does Dumbledore tell Snape he needs to > investigate his own house? Dumbledore suggests in the tower he knew it was Draco along, which fits with your theory that Dumbledore was insisting that Snape perform the task the vow required. So what was there to investigate? Draco refers to 'better help than you', does Dumbledore want Snape to figure out who that help is? Is Snape not really trying? How does this fit into the vow? Exposing the 'help' would actually be going against Draco...so I guess that is a point in favor of Dumbledore not knowing about the vow. But I don't really buy it. > > Anyone have ideas what the investigation was about? > >Steven1965aaa: A thought just occurred to me and I apologize if its been mentioned before, but is it possible that "your house" did not refer to Slytherin, but rather referred to Snapes house at Spinners' End? I have wondered why JKR shows us that Wormtail is living there with Snape, what purpose does that serve in the story? Maybe DD wanted Snape to make some investigation with respect to Wormtail, or maybe something else is going on at Snape's house, some other death eaters living there? From ms.mindfunk at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 15:34:12 2006 From: ms.mindfunk at gmail.com (msmindfunk) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:34:12 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159979 >Secca wrote: > I know this is an old, unimportant trifle, but I really am curious > as a kneazle in Knightbridge. Besides, I think I need a break > from "Book Seven: Harry Potter and the Neverending Snape!Theories" I think it's entirely possible that Flitwick made up the anecdote, or that it's one of those urban legend-type cautionary tales that had been passed down as truth for ages. Folklore is a staple in every culture, both past and present, so there would theoretically be tons of not-quite-true stories of spells gone wrong, potions gone boom and all that. Many teachers use folklore/UL stories as cautionary tales when a good one applies to the subject they're introducing to their students, so the idea of Flitwick doing so isn't much of a stretch. I really do think it's a bit of silliness on JKR's part rather than a random fact. She likes to make a play on words, and the Baruffio/buffalo thing was probably too much for her to resist. Maybe someone will ask her at an interview and you'll finally have a difinitive answer! mindfunk From nancy.hannah at mac.com Thu Oct 19 13:49:59 2006 From: nancy.hannah at mac.com (Nancy H) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 09:49:59 -0400 Subject: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159980 > Lisa: > After all if you > remember in the 1st book, Harry's scar hurt at the sight of Snape >Eddie: >I think this was a red herring. My recollection of that event is that >Snape was talking to Quirrell, who was turned towards Snape... >meaning, the back of Quirrell's head (the Voldemort side) was facing >Harry. I think it was Voldie who burned Harry's scar. Lisa, Eddie is correct. I re-watched SS last night. When Quirrel is turned, Harry has the pain. In the scene at the end when Quirrel faces the mirror and Harry is behind him, Harry gets the pain. Other observations I made on my bizillionth watching: Anyone thing Mr. Dursley looks incredibly like Wormtail? Also I jotted down all the numbers , just to see if something popped out... ( number of bankvaults entered at Gringots etc. So far nothing is hitting me there. Is there a significance to the 6 sided star on the floor of Gringots? Noted Snape, in the scene right after Filch finds "someone is in restricted section " ( of library)... he finds Quirrel there. Why was Quirrel, or Snape there in first place, and as Harry tried to escape under Cloak of Invisibility, Snape is aware that Harry is there I think. At least he is aware of someone there. Did he give him the cloak? It was the same handwriting as the original letter informing of being accepted to Hogwarts. To me, there is some bond b/t Harry and Snape that is still not understood, and Snape is protecting him, but hiding that fact by treating him indifferently. And , at least in this book/ movie, he appears to show favoritism to Draco, but with a wary eye. In Olivanders, the Phoenix tail feather story has always stuck in my mind, since Faulks appears ( sp?) , DD's Phoenix. Seems to me that is too coincidental. I think the feathers are from his tail. So maybe we must see who "rises from the ashes." Oh in this vain... the resemblance to Cinderella in beginning is unmissable. Harry living with "ugly step brother" and mean step mom. Does all the chores and then is laying on floor on his birthday in the hideout of the Dursleys making a Birthday Cake for himself on the floor in the ashes. I guess this makes Hagrid the Fairy Godmother? Thanks for indulging my trip back to book 1. Nancy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mros at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 19 16:05:03 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 18:05:03 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned References: Message-ID: <001301c6f398$5812bf40$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 159981 Potioncat: I love Carol's ideas for his work. But I think "after" he gets out of Azkaban he'll open his own shop. As much as I like the idea, I can't the logic of a successful Potions wizard applying for a DADA teaching positon and giving up his business. I would also like to think he was an intern at St. Mungo's. It makes the most sense to me--even if Snape is no Dr. Kildare. Marion: No, but he *is* House, MD... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nmangle at cox.net Thu Oct 19 16:32:52 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (nmangle at cox.net) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:32:52 -0500 Subject: Harry or Voldemort? Which one will win? Message-ID: <18438462.1161275572656.JavaMail.root@centrmwml03.mgt.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 159982 ---- harry wrote: > What do you think about it? Harry? Or ? Voldemort? > Harry has less chance than black lord. But everything is possible. Hey Harry, Well obviously, Harry does have to kill Voldy, he has to die, (otherwise the DE's and Voldy would take over and kill everyone, can't have that kind of book). But the bigger question is, does Harry live or die? Does killing Voldy kill him? Do they kill each other at the same time? Does someone else kill harry? Nicole From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 16:52:58 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:52:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159983 Neri wrote: > I'm not sure what I have to concede here. That Dumbledore suspected > Snape? Of course he did. Canonically, during VW1 you suspected > *anyone* you didn't know well (and if you had any brain, also some > people you did know well). Suspicion isn't much help when everybody's a suspect. As for Leglimency, Voldemort is an expert Legilimenn himself so he's well aware of the problem, and I doubt he'd send Dumbledore a spy who isn't a good Occlumenn. > Carol responds: I agree with you about Dumbledore's not being omniscient, but I have to disagree here. The whole point of Snape's being a "superb Occlumens" able to lie to voldemort without detection is that LV *doesn't know* that snape is an Occlumens. If he did, Snape would be dead. (Imagine snape trying to practice easily detected Occlumency like Draco's on Voldemort. Very, very bad move.) BTW, if you'll forgive me, it's "Occlumens, not "Occlumenn." ("Mens" is Latin for "mind." "Occlu-" apparently means "closed." Cf. "occludere," to close.) Ditto for "Legilimens," which is "mens" ("mind") plus "legili-," apparently JKR's adaptation of "legilbilis," "capable of being read or deciphered," from "legere," to read. (Don't know what this etymology does to Snape's statement that "the mind is not a book to be examined at will," but never mind that now.) > > Mike: > > I refer you to Carol's post, > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159793 > > > > and my argument in the original post. I don't see Snape with a good cover story at all. > > > > Neri: > I'm not sure to which of Carol's arguments you refer, and no post of > yours appear in that thread. Most of Carol's canon in this post isn't very conclusive. We don't really know when the meeting in the HH took place, we don't know how much time after that Trelawney was actually hired, we don't know what posts were open then, and we don't know for what Snape was applying. He may have been applying for a replacement teacher position, or for the Astronomy post, or for the Ancient Runes post, or for the DADA position because the DADA teacher that year had incurred an early bad luck. Or there wasn't any post open but Snape still had some reasonable cover story. Trelawney tells us he was looking for a job at that time and we don't have any special reason to doubt this part of her story (except if our theories require > otherwise, that is ). Since both Snape and Voldy aren't complete idiots, I assume they had a reasonable cover story for Snape. > Carol responds: On the contrary, we do have reason to doubt Trelawney's story simply because it doesn't match well with Dumbledore's. One or the other is incorrect; both are incomplete, but it's the parts we do have that don't match, as both Mike and I have pointed out. Note that Trelawney has been working at Hogwarts, by her own account, "almost sixteen years," whereas Snape has been working there for fourteen. Clearly, she was not hired at the usual time. She was hired on a wet, cold evening, which does not fit the usual hiring date of the summer between terms, nor does her "almost" indicate that she was hired before the term started. She was apparently hired some few months into the school year, probably in late fall or early winter given the weather. Any later than that, say spring, when the weather would again be rainy, and she would have said "fifteen and a half years" or "a little more than fifteen years." Her description and the weather fit perfectly with a date of Halloween for the Prophecy (Harry's presumed conception date). If he hasn't yet been conceived, as would be the case if she had applied at the usual date or even in September or most of October, the statement that "the one who can defeat the Dark Lord approaches" makes no sense. So she must be applying at an unusual time for a sudden vacancy. There is no reason for young Snape to be applying at this time (the DADA positions always become vacant near the end of the year, usually in June) and Slughorn was still Potions master. I think that Snape's listening in to get hints for job interviews is Trelawney's own after-the-fact explanation. She seems to be forgetting that he was not hired the following fall (the term that started a month after Harry's birth) but the fall after that. Maybe young Snape tried and "failed" to get a job as DADA teacher at that point (DD would not have given his own spy the cursed DADA position), but he was not actually hired for the uncursed Potions position until nearly two years after Trelawney began teaching. It's possible that young Snape applied for the DADA position on LV's orders at about the same time that he became a spy, but the cover story (the DADA position would tempt him to return to his old ways) would make it absurd for him to reapply the following year. After all, Dumbledore would say the same thing. So unless he applied and was told that he was too young (cover story for LV because DD didn't want him in that cursed position), the first time he applied must have been when he was given Potions rather than DADA, Slughorn having most conveniently retired. Carol, who still thinks that Trelawney is supplying her own explanation for Snape's eavesdropping, which she can't otherwise account for as she doesn't know that he was a DE From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 17:04:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:04:20 -0000 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159984 BAW wrote: > > How do you know it was 'abuse'? He was yelling at her, yes. All > couples fight. > > zgirnius: > The bit that gets most people to the abuse conclusion is not that he is yelling. I agree, that can absolutely be part of a relationship which is basically sound. The problem is that the woman is 'cowering'. Not just listening, or arguing, not yelling or throwing crockery herself, but acting scared of the man. > Carol responds: And note the resemblance in her behavior to that of Merope Gaunt, who was terrifeid of her wizard father. I doubt that sullen-looking ex-Gobstones champion Eileen Prince would be terrified of a Muggle, especially if she was anywhere near as gifted as her son. As I've said twelve million times (okay, slight exaggeration), surely Harry would have noticed if the hook-nosed man in the memory was dressed as a Muggle. I think it's at least as likely to be Grandpa Prince (the Pureblood Prince, :-) ) as Muggle Tobias. The resemblance to Snape would still be there, Eileen's terror would be accounted for, and we'd have an explanation for little Severus's ability to learn and/or invent so many hexes before he even went to school. He must have been raised by his Prince relatives, whether or not he lived in Spinner's End (which Snape could easily have acquired as an adult and used only during the summers.) Carol, who agrees that it was abuse (note not only the cowering woman but the crying child) but doubts that the abuser is Muggle Tobias, who must have been out of the picture quite early in Sevvie's life From davidapiper at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 12:45:59 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (davidapiper) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:45:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's Scar In-Reply-To: <20061019041834.3839.qmail@web35115.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159985 Nikki Dolance wrote: > Is it possible that the scar on Harry is the final horcrux > (sp) not Harry but just the scar? > > And perhaps the ending is Harry gives the scar/lightning bolt > back to LV? Hi, the scar on Harry's forehead was given to him by Lord Voldemort when he tried to kill him (Harry). I don't know why the scar is in the shape of a lighting bolt and why it hurts everytime Harry feels something from Lord Voldemort. You could be right Nikki, because J.K.Rowling never really explained why the scar hurts Harry. Davida From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 19 17:11:10 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:11:10 -0000 Subject: Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159986 Potioncat: > *(snip)* As much as I like the idea, I can't the logic of a successful Potions wizard applying for a DADA teaching positon and giving up his business. *(snip)* So, I've narrowed it down to his working for someone else. Either he had a job casting spells, or he worked at Potion making. I'm assuming that someone has to create the magic that makes mirrors talk, or brooms obey riders. Can't you see him now, working in a magical toy shop--- enchanting dolls to talk? Ceridwen: Since he was awarded the post of Potions (School-)Master, I thought he might have been an apprentice to a Potions Master (in the guild sense, not schoolmaster sense) since his graduation. I think that since there is no university in the WW for advanced lessons, the apprentice system would be the way to go. Ceridwen. From davidapiper at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 13:02:52 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (davidapiper) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:02:52 -0000 Subject: Welcome! (Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159987 Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book or keep looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? Davida From davidapiper at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 12:57:31 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (davidapiper) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:57:31 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159988 > Pippin: > A child's intent is by definition not fully formed. If adults > entice a child to kill and help him to obtain weapons, then it > is they who have the murderous intent, not he, and they who > need to be locked up for the safety of others. > > Sirius's case is different. He was thought to be insane, which > AFAWK would have denied him a trial in any case, and the > evidence against him was overwhelming. Hi, this is my first post, so don't flame me too hard okay? Draco comes from a pure blood wizarding family so he would see his father doing bad things to other people so Draco thinks he can be like his father; as for Sirius, if he hadn't fallen through that veil, Harry would eventually had gone to live with him and leave the Dursleys. Davida From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 17:20:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:20:42 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159989 Pippin wrote: > I'm wondering now about Draco's attempt to crash Slughorn's > Christmas party. I doubt he wanted to be a guest at a gathering > where poisoned mead might be served. Could it be he was having > second thoughts about his plan and realizing that the mead might > go astray and harm his friends? He doesn't make any more > attempts that we know of, but seems to go back to the cabinet > plan. Carol responds: But Draco wasn't trying to crash the party. He was caught by Filch in an upstairs corridor (guess which one) and "confessed" to trying to crash the party only because it gave him an excuse for being out of bed. Clearly, he didn't want to be there. (At first he was openly angry, but he calmed himself and started "acting" because he had to appear to want to be there. Snape's anger and trace of fear indicate that he knows Draco was up to something else. (Whether he has suspicions about the RoR, I don't know. I'm betting that he does and that he relays them to Dumbledore.) BTW, no friends of Draco's were attending the party, unless you count Blaise Zabini, who does not seem to be on friendly terms with him. (I think the Blaise lolling against the post in the Three Broomsticks must have been polyjuiced Crabbe. Or maybe polyjuiced Crabbe took Draco's detention and "Blaise" was polyjuiced Draco?) As for no more attempts to use tactics like the necklace or the mead, he wasn't deterred by Katie's accident ("That Bell girl must have an enemy"), but as I said in another post, Snape's words about clumsy, amateur tactics that can easily be traced back to Draco ("Already you are suspected of having a hand in it") seem to have had their intended effect. It's too late to do anything about the mead, which at any rate is supposed to be sent to Dumbledore, not served at the party, but Draco doesn't try any more Plans B and C after the talk with Snape. It's back to the cabinet, which will enable him to get DEs into the castle (if only he can figure out how to do it) and attack his intended target with no mishaps that can be traced back to him. Carol, who sees no trace of fear for his fellow students in Draco's behavior, only fear for himself and his family later in the book From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 19 17:26:19 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:26:19 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159990 > Dungrollin: > Interesting that you both seem to think that it was DD who wanted to > let Draco come to the crossroads and make a choice. I think it was > JKR who wanted that, and wanted Harry to witness it. Magpie: My bad--it is of course JKR who wanted Harry to witness it since DD coudln't have planned that. Dungrollin:> > Simply put, I reckon the reason that DD never 'brought Draco in' was > that as soon as Draco was caught, he would have failed his task. > Snape would then have a thin window in which to kill DD, or he would > die himself, because of the vow. I know that not everyone sees the > vow working in this way, but it's the only way I can make the whole > thing work to my satisfaction. Magpie: D'oh! I can't believe this hadn't entered my mind. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees! Yes--if Dumbledore took him in Snape probably would have to act. I hadn't seen it made yet but I bow to you and anyone else who has said it (Carol?) because that's a pretty huge thing to forget! -m From danielle_qt08 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 17:12:23 2006 From: danielle_qt08 at yahoo.com (Danielle Cruz) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Nagini-Horcrux? Message-ID: <20061019171223.60082.qmail@web36714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159991 Hi to everyone... (It's my first post!) Is it possible that Nagini is one of the horcruxes? Thanks! -dane- ( I'm new here..please help me around!) --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger?s low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mkk69 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 19 15:19:46 2006 From: mkk69 at hotmail.com (woollybear_99) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:19:46 -0000 Subject: Snape's mom-domestic abuse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159992 Prechi: > I think in this last book, Harry sees Snape's memories. He sees > Snape's muggle father abusing his witch mother. I thought this > was a major flaw, for no witch would put up with this. > I have worked in a women's shelter. I am not new to the issue of > domestic abuse. The thing is that women always try to escape-- > their attempts may be too feeble and they may get squashed in the > backlash to any attempt to escape the abus. > *BUT* if the woman is a witch, all she has to do is cast a spell. > So.....come on! a witch could not get trapped in domestic abuse > with a muggle for years. Gimme a break. I thought this was a > major fumble for JK. Only a small part of a memory was seen. One cannot say that Snape's mother did not cast some kind of spell on her husband later on. Also, the memory is from Snape's view point. He may have not seen his mother cast her spell at his father. So I do not see this as a mistake at all since we are only seeing a clip of what had happen. woollybear_99 From davidapiper at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 16:17:32 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (davidapiper) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:17:32 -0000 Subject: Harry or Voldemort? Which one will win? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159993 > Harry wrote: > > What do you think about it? Harry? Or Voldemort? > > Harry has less chance than black lord. But everything is > > possible. > nitharshini_kannan: > Harry for sure. He is the one who is brave enough to fight > with Voldemort, I think so. Davida: I believe Harry will win against Voldemort in the end since he defeated him in the Sorcerer's Stone and the Chamber of Secrets with Voldemort being Tom Riddle. Harry did escape from Voldemort in the Goblet of Fire. Davida From mkk69 at hotmail.com Thu Oct 19 17:00:11 2006 From: mkk69 at hotmail.com (woollybear_99) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:00:11 -0000 Subject: Harry or Voldemort? Which one will win? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159994 Harry wrote: > What do you think about it? Harry? Or Voldemort? > Harry has less chance than black lord. But everything > is possible. woollybear_99: Right now what I think is that Harry is unprepared. If he dose not learn how to close his mind (occlumency) from Voldemort, his outcome does not look good. From gg682000 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 17:25:08 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (louis ruggiero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:25:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fawkes (was Re: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061019172508.20402.qmail@web82409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159995 --- Nancy H wrote: > In Olivanders, the Phoenix tail feather > story has always stuck in my mind, since Faulks > appears (sp?), DD's Phoenix. Seems to me that > is too coincidental. I think the feathers are > from his tail. So maybe we must see who "rises > from the ashes." Nancy, As for the phoenix feather's in GOF on pg 697 of the US version DD tell Harry with no two way about it the feather's are indeed from Fawkes. Speaking of Fawkes let me toss something out there and see what people think. Fawkes knows Harry and that he is loyal to DD. Could he help Harry out to any degree in his quest? Louis From juli17 at aol.com Thu Oct 19 18:06:36 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:06:36 EDT Subject: Bond btwn Harry and Snape (was Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159996 Julie: A lot of your musings pertain to the first movie rather than the first book. The films do deviate in places from the books, thus are not considered "canon" in the same way as the books. (FYI, there is another list for discussing the movies specifically.). So I'll stick to commenting on the following subject, which is certainly relevant to both book and film versions of HP: Nancy: To me, there is some bond b/t Harry and Snape that is still not understood, and Snape is protecting him, but hiding that fact by treating him indifferently. And , at least in this book/ movie, he appears to show favoritism to Draco, but with a wary eye. Julie: I very much agree. I believe Snape has protected Harry throughout the series, and I believe we don't yet know the full reason. I think it is more than simply an effort to repay his old debt to James, and more than Snape blindly following Dumbledore's orders to keep Harry safe. What is this bond between Harry and Snape? They're not related, that much we know, as JKR has said Harry had no other relatives to take him in. One possibility could involve Snape making some sort of promise or vow to Lily to protect her son if anything should happen to her and James. Another possibility is that Snape somehow magically tied himself to Harry right after the Potters' deaths (during that "missing" 24 hours?) as penance for being unable to prevent those deaths. (I know that last is vague, but it's all I have at the moment!) One thing I doubt is that it involves any sort of Unbreakable Vow. Just as Dumbledore wouldn't force or accept that from Snape, I don't think Lily would either. They'd both put much more trust in Snape (or anyone) acting of his own volition and conscience. Obviously I don't have a solid theory about this bond, but I do think it is there. JKR hasn't yet failed to surprise me by revealing something I didn't forsee, and I expect she'll do the same in Book 7. As much fun as it is to try and guess, it's even better to finally read JKR's version, which in this case will probably bring about one of those "Aha!" moments where we understand what this antagonistic yet ambiguous relationship between Snape and Harry has really been all about. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 18:35:22 2006 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:35:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Bond btwn Harry and Snape (was Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061019183522.29982.qmail@web53313.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 159998 I was under the assumption that Snape was protecting Harry for Voldemort's return because but had to act as he did to gain Dumbledore's trust with the school. In the Half Blood Prince, it is revealed that James Potter, Siruis Black, and Remus Lupin were tight like Harry, Ron, and Hermione. But unlike Harry, James was a bit of jerk to Snape. My feeling is Snape wants a little revenge on James through Harry. dragonkeeper From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 19:56:07 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:56:07 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 159999 Carol earlier: > > I don't think their surveillance is useless. Once Snape tells Draco that "already you are suspected of having an hand in it" (the cursed necklace incident) and that such tactics are amateurish and easily traceable to him, he goes back to his primary plan, the cabinet. > > a_svirn: > Then it was even worse than useless: Snape actually helped Draco, > warned him about being watched and ensured that he would stick to the main objective. Carol responds: Worse than useless? It kept loose-cannon Draco focused on a plan that seemed not to be working and kept him from sending any more dangerous objects into the castle. Both Snape and Dumbledore knew that Draco was trying to kill Dumbledore but neither knew exactly what he was up to, as far as we can tell from canon. Neither of them thought that he could bring DEs into the castle because neither knew about the Vanishing Cabinet. Snape's warning against easily detected amateurish tactics kept Draco from endangering other students for the rest of the school year. (The mead was drunk in March but brought into the castle in December. No other dangerous objects entered the castle for six whole months.) Nothing, no word of warning, could have deterred Draco from working on the Vanishing Cabinets. He was under orders from Voldemort and later receiving death threats, and nothing Snape said could have prevented him from doing so. Had Snape made a direct attempt to hinder rather than "help" Draco, he would not only have revealed where his loyalties lie, he would also have triggered the Unbreakable Vow. And as Dungrollin mentioned (and I hinted in an earlier post, number 159740, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159740 ) a direct confrontation between Dumbledore and Draco would also most likely have triggered the Unbreakable Vow. Draco would have had to attempt to kill him without DE backup and would of course have failed, causing Snape's death. That, IMO, is what DD was trying to prevent. And Snape, of course, could not explain either the third provision of the vow or say anything that would give away his true allegiance to Dumbledore. (Assuming DDM!Snape, of course.) On a sidenote, I think that Snape probably did continue the "investigations into his house," perhaps more detentions for Crabbe and Goyle, maybe, with a little Legilimency thrown in. Clearly, he already knew that Crabbe and Goyle were acting as Draco's assistants and Draco resorted to polyjuicing them in the hope of tricking Snape. (I doubt that he succeeded.) But they didn't know what Draco was up to, and all Snape could have learned from them was what Harry found out via the house-elves and reported to Dumbledore, that Draco was polyjuicing his friends as girls and that he was up to something in the RoR. And he seems to have been following either Draco or Harry when the Sectumsempra incident occurred, another instance in which he did all he could to help Draco (and Harry--no expulsion and keeping an eye on him) without giving himself away. What else could Snape have done besides warn Draco not to use amateurish methods? Let the mead- and necklace-type incidents continue? I think not. Carol, who thinks that Snape and DD did the best they could under very touch-and-go circumstances and that matters would have been much worse without Snape's "running interference," as Magpie calls it From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 20:00:00 2006 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:00:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160000 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat: > I love Carol's ideas for his work. But I think "after" he gets out of > Azkaban he'll open his own shop. As much as I like the idea, I can't > the logic of a successful Potions wizard applying for a DADA teaching > positon and giving up his business. > Snape's Witch replies: I don't understand the Azkaban reference. Isn't the period under discussion the 3-4 yrs between Severus leaving Hogwarts at 18 and becoming the Potions master 9/81? It's possible he might have spent a short time in Azkaban (I doubt it) but that would have been after Lord V had been vaporized at GH. Perhaps he might have been in a potions apprenticeship although I don't perceive an employment problem as I doubt that his half-blood status was common knowledge. In the off chance that he _was_ in the Slug Club that could have been a good recommendation. Snape's Witch From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 19:27:08 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:27:08 -0000 Subject: Fawkes (was Re: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) In-Reply-To: <20061019172508.20402.qmail@web82409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160001 Louis wrote: > As for the phoenix feather's in GOF on pg 697 of > the US version DD tell Harry with no two way about it > the feather's are indeed from Fawkes. Speaking of > Fawkes let me toss something out there and see what > people think. Fawkes knows Harry and that he is loyal > to DD. Could he help Harry out to any degree in his > quest? Jenni: I think Fawkes could help Harry. But I'm also wondering something else. Fawkes was Dumbledore's pet. Was this because Fawkes chose Dumbledore or because Dumbledore chose Fawkes? If Fawkes can choose his 'master', I wonder if he will choose Harry! Look how Fawkes protected Dumbledore in the Order of the Phoenix. He swallowed the Avada Kedavra curse and it 'killed' him. Since phoenixes just come right back to life after they are dead, Fawkes would be a very powerful ally to Harry. They are very loyal creatures. Fawkes was totally devoted to Dumbledore. He also seems to have taken a particular shine to Harry. Maybe Fawkes will be Harry's bird in the last book. Jenni from Alabama From bauercandace at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 20:12:23 2006 From: bauercandace at yahoo.com (Candace Bauer) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:12:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nagini-Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <20061019171223.60082.qmail@web36714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061019201223.91342.qmail@web32513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160002 Danielle, earlier: Is it possible that Nagini is one of the horcruxes? Candy: In book six, Dumbledore and Harry ponder this as well as they are having their 'lessons' in Dumbledore's office. Dumbledore then muses that he doesn't think that Nagini will be one of the horcruxes, simply because she is living, rather than an inanimate object. Dumbledore didn't feel that Voldemort would have placed something so important as a part of himself in something that could succomb to death, which is why he had chosen objects. Now, it's anyone's guess as to what the other horcruxes are, but we already know he had something from Slytherin and Hufflepuff.... that leaves Gryfindor and Ravenclaw. I think that the next two horcruxes that we see will be some type of 'trophy' from those two houses. Also, we mustn't forget that he got the other horcruxes- the necklace, cup, and ring- by killing their owners, and then making the objects the horcruxes. The only deviation to that rule was the diary. Could that pattern be followed for the next two from Gryfindor and Ravenclaw? If so, who had he killed to obtain them, and what are they? Just a thought. (`'?.?(`'?.? ?.?'?)?.?'?) ???* Candy *?`? (?.?'?(?.?'? `'?.?)`'.?) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From georgeiv_2000 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 20:22:01 2006 From: georgeiv_2000 at yahoo.com (george koelsch) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:22:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Welcome! (Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061019202201.1958.qmail@web34512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160003 Davida wrote: > Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book > or keep looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? I do not think that Harry will go back to Hogwarts. I think that Harry will go to the Dursley for a visit then off to find Voldemort. I think that Ron and Hermione will be by his side. I think that Hermione will end up fighting Snape and defeat him. George From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 19 20:42:23 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:42:23 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "MercuryBlue" wrote: > > > Nor does > > calling it a typo; (it should have been "f instead of s") as that > > makes more sense "Wingardium Leviofa" -- I don't buy this one either. > > I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. I already posted a link to a > picture on Wikipedia of the Bill of Rights. Post 159752. The words in > big letters across the top are obviously 'Congress of the United > States', but the first word looks very much like 'Congrefs'. Old > documents are weird that way. I always figured Baruffio was reading > his spell out of a book and thought an F was actually a very-similar- > appearing S. > MercuryBlue Geoff: The use of the "long s" was quite common in old English (and was also noticeable in German books using the Gothic typeface until quite recently). It was often used in a double "fs" in English. As a side issue, it still exists in Maths when used as the integration symbol in calculus. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 19 20:38:25 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:38:25 -0000 Subject: Harry or Voldemort? Which one will win? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160005 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "harry" wrote: > > What do you think about it? Harry? Or ? Voldemort? > Harry has less chance than black lord. But everything is possible. Geoff: Despite his much-vaunted and well-publicised power, Voldemort has not got a good track record against Harry. In one form or another, he has met up with Harry on five occasions and has not managed to complete the job. I believe that Voldemort has underestimated Harry's strengths including the power of love. In this respect, he reminds me of Sauron in "The Lord of the Rings" when Gandalf says of him that it would not even enter his wildest dreams that anyone would want to destroy the Ring rather than use its power for their own ends. I think that Voldemort believes that Harry wants to destroy him in order to become his successor and not in order to remove the evil and hate that the existence of the Dark Lord and his Death Eaters supports. I have made it very clear in the past that I want Harry and his friends to win and for Harry to survive. I also said in a recent post that JKR has created two figures from similar backgrounds - namely Harry and Tom Riddle - and wants to show how they can take different attitudes and different paths through life despite that. From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 20:35:29 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:35:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes (was Re: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) Message-ID: <20061019203529.43136.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160006 Jenni: I think Fawkes could help Harry. But I'm also wondering something else. Fawkes was Dumbledore's pet. Was this because Fawkes chose Dumbledore or because Dumbledore chose Fawkes? If Fawkes can choose his 'master', I wonder if he will choose Harry! ------------------------ Jeremiah: Jenni, you don't need to defend this one. JKR said Harry was going to get a new pet in Book 7. I guess Hedwig either leaves the story (goes away or dies) and Fawkes comes in. :) but I could be totally wrong about that... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 20:54:58 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:54:58 -0000 Subject: D-dore does Lie-Part II, Snape's (lack of) Cover Story In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160007 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" wrote: > > Neri: > If Snape's mission was indeed infiltration into Hogwarts > (Trelawney tells us he was also looking for a job at that time, > and in Spinner's End Bellatrix knows that Snape took the post "on > the Dark Lord's orders") then it just doesn't go well with > tailing Dumbledore. Mike: But he didn't get the job for almost two years. However, in that same section of Spinner's End, Snape tells Bella that he had 16 years of information on Dumbledore when Voldemort returned (June 95). Which means he claims at least two years worth of information before he got the job at Hogwarts. How do you square the "seeking a teaching position" story with the ability to report information on Dumbledore, i.e. spying? What is the story for hanging around close enough to Dumbledore to report information to his master. You say he's not tailing Dumbledore, fine, then what information could he possibly be collecting for two years before he gets his teaching post? And, oh by the way, if Dumbledore didn't know Snape was a DE and still in Voldemort's employ before he overheard the prophesy, what was the reason to tolerate this eavesdropping spy enough to let him get close *after* the "eavesdropping" incident? Wasn't his "cover" blown? There is still 9 months to go until Harry is born and Snape's "remorse" story can kick in. Which, of course, presumes that Voldemort immediately figures out who the prophesy means, immediately tells Snape, then doesn't act for more than a year. But, according to canon, Voldemort doesn't figure out who his victim will be until sometime in 1981. When the Potters get wind that Voldemort has targeted them, they make the Fidelius. Presumedly, this means that Snape doesn't have his "remorse" story available to him until 1981. That gives Snape most of two years to be spying on Dumbledore, but he isn't yet a teacher, isn't "tailing" Dumbledore (according to your interpretation) and has already outed himself as a spy. > > Mike previously: > > He didn't seem to have any problem ascertaining that the fab > > four that followed Voldemort to the Hog's Head were DEs. > > Neri: > Well, duh. They come with Voldemort, they stay with him, so they > are his henchmen. Doesn't take that much power of observation. Mike: "Harry could tell that Voldemort had not expected Dumbledore to know this name." (HBP p.444, US) Voldemort didn't even expect DD to know the name "Death Eater", much less that he had brought some with him. Voldemort still tries to call them his "friends", but Dumbledore shoots that down, too. So it does seem that Dumbledore has knowledge that surprises Voldemort. So, duh, Voldemort doesn't expect it but it's supposed to be obvious because ...? How about it's supposed to be obvious because *Dumbledore* told us. So, who told Dumbledore? And I don't mean who gave him the names, obviously Abe did. I mean how did Dumbledore get this knowledge about DEs that surprises Voldemort? And please take into consideration the timeframe. Voldemort has just returned to Great Britain after a 10+ year self imposed exile. Souds to me like Dumbledore is a little more on the ball than you want to acknowledge. > > > Mike previously: > > He watched Snape for seven years (at least), > > Neri: > Where's the canon? Mike: I meant at school, while DD was the headmaster. If you want to take the position that Dumbledore is woefully inadequately informed with regards to his students, that is an opinion that doesn't gibe with canon. He did seem to know what James liked to do with his Invisibility Cloak (steal food from the kitchens), knew that James vs. Severus was a similar dynamic to Harry vs. Draco. And although admitted to not knowing the Marauders were animagi, seemed to understand what was going on between them and Snape. That is where I got the impression that Dumbledore probably paid a little more attention to Severus Snape than he might have paid to some of his more non-discript students. Plus, he had to ensure that Snape kept quiet about the werewolf caper. How do you suppose he did that if he didn't have some sense of what makes Snape tick? > > Mike previously: > > we know he had at least one up close and > > personal talk with him following the werewolf caper. > > Neri: > So? He also had at least one personal talk with Terry Boot. Mike: Thanks :p The point was that the werewolf caper was hushed up, Snape was hushed up. You don't have to believe that Dumbledore was omnicient to understand that he had to offer something to Snape to keep him quiet. Unless of course you think Dumbledore bullied Snape, which goes against everything we've seen of Dumbledore's character in canon. > Neri: > > But did Dumbledore have any reason to watch Snape closely during > his school days? Not much that I see, except he was a good > student. Mike: Werewolf caper? On-going antagonism between him and the Marauders? I'm guessing that box of detention files that Harry was given to copy over had a fair few transgressions against Snape. Again, Dumbledore doesn't need to be omniscient to know there is an out in the open battle going on between 4 Gryffindors (well 3-1/2) and one of his Slytherins. Not intervening does not mean he is unaware. He didn't intervene with Tom Riddle, but he did keep a close eye on him, per Tom himself. Dumbledore has shown the ability to spot troubled youngsters and once they are called to his attention, I don't think it's expecting too much believe that he keeps an eye on them from that point forward. Any student that almost gets mauled by a werewolf merits extra attention. > Neri: > This is according to a comment by Sirius, and yet Sirius himself, > who had several good reasons to watch Snape closely during their > school days, still didn't know if Snape was a DE when he made this > comment. So why would Dumbledore know in 1979? Mike: "But as far as I know, Snape was never even accused of being a Death Eater - not that that means much. Plenty of them were never caught. And Snape's certainly clever and cunning enough to keep himself out of trouble." (GoF p.531, US) Yeah, Sirius wasn't privy to the Wizengamot's secret hearings, so he didn't have proof. But it doesn't sound like he had *any* doubt. Besides, Bella and Lucius graduated several years (6 and 4?) before Snape did. Plenty of time to discern their loyalties and then keep an eye on others that they may have influence over. OK, I get it, you don't like omniscient. But can we at least give Dumbledore credit for being observant? Can we at least believe that Dumbledore didn't stick his head in the sand? Can we also give him credit for above average intelligence? > Neri: > Ah yes, I wrote something, long ago, about the myth of Dumbledore's > omniscience. Here: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/96085 > Mike: Read it. Disagree with some, agree with some. I see that we carry the same disbelief (or not?) in the whole plotline of GoF (It's still my least favorite book from the perspective of believability). For that reason, I blame JKR rather than find fault with Dumbledore. That said, I'm trying to analyze backstory with the facts we were given as of now. And while I realize there are many red herrings, unresolvable plotlines and confusing clues associated with many of the characters in the series, it becomes pointless to discuss anything if you don't believe JKR has been fair with the major themes of the books and the capabilities/characteristics/qualities of the major characters. Therefore, I have to take it on faith that Dumbledore is very smart, extremely observant, powerfully magical and basically well intentioned. You can disagree if you like, but for myself, I find it impossible to analyze and then speculate if I don't start with the basic premises that I feel JKR has laid out for us. > Neri: > > As for Leglimency, Voldemort is an expert Legilimenn himself so > he's well aware of the problem, and I doubt he'd send > Dumbledore a spy who isn't a good Occlumenn. Mike: I defer to Carol's explanation upthread . Then I add, Dumbledore's talents and abilities rival or exceed Voldemort's and Voldemort is well aware of that fact. He has *no one* available to send to spy on Dumbledore that would stand a chance of outclassing Dumbledore in the Occlumens/Legilimens field, not even Snape. My opinion, of course. > > > Neri: > > > Dumbledore may not know at this point that Snape is a DE. > > > Snape has a good cover story for listening at the door: he > > > is interested in a post himself and looking for tips (it may > > > even be true, in the sense that he needed to get a post in > > > order to infiltrate into Hogwarts, and therefore indeed > > > attempted to get these tips). Mike: I let this get by the first time, but not now. Interested in a teaching post is a good cover story for eavesdropping? You think Snape (and therefore Voldemort) have such a low opinion of Dumbledore that they could get him to buy this cover story? Where in canon did you get the impression that Voldemort or Snape have a low enough opinion of Dumbledore to rely on such a feeble story? "Sorry, sir, I wasn't spying, I was just trying to pick up some points on interviewing. Well, no sir, I don't know the young lady. You see, I'm looking for a teaching post myself and when I saw you go in I assumed you were interviewing someone else for a position at Hogwarts." Yeah, you're right, that seems like a good cover story. > Neri: > I'm not sure to which of Carol's arguments you refer, Mike: Um, since we were talking about Snape's "teaching post" cover story I was referring to the part of her post that refutes the teaching post cover story. > Neri: > and no post of yours appear in that thread. Mike: Sorry, my original post in this thread. > Neri: > Most of Carol's canon in this post isn't very conclusive. We > don't really know when the meeting in the HH took place, we > don't know how much time after that Trelawney was actually > hired, we don't know what posts were open then, and we don't know > for what Snape was applying. Mike: In the Fall of 1995, Sibyll told Umbridge she had been at Hogwarts for 16 years. This puts her hiring in the Fall of 1979. IMO and several others the prophesy was delivered at the time of conception of the "boy foretold", approx Oct 31, 1979. You don't have to accept that date, but to me it fits. The cold, wet night, 16 years from Sibyll's employment start and the general belief that the conception must have occurred prior to the prophesy. If you don't agree, I wonder what works better for you? If you do agree, this puts the prophesy and Sibyll's hiring miterm 1979. Once again, I give you Carol's upthread argument > Neri: > He may have been applying for a replacement teacher position, or > for the Astronomy post, or for the Ancient Runes post, or for the > DADA position because the DADA teacher that year had incurred an > early bad luck. Mike: According to Snape at Spinner's End, he was attempting to get the DADA position, at least that's his DE cover story that presumedly Voldemort ordered him to get that position. Which of course argues against any *long* term infiltration plans of Voldemort, unless one considers less than a year "long term". > Neri: > Or there wasn't any post open but Snape still had some > reasonable cover story. Trelawney tells us he was looking for a > job at that time and we don't have any special reason to > doubt this part of her story (except if our theories require > otherwise, that is ). Since both Snape and Voldy aren't complete > idiots, I assume they had a reasonable cover story for Snape. Mike: Right. You have to assume that Dumbledore is a complete idiot for believing and continuing to believe the "teaching post" cover story. Because *that* is the cover story, it's canon, you don't get to, or have to guess what another cover story might be. > Neri: > The fact that Sybil isn't Sybil doesn't necessarily imply that her > prophecy is true. In HBP, Ch. 23 Dumbledore asks Harry > rhetorically: "do you think every prophecy in the Hall of Prophecy > has been fulfilled?" So Dumbledore is well aware that some > prophecies come true and some don't. Mike: No, like I said, Dumbledore believes all prophesies are self- fulfilling. They mean nothing unless the objects of the prophesy hears them and acts on them. That's the point of his rhetorical question, IMO. And that was what he was so agitated about when he was trying to get Harry to understand. Harry could walk away, chose not to fulfill his side of the prophesy. But Voldemort believed his side of the prophesy, acted on it, and was going to continue to act on it. Harry must understand that it doesn't "all come to the same thing", that he doesn't have to act because the prophesy says so. But Voldemort is going to act. And Harry can allow himself to be "dragged" into fulfilling his side of the prophesy, or he can do battle with his head held high as proud defender of good over evil and to hell with the prophesy. That is Dumbledore's opinion of prophesies and that was what he wanted Harry to understand. > Neri: > Then why did Dumbledore need Trelawney at all? He could just invent > whatever mumbo jumbo he thought would trick Voldemort, and tell > anybody that Trelawney or another fraud said it. According to your > theory only Dumbledore ever heard Trelawney saying the prophecy. > Snape never heard any part of it, Trelawney doesn't remember it at > all, Pensieve memories can be forged, and Dumbledore does lie. So > maybe Trelawney had never made the prophecy at all. Dumbledore > invented it, and told everybody that Trelawney said it. Mike: Umm, Neri, it's canon. The prophesy was recorded in the Hall of Prophesies, Sibyll was at the Hog's Head interviewing for the job, Dumbledore did have the memory in his head, we saw him take it out put it in the pensieve and play it for us on-stage. Memories can be alterred after they are extracted, but the true memory remains, that's what Dumbledore explained regarding Slughorn's Horcrux memory. And how would Dumbledore making all this up refute my Dumbledore does Lie theory? I would say that that would strengthen it beyond all doubt. And believe me, I thought about this exact scenario. However, the canon got in the way. Dumbledore tells no one besides Snape the prophesy, and only told him the part he wants released. There are witnesses to Snape getting thrown from the building. Trelawney is seen in the Hog's Head and does get the job at Hogwarts. Trelawney does produce prophesies, we saw here do it in PoA out of Dumbledore's view. So, the prophesy did get told by Trelawney just like we saw in OotP, Dumbledore didn't have to make up anything in that regard. He only had to decide what he was going to do about it. > Neri: > Yes, but this requires that Dumbledore would understand the > prophecy *might* be important (because he had no way to be *sure*) > within the very short time it probably took Aberforth to throw > Snape out. This was in the end of an interview in which Trelawney > probably told Dumbledore lots of mumbo jumbo and convinced him > she's a total fraud. Dumbledore had to change his opinion about > her in a very short time. If he realized she might not be a > *total* fraud ten seconds after Snape was out of the building then > this was probably too late. > > You might not use 20/20 hindsight but you keep calling it "the > prophecy". You have to remember that Dumbledore didn't know it was > "the prophecy" at the time. He didn't know there even will be a > prophecy. Mike: Dumbledore only had to see Sibyll's eyes roll up, hear her speak in harsh tones instead of her usual etherial whispers, to realize that this great-granddaughter of a "gifted seer" who happens to be interviewing for the Divination post, might be uttering a prophesy. Sorry, not a big leap in my book for a 130 year old wizened wizard. Harry guessed she was doing something out of the ordinary and was about to tell Ron and Hermione until the Buckbeak news intervened. And this was what, 3 years into Harry's exposure to the wizarding world. All I ask is that Dumbledore understand that Sibyll is uttering "a" prophesy, not "the prophesy". As to the rest, I'm through agruing your scenario. I have stated mine, it doesn't include Snape overhearing anything. Tell me where my scenario falls apart and I'll reconsider it. You haven't done that. You've tried to bolster your version (Dumbledore's version to Harry), but you haven't told me where mine can't be right. > Neri: > Heh. I have to warn you here that if you insist on mentioning the > MoM battle you risk dragging me into one of my favorite Dumbledore > bashing lectures. The number of critical mistakes he made on that > day is appalling. Trust me, you don't want me to start going > through them again . Mike: I merely brought up the MoM to pre-argue that Dumbledore wasn't too old to do battle with wizard the caliber of Voldemort. I did't want to get into anything substantive about that on this thread. Sorry I brought it up. > Neri: > Do you think no other prophecies, true or false, were made about > the Dark Lord during VW1? Do you think none of them ever reached > Voldy? Mike: What happens to most prophesies? They get shuttered away in the DoM where only the object of the prophesy can retrieve them. Does that give you a clue as to how prophesies are treated in the WW? They are hidden, treated as Dark Magic, protected by powerful spells. So I would say that true prophesies (made by true seers, no judgement regarding the validity of the words) are rare and treated in the same way as wizards treat dragon sightings by Muggles. The rest of the false prophesies (non-seer variety) are ignored by the MoM and would also be ignored by Voldemort. He must be intelligent enough to know the difference, I'll give him credit for that. As far as other prophesies reaching Voldemort: It's not in canon. That wasn't my choice, it was JKR's. We hear nothing of Voldemort hearing another prophesy nor acting on it. It may have happened off- stage, I won't vouch for it one way or the other. He did get part of this prophesy and did act on it. That's the canon we're discussing, that's the canon that I'm trying to analyze. Mike From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Oct 19 21:14:38 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:14:38 -0000 Subject: Welcome! (Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160008 > Davida: > Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book or keep > looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? Eddie: Both. Voldemort wanted to be the DADA teacher so he could have access to all of Hogwarts' mysteries (as well as be in the position to influence impressionable young minds). I think Harry will return to Hogwarts not as a student, but for similar reasons as Voldemort's: to learn more and to have access to information and objects he will need in his hunt for the Horcruxes. For instance: * Dumbledore's portrait * Gryffindor's sword * Help & knowledge from McGonagall, Flitwick, Dobby, Hagrid, etc. * Pensieve * The Half-Blood-Prince's potions book Remember, too, that when we last left Harry, he was still physically at Hogwarts. I think he'll still be there when we return. Eddie From SMacLagan at msn.com Thu Oct 19 20:51:18 2006 From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:51:18 -0000 Subject: Harry's Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160009 davida: > Hi, the scar on Harry's forehead was given to him by Lord Voldemort > when he tried to kill him (Harry). I don't know why the scar is > in the shape of a lighting bolt and why it hurts everytime Harry > feels something from Lord Voldemort. You could be right Nikki, > because J.K.Rowling never really explained why the scar hurts > Harry. Since JKR likes to use bits of words to mean something, couldn't the name Voldemort mean bolt of lighting (voltage) in relation to death (or in this case, a failed attempt to kill)? I hope JKR explains it further, but at least this much seems reasonable to me. London Granddaughter From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 21:23:42 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:23:42 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160010 > Carol earlier: > > > I don't think their surveillance is useless. Once Snape tells > Draco that "already you are suspected of having an hand in it" (the > cursed necklace incident) and that such tactics are amateurish and > easily traceable to him, he goes back to his primary plan, the cabinet. > > > > a_svirn: > > Then it was even worse than useless: Snape actually helped Draco, > > warned him about being watched and ensured that he would stick to > the main objective. > > Carol responds: > Worse than useless? It kept loose-cannon Draco focused on a plan that > seemed not to be working and kept him from sending any more dangerous > objects into the castle. a_svirn: More dangerous than poisoned wine and a cursed necklace? I'd say a bunch of death eaters fits the description. > Carol: > Both Snape and Dumbledore knew that Draco was trying to kill > Dumbledore but neither knew exactly what he was up to, as far as we > can tell from canon. Neither of them thought that he could bring DEs > into the castle because neither knew about the Vanishing Cabinet. a_svirn: If they where this clueless how could they tell that his plan wasn't working? > Carol: > Nothing, no word of warning, could have deterred Draco from working on > the Vanishing Cabinets. He was under orders from Voldemort and later > receiving death threats, and nothing Snape said could have prevented > him from doing so. Had Snape made a direct attempt to hinder rather > than "help" Draco, he would not only have revealed where his loyalties > lie, he would also have triggered the Unbreakable Vow. a_svirn: That's simply another way to say that Snape surveillance was useless, because he was tied up by the UW. Exactly the view you disagree with. > Carol: > And as Dungrollin mentioned (and I hinted in an earlier post, number > 159740, > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159740 ) > > a direct confrontation between Dumbledore and Draco would also most > likely have triggered the Unbreakable Vow. Draco would have had to > attempt to kill him without DE backup and would of course have failed, > causing Snape's death. That, IMO, is what DD was trying to prevent. > And Snape, of course, could not explain either the third provision of > the vow or say anything that would give away his true allegiance to > Dumbledore. (Assuming DDM!Snape, of course.) a_svirn: In other words, while Magpie thinks that Dumbledore put the lives of his staff and his students in jeopardy in order to save Draco, you think that he was trying to save Snape (with Draco as a side project). I am not sure I agree that either of those gambles was worth the price, since it was just dumb luck that no students died as a result. On the other hand, if Daco repented and came to Dumbledore, by the conditions of the UV Snape *would* have to step in and kill Dumbledore or die. Could it be that it was *this* situation Dumbledore was trying to prevent, rather than the one you described? Draco's conversion would have been as fatal for Dumbledore or Snape as the direct confrontation. So Dumbledore chose to do nothing and wait. One doesn't have to possess extraordinary brainpower to come up with such strategy, but as long as one has students to spare one can stall for time. > Carol: > What else could Snape have done besides warn Draco not to use > amateurish methods? Let the mead- and necklace-type incidents > continue? I think not. a_svirn: Yes, it's ever so much more pleasant to deal with professionals. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 21:29:47 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:29:47 -0000 Subject: Fawkes (was Re: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) In-Reply-To: <20061019203529.43136.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160011 > Jeremiah: > JKR said Harry was going to get a new pet in Book 7. I guess Hedwig either leaves the story (goes away or dies) and Fawkes comes in. > > :) but I could be totally wrong about that... Thanks Jeremiah, didn't know about JKR saying that! But goodness, I hope that nothing happens to Hedwig, maybe Harry can just have 2 pets. Jenni from Alabama From followingmytruth at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 21:18:47 2006 From: followingmytruth at yahoo.com (Sean-Michael) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:18:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061019211847.38738.qmail@web33705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160012 > >>Jenni from Alabama: >> I think Fawkes could help Harry. But I'm also wondering something else. Fawkes was Dumbledore's pet. Was this because Fawkes chose Dumbledore or because Dumbledore chose Fawkes? If Fawkes can choose his 'master', I wonder if he will choose Harry! Look how Fawkes protected Dumbledore in the Order of the Phoenix. He swallowed the Avada Kedavra curse and it 'killed' him. Since phoenixes just come right back to life after they are dead, Fawkes would be a very powerful ally to Harry. They are very loyal creatures. Fawkes was totally devoted to Dumbledore. He also seems to have taken a particular shine to Harry. Maybe Fawkes will be Harry's bird in the last book. << Sean-Michael replies: OOH I love this idea. I know there's not a ton of evidence to support it, but it's a great fantasy :) I hope JKR does this in the last book. Part of me of course can't wait till book 7 comes out and we can see what really happens...but then we won't be able to think up such creative ideas and discuss them here anymore. I'm disapointed book 7 is the last in the HP series. As an artist I completely get it. Sometimes you have to limit your art or the writer/painter/poet loses the passion that helped shape the initial piece/s but as someone who loves all things Potter... I want to send bat bogie hexes in the direction of whatever horrible creature is forcing JKR to end at book 7 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 gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 19 21:59:13 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:59:13 -0000 Subject: Harry's Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160013 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan MacLagan" wrote: > davida: > > Hi, the scar on Harry's forehead was given to him by Lord Voldemort > > when he tried to kill him (Harry). I don't know why the scar is > > in the shape of a lighting bolt and why it hurts everytime Harry > > feels something from Lord Voldemort. You could be right Nikki, > > because J.K.Rowling never really explained why the scar hurts > > Harry. London Granddaughter: > Since JKR likes to use bits of words to mean something, couldn't the > name Voldemort mean bolt of lighting (voltage) in relation to death > (or in this case, a failed attempt to kill)? I hope JKR explains it > further, but at least this much seems reasonable to me. Geoff: This has been discussed a number of times in the past. The general consensus has been that Voldemort's anme is derived from the French "vol de mort" = "flight of death" or "theft of death". From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 19 21:59:47 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:59:47 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160014 > > Pippin: > > A child's intent is by definition not fully formed. If adults entice a > > child to kill and help him to obtain weapons, then it is they who have > > the murderous intent, not he, and they who need to be locked up > > for the safety of others. > > a_svirn: > By what definition? There is an ongoing debate on whether or not > children should be fully responsible for their actions. No one ever > doubted, however, that they are capable of forming intent and > committing crime. Pippin: Oh, lots of people doubt that. The age of criminal responsibility in Europe alone varies all the way from 8 to 18 - below that age a child cannot be considered to have committed a crime and no charge can be brought. In RL Scotland the age is eight, but we already know that the WW has its own rules. I think JKR made it plain on the tower that Draco's intention to kill Dumbledore was not clear, otherwise he would have done it as soon as he arrived. A_svirn: And finally, if you are > right, and Draco was too young to be held responsible, it follows that > he was too young to be allowed a choice. Pippin: Draco launched the attacks while he was still underage, but had passed his seventeenth birthday by the time he arrived on the tower. Then he could make a choice with full knowledge of what he was doing. I don't see him as mature enough to do so earlier and I think canon bears this out. > a_svirn: > Actually, it's a very different sort of thing. The former is a rescue > attempt, while the latter is a murder attempt. I am a little surprised > that you cannot tell the difference. > Pippin: So it's okay for Harry to yield to Voldemort's manipulations and endanger his fellow students because he was trying to save his godfather, but it's not okay for Draco to yield to Voldemort's manipulations and endanger his fellow students because he was trying to save his family? > a_svirn: > Say you are right ? for the sake of argument. Where does it leave us? > So because Dumbledore felt reasonably secure himself, he allowed Draco > to continue, even though his activity put others in jeopardy? I'd say > you are a bit hard on the old man. Pippin: The students are beset with dangers because they themselves are dangerous, and because Voldemort is at large and wants them all dead or in his power. Taking Draco into custody would not have changed that. It wouldn't have prevented the mead attempt, or the necklace, because Draco didn't have to be at Hogwarts in order to send messages to Rosmerta. Dumbledore saw that Draco was warned, and the warning put a stop to the attempts. I'd say you are the one being hard on the old man. Anyway, does anyone really doubt that they day will come when Harry will be very glad that Dumbledore helped Draco discover that he was not a killer on the Tower? I haven't forgotten about the Vow, by the way, but I think that Dumbledore and Snape meant to circumvent it by a ruse all along. The simplest way out for Dumbledore and DDM!Snape would have been for Snape to pretend to jump the gun and "murder" Dumbledore before Draco had a chance to fail. But Dumbledore wanted to bring Harry up to speed on the horcruxes first, and he wanted Snape to continue to serve as double agent and protect Draco as long as possible, which would have been impossible once the 'murder' had been committed. This is what Snape didn't want to do any more, IMO. > > Pippin: > > Sirius's case is different. He was thought to be insane, which > > AFAWK would have denied him a trial in any case, and the > > evidence against him was overwhelming. > > a_svirn: > I don't remember it's said anywhere in canon that people can avoid > trial on the ground of insanity. Besides, in that case, Sirius would > have ended up in St Mungo, rather than in Azkaban. Pippin: Bode wasn't tried for trying to remove the prophecy. He was indeed sent to St Mungo's, not Azkaban, but he wasn't considered dangerous. Pippin From gg682000 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 21:46:35 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (louis ruggiero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Nagini-Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <20061019201223.91342.qmail@web32513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061019214635.37467.qmail@web82412.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160015 > >>Danielle: > > > > Is it possible that Nagini is one of the horcruxes? > >>Candy: >> In book six, Dumbledore and Harry ponder this as well as they are having their 'lessons' in Dumbledore's office. Dumbledore then muses that he doesn't think that Nagini will be one of the horcruxes, simply because she is living, rather than an inanimate object. << Louis: Actually it is the other way around. Dumbledore believes Nagini is a horcrux. The reason he says is the control he has over her. He tells that to Harry on pg 506 of HBP of the US version. At the same time he says it's not a good idea to do so. Louis From gg682000 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 22:01:28 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (louis ruggiero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fawkes (was Re: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061019220128.46455.qmail@web82409.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160016 > >>Jeremiah: >> JKR said Harry was going to get a new pet in Book 7. I guess Hedwig either leaves the story (goes away or dies) and Fawkes comes in. :) but I could be totally wrong about that... << Louis: When did JKR say this?? I never heard it that still doesn't mean it wasn't said. Just curious that's all. It would really be something. Louis From gg682000 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 21:56:33 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (louis ruggiero) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:56:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061019215633.9947.qmail@web82404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160017 > >>Potioncat: >> I love Carol's ideas for his work. But I think "after" he gets out of Azkaban he'll open his own shop. As much as I like the idea, I can't the logic of a successful Potions wizard applying for a DADA teaching positon and giving up his business. << > >>Snape's Witch replies: >> I don't understand the Azkaban reference. Isn't the period under discussion the 3-4 yrs between Severus leaving Hogwarts at 18 and becoming the Potions master 9/81? It's possible he might have spent a short time in Azkaban (I doubt it) but that would have been after Lord V had been vaporized at GH. << Louis: He was never in Azkaban he was working supposedly as a spy for DD prior to the downfall of LV. What he did while he was a DE or before is anyone guess right now. Pg 27 HBP Snape says "he had a comfortable job he preferred to a stint in Azkaban" the US version. Louis From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 22:23:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:23:37 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160018 > Pippin: > Oh, lots of people doubt that. The age of criminal responsibility in Europe > alone varies all the way from 8 to 18 - below that age a child cannot > be considered to have committed a crime and no charge can be brought. > In RL Scotland the age is eight, but we already know that the WW > has its own rules. Alla: And Draco is sixteen. > A_svirn: And finally, if you are > > right, and Draco was too young to be held responsible, it follows that > > he was too young to be allowed a choice. > > Pippin: > Draco launched the attacks while he was still underage, but had passed > his seventeenth birthday by the time he arrived on the tower. Then > he could make a choice with full knowledge of what he was doing. I > don't see him as mature enough to do so earlier and I think canon > bears this out. Alla: That is only several months during which all that happened, you think Draco changed that much during those months? Although I suspect that JKR wants to show that he did. > Pippin: > So it's okay for Harry to yield to Voldemort's manipulations and endanger > his fellow students because he was trying to save his godfather, > but it's not okay for Draco to yield to Voldemort's manipulations and > endanger his fellow students because he was trying to save his family? Alla: Um, I am not sure I remember Harry planning to kill somebody ( except Voldemort probably) while he indeed yielded to Voldemort's manipulations. So,while it is certainly **not** Okay, I am with Svirn - rescue attempt even if a result of manipulation is very different from murder attempt to me. > Pippin: > Anyway, does anyone really doubt that they day will come when Harry will > be very glad that Dumbledore helped Draco discover that he was not a > killer on the Tower? > Alla: No, I do not doubt that, but does that mean that Dumbledore gets of the hook within the story, because this is what JKR most likely planned? Not in my book, sorry. JMO, Alla > From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 22:55:17 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:55:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore does Lie-Part II, Snape Turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160019 > Carol responds: > I agree with you about Dumbledore's not being omniscient, but I have > to disagree here. The whole point of Snape's being a "superb > Occlumens" able to lie to voldemort without detection is that LV > *doesn't know* that snape is an Occlumens. If he did, Snape would be > dead. (Imagine snape trying to practice easily detected Occlumency > like Draco's on Voldemort. Very, very bad move.) > Neri: So, are you suggesting that Voldemort sent to Dumbledore a spy whom he thinks can't lie to Dumbledore? Sounds like a rather stupid thing to do, even for Voldy. Besides, if you're right about this then Dumbledore really should have told Lupin to stop informing everybody that Snape is a "superb Occlumens", because if this leaks to Voldy then Snape is a dead man. But I suspect that it's not such a big secret and Voldemort had known about it for a long time. > Carol responds: > On the contrary, we do have reason to doubt Trelawney's story simply > because it doesn't match well with Dumbledore's. One or the other is > incorrect; both are incomplete, but it's the parts we do have that > don't match, as both Mike and I have pointed out. Neri: As several other members pointed out, there isn't a substantial disagreement between Trelawney's and Dumbledore's stories. They are just told from different points of views in different contexts. And the part about Snape looking for a job at Hogwarts does match. Dumbledore tells us that Snape was still spying for Voldemort at that time, Snape boasts he has 16 years worth information on Dumbledore, Bellatrix had known for some time that Snape was sent to Hogwarts by Voldemort to spy on Dumbledore, and Trelawney says Snape was looking for a job, apparently at Hogwarts. A rather good match of stories from very different sources. > Carol: > Note that Trelawney has been working at Hogwarts, by her own account, > "almost sixteen years," whereas Snape has been working there for > fourteen. Clearly, she was not hired at the usual time. She was hired > on a wet, cold evening, which does not fit the usual hiring date of > the summer between terms, nor does her "almost" indicate that she was > hired before the term started. Neri: I was informed by a British member of the list that Scotland has plenty of cold, wet nights in the summer too. Trelawney's "almost sixteen years" suggests she was *hired* after the beginning of the school year, but not necessarily that she told Dumbledore the prophecy after the beginning of the school year, because we don't have any canon that she was hired immediately after that night. The canon is inconclusive here. Concluding from it that Snape didn't have a post to apply for at that time is a rather long shot. > Carol: > Her description and the > weather fit perfectly with a date of Halloween for the Prophecy > (Harry's presumed conception date). If he hasn't yet been conceived, > as would be the case if she had applied at the usual date or even in > September or most of October, the statement that "the one who can > defeat the Dark Lord approaches" makes no sense. Neri: Strange. It does make sense to me. You have a speculation that the "cold, wet night" was Halloween. It's a nice speculation and I actually like it. However, it's still a speculation based on rather inconclusive canon. I was pointing out to Mike that concluding from such a speculation that Snape didn't have a post at Hogwarts to apply for at that time is a very long shot. That's all. The logical assumption is that a person like Snape would take care to have a sound cover story before he starts spying on a person like Dumbledore. > Carol: > So she must be applying at an unusual time for a sudden vacancy. There > is no reason for young Snape to be applying at this time (the DADA > positions always become vacant near the end of the year, usually in > June) and Slughorn was still Potions master. Neri: The DADA positions became vacant near the end of the year *in the six years we have seen*. That is, if you don't count the real Moody, who accepted the DADA post but never got to do much teaching. I am not familiar with any reason why the jinx can't operate already in the beginning of the year, as it apparently did with Moody. Even assuming the DADA post wasn't open, it still doesn't mean the Astronomy post or the Ancient Runes post weren't open, or that Dumbledore didn't need a replacement teacher because Slughorn got ill, or whatever. You are concluding a lot from very little. > Carol: > I think that Snape's > listening in to get hints for job interviews is Trelawney's own > after-the-fact explanation. She seems to be forgetting that he was not > hired the following fall (the term that started a month after Harry's > birth) but the fall after that. Maybe young Snape tried and "failed" > to get a job as DADA teacher at that point (DD would not have given > his own spy the cursed DADA position), but he was not actually hired > for the uncursed Potions position until nearly two years after > Trelawney began teaching. > Neri: Isn't this my point exactly? The fact that two years later Snape convinced Dumbledore to give him a post does not preclude in any way that he was applying for a post (doesn't matter much which) at the time of the prophecy as a part of his cover story for spying after Dumbledore. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Oct 19 23:13:38 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:13:38 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160020 > Alla: > > That is only several months during which all that happened, you think > Draco changed that much during those months? > > Although I suspect that JKR wants to show that he did. > Pippin: She certainly put him through a lot. His family is threatened, he looks pale and ill, he's deprived of his usual allies and thrown onto his own resources. Why do all that if she didn't want him to change? > Alla: > > Um, I am not sure I remember Harry planning to kill somebody ( except > Voldemort probably) while he indeed yielded to Voldemort's > manipulations. So,while it is certainly **not** Okay, I am with > Svirn - rescue attempt even if a result of manipulation is very > different from murder attempt to me. Pippin: The question is whether Draco was any more capable than Harry of fully forming a plan and realizing its implications. Obviously not, because the results which Draco and Harry thought they would get were not what an adult would reasonably expect to happen. We adults are at fault, according to canon, if we do not realize that youth thinks and feels differently than we do. > > Pippin: > > > Anyway, does anyone really doubt that they day will come when Harry > will be very glad that Dumbledore helped Draco discover that he was not > a killer on the Tower? > > > > Alla: > > No, I do not doubt that, but does that mean that Dumbledore gets of > the hook within the story, because this is what JKR most likely > planned? > > Not in my book, sorry. Pippin: Er, it's not your book, is it? You are free to disagree with JKR's position, but JKR supports Amnesty International and they support the Convention on the Rights of the Child which says that children are to be imprisoned only as a last resort if rehabilitation and re-integration into society are not possible. As JKR seems to be bent on showing us that in Draco's place it was possible, he should not have been imprisoned. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 19 23:28:17 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 23:28:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: <20061019215633.9947.qmail@web82404.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160021 > Louis: > He was never in Azkaban he was working supposedly as a spy for DD prior to the downfall of LV. What he did while he was a DE or before is anyone guess right now. Pg 27 HBP Snape says "he had a comfortable job he preferred to a stint in Azkaban" the US version. Potioncat: Oops, a little joke that didn't catch on. I was saying that perhaps, after book 7 he might open a Potions shop. I think at the very least, he'll spend some time in Azkaban, if he survives. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 00:09:21 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:09:21 -0000 Subject: Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160022 > >>Louis: > > He was never in Azkaban he was working supposedly as a spy for DD > > prior to the downfall of LV. > > > >>Potioncat: > Oops, a little joke that didn't catch on. I was saying that perhaps, > after book 7 he might open a Potions shop. I think at the very > least, he'll spend some time in Azkaban, if he survives. Betsy Hp: Nah. Snape will become Headmaster of Hogwarts during the WW's golden age under the brilliant leadership of the great Minister of Magic: Neville Longbottom. Betsy Hp From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 19 22:08:37 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:08:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Fawkes (was Re: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) Message-ID: <20061019220837.78553.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160023 > Jeremiah: > JKR said Harry was going to get a new pet in Book 7. I guess Hedwig either leaves the story (goes away or dies) and Fawkes comes in. > > :) but I could be totally wrong about that... Jenny from Alabama: Thanks Jeremiah, didn't know about JKR saying that! But goodness, I hope that nothing happens to Hedwig, maybe Harry can just have 2 pets ------- Jeremiah Yeah. She mentioned it earlier this year, I think. It makes sense that it would be Fawkes, thouhg. Not to mention that Harry and Voldemort's wands are made from Fawks' feathers. Very interresting, I think. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 00:50:26 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:50:26 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160024 > > > Pippin: > > > > > Anyway, does anyone really doubt that they day will come when Harry > > will be very glad that Dumbledore helped Draco discover that he was not > > a killer on the Tower? > > > > > > > Alla: > > > > No, I do not doubt that, but does that mean that Dumbledore gets of > > the hook within the story, because this is what JKR most likely > > planned? > > > > Not in my book, sorry. > > > Pippin: > Er, it's not your book, is it? Alla: Really and truly? I never thought that it was unclear that when I write not in my book it means not in my opinion. I guess it was unclear, sorry about that. So, let me rephrase it - **in my opinion** Dumbledore is not off the hook for what I consider to be careless disregard of lifes of other students, while being concerned with saving one, in my opinion that is. Pippin: You are free to disagree with JKR's position, but > JKR supports Amnesty International and they support the Convention on the > Rights of the Child which says that children are to be imprisoned only as a > last resort if rehabilitation and re-integration into society are not possible. > As JKR seems to be bent on showing us that in Draco's place it was possible, > he should not have been imprisoned. Alla: I am not disagreeing with the Convention of the rights of the child. I am just not seeing sufficient analogy to this in the book ( since as I said many times I am not suggesting that Draco should have been imprisoned). I am **not** buying the argument that child who is taken in protective home, together with his father and mother, if I may add, and who may agree, if I may add on behalf of the child, no scratch that, not even protective custody, who says that in that place Malfoys will be somehow restricted in their movements, constitutes prison. You are free to disagree that this is indeed the same as prison, but I never advocated that Draco should have gone to prison. I mean, I said that he could have benefited from stay in Azkaban, but this is just the emotional look on the character I used to hate, something that I would not suggest I would like to happen in the story. Just my opinion, Alla From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 20 01:23:49 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 01:23:49 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160025 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "MercuryBlue" wrote: > > > Nor does > > calling it a typo; (it should have been "f instead of s") as that > > makes more sense "Wingardium Leviofa" -- I don't buy this one either. > > I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious. I already posted a link to a > picture on Wikipedia of the Bill of Rights. Post 159752. The words in > big letters across the top are obviously 'Congress of the United > States', but the first word looks very much like 'Congrefs'. Old > documents are weird that way. I always figured Baruffio was reading > his spell out of a book and thought an F was actually a very-similar- > appearing S. > > MercuryBlue > Secca replies: Yes, I am aware that the long 's' used to be printed in a manner similar to an 'f'. As a matter of fact, lazy publishers would simply use an 'f' many times. This explains is how someone might mistakenly say 'f' instead of 's'. It seems *much* lefs likely, to me, that the reverse mistake would be made, but I accept this is a possible explanation as to /why/ Barussio made the mistake... But, this does not address the issue that there is no 'F' in 'Wingardium Leviosa'. So I'm still trying to guess /what/ Baruffio mispoke, not /why/, because whatever he mispronounced resulted specifically in a 'buffalo'. I'm aware that there is either no answer, or that the answer may be too obscure to guess, but I like this sort of hunt... Tally-ho! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 02:00:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:00:47 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160027 Carol responds: > > Worse than useless? [Snape's advice] kept loose-cannon Draco focused on a plan that seemed not to be working and kept him from sending any more dangerous objects into the castle. > > a_svirn: > More dangerous than poisoned wine and a cursed necklace? I'd say a > bunch of death eaters fits the description. Carol responds: You misunderstand me. I mean that it prevented him from bringing additional dangerous objects into the castle. You snipped the part of my post which showed that Draco stopped endangering his fellow students by smuggling in objects like the necklace and the mead after Snape confronted him. I didn't mean that the objects were more dangerous than the Death Eaters. Neither Snape nor Dumbledore could have known that the precaustions they had taken would not be enough to allow the DEs access to Hogwarts. They did their best to keep Draco away from Dumbledore and to prevent him from pulling more (i.e,. additional) stupid stunts like the necklace and the mead. > > a_svirn: > In other words, while Magpie thinks that Dumbledore put the lives of > his staff and his students in jeopardy in order to save Draco, you > think that he was trying to save Snape (with Draco as a side > project). I am not sure I agree that either of those gambles was > worth the price, since it was just dumb luck that no students died > as a result. > > On the other hand, if Daco repented and came to Dumbledore, by the > conditions of the UV Snape *would* have to step in and kill > Dumbledore or die. Could it be that it was *this* situation > Dumbledore was trying to prevent, rather than the one you described? > Draco's conversion would have been as fatal for Dumbledore or Snape > as the direct confrontation. So Dumbledore chose to do nothing and > wait. One doesn't have to possess extraordinary brainpower to come > up with such strategy, but as long as one has students to spare one > can stall for time. Carol responds: The lives that were in danger (other than Draco's own) were Snape's and Dumbledore's, and, yes, Dumbledore did what he could to protect all three lives, mostly by staying out of Draco's way. Once Snape stopped Draco from resorting to other methods, the students were safe--until and unless the DEs got in. And Dumbledore took protective measures there, too. Note that the Order was on duty the night that DD left with Harry to look for the Horcrux. And note that Snape's action (killing Dumbledore himself, probably on his orders) saved Draco from the DEs, after which he hurried the DEs off the tower before Harry could rush out and fight them and ordered them out of Hogwarts, saving Harry from a Crucio on the way. > > > Carol: > > What else could Snape have done besides warn Draco not to use > > amateurish methods? Let the mead- and necklace-type incidents > > continue? I think not. > > a_svirn: > Yes, it's ever so much more pleasant to deal with professionals. > Carol again: Sorry. That doesn't answer my question. Snape stopped Draco from using amateurish methods like the mead and the necklace. Dumbledore had already increased the protections on the castle (locked gates, searching the students, eliminating owl mail. I repeat, what else could either Snape or Dumbledore have done? You're ignoring the fact that the students were safe until the moment of confrontation and that no students would even have been involved if Harry hadn't ordered in a few DA members. If it weren't for that, it would have been the Order vs. the DEs, and Snape got the DEs out of Hogwarts and off the grounds as quickly as he could, tossing in an extra lesson or two for Harry along the way. Carol, surprised that you would resort to sarcasm and hoping for logical, canon-based counterarguments next time From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Oct 20 03:22:04 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:22:04 -0000 Subject: How about a twist? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160028 steven1965aaa wrote: > A thought just occurred to me and I apologize if its been mentioned > before, but is it possible that "your house" did not refer to > Slytherin, but rather referred to Snapes house at Spinners' End? Abergoat writes: I think this is a wonderful idea, did Hagrid just assume it was Slytherin? Hagrid was definitely paraphasing - it didn't sound like Dumbledore's speech. The only thing that concerns me is I'm not sure JKR is playing fair if she does that... I do wonder about Wormtail. Was he there for Snape to protect (as well as keep an eye on Snape?). A theory is that Peter is the 'mudblood' that became a Death Eater under 'very special circumstances (like reborn Voldemort needs to call all of his followers...) Abergoat From deeptomfighter at yahoo.co.in Fri Oct 20 03:05:01 2006 From: deeptomfighter at yahoo.co.in (deeptomfighter) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:05:01 -0000 Subject: Welcome! (Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160029 Eddie: > Remember, too, that when we last left Harry, he was still physically > at Hogwarts. I think he'll still be there when we return. deep: I don't think so because in the sixth book he said that he wasn't going back to Hogwarts. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Fri Oct 20 03:54:20 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:54:20 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160030 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > The lives that were in danger (other than Draco's own) were Snape's > and Dumbledore's, and, yes, Dumbledore did what he could to protect > all three lives, mostly by staying out of Draco's way. Once Snape > stopped Draco from resorting to other methods, the students were > safe--until and unless the DEs got in. And Dumbledore took protective > measures there, too. Quick_Silver: I agree with what you're saying about whose lives are in danger and how Snape and Dumbledore are planning on controlling Draco but at the same time it's a reckless strategy. I mean Snape only applies the pressure on Draco after the Katie incident and that doesn't prevent Draco's poison from finding a victim either. > Carol again: > Sorry. That doesn't answer my question. Snape stopped Draco from using > amateurish methods like the mead and the necklace. Dumbledore had > already increased the protections on the castle (locked gates, > searching the students, eliminating owl mail. I repeat, what else > could either Snape or Dumbledore have done? Quick_Silver: I thought about this question for a while and I think I have an answer they should have used Harry. Of course there are a thousand and one reasons why they shouldn't have used Harry but I think that including him could be been beneficial. He's Draco age (meaning they have roughly the same skill levels), he doesn't seem to have an age bias (since Harry has been some pretty wild things for his age), he's motivated, he can be creative (i.e. House- elf surveillance even Snape can only be so many places at once), and I don't think that Draco would expect Harry to actually be in on any actual counter-measures against him. >You're ignoring the fact > that the students were safe until the moment of confrontation and that > no students would even have been involved if Harry hadn't ordered in a > few DA members. If it weren't for that, it would have been the Order > vs. the DEs, and Snape got the DEs out of Hogwarts and off the grounds > as quickly as he could, tossing in an extra lesson or two for Harry > along the way. Quick_Silver: Sorry but this touched on some interesting points about the plot against Dumbledore. I think that you're correct in saying that after Snape reined in Draco no students were really in danger (although Snape spoke to Draco before Christmas and Ron wasn't poisoned until March). However I think that the DA's involvement was important perhaps even vital to controlling the Death Eaters because I think Snape and Dumbledore did to a certain extent underestimate Draco and didn't know what to expect from Draco (or that it would come from the Room of Requirement). I'm going to go off on a tangent here but I wonder if it's possible to really separate Harry from the plot (I realize that Harry as the narrator has to involved from plot reasons but those aside ). See mainly its viewed as a Snape-Draco-Dumbledore thing with Harry observing (like on the Tower) but on my re-read of HBP I noticed that Harry was in many ways an "active observer" of the plot, plotting, and stratagems. By "active observer" I mean that the plotting effect's Harry, the best example being when Ron is poisoned which disrupts Harry's attempt to get Slughorn drunk (most people tend to overlook that the Felix Felicis set up for a second go at the same idea) and that Harry effects the plotting, the best example of this being the bathroom duel which probably had an effect of Draco's psyche. Add to that Harry secretly trailing Draco, getting reports on the Room of Requirements from house-elves, hearing things from Moaning Myrtle, Harry being on the scene first of two attacks, and observing Draco in general and you realize that Harry was involved. What's different from previous books is that whereas before Harry was usually directly involved in the plot and Dumbledore, Snape, and (to a lesser extent) Draco were on the outside nudging and interfering with plots around Harry that concept is inverted (ahh a nice math term) in HBP. In HBP Draco, Snape, and Dumbledore are head-deep in a plot and it's Harry on the outside nudging and interfering with the plot. Quick_Silver (who was really impressed with HBP Harry after re- reading it) From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 20 05:34:00 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:34:00 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160031 msmindfunk wrote: > I really do think it's a bit of silliness on JKR's part rather than a > random fact. She likes to make a play on words, and the > Baruffio/buffalo thing was probably too much for her to resist. > > Maybe someone will ask her at an interview and you'll finally have a > difinitive answer! Secca adds: Well, it is entirely possible that the whole thing is no deeper than that -- simply a surface play on words with no 'backstory'. She has used 'broad strokes' to describe other things that have not been necessarily 'logical' when put under the microscope; i.e. the size of the student population at Hogwarts... What's funny, is how difficult it is to keep straight what fufills the variables of the problem. What is needed is: 1) The intended word, with 'f' in it. (something a wizard might want to say) 2) Now change the 'f' to an 's'. 3) Now the word means (or conjures) a buffalo! I, and others all over the web have looked for a meaning for 'bussalo'. But 'bussalo' doesn't work! As I researched, I kept doing this, looking for words that meant buffalo with an 's' in it. Which is exactly opposite what is needed! My earlier example of /Accio Bussola/ is reversed as well! I found this in Latin: /sardo/ means 'dirty, shabby' /fardo/ means 'a pregnant cow' - - this is reversed!! Anyway -- Here's *one* word that works by the rules. I *very, very* much doubt this is what Jo meant... but, here it is regardless... The Wizard Baruffio, who lived circa 777, was reading a scroll. He mistook his own scribed 'f' to be an 's'. He was meant to say "Accio bifon" -- but instead came out with "Accio Bison" -- and found himself on the floor with a North American Buffalo on his chest. /Bifon/ is an Anglo-Saxon word that can be used as a noun meaning 'case' (though the main meaning is as a verb meaning 'to grasp'.) From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Oct 20 07:29:56 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:29:56 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160032 Pippin: > I haven't forgotten about the Vow, by the way, but I think that Dumbledore and Snape meant to circumvent it by a ruse all along. The simplest way out for Dumbledore and DDM!Snape would have been for Snape to pretend to jump the gun and "murder" Dumbledore before Draco had a chance to fail. But Dumbledore wanted to bring Harry up to speed on the horcruxes first, and he wanted Snape to continue to serve as double agent and protect Draco as long as possible, which would have been impossible once the 'murder' had been committed. This is what Snape didn't want to do any more, IMO. > Dungrollin: See, I don't think that would've worked. If Snape had *pretended* to kill DD, but DD was actually still alive and in hiding, DD would have 'escaped' from Draco. Draco would have given up. Thus Draco would have failed. Thus ... etc. But I dimly remember arguing this once before, so you've probably got a good reason for thinking otherwise. Dung From wickedlysunny at yahoo.co.in Fri Oct 20 03:26:37 2006 From: wickedlysunny at yahoo.co.in (wickedlysunny) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:26:37 -0000 Subject: Will Harry die after part 7???? In-Reply-To: <20061011095454.55645.qmail@web55302.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160033 -Harry will die as there is a chance of him being a horcrux. There is a chance that Voldemort had not used the killing curse on him. He only made him a horcrux. I think when Harry will find this, he will kill himself. wickedlysunny From pumpkinpastie18 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 20 04:25:59 2006 From: pumpkinpastie18 at yahoo.co.uk (pumpkinpastie18) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:25:59 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160035 Despite that she has killed beloved characters and that there are more deaths to come, I just can't imagine Rowling ever killing off Harry. Why? Because Harry = hope. He's the Boy Who Lived and I can't see Rowling ending the series on such an awful, tragic note. If the Boy Who Lived died after everything, it would send out a message that there is no hope and, while obviously I have no right to claim what she thinks and believes, I just can't see Jo writing such a tragic, despairing ending to a series which has been all about a boy trying to find his place in the world. I'm just completely convinced that Harry will live and if he does die, I'll be very shocked indeed. Can you also imagine the huge public outcry that would happen if Harry met his maker in book seven? Not that I don't think that would ever stop Jo, but I can just hear furious parents and heartbroken readers reactions. I think Harry dying would create an uproar, and people would be angry at the series ending on such a depressing, hopeless note. What are your thoughts on this? pumpkinpastie18 From anis_istt at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 06:06:11 2006 From: anis_istt at yahoo.com (Anisur Rahman Alamgir) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:06:11 -0000 Subject: Welcome! (Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160036 Davida wrote: > > Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book or keep > looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? I don't think so because in the sixth book he said that he wasn't going back to Hogwarts Thanks by anis ---------------------------------------------------------------------- N.B. My Link: 1) Free Download wallpaper,login screen.......... 2) Xp Wallpaper.tk -------------------------------------------------------------------- From satarupa_1994 at yahoo.co.in Fri Oct 20 09:58:28 2006 From: satarupa_1994 at yahoo.co.in (Satarupa Bhattacharjee) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:58:28 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Welcome! (Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061020095828.54969.qmail@web7809.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160037 Davida: > > Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book or keep > > looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? Eddie: > Both. I think Harry will return to Hogwarts not as a > student, but for similar reasons as Voldemort's: to learn more and > to have access to information and objects he will need in his hunt > for the Horcruxes. > Remember, too, that when we last left Harry, he was still physically > at Hogwarts. I think he'll still be there when we return. Satarupa: I don't think so. Harry is not in a position to go back to Hogwarts with Dumbledore dead. How can he get help from McGonagal when she doesn't know about Voldemort's horcruxes? And I neither think Dobby can help him to find the Horcruxes. He might need the portrait of Dumbledore, but can't he go to Hogwarts just for once to take advice? Remember, Hogwarts is now not safer than any other place. Besides Harry has decided not to return to his school, whether it reopens or not. He has a much greater duty to carry on. Satarupa From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 12:16:44 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:16:44 -0000 Subject: Fawkes/the two planned for death: Veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160038 > > Jenni: > I think Fawkes could help Harry. But I'm also wondering something > else. Fawkes was Dumbledore's pet. Was this because Fawkes chose > Dumbledore or because Dumbledore chose Fawkes? If Fawkes can choose > his 'master', I wonder if he will choose Harry! Finwitch: Well, certainly I think Faweks will help Harry - if only because of Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore even *after* Dumbledore died... I think the Boa from zoo will return to the picture as well. But something else - remember how JKR gave the hint about some she had planned to die to avoid that? I think that those two might be the two whose voices Harry heard from behind the Veil. Sirius & Ron that is. Sirius, where he is, beyond, is not exactly alive -- nor quite dead. Stuck in-between more like -- in what I believe Dumbledore referred to as 'worse than death'. And um - I don't think anyone wants Voldemort as a ghost, so he must be forced to the beyond... I think that Aberforth was stuck thus once, and as Albus defeated Grindelwald he brought Aberforth back. Now Harry can defeat Voldemort and bring Sirius back (otherwise Harry would die). (As for why-- what else could have happened to make Albus doubt his brother's literacy?) So I think Sirius is saved from the destiny of death. Ron will need similar rescue - and this time Bella (who *Would* be willing to risk it all to bring Voldemort back) will be the one left there. Finwitch From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 12:26:01 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:26:01 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160039 > > a_svirn: > > By what definition? There is an ongoing debate on whether or not > > children should be fully responsible for their actions. No one ever > > doubted, however, that they are capable of forming intent and > > committing crime. > > Pippin: > Oh, lots of people doubt that. The age of criminal responsibility in Europe > alone varies all the way from 8 to 18 - below that age a child cannot > be considered to have committed a crime and no charge can be brought. > In RL Scotland the age is eight, but we already know that the WW > has its own rules. a_svirn: And that's proves me wrong how? I said that no one ever doubted that children are capable of crime and you are saying that they aren't often held responsible for it. Which means that they can commit crime but likely to get away with it. Which is exactly what I said. Except that at sixteen Draco would be held responsible anyway. > Pippin: > I think JKR made it plain on the tower that Draco's intention to kill > Dumbledore was not clear, otherwise he would have done it > as soon as he arrived. a_svirn: But were not discussing the Tower incident. We were discussing the previous murder attempts. Not that Rowling made anything plain, considering that Draco didn't make his choice. In the end Snape did it for him. > Pippin: > Draco launched the attacks while he was still underage, but had passed > his seventeenth birthday by the time he arrived on the tower. Then > he could make a choice with full knowledge of what he was doing. I > don't see him as mature enough to do so earlier and I think canon > bears this out. a_svirn: You may be right. Not that I believe that Rowling's "moral message" can be reduced to such legal pettifogging, but that's a valid point. But then again, we weren't discussing Draco's last attempt. > Pippin: > So it's okay for Harry to yield to Voldemort's manipulations and endanger > his fellow students because he was trying to save his godfather, > but it's not okay for Draco to yield to Voldemort's manipulations and > endanger his fellow students because he was trying to save his family? a_svirn: Again, we were discussing the matter of intent, weren't we? Draco voluntary enlisted as a Voldemort's hit-man. I don't think it's okay to equate a contract murder with a reckless rescue mission. > Pippin: > Taking Draco into custody would not have changed that. It wouldn't > have prevented the mead attempt, or the necklace, because Draco didn't > have to be at Hogwarts in order to send messages to Rosmerta. a_svirn: Maybe a genuine investigation of the first attempt would, though? Besides, I don't see how Draco could do anything while being in "custody". > Pippin: > Dumbledore saw that Draco was warned, and the warning put a stop to the > attempts. I'd say you are the one being hard on the old man. a_svirn: Oh, so he wasn't being selfish, he was just being myopic. The attempts stopped so naturally Draco abandoned the project. Something is not quite all right with this logic, seems to me. > Pippin: > Anyway, does anyone really doubt that they day will come when Harry will > be very glad that Dumbledore helped Draco discover that he was not a > killer on the Tower? a_svirn: In COS Harry lived to glad that Hagrid had sent him to the spiders. It doesn't make it OK for Hagrid to have done so. > > Pippin: > > > Sirius's case is different. He was thought to be insane, which > > > AFAWK would have denied him a trial in any case, and the > > > evidence against him was overwhelming. > > > > a_svirn: > > I don't remember it's said anywhere in canon that people can avoid > > trial on the ground of insanity. Besides, in that case, Sirius would > > have ended up in St Mungo, rather than in Azkaban. > > Pippin: > Bode wasn't tried for trying to remove the prophecy. > He was indeed sent to St Mungo's, not Azkaban, but he wasn't considered > dangerous. a_svirn: And what does it have to do with anything? You said that Sirius was denied a trial because he was thought insane. I am saying that in that case he would have been sent to St. Mungo's, not to Azkaban. Insane people are sent to clinics not to prisons. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 13:08:54 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:08:54 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160040 > Carol responds: I mean that it prevented him from bringing > additional dangerous objects into the castle. You snipped the part of > my post which showed that Draco stopped endangering his fellow > students by smuggling in objects like the necklace and the mead after > Snape confronted him. I didn't mean that the objects were more > dangerous than the Death Eaters. Neither Snape nor Dumbledore could > have known that the precaustions they had taken would not be enough to > allow the DEs access to Hogwarts. They did their best to keep Draco > away from Dumbledore and to prevent him from pulling more (i.e,. > additional) stupid stunts like the necklace and the mead. a_svirn: But neither of them could be sure that the precautions would be enough, could they? Especially since ? as you yourself pointed out ? they didn't know what it was Draco worked on. With so many lives at stake wouldn't it be more, well, logical, to err on the side of caution? > Carol: > The lives that were in danger (other than Draco's own) were Snape's > and Dumbledore's, and, yes, Dumbledore did what he could to protect > all three lives, mostly by staying out of Draco's way. a_svirn: By no means. Dumbledore could console himself with this reflection until Katie almost died, but not after that. > Carol: Once Snape > stopped Draco from resorting to other methods, the students were > safe--until and unless the DEs got in. a_svirn: How could he know that he'd stopped Draco from anything? He didn't have a clue of what Draco was up to. > Carol: And Dumbledore took protective > measures there, too. Note that the Order was on duty the night that DD > left with Harry to look for the Horcrux. a_svirn: Which didn't work, because they didn't know what exactly they should protect. And neither did Dumbledore. Yet he ignored the warning and sallied forth. > Carol: And note that Snape's action > (killing Dumbledore himself, probably on his orders) saved Draco from > the DEs, after which he hurried the DEs off the tower before Harry > could rush out and fight them and ordered them out of Hogwarts, saving > Harry from a Crucio on the way. a_svirn: I do note it. If Dumbledore's and Snape's main concern throughout the year was saving Draco, then yes, he did everything right. > > a_svirn: > > Yes, it's ever so much more pleasant to deal with professionals. > > > Carol again: > Sorry. That doesn't answer my question. Snape stopped Draco from using > amateurish methods like the mead and the necklace. Dumbledore had > already increased the protections on the castle (locked gates, > searching the students, eliminating owl mail. I repeat, what else > could either Snape or Dumbledore have done? You're ignoring the fact > that the students were safe until the moment of confrontation and that > no students would even have been involved if Harry hadn't ordered in a > few DA members. If it weren't for that, it would have been the Order > vs. the DEs, and Snape got the DEs out of Hogwarts and off the grounds > as quickly as he could, tossing in an extra lesson or two for Harry > along the way. a_svirn: If the Order member could stop the DE they would have done it. As it was the DA members' contribution was very welcome. Certainly students weren't safe from the death eaters. Grayback was drooling anticipating throats to be ripped, and others would likely have had their fun as well. > Carol, surprised that you would resort to sarcasm and hoping for > logical, canon-based counterarguments next time a_svirn: Sorry. I should have said that following your own logic Snape couldn't do much of anything because of the UV (which means that his surveillance was useless), and when he did interfere he only made matters worse, since thanks to his interference Draco graduated from amateurish stunts to professional terrorism. From bauercandace at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 12:34:30 2006 From: bauercandace at yahoo.com (Candace Bauer) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 05:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061020123430.94435.qmail@web32501.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160041 pumpkinpastie18 wrote.... ...I just can't imagine Rowling ever killing off Harry. Why? Because Harry = hope. He's the Boy Who Lived and I can't see Rowling ending the series on such an awful, tragic note. ...I'm just completely convinced that Harry will live... Candy: I quite agree, I don't see Harry being killed off. It could happen, but I'm doubtful. I do, however, think that we will see more of Harry's loved ones killed, and considering we're down to just his school pals, it unfortunatly may be some of them. JK has already said that two characters will die. I feel that Ron and Hermione (maybe Ginny, too, though I doubt Molly Weasley would ever allow it) will fight the DE and Voldemort with Harry, and at least one of them will die. Hermione being the stronger wizard, I doubt that it will be her, but most likely Ron (if it's either of them, again I'm just speculating!) (`'?.?(`'?.? ?.?'?)?.?'?) ???* Candy *?`? (?.?'?(?.?'? `'?.?)`'.?) From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 14:21:55 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:21:55 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610200721o6e9bc8dv3b2c8aae1d25fd17@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160042 pumpkinpastie18 wrote: > > Despite that she has killed beloved characters and that there are more > deaths to come, I just can't imagine Rowling ever killing off Harry. > Why? Because Harry = hope. He's the Boy Who Lived and I can't see > Rowling ending the series on such an awful, tragic note. If the Boy Who > Lived died after everything, it would send out a message that there is > no hope and, while obviously I have no right to claim what she thinks > and believes, I just can't see Jo writing such a tragic, despairing > ending to a series which has been all about a boy trying to find his > place in the world. montims: Well, you know, it all depends HOW he dies... If he dies saving the WW and is then reunited with his parents, Sirius, and such of his fellow students that also get chopped, it might not be such a bad deal... Writers do kill off their darlings - see Little Nell for probably the most famous example - and people do die in RL (OK, that's obvious - I meant in an untimely and/or tragic manner)... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 20 14:25:24 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:25:24 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore WAS: Re: Dumbledore Does Lie - Sort Of In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160043 > Alla: > > Really and truly? I never thought that it was unclear that when I > write not in my book it means not in my opinion. I guess it was > unclear, sorry about that. So, let me rephrase it - **in my > opinion** Dumbledore is not off the hook for what I consider to be > careless disregard of lifes of other students, while being concerned > with saving one, in my opinion that is. > Pippin: My point was that it's JKR's opinion that counts. :) But are you saying you don't think Dumbledore's precautions kept the danger to the students to its usual and customary level? I think we can check that. Year one: Four students threatened by Fluffy Broomstick attack on Harry Troll attack on Harry, Ron and Hermione Dragon attack on Ron Quirrell attack on Harry Chess piece attack on Ron Quirrell attack on Harry Second year certainly wasn't any safer. Third year, dementors, oh my! Fourth year, Cedric was *killed*. Fifth year: Umbridge, Snape's jar of cockroaches, Marietta, Montague, Grawp, centaurs. Sixth year, Katie, Ron, bathroom fight...am I missing something? Up to the moment the DE's arrived, I'd have to say sixth year was probably the safest one on record, especially considering all the mayhem that was happening outside the school. It's not clear to me that stopping Draco would have stopped the DE's from entering. Couldn't another agent of Voldemort's have fixed the cabinet if Draco wasn't available? > Alla: > I am **not** buying the argument that child who is taken in > protective home, together with his father and mother, if I may add, > and who may agree, if I may add on behalf of the child, no scratch > that, not even protective custody, who says that in that place > Malfoys will be somehow restricted in their movements, constitutes > prison. Pippin: I've never said that Draco couldn't have been placed under DD's protection if his parents agreed to it, but we saw what kind of protection Narcissa wanted for her son. We saw Draco deny to Snape that he needed protection at all. How was Dumbledore supposed to get Draco or Narcissa to accept it, if not by force? You seem to have the idea that when Dumbledore says "Jump!" the whole WW says "How high?" but the reality is he can't even get people to say 'Voldemort'. Pippin: quoted in 1600032 > I haven't forgotten about the Vow, by the way, but I think that Dumbledore and Snape meant to circumvent it by a ruse all along. The simplest way out for Dumbledore and DDM!Snape would have been for Snape to pretend to jump the gun and "murder" Dumbledore before Draco had a chance to fail. But Dumbledore wanted to bring Harry up to speed on the horcruxes first, and he wanted Snape to continue to serve as double agent and protect Draco as long as possible, which would have been impossible once the 'murder' had been committed. This is what Snape didn't want to do any more, IMO. > Dungrollin: See, I don't think that would've worked. If Snape had *pretended* to kill DD, but DD was actually still alive and in hiding, DD would have 'escaped' from Draco. Draco would have given up. Thus Draco would have failed. Thus ... etc. But I dimly remember arguing this once before, so you've probably got a good reason for thinking otherwise. Pippin: Snape is only sworn to carry out the task 'should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail.' If Voldemort was satisfied that Dumbledore was dead, then Draco would be released from his task and it would not be necessary for Snape to fulfill it. If Narcissa did not think Voldemort would be satisfied by Dumbledore's death then the third clause of the vow would not protect Draco anyway and Narcissa had no reason to impose it. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 20 14:28:24 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:28:24 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Draco and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160044 > a_svirn: > How could he know that he'd stopped Draco from anything? He didn't > have a clue of what Draco was up to. > Sorry. I should have said that following your own logic Snape > couldn't do much of anything because of the UV (which means that his > surveillance was useless), and when he did interfere he only made > matters worse, since thanks to his interference Draco graduated from > amateurish stunts to professional terrorism. Magpie: Slight tangent, but I always find it interesting to think about DE! Snape and just how the story works from that angle. From Draco's pov, of course, that talk with Snape is in no way about talking him out of murdering Dumbledore but the opposite. DE!Snape is what Draco is supposed to be. Snape's criticisms of the necklace attempt, coming from a DE, would not primarily be about Draco's risking getting caught since DEs aren't supposed to worry about their own necks so much. He'd be more shamed for failing. Had he killed Dumbledore but gotten caught someone like Bellatrix or Barty would say he'd have done a glorious thing. Snape's talk with him, I'd imagine, would certainly make him determined to not be such a bungler--but of course he would still have to kill Dumbledore. It wouldn't be a deterrant against murder attempts at all--in fact coming from DE!Snape it's applying more pressure to Draco to do it right. So basically it's just more of the standard pressure he's getting from the DE side anyway. It is giving him more reason to be more careful in his attacks--not because there's anything wrong with killing innocent bystandards according to DE!Snape but because these attacks fail and every failure that's noticed risks the plan being discovered and so stopped. Draco's got a heckler at Hogwarts, a better DE who's watching him for mistakes and wants to take over himself. In letting Draco know he's being watched he does restrict his actions somewhat, making him less free about certain kinds of murder attempts. But those restrictions, as you point out, basically order him to be more effective and more secretive, especially from Snape. (Of course I think the attempts also began to clue Draco in that he fundamentally wasn't like DE!Snape and that gave him another reason to hide from him, etc., but that's another issue.) -m From LynnKQuinn at aol.com Fri Oct 20 14:56:35 2006 From: LynnKQuinn at aol.com (eyemlynn) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:56:35 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160045 I am currently rereading GOF and have been wondering how much of a role Krum will play. I would think the international community would play a large role considering how much time was devoted to it in GOF. Also the Creevey brothers. I feel that they may also play a part in the conclusion. Maybe Colin's camera? Maybe Colin is the one who saves Harry from LV, following him around when he's not supposed to? Lynn From virpshas at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 20 15:32:35 2006 From: virpshas at tiscali.co.uk (Edis) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:32:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160046 I cant help wondering whether Dumbledore has ever taken Polyjuice potion and appeared in some scenes as 'another character'. For example appearing as Snape at Spinners End. That would make the Unbreakable Vow a massively complex piece of self-referential magic... From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 15:13:46 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:13:46 -0500 Subject: Draco's timebombs Message-ID: <8ee758b40610200813jab24b23vb66a17a8bf52bfc8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160047 montims: I have been reading the discussions by the much more knowledgeable members of this forum with great interest, and it occurred to me that while the necklace had an instant effect, the mead could still have been sitting there undrunk months if not years after the fact, and I wonder if Draco played around with any other little sabotage attempts that have not yet come to light, but which could become a timebomb in the future. Maybe a boobytrapped book or potion or something? (We know he had access to the potions cupboard to make all that polyjuice... From what he could have acquired at B & B, for example, and with the timeline as we know it, is this likely? Or do we think he went straight from 2 ameteurish attempts directly to the cabinet scheme? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 15:43:18 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:43:18 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160048 > Quick_Silver wrote: > I agree with what you're saying about whose lives are in danger and > how Snape and Dumbledore are planning on controlling Draco but at the > same time it's a reckless strategy. I mean Snape only applies the > pressure on Draco after the Katie incident and that doesn't prevent > Draco's poison from finding a victim either. Carol responds: As I said upthread, Draco put the mead plot in motion at Christmas time, before Snape talked to him. It's only coincidence that Ron drank it in March (on his birthday). It was meant to be a Christmas present. It was too late then for Draco to get the mead back, but he didn't try any more tricks of that sort, so Snape's warning had the intended effect. (Of course, the argument in the forest occurs just after the mead incident and has something to do with it. What, exactly, it's impossible to do more than guess.) Carol earlier: > > Sorry. That doesn't answer my question. Snape stopped Draco from > using amateurish methods like the mead and the necklace. Dumbledore had already increased the protections on the castle (locked gates, searching the students, eliminating owl mail. I repeat, what else could either Snape or Dumbledore have done? > > Quick_Silver: > I thought about this question for a while and I think I have an > answer they should have used Harry. Of course there are a thousand > and one reasons why they shouldn't have used Harry but I think that > including him could be been beneficial. He's Draco age (meaning they > have roughly the same skill levels), he doesn't seem to have an age > bias (since Harry has been some pretty wild things for his age), he's motivated, he can be creative (i.e. House-elf surveillance even Snape can only be so many places at once), and I don't think that Draco would expect Harry to actually be in on any actual counter-measures against him. Carol responds: I think using Harry is the last thing they wanted to do. They were trying to prevent him from getting involved because they were trying to protect him as well as Draco, which is why Dumbledore wouldn't listen to him (I wish he had just said, "Thank you, Harry, but I already know all this") and why Snape kept him in detention every Saturday after the Sectumsempra incident. What, exactly, could Harry have done? We see what happens when he actually encounters Draco--an attempted Crucio from the one and a Sectumsempra from the other. So back to square one. What else could DD and Snape have done without involving Harry (or endangering Snape from the UV)? > > > Quick_Silver: > Sorry but this touched on some interesting points about the plot > against Dumbledore. I think that you're correct in saying that after > Snape reined in Draco no students were really in danger (although > Snape spoke to Draco before Christmas and Ron wasn't poisoned until > March). Carol responds: See above. The mead plot was already in place before the talk with Snape. Quick_Silver: However I think that the DA's involvement was important > perhaps even vital to controlling the Death Eaters because I think > Snape and Dumbledore did to a certain extent underestimate Draco and > didn't know what to expect from Draco (or that it would come from the > Room of Requirement). Carol responds: How so? What difference did their presence make, aside from having someone take Flitwick to the hospital wing after Snape stupefied him (note that he didn't kill him, as ESE!Snape would have done) and getting Neville slightly injured? If not for the Felix Felicis, the DA kids would have been in terrible danger. > Quick_Silver: > I'm going to go off on a tangent here but I wonder if it's possible > to really separate Harry from the plot (I realize that Harry as the > narrator has to involved from plot reasons but those aside ). Carol responds: Sorry to correct you, but Harry is not the narrator. The book has a third-person limited omniscient narrator who usually but not always sees from Harry's point of view and consequently is not always reliable. See my numerous posts on this topic. (If Harry were the narrator, he'd be writing in the first-person, and we'd know that he survived the conflict with Voldemort to tell the tale.) Qiock_Silver: See > mainly its viewed as a Snape-Draco-Dumbledore thing with Harry > observing (like on the Tower) but on my re-read of HBP I noticed that Harry was in many ways an "active observer" of the plot, plotting, and stratagems. By "active observer" I mean that the plotting effect's Harry, the best example being when Ron is poisoned which disrupts Harry's attempt to get Slughorn drunk (most people tend to overlook that the Felix Felicis set up for a second go at the same > idea) and that Harry effects the plotting, the best example of this > being the bathroom duel which probably had an effect of Draco's > psyche. Add to that Harry secretly trailing Draco, getting reports on the Room of Requirements from house-elves, hearing things from > Moaning Myrtle, Harry being on the scene first of two attacks, and > observing Draco in general and you realize that Harry was involved. Carol responds: Of course. This is Harry's book and we have to see it from his pov. We also have to see how his little stratagems affect the events. But we also know that his efforts didn't really make a difference and probably could not have made a difference. And we also see his conflict with Snape reaching a peak of mutual hatred and misunderstanding, building to a climax and resolution/reversal in Book 7 when Harry learns what Snape has really been doing and Snape realizes that Harry is not as incompetent as he seems to fear. (My reading, of course. ESE! and OFH!Snapers will anticipate a different outcome.) What Harry's involvement does is to help *the reader* learn part of what's going on. We can see to some degree where he's right and where he's wrong since we have the dubious advantage of reading that wonderfully ambiguous chapter, "Spinner's End," which removes the Harrycentric bias but still forces us to see Snape from the outside in his loyal DE role. But we're also left up in the air about some things (e.g., how was Draco communicating with the DEs? Surely not through the coins he gave Rosmerta) even after Dumbledore interrogates Draco on the tower. (That, of course, is primarily for Harry's benefit as DD surely knows at that point that he's going to die--wandless, poisoned, and waiting for the DEs and Snape, whom DD probably intends to order to fulfill his vow so he can save Draco and get the DEs off the tower, away from Harry, and out of Hogwarts. However, I think that DD's primary motivation in freezing Harry is not to force him to witness the confrontation but to keep him from rushing out to fight the DEs and getting killed.) > Quick_Silver: > What's different from previous books is that whereas before Harry was > usually directly involved in the plot and Dumbledore, Snape, and (to > a lesser extent) Draco were on the outside nudging and interfering > with plots around Harry that concept is inverted (ahh a nice math > term) in HBP. In HBP Draco, Snape, and Dumbledore are head-deep in a > plot and it's Harry on the outside nudging and interfering with the > plot. > > Quick_Silver (who was really impressed with HBP Harry after re- > reading it) > Carol responds: Interesting perspective. But Harry doesn't really influence the events. He's just trying to find out what's going on--which DD doesn't want him to know because it's crucial to keep Harry alive and focused on the Horcruxes. Harry ought to have believed Dumbledore when DD said that he knew more about it than Harry did. And unless JKR has been deluding us about DD's wisdom, we should find out in Book 7 what Dumbledore (and Snape) knew that Harry didn't. If it weren't for that limited omniscient narrator, we'd know it already, but what would be the fun in that? Carol, still asking what else Dumbledore and Snape could have done to prevent the events on the tower without triggering the UV (short of DD staying in Hogwarts rather than flying to the tower, which IMO can only mean that DD *wanted* to confront Draco and knew that Snape would have to kill him to keep Draco from doing it) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 16:09:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:09:35 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160049 Secca wrote: What is needed is: > > 1) The intended word, with 'f' in it. > (something a wizard might want to say) > 2) Now change the 'f' to an 's'. > 3) Now the word means (or conjures) a buffalo! > > I, and others all over the web have looked for a meaning > for 'bussalo'. But 'bussalo' doesn't work! As I researched, I kept > doing this, looking for words that meant buffalo with an 's' in it. > Anyway -- > Here's *one* word that works by the rules. I *very, very* much doubt > this is what Jo meant... but, here it is regardless... > > The Wizard Baruffio, who lived circa 777, was reading a scroll. He > mistook his own scribed 'f' to be an 's'. He was meant to say "Accio > bifon" -- but instead came out with "Accio Bison" -- and found > himself on the floor with a North American Buffalo on his chest. > > /Bifon/ is an Anglo-Saxon word that can be used as a noun > meaning 'case' (though the main meaning is as a verb meaning 'to > grasp'.) > Carol responds: I think you're alomost right--"s" mistaken for "f" because of the elongated "s" in ancient manuscripts and "bison" for "bifon," which according to my research is Anglo-Saxon for "surround" or "encircle" http://www2.kenyon.edu/AngloSaxonRiddles/willedition/GloB.htm and could be a command spell in itself, just as some spells in HP are in English rather than pseudo-Latin. The word "bison" (or "bisont") was already in existence and referred, not to an American buffalo (probably European wizards knew no more than European Muggles of the existence of the Americas at this point) but to a European buffalo also called a wisent. Click here for an illustration: http://www.m-w.com/mw/art/wisent.htm Carol, whose first reaction to the wizard Baruffio's blunder was what JKR surely intended it to be, a hearty roar of laughter From nmangle at cox.net Fri Oct 20 15:13:00 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (nmangle at cox.net) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 10:13:00 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I don't think that Harry will die Message-ID: <18261533.1161357180870.JavaMail.root@centrmwml04.mgt.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160050 > pumpkinpastie18 wrote: > > > > Despite that she has killed beloved characters and that there are more > > deaths to come, I just can't imagine Rowling ever killing off Harry. > > Why? Because Harry = hope. He's the Boy Who Lived and I can't see > > Rowling ending the series on such an awful, tragic note. If the Boy Who > > Lived died after everything, it would send out a message that there is > > no hope and, while obviously I have no right to claim what she thinks > > and believes, I just can't see Jo writing such a tragic, despairing > > ending to a series which has been all about a boy trying to find his > > place in the world. > > > montims: > Well, you know, it all depends HOW he dies... If he dies saving the WW and > is then reunited with his parents, Sirius, and such of his fellow students > that also get chopped, it might not be such a bad deal... Writers do kill > off their darlings - see Little Nell for probably the most famous example - > and people do die in RL (OK, that's obvious - I meant in an untimely and/or > tragic manner)... To both above, First of all, I had to keep in the first post on this because I haven't heard it put that way before, and I love it!! Hope, Boy Who Lived, of course he has to live! Personally, my son is 10 and he reads the books too, of course after I finish them, but he reads them and he told me that Harry not making it to the end of the book would just make him mad for even reading the series. He said as a kid, why would I read a whole series of books if the main kid in it dies? I told him that isn't the point and the series is just a really good series. Honestly whether or not its killing Voldemort or what, I can't imagine the death of Harry Potter being less than ultimately dissapointing to every reader she has ever captured. Really, reading Harry Potter takes me into a whole different world than reality and that is a place I can escape to. As a parent of a child who reads the books, and as someone who escapes with the books, Harry truely is the Boy Who lived, he gives hope to the Wizarding World that the Dark Lord and his reign will die. Done rambling.. nmangle From LynnKQuinn at aol.com Fri Oct 20 15:18:48 2006 From: LynnKQuinn at aol.com (eyemlynn) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:18:48 -0000 Subject: Fawkes (was Re: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) In-Reply-To: <20061019220837.78553.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160051 > > Jeremiah: > > JKR said Harry was going to get a new pet in Book 7. > ------- > Jeremiah > Yeah. She mentioned it earlier this year, I think. Lynn: I did find this from a 2001 interview: Could Harry have a pet dragon? You can't domesticate a dragon whatever Hagrid thinks. That's simply impossible. So no. He's got more sense. He might get a different pet at some point but I'm saying no more at this moment. From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 15:41:40 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:41:40 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters *Contains Spoilers (not huge) for eyemlynn* In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160052 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eyemlynn" wrote: > > I am currently rereading GOF and have been wondering how much of a role > Krum will play. I would think the international community would play a > large role considering how much time was devoted to it in GOF. > > Also the Creevey brothers. I feel that they may also play a part in the > conclusion. Maybe Colin's camera? Maybe Colin is the one who saves > Harry from LV, following him around when he's not supposed to? > > Lynn Katie says: I'm not giving away huge plot points that would spoil the next two books but I'm giving you some insights. Viktor Krum: IN OoP and HBP we see some very vague references to Krum. Hermione writes to him and maybe brings him up a couple of times. So far he's not played a vital role. There is still one more book to go so who really knows. Another foreign witch does make an appearance back in HBP. You know from the end of GOF that Fleur is dating Bill Weasly. I'm not going to tell you everything but she does come to play a bigger role in HBP. Colin and Dennis: After the CoS Colin seems to have stopped his need to follow Harry around and take pictures. It seems that being a muggle born wizard and coming to Hogwarts was such a huge deal that he was over excited. After his first year he seems to have calm down. As far as Dennis and Colin come into play as just bit parts here and there. So far they have yet to really play a pivitol role in Harry and his relationship with LV but there is still one more book to go. Also Colin's camera got destroyed when he took a picture of the basilisk. "Dumbledore didn't answer. He opened the back of the camera....A jet of steam had hissed out of the camera. Harry, three beds away, caught the acrid smell of burnt plastic." Cos page 180. So Colin no longer has a camera as far as we know. JKR has not mentioned another camera but it is safe to say his old one is not working. In terms of Colin and Dennis saving Harry from LV. I know myself I would be terribly upset if someone besides Harry beat LV. We have spent six books cheering Harry on and learning more pieces to his story to have someone else swoop in and take the glory. That is my opinion so to speak. Katie From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 20 16:20:55 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:20:55 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160053 > Lynn: > I am currently rereading GOF and have been wondering how much of a role > Krum will play. I would think the international community would play a > large role considering how much time was devoted to it in GOF. > > Also the Creevey brothers. I feel that they may also play a part in the > conclusion. Maybe Colin's camera? Maybe Colin is the one who saves > Harry from LV, following him around when he's not supposed to? Eddie: I like this line of thinking. IMHO an all-out effort will be needed to vanquish the likes of Voldemort. In the end I guess it must come down to Harry vs. Voldemort mano-a-mano... er, wizardo-a-wizardo. But everybody else will have a part to play in setting up the final confrontation, and many of them will be seriously imperiled. There does seem to be a serious lack of involvement / interest in Voldemort from the wizarding world outside of England. Bringing back Krum and/or Fleur's circle makes sense to me. Also, Colin could just as easily be killed because he followed Harry too closely. Eddie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 16:27:37 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:27:37 -0000 Subject: Draco's age on the tower (Was: Draco and Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160054 Anisur Rahman Alamgir wrote: > > > Draco launched the attacks while he was still underage, but had passed > his seventeenth birthday by the time he arrived on the tower. Then he could make a choice with full knowledge of what he was doing. I don't see him as mature enough to do so earlier and I think canon > bears this out. > > > Thanks anis Carol responds: I believe you're quoting Pippin here, is that correct? If so, it's important to credit her (and, as the List Elves will tell you, to add to the discussion with some new point). Pippin's information comes from JKR's website (Draco's birthday is June 5) combined with the statement in HBP itself that June had arrived. However, we don't know exactly how many days into June the events on the tower occurred. Draco could have been a few days short of his seventeenth birthday, which raises the question of whether he would have been tried as an adult if he had succeeded in AKing Dumbledore. For that matter, if Ron or Katie had died, would the MoM have taken his age into consideration? The Katie incident occurred in October and the poisoned mead was bought in December (when he was sixteen and a half), but he was only three months short of his seventeenth birthday by the time Ron was poisoned (March 1). Surely the arbitrariness of becoming a "man" (or "woman") at seventeen would be acknowledged, and Draco would be understood to be responsible for his actions throughout the year. (I wonder to what extent he'd be considered guilty of manipulating Madam Rosmerta if someone else, a DE accomplice, cast the Imperius Curse.) I agree with Pippin (and Magpie) that we see Draco slowly growing up during this year (although I see it more as an understanding of what death really means than the development of compassion or higher ethical standards), but I don't think he magically acquired the maturity to see the consequences of his actions by passing his seventeenth birthday. I do wonder, however, what Draco as a "man" of seventeen will think of Snape's Unbreakable Vow to protect him, if it's still in effect. I rather think he'll rebel against it and bully Narcissa into reversing it (Bella wouldn't require bullying to act as unbinder, even if she could be intimidated by Draco, which is most unlikely). Carol, who doesn't think we can take Draco's being of legal age on the tower for granted as it isn't stated in the book and who hopes that JKR will tell us more about what actually happened with Draco and his accomplices From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 16:23:43 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:23:43 -0000 Subject: Squibs... In-Reply-To: <006c01c01f1e$a8380f20$49d9d2cc@neo.rr.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160055 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Denise" wrote: > > How much (less?) magic does a person have until he classifies as a squib? Could you have only one ability or two (like one or two spells?) and still be squib, or is it an all or nothing thing? > > Thanks for answering! > Dee Katie says: Hogwarts has some kind of magic that identifies wizards and witches because they are able to find and locate wizards and witches who are muggle born. I would imagine that they would have to have some level of magic that is a cut off per say. Neville says in CoS that he is almost a squib and we know how well Neville's magic skills are. So it is quite possible that they might have some levels of magical abilities but they are too low to even consider being able to handle the magical curriculum at Hogwarts so it is quite possible that a squib knows a spell or two, IMO. As we have seen with Filtch and Mrs. Figg they seem to have the ability to communicate with cats, so they have to have some kind of power. I believe that just like with intelligence every person has a different level of magical ability. Yes, Hermione is incredibly book smart and she knows a lot but she wouldn't be able to perform any of the spells as quickly as she could if she did not have a high magical ability level. I just think squibs are wizards and witches who have either no or very little magical ability, certainly not enough to be able to succeed at Hogwarts. Katie From patty at bostonleather.org Fri Oct 20 15:15:29 2006 From: patty at bostonleather.org (Patti) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:15:29 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610200721o6e9bc8dv3b2c8aae1d25fd17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160056 > montims: > Well, you know, it all depends HOW he dies... If he dies saving > the WW and is then reunited with his parents, Sirius, and such > of his fellow students that also get chopped, it might not be > such a bad deal... Writers do kill off their darlings - see > Little Nell for probably the most famous example - and people do > die in RL (OK, that's obvious - I meant in an untimely and/or > tragic manner)... Hi, My name is Patty and I just joined the group and this post caught my eye right off. It would be so sad if Harry gets killed off, yet you both are right. Harry is Hope, the whole good versus evil thing and yet it would be ok if he died saving everything they all fought for and he would be re-united with all those he has loved and misses so much. Just my thoughts. hugs, Patty From asnaarif_7 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 16:13:05 2006 From: asnaarif_7 at yahoo.com (ASNA ARIF) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:13:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: Welcome! (Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) In-Reply-To: <20061020095828.54969.qmail@web7809.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061020161306.76478.qmail@web54710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160057 > Davida: > Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book or keep > looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? Well! I say yes, he will have to go because Hogwarts is his home. asna. From deepblue972000 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 16:16:52 2006 From: deepblue972000 at yahoo.com (Charles Dias) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:16:52 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061020161652.19510.qmail@web34210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160058 Edis escreveu: >> I can't help wondering whether Dumbledore has ever taken Polyjuice potion and appeared in some scenes as 'another character'. For example appearing as Snape at Spinners End. That would make the Unbreakable Vow a massively complex piece of self- referential magic... << Edis, It's a plausible theory but I don't think something like this happened. I think that there would be a way wizards, maybe just dark wizards, to detect this kind of disguise. Charles From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 17:02:52 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:02:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610201002m24be9d04hbaf3d8f9fa713687@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160059 > > Secca : > What's funny, is how difficult it is to keep straight what fufills > the variables of the problem. What is needed is: > > 1) The intended word, with 'f' in it. > (something a wizard might want to say) > 2) Now change the 'f' to an 's'. > 3) Now the word means (or conjures) a buffalo! montims: OK - huge stretch but "faidi" ? >From http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/hmp/chp53.doc A History of Muslim Philosophy Persian Literature The most brilliant amongst this galaxy of poets were Faidi (953/1546?1004/1596), abu al-Barakat Munir (1055/1645-1099/1688), Qhani (1072/1661), Nasir'Ali (1108/1696), Qhanimat (1107/1695), Ni'mat Khan 'Ali (1121/1709), Bidil (1134/1722), Nur al-'Ain Wagif (1190/1776), Siraj al-Din 'Ali Khan Arzd (1169/1756), Ghalib (1213/1798-1285/1868), 'Ubaidi Suhrawardi (1306/ 1889), Shibli Nu'mani (1274/1857-1332/1914), Girami (1345/1926), and many others. The literary tradition bequeathed by them still lives in the Indo?Pakistan sub-continent. And "saidi" ? >From http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/other/ The Egyptian buffalo is kept as a draft animal and for milk production. They are grey-black with short curved horns. The varieties include Baladi (lower Egypt ) and Saidi in upper Egypt. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From satarupa_1994 at yahoo.co.in Fri Oct 20 15:49:35 2006 From: satarupa_1994 at yahoo.co.in (satarupa_1994) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:49:35 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160060 pumpkinpastie18 wrote: > Despite that she has killed beloved characters and that there > are more deaths to come, I just can't imagine Rowling ever > killing off Harry. Why? Because Harry = hope. He's the Boy Who > Lived and I can't see Rowling ending the series on such an awful, > tragic note. satarupa_1994: You are right. We just can't imagine Rowling ever killing off Harry. Really, I'll very shocked. But think. What'll be the relavance if Harry survives killing off Voldemort? Surely we don't want to read Harry always brooding over Dumbledore, Sirius or his parents' death! Well I'm not saying I want Harry to die. Moreover Rowling -that evil woman wants Harry to die.. and it is all in her hands!! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 17:09:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:09:24 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160061 > a_svirn: > But neither of them could be sure that the precautions would be > enough, could they? Especially since ? as you yourself pointed out ? > they didn't know what it was Draco worked on. With so many lives at > stake wouldn't it be more, well, logical, to err on the side of > caution? Carol responds: How? I still don't understand what you expected them to do, especially given the restraints that the UV placed on Snape (and on DD, who couldn't confront Draco directly). We have Snape preventing Draco from engaging in any more amateurish stunts that randomly injure students (as opposed to the three people actually in danger from Draco's as yet unknown plan), the Order in Hogsmeade and (I think) Tonks tailing Harry in an Invisibility Cloak, locks on the gates, the known passages watched, no owl correspondence, the usual spy network in the Hogs Head and maybe the Three Broomsticks, students searched coming from and even going to Hogsmeade, an anti-flying charm, and perhaps extra protections we don't know about. And we have the Order actually inside Hogwarts when DD leaves for the Horcrux hunt. What more could they have done, short of arresting Draco, which they couldn't do without triggering the UV even if they didn't care about such matters as choices and civil rights. > > > Carol: > > The lives that were in danger (other than Draco's own) were Snape's > > and Dumbledore's, and, yes, Dumbledore did what he could to protect > > all three lives, mostly by staying out of Draco's way. > > a_svirn: > By no means. Dumbledore could console himself with this reflection > until Katie almost died, but not after that. Carol: I disagree. That's why Snape cornered Draco and talked to him about amateurish tricks. It was too late to stop the mead, which Slughorn had already purchased, but there were no more blundering attempts that could go astray after that. Carol earlier: > And Dumbledore took protective measures there, too. Note that the Order was on duty the night that DD left with Harry to look for the Horcrux. > > a_svirn: > Which didn't work, because they didn't know what exactly they should > protect. And neither did Dumbledore. Yet he ignored the warning and > sallied forth. Carol: Which leads me to believe that he knew the confrontation with Draco was inevitable and that it was urgent to find this one Horcrux while DD was still alive. (Yes, it was a fake, but he didn't know that, and finding the fake Horcrux is a step toward finding the real one, not a dead end.) And the Order did protect the school. No students other than the DA five were in danger. Someone other than Harry (I think it was Snape, but I know you don't agree) petrified Fenrir Greyback, and Snape got the DEs out of the school. > Carol: > And note that Snape's action (killing Dumbledore himself, probably on his orders) saved Draco from the DEs, after which he hurried the DEs off the tower before Harry could rush out and fight them and ordered them out of Hogwarts, saving Harry from a Crucio on the way. > > a_svirn: > I do note it. If Dumbledore's and Snape's main concern throughout > the year was saving Draco, then yes, he did everything right. Carol: Or saving Draco and Snape, at his own expense. Glad we agree there. (BTW, even DD himself could have been spared if he hadn't chosen to fly to the tower and confront Draco after avoiding him all year. Why didn't he choose to have Snape heal him at the Three Broomsticks and leave fighting the DEs to the Order? *That's* the decision that led to tragedy and triggered the Vow. Why did he do it? > > a_svirn: > If the Order member could stop the DE they would have done it. As it > was the DA members' contribution was very welcome. Certainly > students weren't safe from the death eaters. Grayback was drooling > anticipating throats to be ripped, and others would likely have had > their fun as well. Carol: Most of the Death Eaters were focused on getting Draco to kill Dumbledore. Those who were left behind were contained by the Order (having helpfully AKd one of their own people. I don't see that having Neville, Ron, and Ginny in the fight made much difference. If it weren't for Felix, they might have been dead. And once Greyback came down from the tower, an Order member (Snape?) petrified him. Granted, he did mutilate Bill's face earlier, and I don't know why he wasn't stunned or petrified then. Call it JKR's plot need to have him slavering on the tower. If it weren't for his desire to have Dumbledore for "afters," Snape probably wouldn't have sent DD over the battlements. That Snape did so made it possible for him to clear the tower; there was no body for Greyback to rip apart. a_svirn: > Sorry. I should have said that following your own logic Snape > couldn't do much of anything because of the UV (which means that his > surveillance was useless), and when he did interfere he only made > matters worse, since thanks to his interference Draco graduated from > amateurish stunts to professional terrorism. Carol: Not necessarily. He and DD did the best they could under the circumstances, and the amateurish tactics were more dangerous to the students as a whole by their very randomness than what Draco was up to in the RoR--until the time for the confrontation, which I've already discussed at length. Besides, "professional terrorism" was the original plan, the one Draco was working on from the beginning (see "Draco's Detour," the plan that he told Snape was taking longer than he expected. Eliminating the dangerous random murder attempts limited him to Plan A, which was already in effect before the beginning of the school year. Dumbledore (and probably Snape) knew quite well that Draco was up to something dangerous in the RoR, something involving getting DEs into Hogwarts so that he could make his murder attempt with backup. That's why it was so urgent for Harry to get the memory from Slughorn and to go after the locket Horcrux while there was still time. And that's why Dumbledore stationed the Order members in Hogwarts that night *before* Harry told him about the whoop. Carol, still believing that DD knew exactly what he was doing and that he had no time to lose From satarupa_1994 at yahoo.co.in Fri Oct 20 16:12:00 2006 From: satarupa_1994 at yahoo.co.in (satarupa_1994) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:12:00 -0000 Subject: New member - Locket, Snape and Dumbledore on the Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160062 Sherry/NightChade wrote: > > Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders, when he said > Please Severus, he wasn't begging for his life, he was pleading > for him to carry out his order. Hi Sherry, I can't agree with you completely. I'm really tired of that Snape. Why do you still trust Snape? Why do you think Dumbledore ordered to kill himself? Then why do you think he made that unbreakable vow even when he could avoid it? And, as he himself stated, Voldemort is a very accomplished Legilimence. Can Snape avoid his suspicion? No, I can't trust Snape any more. satarupa_1994 From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 20 17:09:58 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:09:58 -0000 Subject: Squibs... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160063 > Katie said: > Yes, Hermione is incredibly book > smart and she knows a lot but she wouldn't be able to perform any of > the spells as quickly as she could if she did not have a high magical > ability level. I just think squibs are wizards and witches who have > either no or very little magical ability, certainly not enough to be > able to succeed at Hogwarts. Eddie: I think your reasoning make sense. Hermione may be a problematic example, however. She is older than most people in her class. (See http://www.jkrowling.co.uk/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=90) So maybe her magical ability is extra pronounced because (in part) of her age. Of course, she also works much harder on her studies than anybody. Eddie From davidapiper at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 16:47:27 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (davidapiper) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:47:27 -0000 Subject: Will Harry die after part 7???? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160064 wickedlysunny wrote: > -Harry will die as there is a chance of him being a horcrux. > There is a chance that Voldemort had not used the killing > curse on him. He only made him a horcrux. I think when Harry > will find this, he will kill himself. Hi, I believe Harry will fight Voldemort in book 7 because if you remember in book 5 I believe Voldemort wanted the prophecy about him and Harry, and Dumbledore told Harry at the end that one must die and the other must live. As for Harry being a horcrux of Voldemort's, I doubt it since Dumbledore was looking for Voldemort's horcruxes in book 6 and why did Dumbledore not think Harry was one with his scar? Davida From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 16:48:43 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:48:43 -0000 Subject: Theory about Priori Encantatem discrepancy In-Reply-To: <8pu7j5+dhac@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160065 Skywalker wrote: ( http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/1530 ) > Lilly (knowing it's really Harry) tries to protect him > (the reason for the screams that Harry hears when the > dementors are near in PoA) but the spell hits Harry and > is reflected by the charm of his mother's love. ---------------------------------------------------------- Katie says: The reason Harry is not killed by Avada Kedavra is because Lily died to protect Harry which is what created the protection around Harry. LV says in GoF on page 652 "You all know that on the night I lost my powers and my body, I tried to kill him. His mother died in the attempt to save him-and unwittingly provided him with a protection I admit I had not forseen...I could not touch the boy." If LV would have tried for Harry first without killing Lily Harry would be dead. LV was not after Lily he would have let her go free. No curse or countercurse can deflect Avada Kedavra it is only because of Lily's sacrifice was Harry protected. So there is really no way Lily could have put a spell on Harry to protect him by love before hand. As Professor Moody says in GOF (page 216) "'Not nice,' he said calmly. 'Not pleasant. And there's no countercurse. There's no blocking it. Only one known person ever survived it, and he's sitting right in front of me." ------------------------------------------------------------------- Now in terms of the whole polyjuice potion and them knowing LV was after them, They knew that LV was after them. I am going to give you a synopsis on this conversation between Fudge, McGonagall, Hagrid, Flitwick, and Madam Rosmerta. This is in PoA starting on page 204. Fudge relates that Dumbledore knew based on his spies and advised James and Lily to go into hiding. So they used a Fidelius Charm. This spell is a complex spell with the information of the whereabouts inside one person until this person chooses to reveal it, this person is called the secret-keeper. LV could have his nose pressed against their living room window and not see them unless the secret keeper choose to tell him. Everyone thought it was Sirius who was the secret keeper. Dumbledore himself offered himself as one because he felt that someone close to Lily and James was feeding information to LV. Less than a week later Lily and James were killed. Like I said, everyone else thought that it was Sirius but we find out at the end of PoA Sirius convinced James to switch to Peter. James was under the impression that none of his friends would betray him so they really had no reason to think LV could find them. So I feel that they had no plan in place. If they did I would think they would have a back up plan. As they were suprised they ended up losing their lives. Katie From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 17:24:28 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:24:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610201024v275889delf0eb9045563ca67@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160066 Edis wrote: > > I cant help wondering whether Dumbledore has ever taken Polyjuice > potion and appeared in some scenes as 'another character'. > > For example appearing as Snape at Spinners End. That would make the > Unbreakable Vow a massively complex piece of self-referential magic... montims: and also a hugely coincidental event - how would he know that Cissy was going to visit then? That Bella was going to tag along uninvited? That Cissy would require the UV? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 20 17:28:00 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:28:00 -0000 Subject: Draco's age on the tower (Was: Draco and Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160067 > Carol responds: > I believe you're quoting Pippin here, is that correct? If so, it's > important to credit her (and, as the List Elves will tell you, to add > to the discussion with some new point). > > Pippin's information comes from JKR's website (Draco's birthday is > June 5) combined with the statement in HBP itself that June had > arrived. However, we don't know exactly how many days into June the > events on the tower occurred. Pippin: We know they were only a few days before the funeral, which took place on a "beautiful summer's day" ie, June 21 or later. I agree that no one acquires a sense of responsibility by turning seventeen or any other age. But if the age of criminal responsibility is seventeen for wizards, then Draco will know that, and the expectation could reasonably influence his behavior. Changes, especially with young people, are not always gradual. They can happen very quickly in response to a crisis. Pippin From caaf at hotmail.com Fri Oct 20 17:55:47 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:55:47 -0000 Subject: Fawkes (was Re: Snape and other Sorcerers Stone Musings) In-Reply-To: <20061019203529.43136.qmail@web54512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160068 Cyril --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, J wrote: > > Jenni: > I think Fawkes could help Harry. But I'm also wondering something > else. Fawkes was Dumbledore's pet. Was this because Fawkes chose > Dumbledore or because Dumbledore chose Fawkes? If Fawkes can choose > his 'master', I wonder if he will choose Harry! > > > ------------------------ > > Jeremiah: > > Jenni, you don't need to defend this one. JKR said Harry was going to get a new pet in Book 7. I guess Hedwig either leaves the story (goes away or dies) and Fawkes comes in. > > :) but I could be totally wrong about that... > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Cyril Just my thoughts on this matter - IIRC, JKR said that Harry would be receiving the pet before HBP - and it was not clear whether that would be in Book 6 or 7. Well, Harry did receive a new pet in Book 6 - Buckbeak (now Witherwings) - so I am not sure if he would be getting yet another in Book 7. Hwoever, it would be great if Fawkes did in fact team up with Harry, as he would bring a lot of hope, strength and healing ability, all of which IMO, will be very useful to Harry's quest. Cyril. From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 18:14:23 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Buckbeak/Witherwings (from:Fawkes) Message-ID: <20061020181423.3325.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160070 Cyril: >> Well, Harry did receive a new pet in Book 6 - Buckbeak (now Witherwings) - so I am not sure if he would be getting yet another in Book 7. Hwoever, it would be great if Fawkes did in fact team up with Harry, as he would bring a lot of hope, strength and healing ability, all of which IMO, will be very useful to Harry's quest. << ------------------------- Jeremiah: Did he really get Buckbeak? I know Sirius noted so in his will but is Buckbeak really something that was really "posessed" by anyone? I took all that business to mean Buckbeak should go to Harry and they all decided Hagrid could take care of him. In fact, I've always thought of Buckbeak more as Hagrid's property/responsibility/pet than anyone else, even Sirius. And Harry really doesn't have anything to do with Buckbeak in HBP. He just says, "okey dokey. Let Hagrid have him." (Not a direct quote... keep your shirts on...) So, maybe it's all in interpretation? Technically he's Harry's but Hagrid has him, once was Hagrid's then given to Sirius to escape, then was... I see him as a creature that is his own and not anyone else's. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 18:28:02 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:28:02 -0000 Subject: Will Harry die after part 7???? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160071 wickedlysunny wrote: > > -Harry will die as there is a chance of him being a horcrux. > There is a chance that Voldemort had not used the killing curse > on him. He only made him a horcrux. I think when Harry will find > this, he will kill himself. > > wickedlysunny > Carol responds: I doubt that Harry will die for simple, pragmatic reason that if word got around that Harry dies in the seventh book, the majority of child readers would not want to read the books. Much as we adults enjoy the books and could endure Harry's death if it were moving and artistically rendered, kids aren't as flexible. "Harry dies? Why shoule I read it, then?") As for Harry being a Horcrux, you could probably spend a day exploring this list for posts exploring the pros and cons of the accidental Horcrux theory, but we can flat out reject the idea that Voldemort would have deliberately made the boy he set out to kill into a Horcrux containing his soul. The Prophecy says that "the one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord approaches," and we know that Voldemort set out to thwart the Prophecy by killing Harry. He says himself that the reason he couldn't kill Harry is his mother's sacrifice. And we know that the spell he cast was indeed the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra). JKR has said so herself in the 2004 Edinburgh Book Festival interview: JKR . . . The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't Voldemort die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he? At the end of Goblet of Fire he says that one or more of the steps that he took enabled him to survive. You should be wondering what he did to make sure that he did not die?I will put it that way. I don't think that it is guessable. . . . Nothing about a Horcrux spell being cast. Voldie has said that he tried to kill Harry (as he also did using an AK as his weapon in both GoF and OoP), and JKR has confirmed that the spell he cast at Godric's Hollow, the one that rebounded on him, was a Killing Curse. End of story for deliberate Horcrux theories (though the accidental Horcrux theorists are undeterred). Almost forgot to include the link: http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm BTW, I can see why you might think it was some other spell because AKs don't mark their victims. My own view is that the scar (actually still a cut when Baby!Harry is placed on the Dursleys' doorstep) was caused by the deflected spell bursting *outward* with renewed energy sufficient to blow up Voldermort (and presumably the house as well, unless that was the result of the secondary explosion when Voldemort's soul was "ripped from his body"). I'm still not clear as to whether Godric's Hollow was littered with Voldiebits or whether the body more or less evaporated. Clearly, it wasn't intact or Vapor!mort would have repossessed his own body. Carol, sure that Harry will live and not seeing how that's possible if he's a Horcrux From k.coble at comcast.net Fri Oct 20 18:02:04 2006 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:02:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HBP & To Kill A Mockingbird In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14B2B2F8-7ADD-4663-84FF-0C749C753746@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160072 I'm re-reading HBP and was just struck by something. The scene from Bob Ogden's memory--where we first see The Gaunts-- struck me as being very similar to To Kill A Mockingbird. It's as though Merope Gaunt is Mayella Ewell and Mr. Gaunt is Tom Ewell. I wonder if JKR did that on purpose? Katherine From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 19:18:20 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:18:20 -0000 Subject: Fawkes - New Pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160073 --- "eyemlynn" wrote: > > > > Jeremiah: > > > JKR said Harry was going to get a new pet in Book 7. > > > > > > ------- > > Jeremiah > > Yeah. She mentioned it earlier this year, I think. > > > > Lynn: > > I did find this from a 2001 interview: > > Could Harry have a pet dragon? > > You can't domesticate a dragon whatever Hagrid thinks. > That's simply impossible. So no. He's got more sense. > He might get a different pet at some point but I'm > saying no more at this moment. bboyminn: I will point out that Harry already has his new pet. Apparently, Buckbeak became attached to Sirius, and now, by extension, Buckbeak belongs to Harry. So, there is your new pet. However, I am firmly in the camp that thinks that Fawkes has not left the story just yet. I'm confident that at some point Fawkes will re-enter the story and will do so in a way that aids Harry. It's just not clear how Fawkes will re-enter the story. He (she?) could just appear out of nowhere in the final battle and put himself between Harry and Voldemort's deadly curse. He could appear to Harry after Harry is capture and either help Harry escape or deliver a message to those who could rescue Harry. Or, Fawkes could just appear at 12 Grimmauld place one day and refuse to leave; in a sense, simply attach himself to Harry and never leave. Regardless of how Fawkes appears, I am confident that he/she will appear and further do so in a way that aid Harry in some way. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From random832 at gmail.com Fri Oct 20 18:40:13 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:40:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Squibs... In-Reply-To: References: <006c01c01f1e$a8380f20$49d9d2cc@neo.rr.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610201140pbaaf0b7xb25c27f3a16279d6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160074 Katie: > So it > is quite possible that they might have some levels of magical > abilities but they are too low to even consider being able to handle > the magical curriculum at Hogwarts so it is quite possible that a > squib knows a spell or two, IMO. As we have seen with Filtch and Mrs. > Figg they seem to have the ability to communicate with cats, so they > have to have some kind of power. The cats are kneazle cross-breeds - they're the ones with the ability to communicate. JKR has said that you either are magical or you're not, there's no "magical, but not magical enough" middle ground. The only difference between a squib and any other muggle is that their parents are wizards. -- Random832 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 19:39:19 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:39:19 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160075 --- "eyemlynn" wrote: > > I am ...wondering how much of a role Krum will play. I > would think the international community would play a > large role considering how much time was devoted to it > in GOF. > > Also the Creevey brothers. I feel that they may also > play a part in the conclusion. Maybe Colin's camera? > Maybe Colin is the one who saves Harry from LV, > following him around when he's not supposed to? > > Lynn > bboyminn: I believe JKR said in interviews that Krum would be back though I would have expected him before now. I suspect one role Krum will play is to drive Hermione into the arms of Ron, once and for all. Though I admit the biggest drawback to her being there right now is Ron's cluelessness. Other than that, I think he will just be one more friendly and positive person on Harry's side. As to Ron and Hermione, I think their relationship is much like Harry and Ginny's. The attraction has always been there but they needed to wait for the right moment, the moment when they have reached a level of maturity that allows the relationship to proceed successfully. As to the Creevey Brothers, I swore up and down that they would fill the vacant roles on the Quidditch team and that spending this new time with Harry would mellow their relationship with him. As it turned out, that seems to have happened in the DA Club. Certainly, they are still impressed with Harry, but are not as fanatically hyper about it. As to the Creevey Brother's future, I find myself speculating that Voldemort will attempt and temporarily succeed at taking over Hogwarts. I've said many times that this IS THE MOST CRITICALLY STRATEGIC TARGET in the wizard world. In a sense, by holding Hogwarts and it's students hostage, Voldemort can attempt to force the Wizard World to surrender. Naturally, Harry and his friends do not quite surrender so easily. To regain Hogwarts Harry is going to need trusted and reliable friends inside and outside the castle. That's where the DA Club members and the House- Elves come into play. This could also be where Snape redeems himself by assisting Harry in regaining control of Hogwarts. Not a well supported thought, but I still say the Voldemort is a fool (which, of course, we know he is) if he doesn't see the strategic importance of controlling the school and by extension its students, and by further extension, the entire British Wizard World. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 19:59:58 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:59:58 -0000 Subject: Theory about Priori Encantatem discrepancy In-Reply-To: <8pu7j5+dhac@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160076 --- skywalker1 at ... wrote: > > Hello all, > ... > Anyway, I also have been puzzled by the order Voldy's > victims emerged from his wand. Well, it suddenly > occurred to me today that perhaps Lilly and James knew > that Voldy was after Harry and took some extra last > minute precautions to protect him. What if James gave > Harry a polyjuice potion so he looked like James and > then James drank one himself to look like Harry? That > way Harry would be protected since Voldy wasn't after > James. ...edited.. bboyminn: Well, I can't deny that it is an interesting and clever thought, but as you have already envisioned, it has some glaring flaws. First and foremost, if Harry Polyjuiced into James, that character Poly!James(Harry) would have had no magical knowledge or skill. He simply would have been a little boy in grown-up clothes (figuratively). It seems from the description that James(actually, Harry) charged forward to stop Voldemort while Lily ran to protect Harry. That would mean that it was Harry disguised as James who rushed forward and was quickly killed. Next Polyjuice only lasts an hour. Poly!James(Harry) lies dead on the floor, and James disguised as Harry lies in Harry's bed. Even if the EverBuildingMagic you speak of was there and working, Harry is dead, and when the polyjuice wears off, it is James who lives. Of course, that's not how the story goes. True the story does have many many twisting turns and surprises, but I don't see how this particular one could work. Many speculate that Lily put some kind of additional magic into the mix to protect Harry, but, though we can't be absolutely sure, it doesn't appear as if Lily had her wand, so how did she manage to add this 'special magic protection'? Other speculate that the 'special magic protection' was added long before the attack occurred. But again, how could she know that she was adding the right magic, since she couldn't really predict what would happen in the final attack by Voldemort? Still, some general magical protection could have been added by Lily to Harry in advance, but that seems to go against the story, and seems to diminish the value of Lily's sacrifice. Sometimes, despite the many twists, turns, and surprises, the story really is just the story as presented. But, until the last book is published, I can't really prove that position; anything could happen. Hang in there, keep reading the group, and I'm sure more brainwaves will strike you. Steve/bboyminn From alick_leslie at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 20 19:01:38 2006 From: alick_leslie at yahoo.co.uk (alick leslie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Hello / Portkey In-Reply-To: <1161363978.1606.26122.m27@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20061020190138.1618.qmail@web27013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160077 Dear All, Just joined and overwhelmed by the range and depth of arguments, but enjoying it all. I have a query related to GoF (It's the last one I read and vols 5&6 have been lent to others). I imagine this has been debated at length but I searched for portkey and couldn't find any reference to it. 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 From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 20 20:43:50 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:43:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore & Snape's Unbreakable Vow: who's the Bonder / Witness? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160078 OK, supposing for a moment that Dumbledore and Snape made an unbreakable vow -- which is, in this hypothetical scenario, why Dumbledore trusts Snape -- then who was their bonder / witness? Thoughts: * Someone from the Order of the Phoenix? * McGonagall? * Aberforth? * Flitwick? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unbreakable_Vow for background. Eddie From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 20 20:48:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:48:34 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160079 > a_svirn: > How could he know that he'd stopped Draco from anything? He didn't > have a clue of what Draco was up to. Pippin: That would be an excellent reason to continue the surveillance, actually. If he didn't know what Draco was up to, how could he be sure Voldemort wouldn't send another agent to do the same thing? At least with Draco, he knows who he has to watch. > a_svirn: > I do note it. If Dumbledore's and Snape's main concern throughout > the year was saving Draco, then yes, he did everything right. Pippin: And Voldemort, should he have decided to eliminate Draco, would have been extra specially careful not to damage any other students in the process? Pippin From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 20 20:56:25 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:56:25 -0000 Subject: Hello / Portkey In-Reply-To: <20061020190138.1618.qmail@web27013.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160080 > Alick: > I have a query related to GoF (It's the last one I read and vols 5&6 > have been lent to others). I imagine this has been debated at length > but I searched for portkey and couldn't find any reference to it. > > 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? Eddie: You're brave to cruise this forum without having read Books 5 & 6. There is a lot of spoiler information discussed here and usually without much warning. -- MILD SPOILER AHEAD -- Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Objects_in_Harry_Potter#Portkeys for some speculation. In essence, we see some more use and mention of Portkeys in books 5 & 6. One is created by Dumbledore on the spot, but the Minister of Magic is really flabbergasted that Dumbledore has created "an unauthorized Portkey." So the Portkeys are seemingly something that the MoM regulates. Maybe their use is magically detectable. As to why it returned Harry, the Wikipedia article speculates that this may have been Voldemort's plan all along: to send the dead Harry Potter back to Hogwarts (and outside of the maze). Eddie From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 21:25:11 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:25:11 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160081 > Carol: > How? I still don't understand what you expected them to do, especially > given the restraints that the UV placed on Snape (and on DD, who > couldn't confront Draco directly). a_svirn: You built your argument on the fact that Snape was incapacitated by the vow. But that's hardly a consideration that should have weighted against danger to the students. While Dumbledore thought it was only his life in danger it was up to him to try to save Snape; once it became evident that students' lives are at stake it shouldn't have been an option any longer. > Carol: We have Snape preventing Draco from > engaging in any more amateurish stunts that randomly injure students > (as opposed to the three people actually in danger from Draco's as yet > unknown plan), a_svirn: How do you estimate the degree of danger unknown? Draco could have planned the destruction of the entire Hogwarts population for all they know. > Carol: the Order in Hogsmeade and (I think) Tonks tailing > Harry in an Invisibility Cloak, locks on the gates, the known passages > watched, no owl correspondence, the usual spy network in the Hogs Head > and maybe the Three Broomsticks, students searched coming from and > even going to Hogsmeade, an anti-flying charm, and perhaps extra > protections we don't know about. And we have the Order actually inside > Hogwarts when DD leaves for the Horcrux hunt. a_svirn: And all of the measures above were pointless, weren't they? Precisely because they didn't know what Draco was up to. You can't prevent something you know nothing about. > Carol: What more could they > have done, short of arresting Draco, which they couldn't do without > triggering the UV even if they didn't care about such matters as > choices and civil rights. a_svirn: I've yet to know that launching a genuine investigation of murder attempts is an infringement of civil rights. As for his choices, he made them quite clear by carrying out two separate murder attempts and working assiduously on the third. > > a_svirn: > > By no means. Dumbledore could console himself with this reflection > > until Katie almost died, but not after that. > > Carol: > I disagree. That's why Snape cornered Draco and talked to him about > amateurish tricks. It was too late to stop the mead, which Slughorn > had already purchased, but there were no more blundering attempts that > could go astray after that. a_svirn: No, he didn't blunder after that. He very efficiently smuggled half a dozen hit-men and a rabid werewolf into a castle full of children. > Carol: > Which leads me to believe that he knew the confrontation with Draco > was inevitable a_svirn: Of course, it was inevitable since he did nothing that could really stop it. > Carol: and that it was urgent to find this one Horcrux while > DD was still alive. (Yes, it was a fake, but he didn't know that, and > finding the fake Horcrux is a step toward finding the real one, not a > dead end.) And the Order did protect the school. No students other > than the DA five were in danger. a_svirn: Every student in Hogwarts was in danger while death eaters ran free in the castle. And if it weren't for the DA members the phoenixes would have been overpowered. They already lost Bill when the junior league joined the fray. > Carol: > Most of the Death Eaters were focused on getting Draco to kill > Dumbledore. Those who were left behind were contained by the Order > (having helpfully AKd one of their own people. I don't see that having > Neville, Ron, and Ginny in the fight made much difference. a_svirn: Numerical advantage? It tends to be a decisive factor in battles. > Carol: If it > weren't for Felix, they might have been dead. a_svirn: True. Kudos goes to Harry, though, not to Dumbledore. > Carol: And once Greyback came > down from the tower, an Order member (Snape?) petrified him. Granted, > he did mutilate Bill's face earlier, and I don't know why he wasn't > stunned or petrified then. a_svirn: For the same reason that death eaters weren't stopped at all ? they were better fighters. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 21:35:35 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:35:35 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160082 > > a_svirn: > > How could he know that he'd stopped Draco from anything? He didn't > > have a clue of what Draco was up to. > > Pippin: > That would be an excellent reason to continue the surveillance, actually. a_svirn: It would, if it worked. Since it didn't ? and students became increasingly endangered ? it was time to try a more direct investigation. > Pippin: > If he didn't know what Draco was up to, how could he be sure > Voldemort wouldn't send another agent to do the same thing? > At least with Draco, he knows who he has to watch. a_svirn: That's just it: he knows *who* to watch, but not *what* to watch. From followingmytruth at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 21:15:43 2006 From: followingmytruth at yahoo.com (Sean-Michael) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:15:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes - New Pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061020211543.35334.qmail@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160083 bboyminn: I will point out that Harry already has his new pet. Apparently, Buckbeak became attached to Sirius, and now, by extension, Buckbeak belongs to Harry. So, there is your new pet. However, I am firmly in the camp that thinks that Fawkes has not left the story just yet. Sean-Michael responds: I agree that Fawkes will likely appear in Book 7. I think tho that although I would LOVE for him to belong to Harry, it's more likely that Dumbledore may have left him to the new Head Mistress. 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 cat_mcnulty at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 20 21:00:20 2006 From: cat_mcnulty at sbcglobal.net (Cat McNulty) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:00:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: I don't think that Harry will die Message-ID: <20061020210020.38845.qmail@web82808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160084 pumpkinpastie18 wrote... Harry = hope. He's the Boy Who Lived and I can't see Rowling ending the series on such an awful, tragic note. If the Boy Who Lived died after everything, it would send out a message that there is no hope and, while obviously I have no right to claim what she thinks and believes, I just can't see Jo writing such a tragic, despairing ending to a series which has been all about a boy trying to find his place in the world. I'm just completely convinced that Harry will live and if he does die, I'll be very shocked indeed. Can you also imagine the huge public outcry that would happen if Harry met his maker in book seven? Not that I don't think that would ever stop Jo, but I can just hear furious parents and heartbroken readers reactions. I think Harry dying would create an uproar, and people would be angry at the series ending on such a depressing, hopeless note. What are your thoughts on this?< Cat writes... How beautifully eloquent! Harry = Hope. I totally agree Hope can not die. After everything he has been through, all dangers and sorrows, he has never given up. He has earned and deserves a long and happy life! If, per chance, Harry does die, grief would envelope the world, just as if a non-literary icon had died. Remember the world-wide grief when Princess Diana died? Well, I believe that the impact would be greater. I know that I would be devastated! Then the cry of outrage would be deafening, I am afraid that JKR would have to leave the planet. Long Live Harry! Cat [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 21:36:42 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:36:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Theory about Priori Encantatem discrepancy Message-ID: <20061020213642.82028.qmail@web54503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160085 --- skywalker1 at . .. wrote: > > Hello all, > ... > Anyway, I also have been puzzled by the order Voldy's > victims emerged from his wand. Well, it suddenly > occurred to me today that perhaps Lilly and James knew > that Voldy was after Harry and took some extra last > minute precautions to protect him. What if James gave > Harry a polyjuice potion so he looked like James and > then James drank one himself to look like Harry? That > way Harry would be protected since Voldy wasn't after > James. ...edited.. bboyminn: Many speculate that Lily put some kind of additional magic into the mix to protect Harry, but, though we can't be absolutely sure, it doesn't appear as if Lily had her wand, so how did she manage to add this 'special magic protection'? ----------------------------- Jeremiah: Well, I'm not so sure I understand the "polyjuice" theory. Sounds more like a crumple-horned sork-thingy... As far as Lilly's protection, I think Dunmbledore and Voldemort both explain that it was an ancient magic of a parent's blood being shed for their child. There is a special magic that was not expected and was instantneous. (that's how I understand it). As far as James an Lilly comeing out of Voldemort's wand... I have 1st editions of the british and American editions and James comes out first and Lilly second. That would mean Lilly died first and James Second... for them to have died in that ordeer meant Harry's recolections about that night were false/muddled memories. but then I found out... the paperback editions change the order!!! Lilly comeout first and James second... So there I was for about 2 years shouting, "There's a conspiracy!!!" And yet none existed. Also, the movie made it totally ambiguous as to the oder of appearance. it totally freaked me out. I hadn't learned about the correction in later editions of the book. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 22:02:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:02:37 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Fawkes - New pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160086 > Sean-Michael responds: > > I agree that Fawkes will likely appear in Book 7. I think tho that although I would LOVE for him to belong to Harry, it's more likely that Dumbledore may have left him to the new Head Mistress. Alla: I thought JKR said that Fawkes was Dumbledore's property, not school's. I mean he can left Fawkes with Minerva, yes, but for some reason I think that if he left it with somebody, it will be Harry indeed as others remarked. Of course more likely IMO is that Fawkes will choose whom to stay with, IMO > > Carol: > > How? I still don't understand what you expected them to do, > especially > > given the restraints that the UV placed on Snape (and on DD, who > > couldn't confront Draco directly). > > a_svirn: > You built your argument on the fact that Snape was incapacitated by > the vow. But that's hardly a consideration that should have weighted > against danger to the students. While Dumbledore thought it was only > his life in danger it was up to him to try to save Snape; once it > became evident that students' lives are at stake it shouldn't have > been an option any longer. Alla: Precisely - it is as if Vow just fallen down from the sky on poor Snape and he and Dumbledore are left with no choice but to deal with it, well Snape may have no choice after what he chose (IMO), but Dumbledore? > > Carol: > What more could they > > have done, short of arresting Draco, which they couldn't do without > > triggering the UV even if they didn't care about such matters as > > choices and civil rights. Alla: Maybe confronting Draco, regardless of whether this would trigger UV or not. Hogwarts students should not be held responsible for Snape making a choice of taking UV (since I think that Snape and only Snape is responsible for taking UV in the first place) . JMO, Alla From cat_mcnulty at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 20 20:29:51 2006 From: cat_mcnulty at sbcglobal.net (Cat McNulty) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:29:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Will Harry die after part 7???? Message-ID: <20061020202951.89485.qmail@web82805.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160087 "wickedlysunny" wrote: -Harry will die as there is a chance of him being a horcrux. There is a chance that Voldemort had not used the killing curse on him. He only made him a horcrux. I think when Harry will find this, he will kill himself.- This is my first post. I have lurked for a while now but this post, I felt, could not go unchallenged. The mere idea of Harry committing suicide in #7, even masked as "sacrificing oneself for the good of the WW" is unconscionable. JKR has created, in Harry, a wonderfully rich, vital, and multi-faceted character that has enriched the lives of all who have come to know him. I have a great respect for JKR, as a writer and philanthropist, she has used her fame and fortune to uplift and support. JKR is far too responsible to ever do something as detrimental as send such a negative message. The impact would be devastating. Cat From unicornspride at centurytel.net Fri Oct 20 21:49:03 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 16:49:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes - New Pet References: <20061020211543.35334.qmail@web33701.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <046e01c6f491$8f0e9290$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160088 Hi, I am wondering if Fawkes really "belonged" to anyone. I didn't realize that he was a "pet" but more of loyal "friend". What leads me to believe this is that he is loyal to all who defend Dumbledore. Kind of like "friend of my friend" type of thing. What do you think? Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 22:13:25 2006 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pam Rosen) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:13:25 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: <20061020210020.38845.qmail@web82808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160089 Cat writes... > > How beautifully eloquent! Harry = Hope. I totally agree Hope can not die. > After everything he has been through, all dangers and sorrows, he has never given up. He has earned and deserves a long and happy life! > > If, per chance, Harry does die, grief would envelope the world, just as if a non-literary icon had died. Remember the world-wide grief when Princess Diana died? Well, I believe that the impact would be greater. I know that I would be devastated! Then the cry of outrage would be deafening, I am afraid that JKR would have to leave the planet. > > Long Live Harry! Pam: Though I am a little afraid to post now because it seems I always manage to do things incorrectly, I have to try it one time and hope I don't get scolded. I was just at a Scholastic Book Faire at my son's school last night, and I was startled to see just how much real estate Harry Potter books and merchandise took up. That made me wonder--how many kids would START reading Harry Potter as they grew old enough to begin them, if they knew that several thousand pages of reading would only end in Harry's death? (And kids do like to tell each other what happens at the end of a book or movie!) How many parents would recommend the books to their children? If JKR kills off Harry, could she also be killing off the entire Harry Potter legacy for future generations of readers? Would she do that? After almost single-handedly rejuvinating childhood reading? I have the same sense about Harry's decision to go back to Hogwarts, and the theory that Harry will somehow sacrifice his life and be reunited with loved ones he's lost. What kind of message does that send to younger readers? That it's okay to drop out of school? (I was somewhat disappointed in her decision to allow the Weasley Twins to drop out, too.) That suicide is okay because you'll be happy in the afterlife? I think, storyline aside, that JKR is simply too responsible for that. She must be aware of the kind of influence these books have, and that she has a tremendous opportunity to send kids off in the right direction. I hope she takes it. Pam From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 22:38:16 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:38:16 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Draco and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160090 > Magpie: > Snape's talk with him, I'd imagine, would certainly make him > determined to not be such a bungler--but of course he would still have > to kill Dumbledore. It wouldn't be a deterrant against murder > attempts at all--in fact coming from DE!Snape it's applying more > pressure to Draco to do it right. So basically it's just more of the > standard pressure he's getting from the DE side anyway. a_svirn: True. Frankly I don't think that Snape's admonition really affected Draco in any significant way. We can't even be sure that Draco sent the poisoned mead before his talk with Snape. For all we know he could do it right after the Slughorn's party, still smarting after the humiliation. In any case, far from wasting his time on amateurish stunts he started from the beginning of the summer by working on a very clever assassination plot and had every reason to believe in its success. His plans, however, were too intricate and time-consuming, and Voldemort ? who had no confidence in him anyway ? started to bring pressure on him, threatening Narcissa. At which point Draco not unnaturally panicked and made a couple of desperate off-chance attempts. To his credit he did no go to pieces completely, and kept working on the main plan. He was likely to be on his way to the secret chamber the evening Snape chastised him for being amateurish: " 'He's been offering me plenty of help - wanting all the glory for himself - wanting a bit of the action - "What are you doing? Did you do the necklace, that was stupid, it could have blown everything -" But I haven't told him what I've been doing in the Room of Requirement " The only thing Draco could really infer from such an interview is that Snape was completely clueless and could do nothing to obstruct his plans. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 23:02:45 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:02:45 -0000 Subject: Fawkes - New Pet In-Reply-To: <046e01c6f491$8f0e9290$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160091 --- "Lana" wrote: > > Hi, > I am wondering if Fawkes really "belonged" to anyone. > I didn't realize that he was a "pet" but more of loyal > "friend". What leads me to believe this is that he is > loyal to all who defend Dumbledore. Kind of like > "friend of my friend" type of thing. > > What do you think? > Lana bboyminn: Absolutely, I think it is probably more fair to say that Dumbledore belonged to Fawkes than to say Fawkes belonged to Dumbledore. Fawkes seems to be an independant self- determined creature. They are not captured, broken, and trained like horses or dogs. From the description in 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them', it seems that it is the choice of the Phoenix as to whether to attach itself to a wizard, and whether to continue to stay with that wizard. So, I don't think it is in anyone's power to leave Fawkes to anyone else as if he were a possession. Fawkes will decide for him/herself who and when it will be loyal to someone. Just my view. Steve/bboyminn From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 20 22:48:37 2006 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 15:48:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Theory about Priori Encantatem discrepancy In-Reply-To: <20061020213642.82028.qmail@web54503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061020224837.56302.qmail@web53308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160092 This ancient magic that protected Harry could been lost in Lily's bloodline and then resurfaced at that time. In the Half Blood Prince, Petunia gets a howler from Dumbledore about Harry so there must be something in Lily's bloodline that protects the whole family. Dragonkeeper From greenacademy at cox.net Sat Oct 21 01:07:17 2006 From: greenacademy at cox.net (The Green Bunch) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:07:17 -0700 Subject: Fawkes - (More Than a) New Pet In-Reply-To: <046e01c6f491$8f0e9290$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160093 Lana said: What leads me to believe this is that he is loyal to all who defend Dumbledore. Kind of like "friend of my friend" type of thing. ***** Kellie: This is my first post and I've finally found time, on a quiet Friday evening, to respond to something that has been lurking in the recess of my mind. I see Fawkes as an extraordinary and loyal companion to DD. He's saved DD's life (swallowing the AK curse in Book 5) and helping DD out in a pinch (allowing DD to apparate while still within Hogwarts' walls.) Their closeness is comparable to LV's closeness to Nagini. There's a reliance, a dependence almost, on these magical creatures that no human could match. >From the beginning, Fawkes is deeply connected to Harry and LV, having given his tail feathers to both Harry and LV's wands. The fact that Fawkes was NOT around when Snape performed the AK curse in Book 6 speaks volumes to me....He didn't "save" DD, because DD didn't need saving :) Last but not least, Fawkes pecking the Basilisk's eyes seems to foreshadow the destruction of Nagini. I predict that Fawkes will destroy Nagini (the last horcrux?) which would allow Harry to ultimately defeat LV. But these are just the ramblings from a tired mother who rarely has time to read even the back of a cereal box.... Peace, Kellie in Phoenix From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 21 01:47:38 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 01:47:38 -0000 Subject: Unbinding the Unbreakable? Plus ACID POPS (Re: Draco's age on the tower ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160094 > Carol responds: > I do wonder, however, what Draco as a "man" of seventeen will think > of Snape's Unbreakable Vow to protect him, if it's still in effect. I > rather think he'll rebel against it and bully Narcissa into reversing > it (Bella wouldn't require bullying to act as unbinder, even if she > could be intimidated by Draco, which is most unlikely). Jen: I'm curious about the idea that Bella could unbind the Vow if Narcissa requested it. My speculation is that the power of the Vow is that it is unbreakable on *both* sides. Both sets of hands were encircled together in the flames, not just Snape's, symbolizing that the two people are tied together until the outcome. In fact, now that I think more about it, what if this is the reason Snape doesn't break off the Vow when he hears the third request? He and Narcissa are already bound by two fiery chains. At that point he only has to fulfill those two requests or he will die. Then Narcissa speaks again and makes the third and final request--her part in the Vow. If Snape could die by not fulfilling each request he agrees to, it seems possible to me that Narcissa could die if she's already spoken a request and Snape won't accept it. The Vow is a dark one if the outcome is death. It makes sense that the danger could be to both parties. Now all this depends on ACID POPS*, or some other reason Snape wouldn't want to see Narcissa die. I like ACID POPS as a motivation (that Snape has unrequited or requited love for Narcissa) because it explains two things: 1) Narcissa trusts Snape enough to ask for the UV when she knows it's going against the Dark Lord's orders. She doesn't fear Snape will call her a traitor and turn her over to LV. 2) Snape doesn't break off the UV at the third clause. The hand twitch would signal Snape's turmoil over the choice he has to make--does he allow Narcissa to die at that moment or go forward knowing Draco is unlikely to complete the task? It's a no-win situation for him if he still has feelings for Narcissa. Jen R. *ACID POPS: Alas, Cissy Is Despondent, Perhaps Obsessively Passionate Severus http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138593 From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 21 01:50:05 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:50:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610200721o6e9bc8dv3b2c8aae1d25fd17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160095 montims: Well, you know, it all depends HOW he dies... If he dies saving the WW and is then reunited with his parents, Sirius, and such of his fellow students that also get chopped, it might not be such a bad deal... Writers do kill off their darlings - see Little Nell for probably the most famous example - and people do die in RL (OK, that's obvious - I meant in an untimely and/or tragic manner)... S hurry now: I always say this when this subject comes up but ... I am strongly opposed to the idea that Harry dying to save the WW and being reunited with his wonderful family and loved ones should ever be written as a positive thing. My reason is that kids and especially teenagers read these books. Teenage suicide rates are epidemic as it is. I would be devastated if one of their favorite fictional heroes makes it seem that dying an untimely death could ever be good or could bring happiness. If Harry dies, and I am most certainly hoping with all of me that he does not, I hope it is written as the miserable terrible tragedy it really will be, for a 17-year-old boy to die. I'm with Geoff in his I want Harry to live club! Sherry From sweety12783 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 00:36:22 2006 From: sweety12783 at yahoo.com (Nina Baker) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:36:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Will Harry go back to Hogwarts? In-Reply-To: <20061020095828.54969.qmail@web7809.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061021003622.28983.qmail@web84005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160096 > Davida: > > Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book or keep > > looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? > > Satarupa: > I don't think so. Harry is not in a position to go back to > Hogwarts with Dumbledore dead. How can he get help from > McGonagal when she doesn't know about Voldemort's horcruxes? > And I neither think Dobby can help him to find the Horcruxes. > He might need the portrait of Dumbledore, but can't he go to > Hogwarts just for once to take advice? sweety12783: Well I think Harry has to return to Hogwarts due to the fact that JKR made it quite clear that the founders will play a crucial role in book 7. Satarupa, you are forgetting one crucial person who will be at Hogwarts to help Harry. That is Hagrid. He is the keeper of keys, meaning he has the power to let Harry into Hogwarts if he needs to get in. Also I think there is one thing that we have to really discussed which is why Dumbledore wanted to be buried at Hogwarts. I think that in many ways in his death, he has given clues to Harry about the importance of Hogwarts. I think that there are still many secrets hidden within Hogwarts. Like are the founders buried at Hogwarts? Is it possible that LV used the founders remains as a Hocrux? Also there is a secret passage that is caved in, where does it lead? I thought that this was strange since Sirius spoke of the passage and gave it as a suggestion to Harry to use for the DA meetings. Meaning that it was not always caved in. Could a hocrux be hidden in that passage? Hogwarts is still very important. We can not ignore its importance. From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 00:59:28 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:59:28 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Draco and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160097 > Magpie: > Slight tangent, but I always find it interesting to think > about DE!Snape and just how the story works from that angle. > From Draco's pov, of course, that talk with Snape is in no > way about talking him out of murdering Dumbledore but the > opposite. DE!Snape is what Draco is supposed to be. > > It wouldn't be a deterrant against murder attempts at > all--in fact coming from DE!Snape it's applying more pressure > to Draco to do it right. It is giving him more reason > to be more careful in his attacks--not because there's > anything wrong with killing innocent bystanders according to > DE!Snape but because these attacks fail and every failure > that's noticed risks the plan being discovered and so stopped. > Charles: I think you bring up an excellent point, but I'd like to add just one thing: Even if one thinks of DDM!Snape, *Draco* sees Snape as a loyal DE. Snape cannot appear to Draco as trying to stop any attempt, or Draco will then carry the message back to Voldemort. DD surely knows this as well. This little fact pushes me into the camp that DD is trying to push Draco into making a more direct attempt upon his life, whether he knows about the UV or not. An interesting note about the cabinet- we first hear about it clear back in COS, when Nick talks Peeves into dropping it to distract Filch from punishing Harry. We also see, earlier in COS, Draco approaching its twin in B&B's. (Not that this is strictly pertinent to the discussion, but it shows how well JKR has planned this series out.) Charles Walker, who is dying to see what seemingly insignificant detail becomes the next major plot twist. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 02:41:11 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 02:41:11 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts' Secrets (was Draco and D-dore/ Draco and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160098 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charles Walker Jr" wrote: > Charles: > > An interesting note about the cabinet- we first hear about it > clear back in COS, when Nick talks Peeves into dropping it to > distract Filch from punishing Harry. We also see, earlier in COS, > Draco approaching its twin in B&B's. (Not that this is strictly > pertinent to the discussion, but it shows how well JKR has planned > this series out.) > > Charles Walker, who is dying to see what seemingly insignificant > detail becomes the next major plot twist. sweety12783: I think that there are still many secrets hidden within Hogwarts. Also there is a secret passage that is caved in, where does it lead? I thought that this was strange since Sirius spoke of the passage and gave it as a suggestion to Harry to use for the DA meetings. Meaning that it was not always caved in. Mike now: Well, what do you think Charles, did Nina (sweety12783) just come up with one of those seemingly insignificant details? I think it has good possibilities. My congratulations to Nina for spotting it. The twins did use it until it caved in. They should know where it leads. Why did it collapse? It was one of the three that Filch never knew about. Oh, and there are four that Filch did know about and supposedly had secured. But if school doesn't re-open, will anyone or anything be guarding these passages? Could they be of use? That said, if anything becomes significant, my money is on the collapsed passage. Mike, wondering how this could play out and thinking that wherever that secret passage leads to may turn out to be very significant From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 02:56:03 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:56:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore and Secrecy /Re: JKR site update WOMBAT part 2 In-Reply-To: <006c01c6ea33$16fd2b80$b5b4400c@Spot> References: <006c01c6ea33$16fd2b80$b5b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610201956l5cb18384g725f9b27a6f94a3a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160099 > > Pippin: > > > > In the first place, making an issue of Voldemort's lies about his > > race would make race itself an issue, and Dumbledore is fighting > > against that. montims: coming VERY late to this post, but it occurs to me that Harry Potter is written about in a number of history books, according to Hermione, as being the baby who survived the blast that disappeared LV, so LV could also be written about, with a brief bio: mother's name and family, father's name and bio, ignominious rise to fame and cataclysmic downfall, etc, etc, now the WW is safe thanks to Barty Crouch's firm hand with DEs, blah blah... All the WW knows of LV, so why not stick it in the history books? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat Oct 21 03:01:32 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 03:01:32 -0000 Subject: FILK: Reading My Mind Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160100 To all the hundreds of newbies, welcome! From the fall of 2000 to about the fall of 2005, literally hundreds of filks were posted on HP4GU - if you search the archives to June 2003 when OOP was released, you'll find that new filks were posted almost single day. Over the last year, things have cooled off considerably, and new filks are seemingly a monthly rather than a daily feature on this site. But if any of our new members should have a talent for rhyming, I hope they will send their contributions here, and then allow me to post them on my site, Harry Potter Filks. Ginger, Filk-Maven First Class, recently posted a sublime (but characterstic) specimen of her creativity a few days ago. I'm following up with a filk on a somewhat obscure song, which I might hesitate to post, save for the fact that I have a You-Tube link for a concert performance..... Reading My Mind (HBP, Chap. 15) To the tune of Losing My Mind from Sondheim's Follies You can see & hear this song performed on You-Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgngL8gIqc Dedicated to Ginger THE SCENE: The last classroom in the corridor (well, that's what the book says). DRACO puts his newly-acquired Occlumency skills to good use against Snape. DRACO: The son steps up, To serve You-Know-Who. But Snape's corrupt, What is he up to? I wish he'd go, But he's not reading my mind. Snapey pretends To serve You-Know-Who. Detains my friends With claims so untrue. What does he know? But he's not reading my mind. My Auntie said I could murder Dumbledore If thoughts could be locked tight. She knocked me flat As a pancake to the floor, Mental blockade I learned that night. I have a plan I'm hiding from you, I know I can Keep thinking from you. You say you'll aid me I've your assistance declined For you ain't reading my mind. I wish he'd go, But he's not reading my mind. On Christmas Eve, Sneaking softly down the hall By Argus Filch was found Tried to suck-up In a Draco Malfoy drawl But Sevvy Snape Made me come `round. You tell me now My Mum asked you to You took some Vow Well, bully for you. You want my glory I've your assistance declined For you're not reading my mind... - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Oct 21 04:03:01 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:03:01 -0000 Subject: HBP & To Kill A Mockingbird In-Reply-To: <14B2B2F8-7ADD-4663-84FF-0C749C753746@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160101 Katherine: > The scene from Bob Ogden's memory--where we first see The Gaunts-- > struck me as being very similar to To Kill A Mockingbird. > It's as though Merope Gaunt is Mayella Ewell and Mr. Gaunt is Tom > Ewell. I wonder if JKR did that on purpose? Jen: Good catch on the comparison. I remember that Mayella tried to keep herself clean and made things a little nicer around the house when possible. Both were lonely, both offered a drink to a man they were interested in (with vastly different contents!), and ultimately both were responsible for painful circumstances due to their own deception. There are quite a few similarities. Merope was less of a fighter than Mayella. She was deceitful like Mayella, but...it bothered me less? Maybe because the context was the magical world and not the real one. And she came across as very naive about the world to me, thinking a love potion was romantic rather than an act of taking a person's will away. As to whether JKR intended it, that would be a good interview question one day. She's obviously very well read and the parallels are striking when you consider them. If she did tell a similar story, then she's equating love potions with false accusations--both steal another person's freedom. Jen R. From butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 03:40:00 2006 From: butterflykisses427 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 03:40:00 -0000 Subject: Theory about Priori Encantatem discrepancy In-Reply-To: <20061020224837.56302.qmail@web53308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160102 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dragonkeeper wrote: > > This ancient magic that protected Harry could been lost in Lily's bloodline and then resurfaced at that time. In the Half Blood Prince, Petunia gets a howler from Dumbledore about Harry so there must be something in Lily's bloodline that protects the whole family. > Katie The Howler was actually for OoP when Harry got expelled for the Patronous. The magic was not lost in Lily's bloodline. It is an ancient magic but not specific to her bloodline. It has to do with it but not in the sense I feel you are thinking. In OoP page 835-836 "But I knew too where Voldemort was weak, And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic of which he knows, which he dspises, and which he has always, therefore, underestimated-to his cost. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your viens to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delievered you to her sister, her only remaining relative," (break Harry speaks) "...yes still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you, Your mother's sacrifce made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you." (break Harry speaks) "While you can still call home the place where you mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort..." So Harry got protection because his mother died to save him. With the charm he used Harry needed to be with a blood relative and call their home his own in order for the spell to work. That is what the Howler was about reminding Petnia that by him calling their place home it was protecting him. It doesn't really have to do with an ancient magic hiding in the blood line it is really about Lily's sacrifice for her son. LV was not after Lily just Harry. Katie From capricornamy1159 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 02:56:39 2006 From: capricornamy1159 at yahoo.com (Amy Evans) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 19:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore Horcrux? Message-ID: <20061021025639.98344.qmail@web57913.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160103 Hello everyone, I'm new here, so please excuse my jumping in here. 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?????? Amy From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 05:15:52 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 05:15:52 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts' Secrets (was Draco and D-dore/ Draco and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160104 > Nina/sweety12783: > I think that there are still many secrets hidden within > Hogwarts. > Also there is a secret passage that is caved in, where does > it lead? I thought that this was strange since Sirius spoke > of the passage and gave it as a suggestion to Harry to use > for the DA meetings. Meaning that it was not always caved > in. > > Mike now: > Well, what do you think Charles, did Nina (sweety12783) just > come up with one of those seemingly insignificant details? I > think it has good possibilities. My congratulations to Nina > for spotting it. Charles: Mine as well. The fact that Dumbledore said in GOF that even he did "not pretend to know all of [Hogwart's] secrets" is a pretty big clue in itself. We know that he-who-must-usually-be-hyphenated was anxious to get back into the school as a teacher. We know he had a faithful death eater in the school, and that it is important to him that Snape, a double agent (no matter which way we think his loyalty lies) remains at Hogwarts as long as possible. If we consider DE!Snape, it is entirely possible that one of his DE duties would be to guard something that LV has hidden in the school, like a horcrux. Even DDM!Snape may have that duty while pretending to be a DE as a spy for the order, but not knowing of the horcruxes, finds an assignment to watch a passage that he knows to be caved in so insignificant that he does not report it to DD, who therefore does not realize that he has a horcrux in his backyard. Charles, who is joining DD and Harry in leaving facts and heading off into speculation. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 06:57:56 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 23:57:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: References: <8ee758b40610200721o6e9bc8dv3b2c8aae1d25fd17@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0610202357k49d0a2e3l498d075794ea22b4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160105 satarupa_1994: You are right. We just can't imagine Rowling ever killing off Harry. Really, I'll very shocked. But think. What'll be the relavance if Harry survives killing off Voldemort? Lynda: What'll be the relavence? Good wins over evil!! That will be the relavence!! And I don't think Harry will spend the remainder of his fictional life despondent over Dumbledore's or Sirius's or Cedric's death. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 08:12:10 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:12:10 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts' Secrets (was Draco and D-dore/ Draco and Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160106 Mike snipped: The twins did use it until it caved in. They should know where it leads. Why did it collapse? It was one of the three that Filch never knew about. Oh, and there are four that Filch did know about and supposedly had secured. But if school doesn't re-open, will anyone or anything be guarding these passages? Could they be of use? That said, if anything becomes significant, my money is on the collapsed passage. Mike, wondering how this could play out and thinking that wherever that secret passage leads to may turn out to be very significant Snow: There are seven hidden passages from the castle grounds, three of the seven Filtch is unaware of; where do all these passages lead? One is the Shrieking Shack; One is under Honeydukes; One is blocked and the remaining are the four that Filtch is aware of and therefore unimportant to the story. In fact, we may be aware of a few of Filtch's known passageways that simply lead you to another part of the castle. Of the three remaining unknown passageways left, we have only one that we have not been truly introduced to, which is of course the caved-in passage. We do know that the Marauders could use it as Sirius had suggested it for the DA sessions and the Twins had access to it themselves warning Harry when they gave him the map that it was no longer of use. Where is it that this fallen passage leads to? Well some of us highly suspect that the cave-in of this passage occurred the same year that Nick got Peeves to drop the vanishing cabinet in COS. (remember the cave-in when Lockhart attempted his oblivious on Harry and Ron in the Chamber passage?) Here's a question, why would Sirius suggest a place for a DA meeting unless it would be big enough to support at least a small group of children? This passage most likely led to the Chamber of Secrets. If this is true then not only the Marauders but also the Twins have ventured into the passageway that led to the Chamber, none of them being capable of speaking the language necessary to gain entrance to the main hall. Of the remaining two passages in question, the one that Harry used to get to Honeydukes, and therefore Hogsmeade, has a very similar old entrance as Harry had seen from Myrtle's bathroom when he accessed the Chamber passage. Interesting to note that Slytherin built the passage to one so why not the other, especially since one of the passages created was to the only non-muggle village in the wizarding world; something Slytherin cared about for sure. The last passage that Filtch had been unaware of is, to me, the most curious of all, the Shrieking Shack. If Filtch had been caretaker when young Lupin used the Shrieking Shack once a month, wouldn't he have been aware of that passage as well Filtch and Mrs. Norris surely would have been either privy to Lupin's Shrieking Shack hideout or would have sniffed it out as often as it was being used. It doesn't sound as though Filtch was caretaker in the days of the Marauders. If he wasn't caretaker back then, why did he have the map in his drawer was it from the previous caretaker? Since Filtch is a squib and cannot detect any significance concerning magic why would he feel that a plain piece of parchment was something "Highly Dangerous"? Just some thoughts on the hidden passages from the castle. Snow From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Sat Oct 21 08:30:37 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 08:30:37 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610201002m24be9d04hbaf3d8f9fa713687@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160107 >Carol wrote: > The word "bison" (or "bisont")was already in existence and > referred, not to an American buffalo (probably European wizards > knew no more than European Muggles of the existence of the > Americas at this point) but to a European buffalo also called a > wisent. Secca responds: I hadn't thought to check if the word 'bison' were in use yet! Thanks for this info. > Carol again: > Carol, whose first reaction to the wizard Baruffio's blunder > was what JKR surely intended it to be, a hearty roar of laughter Secca responds: Aha! See, now we come to the crux of the matter! I did not laugh at all. My initial reaction, reading it the first time, and every time since, has always been "Hunh? I don't get it." (Originally I thought it must just be referring to some British idiom) Researching into this lately I keep running across Harry Potter sites that have discussed this same quote over the years (including the HP4GU archives). It seems that there are others like me, who have always been bothered/stumped by this quote -- and there are also many others, like you, who have always found it funny, and are a bit puzzled by all the brouhaha. If my first reaction had been to laugh, I don't think I would care about this now in the least. Humour is in the eye of the beholder??? > Now, montims wrote: > OK - huge stretch but "Faidi" ? Persian Poet > And "saidi" ? The Egyptian buffalo Secca responds: Brilliant! This is at least as likely as my Bifon/Bison. Unfortunately, that means not very likely at all... ah, well... I had great hopes for "Bifonte/Bisonte" from the portuguese... 'Bifonte' *is* a word in portuguese -- a very modern, corporate word meaning 'dual-sourced', so I wasn't planning on mentioning it -- then I found a site that used it to mean 'Two-faced'. Aha! I thought, and started to run with theories of Baruffio and his Potuguese Veritaserum... only to discover that it had been a typo and the word intended had been 'bif/r/onte'and is Spanish for 'two- faced', not Portuguese -- ah well Well, for anybody still interested in all of this, I must admit that I have had a reversal in my opinion. When I started all of this, one of the theories that I did *not* like was the "It is a typo, Jo just meant to write "said 'f' instead of 's'." But I have come to realize how easy it is to get confused by the quote, having done so myself. I now believe that Jo, with her history of (understandable) inattention to little unimportant details (and inexact maths) -- simply got confused as well. I now stand firmly in the "It was a typo" school." If we re-write the quote to read "said 'f' instead of 's'" then the 'answer' to the riddle (for those of us who could not just laugh at the surface wordplay) Could be one of two things -- both seeming much simpler in concept than the flights I was going to to try to make the original quote work: 1) This means Baruffio could have simply said /Wingardium Leviofa/ and, in Jo's world 'ofa' somehow means buffalo(remember /Levicorpus/ levitates a body). Or not, but there is at least an 's' in the spell. 2) OR , in Jo's world, there is a thing called a 'bussalo', which is something that a wizard might use, and Baruffio wanted one. Hence, the now infamous misquote was -- "Accio Buffalo -- oops I meant Bussalo.." WHAM! I like number two, personally. The funny thing is 'bussalo' has been discussed at great length by many people looking for the 'answer' to this riddle -- but as it does not work unless you declare the original Flitwick quote to be a typo, it bothered me. Now, by putting the two together -- Typo and Bussalo -- I come up with something that I can accept. I see that you are all ecstatic. =) From greenacademy at cox.net Sat Oct 21 07:07:36 2006 From: greenacademy at cox.net (The Green Bunch) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:07:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore Horcrux? In-Reply-To: <20061021025639.98344.qmail@web57913.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160108 Amy: maybe Dumbledore has also split his soul as Lord Voldemort did?????? *** Kellie: I really don't think so. In HBP, horcruxes are defined as an extreme act of evil created by murdering someone else. The soul should remain intact and splitting it is an extreme violation of nature. (Chapter 23). No, I don't see DD as a murderer nor manipulator of Dark Arts for preservation purposes. Remember, DD had the Sorcerers Stone, a gift of eternal life, and it was destroyed. It's simply not in his nature...... Kellie in Phoenix [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcdumbledore at juno.com Sat Oct 21 15:05:15 2006 From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:05:15 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160109 Lynn: > I would think the international community would play a > large role considering how much time was devoted to it in GOF. Becca: I'm not sure if Krum will show up again or not. I would think that if he does, it would be as a spy - given that Durmstrang is such a hotbed of Dark Arts. So he might use his former relationship with Hermione to get to Harry (as a bad guy), or (more likely, IMO) he might spy on the bad guys for the good guys (perhaps taking Snape's [presumed] old job.) I think that any further international intrigue will come via Charlie Weasley. He really hasn't gotten his day in the sun, and I sure hope that he does! There might be something coming with Fleur, but to me - of the Beauxbatons crowd - Madame Maxime seems more likely to do something substantial against Voldy. From dossett at lds.net Sat Oct 21 15:20:34 2006 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:20:34 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts' Secrets - the collapsed secret passage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160110 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charles Walker Jr" wrote: > > > sweety12783: > > I think that there are still many secrets hidden within Hogwarts. > > Also there is a secret passage that is caved in, where does it lead? > I thought that this was strange since Sirius spoke of the passage > and gave it as a suggestion to Harry to use for the DA meetings. > Meaning that it was not always caved in. > > Mike now: > > > > The twins did use it until it caved in. They should know where it > leads. Why did it collapse? It was one of the three that Filch never > knew about. Oh, and there are four that Filch did know about and > supposedly had secured. But if school doesn't re-open, will anyone > or anything be guarding these passages? Could they be of use? That > said, if anything becomes significant, my money is on the collapsed > passage. > > Mike, wondering how this could play out and thinking that wherever > that secret passage leads to may turn out to be very significant now Pat: This discussion actually took place several weeks ago, many were wondering if the Marauders had ever found the ROR, and why it didn't appear on the Map: was it because the room was unplottable, or because the Marauders didn't know about it? It just occured to me that when Hermione is looking for a place for the DA to meet, and HRH are talking to Sirius in the fire, he *doesn't* suggest that they use the ROR, although he does suggest the passage that has collapsed. Does that mean that the collapsed passage would have been big enough for a group like the DA? To me, though, it points to the fact that the Marauders never found the ROR, or at least, they didn't know what it was. They may have found it, but it would only have been what they *needed* at the time, as in Fred and George saying that it had been a broom closet (or some such) when they found it. Pat From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 21 16:18:39 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 16:18:39 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160111 > > Pippin: > > That would be an excellent reason to continue the surveillance, > actually. > > a_svirn: > It would, if it worked. Since it didn't ? and students became > increasingly endangered ? it was time to try a more direct > investigation. > Pippin: Increasingly endangered? The mead was far less dangerous than the necklace. We are told that Katie could only be saved because her contact with the necklace was so minimal. Ron, OTOH, could have been saved by anyone with a bezoar handy, and if a bezoar was not handy, a House Elf could have fetched one in a twinkling. I'm not sure what you mean by a more direct investigation. A search of the RoR wouldn't have revealed anything because they didn't know what they were looking for. Draco was questioned and used occlumency to hide his thoughts. In any case they had no reason to think that Dumbledore couldn't return instantly, via Fawkes, and deal with anything that came up while he was gone. Really, if Dumbledore had not been afflicted by the poison, which he couldn't have planned on, he could have dealt with Draco and all the DE's handily before Snape ever got there. He might have been able to do so anyway, even in his weakened state, but I think he knew that the greeen goo was fatal and decided to take advantage of it. I suspect he realized that the locket was fake as soon as he laid hands on it. But in that case, he had either been baited into a trap by Voldemort, who would then already know how his secrets had been compromised, or he had fallen into a trap meant for Voldemort himself. Either way, whoever set the trap had no need for the victim to survive. > > Pippin: > > If he didn't know what Draco was up to, how could he be sure > > Voldemort wouldn't send another agent to do the same thing? > > At least with Draco, he knows who he has to watch. > > a_svirn: > That's just it: he knows *who* to watch, but not *what* to watch. Pippin: Um, usually when solving a problem one tries to reduce the number of unknowns. At least Snape knows who Voldemort's agent is. But if he wanted to, Voldemort could put the Imperius curse on almost anyone and send them to do the task. This way Snape knows who to watch, and even what to watch for -- the arrival of backup. There is some canon that Dumbledore knew where to watch as well. The DA encounters the Order a few corridors away from the RoR. At first I thought the Order could have been drawn by the commotion, but if they'd been patrolling in different parts of the castle they wouldn't have arrived all at once. They must have been stationed there -- close enough to interfere if trouble arose, but not so close that they would alert Draco. Possibly they thought they were guarding Gryffindor Tower, which would place them between the DE's and the nearest group of students without letting the Order know anything that might compromise Snape. Pippin From k.coble at comcast.net Sat Oct 21 15:30:51 2006 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:30:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HBP & To Kill A Mockingbird In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79D4940B-5EB1-460C-973C-D99EFCCBA50F@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160112 > Katherine: > > The scene from Bob Ogden's memory--where we first see The Gaunts-- > > struck me as being very similar to To Kill A Mockingbird. > > It's as though Merope Gaunt is Mayella Ewell and Mr. Gaunt is Tom > > Ewell. I wonder if JKR did that on purpose? > > Jen: Good catch on the comparison. I remember that Mayella tried to > keep herself clean and made things a little nicer around the house > when possible. Both were lonely, both offered a drink to a man they > were interested in (with vastly different contents!), and ultimately > both were responsible for painful circumstances due to their own > deception. There are quite a few similarities. > > Merope was less of a fighter than Mayella. She was deceitful like > Mayella, but...it bothered me less? Maybe because the context was > the magical world and not the real one. And she came across as very > naive about the world to me, thinking a love potion was romantic > rather than an act of taking a person's will away. > > As to whether JKR intended it, that would be a good interview > question one day. She's obviously very well read and the parallels > are striking when you consider them. If she did tell a similar > story, then she's equating love potions with false accusations--both > steal another person's freedom. Katherine: After having some time to think things through a bit more carefully I wrote this essay on my blog. It's the best explanation of the comparisons I can come up with. And I'm more convinced. Two lonely and lovelorn girls, growing up in squalor--Mayella Ewell and Merope Gaunt are literary sisters in many ways. I have come to believe that Chapter 10 of The Half-Blood Prince is JK Rowling's tribute to Harper Lee's classic To Kill A Mockingbird. When we first see Merope Gaunt, she is cowering in her father's kitchen, surrounded by grime and filth. Yet Harry notices that Merope has made an effort to be clean and presentable. I was instantly reminded of Mayella's efforts to keep tidy, and of her struggling red geraniums. Mayella and Merope have the misfortune of sharing a father. Seperated by magic, an ocean and a couple of decades, Bob Ewell and Marvolo Gaunt are nevertheless the same man. Dirt poor and ill-regarded by their neighbours, Gaunt and Ewell both consider their race and lineage to be their chief source of pride. As long as Bob Ewell is white, in his mind he has character above the black workers who trundle past his tumbledown junkyard house every day. As long as Marvolo Gaunt is a pureblood wizard and a direct descendant of Salazar Slytherin he can hold his head above muggles and wizards alike. In both sagas the pervasive racism of these small-minded men becomes the undoing of all those around them and in fact sets in motion all events of each story. Our heroines also share an obsession, after a fashion. Tom. Mayella's Tom is Tom Robinson, the handsome and gentle-hearted black man she watches through her window every day. Mayella Ewell grows to lust after Tom Robinson, knowing that his very blackness would make him a forbidden lover in her house. Merope's Tom is Tom Riddle, the handsome and hard-hearted Muggle she watches through her window every day. In her world the love for Riddle is the same as Mayella's love for Robinson, yet it's Riddle's non-wizard nature that makes him forbidden to her. Both Mayella and Merope see their love as an escape from the tyranny of drunken and abusive fathers. Each girl sets her obsession in motion at the absence of her family. Mayella takes "a slap year to save [seven] nickles" to send her younger siblings for ice cream. We are not witnesses to the further action, but the story would seem to prove out the following events. Mayella lures Tom Robinson into the Ewell shack and throws herself at him. Bob Ewell comes upon the scene and beats Mayella fiercely. Due in part to her beating and in part to her shame at being rejected by Tom, Mayella levels the accusation of rape that tears apart Maycomb county and ends the lives of Tom Robinson and Bob Ewell. In Merope's Little Hangleton hovel events are somewhat inverted but have similar outcomes. Like Bob Ewell--his muggle counterpart-- Marvolo Gaunt beats and strangles his daughter upon discovering her obsession with Tom Riddle. Unlike TKAM, the reader is a witness to this beating. I surmise that this is JK Rowling's subtle way of confirming Tom Robinson's version of events and offering Robinson a postmortem exoneration. In HBP, the beating results not in Tom Riddle being falsely accused but in Marvolo Gaunt and his worthless son Morfin going to prison. At first the reader is relieved to see Merope finally have some peace. But just as Mayella couldn't resist seducing her Tom, Merope used her freedom to the same ends. Unlike Mayella, however, Merope has the means to concoct a love potion that enslaves Tom Riddle to her. The child born of this bitter obsession becomes the boy Tom Marvolo Riddle and the man Lord Voldemort, who reigns evil and chaos over both the Muggle and Wizarding worlds. Two sad, lonely, lovelorn girls. Both seem inconsequential yet both prove the far-flung disastrous outcomes of obsessive love. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 17:08:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160113 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: > > > Carol: > > How? I still don't understand what you expected them to do, > especially given the restraints that the UV placed on Snape (and on DD, who couldn't confront Draco directly). > > a_svirn: > You built your argument on the fact that Snape was incapacitated by > the vow. But that's hardly a consideration that should have weighted > against danger to the students. While Dumbledore thought it was only > his life in danger it was up to him to try to save Snape; once it > became evident that students' lives are at stake it shouldn't have > been an option any longer. Carol again: Okay. Snape prevented Draco from resorting to any more smuggled Dark artifacts that could go astray. The protections on the castle and its grounds had been strengthened (see above). Snape had placed Crabbe and Goyle in detention and probably determined that they were helping Draco without knowing what they were up to. Snape had discovered that Draco had outside help, which could only mean DEs. Dumbledore brought in the Order when he left the castle to find the Horcrux with Harry, which had to be done before the final confrontation, which Dumbledore knew might result in his death. Snape was evidently following Draco or he could not have been there to save him from Sectumsempra. He then protects *Harry* by not expelling him and keeping an eye on him during his detentions. (As for Draco, they know where he is, if only because Harry has told them, but I doubt that they needed his information.) *What else* do you think they ought to have done? *What else* was it possible to do? Dumbledore could not confront Draco without activating the Vow; Snape could not do so a second time without revealing his true loyalties. I really don't understand what you think they ought to have done instead, or in addition to, what they actually did. Can you clarify, please, with specific actions you think they should have performed but did not? > a_svirn (out of sequence, sorry.): > I've yet to know that launching a genuine investigation of murder > attempts is an infringement of civil rights. As for his choices, he > made them quite clear by carrying out two separate murder attempts > and working assiduously on the third. > Carol: But how could they have launched an investigation without triggering the Unbreakable Vow? Unless that's what the spy network was doing (see below). I'll bet that Snape and Dumbledoere knew before Harry did that Draco was doing something in the RoR and that he was polyjuicing Crabbe and Goyle. They also knew from his talk with Snape that he had DE accomplices, who had to be working in Hogsmeade, specifically in the Three Broomsticks, the source of both the cursed necklace and the poisoned mead. I'll bet that Talisman is right that DD suspected Rosmerta's involvement long before he questioned Draco on the tower. (Why did he make sure that she saw him leave, and why did he return to the Three Broomsticks instead of the Hog's Head?) Carol earlier: > We have Snape preventing Draco from engaging in any more amateurish stunts that randomly injure students (as opposed to the three people actually in danger from Draco's as yet unknown plan), > > a_svirn: > How do you estimate the degree of danger unknown? Draco could have > planned the destruction of the entire Hogwarts population for all > they know. Carol: Clearly not. According to Dumbledore on the tower, he knew all year that Draco was trying to kill him and only him. His source for this information has to be Snape. A cursed necklace and a poisoned bottle of mead also indicate a limited target. Carol earlier: > the Order in Hogsmeade and (I think) Tonks tailing Harry in an Invisibility Cloak, locks on the gates, the known passages watched, no owl correspondence, the usual spy network in the Hogs Head and maybe the Three Broomsticks, students searched coming from and even going to Hogsmeade, an anti-flying charm, and perhaps extra protections we don't know about. And we have the Order actually inside Hogwarts when DD leaves for the Horcrux hunt. > > a_svirn: > And all of the measures above were pointless, weren't they? Precisely because they didn't know what Draco was up to. You can't prevent something you know nothing about. Carol responds: Pointless? Tonks prevents Harry from strangling Mundungus, for one thing. And there's probably more to what she was doing than we presently know. More important, maybe Dumbledore knew or suspected more than you think (though he can't specifically have known about the Vanishing Cabinet unless he's more omniscient than it appears at the moment) since he placed the Order in Hogwarts on the very night when it was needed. I've already explained several times how further injuries to students were prevented by Snape's advice to Draco to avoid amateurish tactics. It's Dumbledore who died, right? It appears that Dumbledore knew he, and he alone, had to die. (IMO, "Severus, please" probably means, "Severus, please remember your promise" or "Severus, please keep the Unbreakable Vow." And you agree that Snape saved Harry from the Crucio and got the DEs out of Hogwarts, etc.) As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, Dumbledore would not have died (unless the poison killed him) if he hadn't *chosen* to fly to the astronomy tower to confront Draco. The protective measures he took did protect the students. None would have been present at the battle if Harry hadn't asked the five loyal DA members to be there, and only three of them actually participated in the battle. The Order kept those who didn't run up onto the tower from infiltrating Hogwarts. Snape got all those who weren't stunned or petrified out of the school and off the grounds. (The only serious injury occurred to a member of the Order, an adult who was knowingly risking his life to protect the school.) > > Carol: > and that it was urgent to find this one Horcrux while > > DD was still alive. (Yes, it was a fake, but he didn't know that, > and > > finding the fake Horcrux is a step toward finding the real one, > not a > > dead end.) And the Order did protect the school. No students other > > than the DA five were in danger. > > a_svirn: > Every student in Hogwarts was in danger while death eaters ran free > in the castle. And if it weren't for the DA members the phoenixes > would have been overpowered. They already lost Bill when the junior > league joined the fray. Carol: The Death Eaters did not run free into the castle. The Order members and Snape stopped them. If you wish to think that the DA members helped, fine. Maybe DD wanted them to be there and knew what Harry would do when he sent him to get the Invisibility Cloak that he was supposed to have with him at all times? However, I have yet to see what difference their presence made except that Hermione and Luna were conveniently able to escort the stunned Flitwick to the hospital wing. Carol earlier: > And once Greyback came down from the tower, an Order member (Snape?) petrified him. > Granted, he did mutilate Bill's face earlier, and I don't know why he wasn't stunned or petrified then. > > a_svirn: > For the same reason that death eaters weren't stopped at all ? they > were better fighters. > Carol: Who were better fighters? The Order members clearly kept the DEs out of the school until Snape ordered them out. The DA weren't really needed (note that Neville is out of action fairly early and only Felix Felicis protects them from all those stray AKs.) The DEs *were* stopped from getting into the school. They weren't stopped from getting to the top of the tower, but that wouldn't have happened if Dumbledore hadn't chosen to go there. Maybe that sacrificial action is what saved the school? Carol, still failing to see how an investigation *which, indeed, may have been conducted to the degree that it was possible) would have prevented what occurred and still waiting to see what else you think that Snape and DD could have done From bex753 at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 21 08:14:32 2006 From: bex753 at yahoo.co.uk (Brian W) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:14:32 +0100 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die References: <8ee758b40610200721o6e9bc8dv3b2c8aae1d25fd17@mail.gmail.com> <2795713f0610202357k49d0a2e3l498d075794ea22b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <012f01c6f4e8$f04a9ed0$6501a8c0@MAIN> No: HPFGUIDX 160114 satarupa_1994: > You are right. We just can't imagine Rowling ever killing > off Harry. Really, I'll very shocked. But think. What'll > be the relevance if Harry survives killing off Voldemort? This is my prediction. Harry will not kill (or has the capability to kill) Voldemort.. Yes he will be the instrument of his demise, I think the locked room of pure love will finish Voldy off and due to Harry's remarkable (some would say unbelievable nature after his upbringing) he can survive the room. I don't believe Harry can kill Lord V so there must be some other way. Bex From penhaligon at gmail.com Sat Oct 21 17:04:22 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 10:04:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Molly and Harry (was:Respecting the Dursleys...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <001f01c6f532$f695f330$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 160115 > Tesha: > I think she treats Harry with respect and kindness. > She knows what he's gone through, and wants to give him a > little peace. She makes him sweaters and fudge, gives him a > kiss and {perhaps} let's him feel almost normal. > Just think of what he's gone through, the ups and downs. > The calmness he finds in her must be wonderful for him. Panhandle: Great point, Tesha. I am currently listening to Stephen Fry reading Half-Blood Prince and was struck by the exchange between Harry and Molly as the students are preparing to return to Hogwarts after spending Christmas at the Burrow ... Quoting from Chapter 17: A Sluggish Memory Mrs. Weasley sobbed harder than ever as she enfolded Harry in her arms. 'Promise me you'll look after yourself ... stay out of trouble ...' 'I always do, Mrs. Weasley,' said Harry. 'I like a quiet life, you know me.' I have always loved Harry's response to Molly here. On the surface, it sounds some ironic. But I do believe that deep down, Harry would love nothing more than a nice, quiet life with Ginny at the Burrow. A houseful of kids to teach how to fly and to play Quidditch, a garden, and quiet evenings by the fire listening to the Wizarding Wireless. He'll have earned all that, assuming he survives, which I dearly hope he does. Panhandle penhaligon at gmail.com From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 17:26:31 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:26:31 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: <20061020210020.38845.qmail@web82808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160116 Cat wrote: > > How beautifully eloquent! Harry = Hope. I totally agree Hope can not die. After everything he has been through, all dangers and sorrows, he has never given up. He has earned and deserves a long and happy life! > > If, per chance, Harry does die, grief would envelope the world, just as if a non-literary icon had died. Remember the world-wide grief when Princess Diana died? Well, I believe that the impact would be greater. I know that I would be devastated! Then the cry of outrage would be deafening, I am afraid that JKR would have to leave the planet. > > Long Live Harry! Carol responds: Maybe not leave the planet but at least take refuge in Brazil as she facetiously suggested after the Mark Evans debacle. Seriously, I think that her immense satisfaction in having encouraged so many nonreading children to read is sufficient to prevent her from killing off Harry because few children would want to read about a kid hero they knew was going to die at the end of the seventh book--and word would get around faster than the spoiler that Darth Vader was Luke's father. (The remark in the interview about authors sometimes killing off characters to keep others from writing about them has to be facetious as well, given copyright protection and her awareness of the plethora of fanfic on the Internet.) Look at the Prophecy: "Neither can live while the other survives. Voldemort can't live, i.e., be fully human, with a body other than the snake-faced one he now has, or genuinely immortal while Harry survives. The Chosen One can (and will) destroy him. Harry can't be "Just Harry," an ordinary young wizard with the powers native to him (to borrow Tolkien's language)--no painful visions, no Parseltongue, no other as yet unidentified Dark powers, such as possession, derived from Voldemort--while Voldemort survives. I predict that, once Voldemort is defeated, Harry will deal with a temporary burst of fame (no big deal to the Boy Who Lived, who's had to endure the alternating love and hatred of a fickle public since he was eleven) and then settle down to the exciting but not extraordinary life of an Auror in training. That, after all, is what he wants to do, as the books have made abundantly clear. And he'll get together with Ginny because JKR thinks she's Harry's "perfect match," even if many of us fans don't much like her. Carol, willing to bet every Knut she possesses that JKR will reward her hero with a happy life as recompense for all the suffering she's put him through From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 17:43:31 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:43:31 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Fawkes - New pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160117 Carol earlier: > > > What more could they > > > have done, short of arresting Draco, which they couldn't do > without > > > triggering the UV even if they didn't care about such matters as > > > choices and civil rights. > > Alla: > > Maybe confronting Draco, regardless of whether this would trigger UV > or not. Hogwarts students should not be held responsible for Snape > making a choice of taking UV (since I think that Snape and only Snape > is responsible for taking UV in the first place) . > > JMO, > > Alla Carol: But confronting Draco would force Draco to try to kill Dumbledore on his own without DE backup. If Snape was absent, the UV would kill him. If he was present, the UV would force him to kill Dumbledore or die himself, just as it did on the tower, and DD would die without showing Harry the Horcrux. IMO, DD and Snape are using delaying tactics, putting off the confrontation as long as possible, until the moment when Draco succeeds in getting DEs into Hogwarts and it can no longer be avoided. Maybe they hope against hope that it won't happen, but given the UV, Dumbledore's already weakened state, what they know of Draco's activities (which is probably more than Harry knows), and the DADA curse, the confrontation will certainly occur before the end of the year. Rightly or wrongly, and I know we disagree here, Dumbledore trusts Snape and believes that he can't afford to lose him. He *must* go under deep cover as a DE at the end of the term, but DD needs him to teach DADA, watch the Slytherins and Draco (and Harry?), and treat injuries, such as Katie's and his own ring Horcrux injury, not to mention the Sectumsempra curse, that might occur during the year. It seems to me that they're trying to hold off the confrontation as long as possible, but DD deliberately brings it on at the end of the year by flying to the tower rather than waiting at the Three Broomsticks for Snape to come to heal him (or at least slow the poison--it's not clear what "timely action" from Snape could have accomplished this time around). As for Draco himself, confronting him would have resulted in failure to kill Dumbledore, which would have meant death for Draco himself once he left Hogwarts, and for his family. Voldemort doesn't make empty threats. And I doubt that Draco would have accepted the offer of protection from the Order unless he was facing a weakened Dumbledore, seemingly at his mercy and yet, ironically, saying that it was his own mercy that mattered. Draco had to learn that he wasn't a killer, but facing an armed and powerful Dumbledore, forced to disarm and possibly stun him to control him, would not have taught him that lesson, IMO. Carol, believing that DD not only believed that he was acting for the best but that he was correct in believing so From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 18:01:22 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:01:22 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Fawkes - New pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160118 > Carol: > But confronting Draco would force Draco to try to kill Dumbledore on > his own without DE backup. Alla: How do we know that? Maybe earlier confrontation would have lead to exactly what happened on the Tower - namely Draco lowering his wand or not even raising his wand, maybe he would have accepted protection offer, and that would have happened indeed without DE around. And may be students would have been safer for the rest of the year too, maybe. Carol: If Snape was absent, the UV would kill him. Alla: That should deter Dumbledore from protect the rest of Hogwarts population, even if it results in Snape's death? Not in my opinion. Carol: > Rightly or wrongly, and I know we disagree here, Dumbledore trusts > Snape and believes that he can't afford to lose him. Alla: Yes, I know Dumbledore trusts Snape and JKR needed to save Snape till the end - what I am saying that if she made Dumbledore act that way to save Snape, Dumbledore looks to me as arrogant and reckless, only thinking about Snape safety and Draco safety and forgetting that he has many students under his care. I am pretty sure JKR did not intend DUmbledore look that way, she intended him to give second chances every poor lost soul, but the fact is - he **does** looks like one to me, because if you ask me Hogwarts students are the ones who needed to be saved first and foremost. Carol: > As for Draco himself, confronting him would have resulted in failure > to kill Dumbledore, which would have meant death for Draco himself > once he left Hogwarts, and for his family. Voldemort doesn't make > empty threats. And I doubt that Draco would have accepted the offer of > protection from the Order unless he was facing a weakened Dumbledore, > seemingly at his mercy and yet, ironically, saying that it was his own > mercy that mattered. Draco had to learn that he wasn't a killer, but > facing an armed and powerful Dumbledore, forced to disarm and possibly > stun him to control him, would not have taught him that lesson, IMO. Alla: Draco may have tried to kill Dumbledore when confronted or not, he may have lowered his wand or not, he may have accepted offer of protection or not. But I do think that Dumbledore **owed** it to all kids entrusted to his care to try and neutralise Draco as early as possible, regardless of whether he would have accepted the offer of protection. > Carol, believing that DD not only believed that he was acting for the > best but that he was correct in believing so > Alla: I am pretty sure that as Magpie says what happened on the Tower would help good guys ( not Dumbledore's death - I am keeping my fingers crossed that Snape will pay for it), but everything else - Draco stuff, etc. But IMO Dumbledore is **not** off the hook even if everything plays out Okay, because as a_svirn said - the fact that Harry lived to be glad that Hagrid sent him to spiders, really does not make it for Hagrid Okay to do so. Same thing here, unless we are arguing that Dumbledore knows everything that will happen, he cannot know that everything will play out Okay and he **is** gambling with the lifes of his students even if this gamble to save Severus Snape. JMO, Alla From friartuck97 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 15:05:15 2006 From: friartuck97 at yahoo.com (Shaun of the Deadpan) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:05:15 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa incantation Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160119 Don't forget, Ron and Harry almost spent twelve Galleons to buy a pint of "Baruffio's Brain Elixir" from Eddie Carmichael in OOTP (American edition, page 708) before Hermione confiscated it... relevant? Possibly. Interesting? Quite... friartuck97 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 18:50:09 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:50:09 -0000 Subject: Welcome! (Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) In-Reply-To: <20061020095828.54969.qmail@web7809.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160120 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Satarupa Bhattacharjee wrote: > > Davida: > > > Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book > > > or keep looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? > > Eddie: > > Both. I think Harry will return to Hogwarts not > > as a student, but for similar reasons as Voldemort's: > > to learn more and to have access to information and > > objects he will need in his hunt for the Horcruxes. > > > ... > > > Satarupa: > I don't think so. Harry is not in a position to go back > to Hogwarts with Dumbledore dead. How can he get help > from McGonagal when she doesn't know about Voldemort's > horcruxes? And I neither think Dobby can help him to > find the Horcruxes. He might need the portrait of > Dumbledore, but can't he go to Hogwarts just for once > to take advice? Remember, Hogwarts is now not safer than > any other place. Besides Harry has decided not to return > to his school, whether it reopens or not. He has a much > greater duty to carry on. > > Satarupa > bboyminn: I'm inclined to agree with Eddie on this issue. When people ask the question "Will Harry return to Hogwarts?", they fail to define the context and extent of the question. It is usually interpreted as 'Will Harry return to Hogwarts as a normal student?; and of course, to that, the answer is NO. But that is not the only context in which Harry could return to Hogwarts. For example, Harry could return as a special student who is free to come and go as he pleases, afteral, he does have important things to do. As a 'special student' he wouldn't waste his time in classes listening to boring lecture about things he doesn't care about and that can't help him. So, the teachers privately tutor him in specific things that are able to help him. They don't need to know Harry ultimate goal to teach him the things he knows. For example, the task at hand is far more complex than simply finding the Horcruxes as we very clearly see when they go after the Horcrux in the cave. Harry needs to learn how to spot the presents of magic, he needs to learn how to fight his way past assorted and unknown protective charms, he needs to know to safely destroy the Horcruxes once he has them in his possession, and finally, Harry need to become far better at combat dueling. All these thing can be taught to him without the teacher knowing the ultimate goal. Certainly at some point Harry is going to have to confide in a few people other than Ron and Hermione, though I think the number who know the full details will be very very few. Now, even if Harry doesn't come back to Hogwarts as a regular or as a special student, he will certainly return there many times during the story. There are too many resources there for him to ignore the place. When Harry said he wasn't coming back, he meant he wasn't coming a back as a regular student. But to think he will never set foot on Hogwarts grounds again is a bit unrealistic. I don't think Harry will rely on Hogwarts staff exclusively for his education though. He has plenty of resources he can draw on. Bill is an expert Curse Breaker, he does exactly what Harry need to learn how to do, so Bill can help Harry with recognising the presents of residual magic, with breaking the enchantments protecting the Horcrux, and probably with breaking the Horcrux itself. Moody can help Harry with his defensive skill and with his combat dueling tactics. I'm sure we can find other specific tasks the other Order members would be good at. So, YES, Harry will return to Hogwarts, just not as a regular student. If by some chance someone talks Harry into continuing his education in the normal manner, I predict it will be short lived. Like I said, Harry has far too much to do to waste his time in class listening to boring lectures. So there you have it. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 21 18:44:51 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:44:51 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Fawkes - New pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160121 Alla: > > Same thing here, unless we are arguing that Dumbledore knows > everything that will happen, he cannot know that everything will > play out Okay and he **is** gambling with the lifes of his students > even if this gamble to save Severus Snape. Pippin: But by the same token, why should Dumbledore sacrifice Snape because it might make students safer when it might as well make the situation more dangerous. Forcing Draco to fail ahead of discovering what the plan was might prevent Draco from threatening student lives. But no one would know how he planned to bring DE's into the school. In that scenario, Snape would die for not having fulfilled the vow, and the danger to students from a DE invasion would have been all the greater, since Voldemort could order someone else to complete Draco's task. Nor would it get rid of the danger of the amateur attacks that Draco might already have launched. The necklace itself could have been a 'timebomb'. If Draco had been forced to fail between the time he ordered Rosmerta to obtain it and the time she gave it to Katie, then Snape would have died and Katie might have died too, because Snape wasn't around to save her. Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Oct 21 18:41:41 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 14:41:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160122 >Potioncat: >I love Carol's ideas for his work. But I think "after" he gets out of >Azkaban he'll open his own shop. As much as I like the idea, I can't >the logic of a successful Potions wizard applying for a DADA teaching >positon and giving up his business. >I would also like to think he was an intern at St. Mungo's. It makes >the most sense to me--even if Snape is no Dr. Kildare. >Marion: No, but he *is* House, MD... Nikkalmati: More like Ben Casey (for those who remember). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 19:26:27 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:26:27 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160123 Carol earlier: > > > The word "bison" (or "bisont")was already in existence and > > referred, not to an American buffalo (probably European wizards > > knew no more than European Muggles of the existence of the > > Americas at this point) but to a European buffalo also called a > > wisent. > > Secca responds: > I hadn't thought to check if the word 'bison' were in use yet! > Thanks for this info. Carol again: You're welcome. Seems that I'm more convinced by your explanation than you are, though. > Carol earlier: > > Carol, whose first reaction to the wizard Baruffio's blunder > > was what JKR surely intended it to be, a hearty roar of laughter > > Secca responds: > Aha! See, now we come to the crux of the matter! I did not laugh at > all. My initial reaction, reading it the first time, and every time > since, has always been "Hunh? I don't get it." (Originally I thought > it must just be referring to some British idiom) > > Researching into this lately I keep running across Harry Potter > sites that have discussed this same quote over the years (including > the HP4GU archives). It seems that there are others like me, who > have always been bothered/stumped by this quote -- and there are > also many others, like you, who have always found it funny, and are > a bit puzzled by all the brouhaha. If my first reaction had been to > laugh, I don't think I would care about this now in the least. > Humour is in the eye of the beholder??? > I had great hopes for "Bifonte/Bisonte" from the portuguese... > 'Bifonte' *is* a word in portuguese -- a very modern, corporate word > meaning 'dual-sourced', so I wasn't planning on mentioning it -- > then I found a site that used it to mean 'Two-faced'. Aha! I > thought, and started to run with theories of Baruffio and his > Potuguese Veritaserum... only to discover that it had been a typo > and the word intended had been 'bif/r/onte'and is Spanish for 'two- > faced', not Portuguese -- ah well > > Well, for anybody still interested in all of this, I must admit that > I have had a reversal in my opinion. When I started all of this, one > of the theories that I did *not* like was the "It is a typo, Jo just > meant to write "said 'f' instead of 's'." But I have come to realize > how easy it is to get confused by the quote, having done so myself. > I now believe that Jo, with her history of (understandable) > inattention to little unimportant details (and inexact maths) -- > simply got confused as well. > > I now stand firmly in the "It was a typo" school." If we re-write > the quote to read "said 'f' instead of 's'" then the 'answer' to the > riddle (for those of us who could not just laugh at the surface > wordplay) Could be one of two things -- both seeming much simpler in > concept than the flights I was going to to try to make the original > quote work: > > 1) This means Baruffio could have simply said /Wingardium Leviofa/ > and, in Jo's world 'ofa' somehow means buffalo(remember /Levicorpus/ > levitates a body). Or not, but there is at least an 's' in the spell. > > 2) OR , in Jo's world, there is a thing called a 'bussalo', which is > something that a wizard might use, and Baruffio wanted one. Hence, > the now infamous misquote was -- > > "Accio Buffalo -- oops I meant Bussalo.." WHAM! > > I like number two, personally. > > The funny thing is 'bussalo' has been discussed at great length by > many people looking for the 'answer' to this riddle -- but as it > does not work unless you declare the original Flitwick quote to be a > typo, it bothered me. Now, by putting the two together -- Typo and > Bussalo -- I come up with something that I can accept. > > I see that you are all ecstatic. =) > Carol responds: Funny (or not), I think the bison/bifon explanation suffices. IMO, Baruffio meant to use the spell "Bifon!" ("surround") but said "Bison" instead and ended up with a bison (= buffalo) on his chest. Unlike bussalo/buffalo, no typo is required for this error, and it's explained by the elongated medieval s, which looks like an f. Ever try to read those old documents? Of Mans Firft Difobedience, and the Fruit Of that Forbidden Tree, whofe mortal taft(e) Brought Death into the World, and all our woe, With loff of EDEN. . . . Not supposed to be funny, but who can help laughing when it's read aloud with f's in place of s's? For the record, I did wonder when I first read the anecdote which spell Baruffio blew, but what made me laugh was not his mispronunciation but the image of a wizard with a buffalo on his chest. (Unlike a Muggle, he'd have survived the, erm, encounter.) Carol, sure that JKR had nothing so esoteric as Portuguese/Spanish Veritaserum in mind and that Baruffio simply misread "s" as "f" and consequently mispronounced an ordinary Latin-based spell From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Oct 21 19:37:27 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 15:37:27 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Fa... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160124 >a_svirn: In other words, while Magpie thinks that Dumbledore put the lives of his staff and his students in jeopardy in order to save Draco, you [Carol] think that he was trying to save Snape (with Draco as a side project). I am not sure I agree that either of those gambles was worth the price, since it was just dumb luck that no students died as a result. >On the other hand, if Daco repented and came to Dumbledore, by the conditions of the UV Snape *would* have to step in and kill Dumbledore or die. Could it be that it was *this* situation Dumbledore was trying to prevent, rather than the one you described? Draco's conversion would have been as fatal for Dumbledore or Snape as the direct confrontation. Nikkalmati: Either way, whether DD was trying to save Snape or Draco or both, it is not SS and DM versus the students. If SS and/or DM are a vital part of the plan to destroy LV, it is the lives of SS and DM (which includes the fate of the entire WW, the students, their families, and the lives of future generations) versus the possibility one or more students might die. This is war after all. DD took whatever measures he could to protect the students after Katie was attacked (and BTW they seem to have worked), but he was not willing to chance the destruction of the WW at the hands of LV. Generals have to make these decisions. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 19:56:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 19:56:50 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Fa... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160125 > Nikkalmati: > > Either way, whether DD was trying to save Snape or Draco or both, it is not > SS and DM versus the students. If SS and/or DM are a vital part of the plan > to destroy LV, it is the lives of SS and DM (which includes the fate of the > entire WW, the students, their families, and the lives of future generations) > versus the possibility one or more students might die. This is war after > all. DD took whatever measures he could to protect the students after Katie was > attacked (and BTW they seem to have worked), but he was not willing to > chance the destruction of the WW at the hands of LV. Generals have to make these > decisions. Alla: Not that I think that Dumbledore has a right to put less weight in protecting the lifes of innocent students than somebody's who did such idiotic thing as taking UV IMO or somebody who is running around trying to kill him, but we do not even know for sure that Dumbledore knows that Snape and Malfoy are vital for destroying Voldemort. They will be somehow, I am pretty sure of that ,but JKR knows that, Dumbledore does not IMO ( unless you are buying Dumbledore making long complicated plans with Snape well in advance, which I do not buy). No, I think JKR wants to show that Dumbledore protects Snape and Malfoy NOT because they are part of his plans, but because he values their lifes, because he wants to give them second chances and that is a wonderful idea, if only Dumbledore's life was on the line, IMO. Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 20:13:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:13:55 -0000 Subject: HBP & To Kill A Mockingbird In-Reply-To: <79D4940B-5EB1-460C-973C-D99EFCCBA50F@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160126 Katherine wrote: > > Two lonely and lovelorn girls, growing up in squalor--Mayella Ewell > and Merope Gaunt are literary sisters in many ways. I have come to > believe that Chapter 10 of The Half-Blood Prince is JK Rowling's > tribute to Harper Lee's classic To Kill A Mockingbird. > > When we first see Merope Gaunt, she is cowering in her father's > kitchen, surrounded by grime and filth. Yet Harry notices that Merope has made an effort to be clean and presentable. I was instantly > reminded of Mayella's efforts to keep tidy, and of her struggling red geraniums. > > Mayella and Merope have the misfortune of sharing a father. Seperated by magic, an ocean and a couple of decades, Bob Ewell and Marvolo Gaunt are nevertheless the same man. Dirt poor and ill-regarded by their neighbours, Gaunt and Ewell both consider their race and lineage to be their chief source of pride. > Our heroines also share an obsession, after a fashion. Tom. Mayella's Tom is Tom Robinson, the handsome and gentle-hearted black man she watches through her window every day. Mayella Ewell grows to lust after Tom Robinson, knowing that his very blackness would make him a forbidden lover in her house. Merope's Tom is Tom Riddle, the > handsome and hard-hearted Muggle she watches through her window every day. In her world the love for Riddle is the same as Mayella's love for Robinson, yet it's Riddle's non-wizard nature that makes him > forbidden to her. Both Mayella and Merope see their love as an escape from the tyranny of drunken and abusive fathers. > > Each girl sets her obsession in motion at the absence of her family. > Mayella takes "a slap year to save [seven] nickles" to send her > younger siblings for ice cream. We are not witnesses to the further > action, but the story would seem to prove out the following events. > Mayella lures Tom Robinson into the Ewell shack and throws herself at him. Bob Ewell comes upon the scene and beats Mayella fiercely. Due in part to her beating and in part to her shame at being rejected by Tom, Mayella levels the accusation of rape that tears apart Maycomb county and ends the lives of Tom Robinson and Bob Ewell. > > In Merope's Little Hangleton hovel events are somewhat inverted but > have similar outcomes. Like Bob Ewell--his muggle counterpart-- > Marvolo Gaunt beats and strangles his daughter upon discovering her > obsession with Tom Riddle. Unlike TKAM, the reader is a witness to > this beating. I surmise that this is JK Rowling's subtle way of > confirming Tom Robinson's version of events and offering Robinson a > postmortem exoneration. In HBP, the beating results not in Tom Riddle being falsely accused but in Marvolo Gaunt and his worthless son Morfin going to prison. At first the reader is relieved to see Merope finally have some peace. But just as Mayella couldn't resist seducing her Tom, Merope used her freedom to the same ends. Unlike Mayella, however, Merope has the means to concoct a love potion that enslaves Tom Riddle to her. The child born of this bitter obsession becomes the boy Tom Marvolo Riddle and the man Lord Voldemort, who reigns evil and chaos over both the Muggle and Wizarding worlds. > > Two sad, lonely, lovelorn girls. Both seem inconsequential yet both > prove the far-flung disastrous outcomes of obsessive love. Carol eesponds: Very interesting and thought-provoking essay, but I'd like to point out an additional difference. IMO, and I realize that there are people on this list who *violently* disagree with me), Merope, unlike Mayella, is not motivated by lust but by her naive and mistaken notion of love, which she thinks that a *love* potion can conjure. She doesn't want illicit sex; she wants a happily-ever-marriage to the handsome "prince" in the mansion on the hill. And rather than punishing her Tom when he rejects her after she stops using the love potion, hoping for real love from the father of her child, she runs away. She could have reported him to the Muggle authorities who authorized the marriage and charged him with desertion (I don't hink her knowledge of the WW is sufficient that she could have reported the desertion to them), but instead she suffers abject poverty, depression, despair, and loss of magic. Yes, her Tom has been tricked into marrying a poor, dirty girl who turns out to be a witch, and he's deprived of the chance to marry the girl he loves (pretty and suitably rich), but he isn't falsely charged and doesn't die. So, yes, there are parallels and interesting reversals, and the similar names of the men may not be a coincidence. But I think it's more important to look at Merope in terms of the themes in the novel, among them the variations on mother love (and the consequences of its absence), real vs. false love, compulsion vs. choice, yet another bad father (thank goodness for Arthur Weasley, despite his faults). Carol, who finds Merope to be as much a victim as Tom Sr. and thinks that we are meant to feel compassion for her (as we are for Kreacher, whose abuse at the hands of wizards leads him into collusion with Dark wizards and witches) From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 21 20:22:43 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:22:43 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Fa... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160127 > Nikkalmati: > > Either way, whether DD was trying to save Snape or Draco or both, it is not > SS and DM versus the students. If SS and/or DM are a vital part of the plan > to destroy LV, it is the lives of SS and DM (which includes the fate of the > entire WW, the students, their families, and the lives of future generations) > versus the possibility one or more students might die. This is war after > all. DD took whatever measures he could to protect the students after Katie was > attacked (and BTW they seem to have worked), but he was not willing to > chance the destruction of the WW at the hands of LV. Generals have to make these > decisions. Alla: Not that I think that Dumbledore has a right to put less weight in protecting the lifes of innocent students than somebody's who did such idiotic thing as taking UV IMO or somebody who is running around trying to kill him, but we do not even know for sure that Dumbledore knows that Snape and Malfoy are vital for destroying Voldemort. Sherry now: The *only* person we know is vital for destroying Voldemort is Harry potter. Of course, if Hogwarts was a real school, in the real world, and parents discovered that two murder attempts had happened, committed by a student, and nothing had been done except for a low key behind the scenes investigation, there would be howls of rage and law suits from all sides. It's hard to separate real world reactions from story reactions. Of course, it had to go this way in the book, because that's how JKR wrote it. However, letting Draco run around plotting murder, of *anyone*, including Dumbledore was an act of criminal recklessness, to me anyway. As someone said in an earlier post on this thread--forgive me for forgetting who and not giving you credit--once a student had been nearly killed, protecting both Draco and Snape should not have been the primary objective. Protecting the entire school full of students should have been the highest priority of all. Draco, Snape, even Dumbledore, are not the most important ones in this war. *all* the students deserve protection. The idea that Snape or Draco are somehow more deserving of protection than everyone else because they might be vital to the war effort makes me deeply uncomfortable, especially because it's a school full of children we are talking about. If Dumbledore can indeed put their lives ahead of Snape's or Draco's, he begins to look very much like Voldemort. Just my opinion. Oh dear, all this analyzing makes me sad because I sure look at DD a lot differently than I did when I simply and innocently read the books for enjoyment! sherry From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sat Oct 21 21:50:48 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 21:50:48 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160128 > Carol: > > > Rightly or wrongly, and I know we disagree here, Dumbledore trusts > > Snape and believes that he can't afford to lose him. > > > Alla: > > Yes, I know Dumbledore trusts Snape and JKR needed to save Snape > till the end - what I am saying that if she made Dumbledore act > that way to save Snape, Dumbledore looks to me as arrogant and > reckless, only thinking about Snape safety and Draco safety and > forgetting that he has many students under his care. > > I am pretty sure JKR did not intend DUmbledore look that way, she > intended him to give second chances every poor lost soul, but the > fact is - he **does** looks like one to me, because if you ask me > Hogwarts students are the ones who needed to be saved first and > foremost. > Renee: This is the question that bugs me: did JKR intend DD to look that way, or did she just give priority to her plot, not realising or not caring people might think less of him as a result? At the end of OotP DD says something about not caring about countless others in a vague future as long as Harry is happy (don't have the book available right now, so I can't give the exact quote). Here in HBP, protecting what he considers a vital agent towards the downfall of Voldemort seems a greater priority to him than ensuring the safety of the students, even though he does take precautions. In OotP he admits his choice was wrong. And maybe the choice he made in HBP is why he says things like `I know I did wrong' in the cave - because if you choose between two evils, this is what you may end up thinking anyway. Are we dealing with a Dumbledore who has to choose repeatedly between two evils, instead of between what's right and what's easy? If this is the case, the series would actually gain depth for me, because in reality, choices aren't always between what's right and what's easy, and suggesting they are has always struck me as a bit simplistic. It also saves Dumbledore's character for me, because he realises he takes guilt upon himself, one way or another, but is prepared to do so for the greater good. Also, I can retain more respect for JKR as a writer than if she made him choose the way he did because of plot demands. Renee From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 22 00:05:12 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:05:12 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160130 Katssirius wrote in : << like the Wizard Baruffio they may end up on the floor with a Buffalo on their chest. He says that a s replaced an f. I do not get it. Can someone help me. What did the Wizard really want to happen? >> That would be so much easier to spin if the F replaced an S. Accio Buffalo instead of Accio Bussalo, with only the need to figure out what Bussalo is. The thing that landed on his chest might have been a Water Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) or an American Bison (Bison bison). but both are in the cow family, Bovidae, from Latin word for 'cow', Bos. Maybe he said Accio Bos when he meant Accio Bof. Maybe it's more closely related to levitating a feather with Wingardium Leviosa -- he meant to levitate a toad with Bufium Leviosa but instead said Busium Leviosa (of which I would never have thought if not for some long-ago post explaining why 'wingardium' is Wizardish for 'feather'.) (The above is one excerpt from my ) From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Oct 21 23:25:42 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:25:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160131 > >Potioncat: > >I would also like to think he was an intern at St. Mungo's. It makes > >the most sense to me--even if Snape is no Dr. Kildare. > > >Marion: > No, but he *is* House, MD... > > Nikkalmati: > > More like Ben Casey (for those who remember). Charles: I see him as more of a Frank Burns combined with Colonel Flagg, albeit with more talent... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 00:25:08 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:25:08 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160132 > Renee: > This is the question that bugs me: did JKR intend DD to look that way, > or did she just give priority to her plot, not realising or not caring > people might think less of him as a result? Alla: Yes, I think she prioritised the plot over character, yes. Renee: > Are we dealing with a Dumbledore who has to choose repeatedly between > two evils, instead of between what's right and what's easy? If this is > the case, the series would actually gain depth for me, because in > reality, choices aren't always between what's right and what's easy, > and suggesting they are has always struck me as a bit simplistic. It > also saves Dumbledore's character for me, because he realises he takes > guilt upon himself, one way or another, but is prepared to do so for > the greater good. Also, I can retain more respect for JKR as a writer > than if she made him choose the way he did because of plot demands. Alla: I guess the question I am left with again is whether this is that kind of series, you know? Would JKR indeed want to stress that the choice is often made between two evils? I mean would she want to **grey** the issues that much? Are you thinking in terms of JKR indeed writing the series with main idea " there is no good or evil, only power"? ( or as somebody joked " there is no good or evil, only Snape" Hehe.) I thought it was clearly stressed as Voldemort's slogan and not the one that Dumbledore would accept, IMO. It is not even a question of showing that choices in life are sometimes had to be made between two evils, it is a question of how one would continue to keep right mindset, if that makes any sense. Okay, Dumbledore is choosing between two evils, over and over and over again, let's say. He would keep telling himself that he does it for the greater good - defeating Voldemort, right? That is why he has to make those choices - in the context we were discussing it to choose between safety of many students and his agent ( which may really be a traitor, but let's forget about it for the sake of the argument), but when push comes to shover eventually and Voldemort has been done away with, how does that Dumbledore, who keeps choosing between two evils is different from Voldemort? How do his choices distinguish him from Voldemort then? Does it make sense to you? I just think that whether in fictional reality or even in RL the leader, the politician who has supposedly **right** or **light** objectives in mind, should at least enter the fight **trying** to choose what is right, not between two evils. There would be plenty of times when life will force to make tough choices, but I guess what I am trying to say is that Dumbledore who makes those choices has to still remember that they are **wrong**, even if both of those choices are wrong. Heeee, I guess it goes back to what you said that maybe that is what Dumbledore indeed was saying in the cave, that he was wrong. LOL, here I was rambling to come back to your point full circle. I just had a thought - I seem to remember that in one of the interviews JKR said that she is writing about degrees of evil or something like that. Interesting, I have to sit on this. JMO, Alla From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 22 00:31:44 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 00:31:44 -0000 Subject: TMR Soul/ Muggle!Harry / 7th Ginny/SB /Snape's Occupation /Portkey /Fall Filk Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160133 Tesha wrote in : << Then this line from Tom. "Powerful enough to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of MY secrets, to start pouring a little of MY soul back into her..." His SOUL?!? Ginny has received some of his soul?!? What could this mean? >> The new Accio Quote! site http://www.accio-quote.org/ has Quick Quotes Quill as Search, which found the following for me: << MA: Someone put it to me last night, that if Ginny, with the diary - JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul, you saw it take shape, you saw it destroyed, it's gone. And Ginny is definitely in no way possessed by Voldemort. MA: Is she still a parselmouth? JKR: No. >> I take this to mean that the *only* remaining effect of Tom Riddle's soul on Ginny is that she reacted more strongly than most students (but not as strongly as Harry) to the Dementors on the train. Doug Rogers wrote in : << what would Muggle!Harry's consequent choice be? To live a life amongst us knowing there is a far more fascinating world elsewhere, or to live in the world of Magic with no powers? In a world were he is unknown and has to make a brand new human life from scratch? or stay in the world where he has history, identity, and friends? >> I object to the idea that Harry can't have a happy and productive life in the Muggle world (*our* world!). There are a lot of people living reasonably happy lives in the Muggle world, including some immigrants who have left their home country to live somewhere with different customs and even a different language. Muggle!Harry doesn't have to learn a new language and Floo Powder means he can have Sunday dinner every week with the Weasleys. I think Rowling intends that the wizarding world is not inherently more fascinating than the Muggle world, only more fascinating because it's less familiar to us. It saves some physical labor (using magic to peel potatoes) and adds other (all that walking to the Portkey for the QWC). It has jokes from Rowling's sense of humor but it doesn't have the Internet. When I think of the ecstasy that Harry felt flying his broomstick and playing his beloved Quidditch in the early books, I think that might be the one thing that Muggle!Harry couldn't bear missing. (I don't believe that the frequently mentioned supreme joys of sex with one's beloved, first holding one's first baby in one's arms, first holding one's first grandbaby in one's arms make up for it.) However, Harry seems to get along okay without ecstasy of flight in the later books. Pippin wrote in : << I remind you that Sirius's first plan to protect Harry was the Secret Keeper Switch. His second plan was murdering Pettigrew, which would have put Sirius in Azkaban even if he'd succeeded. Even if Dumbledore was wrong about the blood protection and wrong about Snape, which I don't believe for a minute, he still wasn't *that* stupid. >> I think the general theory is that, with baby Harry in his arms, Sirius wouldn't have gone after Pettigrew. This may be based on the cliche that raising children turns parents into grown-ups. As Alla wrote in , With baby Harry in Hagrid's arms en route to Dumbledore and a home without Sirius, maybe Sirius successfully killing Pettigrew WOULD have been a good addition to Harry's protection -- it would have prevented the specific re-embodiment of LV that occurred in GoF. Montims wrote in : << Well, if [Ginny] has 7 children herself, she can start a new tradition, I suppose... >> If she marries Harry, she can have those 12 children that Trelawney predicted for him in OoP. Secca wrote in : << took it that *she* meant 'seventh child of a seventh child'... being a very modern and Politically Correct interpretation of the old wives tale (Which, BTW, is *not* how I personally feel the addage was meant 'back in the day'.) >> The entire Potter ouevre indicates that much of what us Muggles believe or used to believed about wizards, witches, and magic, is highly distorted. Maybe the true magic condition is the seventh child of a seventh child and the Muggles "back in the day" got it wrong. Janette wrote in : << From Snape leaving Hogwarts to his taking the teaching job some 3 or 4 years pass - I wonder what he was doing - I can't imagine him working in a shop or in the Ministry, but equally I imagine he couldn't afford to be unemployed. I know (or believe) that there is nothing in canon, but can anyone speculate? >> There is no canon, but I feel certain that he was the wizarding equivalent of a grad student in Potions, which I believe would be Apprentice to a Master in the Potioneers' Guild. I imagine the deal is room, board, and education in exchange for work in the Master's workshop (lab). It would make sense to me if Hogwarts *couldn't* hire him to teach Potions until the Guild had certified him as a journeyman, and wouldn't hire him until the Guild had certified him as a master. (All right! Ceridwen agrees with me! ) Eddie wrote in : << As to why [the Portkey in GoF] returned Harry, the Wikipedia article speculates that this may have been Voldemort's plan all along: to send the dead Harry Potter back to Hogwarts (and outside of the maze). >> I know that young Barty's confession included saying he turned the Cup into a portkey, and many listies insist that must be literally true because of the Veritaserum, but I suspect that Veritaserum doesn't prevent careless ways of speaking, so I believe a theory that came from the Y!group years ago: 1) Part of the protective enchantments on Hogwarts is that no one but the Headmaster can make a Portkey that departs from anywhere on Hogwarts campus. Therefore, young Barty couldn't turn Harry's toothbrush or such into a Portkey; he had to lurk in disguise until he got his hands on a Portkey made by Dumbledore. 2) DD turned the Triwizard Cup into a Portkey that would transport the winner from the center of the maze to in front of the judges' stand, because it would be a dramatic and efficient end to the contest. 3) Because it was a Portkey that had been made by DD, young Barty was able to insert a detour between the programmed departure point and the programmed destination, thus kidnapping Harry. 4) Lord Voldemort may have intended to destroy the Portkey after he had killed Harry, to use it to send Harry's dead body back to Hogwarts to cause public hysteria and discredit DD, or to use it to send an attack part of Death Eaters (maybe including himself) to kill all the teen-agers, many adults, and some VIPs of the wizarding world as his opening move in the Second Voldemort War (VWII). Personally, if he thought he could do the latter after killing Harry, I don't understand why he thought he couldn't do it just because Harry was still alive. Caius Marcius wrote in : << From the fall of 2000 to about the fall of 2005, >> Is 'the fall of 2005' anything like 'the fall of VOldemort'? From scarah at gmail.com Sun Oct 22 01:42:46 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 18:42:46 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590610211842q4a7d2c95ua9b8d67a1cd33715@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160134 pumpkinpastie18: > Because Harry = hope. Sarah: But if he = hope now, what will he = after his job is done, is my question. I'd rather see him go out in a blaze of glory, than end up washed up. Tons of hero stories end up with the hero joining the glorious dead after successfully completing their quests. Neo, Hercules, the Pevensies, Frodo and Harry would all be more boring if they went home and got government jobs after. WWJKRD? Well, she's consistently given quotes to the effect that what makes anyone think Harry lives that long? And that she has to write what she set out to write. Sarah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 01:58:25 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 01:58:25 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: <3202590610211842q4a7d2c95ua9b8d67a1cd33715@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160135 > pumpkinpastie18: > > Because Harry = hope. > > Sarah: > > But if he = hope now, what will he = after his job is done, is my > question. I'd rather see him go out in a blaze of glory, than end up > washed up. Tons of hero stories end up with the hero joining the > glorious dead after successfully completing their quests. Neo, > Hercules, the Pevensies, Frodo and Harry would all be more boring if > they went home and got government jobs after. Alla: Why boring? I do not agree at all - normal happy life, something that Harry craves IMO, something that would be of the sort of the reward, besides if you do not like reading about his post Voldemort **life** which I hope will exist, I am sure JKR will deal with it in a few sentences in epilogue - married Ginny, had twelve kids, etc :), or at least that is the epilogue I want to see,hehe. Sara: > WWJKRD? Well, she's consistently given quotes to the effect that what > makes anyone think Harry lives that long? And that she has to write > what she set out to write. Alla: She never said AFAIK that she will kill Harry though. She teases all the time, yes, she asks that questions, she recently flat out refused to tell anybody what is going to happen to Harry, so I am not sure at all that we know what she set out to write. IMO of course, Alla, who certainly joins Geoff in "let Harry live" club and for whom Harry's death is the only plot twist which would stop her from reading the series again - just too depressing, sorry. From courtneyccox at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 02:13:49 2006 From: courtneyccox at yahoo.com (Courtney (Cox) Grauvogl) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:13:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Horcrux? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160136 > Kellie: > No, I don't see DD as a murderer nor manipulator of Dark Arts for > preservation purposes. Remember, DD had the Sorcerers Stone, a > gift of eternal life, and it was destroyed. It's simply not in his > nature...... Not only does the above make sense, but I don't think that Dumbledore would have appeared in his own portrait in his former office had he not really been dead. Courtney From random832 at gmail.com Sun Oct 22 02:45:39 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:45:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610211945h7c36d1d8p37210ab31956b512@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160137 On 10/21/06, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) wrote: > (of which I > would never have thought if not for some long-ago post explaining why > 'wingardium' is Wizardish for 'feather'.) Out of curiosity, any thought on why 'wingardium' instead of 'penna'? Is there a reason why most spells are latin, and , further, is there a reason why some are not? "crucio" and "imperio" are both latin, but "avada kedavra" is aramaic. -- Random832 From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Oct 22 03:36:42 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 23:36:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's mom-domestic abuse Message-ID: <453.7a81a83.326c414a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160138 Marion >Can you imagine, daughter Eileen returning to her family and dad is screaming at her, "how dare you return with your halfbreed child in tow!" They'd probably take Eileen and Severus in... reluctantly (like Vernon and Petunia took Harry in - reluctantly) Maybe Eileen left with Severus, but she died after a while as well and Sev was taken in by the Princes. But I can't imagine he was taken into a loving home. He was described as looking like a 'plant that had been kept in the dark too long', after all. It would also go a long way to explain why he took 'the Half Blood Prince' as a secret nickname. If you've been told long enough by your family, "you? You are no Prince. You're a halfblood Prince", you might take that insult as a nickname in defiance ("I'll show them who's a Half Blood Prince!") Nikkalmati: Oh, I like this suggestion because it increases the parallels between Harry and Severus. If Severus was forced to grow up in a home with hostile, unloving relatives, he and Harry have something else in common (besides being the victims of bullies and half-bloods, and being good at DADA, and following DD's orders to kill him, (that green potion was no health drink)). JKR likes these parallels and it may be a way of bringing Harry to understand Severus (along with the Potions book, of course). Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Oct 22 05:25:14 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 05:25:14 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160139 > Renee: > > > Are we dealing with a Dumbledore who has to choose repeatedly > between two evils, instead of between what's right and what's easy? If > this is the case, the series would actually gain depth for me, because in > > reality, choices aren't always between what's right and what's > easy, and suggesting they are has always struck me as a bit simplistic. Pippin: I think it is about not being too quick to label something as evil because it isn't as good as we would like it to be. It gets to be an excuse for choosing what's easy. If one choice is as bad as the other, why not? I've mentioned this a couple of times and not gotten a response, but I'm really interested in what others would have to say about this, so I'll try again. When Snape says, "I see no difference" IMO, that's JKR showing us how cruel and wrong it is not to distinguish between a lesser evil and a greater one. Does the fact that Hermione's teeth weren't pretty to begin with excuse Snape from doing anything about the fact that they'd been cursed? Does the fact that Draco was not a very nice person to begin with excuse Dumbledore from trying to save him from Voldemort? I'm surprised, Alla, that you'd be all over Dumbledore for trying to save Draco at the risk of other lives. Isn't that exactly what you'd like him to do for Harry? Maybe Harry's life is more valuable to the war effort, and maybe not. Wars are not won by heroes, at least I've never heard of a losing side that didn't have heroes too. Wars are won by people working together. Houses united, anyone? Alla: > Okay, Dumbledore is choosing between two evils, over and over and > over again, let's say. He would keep telling himself that he does it > for the greater good - defeating Voldemort, right? That is why he > has to make those choices - in the context we were discussing it to > choose between safety of many students and his agent ( which may > really be a traitor, but let's forget about it for the sake of the > argument), but when push comes to shover eventually and Voldemort > has been done away with, how does that Dumbledore, who keeps > choosing between two evils is different from Voldemort? > > How do his choices distinguish him from Voldemort then? Pippin: That Dumbledore is different because Voldemort does not choose the lesser of two evils, he chooses the easiest way to get the most power. Dumbledore tries to choose what will save the most people from Voldemort. I know you don't see it that way in this case, but think of it this way: Finding traces of a rat in the baby's cradle is bad, but the thing about rats, as with Death Eaters, is that there's always a lot more than one. So which protects the baby better: getting rid of a lone rat? Or keeping watch and hoping it will lead you to the hole? And they did find the hole! The way into Hogwarts through the vanishing cabinet was discovered and no child was killed or bitten. Would that be the case if Draco was hustled off and the problem was deemed solved? Alla: > Does it make sense to you? I just think that whether in fictional > reality or even in RL the leader, the politician who has supposedly > **right** or **light** objectives in mind, should at least enter the > fight **trying** to choose what is right, not between two evils. Pippin: How do you know Dumbledore isn't doing that? What you seem to be saying is that you want Dumbledore to beat his breast and say he's so sorry, it's not his fault he hasn't got a better choice. Sounds whiny, no? And what's the point? Either you trust him to make the best choice of those available, or you don't. If not, what difference would the whining make? I don't know whether I'm right to trust Dumbledore or not. But I'll tell you one thing, the characters in canon who trust Dumbledore are certainly a nicer lot than those who don't. :) Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 22 05:38:22 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 05:38:22 -0000 Subject: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160140 "pumpkinpastie18" wrote: > I just can't imagine Rowling ever killing > off Harry. Why? Because Harry = hope. He's > the Boy Who Lived And the last chapter of book 7 will be titled the Man Who Died. I'm not saying he'll slip on a banana peel and crack his head open; Harry will die heroically saving the entire world. Few of us will have such a glorious death. > and I can't see Rowling ending the series > on such an awful, tragic note. Well the series must end on SOME note, and I think JKR would want it to be as powerful a note as possible, mellow just wont do the job. When people read the last page of the last book I think JKR would want them to feel a bit stunned; readers will want to immediately reread the last few pages to see if they really read what they thought they had, they'll want to see if they missed something. Then they will just stare at the book with dazed unfocused eyes. As JKR said more than once if you decide to fight evil you must be prepared to pay a very heavy price. And she's right, history shows that evil men can be defeated, but the cost is high. > Can you also imagine the huge public outcry > that would happen if Harry met his maker > in book seven? Yes, if JKR kills Harry there will be riots in the streets, preachers will denounce her, mental health professionals will get on TV and say she's traumatized an entire generation. If JKR lets Harry live happily ever after she will hear a loud collective yawn. As a writer the choice would be a no-brainer, Harry is dead meat. Eggplanr From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Oct 22 05:58:51 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:58:51 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160141 Eggplant Yes, if JKR kills Harry there will be riots in the streets, preachers will denounce her, mental health professionals will get on TV and say she's traumatized an entire generation. If JKR lets Harry live happily ever after she will hear a loud collective yawn. As a writer the choice would be a no-brainer, Harry is dead meat. Sherry now: I don't see it that way at all. She can write a brilliant and stunning victory sequence that would not leave anyone yawning. It could be far more interesting than a glorious death. Death for Harry would be a let down and disillusionment. There's nothing glorious about dying, hero or not. I expect Harry to live, but I expect that it will be a terribly nail biting finale that will have me on the edge of my seat, breathless with fear and anticipation. It's like the ending of the book and movie, Apollo 13. I know how the story ends--it's history after all--but I'm tense and nervous every time the astronauts have their final radio black out as they reenter earth's atmosphere. I think that kind of suspenseful, yet triumphant ending will be far more exciting than a death. No matter how she could possibly write Harry's death, it would be neither glorious nor spectacular. At least for me, there's no way to make a teenage boy's death worthwhile reading. Sherry From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 22 06:26:48 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 06:26:48 -0000 Subject: HBP & To Kill A Mockingbird. In-Reply-To: <14B2B2F8-7ADD-4663-84FF-0C749C753746@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160142 When I read the title of this thread I felt sure somebody was trying to make a comparison between Snape and Boo Radley. As a very old man Harry Potter wrote in his memoirs: His lips parted into a timid smile and our teacher's image blurred with my sudden tears. "Hey Snape." I said. I can still see it like it was yesterday, Dumbledore in his pointed hat, Hagrid in his mole skin coat, and Snape. Snape had given us an education, a potions book, and our lives. Eggplant From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 22 06:38:02 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:38:02 EDT Subject: Draco and Dumbledore Message-ID: <586.6730a10.326c6bca@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160143 Alla: Not that I think that Dumbledore has a right to put less weight in protecting the lifes of innocent students than somebody's who did such idiotic thing as taking UV IMO or somebody who is running around trying to kill him, but we do not even know for sure that Dumbledore knows that Snape and Malfoy are vital for destroying Voldemort. They will be somehow, I am pretty sure of that ,but JKR knows that, Dumbledore does not IMO ( unless you are buying Dumbledore making long complicated plans with Snape well in advance, which I do not buy). Julie: I believe Dumbledore DOES know Snape is vital to destroying Voldemort, and also to keeping Hogwarts safe for the students during the year. I believe he thinks (rightly) that Snape will also be more valuable to the cause against Voldemort from here on, able to infiltrate from the inside, and to help Harry if not defeat Voldemort, than at least get into a *position* to defeat Voldemort. Little is more valuable than a spy right in the midst of an enemy after all. That's all part of the reason Dumbledore chose Snape's life over his own (if his "Severus, please..." was a plea for Snape to save himself rather than dying from not fulfilling the UV, as I think it was). As for Draco, that's a little touchier. But Draco is a Malfoy, from a leading Slytherin family, thus he would have a lot of sway among the other Slytherin students. He's the most likely candidate within that house to facilitate a reconciliation between the houses (something JKR has implied is coming). I don't see why Dumbledore couldn't easily figure that out, and realize that turning Draco might just be what unites Hogwarts in the fight against Voldemort. Add that to his concern for *any* student, then Dumbledore has both personal and strategic reasons for protecting Draco. At the very least, that Dumbledore is aware of both Snape and even Draco's potentially vital importance to defeating Voldemort is as reasonable a conclusion from canon as that he was unaware of how vital they each could be in their individual ways. Even more reasonable if you consider Dumbledore to be the very wise and war-experienced wizard he is supposed to be. (Funny how that works ;-) I also agree with Carol that Dumbledore DID protect Hogwarts and its students. Snape stopped Draco from trying making any more attempts on Dumbledore's life using indirect methods, which are the kind that end up getting others killed. And Dumbledore had Order members staged to intercept the DEs *even* while he considered the possibility of DEs infiltrating Hogwarts to be nearly nil. He didn't take any chances with his students lives that night, and those DEs did NOT get access to the students, except those from DA who *deliberately* joined the fight. At no time--after Draco's early indirect attempts--was an innocent student in serious danger. Meaning Dumbledore did NOT put more weight on protecting Draco and Snape over the students. He did his very best to protect them all, and he succeeded. Julie, very sorry that Alla, Sherry and others have lost their faith in Dumbledore, but seeing no convincing canon evidence yet that requires losing that faith. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tonks_op at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 07:14:29 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 07:14:29 -0000 Subject: Fawkes - (More Than a) New Pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160145 > Kellie: > > This is my first post and I've finally found time, on a quiet Friday > evening, to respond to something that has been lurking in the recess of my > mind. > > I see Fawkes as an extraordinary and loyal companion to DD. He's saved DD's life (swallowing the AK curse in Book 5) and helping DD out in a pinch (allowing DD to apparate while still within Hogwarts' walls.) Their closeness is comparable to LV's closeness to Nagini. There's a reliance, a dependence almost, on these magical creatures that no human could match. > Tonks: I don't think that Fawkes is anyones 'pet'. As you say above I think that Fawkes and DD have a bond, but not one of master and pet as some here have suggested. To me Fawkes is symbolic of the holy spirit which come to the aid of those in need and is very close to those who are especially holy, such as DD. I think it is interesting that we have two symbols, one in the Snake and on in the Phoenix. The snake and her venom representing death and the Phoenix and her tears represending life, healing and resurrection. I do think that Fawkes will come to Harry aid somewhere near the end of book 7. Tonks_op From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 22 11:45:30 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:45:30 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160146 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > pumpkinpastie18: > > > Because Harry = hope. > > > > Sarah: > > > > But if he = hope now, what will he = after his job is done, is my > > question. I'd rather see him go out in a blaze of glory, than end > up > > washed up. Tons of hero stories end up with the hero joining the > > glorious dead after successfully completing their quests. Neo, > > Hercules, the Pevensies, Frodo and Harry would all be more boring > if > > they went home and got government jobs after. > > Alla: > > Why boring? I do not agree at all - normal happy life, something > that Harry craves IMO, something that would be of the sort of the > reward, besides if you do not like reading about his post Voldemort > **life** which I hope will exist, I am sure JKR will deal with it in > a few sentences in epilogue - married Ginny, had twelve kids, > etc :), or at least that is the epilogue I want to see,hehe. > > Sara: > > WWJKRD? Well, she's consistently given quotes to the effect that > what > > makes anyone think Harry lives that long? And that she has to > write > > what she set out to write. > > Alla: > > She never said AFAIK that she will kill Harry though. She teases all > the time, yes, she asks that questions, she recently flat out > refused to tell anybody what is going to happen to Harry, so I am > not sure at all that we know what she set out to write. > > > IMO of course, > > Alla, who certainly joins Geoff in "let Harry live" club and for > whom Harry's death is the only plot twist which would stop her from > reading the series again - just too depressing, sorry. Geoff: I'm glad to see that there are at least two other members of the IWHTLC. :-) I think several valid points have been made by other contributors to this thread. Perhaps my main argument is that, to kill Harry, all the wrong messages would be sent to the millions of /young/ readers throughout the world. Harry comes from a disadvantaged background. He is not a muscle-bulging, bronzed, advert for an anti-perspirant deodorant. He is not a world-renowned sporting name who gets millions of pounds for just showing his face on the advertisement hoardings. He is a fairly ordinary guy. He wears glasses, he is described as small and skinny, untidy and we know that he is not a great academic. He is also often guilty of jumping into a situation without thinking it through first. In other words, a boy much as many others of the hundreds of teenagers I taught for over 30 years. But because exciting things happen to him, he is a model for the great majority of young people who do not fit the poster boy CV of my previous paragraph. Youngsters see that someone ordinary, whom you might pass in the street without noticing can achieve great things. To kill him off would be completely devastating for many of these who see him in this way. Frodo and the Pevensies leave their respective stories at the end, - although in passing I do not see Frodo's death in his departure. Not having seen "The Matrix" I can't comment on Neo, but my general feeling about these characters is that they are do not touch readers in quite the same way. They are removed from real life as readers see it. Harry is much more immersed in the late 20th/early 21st centuries and is part of that scene whereas the others mentioned are not. From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Oct 22 13:23:04 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:23:04 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160148 > Renee: > > Are we dealing with a Dumbledore who has to choose repeatedly > between > > two evils, instead of between what's right and what's easy? If > this is > > the case, the series would actually gain depth for me, because in > > reality, choices aren't always between what's right and what's > easy, > > and suggesting they are has always struck me as a bit simplistic. > It > > also saves Dumbledore's character for me, because he realises he > takes > > guilt upon himself, one way or another, but is prepared to do so > for > > the greater good. >> > Alla: > > I guess the question I am left with again is whether this is that > kind of series, you know? > > Would JKR indeed want to stress that the choice is often made > between two evils? I mean would she want to **grey** the issues that > much? Renee: Yes, I think there's a large grey zone, especially in the last two HP books. There is black and white at either side of the grey, but a lot of what's going on is taking place in this grey zone. Alla: > Are you thinking in terms of JKR indeed writing the series with main > idea " there is no good or evil, only power"? ( or as somebody > joked " there is no good or evil, only Snape" Hehe.) > > I thought it was clearly stressed as Voldemort's slogan and not the > one that Dumbledore would accept, IMO. Renee: No, I don't think JKR is writing the series that way. Why do you think that describing a choice between two evils (or maybe I should say, two bad things) is the same as suggesting the dichotomy good-evil does not exist? The fact that the choice is between evils, automatically means there *is* such a thing as evil, I'd say. Also, the choice you would have preferred DD to make is precisely the one that does involve the use of power; protecting the students would have meant taking direct measures against Draco and possibly forcing Snape's hand. And one of the interesting characteristics of DD is that he uses his power sparsely. Alla: > It is not even a question of showing that choices in life are > sometimes had to be made between two evils, it is a question of how > one would continue to keep right mindset, if that makes any sense. Renee: We don't get to look at DD from the inside, as the whole episode is written from Harry's POV. So it's rather difficult to know his mindset. For all we know, DD was agonising about his choices during the entire school year. I'd like to think he was, but we simply can't tell. As I see it, it's a matter of trusting DD - not to make no mistakes, as we know he does make them (and he is the first to say so), but to act, or remain passive, with the right intentions. Given the way JKR has written him throughout the series, this is one thing I'm prepared to believe about him. Sometimes, his approach, especially his laissez-faire attitude, is't mine. But I don't see why that would make me right and him wrong. Alla: >I just think that whether in fictional > reality or even in RL the leader, the politician who has supposedly > **right** or **light** objectives in mind, should at least enter the > fight **trying** to choose what is right, not between two evils. Renee: But can't you envisage a situation in which the only choice is between two evils (or undesirable things, or whatever you want to call it) Of course, if there is a third, better option, I'd expect the leader to choose that. But this isn't always the case. Renee From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Oct 22 13:22:03 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:22:03 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160149 "justcarol67" wrote: > > Cat wrote: > > How beautifully eloquent! Harry = Hope. I totally agree Hope > > can not die. After everything he has been through, all dangers > > and sorrows, he has never given up. He has earned and deserves a > > long and happy life! > > > > Long Live Harry! > > Carol responds: > Maybe not leave the planet but at least take refuge in Brazil > ... Seriously, I think that her immense satisfaction in having > encouraged so many nonreading children to read is > sufficient to prevent her from killing off Harry because few > children would want to read about a kid hero they knew was > going to die ... > > Look at the Prophecy: "Neither can live while the other survives. > ... I predict that, once Voldemort is defeated, Harry will deal > with a temporary burst of fame ... and then settle down to the > exciting but not extraordinary life of an Auror in > training. Aussie writes: Ugh. For Harry to be an Auror, he would have to go back and complete his NEWTs at Hogwarts. That would mean an 8th book. Unfortunately, there will only be 7 - - Harry has to die Also, JKR always lets things subtley slip. Trelawney's predictions in class have Harry suffering a gruesome and early death. We keep talking about herprofecy, and her Tarot cards about the tower in book 6 came true. Will Lavender Brown be able to say, "I told you so ..." about her support of Trelawney's announcements? Aussie (who is on a roll at making wrong assumptions) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 13:30:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:30:55 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160150 > Pippin: When Snape says, "I see no difference" IMO, that's JKR > showing us how cruel and wrong it is not to distinguish between a > lesser evil and a greater one. Does the fact that Hermione's teeth > weren't pretty to begin with excuse Snape from doing anything > about the fact that they'd been cursed? Does the fact that Draco > was not a very nice person to begin with excuse Dumbledore from > trying to save him from Voldemort? Alla: Well, yeah, I agree about Snape, but as to Dumbledore, that's one funny way to phrase a question IMO, so how about I rephrase it a little bit? Does the fact that Draco is trying to kill Dumbledore and almost killed two students excuses Dumbledore from not saving him from Voldemort and instead concentrating on saving other students? Um, **Yes** in a heartbeat as far as I am concerned. But I am not even asking Dumbledore to do that, I am not asking him to throw Draco to Voldemort, because that would be too cruel, wound't it? I am asking him to not mollycoddle Draco and while saving him, also restrain him if necessary in order to make sure that others are safe Pippin: > I'm surprised, Alla, that you'd be all over Dumbledore for trying to > save Draco at the risk of other lives. Isn't that exactly what you'd > like him to do for Harry? Maybe Harry's life is more valuable to the > war effort, and maybe not. Wars are not won by heroes, at least > I've never heard of a losing side that didn't have heroes too. Wars > are won by people working together. Houses united, anyone? > Alla: Huh? And I am surprised that you are surprised. I am all over Dumbledore for trying to save Draco not just because he does it over other lives, but because he is saving someone who almost **killed** two people, deliberately if I mind at the expence of other lifes. If Harry would have done what Draco did during HBP, then believe me I would **not** expect Dumbledore to save him at expence of other lives. But for some reason called **Prophecy** I think he would anyways. Harry's life is not maybe more valuable in the fight, he is the only one who can do it, end of story. He will get help from his friends, but I am not sure where you get **maybe** part from his friends and Dumbledore seemed to think so without any maybes IMO. And of course Houses are likely be united, etc, I just not sure what it has to do with letting wanna be assasin run around the school. > Alla: > > Does it make sense to you? I just think that whether in fictional > > reality or even in RL the leader, the politician who has supposedly > > **right** or **light** objectives in mind, should at least enter the > > fight **trying** to choose what is right, not between two evils. > > Pippin: > How do you know Dumbledore isn't doing that? > What you seem to be saying is that you want Dumbledore to > beat his breast and say he's so sorry, it's not his fault he hasn't > got a better choice. Sounds whiny, no? And what's the point? Either > you trust him to make the best choice of those available, > or you don't. If not, what difference would the whining make? Alla: Well, if saying **I am sorry** means whining , then yes, I want him to do that. Although as Renee said maybe that is what he was doing in the cave. JMO Alla From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Oct 22 13:47:49 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 13:47:49 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160151 Pippin: > I've mentioned this a couple of times and not gotten a response, but > I'm really interested in what others would have to say about this, so I'll > try again. When Snape says, "I see no difference" IMO, that's JKR > showing us how cruel and wrong it is not to distinguish between a > lesser evil and a greater one. Does the fact that Hermione's teeth > weren't pretty to begin with excuse Snape from doing anything > about the fact that they'd been cursed? Does the fact that Draco > was not a very nice person to begin with excuse Dumbledore from > trying to save him from Voldemort? Renee: Actually, I don't understand what you're asking here. What is the lesser evil and what the greater evil in either case? > > Pippin: > > Finding traces of a rat in the baby's cradle is bad, but the thing > about rats, as with Death Eaters, is that there's always a lot more than > one. So which protects the baby better: getting rid of a lone rat? > Or keeping watch and hoping it will lead you to the hole? > > And they did find the hole! The way into Hogwarts > through the vanishing cabinet was discovered and no > child was killed or bitten. Would that be the case if Draco was > hustled off and the problem was deemed solved? Renee: As long as Draco hadn't succeeded in repairing the Hogwarts cabinet, there was no danger of DEs entering Hogwarts, so I don't think this particular argument works as a defense of Dumbledore's choice. If Draco had been hustled off early enough (say, in March, after the poisoned mead incident), there wouldn't have been any hole - unless you assume the presence of other youthful DEs who knew about Draco's assignment and would be prepared to take over for him. The analogy fails for another reason as well: that no students were killed or bitten was *not* because the hole was discovered in time and stopped up, preventing any more rats from entering: it wasn't found until after the rats came in. (You might just as well exonerate Lupin for not telling DD how Sirius entered the castle, because no student was killed...) And it's not as if finding the hole had any positive effect, or why else would there be a discussion about closing the school? Renee From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Oct 22 14:08:51 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 14:08:51 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160152 > Geoff: > To kill him off would be completely devastating for many of these who > see him in this way. Frodo and the Pevensies leave their respective stories > at the end, - although in passing I do not see Frodo's death in his departure. > Not having seen "The Matrix" I can't comment on Neo, but my general > feeling about these characters is that they are do not touch readers in > quite the same way. They are removed from real life as readers see it. > Harry is much more immersed in the late 20th/early 21st centuries and > is part of that scene whereas the others mentioned are not. > Renee: Actually, I can see Harry ending up like the Pevensies do (Frodo leaving Middle-earth is a symbolical death, and I don't remember what happened to Neo): in a hereafter much like the WW, just `more real', to put it the Lewisian way. This would take away much of the pain, I think. Only, it would have to be written extremely well; a soppy reunion with James/Lily, Sirius, DD and whatever good guys will bite it in Book 7 (not to mention Ginny), could easily become very lame. All the same, I'd prefer him to live, and if the books are structured according to the seven stages of alchemy (which I believe they are), Harry will live, possibly after having undergone some kind of symbolical death. Renee From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 22 15:08:16 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:08:16 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160153 Geoff: > To kill him off would be completely devastating for many of these who > see him in this way. Frodo and the Pevensies leave their respective stories > at the end, - although in passing I do not see Frodo's death in his departure. > Not having seen "The Matrix" I can't comment on Neo, but my general > feeling about these characters is that they are do not touch readers in > quite the same way. They are removed from real life as readers see it. > Harry is much more immersed in the late 20th/early 21st centuries and > is part of that scene whereas the others mentioned are not. Magpie: I agree. Harry will not die because as a character he's just not been created in such a way that his death will have as much meaning as someone like Frodo. Frodo was an adult with a mature outlook on life and death. If Harry were to die I think it would be a more immature outlook--he died gloriously because he was fighting. I'm not explaining this well, but it's like...it's not real. It's looking at death like it's cool because it's not real. It's more just a cool way to go if you're imagining it--"I hope I die before I get old" or "it'd be cool to go down in a hail of bullets" and all that. It's kind of the difference between pre and post_HBP Draco Malfoy who can't see Thestrels and thinks murder is as easy as finding a way to put something in someone's drink. LOTR, by contrast, is about "death and deathlessness" according to its author. Loss is a much bigger concern. -m From unicornspride at centurytel.net Sun Oct 22 16:03:23 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 11:03:23 -0500 Subject: Fawkes - (More Than a) New Pet References: Message-ID: <005e01c6f5f3$9a02a340$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160154 >Tonks_op : writes >I think it is interesting >that we have two symbols, one in the Snake and on in the Phoenix. >The snake and her venom representing death and the Phoenix and >her >tears represending life, healing and resurrection. I do think that >Fawkes will come to Harry aid somewhere near the end of book 7. Lana writes: I agree. I found it interesting that JK put those in there like that. Not sure if it is intentionally meant for us to take it like that, but that is certainly how it comes arcoss to alot of us. I do believe that Fawkes will be back. Certainly for the members of the Order and especially for Harry. I believe that Fawks has a fondness for Harry. Not only because he is loyal to DD, but I feel they made a connection in the chamber. Pheonixs have a heavy insight I think. I think they can sense greatness and worth. I believe that Fawkes would have sensed that in Harry. I think Fawkes will be drawn to Harry in the end. Hugs, Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 22 16:27:41 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:27:41 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160155 > Renee: > > Are we dealing with a Dumbledore who has to choose repeatedly > between two evils, instead of between what's right and what's > easy? If this is the case, the series would actually gain depth > for me, because in reality, choices aren't always between what's > right and what's easy, and suggesting they are has always struck > me as a bit simplistic. It also saves Dumbledore's character for > me, because he realises he takes guilt upon himself, one way or > another, but is prepared to do so for the greater good. Also, I > can retain more respect for JKR as a writer than if she made him > choose the way he did because of plot demands. Jen: Speaking from outside the story, JKR created a difficult character in Dumbledore as both the headmaster of a school and the leader of a covert military operation. Conflicts of interest between safeguarding young people under his care and strategizing military plans are inevitable. We see that most plainly in the events we argue about over and over---placing Harry at the Dursleys, Snape teaching at Hogwarts, Draco in HBP, etc. I believe JKR's intent is to show that Dumbledore views the two roles as one in the same: "If I don't neutralize the threat out there, how do I protect the children in here? If my plans don't make the WW a safer place to live, will my students suffer when they leave my protection?" The problem by HBP is that the threat is both *inside* Hogwarts and the threat is a student. Voldemort's double whammy. Alla: > Does it make sense to you? I just think that whether in fictional > reality or even in RL the leader, the politician who has > supposedly **right** or **light** objectives in mind, should at > least enter the fight **trying** to choose what is right, not > between two evils. > > There would be plenty of times when life will force to make tough > choices, but I guess what I am trying to say is that Dumbledore > who makes those choices has to still remember that they are > **wrong**, even if both of those choices are wrong. Jen: You don't think he knows he's made wrong choices? I know the subtle little ways JKR attempts to show Dumbledore feels pain about his choices is not enough for people sometimes, but they have always been enough for me. And if the twinkle leaving his eyes or the tear aren't enough, the cave was particularly brutal. I used to think Dumbledore was experiencing pain over one particular incident; now I wonder if it wasn't his whole *life* he was lamenting there: "Don't hurt them, please,....hurt me instead." How many times he must have wished to take on the pain of others, only to sit on his hands and allow them their fate. How many times he must have tried to intervene and failed, *causing* the pain. No matter the times his choices are not my choices, as Renee said, I don't doubt he tried to discern the 'right' choice from the options placed before him. I find leaders who shrink from making choices or shrink from the consequences more bothersome than a leaders who make critical mistakes and can feel agony about them. Pippin: > Finding traces of a rat in the baby's cradle is bad, but the thing > about rats, as with Death Eaters, is that there's always a lot > more than one. So which protects the baby better: getting rid of a > lone rat? Or keeping watch and hoping it will lead you to the hole? Jen: Well, both of course--you kill the rat and keep looking for the hole . But since we're talking about human lives and not rats, killing Draco was not an option. Neutralizing him, setting non- lethal traps, attempting to follow him to the hole--yes. I think most people who disagree with DD don't believe he did enough of option B. Pippin: > And they did find the hole! The way into Hogwarts through the > vanishing cabinet was discovered and no child was killed or > bitten. Would that be the case if Draco was hustled off and the > problem was deemed solved? Jen: Good point about the hole, thankfully it was plugged up before Voldemort decided to raid Hogwarts and set up shop there. Though with Dumbledore gone, presumably he will do so anyway. Jen R. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 22 17:04:43 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 22 Oct 2006 17:04:43 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/22/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1161536683.19.62813.m25@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160156 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 22, 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: From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 17:16:26 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:16:26 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160157 Sarah wrote: > > > > But if he = hope now, what will he = after his job is done, is my > > question. I'd rather see him go out in a blaze of glory, than end > up washed up. Tons of hero stories end up with the hero joining the > > glorious dead after successfully completing their quests. Neo, > > Hercules, the Pevensies, Frodo and Harry would all be more boring > if they went home and got government jobs after. > > Alla: > > Why boring? I do not agree at all - normal happy life, something > that Harry craves IMO, something that would be of the sort of the > reward, besides if you do not like reading about his post Voldemort > **life** which I hope will exist, I am sure JKR will deal with it in > a few sentences in epilogue - married Ginny, had twelve kids, > etc :), or at least that is the epilogue I want to see, hehe. > Carol responds: For once I'm in unqualified agreement with Alla. (I hope that won't ccause her to change her mind!) As Bilbo says in "Fellowship of the Ring," "and he lived happily ever afterwards to the end of his days . . . is a good ending, and none the worse for having been used before." Harry will almost certainly lose the powers that he acquired from Voldemort, but I see no reason why he should lose the powers he was born with and live as a Muggle, much lose his life and cause children everywhere to refuse to read the HP books because they know that the kid hero is going to die in the end. Aside from her own feelings about Harry, I can't see JKR causing that kind of grief to millions of children, or depriving herself of a future audience. Even though I'm not sure that having twelve kids like Ginny and the Twins would qualify as a happy ending for most people in RL, I think that Harry and Ginny could handle it and be happy. Certainly, it wouldn't be boring! And Harry has frequently expressed a desire to be an Auror (JKR has said that teaching at Hogwarts wouldn't be exciting enough for him, but there would still be plenty of Dark Wizards left to catch--not all of them in the UK, which after all is a very small country). Why not let him do what he wants to do, with adventures still to come and only hinted at in the epilogue? Carol, ardently hoping for a happy ending for HRH, as many Weasleys as possible, and (however unlikely it may be) Severus Snape From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 17:59:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 17:59:06 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160158 > Alla: > > Well, yeah, I agree about Snape, but as to Dumbledore, that's one > funny way to phrase a question IMO, so how about I rephrase it a > little bit? > > Does the fact that Draco is trying to kill Dumbledore and almost > killed two students excuses Dumbledore from not saving him from > Voldemort and instead concentrating on saving other students? > > Um, **Yes** in a heartbeat as far as I am concerned. But I am not > even asking Dumbledore to do that, I am not asking him to throw > Draco to Voldemort, because that would be too cruel, wound't it? > > I am asking him to not mollycoddle Draco and while saving him, also > restrain him if necessary in order to make sure that others are safe Carol responds: I don't understand why you think that Dumbledore (and Snape) did nothing to protect the other students. First, Snape persuaded Draco (using pragmatic, DE-centric arguments, the only ones that would work) to end the random smuggled objects that could kill other students (the mead was smuggled before this advice). The gates were locked. There were anti-flying spells in addition to the old Anti-Apparition spells. Students were searched. Owls communication was prohibited. Draco was being watched (Dumbledore says that he knows more about the matter than Harry does, and I see no reason not to believe him). How could he have restrained Draco without bringing about either Draco's death or Snape's or both? No one else was in danger after the random murder attempts were stopped. The Order was nearby and was called to action on the night of the DE invasion. Please explain how you think he could have "saved" Draco, who was not yet convinced that Voldemort was wrong and Dumbledore was right, to yield to his (DD's) mercy? Do you really think that DD would have done something that would almost certainly result in the death of one of his trusted teachers, one whose skills he needed to save students from Dark magic like the cursed necklace and Sectumsempra, the only truly effective DADA teacher they've ever had? (Yes, Lupin taught them about Boggarts and Grindylows, but he didn't teach them duelling and nonverbal DADA spells.) That would be like murdering Snape, whom Dumbledore and the students need, whether Harry knows it or not, or so Dumbledore firmly believes (and so do I). *If* that view is correct, how could Dumbledore possibly risk activating the UV by confronting an unready and unrepentant (but terrified) Draco? Both Draco and Snape need to be protected. The other students are already protected by all possible means except destroying the Vanishing Cabinet, which Dumbledore either can't do because he doesn't know about it or won't do because he knows the consequences would be worse than what happens on the tower. And can someone please answer my question about why DD *chose* to fly to the tower in his weakened state knowing that Draco would try to kill him and the UV would be activated unless he knew he was dying, knew or hoped that Draco would realize that he wasn't a killer, and knew that Snape would have to kill him? Why, Alla and those who agree with her, didn't he just stay at the Three Broomsticks, trusting the Order to take care of things, and summon Snape ("I need Severus!") with his Patronus? Note Dumbledore's increasing sense of urgency throughout the books. He knows what's up. He knows that Harry has to hurry and get that memory from Slughorn so they can get on with the Horcrux hunt before DD has to confront Draco. Carol, *still* not understanding what Alla et al. think DD ought to have done that he didn't do or how the students were in danger with the random murder attempts stopped, every possible protection in place, and the Order guarding the school on the night of the Horcrux hunt From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 18:14:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:14:13 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160159 > Magpie: > I agree. Harry will not die because as a character he's just not > been created in such a way that his death will have as much meaning > as someone like Frodo. Frodo was an adult with a mature outlook on > life and death. If Harry were to die I think it would be a more > immature outlook--he died gloriously because he was fighting. I'm > not explaining this well, but it's like...it's not real. It's > looking at death like it's cool because it's not real. It's more > just a cool way to go if you're imagining it--"I hope I die before I > get old" or "it'd be cool to go down in a hail of bullets" and all > that. Carol responds: Just a note to support the view that a "blaze of glory" death is unlikely. In OoP, Hagrid tries to comfort Harry by saying that Sirius would have wanted to die in battle; Harry retorts that Sirius didn't want to die at all. If JKR (whose viewpoint Harry seems to be expressing here) feels that way about a secondary character, surely she feels the same way about her hero. She's repeatedly talked about how much she's tortured him. I think she'll make it up to him, and her child readers, by letting him truly be the Boy ("Man") Who Lived." Sidenote to Eggplant: If one of her chapters is entitled "The Man Who Died," at least half of her readers will throw the book away unread. I don't think she'd give away that much in a chapter title. (Note how misleading "Felix Felicis" was.) Carol, who thinks that killing Harry off would be to choose the easy way out rather than the right way to end the book From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 18:28:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 18:28:06 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160160 > Alla: > > Does it make sense to you? I just think that whether in fictional > > reality or even in RL the leader, the politician who has > > supposedly **right** or **light** objectives in mind, should at > > least enter the fight **trying** to choose what is right, not > > between two evils. >> Jen: You don't think he knows he's made wrong choices? I know the > subtle little ways JKR attempts to show Dumbledore feels pain about > his choices is not enough for people sometimes, but they have always > been enough for me. And if the twinkle leaving his eyes or the tear > aren't enough, the cave was particularly brutal. I used to think > Dumbledore was experiencing pain over one particular incident; now I > wonder if it wasn't his whole *life* he was lamenting there: "Don't > hurt them, please,....hurt me instead." Alla: Absolutely, if cave was Dumbledore's agony over some choices he made, it is good enough for me. That **was** painful enough and agonizing enough for me. Sorry, no tear was not enough for me, at all, after that speech he made, no way. Just additional reason to slap him, lol. But did he think that by protecting Draco and Snape, if that was what he was doing he made a wrong choice? See, I don't know. He was brushing off Draco's murder attempts way too casually on the Tower as far as I am concerned. And going back to Renee's points: > Renee: > Yes, I think there's a large grey zone, especially in the last two HP > books. There is black and white at either side of the grey, but a lot > of what's going on is taking place in this grey zone. Alla: I am not disagreeing with this at all, I am just not sure how far into grey JKR will go, that is all. > Alla: > > Are you thinking in terms of JKR indeed writing the series with main > > idea " there is no good or evil, only power"? > Renee: > No, I don't think JKR is writing the series that way. Alla: Heee, good that we agree, I do not think so either. Renee: Why do you think > that describing a choice between two evils (or maybe I should say, two > bad things) is the same as suggesting the dichotomy good-evil does not > exist? The fact that the choice is between evils, automatically means > there *is* such a thing as evil, I'd say. Alla: Just what I said previously - I think it is easy enough to loose sight that the choice is between two evils that is all. Sorry, struggling to explain it. But most importantly, it would be quite cool if that was indeed true, Dumbledore knowing that he is choosing between two evils, but I am **not** sure at all that JKR means to show Dumbledore as choosing between two evils. I have a suspicion that JKR absolutely means to see Dumbledore's choices in HBP as not choice between two evils, but choosing what is right, you know? And by showing that Draco will go to the right side and Snape will do something heroic ( no, I am not giving up "bad" Snape, hehe, I am just pretty convinced that even if he is OFH or Evil, he will do something selfless for once at the end), JKR will try to convince us that everything that Dumbledore did in HBP was right, danger to students does not really matter, if it makes sense? And that just does not sit with me well. :( > Renee: > But can't you envisage a situation in which the only choice is between > two evils (or undesirable things, or whatever you want to call it) Of > course, if there is a third, better option, I'd expect the leader to > choose that. But this isn't always the case. Alla: Sure, **sometimes** I can, but I also think that very ** often** this reasoning is used to justify the abandoning the third option, because third **right** option is indeed much harder to go with, you know? I have a feeling for example that executives of Elron had plenty of justifications in their minds for doing what they did. Like maybe they reasoned that their only choice would be to protect their shareholders or to lose all their income or something like that? Does not mean that third option did not exist IMO. > Carol responds: > That would be like murdering Snape, whom > Dumbledore and the students need, whether Harry knows it or not, or so > Dumbledore firmly believes (and so do I). *If* that view is correct, > how could Dumbledore possibly risk activating the UV by confronting an > unready and unrepentant (but terrified) Draco? Alla: Well, that is the crux, isn't it? You seem to think that Dumbledore's main objective should be keeping Snape alive, right? Because he needs Snape that badly, correct? I do not. I think that Dumbledore's objectives are a bit screwed if he thinks that way. Carol: > And can someone please answer my question about why DD *chose* to fly > to the tower in his weakened state knowing that Draco would try to > kill him and the UV would be activated unless he knew he was dying, > knew or hoped that Draco would realize that he wasn't a killer, and > knew that Snape would have to kill him? Why, Alla and those who agree > with her, didn't he just stay at the Three Broomsticks, trusting the > Order to take care of things, and summon Snape ("I need Severus!") > with his Patronus? Alla: What does that has to do with arguing whether Dumbledore sufficiently protected other students? I mean, obviously we can just speculate why he flew there, but I doubt you will like my speculations :) Dumbledore's trusting Order to take care of things? Um, when did he ever do that? Dumbledore wanted to participate personally in the battle of MOM, maybe he wanted to do the same thing here. Maybe he finally realized that it **is** time to talk to Draco, better late than never. In short, I can see **plenty** of reasons why Dumbledore would choose to fly to the Tower **other** than what you seem to be suggesting - that he flew there to sacrifice himself. JMO, Alla From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 22 19:23:57 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:23:57 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160161 > Carol, *still* not understanding what Alla et al. think DD ought to > have done that he didn't do or how the students were in danger with > the random murder attempts stopped, every possible protection in > place, and the Order guarding the school on the night of the Horcrux hunt > Dungrollin: Presumably after the Katie Bell incident, they should have detained Draco (by force if necessary), interrogated him, destroyed the vanishing cabinet in the RoR, and secreted him away somewhere along with Narcissa (again, forcibly if necessary), thus activating the vow. Snape, of course, should have magnanimously died, and it would have been his own stupid fault. They give out the story that DD killed both Draco and Snape in self-defence, after they revealed themselves to be undercover agents of Voldemort and attempted to assassinate him. The consequences of this are quite interesting. Ron would have still been affected by a love potion and then poisoned on his birthday. On the other hand, Harry wouldn't have had the chance to test Sectumsempra out on Malfoy. However, I think we could confidently say that he would *still* have tried it out. On who, though? And Snape would have been too dead to save the victim. Harry and Dumbledore would have left Hogwarts as they did in HBP, to go to the cave and find the locket Horcrux. All would have proceeded as it indeed did, only when they got back to school there would have been no DE assassination attempt. Nor, however would there be a Severus Snape to cure DD from the cursed potion. Even *before* Rosmerta stops DD and Harry in Hogsmeade, DD insists that he needs Snape, not Pomfrey: "We need to get you up to the school, sir Madam Pomfrey " "No," said Dumbledore. "It is Professor Snape whom I need but I do not think I can walk very far just yet " - HBP, The Lightning-Struck Tower, p542. DD may have died anyway, or, if Harry had thought quickly and Apparated him to St. Mungo's he may at least have been severely ill for a long while like Katie was. Additionally, the Order's most useful spy, in Voldemort's inner circle is unable to continue his duties because he's dead. The Order has by now had no foreknowledge of Voldemort's intentions for over six months, DD is dead/out of action in St. Mungo's (which has already failed to protect one of it's patients from murder), and Hogwarts is ripe for picking. But at least none of the children got hurt. Apart from Ron. And apart from whoever it was died as a result of Harry's sectumsempra - McLaggan, perhaps? And let's face it, killing a fellow student is *quite* likely to get Harry expelled ? but hey, he's off Horcrux- hunting anyway, right? Personally, I think Snape is a seriously useful chap to have around. Dung From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 19:43:39 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:43:39 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160162 > Dungrollin: > > Presumably after the Katie Bell incident, they should have detained > Draco (by force if necessary), interrogated him, destroyed the > vanishing cabinet in the RoR, and secreted him away somewhere along > with Narcissa (again, forcibly if necessary), thus activating the > vow. Snape, of course, should have magnanimously died, and it would > have been his own stupid fault. They give out the story that DD > killed both Draco and Snape in self-defence, after they revealed > themselves to be undercover agents of Voldemort and attempted to > assassinate him. Alla: Yeah, something like that :) I must say though that there is a possibility that UV is not activated right away, so even in this scenario that "seriously useful chap" still may have lived, but yes you got it mostly right. :) Dungrollin: > The consequences of this are quite interesting. > > Ron would have still been affected by a love potion and then > poisoned on his birthday. On the other hand, Harry wouldn't have had > the chance to test Sectumsempra out on Malfoy. However, I think we > could confidently say that he would *still* have tried it out. On > who, though? And Snape would have been too dead to save the victim. Alla: I do **not** share your confidence that Harry would have necessarily tried Sectusemptra. Yeah, he wanted to try out unknown curse, which was really stupid of him, but he does **not** trying it out even on Malfoy till he is forced to defend himself from Crucio, so for all I know if nobody wanted to try Crucio on Harry, he may have resisted his urge to try Sectusemptra and no Severus Snape had been needed. Dungrollin: > Harry and Dumbledore would have left Hogwarts as they did in HBP, to > go to the cave and find the locket Horcrux. All would have proceeded > as it indeed did, only when they got back to school there would have > been no DE assassination attempt. Nor, however would there be a > Severus Snape to cure DD from the cursed potion. Alla: Dumbledore may have thought that Snape will cure him from poison, but as we all know he did something quite contrary for whatever reasons, so as far as I am concerned they may have as well tried the usefullness of St. Mungo doctors as you are saying. Dungrollin: Additionally, the Order's most > useful spy, in Voldemort's inner circle is unable to continue his > duties because he's dead. The Order has by now had no foreknowledge > of Voldemort's intentions for over six months, Alla: And now of course Snape ( if he is indeed not a traitor) has plenty of people who trust him to pass the information to? Dung: > Personally, I think Snape is a seriously useful chap to have around. Alla: Okay :) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 22 20:27:31 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:27:31 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160163 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" wrote: Carol: > > Look at the Prophecy: "Neither can live while the other survives. > > ... I predict that, once Voldemort is defeated, Harry will deal > > with a temporary burst of fame ... and then settle down to the > > exciting but not extraordinary life of an Auror in > > training. Aussie: > Ugh. For Harry to be an Auror, he would have to go back and complete > his NEWTs at Hogwarts. That would mean an 8th book. Unfortunately, > there will only be 7 - > - Harry has to die Geoff: It doesn't mean that at all! JKR has told us that the last chapter of Book 7 will be an epilogue. That can cover a multitude of sins. Harry can be undertaking an Auror course - or even have finished it. He might have married Ginny although I still see him as a darkly handsome and inscrutable bachelor. It depends as to how far JKR projects her epilogue into the PVA (post-Voldemort era). From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Oct 22 20:42:08 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:42:08 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160164 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Both Draco and Snape need to be protected. The other students are > already protected by all possible means except destroying the > Vanishing Cabinet, which Dumbledore either can't do because he doesn't > know about it or won't do because he knows the consequences would be > worse than what happens on the tower. Quick_Silver: My problem with Dumbledore plan is basically highlighted by the fact that you say Dumbledore may not even have known about the Vanishing Cabinet. There's too many unknowns variable for my liking (although if Dumbledore and Snape were desperate I can see them doing it). For instance Dumbledore may or may not have known about the Vanishing Cabinet, he may or may not have known that Draco had Polyjuice Potion, he may or may not have known Borgin and Burkes was involved, and we don't know how much he knew about the Room of Requirement. I mean no one, not even Draco, expected Fenrir Greyback to join the raid yet he did some of the worst damage. What if Voldemort had decided to tag along? > And can someone please answer my question about why DD *chose* to fly > to the tower in his weakened state knowing that Draco would try to > kill him and the UV would be activated unless he knew he was dying, > knew or hoped that Draco would realize that he wasn't a killer, and > knew that Snape would have to kill him? Why, Alla and those who agree > with her, didn't he just stay at the Three Broomsticks, trusting the > Order to take care of things, and summon Snape ("I need Severus!") > with his Patronus? Quick_Silver: But at the top of the tower Dumbledore tells Harry to go get Snape again and stops Harry only after hearing foot steps coming to up the stairs. So IMO that implies Dumbledore still thought that he may have had a chance for Snape to heal/kill him while he was still in control of the situation (Dumbledore loses control when the DEs show up). Quick_Silver who doesn't disagree with how Dumbledore and Snape handled the situation but thinks they were hardly omnipresent during it From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 22 21:03:27 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:03:27 -0000 Subject: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Well the series must end on SOME note, and I think JKR would want it > to be as powerful a note as possible, mellow just wont do the job. > When people read the last page of the last book I think JKR would want > them to feel a bit stunned; readers will want to immediately reread > the last few pages to see if they really read what they thought they > had, they'll want to see if they missed something. Then they will just > stare at the book with dazed unfocused eyes. > As JKR said more than once if you decide to fight evil you must be > prepared to pay a very heavy price. And she's right, history shows > that evil men can be defeated, but the cost is high. pumpkinpastie18: > > Can you also imagine the huge public outcry > > that would happen if Harry met his maker > > in book seven? Eggplant: > Yes, if JKR kills Harry there will be riots in the streets, preachers > will denounce her, mental health professionals will get on TV and say > she's traumatized an entire generation. If JKR lets Harry live happily > ever after she will hear a loud collective yawn. As a writer the > choice would be a no-brainer, Harry is dead meat. Geoff: You know, having read several of your posts in the past, I get a very slight, vague, teensy-weensy feeling that you like murder, mayhem and blood flowing in the streets. Could this actually be true? If so, may I suggest that, to satisfy this strange craving, you turn on your television to the evening news each day. I am sure that your appetite will be sated there. :-)) For me, a little respite from the realities of Iraq, Afghanistan, speed cameras, council taxes, teen problems in the UK etc., involving a successful conclusion of Wizarding War II would be warmly welcomed. Long live the "willing suspension of disbelief". From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 21:22:38 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:22:38 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Family In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160166 > Pippin: > Increasingly endangered? The mead was far less dangerous than > the necklace. We are told that Katie could only be saved because > her contact with the necklace was so minimal. Ron, OTOH, could > have been saved by anyone with a bezoar handy, and if a bezoar > was not handy, a House Elf could have fetched one in a twinkling. a_svirn: And who would have fetched a house-elf if Harry, Ron and Slughorn had drunk simultaneously? Which is how stiff drinks are often drunk. Besides, I didn't mean to compare the respective deadliness of the necklace and the mead. I meant that it has become increasingly clear that Draco is not going to give up, and did not care how many people would die before he'd get Dumbledore. > Pippin: > I'm not sure what you mean by a more direct investigation. A > search of the RoR wouldn't have revealed anything because they > didn't know what they were looking for. Draco was questioned > and used occlumency to hide his thoughts. a_svirn: Draco wasn't "questioned". He was talked to. And very lame talk it was. By investigation I mean investigation. Continuous surveillance, questioning with and without veritaserum, with and without legillimecy, etc. And I don't think Draco is the only one who should have been questioned. Pressing chargers. Also, just because Harry couldn't figure out how to catch Draco red-handed in the room of requirement doesn't mean that Dumbledore couldn't. Or even Aurors if it comes to that. And last but not the least, what stopped Dumbledore from offering Draco the deal he offered him on the Tower? I honestly don't see Draco refusing it. It's one thing to hesitate when you have a whip hand, quite another when you are backed into a corner and suddenly offered a reprieve. > Pippin: > Um, usually when solving a problem one tries to reduce the > number of unknowns. At least Snape knows who Voldemort's > agent is. But if he wanted to, Voldemort could put the Imperius > curse on almost anyone and send them to do the task. This way > Snape knows who to watch, and even what to watch for -- the > arrival of backup. There is some canon that Dumbledore > knew where to watch as well. a_svirn: Is there? I'd say everything in canon points out to the opposite direction. You are certainly right about eliminating unknowns as a way of solving problem. The thing is, watching Draco didn't eliminate anything at all. They didn't know what Draco's plan was in the beginning of the year they still didn't have a clue in the end. As for other possible Voldemors agents, how did Dumbledore know that there weren't any? Moreover, Snape didn't exactly watch, did he? He tried to get in Draco's way, and generally annoyed him. That's not how surveillance works. Surveillance is what Harry did when assigned elves to shadow Draco unobtrusively. From vinkv002 at planet.nl Sun Oct 22 21:33:13 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:33:13 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160167 > Renee: > Why do you think > > that describing a choice between two evils (or maybe I should say, > two > > bad things) is the same as suggesting the dichotomy good-evil does > not > > exist? The fact that the choice is between evils, automatically > means > > there *is* such a thing as evil, I'd say. > > Alla: > > Just what I said previously - I think it is easy enough to loose > sight that the choice is between two evils that is all. Sorry, > struggling to explain it. > But most importantly, it would be quite cool if that was indeed > true, Dumbledore knowing that he is choosing between two evils, but > I am **not** sure at all that JKR means to show Dumbledore as > choosing between two evils. Renee: Well. Let's see. On the one hand we have a large body of students, some of whom may fall foul of another student's next amateurish attempt to murder his headmaster, and who deserve to be protected. Measures taken to this effect, culminating in a direct confrontation between the student and his Head of House, may not be enough to do so (though it has been argued that said confrontation had precisely this effect and it is very well possible that Dumbledore honestly believes this to be the case). On the other hand, we have 1) a lack of hard evidence that will make legal action very unlikely, which means that DD will have to resort to dubious means to restrain the adspirant murderer. (Does the end hallow the means? Would making DD acting out of character result in a better story?) 2) a student whose soul is in peril but who certainly will not see the light if he is forcefully restrained - any chance DD ever had to keep him from the wrong path, will be lost. 3) a possible new assassin may step in. Do you think Lucius Malfoy is the only deat-eating father of a student who failed Voldemort at the MoM? Identifying him/her will be a lot more difficult, assuming it's not Crabbe or Goyle... 4) if Draco is restrained, a very effective teacher and spy whom DD believes to play an important role in the war against Voldemort will either die, or feel forced to do Draco's job for him. He may even succeed, as DD is weakened by his destruction of the Ring Horcrux. Result: DD is dead, the students are in greater danger than they ever were from Draco, Draco himself may be found and killed anyway, Harry will not learn everything he needs to learn about the Horcruxes, Voldemort may not be vanquished at all and countless people will suffer. I can hardly blame Dumbledore for choosing the way he did, though I do believe he never stopped blaming himself (obvious guilt-feelings in the Cave). Alla: > I have a suspicion that JKR absolutely means to see Dumbledore's > choices in HBP as not choice between two evils, but choosing what is > right, you know? > > And by showing that Draco will go to the right side and Snape will > do something heroic ( no, I am not giving up "bad" Snape, hehe, I am > just pretty convinced that even if he is OFH or Evil, he will do > something selfless for once at the end), JKR will try to convince us > that everything that Dumbledore did in HBP was right, danger to > students does not really matter, if it makes sense? > > And that just does not sit with me well. :( Renee: It does not have to sit well. That's exactly the problem with choosing between two evils. No choice is truly satisfactory. DD's problem is that it is so damned difficult to know what is the right thing to chose (= the lesser evil) in this case, not that he does know what's right but prefers the easy way out. Of course the students matter (isn't there a scene where he gets very angry when someone suggests they don't - someone help me out, please?); he just decides that the other concerns matter more. I don't see how this would make him a moral failure. > > Renee: > > But can't you envisage a situation in which the only choice is > between > > two evils (or undesirable things, or whatever you want to call it) > Of > > course, if there is a third, better option, I'd expect the leader > to > > choose that. But this isn't always the case. > > Alla: > > Sure, **sometimes** I can, but I also think that very ** often** > this reasoning is used to justify the abandoning the third option, > because third **right** option is indeed much harder to go with, you > know? > > I have a feeling for example that executives of Elron had plenty of > justifications in their minds for doing what they did. Like maybe > they reasoned that their only choice would be to protect their > shareholders or to lose all their income or something like that? > > Does not mean that third option did not exist IMO. Renee: If you believe there was a third option in HBP, I'm curious to know what it was. And I really hope you're not comparing DD to the executives of Enron, for that would mean JKR has failed spectacularly to convey DD's moral stature and fundamentally benign intentions to you. Not that I think she's done a perfect job here, but as far as I'm concerned, she more or less succeeded to get her intentions across. Renee From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Oct 22 21:45:12 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:45:12 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160168 Renee: > All the same, I'd prefer him to live, and if the books are structured > according to the seven stages of alchemy (which I believe they are), > Harry will live, possibly after having undergone some kind of > symbolical death. Jen: Yes! Well said. I agree the books are structured according to the seven stages of alchemy and believe JKR has set up the possibility for a symbolic death with the introduction of the DOM. I immensely liked the moment when Harry realizes how the adults in his life stood before him one by one, protecting him as long as they could, but that in the end Harry must face his own fate. That's a lonely realization, the moment when childhood ends and adulthood begins. He's not the Boy Who Lived now, and no matter how clever the phrase, I don't think he'll be the Man Who Died, either (lol). JKR specifically points out his *illusions* died in that moment. Unlike the typical hero, Harry has been allowed to grow up and have more of a life than simply his quest. Like him or not, Dumbledore helped make that a possibility. Harry is meant for more of a life than his fateful last confrontation with Voldemort. Purity is for children and traditional literary heroes and Harry is neither. One last thought on HBP & alchemy. Harry said: "the last and greatest of his protectors had died and he was more alone than he had ever been before." (chap. 30, p.601, Bloomsbury). He's wrong though, the last and greatest of his protectors, the person Dumbledore would trust with his life, the most *unlikely* adult hero of the story, is still alive. According to the alchemical structure Hagrid will meet his end in Book 7, but I'm betting it won't be before he does something crucial to help Harry, possibly with Grawp by his side. (Sigh, I could do without Grawp.) Jen R., who always liked Hagrid but never saw his hero potential until recently. ;) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 21:49:53 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:49:53 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore/ Molly and Harry-Treated like Fa... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160169 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > >a_svirn: > In other words, while Magpie thinks that Dumbledore put the lives of > his staff and his students in jeopardy in order to save Draco, you [Carol] > think that he was trying to save Snape (with Draco as a side > project). I am not sure I agree that either of those gambles was > worth the price, since it was just dumb luck that no students died > as a result. > > >On the other hand, if Daco repented and came to Dumbledore, by the > conditions of the UV Snape *would* have to step in and kill > Dumbledore or die. Could it be that it was *this* situation > Dumbledore was trying to prevent, rather than the one you described? > Draco's conversion would have been as fatal for Dumbledore or Snape > as the direct confrontation. > > Nikkalmati: > > Either way, whether DD was trying to save Snape or Draco or both, it is not > SS and DM versus the students. If SS and/or DM are a vital part of the plan > to destroy LV, it is the lives of SS and DM (which includes the fate of the > entire WW, the students, their families, and the lives of future generations) > versus the possibility one or more students might die. This is war after > all. DD took whatever measures he could to protect the students after Katie was > attacked (and BTW they seem to have worked), but he was not willing to > chance the destruction of the WW at the hands of LV. Generals have to make these > decisions. a_svirn: I am not into utilitarianism myself. And frankly I will be much disappointed if Rowling's "moral message" will eventually boil down to "sacrifice some humans for the happiness of other humans" kind of statement. And generals, if it comes to that, "make these decisions" concerning their soldiers. When they "make these decisions" concerning civilians they are running risk to end up in the International Criminal Court in the Hague. But in any case I thought it was Harry who is vital to part of the plan, not Snape or even Dumbledore. From bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 21:20:58 2006 From: bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com (bridgetteakabiit) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:20:58 -0000 Subject: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160170 I am new to the list, and have some questions that have popped up while I have been reading the books. My main one is.. when Harry tells Dumbledore that Voldemort used His blood to return (Goblet of fire) Dumbledore smiles. Anyone have any idea what will come out of this in the end? There has to be something that Voldemort didn't know he did when he took Harry's blood. Even at the end of HBP, when Snape is escaping with the death eaters, he is still giving Harry hints...like letting him on to the fact that he (along with LV) can tell what spell Harry is going to do before he does it. So does that mean that Snape is truly on Dumbledore's side? I am convinced that killing Dumbledore was part of Dumbledore's plan anyway..he seems to know everything, and he always says there are things worse than death. And if Snape could tell what spell Harry was going to use before he did it, why couldn't Voldemort do that at the cemetery? Anyone have a guess as to how Snape redeemed himself and proved he was on the good side? Unbreakable vow maybe? (Just shooting in the dark.) Has anyone decided what the Horcruxes were (sorry if I spell things wrong, I don't have a book with me to look it up) 1. Diary 2. Locket (is it possibly the locket Sirius threw out?) 3. Ravenclaw's Goblet? 4. Snake 5. something from Hufflepuff/ Gryffindor? 6. Ring 7. Voldemort himself Is that right? Regulus is definitely talked about more times than need be in book 6, so I think he is RAB... Anyone else wondering how a 17 year old is going to fight and win Lord Voldemort? He sure has a lot to learn in book 7! What the heck was the significance of Snape being the Half Blooded Prince? I don't see why that was important to find out at all...but maybe it will be explained later. I read where 2 more characters die in book 7. Anyone has any idea? I wonder if this is including that obviously, either LV or HP has to die... I just can't imagine HP living..since it would be way too obvious.... So is there a definite date on the release date of book 7? I can't wait to see how JKR ties everything together..she is so good at that. I know I have tons of other questions, but that is all I can think of for now.. thanks, bridgette From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Oct 22 21:57:59 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:57:59 -0000 Subject: Squibs... In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610201140pbaaf0b7xb25c27f3a16279d6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160171 Random832 wrote: > > JKR has said that you either are magical or you're not, there's no > "magical, but not magical enough" middle ground. The only difference > between a squib and any other muggle is that their parents are > wizards. Abergoat adds: I think Kate's question is great though, because I think JKR has been clear on the point that a squib requires TWO magical parents. A magical and non-magical parent mix might be more likely to produce magical children (per JKR) but it isn't impossible for them to have a muggle, and that muggle would not be a 'squib'. So Tobias Snape may have had one magical parent. Abergoat From bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 21:24:03 2006 From: bridgetteakabiit at yahoo.com (bridgetteakabiit) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 21:24:03 -0000 Subject: Splitting of soul Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160172 It was explained that a wizard splits their soul every time they commit a murder. It made it sound like the soul was split whether or not it was contained in a horcrux. So does that mean that Voldemort's soul was split each time he killed...so it is divided more than the 7 times? That part confused me. Bridgette From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 22:09:51 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:09:51 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160173 > Dungrollin: > > Presumably after the Katie Bell incident, they should have detained > Draco (by force if necessary), interrogated him, destroyed the > vanishing cabinet in the RoR, and secreted him away somewhere along > with Narcissa (again, forcibly if necessary), thus activating the > vow. Snape, of course, should have magnanimously died, and it would > have been his own stupid fault. They give out the story that DD > killed both Draco and Snape in self-defence, after they revealed > themselves to be undercover agents of Voldemort and attempted to > assassinate him. > > The consequences of this are quite interesting. > > Ron would have still been affected by a love potion and then > poisoned on his birthday. a_svirn: What has the love potion to do with anything? The mead wasn't the antidote, it was just a tonic. >On the other hand, Harry wouldn't have had > the chance to test Sectumsempra out on Malfoy. However, I think we > could confidently say that he would *still* have tried it out. On > who, though? a_svirn: On whom indeed? Do you think someone else would have tried an unforgivable on Harry? > Nor, however would there be a > Severus Snape to cure DD from the cursed potion. a_svirn: Which is neither here no there, since Snape never got around of curing him anyway. > But at least none of the children got hurt. > Personally, I think Snape is a seriously useful chap to have around. a_svirn: More useful than a bunch of children that's for sure. Thank Merlin Dumbledore got his priorities straight. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 22 22:42:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 22:42:30 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160174 > > Alla: >> > But most importantly, it would be quite cool if that was indeed > > true, Dumbledore knowing that he is choosing between two evils, but > > I am **not** sure at all that JKR means to show Dumbledore as > > choosing between two evils. > > Renee: > Well. Let's see. > > On the one hand we have a large body of students, some of whom may > fall foul of another student's next amateurish attempt to murder his > headmaster, and who deserve to be protected. Measures taken to this > effect, culminating in a direct confrontation between the student and > his Head of House, may not be enough to do so (though it has been > argued that said confrontation had precisely this effect and it is > very well possible that Dumbledore honestly believes this to be the > case). Alla: I just realised that am geting confused - why are we arguing that Dumbledore have to choose between two evils here in the first place? Protecting students seems to be be the **right** thing to do to me, not necessary evil. Renee: > On the other hand, we have > 1) a lack of hard evidence that will make legal action very unlikely, > which means that DD will have to resort to dubious means to restrain > the adspirant murderer. (Does the end hallow the means? Would making > DD acting out of character result in a better story?) > 2) a student whose soul is in peril but who certainly will not see the > light if he is forcefully restrained - any chance DD ever had to keep > him from the wrong path, will be lost. Alla: Yes, I said several times before that I do get the "saving Draco's soul" story that JKR seems to be telling and I also said that this only works for me if I pretend that other students do not exist :) But why everybody is so sure that Draco would be refusing the deal? It is what a_svirn said upthread if Dumbledore corners Draco, forcibly, yes, I think poor dear will survive that, if he signed up for murders and all that, who says that he will refuse that deal necessarily? Maybe Dumbledore indeed can get him to the breaking point where he will accept? Renee: > 3) a possible new assassin may step in. Do you think Lucius Malfoy is > the only deat-eating father of a student who failed Voldemort at the > MoM? Identifying him/her will be a lot more difficult, assuming it's > not Crabbe or Goyle... Alla: Of course not, but Malfoys seem to be the family against whom Voldemort wants revenge, so I am not sure that Voldemort will have a new assassin ready right away, but well, they will deal with it if it comes, I think they should deal with danger at head first. IMO. Renee: > 4) if Draco is restrained, a very effective teacher and spy whom DD > believes to play an important role in the war against Voldemort will > either die, or feel forced to do Draco's job for him. He may even > succeed, as DD is weakened by his destruction of the Ring Horcrux. Alla: Um, you do know, that considerations of Snape safety, life and liberty matters significantly less for me than even Draco's? ;) Considering what I used to feel about Draco, that is very telling. :) It is funny, because while I want Snape suffer very very much, while I was not moved by Draco's going to pieces in book 6 and used to think that his possible redemption would not touch me either, when I think about it, it seems to me that JKR satisfied my bloodfirstiness about little git in HBP and maybe, just maybe she will touch me a little bit with his story in book 7. Funny indeed. Renee: > Result: DD is dead, the students are in greater danger than they ever > were from Draco, Draco himself may be found and killed anyway, Harry > will not learn everything he needs to learn about the Horcruxes, > Voldemort may not be vanquished at all and countless people will suffer. Alla: That is certainly one of the possibilities you portrayed. Can I suggest something less grim? :) Draco accepts Dumbledore's protection offer because by that time he realises that murder attempts do upset his sensitive soul or maybe he just does not want to die and does not want his family to die from the Voldemort's hand and is being protected by the order in the safe place. Snape is not able to kill Dumbledore and dies, but Dumbledore is alive and well, Harry learns about Horcruxes from him and they do continue to search for **all** of them together, Harry is not stuck in the middle of the way, because Dumbledore is dead, courtesy of his most effective spy? And they live happily ever after, all but Snape :) > Renee: > If you believe there was a third option in HBP, I'm curious to know > what it was. And I really hope you're not comparing DD to the > executives of Enron, for that would mean JKR has failed spectacularly > to convey DD's moral stature and fundamentally benign intentions to you. > > Not that I think she's done a perfect job here, but as far as I'm > concerned, she more or less succeeded to get her intentions across. Alla: No, I do not, this was just first RL example that jumped on me. I wanted to suggest something related to my job, but did not want to go into specifics, but no I like Dumbledore better than that and as to third option, as I said - I do not think it was really needed. Dungrollin: > > Personally, I think Snape is a seriously useful chap to have > around. > > a_svirn: > More useful than a bunch of children that's for sure. Thank Merlin > Dumbledore got his priorities straight. > Alla: LOLOL. Indeed. JMO, Alla From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Oct 22 22:55:36 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:55:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and Dumbledore LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160175 Dungrollin: > > Personally, I think Snape is a seriously useful chap to have > around. > > a_svirn: > More useful than a bunch of children that's for sure. Thank Merlin > Dumbledore got his priorities straight. > Sherry: grin. Oh yes, I'd always want a cowardly, cold blooded murderer around when times are tough. The first thing I'd think of in a pinch. Sorry, but I count the lives of the school full of children far, far more important than the murderer's life. Sherry From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 22 23:23:25 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:23:25 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160176 > Dungrollin: On the other hand, Harry wouldn't have had the chance to test Sectumsempra out on Malfoy. However, I think we could confidently say that he would *still* have tried it out. On who, though? And Snape would have been too dead to save the victim. > > Alla: > > I do **not** share your confidence that Harry would have necessarily tried Sectusemptra. Yeah, he wanted to try out unknown curse, which was really stupid of him, but he does **not** trying it out even on Malfoy till he is forced to defend himself from Crucio, so for all I know if nobody wanted to try Crucio on Harry, he may have resisted his urge to try Sectusemptra and no Severus Snape had been needed. > Dungrollin: "Harry ignored her. He had just found an incantation (Sectumsempra!) scrawled in a margin above the intriguing words 'For Enemies', and was itching to try it out, but thought it best not to in front of Hermione. Instead, he surreptitiously folded down the corner of the page." - HBP The Unknowable Room p419(UK) "Harry was about to put his book away again whe he noticed the corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra spell, captioned 'For Enemies', that he had marked a few weeks previously. he had still not found out what it did, mainly because he did not want to test it around Hermione, but he was considering trying it out on McLaggen next time he came up behind him unawares." - HBP Sectumsempra p484 (UK) It's a mere four and a half pages after this that he uses the spell on Malfoy. And the main reason he hadn't tried it out yet was that he didn't want to do it in front of Hermione. Yeah, I'm fairly confident he'd have tried it out on someone like McLaggan, though perhaps not *in the back*, the way he considers doing in the second quote. > Dungrollin: > Additionally, the Order's most > > useful spy, in Voldemort's inner circle is unable to continue his duties because he's dead. The Order has by now had no > foreknowledge of Voldemort's intentions for over six months, > > Alla: > > And now of course Snape ( if he is indeed not a traitor) has plenty of people who trust him to pass the information to? > Dung: You miss my point. I'm saying that in HBP there is over six months between Snape's talking to Draco and the Tower during which time Snape and Dumbledore are aware of Voldy's plan and what his goal is. If that plan were to be foiled by apprehending Draco (killing Snape, Draco is 'killed on paper' and smuggled away) Voldy would move on to a new plan, and DD wouldn't have a spy in Voldy's inner circle to tell him what that plan was (as he did in HBP and OotP). He'd be working in the dark for the last six months (15 chapters) of HBP. As it happened in HBP, they could be fairly certain that while Draco was under orders to kill DD, that was where they needed to concentrate their attention, and Snape was always around with news. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know. Do you see what I mean? From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Sun Oct 22 23:47:05 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:47:05 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160177 > Dungrollin: > > > Personally, I think Snape is a seriously useful chap to have > > around. > > > > a_svirn: > > More useful than a bunch of children that's for sure. Thank Merlin Dumbledore got his priorities straight. > > > Sherry: > grin. Oh yes, I'd always want a cowardly, cold blooded murderer around when times are tough. The first thing I'd think of in a pinch. Sorry, but I count the lives of the school full of children far, far more important than the murderer's life. > Dungrollin: I know this is a waste of time, but you have all spectacularly missed the point I was making, which was that *having Snape around* saves lives. Three, in fact, over the course of HBP. DD, Katie and Malfoy. And if Harry had tried out Sectumsempra on McLaggen, Snape would have saved his life too. Because even if Snape *is* ESE, while he thinks that DD trusts him, he is *compelled* to be helpful and to save lives in order to keep his cover. It is better for that "bunch of schoolchildren" that Snape is around to save them from each other when things go wrong. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 22 23:54:45 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:54:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <012201c6f635$7f6df510$268c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160178 > Dungrollin: > It's a mere four and a half pages after this that he uses the spell > on Malfoy. And the main reason he hadn't tried it out yet was that > he didn't want to do it in front of Hermione. > > Yeah, I'm fairly confident he'd have tried it out on someone like > McLaggan, though perhaps not *in the back*, the way he considers > doing in the second quote. Magpie: Reading the book the first time I knew which spell Harry was trying out and knew he couldn't try it out because of that. Had he tried it out on McLaggan he would have just nicked him, more like Snape did to James. The only reason it's so gruesome on Malfoy is because they're fighting and Harry waves his wand "wildly" and casts the spell in desperation. So I'd have to say I don't think the spell was a danger without Malfoy. Harry would have hurt McClaggen, but in a small way that showed him how vicious the spell was. Carol: I agree with Pippin (and Magpie) that we see Draco slowly growing up during this year (although I see it more as an understanding of what death really means than the development of compassion or higher ethical standards), Magpie: This was a while ago but I wanted a chance to say I think you are right about the development being in an understanding of what death means--this could be the first step to being able to develop compassion or ethical standards, but not sure whether those things are really something he could be consciously thinking about in HBP. Even if they entered his mind I don't think he'd be able to allow himself to think on those terms in the book. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 23 00:02:46 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:02:46 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160179 > Alla: > > That is certainly one of the possibilities you portrayed. Can I > suggest something less grim? :) > > Draco accepts Dumbledore's protection offer because by that time he > realises that murder attempts do upset his sensitive soul or maybe > he just does not want to die and does not want his family to die > from the Voldemort's hand and is being protected by the order in the > safe place. Pippin: But as you yourself admit, that is only one of the options, the others being that Draco stonewalls Dumbledore just as he stonewalled Snape, or that he tries to attack and forces Snape to fulfill the vow. Dumbledore believes that if he reveals that he knows Draco is trying to kill him, Voldemort will kill Draco. But it isn't Draco alone who might die in that case. Voldemort isn't particular about collateral damage. And if indeed Draco escapes,Voldemort is likely to want vengeance on some other student instead. You seem to forget that it is Voldemort, not Dumbledore or even Draco, who has chosen to make war on children. The third option will put either Dumbledore or Snape out of action, and while you may think that Snape is small loss, it's clear that Dumbledore thinks the students would be in more danger without him. Say that Dumbledore thinks the students' chances of surviving an attack are 100 to 1 if Snape is around and only 50 to 1 if he isn't. Then getting rid of Snape doubles the danger to the students, and Dumbledore needs to protect Snape so that Snape can protect the students. So two of the three options will put the student body in greater danger, from Dumbledore's point of view and there is no certainty as to which one Draco will pick. His choices earlier in the book would not inspire confidence in his ability to discern the safe or reasonable path. Dumbledore could not have put your plan into action without gambling students' lives to an even greater extent. Snape does tell Draco that he is suspected and that there will be consequences if any attacks are traced to him. I don't think Snape needed to say any more. Draco was plenty imaginitive enough to realize that he was being observed (Filch had just caught him). Alla: And of course Houses are likely be united, etc, I just not sure what it has to do with letting wanna be assasin run around the school. Pippin: Draco has shown, ingenuity, determination, and the leadership skills to persuade a pair of young toughs to be seen in public disguised as little girls. Who else could persuade the Slytherins they need to be united? Alla: Well, if saying **I am sorry** means whining , then yes, I want him to do that. Pippin: Ah, this could be a cultural difference. Some people, especially women, are socialized to say they are sorry for things that are not their fault as a way of indicating compassion, "I'm sorry it's raining on your birthday." Guys, not so much. They'll say, "Hey, it's tough that it's raining on your birthday." If you have been trained this way, then the other style can sound like fishing for reassurance or extreme arrogance. Dumbledore would not want to sound insecure or arrogant in front of Harry. Pippin From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 00:07:48 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 00:07:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160180 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 23, Horcruxes The chapter opens with Harry returning to the Castle, having obtained Slughorn's memory. He is the victim of a joke from the Fat Lady who is annoyed over the lateness of his return. During the course of his mock argument with the Fat Lady a voice (of Nearly Headless Nick) informs him that Dumbledore is in residence. Nick has heard this from the Bloody Baron who was indulged in his favourite pastime atop the Astronomy Tower. Nick also comments that Dumbledore had business to attend to before turning in. (Qs. 1,2,3) After Harry has been alerted to Dumbledore's return he makes straight for Dumbledore's office to inform him about having obtained Slughorn's memory. With no preliminary discussion, except for some congratulations, the memory is emptied into the Pensieve whereupon Harry and Dumbledore enter the memory. The scene in the Pensieve is as in Chapter 17 - A Sluggish Memory, that is the interior of Slughorn's study with half a dozen teenage boys sitting around with Uncle Horace, one of whom is Tom Riddle. The conversation is repeated as earlier, beginning with the preamble of Professor Merrythought retiring. There is a small alteration in that in the earlier version Slughorn's wagging finger is sugar-covered whereas in the later no sugar covering is mentioned. (Q4) We then come to the previously fogged portion of the memory. Slughorn praises Tom and predicts he would go far, particularly if he allowed Uncle Horace to give a nudge to those in the right places and continued to supply liberal quantities of pineapple. During this portion Harry notices, as he hadn't at any point in the earlier version, that Tom was not the eldest of the group. (Q5) The conversation then continues as per the earlier version until Tom asks what Slughorn knows about Horcruxes. Slughorn explains what a Horcrux is, after some prodding, in a manner described as rather excited. Harry is reminded during the course of the description of a portion of Lord Voldemort's speech in the graveyard at Little Hangleton in GoF where he had described how he had felt the night he had been parted from his body. (Qs.6, 7) Tom goes on to ask how a Horcrux is made and Slughorn explains that the act of murder causes the soul to split so that a Horcrux could be formed from the split. He then professes ignorance of the spell needed to actually create a Horcrux. He is, throughout the latter part of the conversation, described as becoming increasingly uneasy, but he nevertheless answers as fully as he is able. The conversation then wraps up with talk of multiple Horcruxes, pointedly the number seven, and an injunction not to discuss what they have talked about with anybody else due to the subject being banned at Hogwarts. (Qs. 8,9) As soon as Harry and Dumbledore leave the Pensieve they begin to discuss Horcruxes under the keen attention of all the portraits in Dumbledore's office. Dumbledore starts by commenting that the memory confirms a theory he had been working on, that being that Voldemort intended to create seven soul pieces. The impression is given that Dumbledore knows an awful lot about Horcruxes to the point of being aware that no book would be able to inform a reader of whether multiple Horcruxes would be viable. (Q10) Dumbledore goes on to explain that the first definite proof he received that Lord Voldemort had split his soul was after the climactic events of CoS when Harry destroyed the Diary Horcrux. He also states that as many questions were raised as were answered by his revelation. One of these was why Lord Voldemort had treated the Diary Horcrux in a seemingly slapdash manner and Dumbledore offers an explanation why in that one purpose of the Diary was to lead to the opening of the Chamber of Secrets. Dumbledore also comments on Voldemort's seemingly careless treatment of the Diary Horcrux, concluding that there were likely multiple Horcruxes. There follows a discussion of why Lord Voldemort would choose Horcruxes over other potential methods of prolonging his life or attaining immortality with particular emphasis on the merits and demerits of a Philosopher's Stone. (Q11) Next, Harry and Dumbledore review what they know regarding the status of Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes. Dumbledore says he has destroyed the Ring Horcrux and Harry the Diary Horcrux. Dumbledore describes how and where he found the Ring Horcrux without mentioning what the curse on it was what withered his arm. Dumbledore states that they must infer from what they know that four Horcruxes remain to be found and destroyed. (Q12) The two speculate on what the remaining Horcruxes may be with Dumbledore stating that his view is that the Horcruxes would be contained in objects of great significance to Lord Voldemort or of especial magic power. As definite contenders Harry suggests Hufflepuff's Cup and Slytherin's Locket as stolen from Hepzibah Smith. Dumbledore tentatively agrees with this assessment and goes on to say that it would be likely Lord Voldemort would want to obtain relics owned by either Ravenclaw or Gryffindor to encase further Horcruxes. At this point Dumbledore categorically states that the only known relic of Godric Gryffindor is the ruby-encrusted sword in one of his cabinets. The upshot of this tranche of the discussion is that Dumbledore concludes that Lord Voldemort obtained two, and possibly three, relics linked to the founders, but seems confident that he did not obtain one from each. (Q13) In the final piece of speculation, Dumbledore postulates that Nagini is a Horcrux. He explains that it is unwise to use a sentient being to house a Horcrux but contends that Nagini has a special position in Lord Voldemort's affections. Dumbledore believes that at the time of the killing of Harry's parents Voldemort was one short of his target of six and that the intended death of Harry was to be used to create his last Horcrux. Given that he was short of his target of six Horcruxes Dumbledore speculates Lord Voldemort later used Frank Bryce's death to create the final one. Dumbledore also states his view that Lord Voldemort reserved the making of his Horcruxes to coincide with particularly significant deaths. (Q14) The two {then} summarise their theory that there were six Horcruxes of which two had been destroyed and that the remaining four are Hufflepuff's Cup, Slytherin's Locket, Nagini and something of either Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's. (Q15) Dumbledore now comes to his revelation that he is close to locating a further Horcrux. He agrees that if he is correct then Harry can accompany him to find and destroy it, which draws disapproval (to say the least) from the headmasters and headmistresses. Harry asks whether Lord Voldemort would be aware of the destruction of a Horcrux and Dumbledore answers that he thinks he would not be. He supports this by describing Lord Voldemort's rage on finding that the Diary had been destroyed and the Horcrux contained within also destroyed. While discussing the Diary and its loss Dumbledore confirms that the Diary was intended to be deployed, but not at the time it was. He also states that Lucius Malfoy wanted to use it only to discredit Arthur Weasley after Lucius apprehended that Lord Voldemort was dead and not coming back. (Q16) The conversation now turns to whether Lord Voldemort could be killed if the Horcruxes were destroyed with Dumbledore obfuscating a little but cagily saying that he believes he could be. Harry, having heard Dumbledore's view, quite honestly says that he has no special power, at which point Dumbledore repeats his oft stated view that Harry has the power of love (TM) whereas Lord Voldemort does not and indeed is incapable of understanding love and its power. (Q17) Dumbledore explains that the Prophecy is only coming to pass due to Lord Voldemort's belief in prophecies and Harry's inured hatred of Lord Voldemort from his having murdered Harry's parents. The tools Harry possesses to fight with Lord Voldemort have been partially bestowed on him by Lord Voldemort himself. Dumbledore reminds Harry that he has remained pure of heart and retained the ability to love, indeed Lord Voldemort should be aware of this power from the time Harry stared into the Mirror of Erised and only saw his family. (Q18) Harry asserts that of course he wants Lord Voldemort finished and that he wants to be the one to do it. Harry's final thoughts refer to his new understanding of the task ahead and why it must be he who carries out the same with his insight into the difference between being dragged into a fight and stepping up of one's own free will. 1. Given that Harry, in the course of the series, has often turned up late to the Gryffindor Tower without a real complaint from the Fat Lady, why do you think she is so liverish in this instance? 2. Do you think there is any significance in the Astronomy Tower being the Bloody Baron's favourite haunt (pun intended) when it is also later the scene of Dumbledore's death? 3. What other business would you think Dumbledore had to attend to after midnight on a school night, as alluded to by Nick? 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions perhaps a clue to something? 5. This segment of his memory, although perhaps embarrassing and no longer a view that Slughorn holds, does not appear to do any harm to Slughorn, unlike the later part regarding Horcruxes, so why do you think he covered up this portion from his fogged memory? 6. Why would Uncle Horace become excited when describing Horcruxes? 7. Was Tom Riddle initially listening to information he already possessed, or did he have no knowledge of Horcruxes at all prior to this conversation? 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions when he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, was it more than just a natural conversation in other words? 9. Without going too deeply into the nature of Horcruxes, as that aspect has been discussed almost ad nauseam, do you think Voldemort actually has or had seven soul pieces, six of which are or were Horcruxes? 10. How had Dumbledore acquired his knowledge of Horcruxes and why was it such thorough knowledge? 11. Did Lord Voldemort treat the Diary Horcrux carelessly as Dumbledore suggests or is there more to its destruction than initially met the eye? 12. Would you agree that there are four Horcruxes to find, and if not why not? 13. As far as I recall the Sorting Hat was whipped from the head of Godric Gryffindor (with the implication nthat it was his), so why would Dumbledore not at least make a mention of this? 14. Do you agree with Dumbledore that Nagini is a Horcrux and if so did he conclude this when consulting his machine in OotP or from some other source? 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? 16. Do you agree that Lord Voldemort is unaware when a Horcrux is destroyed and if so, and given that he knows of the loss of the Diary Horcrux, do you think he would create another? 17. Why does Dumbledore not categorically say that Lord Voldemort could be killed if his Horcruxes are destroyed, but only that it will take uncommon skill and power to kill him? 18. Lord Voldemort is said to be a powerful and gifted wizard so why would he set such store by the Prophecy? Goddlefrood with thanks to Shorty Elf for assigning this to him and Speedy Elf for assistance with the flow of the post. NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 23 00:38:00 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:38:00 EDT Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONGish Message-ID: <404.3aaac4.326d68e8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160181 In a message dated 10/22/2006 3:03:17 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com writes: > Carol responds: > That would be like murdering Snape, whom > Dumbledore and the students need, whether Harry knows it or not, or so > Dumbledore firmly believes (and so do I). *If* that view is correct, > how could Dumbledore possibly risk activating the UV by confronting an > unready and unrepentant (but terrified) Draco? Alla: Well, that is the crux, isn't it? You seem to think that Dumbledore's main objective should be keeping Snape alive, right? Because he needs Snape that badly, correct? Julie: I don't want to speak for Carol, but I also made a similar argument, and I don't think either of us stated that Dumbledore's main objective should be keeping Snape alive. So that's not the crux. Dumbledore's main objective was to keep *everyone* involved alive IMO--the innocent children at Hogwarts, and Snape and Draco. My argument (and Carol's I think) is that Dumbledore had ALREADY ensured the students' safety by having Snape dissuade Draco from using any further indirect methods like the necklace, and by installing the Order to protect the students just in case the DEs *did* somehow get into Hogwarts. Which left Snape, who would remain alive and fine up until the moment Draco finally made another and more direct attempt on Dumbledore's life, and Draco, who could only be saved at that precise moment when he realized he didn't have it in him to kill a defenseless Dumbledore, not even to save his parents and himself. A moment that would have to be a direct confrontation, one Dumbledore was sure he could win. Certainly Dumbledore played it so he could save them all, rather than sacrificing Snape and perhaps Draco by confining Draco, but in this process the rest of the students were never again in danger (after the necklace and mead attempts). I have to assume you are arguing that this installation of the Order at Hogwarts, and the resulting fact that no students were attacked when the DEs invaded (except those students who *chose* to fight the DEs), is NOT sufficient enough evidence that Dumbledore took the protection of the students very seriously indeed and did not sacrifice their safety for the well-being of Snape and Draco? If that is your reason, then I'm sure you won't be dissuaded, because none of us can know what was in Dumbledore's mind. The best we can do is take the results (no innocent students attacked) and infer from that Dumbledore's intent (to protect them fully). And while it's true one can't really prove a negative (no one attacked=no danger), it's still a perfectly reasonable assumption from the facts. Or one can choose to assume it was blind luck, that Dumbledore didn't really do so much, and the DEs were fortunately too incompetent to get to the students (whom they didn't appear interested in anyway, I might note, something Dumbledore may have also expected). Which you can't disprove either. It all again comes down to the way one *wants* to see Dumbledore, I think. You can give him the benefit of the doubt (as I do), or not. But what you cannot do is show any conclusive evidence that Dumbledore took the safety of his students lightly, or that he valued Snape's and Draco's safety more. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 23 01:16:54 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 01:16:54 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160182 > --- "eyemlynn" (Lynn) wrote: > > > > I am ...wondering how much of a role Krum will play. I > > would think the international community would play a > > large role considering how much time was devoted to it > > in GOF. > > > > bboyminn: > > I believe JKR said in interviews that Krum would be back > ... I suspect ... Krum will ...drive Hermione into the > arms of Ron, once and for all... I think he will just be > one more friendly and positive person on Harry's side. > > Becca: > I'm not sure if Krum will show up again or not. I would think that if he does, it would be as a spy - given that Durmstrang is such a hotbed of Dark Arts. So he might use his former relationship with Hermione to get to Harry (as a bad guy), or (more likely, IMO) he might spy on the bad guys for the good guys (perhaps taking Snape's presumed] old job.) AUSSIE NOW: Sorry. Becca came up with some good points I wanted to add into boymin's post. LV hid his Horcruxes around places meaningful in his past, and he went to Europe. Chances are, Krum may help discover a hidden Horcrux in Bulgaria or some place. > > Lynn's question: > > Also the Creevey brothers. I feel that they may also > > play a part in the conclusion. > > > > > bboyminn: > As to the Creevey Brothers, I swore up and down that > they would fill the vacant roles on the Quidditch team > and that spending this new time with Harry would mellow > their relationship with him. As it turned out, that > seems to have happened in the DA Club. Certainly, they > are still impressed with Harry, but are not as fanatically > hyper about it. > > As to the Creevey Brother's future, I find myself > speculating that Voldemort will attempt and temporarily > succeed at taking over Hogwarts. I've said many times > that this IS THE MOST CRITICALLY STRATEGIC TARGET in the > wizard world. In a sense, by holding Hogwarts and it's > students hostage, Voldemort can attempt to force the > Wizard World to surrender. > > Naturally, Harry and his friends do not quite surrender > so easily. To regain Hogwarts Harry is going to need > trusted and reliable friends inside and outside the > castle. That's where the DA Club members and the House- > Elves come into play. > Aussie: Voldy's goal for Hogwarts is the same as Slytherins - no Muggles taught there. So if You-Know-Poo takes over the school, the Creevey brothers will be targets that shoot back. They will return to Hogwarts easier than others since their muggle parents would not be so aware of the dangers. Being DA members, they may lead the charge against attackers. > > Becca: > I think that any further international intrigue will come via Charlie Weasley. He really hasn't gotten his day in the sun, and I sure hope that he does! Aussie: Charlie was asked to be recruiting foreign Wizards. (I was wondering how JKR would bring some aussies into canon - WOMBATS Rule!) I would also like to see a flying armada with Norbert carrying Hagrid into battle. aussie (well, I can dream, can't I?) From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 23 02:09:56 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:09:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes (Qs: 2,4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160183 > 2. Do you think there is any significance in the Astronomy Tower > being the Bloody Baron's favourite haunt (pun intended) when it is > also later the scene of Dumbledore's death? Aussie: Definately! The Bloody Baron's relationship to Slytherin or anyone else has been kept secret for a long time. To see an ancestral link to LV would bring the Hogwart Ghosts into the upcoming battle, too. > > 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the > description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions > perhaps a clue to something? Aussie: Were the pinapple pieces laced with something? That would explain the knowing looks going on between the students and Tom. Maybe Uncle Horace was the victim of one of his own potions, allowing him to talk more freely. > > 6. Why would Uncle Horace become excited when describing Horcruxes? Aussie: He is still a Slytherin. It is extremely Dark Magic > > 7. Was Tom Riddle initially listening to information he already > possessed, or did he have no knowledge of Horcruxes at all prior > to this conversation? Aussie: Tom had already killed his father and grandparents by this scene, and framed his uncle for it. He may have been encoraged to do that by the Dark Wizard of that era, Grindlewald, just as Draco was directed later by LV. Tom may have heard of Horcruxes mentioned, and knew what it was for, but I don't think he would have gone to the trouble of pineapple, etc, if he knew as much as Slughorn. > > 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions > when he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, > was it more than just a natural conversation in other words? Aussie: A bit of 2 earlier questions. Pineapple laced with potion, and Slughorn (being a Slytherin) enjoys power from Dark Magic. > > 9. Without going too deeply into the nature of Horcruxes, as that > aspect has been discussed almost ad nauseam, do you think > Voldemort actually has or had seven soul pieces, six of which are > or were Horcruxes? Aussie: Without going too deep?-Yes: 7 is LV's goal for immortality. Although, Harry would still make a better Horcrux than Frank. > > 10. How had Dumbledore acquired his knowledge of Horcruxes and why > was it such thorough knowledge? Aussie: That may be how he defeated the Dark Wizard, Grindlewald in 1945 .... about the time Tom was leaving Hogwarts. That would also explain why Dumbledore made that a forbidden topic at that time. > > 11. Did Lord Voldemort treat the Diary Horcrux carelessly as > Dumbledore suggests or is there more to its destruction than > initially met the eye? Aussie: LV didn't have the chance to get back into Hogwarts, nor the Chamber, since making that Diary - It was Malfoy who was careless with it. > > 12. Would you agree that there are four Horcruxes to find, and if > not why not? Aussie: Agreed. The locket was taken by RAB, but not destroyed (MHO) > > 14. Do you agree with Dumbledore that Nagini is a Horcrux and if > so did he conclude this when consulting his machine in OotP or > from some other source? Aussie: If Horcruxes can be transfered from one vessel to another, then living creatures can house Horcruxes too. Given Harry's dream experience attacking Arthur from the snake's view point, that would support the idea. > > 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the > summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that > Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? Aussie: HBP is drawing all the strings of plots together ready for a grand finalle. This type of summary is helpful to move towards that goal and not make the Harry Potter series into a soap opera. > > 16. Do you agree that Lord Voldemort is unaware when a Horcrux is > destroyed and if so, and given that he knows of the loss of the > Diary Horcrux, do you think he would create another? Aussie: Agree that he is unaware of Horcrux's destruction. I doubt he can make an 8th to replace one of the 7. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 02:49:47 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 02:49:47 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160184 > > Alla: > > > > I do **not** share your confidence that Harry would have > necessarily tried Sectusemptra. > Dungrollin: > "Harry ignored her. He had just found an incantation (Sectumsempra!) > scrawled in a margin above the intriguing words 'For Enemies', and > was itching to try it out, but thought it best not to in front of > Hermione. Instead, he surreptitiously folded down the corner of the > page." > - HBP The Unknowable Room p419(UK) > > "Harry was about to put his book away again whe he noticed the > corner of a page folded down; turning to it, he saw the Sectumsempra > spell, captioned 'For Enemies', that he had marked a few weeks > previously. he had still not found out what it did, mainly because > he did not want to test it around Hermione, but he was considering > trying it out on McLaggen next time he came up behind him unawares." > - HBP Sectumsempra p484 (UK) > > It's a mere four and a half pages after this that he uses the spell > on Malfoy. And the main reason he hadn't tried it out yet was that > he didn't want to do it in front of Hermione. Alla: I think that if he indeed wanted to try Sectusemptra **that** badly and he certainly wishes to try it out ( do not know, maybe his subconscious sort of stops him temporarily or something), he would have tried it out **right away** when he sees Malfoy. What do we see instead? "Malfoy wheeled around, drawing his wand. Instinctively, Harry pulled out his own. Malfoy's hex missed Harry by inches, shattering the lamp on the wall beside him; Harry threw himself sideways, thought Levicorpus! and flicked his wand, but Malfoy blocked the jinx and raised his wand for another - "No!No!Stop it!" squealed Moaning Murtle, her voice echoing loudly around the tilted room. "Stop. STOP!" There was a loud bang and the bin behind Harry exploded; Harry attempted a Leg Locker Curse that backfired off the wall behind Malfoy's ear and smashed the cistern beneath Moaning Murtle, who screamed loudly; water poured everywhere and Harry slipped as Malfoy, his face contorted,cried, "Cruci--" "SECTUSEMPTRA" belowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand widly" - HBP, am.ed., p.522, paperback. So, Harry defends himself with two hexes, which are really quite harmless, no? And he only uses sectusemptra when he is slipping and wet and on the floor. I do not know, Harry indeed seemed awfully eager to try it out when he was thinking about it, but when it came to action, he does not do it except the last attempt to defend himself against one of the three most awful curses of WW. Dungrollin: > Yeah, I'm fairly confident he'd have tried it out on someone like > McLaggan, though perhaps not *in the back*, the way he considers > doing in the second quote. Alla: Then I have nothing to add except agree to disagree, but I am not even disagreeing that it may have never happened, because surely somebody else could have attacked Harry and used Unforgivable on him. It is certainly possible that he would have tried it, all that I am disagreeing with that it would have absolutely happened and that is why I am disagreeing that Severus Snape just had to be there. > Dung: > You miss my point. I'm saying that in HBP there is over six months > between Snape's talking to Draco and the Tower during which time > Snape and Dumbledore are aware of Voldy's plan and what his goal is. > If that plan were to be foiled by apprehending Draco (killing Snape, > Draco is 'killed on paper' and smuggled away) Voldy would move on to > a new plan, and DD wouldn't have a spy in Voldy's inner circle to > tell him what that plan was (as he did in HBP and OotP). He'd be > working in the dark for the last six months (15 chapters) of HBP. Alla: Yes, I indeed missed the point, sorry about that. I thought you were extrapolating to the Snape after Tower already. Well, if we are still talking about Snape of that time period, then I just have to voice my disagreement that Voldy would have necessarily moved to new plan. ( Would he have find new DE against whom he wants revenge right away?) In any event, even if he did, they would have to think about this when it comes, because Draco related danger was there **now** IMO. > Magpie: > Reading the book the first time I knew which spell Harry was trying out and > knew he couldn't try it out because of that. Had he tried it out on > McLaggan he would have just nicked him, more like Snape did to James. The > only reason it's so gruesome on Malfoy is because they're fighting and Harry > waves his wand "wildly" and casts the spell in desperation. So I'd have to > say I don't think the spell was a danger without Malfoy. Harry would have > hurt McClaggen, but in a small way that showed him how vicious the spell > was. Alla: That is interesting. You are saying that strength of the spell would have been different or because they would not have been fighting, the spell would have had totally diffefent effect? Just curious. > Dungrollin: > I know this is a waste of time, but you have all spectacularly missed > the point I was making, which was that *having Snape around* saves > lives. Three, in fact, over the course of HBP. DD, Katie and Malfoy. Alla: Snape saved Dumbledore's life during HBP? Am I indeed missing something really major here? I seem to remember him dead from Snape's hand at the end. Are you talking about the ring? Because if you do, then again I must disagree that this is indeed happened with absolute certainty, because for all I know Snape only slowed down the curse and did it on purpose to finish Dumbledore off at the first appropriate situation. Yes, I know that Dumbledore thought that Snape saved him, but dare I say that I do not necessarily think that Dumbledore is right in Snape related matters? Katie and Malfoy - yes, he did, but he did it because he was there and who says that if he was not there, someone else would not have done so? Dumbledore: > It is better for that "bunch of schoolchildren" that Snape is around > to save them from each other when things go wrong. > Alla: And who would save those schoolchildren from Snape if he reveals his true colours ( as I see them of course) in the unexpected moment? > Pippin: > You seem to forget > that it is Voldemort, not Dumbledore or even Draco, who has > chosen to make war on children. Alla: No, I remember it very well, I just think that Dumbledore has a duty to not put them in the line of enemy fire,whenever possible. > Alla: > And of course Houses are likely be united, etc, I just not sure what > it has to do with letting wanna be assasin run around the school. > > Pippin: > Draco has shown, ingenuity, determination, and the leadership skills > to persuade a pair of young toughs to be seen in public disguised as > little girls. Who else could persuade the Slytherins they need to be > united? Alla: HAHA. After HBP I would not be surprised if Draco indeed would be that Slytherin ( waves at Betsy, remembering our past heated debates about that), but I am still hoping that someone better could emerge. But question one do you seriously think that Draco needed to do serious persuaasion work on Crabbe and Goyle who looked to me as his faithful slaves throughout the books and question two even if he did, does it mean that this somehow mitigates his murder attempts or something. Julie: > Certainly Dumbledore played it so he could save them all, rather than > sacrificing Snape and perhaps Draco by confining Draco, but in this > process the rest of the students were never again in danger (after > the necklace and mead attempts). I have to assume you are arguing > that this installation of the Order at Hogwarts, and the resulting fact > that no students were attacked when the DEs invaded (except those > students who *chose* to fight the DEs), is NOT sufficient enough > evidence that Dumbledore took the protection of the students very > seriously indeed and did not sacrifice their safety for the well- being > of Snape and Draco? Alla: I have to say that I have to add to that list the fact that second attempt was allowed to happen at all. As far as I am concerned Dumbledore should have acted *after* poisoned necklace happened and **fast**, which he did not IMO, at least definitely not sufficiently. JMO, Alla. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 23 03:12:30 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:12:30 -0000 Subject: Splitting of soul In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160185 Bridgette > It was explained that a wizard splits their soul every time they > commit a murder. It made it sound like the soul was split whether or > not it was contained in a horcrux. So does that mean that Voldemort's > soul was split each time he killed...so it is divided more than the 7 > times? That part confused me. Jen: Voldemort's soul was torn too many times to count, but he's only removed 6 of those torn pieces from his body. It sounds like a piece of the soul is definitely torn off and damaged by murder but it's not 'split' in the sense of an amputation, more like a torn ligament. My impression is a torn soul might have a chance to heal somewhat if the person turns away from darkness, maybe with the soul equivalent of scar tissue or whatever ;). Removing the torn part is the abomination because that part can never be reunited nor have the possibility of healing. If the soul can't heal somewhat then I don't see how removing a piece for a horcrux is any worse than tearing your soul to begin with-- something has to be possible with the torn piece that isn't with the removed piece. Hope all this conjecture helps! Maybe more will be said in this week's chapter discussion about the issue. Jen R., who tries not to look too microscopically at the details anymore because things can fall apart like wet kleenex. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Oct 23 03:16:43 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:16:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware References: Message-ID: <017d01c6f651$adf50e20$268c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160186 >> Magpie: >> Reading the book the first time I knew which spell Harry was > trying out and >> knew he couldn't try it out because of that. Had he tried it out > on >> McLaggan he would have just nicked him, more like Snape did to > James. The >> only reason it's so gruesome on Malfoy is because they're fighting > and Harry >> waves his wand "wildly" and casts the spell in desperation. So > I'd have to >> say I don't think the spell was a danger without Malfoy. Harry > would have >> hurt McClaggen, but in a small way that showed him how vicious the > spell >> was. > > Alla: > > That is interesting. You are saying that strength of the spell would > have been different or because they would not have been fighting, > the spell would have had totally diffefent effect? Just curious. Magpie: I think the spell was always the same basic effect, but if you figure the spell makes an invisible sword, if Harry was going to try it out on McLaggen he would have just looked for a place to point his wand at him and say "Sectumsempra." That would have cut McLaggen wherever he pointed it. When I read the name of the spell I immediately thought of Snape in the Pensieve. There he cut James, which was serious, but it was a small cut. I suspected the fact that Harry didn't know he was using the razor blade spell (that's what I'd called it since OotP) would have to come into it. In the bathroom Harry's stress level might have made the spell cut deeper, I suppose, but I thought mostly it was the fact that he waved it wildly that did so much damage. It deeply cut him wherever Harry slashed him. Had he been just trying the spell out I assumed he'd be doing it in a more controlled way--Harry doesn't usually wave his wand wildly when he's trying something out. He only did it with Malfoy because he was panicked and didn't know what he was doing. I couldn't imagine him doing that if he were the one in control trying out a spell on McLaggen. -m From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 23 04:02:41 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 04:02:41 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm Revisited In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610211945h7c36d1d8p37210ab31956b512@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160187 > Carol wrote: > You're welcome. Seems that I'm more convinced by your explanation > than you are, though. > I think the bison/bifon explanation suffices. IMO, > Baruffio meant to use the spell "Bifon!" ("surround") but said "Bison" > instead and ended up with a bison (= buffalo) on his chest. Unlike > bussalo/buffalo, no typo is required for this error, and it's > explained by the elongated medieval s, which looks like an f. Secca responds: Well, as much as I'd like it to have worked, I didn't like it for the following reasons; 1) [bifon/bison] Although I don't mind at all the thought of using /Bifon/ as a spell itself, there doesn't seem to me to be any reason why simply saying /Bison/ -- would summon one. 2) [accio bifon/accio bison] The Saxon term /Bifon/ is a verb. I am not certain if it can be turned into a noun in the way I have done. I tend to doubt it. bi-f?n;... to comprehend, grasp, seize, take hold of, attach, catch, ensnare; comprehendere, apprehendere, reprehendere, deprehendere, capere :... /Folm mec m?g bif?n/ the hand may grasp me, to surround, encompass, encircle, envelop, contain, invest, clothe, case, receive, conceive... from (http://lexicon.ff.cuni.cz/html/oe_bosworthtoller/b0099.html) The other reason I'm not convinced about /bifon/ is that I don't think it is a word Jo would have been likely to use. It is not latinate, nor is it tied into the mythology/folklore of 'Magic' as /avada kadavra/ is. This to me is not enough of a reason to discount it, but added with the two problems above, it seemed to tip the scales > Carol again: > Carol, sure that JKR had nothing so esoteric as Portuguese/Spanish > Veritaserum in mind and that Baruffio simply misread "s" as "f" and > consequently mispronounced an ordinary Latin-based spell Well, the reason I have always thought that there might be a 'Portuguese solution' to this riddle is due to the fact of Jo living in Portugal for most of the writing of Philosophers stone. Her first husband, Jorge Arantes, was a Portuguese journalist. Having studied languages off and on myself, I know that invariably one comes across a word or a phrase that seems hilarious to you, the student, that seems mundane to a native speaker. Often these words or phrases become personal idioms for you and your friends. "That's a shower," said in french and "Ludmillia is very far away in Siberia" said in Russian, both have the ability, to this day, to transport me and certain of my friends into fits of laughter. I had thought it possible that, perhaps, this whole 'Baruffio' thing was a personal referance of this sort, based on her learning Portuguese at the time. Also 'Baruffio' sounds Portuguese or Italian. But I have come up with nothing along this line of thinking that works... >> Katssirius wrote in : >> like the Wizard Baruffio they may end up on the floor with a >> Buffalo on their chest. He says that a s replaced an f. I do not get >> it. Can someone help me. What did the Wizard really want to happen? >> > Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) responded in : > That would be so much easier to spin if the F replaced an S. Accio > Buffalo instead of Accio Bussalo, with only the need to figure out > what Bussalo is. > The thing that landed on his chest might have been a Water Buffalo > (Bubalus bubalis) or an American Bison (Bison bison). but both are in > the cow family, Bovidae, from Latin word for 'cow', Bos. Maybe he said > Accio Bos when he meant Accio Bof. Maybe it's more closely related to > levitating a feather with Wingardium Leviosa -- he meant to levitate a > toad with Bufium Leviosa but instead said Busium Leviosa (of which I > would never have thought if not for some long-ago post explaining why > 'wingardium' is Wizardish for 'feather'.) Secca responds: Yes, I remember this post, as I just read it recently in my research of all this! You obviously came up with this theory long before I did. I wish I had remembered reading it before I'd made my last post. Other than your post, most of the other one's I saw out there on the web used the typo theory to support thier claim that 'Wingardium Leviofa' is what Barrufio said, which, as I have said before, I dislike.. Unfortunately, what I remembered most about your post was the error contained in the last paragraph. The spell is /Wingardium Leviosa/, not /"___" Leviosa/. The entire spell causes something to raise up or fly, as evidenced by Ron's use of it against the troll in the bathroom where he does *not* say "Clavium Leviosa" to levitate the club. Random832 wrote: > Is there a reason why most spells are latin, and , further, is there a > reason why some are not? "crucio" and "imperio" are both latin, but > "avada kedavra" is aramaic. Secca replies: Well there is this quote from the interview Jo gave at the Edinburgh book festival in 2004: Q:There is a lot of Latin in the spells in your books Do you speak Latin? JKR responds: Yes. At home, we converse in Latin. [Laughter]. Mainly. For light relief, we do a little Greek. My Latin is patchy, to say the least, but that doesn't really matter because old spells are often in cod Latin?a funny mixture of weird languages creeps into spells. That is how I use it. Occasionally you will stumble across something in my Latin that is, almost accidentally, grammatically correct, but that is a rarity. In my defence, the Latin is deliberately odd. Perfect Latin is not a very magical medium, is it? Does anyone know where avada kedavra came from? It is an ancient spell in Aramaic, and it is the original of abracadabra, which means "let the thing be destroyed". Originally, it was used to cure illness and the "thing" was the illness, but I decided to make it the "thing" as in the person standing in front of me. I take a lot of liberties with things like that. I twist them round and make them mine. (http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/news_view.cfm?id=80) Secca again: and this, which is only marginally relevant... comes from the Transcript: HARRY POTTER CHILDREN'S PRESS CONFERENCE, 9.30AM 17TH JULY 2005, Edinburgh, Scotland which I found here - (http://www.raincoast.com/press- releases/2005/0718-hbp-press-conference.html): JK ROWLING: You know the way that most school slogans are thing like persevere and nobility, charity and fidelity or something, it just amused me to give an entirely practical piece of advice for the Hogwarts school motto. Then a friend of mine who is a professor of classics -- my Latin was not up to the job, I did not think it should be cod Latin, it is good enough for cod Latin spells, that is they used to be a mixture of Latin and other things. When it came to a proper Latin slogan for the school I wanted it to be right, I went to him and asked him to translate. I think he really enjoyed it, he rang me up and said, "I think I found the exactly right word, Titillandus," that was how that was dreamt up. From lesliemommystamps at msn.com Mon Oct 23 14:02:51 2006 From: lesliemommystamps at msn.com (Leslie B) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:02:51 -0000 Subject: Fawkes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160188 Lana writes: I do believe that Fawkes will be back. Certainly for the members of the Order and especially for Harry. I believe that Fawks has a fondness for Harry. Not only because he is loyal to DD, but I feel they made a connection in the chamber. Pheonixs have a heavy insight I think. I think they can sense greatness and worth. I believe that Fawkes would have sensed that in Harry. I think Fawkes will be drawn to Harry in the end. Lesliemommy: Fist time posting, so bear with me. Of course Harry and Fawkes are drawn together. Harry has his feather in his wand. As does Voldemort. I think this will really come into play, more so than in Goblet of Fire. I have wondered from time to time if Fawkes is the key to Harry really destroying Voldemort. I think there is more to Fawkes than we know. I hope this will be explained in book 7!!! From jenny1alpha at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 14:25:06 2006 From: jenny1alpha at yahoo.com (jenny1alpha) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:25:06 -0000 Subject: Looking for fellow Snape lovers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160189 Hello everyone. This is my first time at this sight, so I don't know if there is already a thread on this topic. My favorite character in the books is Snape and I keep thinking that in the final book he will emerge as a 'good guy'. In the conversation Harry overheard between Snape and Dumbledore it seemed as if Snape had told Dumbledore that he had really made the unbreakable promise, but that would mean that Dumbledore wanted Draco to believe that Dumbledore had really been deceived and also, that Dumbledore wanted to be killed. Does that make sense? Jenny From jenny1alpha at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 14:30:27 2006 From: jenny1alpha at yahoo.com (jenny1alpha) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:30:27 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160190 pumpkinpastie18 wrote: > Despite that she has killed beloved characters and that there > are more deaths to come, I just can't imagine Rowling ever > killing off Harry. Why? Because Harry = hope. He's the Boy Who > Lived and I can't see Rowling ending the series on such an awful, > tragic note. I agree that she wouldn't kill Harry, but I do think that Ron and Hermione will be killed. That will be the event that unleashes Harry's true power and then he will kill Lord Voldemort. Jenny From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 23 15:02:16 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:02:16 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160191 > Alla: > Katie and Malfoy - yes, he did, but he did it because he was there > and who says that if he was not there, someone else would not have > done so? Pippin: And who says if Harry was not there to save people, someone else would not have done so? Does that mean Harry gets no credit for what he's done? > > Pippin: > > > You seem to forget that it is Voldemort, not Dumbledore or even Draco, who has chosen to make war on children. > > > Alla: > > No, I remember it very well, I just think that Dumbledore has a duty > to not put them in the line of enemy fire,whenever possible. Pippin: I am glad you remember it, but your theories don't appear to reflect your knowledge, since you seem to think Dumbledore should believe that if Draco is out of the way the threat will be contained for a while. Voldemort is expecting Draco to fail, certainly he's got an idea of what he's going to do next, and certainly it will involve Hogwarts. Hogwarts has been in the line of fire since Voldemort first arrived there. It has been under low grade attack, in the form of the DADA curse, since he returned to the wizarding world the first time. As long as he's alive it will be threatened. Putting Draco in custody is like moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Is Draco the only one who knows that Borgin has cursed objects for sale, or that Filch is careless about checking bottles, or that Rosmerta is susceptible to the Imperius curse, or that the vanishing cabinets, if they can be fixed, will form an unguarded entrance to the school? Of course not! Draco performed a very useful service, though he didn't intend to, by exposing some holes in the Hogwarts defenses. Think of Draco as a weakened virus -- he provoked an immune response without killing anybody, although unfortunately, as with the virus, there was a possibility that he might. But as long as the reservoir of the disease is out there, the threat level is never going to be zero. > > > Alla: > > And of course Houses are likely be united, etc, I just not sure > what it has to do with letting wanna be assasin run around the school. > > > > Pippin: > > Draco has shown, ingenuity, determination, and the leadership > skills to persuade a pair of young toughs to be seen in public disguised > as little girls. Who else could persuade the Slytherins they need to > be united? > > Alla: > > HAHA. After HBP I would not be surprised if Draco indeed would be > that Slytherin ( waves at Betsy, remembering our past heated debates > about that), but I am still hoping that someone better could emerge. > Pippin: We've been told we've met all the major characters -- I don't think there is anyone better out there. Draco has been beautifully positioned to move into that spot. It would be a waste of very skillful character development if we don't get to see that he could fill it. Alla: > But question one do you seriously think that Draco needed to do > serious persuaasion work on Crabbe and Goyle who looked to me as his > faithful slaves throughout the books and question two even if he > did, does it mean that this somehow mitigates his murder attempts or > something. Pippin: If they consider themselves his faithful slaves without whips or chains or magical coercion then Draco's leadership skills are even better than I thought. It doesn't mitigate his murder attempts, but do you see that Draco put far more effort into smuggling weapons into Hogwarts and maintaining his relationships with Crabbe and Goyle, than he did into planning how he would actually use those weapons to commit murder? I think what confuses the issue is that the attacks are scary, so judged as terrorism they're not feeble, but they weren't intended to be terror acts. They were supposed to be stealthy and secret, which is the opposite of terrorism. Dumbledore looks not for effects but for causes, and sees that *something* is stopping Draco from being as effective at murder as he is at smuggling or at getting his friends to take on humiliating and dangerous tasks for him. Dumbledore hopes that this something is the fact that Draco is not a murderer at heart and does not really wish to become one. This is more than wishful thinking on his part, since Bella, Narcissa, Snape and Voldemort himself all seem to agree. Draco, black sheep though he might be, is not yet a murderer. As such, he was still part of Dumbledore's responsibility and it was as much Dumbledore's duty to protect him as it was to protect Harry or Katie or Ron. It seems to me that JKR is illustrating the New Testament parable ( and Talmudic midrash) of the Good Shepherd here. For those who aren't familiar with the story, the good shepherd leaves the flock of ninety-nine, and goes after the sheep who is lost, rejoicing more over the one who is found than the ninety-nine who never strayed. Before it was a Sunday School story, it was sound management advice. The flock is safe in its numbers, while the lost sheep is not only in greater danger, it has information that the shepherd needs. Outliers are always worth looking into. And of course if you are looking to inspire loyalty in men, who are a bit harder to control than sheep, they need to feel that you would do as much for the least and worst as you would for the most and best. Do you think that Harry would be so loyal to Dumbledore, or that readers would love Dumbledore so much, if he was willing to give up a child for lost so easily? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 15:23:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:23:13 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160192 > > Alla: > > > Katie and Malfoy - yes, he did, but he did it because he was there > > and who says that if he was not there, someone else would not have > > done so? > > Pippin: > And who says if Harry was not there to save people, someone else > would not have done so? Does that mean Harry gets no credit for > what he's done? Alla: He gets credit, Snape I mean - what he does not get and what I was responding to is the acknowledgement that **without** him all those people are necessarily would not have been saved, that is all. I am questioning the absolute **necessity** of having Snape around, that's all. As to Harry, well yeah sometimes we **do** know for sure that nobody else but him could save people. Sometimes not, surely somebody else would have been able to save Sirius if that somebody else had the time turner and desire to do so, but I somehow doubt that **anybody else** would have been able to save Ginny for example. Pippin: Draco, black sheep though he might > be, is not yet a murderer. As such, he was still part of > Dumbledore's responsibility and it was as much Dumbledore's duty > to protect him as it was to protect Harry or Katie or Ron. Alla: No, he is just attempted murderer. Pippin: > It seems to me that JKR is illustrating the New Testament parable > ( and Talmudic midrash) of the Good Shepherd here. For those > who aren't familiar with the story, the good shepherd leaves > the flock of ninety-nine, and goes after the sheep who is lost, > rejoicing more over the one who is found than the ninety-nine > who never strayed. > Before it was a Sunday School story, it was sound management > advice. The flock is safe in its numbers, while the lost sheep > is not only in greater danger, it has information that the shepherd > needs. Outliers are always worth looking into. Alla: Yes, I know the story,yes, I see the metaphor, but no, I do not see it as sound management advice, because from my point of view what we have here is that the sheep can be lost metaphorically, but it also causes danger to the other stock. It may be looked as beatiful spiritual story, or an idiocy, take your pick. JMO, Alla From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Oct 23 15:14:14 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:14:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Looking for fellow Snape lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160193 Jenny> >Hello everyone. This is my first time at this sight, so I don't >know if there is already a thread on this topic. My favorite >character in the books is Snape and I keep thinking that in the >final book he will emerge as a 'good guy'. In the conversation >Harry overheard between Snape and Dumbledore it seemed as if >Snape had told Dumbledore that he had really made the unbreakable >promise, but that would mean that Dumbledore wanted Draco to >believe that Dumbledore had really been deceived and also, that >Dumbledore wanted to be killed. Does that make sense? > wynnleaf I think you probably didn't intend to write that exactly that way. In HBP, Harry never overheard a conversation between Dumbledore and Snape about unbreakable vows. However, when Harry talked to Dumbledore after Christmas, it did seem like Dumbledore already knew about the Unbreakable Vow. If that's true, then Snape must have told him. When Harry overheard the conversation between Snape and Draco, Snape told Draco he'd made an Unbreakable Vow. But he did not in any way indicate that Dumbledore knew of it -- or indeed that Dumbledore knew anything about Draco's attempts on his life. However, we learn later that Dumbledore did in fact know. Therefore, it *seems* that Snape wanted to keep Draco unaware of Dumbledore's knowledge of the situation. Because Draco would think that Dumbledore was totally deceived, and because Snape was sort of encouraging him to continue (not really "encouraging," but at least offering help), Draco would continue on in his attempts to kill Dumbledore. If Snape really wanted Draco to succeed, or at least Draco's mission to kill Dumbledore to succeed, wouldn't he warn Draco that Dumbledore knew he was trying to kill him? Wouldn't he warn Draco that Dumbledore knew about the Unbreakable Vow? So yes, these aspects of the plot do seem to indicate that Dumbledore and Snape worked together to deceive Draco as to the extent of Dumbledore's knowledge of his mission, thereby encouraging Draco (somewhat) to continue with his plans. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 23 15:44:41 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:44:41 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160194 Thank you, Goodlefrood, you really captured the essence of this chapter. Goodlefrood: > 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the > description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions > perhaps a clue to something? Jen: Hmmm, I didn't notice this. I'm leaning toward the very banal explanation of editorial error, though. ;) > 5. This segment of his memory, although perhaps embarrassing and > no longer a view that Slughorn holds, does not appear to do any > harm to Slughorn, unlike the later part regarding Horcruxes, so > why do you think he covered up this portion from his fogged memory? Jen: Pride? Slughorn seems to take great pride in his ability to correctly identify students with promise who move on to bigger things. He was right to sense Riddle's power and influence but oh-so- wrong in his estimation of how he'd use his gifts. Plus, Slughorn was probably embarassed for Dumbledore to see how wrong he was! Or perhaps he didn't want DD to see how much he catered to Riddle in the hopes that Riddle would shower him with freebies when he became Minister . Course Slughorn doesn't hide his favoritism so that's not the greatest explanation. > 6. Why would Uncle Horace become excited when describing > Horcruxes? Jen: Riddle is described as excited, not Slughorn. Harry senses Riddle's excitement after he asks for more information about the workings of a Horcrux. Unless I missed the word 'excited' somewhere else in the conversation? >7. Was Tom Riddle initially listening to information he already > possessed, or did he have no knowledge of Horcruxes at all prior > to this conversation? Jen: I think he knew *of* Horcruxes, but not particular details. Harry discerns Riddle has been planning for this moment for weeks and wants the information 'very, very much'. If true, then Tom doesn't know where else to find the information about splitting the soul numerous times. Not yet, anyway. > 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions > when he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, > was it more than just a natural conversation in other words? Jen: Anytime you see a side of someone you didn't know existed there's always the impulse to normalize the situation to the familiar and comfortable. It's almost like shock, you keep going thinking surely what you're suspecting can't possibly be true and the person will 'snap out of it'. Slughorn keeps going on the premise that Riddle is an exceptional student with a great mind who simply wants to understand all parts of the magical world and yet, as doubt creeps in, he seems unable to accept how much he may have misjudged Tom and terminate the conversation with authority. (That's not really his style, either.) > 10. How had Dumbledore acquired his knowledge of Horcruxes and why > was it such thorough knowledge? Jen: It's got to be the mystery surrounding Grindelwald. Dumbledore says, "As far as I know--as far, I am sure, as Voldemort knew--no wizard has ever done more than tear his soul in two." I just don't see any other explanation other than Grindelwald having a Horcrux and that being the key to Dumbledore's defeat of him. On the bright side, when Harry learns how DD defeated GV maybe that it will help Harry defeat Voldemort. > 13. As far as I recall the Sorting Hat was whipped from the head > of Godric Gryffindor (with the implication nthat it was his), so > why would Dumbledore not at least make a mention of this? Jen: LOL. I got the impression once the 'brains' of the Founders were put in that the hat was an object belonging to all the houses and was not exclusively Gryffindor anymore. Or not enough for Riddle to consider it a 'pure' object like the sword. > 14. Do you agree with Dumbledore that Nagini is a Horcrux and if > so did he conclude this when consulting his machine in OotP or > from some other source? Jen: I do agree. I think consulting the machine had more to do with determining the nature of Voldemort's and Harry's connection, but it's possible the incident was also another piece of the puzzle in his Horcrux search, an 'aha' moment. > 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the > summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that > Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? No, he's right. I don't think there's time to go back on this one. The surpise will be the final Horcrux. > 16. Do you agree that Lord Voldemort is unaware when a Horcrux is > destroyed and if so, and given that he knows of the loss of the > Diary Horcrux, do you think he would create another? My speculation is he would tip the scale to create another one, possibly even damage himself. *Maybe* he's thinking he can create another one when he murders Harry, though he wouldn't really need one after that. Dumbledore and Harry are the last threats to his domination and he will likely feel overly confident with DD out of the way and not consider needing another Horcrux. >17. Why does Dumbledore not categorically say that Lord Voldemort > could be killed if his Horcruxes are destroyed, but only that it > will take uncommon skill and power to kill him? Mainly to let Harry know what destroying the Horcruxes will and won't do, to make clear that destroying the Horcruxes will not diminish Voldemort's mind nor his magical powers. Plus, that was a nice segue for the author to use so Dumbledore could explain Harry's uncommon power again . > 18. Lord Voldemort is said to be a powerful and gifted wizard so > why would he set such store by the Prophecy? He's an interesting psychological study. LV still exhibits the magical thinking (no pun intended) of the abandoned child he was. There's an obsessional and irrational quality to his thinking which underscores all his goals and plans. Well, and there's always the simple fact that LV didn't want to lose his power and he viewed the prophecy as a threat. Jen R. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 23 15:48:12 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 15:48:12 -0000 Subject: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160195 "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > having read several of your posts in the past, > I get a very slight, vague, teensy-weensy > feeling that you like murder, mayhem and blood > flowing in the streets. Could this actually be true? No, I don't like murder very much, in fact I've hardly killed anyone in weeks. I like Harry a lot and if he were a real person I'd want him to have the longest and happiest life possible, but as he is a fictional character I curse him with the most interesting life possible. Suppose Harry lives happily ever after, a week after you finish reading book 7 you'll hardly think about it at again; but if Harry dies in Ginny's arms covered in blood from grievous wounds received in his heroic battle with Voldemort I'll bet you'll still be thinking about it for a long time. Suppose JKR wrote a conclusion that would give Stephen King nightmares, now that would be an interesting thing for a "children's writer" to do. I suppose a compromise between your position and mine would be for JKR to make Harry's fate a little ambiguous. Perhaps in the epilogue we'll see an elderly Hagrid telling hid grandchildren: "Harry just Disappeared. Vanished. That's the biggest myst'ry, see... he was gettin' more an' more powerful -- why'd he go? Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die. Most of us reckon he's still out there somewhere bidin' his time." Eggplant From unicornspride at centurytel.net Mon Oct 23 15:50:19 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 10:50:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fawkes References: Message-ID: <004b01c6f6ba$f1738eb0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160196 >Lesliemommy: >First time posting, so bear with me. >Of course Harry and Fawkes are drawn together. Harry has his >feather in his wand. As does Voldemort. I think this will really >come into play, more so than in Goblet of Fire. I have wondered >from >time to time if Fawkes is the key to Harry really destroying >Voldemort. Lana writes: I really don't think that the feather has anything to do with them being drawn together. Fawkes came to Harry's aid not because of the wand, but because of his loyalty to Dumbledore. The wand really doesn't play a role in how the bond was formed. If it did, then Fawkes would show the same loyalty to Voldermort and I just cannot see that happening. Hugs, Lana From harryp at stararcher.com Mon Oct 23 16:13:36 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:13:36 -0000 Subject: Magical portraits of Hogwarts' founders? (Was: Will Harry go back to Hogwarts?) In-Reply-To: <20061021003622.28983.qmail@web84005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160197 > > Davida: > > Will Harry go back to Hogwarts in the seventh book or keep > > looking for those pieces of Lord Voldemort? > > sweety12783: > Well I think Harry has to return to Hogwarts due to the fact that > JKR made it quite clear that the founders will play a crucial role > in book 7. > [...] > are the founders buried at Hogwarts? Eddie: I'm wondering if there are any magical portraits of the founders at Hogwarts? What would they have to say to Harry? Eddie From jferer at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 16:17:00 2006 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:17:00 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: <5A73BE99-F196-40C3-83A3-8CB04320CD3C@golden.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160198 Jim Ferer (me): I've always had in mind a much harder sacrifice than mere physical life; Harry would make that without hesitation. I once thought that Harry would have to give up his ability to do magic and become a Muggle in order to destroy Voldemort. There would be an awful dilemna. Doug: "That said, and it has been a suspicion all along too, what would Muggle!Harry's consequent choice be? To live a live amongst us knowing there is a far more fascinating world elsewhere, or to live in the world of Magic with no powers? In a world were he is unknown and has to make a brand new human life from scratch? or stay in the world where he has history, identity, and friends? Either way he is 'dead' to us." It may be more poignant for Harry to have to live in the Muggle world, but there is a good chance that he, like Squibs, could live in the magical world and be surrounded at last by love not for the skills he no longer has but for himself. Having love with Ginny, if she survives, and all the people he's grown close to will be his reward. Or he may, like Frodo, have to lose what he saved for others. Harry just dying seems anti-climactic. Jim Ferer From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 23 16:44:07 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:44:07 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160199 Pippin: > > Draco, black sheep though he might > > be, is not yet a murderer. As such, he was still part of > > Dumbledore's responsibility and it was as much Dumbledore's duty > > to protect him as it was to protect Harry or Katie or Ron. > > Alla: > > No, he is just attempted murderer. Pippin: And Ron is an attempted murder for all the times he has attacked Draco, and the Twins are attempted murderers for Montague, and Hermione is an attempted murderer for Umbridge, and Ginny is an attempted murderer for stealing back the diary when she knew it was making her attack people, and Harry is an attempted murderer for sectum sempra and most of all Sirius was an attempted murderer for the prank. How dare Dumbledore suggest Harry and Hermione risk their lives and their futures for the sake of an attempted murderer , especially since if Harry were lost the whole WW could be lost too! Wasn't Dumbledore putting not only his students but the whole WW at risk for the sake of an attempted murderer then too? I know there may be extenuating circumstances, but why be willing to accept extenuating circumstances for all these other people and not Draco? > Alla: > > Yes, I know the story,yes, I see the metaphor, but no, I do not see > it as sound management advice, because from my point of view what we > have here is that the sheep can be lost metaphorically, but it also > causes danger to the other stock. > > It may be looked as beatiful spiritual story, or an idiocy, take your > pick. > Pippin: The people who first heard the story were familiar with sheep, and wouldn't have accepted the metaphor if they thought it was idiocy. The flock is safe in its numbers -- reduce the numbers and the flock's danger grows, even if you are culling the weakest. And Draco, as I have tried to point out, and JKR has certainly shown, is far from the weakest and has strengths that the others need. Pippin From MomsTaxi50 at aol.com Mon Oct 23 16:04:09 2006 From: MomsTaxi50 at aol.com (krnboulton) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:04:09 -0000 Subject: Looking for fellow Snape lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160200 > Jenny: > >Hello everyone. This is my first time at this sight, so I don't > >know if there is already a thread on this topic. My favorite > >character in the books is Snape and I keep thinking that in the > >final book he will emerge as a 'good guy'. In the conversation > >Harry overheard between Snape and Dumbledore it seemed as if > >Snape had told Dumbledore that he had really made the unbreakable > >promise, but that would mean that Dumbledore wanted Draco to > >believe that Dumbledore had really been deceived and also, that > >Dumbledore wanted to be killed. Does that make sense? Hi Jenny, This is my first time posting too so we have something in common. In my heart of hearts I believe that Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders. He always said that he trusted Snape beyond a shadow of a doubt. Remember in Book 4 when Harry was in the pensieve and Karkaroff was on trial. He brought up Snape and Dumbledore defended him then. Dumbledore has never said why he trusts him so much. I believe that Dumbledore was trying to save Draco from something he really did not want to do and I definitely think that he knew about Snape's vow to Draco's mother. I have got to believe that Dumbledore trusted Snape for reasons we will find out in Book 7. I also think that Snape is going to be instrumental in the final showdown between Harry and he who must not be named, perhaps even paving the way with his own death. It's fun to speculate. Karen From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 23 16:57:09 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:57:09 -0000 Subject: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160201 Eggplant: > Suppose Harry lives happily ever after, a week after you finish > reading book 7 you'll hardly think about it at again; but if Harry > dies in Ginny's arms covered in blood from grievous wounds received in > his heroic battle with Voldemort I'll bet you'll still be thinking > about it for a long time. Suppose JKR wrote a conclusion that would > give Stephen King nightmares, now that would be an interesting thing > for a "children's writer" to do. > Pippin: But it seems to be the moral issues that JKR wants us to think about, not the horrors of death. She doesn't seem to want her readers to fear death that comes at the end of a life well-lived. What would stay with us, I think, is a Harry who had achieved victory but who would be haunted all his life by the things he could have done that might have saved those who were lost. Tolkien had lost all but one of his close friends by 1918. He didn't force Frodo to go through that. But JKR brags about the chip of ice in her heart. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 17:08:43 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:08:43 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160202 Alla wrote: > > I think that if he indeed wanted to try Sectusemptra **that** badly > and he certainly wishes to try it out ( do not know, maybe his > subconscious sort of stops him temporarily or something), he would > have tried it out **right away** when he sees Malfoy. > > What do we see instead? > > So, Harry defends himself with two hexes, which are really quite > harmless, no? > > And he only uses sectusemptra when he is slipping and wet and on the > floor. > > I do not know, Harry indeed seemed awfully eager to try it out when > he was thinking about it, but when it came to action, he does not do > it except the last attempt to defend himself against one of the > three most awful curses of WW. > Carol responds: According to canon, the only thing that held him back was Hermione. Note that he tries out all of the HBP's other spells without knowing what they do, for example Levicorpus on Ron and the tongue-tying spell (Langlock) on Filch. He also tried out the toenail-growing spell on Crabbe, but he may have known from the name (not given in the book) what that one did. I doubt very much that he would have hesitated to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen if the opportunity arose. > > Alla: > It is certainly possible that he would have tried it, all that I am > disagreeing with that it would have absolutely happened and that is > why I am disagreeing that Severus Snape just had to be there. > > Carol responds: Who else could have saved Draco or the hypothetical guinea pig for the spell? Sectumsempra is Snape's own invention. Who but Snape would know the countercurse? As for someone else being able to save Katie, why did McGonagall send Filch to Snape rather than removing the curse and attempting to save Katie herself? Why didn't she send it to Dumbledore or Madam Pomfrey? And since Katie was sent to the hospital wing, why didn't Madam Pomfrey save Katie herself rather than sending for Snape? IMO, it's because he's the only one in Hogwarts who could have saved her, just as he's the only one who could have saved Draco (or DD at the beginning of the book). As Dumbledore says, Snape knows much more about the Dark Arts than Madam Pomfrey, which is one reason why DD went to him for the ring Horcrux curse. For Snape, knowledge of the Dark Arts goes hand in hand with healing. Alla: > > Well, if we are still talking about Snape of that time period, then > I just have to voice my disagreement that Voldy would have > necessarily moved to new plan. ( Would he have find new DE against > whom he wants revenge right away?) Carol: Now that voldemort knows a way to get into Hogwarts, he's not going to let the supposed death of Draco (and the real death of Snape from the UV) stop him. There's another kid with a DE father and a presumed grudge against Dumbledore for his father's arrest, and I don't mean Crabbe or Goyle. Theo Nott has been waiting on the sidelines all this time. If Draco failed, Theo was right there to take over (whether he wants to become a DE or not, he would probably have had no choice). Note that DD had Snape "making investigations into his house." I'm betting that Draco wasn't the only student being watched (and that Snape knew all about the polyjuiced "girls"). > > Alla: > > That is interesting. You [Magpie} are saying that strength of the spell {Sectumsempra] would have been different or because they would not have been fighting, the spell would have had totally diffefent effect? Just curious. Carol responds: I think that *is* what Magpie is saying, and certainly Harry made matters worse by waving his wand around wildly. But Magpie is assuming that the nonverbal hex that Severus used on James to cut his cheek was a controlled version of Sectumsempra. I don't think that's necessarily the case. "Sectum sempra" means "cut always" or "cut forever," and there's no evidence that James was in danger of bleeding to death (as a hemophiliac can do from a small cut like the slash on James's face), and certainly Severus doesn't perform the complex, songlike countercurse to save him. I think the cut was from a preliminary version of the spell (or an existing spell that Severus later modified) such as "Sectum" ("cut") without the "sempra" always. Just presenting an alternate view. I think that McLaggen would have been nearly as badly off as Draco if Harry had hit him with that spell, especially if Harry moved the wand with anything slashing movement. And only Snape would have been able to heal McLaggen. (BTW, this topic is going to come up in my chapter discussion in a few weeks, so I hope we don't exhaust all our ideas on the subject now.) > Alla: > > Snape saved Dumbledore's life during HBP? Am I indeed missing > something really major here? I seem to remember him dead from > Snape's hand at the end. Are you talking about the ring? Because if > you do, then again I must disagree that this is indeed happened with > absolute certainty, because for all I know Snape only slowed down > the curse and did it on purpose to finish Dumbledore off at the > first appropriate situation. Yes, I know that Dumbledore thought > that Snape saved him, but dare I say that I do not necessarily think > that Dumbledore is right in Snape related matters? Carol responds: You are, of course, mixing two incidents. At the time that Snape healed Dumbledore, there was no Unbreakable Vow. Snape couldn't save Dumbledore's hand, but he certainly healed him to the extent that he didn't need to go to St. Mungo's and could run the school. Granted, he wouldn't have been up to another battle with Voldemort, but he was still a very powerful wizard. What reason would Snape have for wanting to finish off Dumbledore? he's been alone with him hundreds of times, and he could easily have let him die from the ring curse if that were his goal. (Don't let hindsight--events on the tower--color your interpretation of earlier events. We still don't know why he killed Dumbledore, but if it were an act of vengeance or of loyalty to Voldemort, surely he wouldn't have saved DD from the ring curse. And simple Slytherin self-preservation, which I think is your view of events on the tower, is irrelevant to saving Dubledore from the ring Horcrux. Snape's own life is not yet in danger. That leaves one motive that I can see--loyalty to Dumbledore. At any rate, he is certainly the only one with the skill to heal the curse, which is again why DD chooses him and not Madam Pomfrey to apply "timely action." (Too bad DD never told us the whole "thrilling tale"!) > Alla: > > And who would save those schoolchildren from Snape if he reveals his > true colours ( as I see them of course) in the unexpected moment? Carol: That has already happened. He could have killed Luna and Hermione instead of telling them to take Flitwick to the hospital wing (and, no, I don't think the Felix Felicis could control Snape's words or actions). And he rescued Harry from a Crucio and deflected his curses instead of killing him on the spot. (If it were really Voldemort's orders that motivated him, he would have let them continue to Crucio Harry. Instead, he ordered them off the grounds.) > Alla: > No, I remember it very well, I just think that Dumbledore has a duty > to not put them in the line of enemy fire,whenever possible. Carol responds: Whom did he put in the line of fire? He had the Order in the castle when he left for the cave. It was Harry who put his friends in the line of fire. Fortunately, they each had their little drop of Felix Felicis (which didn't prevent Neville from being injured). > Alla: > > I have to say that I have to add to that list the fact that second > attempt was allowed to happen at all. > > As far as I am concerned Dumbledore should have acted *after* > poisoned necklace happened and **fast**, which he did not IMO, at > least definitely not sufficiently. Carol: And you think he didn't? He ordered Snape to talk to Draco (which he finally managed after Draco had evaded him for two months), he may have been making investigations we don't know about using his spy network, (presumably watching the Three Broomsticks because that's where the incident occurred). I've already listed the heightened security measures and the consequences of confronting Draco and allowing the UV to kill Snape (which would make DD an accessory to murder). As Julie said, DD did his best to protect everyone involved, not only Draco and Snape but Harry and the whole student body. If you can explain what he could have done without triggering the UV and killing a trusted teacheer (you don't trust him, but DD does and he relies heavily on him throughout HBP), I'd be grateful. Personally, I don't think there was anything else to be done. Carol, noting that directly or indirectly, Snape saves four people in HBP, one of them (Draco) twice From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 18:06:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:06:33 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160204 Alla: > > I do not know, Harry indeed seemed awfully eager to try it out when > > he was thinking about it, but when it came to action, he does not do > > it except the last attempt to defend himself against one of the > > three most awful curses of WW. > > > Carol responds: > > According to canon, the only thing that held him back was Hermione. > Note that he tries out all of the HBP's other spells without knowing > what they do, for example Levicorpus on Ron and the tongue-tying spell > (Langlock) on Filch. He also tried out the toenail-growing spell on > Crabbe, but he may have known from the name (not given in the book) > what that one did. I doubt very much that he would have hesitated to > try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen if the opportunity arose. Alla: And I also interpret canon - I quoted the fight scene where Harry despite his urge to try out Sectusemptra does not do it till his situation looks rather grim to me. Which certainly does not make trying unknown curse any less stupid, but does not convince me that Harry indeed would have tried it on anybody else, who would not have attacked **him** with Unforgivable first. > Pippin: > > > > Draco, black sheep though he might > > > be, is not yet a murderer. As such, he was still part of > > > Dumbledore's responsibility and it was as much Dumbledore's duty > > > to protect him as it was to protect Harry or Katie or Ron. > > > > Alla: > > > > No, he is just attempted murderer. > > Pippin: > And Ron is an attempted murder for all the times he has attacked > Draco, and the Twins are attempted murderers for Montague, > and Hermione is an attempted murderer for Umbridge, and Ginny > is an attempted murderer for stealing back the diary when she > knew it was making her attack people, and Harry is an attempted > murderer for sectum sempra and most of all Sirius was an attempted > murderer for the prank. How dare Dumbledore suggest Harry and > Hermione risk their lives and their futures for the sake of an > attempted murderer , especially since if Harry were lost > the whole WW could be lost too! Wasn't Dumbledore putting not > only his students but the whole WW at risk for the sake of an > attempted murderer then too? > > > I know there may be extenuating circumstances, but why be > willing to accept extenuating circumstances for all these other > people and not Draco? > Alla: Ugh, hate to leave so much of the quote in and respond with few sentences, but honestly and truly do not know what to cut out. Sorry, but **no** in all of these cases there are not just extenuating circumstances, but as far as I remember - absence of the intent to kill - that is the **huge** difference to me. Of course we can still uncover that in Sirius case there was intent to kill, but we do not know that with certainty, so your analogy does not work for me at all. If you can prove that Ron or Twins planned to kill Draco - sure, I will call them attempted murderers as well, so far I am afraid that title stays solely with Draco, who knowingly planned Dumbledore assasination attempt. ETA: > Carol: > If you can explain what he could have done without triggering the UV > and killing a trusted teacheer (you don't trust him, but DD does and > he relies heavily on him throughout HBP), I'd be grateful. Personally, > I don't think there was anything else to be done. > Alla: I already explained what I think Dumbledore should have done, several times in fact, but I will say it one more time. He should not have made dealing with UV which Snape took to be his primary concern, IMHO. Here is one of the more recent posts of mine where you can see what I think Dumbledore should have done. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160162 IMO of course. Alla From thekrenz at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 18:11:16 2006 From: thekrenz at yahoo.com (thekrenz) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:11:16 -0000 Subject: Vernon's odd behavior Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160205 I am reading Chamber of Secrets again, and have begun to wonder about something. Why does Vernon so viciously try to keep Harry from going back to Hogwarts? One would assume Vernon would be quite pleased to be rid of Harry, so why does he exert so much effort to keep Harry at Privet Drive? Dare I say the most money Vernon has every invested in Harry (consciouly or not) is paying someone to install bars at his window. Vernon is certainly a control-freak, could that explain his actions? Or, could it be that he wants to make Harry miserable? What do my fellow list members think? Cyndi (constant lurker....cautious poster) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Oct 23 18:30:00 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:30:00 -0000 Subject: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160206 Eggplant: > Suppose Harry lives happily ever after, a week after you finish > reading book 7 you'll hardly think about it at again; but if Harry > dies in Ginny's arms covered in blood from grievous wounds > received in his heroic battle with Voldemort I'll bet you'll still > be thinking about it for a long time. Pippin: > But it seems to be the moral issues that JKR wants us to think > about, not the horrors of death. She doesn't seem to want her > readers to fear death that comes at the end of a life well-lived. > What would stay with us, I think, is a Harry who had achieved > victory but who would be haunted all his life by the things he > could have done that might have saved those who were lost. > Tolkien had lost all but one of his close friends by 1918. He > didn't force Frodo to go through that. But JKR brags about the > chip of ice in her heart. Jen: These ideas seem mututally exclusive. You are saying that JKR doesn't want readers to fear death at the end of a well-lived life, but that her 'chip of ice' might cause her to write an ending where Harry is haunted continually by his past? That doesn't sound like a well-lived life. Maybe it's the terminology I don't understand. Or are you saying JKR wants to write Harry as an example of a life not well-lived and therefore he will fear death? A person haunted by the past sounds like a person stuck in the terrible purgatory between two worlds--unable to resolve the grief of what was lost and unable to build new memories to reside alongside the old. My personal preference would be for JKR to put Harry out of his misery if that's his future. Jen R., certain she is missing something. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 18:44:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:44:41 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160207 > > Carol: > > > If you can explain what he could have done without triggering the UV > > and killing a trusted teacheer (you don't trust him, but DD does and > > he relies heavily on him throughout HBP), I'd be grateful. > Personally, > > I don't think there was anything else to be done. > > > > Alla: > > I already explained what I think Dumbledore should have done, several > times in fact, but I will say it one more time. He should not have > made dealing with UV which Snape took to be his primary concern, IMHO. > > Here is one of the more recent posts of mine where you can see what I > think Dumbledore should have done. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160162 > > > IMO of course. > > Alla > Carol again: I've read all your posts in this thread and elsewhere and you have not answered the question. *Not* concentrating on the UV is not an action. It's more inaction, which is what you seem to find so abhorrent. I guess you think he sould have let the UV kill Snape but I'm asking what he could have done *without* danger to Snape (or to Draco). And I have yet to see a suggestion that would have prevented the DEs from getting into Hogwarts without activating the UV. What, exactly, could Dumbledore have done without antagonizing Draco, provoking him into a failed murder attempt (which DD would have to deflect) and consequently killing Snape, on whom DD, like it or not, depends? What additional protections could he have put in place to protect the students? I can't think of a single one. What further investigations could he have made? He says that he knows more than Harry does. Why doubt him? Carol, still waiting for a satisfactory answer From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 19:10:41 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:10:41 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160208 > Carol again: > > I've read all your posts in this thread and elsewhere and you have not > answered the question. *Not* concentrating on the UV is not an action. > It's more inaction, which is what you seem to find so abhorrent. I > guess you think he sould have let the UV kill Snape but I'm asking > what he could have done *without* danger to Snape (or to Draco). And I > have yet to see a suggestion that would have prevented the DEs from > getting into Hogwarts without activating the UV. > > What, exactly, could Dumbledore have done without antagonizing Draco, > provoking him into a failed murder attempt (which DD would have to > deflect) and consequently killing Snape, on whom DD, like it or not, > depends? > > What additional protections could he have put in place to protect the > students? I can't think of a single one. What further investigations > could he have made? He says that he knows more than Harry does. Why > doubt him? > > Carol, still waiting for a satisfactory answer > Alla: It seems to me that the problem is the answer which I can give is not going to be satisfactory for you, so I guess there is no reason to wait for it, and no concentrating all his efforts on protecting students and **not** protecting somebody who swore to finish him off if Draco fails ( we do remember what is that UV that Dumbledore supposedly is obligated to protect Snape dear from - Snape dear agrees to fulfill Dumbledore's death warrant), is not inaction, but exactly the action which I would want him to take. Let me repeat it - Dumbledore. Should. Not. Have. Taken. UV. In consideration. At all. and let Snape to his fate, if that means death, too bad. Maybe in another life he would think twice before taking UV to finish off his mentor. I believe that there was quite a chance that Dumbledore could have persuaded Draco to take the deal he offers him on the Tower, in fact without DE around, I believe he would have more chances. So I believe in my hypothetical the only one for whom things definitely look grim is Snape ( although anything can happen, but everybody else had a pretty good chance of beating tough luck, everybody but Snape) JMO of course, Alla, who has no problem with anybody finding her answers unsatisfactory, but who absolutely finds problematic the implication that I do not suggest any course of action for Dumbledore when mine just ignores the fate of Snape dear. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Oct 23 19:23:23 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:23:23 -0000 Subject: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160209 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thekrenz" wrote: Why does Vernon so viciously try to keep Harry from going > back to Hogwarts? One would assume Vernon would be quite pleased to be > rid of Harry, so why does he exert so much effort to keep Harry at > Privet Drive? Dare I say the most money Vernon has every invested in > Harry (consciouly or not) is paying someone to install bars at his > window. Vernon is certainly a control-freak, could that explain his > actions? Or, could it be that he wants to make Harry miserable? What > do my fellow list members think? Magpie: I think one of the "keys" to the Dursleys is that for all they are supposed to hate Harry their behavior is modeled more along the lines of pain-in-the-butt parents than actual neglectful parents. For instance, in PS/SS they feel they must take Harry to the zoo when the babysitter is unavailable. Harry wants to stay home alone and watch TV, so they won't let him do that. Their reasons are all stated in ways that are negative--they think he'll destroy the house, he can't sit in the car or he'll ruin that, etc., but we we end up with is the way real parents would act: No, you can't stay home alone by yourself, you must be properly supervised by an adult. In situations like that and with CoS I think the Dursleys are easier for kids to relate to because their job is basically to always keep Harry from having fun--as many normal kids probably feel their parents do. If it were a realistic story you're right, Vernon would probably be glad to be rid of Harry. But really he's more a nightmare version of all the bad things about parents--always saying no, always keeping Harry from doing what he wants to do etc. For all the talk of of not wanting Harry in the family and leaving him out of pictures and keeping him out of sight, he's also almost reassuringly trapped within by the same family. On some level this may make sense to a kid reading it. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 19:26:41 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:26:41 -0000 Subject: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160210 --- "thekrenz" wrote: > > ... Why does Vernon so viciously try to keep Harry > from going back to Hogwarts? One would assume Vernon > would be quite pleased to be rid of Harry, so why does > he exert so much effort to keep Harry at Privet Drive? > Dare I say the most money Vernon has every invested in > Harry (consciouly or not) is paying someone to install > bars at his window. Vernon is certainly a control-freak, > could that explain his actions? ... > > Cyndi ... > bboyminn: True Vernon wants to control and oppress Harry. The only thing he hates worse than having Harry around is knowing what Harry is learning while he is gone. Not only is Harry learning magic, which scares Vernon to no end, but Harry is also learning to be a self-actualized, self-determined, self-sufficient, self-motivated, and generally all-round independant and powerful person, and Vernon finds all that very threatening. I think a small part of Vernon knows that he has treated Harry poorly. Of course, in his conscious mind Vernon has all kinds of justifications for his actions, but subconsciously, he fears that someday he may be called to task for his actions, and called to task in a most blunt and painful fashion. So, Vernon has a lot to be concerned about, a lot of legitimate reasons to be concerned regardless of what Harry does. If Harry is forced to stay home, then at some point their is bound to be big trouble because of it. If Harry is allowed to go to school, that too is bound to cause trouble for Vernon eventually. That creates very conflicted feeling for Vernon. No matter what Vernon does, I think he senses at some deep level that he will eventually have to pay a price, a very unpleasant price. What he fails to take into consideration is that Harry is not the same selfish spiteful vindictive a$$ that Vernon is. I'm sure in the end Harry will take the high road and not truly seek revenge on Vernon. What I do hope for is that the Dursleys have to seek refuge in Harry's house for a change. Their health, safety, and wellbeing will be at Harry's good graces. While I expect a certain degree of retributional humor in that scene, I'm sure Harry will treat the Dursleys far better than they ever treated him. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From k.coble at comcast.net Mon Oct 23 19:03:13 2006 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:03:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DE9D141-7D68-4BD9-BBAC-284486C25D4E@comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160211 On Oct 23, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Jen Reese wrote: > Eggplant: > > Suppose Harry lives happily ever after, a week after you finish > > reading book 7 you'll hardly think about it at again; but if Harry > > dies in Ginny's arms covered in blood from grievous wounds > > received in his heroic battle with Voldemort I'll bet you'll still > > be thinking about it for a long time. > > > > Jen: These ideas seem mututally exclusive. You are saying that JKR > doesn't want readers to fear death at the end of a well-lived life, > but that her 'chip of ice' might cause her to write an ending where > Harry is haunted continually by his past? That doesn't sound like a > well-lived life. Maybe it's the terminology I don't understand. Or > are you saying JKR wants to write Harry as an example of a life not > well-lived and therefore he will fear death? > . > > Katherine: I think JKR has given us plenty of examples of lives well- lived and well-ended. Lily sacrificed herself for her son. Dumbledore sacrificed himself for The Order and the eventual defeat of Voldemort. Snape is sacrificing himself for those same things, as well as for maintaining the relative innocence of Draco Malfoy. Sirius sacrificed himself to protect the D.A. members at the ministry. Bill sacrificed his looks and health for a good cause. Rowling has permeated the stories with sacrifice. Harry himself has known massive sacrifice on a grander scale than anyone else in the book. Death is indeed harder on the living, and Harry has had more lives torn from him than most people could handle. I think the message Rowling is trying to show is that while death diminishes Voldemort as he murders to tear his soul asunder, death combined with love makes Harry stronger. The deaths he's known actually contribute to making him a more vibrant human being--the mirror image of Voldemort. Eggplant, I'll be honest. Your theory is not uncommon and sounds as though you, like many others, have come to expect bloody grand finales as the only satisfactory conclusion to entertainment. In this case I think all who pray for a "bloody good show" to end book 7 have missed one of the larger points of the series. Harry will undoubtedly have a glimpse beyond the veil, but his untimely death will NOT factor into the conclusion. I stand by that. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 23 19:47:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 19:47:52 -0000 Subject: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160212 > Jen: These ideas seem mututally exclusive. You are saying that JKR > doesn't want readers to fear death at the end of a well-lived life, > but that her 'chip of ice' might cause her to write an ending where > Harry is haunted continually by his past? That doesn't sound like a > well-lived life. Maybe it's the terminology I don't understand. Or > are you saying JKR wants to write Harry as an example of a life not > well-lived and therefore he will fear death? Pippin: Hmmm... Dumbledore saw that he bore some responsibility for Sirius's death, and that was chastening, but it didn't mean that Sirius didn't die well, or that Dumbledore couldn't resolve his grief. He was never going to forget his mistake, but he forgave himself for it. I can see Harry thinking that if only he had hated less or trusted more, some who died could have been saved. While he could forgive himself for this, it would always be painful to think of. Does that make sense? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 20:00:16 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:00:16 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160213 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 23, Horcruxes > > 1. Given that Harry, in the course of the series, has often turned up late to the Gryffindor Tower without a real complaint from the Fat > Lady, why do you think she is so liverish in this instance? Carol responds: Interesting question. Maybe it relates to the Felix Felicis wearing off and shows that it's a close call? But doesn't Harry usually wear the Invisibility cloak and have someone let him back in? (My memory on this minor point is a bit fuzzy.) > > 2. Do you think there is any significance in the Astronomy Tower > being the Bloody Baron's favourite haunt (pun intended) when it is > also later the scene of Dumbledore's death? Carol: Well, it brings the astronomy tower to our notice. I can't remember it's having been mentioned earlier in the book. And it also answers a longstanding question of mine, whether the Bloody Baron can actually talk (we never hear him speak). The momentary image of Dumbledore claning and howling on the tower is a nice bit of JKR-style humor, but I don't think there's anything significant. Unless, maybe, the Bloody Baron reports to McGonagall that Harry's Invisibility Cloak is still on the tower and she sends him a note to come and claim it. (That's one way to get Harry back to Hogwarts. Then again, she'll probably just send it by owl post.) > > 3. What other business would you think Dumbledore had to attend to > after midnight on a school night, as alluded to by Nick? Carol: Harry asks later if it's related to the Horcruxes, so I'd guess that he was checking out the seacoast near the cave where the Horcrux is hidden. > > 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the > description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions > perhaps a clue to something? Carol responds: I think it's odd that Harry notices this detail at all the first time around, given his usual inattention to such things. If it were important, I think he'd have noticed it the second time around rather than the first. I think that JKR is merely trying to make the two descriptions similar without being identical, to refresh our memories without boring us. I don't for a moment think that even Tom Riddle would use a potion on the Potions master, who could detect the potion by its effects even if it were tasteless and odorless like Veritaserum. He doesn't need a potion, anyway. The way to impress Slughorn is through bribery, charm, and flattery. > > 5. This segment of his memory, although perhaps embarrassing and no > longer a view that Slughorn holds, does not appear to do any harm to > Slughorn, unlike the later part regarding Horcruxes, so why do you > think he covered up this portion from his fogged memory? Carol: I think the segment injures his bride. He prides himself on his ability to distinguish talent and potential greatness, but in this case, he was wrong about the direction the boy's prodigious talents would take him. Here he was, ready to write a glowing recommendation for a future Dark Lord! Embarrassing memory for old Sluggie. > > 6. Why would Uncle Horace become excited when describing Horcruxes? Carol: As others have pointed out, Slughorn is uncomfortable, especially when Tom seems to imply that he would make a Horcrux. It's Tom who's excited. > > 7. Was Tom Riddle initially listening to information he already > possessed, or did he have no knowledge of Horcruxes at all prior to > this conversation? Carol: Canon implies that he didn't know how it was done, especially the details of the spell. "How do you split your soul?" "But how do you do it?" "Encase? But how?" Not questions that someone who *only* wanted to know if it was possible to make more than one Horcrux would ask. In fact, I don't see why the question about multiple Horcruxes has to be asked at all. He's already killed four people (Myrtle and the Riddles), sufficient soul bits for four Horcruxes if he had enough objects. Why not just do it if he already knew how? And yet he asks those questions and is still wearing the ring. IMO, Dumbledore (or Dippett, on Dumbledore's advice) has made sure that the library does not contain the information that a Dark Wizardling would need to create a Horcrux. Perhaps he's researching Horcruxes himself in relation to Grindelwald, whom he defeats about two years later, and makes sure that any book on the subject is in his office. Grindelwald is not yet dead, but Horcruxes are already a taboo topic at Hogwarts. As for what Tom knew before the conversation, he obviously knew the word and apparently he knew that they were considered Dark magic (which IMO is why he asked Slughorn, who likes him and won't be suspicious of him, about them instead of asking, say, Professor Merrythought, the old DADA teacher). I'm guessing that he thought that murder was involved (note his lack of response to the information that killing is required). He may also know the definition of a Horcrux (an object in which a person has concealed part of his soul). He says that he encountered the term when he was reading and didn't quite understand it. I think most likely what he didn't understand was not the nature of Horcruxes but how to make them and, secondarily, whether it was possible to make more than one (preferably six). The answer to the second question is useless if he doesn't know the answer to the first. How do you make one? How do you split your soul? how do you encase it? Why ask those questions, repeatedly and urgently, if he already knew the answer? IMO, if he knew the answer, he wouldn't have come to Slughorn and he wouldn't be wearing the ring. (Maybe he found what he wanted at Borgin and Burkes, or elsewhere in Knockturn Alley, which is bound to have Dark magic bookstores. > > 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions when > he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, was it > more than just a natural conversation in other words? Carol: A liking for Tom and Tom's innocent air of intellectual curiosity? After all, he didn't tell him the actual spell. I don't think he thought for a moment that Tom would actually kill someone in cold blood, much less that he had already done it. > > 9. Without going too deeply into the nature of Horcruxes, as that > aspect has been discussed almost ad nauseam, do you think Voldemort > actually has or had seven soul pieces, six of which are or were > Horcruxes? Carol: I have absolute faith in JKR's ability to believe that it's possible to divide an intangible soul into seven equal parts even though nothing I know of naturally divides into equal sevenths through more than seven murders and to determine which piece of soul merits being placed in a Horcrux again despite more than seven murders (or only four at the time of the first two Horcruxes. We're not supposed to be analyzing at this level. And, yes, I think Dumbledore has correctly identified the six Horcruxes (diary, ring, cup, locket, snake, something from Ravenclaw). The Sword is safe, and he wouldn't create additional Horcruxes because he somehow has exactly one-seventh of a soul left. The magic, in his view, would be weakened by creating an additional Horcrux and reducing him to, say, one-fourteenth of a soul in his body. > > 10. How had Dumbledore acquired his knowledge of Horcruxes and why > was it such thorough knowledge? Carol: As i said, I think he was researching ways to defeat Grindelwald, whom he knew or suspected of having a Horcrux. > > 11. Did Lord Voldemort treat the Diary Horcrux carelessly as > Dumbledore suggests or is there more to its destruction than > initially met the eye? Carol: I'm not sure that I understand the question. He wanted the Horcrux to be used, probably soon after he murdered Harry as a weapon against Dumbledore. He certainly didn't want it wantonly destroyed. I also wonder what would have happened if Diary!Tom, animated by Ginny's soul, had encountered Vapor!mort. Would he have allowed his own seventh of a soul to possess him and re-formed the Death Eaters in the guise of a sixteen-year-old boy? > > 12. Would you agree that there are four Horcruxes to find, and if not why not? Carol: Yes. I don't think that Harry or his scar is a Horcrux, and I think that Dumbledore is right about Nagini being one (though perhaps he's wrong about the timing for reasons I've explored elsewhere). > > 13. As far as I recall the Sorting Hat was whipped from the head of > Godric Gryffindor (with the implication that it was his), so why > would Dumbledore not at least make a mention of this? Carol: I don't think that Tom would consider making the dirty old hat that he sneers at in CoS into a Horcrux, whatever its powers, and Dumbledore knows that Tom prefers objects that in themselves are valuable (and durable), Objects that have "a certain grandeur"--preferably made of gold, apparently. The Sorting Hat doesn't qualify. Also, since the Sorting Hat can think for itself, its thinking would probably be altered by the addition of a Horcrux, which Dumbledore would easily detect and destroy. It doesn't seem to occur to DD that Riddle would use the Sorting Hat any more than he'd use an old mouth organ if he still had one. And it isn't really a relic of Gryffindor since, as others have pointed out, it has "brains" from all four Founders in it. (For some reason, I'm getting menatal images of the Scarecrow's brain from the book version of Wizard of Oz.) > > 14. Do you agree with Dumbledore that Nagini is a Horcrux and if so > did he conclude this when consulting his machine in OotP or from some other source? Carol: "Naturally, naturally. But in essence divided?" Yes, I think he means that the snake's "essence" is divided into her own nature and Voldemort's, especially when he's possessing her. I don't think that the division of the snake into two heads has anything to do with Harry. Like a two-headed Runespoor, Nagini is of two minds, hers and her master's. > > 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the > summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that > Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? Carol: It's possible that Nagini isn't a Horcrux and that LV is still one short, but I don't think that Harry or his scar is an accidental Horcrux, if that's what you mean. DD had the perfect opportunity to present that idea to Harry when he was discussing Nagini and he didn't do so. If accidental Horcruxes were possible, he'd have had a moral obligation to point that out. > > 16. Do you agree that Lord Voldemort is unaware when a Horcrux is > destroyed and if so, and given that he knows of the loss of the Diary Horcrux, do you think he would create another? Carol: He didn't know that the diary was gone and there's no indication that he knows about the ring (or that the locket in the cave was stolen). And as I said before, he's not likely to diminish his soul further. By JKR's calculations and his, if not by real math, he has one seventh of a soul. He's not going to remove any more soul bits, IMO. (Besides, we'd have a neverending Horcrux hunt. Enough Horcruxes already!) > > 17. Why does Dumbledore not categorically say that Lord Voldemort > could be killed if his Horcruxes are destroyed, but only that it will take uncommon skill and power to kill him? Carol: He's warning Harry that it won't be an easy job and also that he's not going to be killed in a car accident or by a stray AK fom the Blond Death Eater. Harry has to do it, and it's going to be hard work. > > 18. Lord Voldemort is said to be a powerful and gifted wizard so why > would he set such store by the Prophecy? Carol: He's a superstitious egomaniac who stamps out anything that threatens him. He doesn't dare reject the Prophecy as nonsense. Suppose it's true and some kid wizard defeats him twenty years down the road. He can't risk it. Crush the threat before it becomes one. Nip it in the bud. Don't take any chances. Carol, hoping that her answers weren't too repetitive From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Oct 23 20:06:02 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:06:02 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160215 Alla: > > Dumbledore. Should. Not. Have. Taken. UV. In consideration. At all. > > and let Snape to his fate, if that means death, too bad. > Renee: Are you absolutely sure that DD would have survived if Snape had tried to fulfill the UV (because he is a self-preserving Slytherin)? Because I'm not. DD is weakened after destroying the Ring Horcrux. Having seen Snape in action in HBP, I definitely think he had a chance against a weakened Dumbledore. And then what? How can Voldemort ever be vanquished if Harry doesn't know Voldemort split his soul into seven pieces to ensure his immortality? Renee From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 23 20:10:49 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:10:49 -0000 Subject: Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160216 My youngest and I are listening to GoF on tape---it's very different hearing the books than reading the books. Now we're at the point where Hermione takes Harry and Ron to the kitchen to meet Dobby and Winky. This time around the elf relationship has taken on a different slant to my mind and I was wondering... Does anyone else think there is a "real" relationship here? Dobby went to visit her. Dobby suggested they look for a place together...Dobby takes care of her when she's drunk. Is there something more?---Would their child be named Dinky? (Wobby?) Is the house-elf manner of speech modeled after any particular accent from the UK---or does it bring up particular nuances? Other than just sounding different, I mean. Potioncat, knowing this has probably been discussed before, but figures with so many new members she can get away with it. Also trying to clear her mind of the Winky-Crouch relationship once offered on this list. Oh, and one more thing, Dobby says he's proud to keep DD's secrets. That has a new depth given HBP. Potioncat IWHTL From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 20:34:43 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:34:43 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160218 --- "Hagrid" wrote: > > > --- "eyemlynn" (Lynn) wrote: > > > > > > I am ...wondering how much of a role Krum will play. > > > ... > > bboyminn: > > > > I believe JKR said i... Krum would be back ... I > > think he will just be one more friendly and positive > > person on Harry's side. > > > > Becca: > > I'm not sure if Krum will show up again or not. I > > would think that if he does, it would be as a spy - > > given that Durmstrang is such a hotbed of Dark Arts. > > ... > bboyminn to Becca: Sorry Becca but I think Krum is a good guy. Not being from Britian he went to the only school that was available to him which was the Eastern European Durmstrang. So, I don't think we can give weight to the school he went to. I know I can't prove it, and I don't know what purpose Krum will serve in the story, but in my own mind, I'm am truly convinced he is a good guy. >... > > > > Lynn's question: > > > Also the Creevey brothers. I feel that they may > > > also play a part in the conclusion. > > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > ... > > > > As to the Creevey Brother's future, I find myself > > speculating that Voldemort will ... taking over > > Hogwarts. ... by holding Hogwarts and it's students > > hostage, Voldemort can attempt to force the Wizard > > World to surrender. > > > > ... To regain Hogwarts Harry is going to need trusted > > and reliable friends inside and outside the castle. > > That's where the DA Club members ... come into play. > > > Aussie: > Voldy's goal for Hogwarts is the same as Slytherins - > no Muggles taught there. So ... the Creevey brothers > will be targets that shoot back. > ... bboyminn: My first point was triggered by another thread but I can't remember which one, it has to do with people armed with wands. A Wand is more like a Star Trek Phaser than a common muggle firearm. A Star Trek Phaser has the luxury of being set from Annoy to Stun to Kill to Explode. There is subtlety to both a Wand and Phaser that does not exist with a crude firearm. That, in some ways, makes people, especially students, MORE inclined to use their wands on each other, but far far less inclined to do any real damage. A 'Tickle Charm' will certainly do the job of harrassing and incapacitating an opponent, but in the end it is hardly more than an annoyance. Not sure why, but I felt that I must point this out. Now to Aussie's assertion that Voldemort's goals would be the same as Slytherin's; I don't think so. At least not until after Voldemort had won. While Voldemort holds the school, it would be a grave strategic blunder to start killing off Muggle-Borns. If he starts killing students indiscriminately, then the Wizard World will have no choice but to take a 'there is nothing to lose' attitude. The students are already being kill off left, right, and center. An all out attack may cause some of them to be killed, but they are mark for death anyway, so it's not a matter of 'IF' only a matter of 'WHEN'. However, if Voldemort just warehouses the students, then the Wizard World has no choice but to take the attitude that they have 'everything to lose'. In other words, as long as they stear clear of the Castle and avoid antagonising Voldemort, they can reasonably be certain that the student, the children of the British Wizard World, are safe. An all out attack under those circumstances would be foolhardy. So, Voldemort and the students are safe as long as Voldemort can play them as aces in his hand. As long as they, the students, are safe but under thread, the Wizard World wouldn't dare take action. So no, the students are far more valuable alive as barganing chips, then they are being killed off. So, Voldemort will not start by purging the school of mudbloods. > > > > Becca: > > I think that any further international intrigue will > > come via Charlie Weasley. He really hasn't gotten his > > day in the sun, and I sure hope that he does! > > Aussie: > Charlie was asked to be recruiting foreign Wizards. ... > I would also like to see a flying armada with Norbert > carrying Hagrid into battle. > > aussie (well, I can dream, can't I?) > bboyminn: In a sense, I can't help wonder if JKR has written herself into a corner. She has so many characters, plot devices, and creatures that are too promenent not to be significant but on the other hand, so far, /don't/ seem to have any significants at all. Do I really believe that Charlie, the dragons, and especially Norbert, were an insignificant diversion; I don't think so. Do I really believe that House-Elves, the Veil of Death, the Centaurs, the giant Spiders, the locked room of supposedly Love, the caved in tunnel, the Chamber of Secrets, Fawkes, Aberforth, and a dozen others can be so promenent, yet ultimately be insignificant; I don't think so. But look at the shear number of these promenent plot devices, how can she fit them all into one book, yet how can she NOT? It's going to be amazing to see JKR pull if off. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 20:32:07 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:32:07 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160219 > Alla: > > > > Dumbledore. Should. Not. Have. Taken. UV. In consideration. At all. > > > > and let Snape to his fate, if that means death, too bad. > > > > Renee: > Are you absolutely sure that DD would have survived if Snape had tried > to fulfill the UV (because he is a self-preserving Slytherin)? Because > I'm not. DD is weakened after destroying the Ring Horcrux. Having seen > Snape in action in HBP, I definitely think he had a chance against a > weakened Dumbledore. > > And then what? How can Voldemort ever be vanquished if Harry doesn't > know Voldemort split his soul into seven pieces to ensure his immortality? Alla: Now, that is a totally different question. Sure, I would not put it past Snape to try fulfill UV to save himself, since I believe this is exactly what he did. Hmmm, if Dumbledore was weakened then indeed he may have problems duelling with Snape, but do you remember all debate about Spinner End and what is what Snape tells Bella is true and what is not. Was Dumbledore really that weakened after MoM? Or was it a story? The bottom line is YES that is the only reason I can see that Dumbledore may have to do something about UV - as in to prevent Snape from trying it, although honestly there is so much uncertain factors here, that I am not even sure. The time frame after all is absent, so maybe it will not activate at all. OR if it does activates and Dumbledore is not within walking distance from Snape at the moment it is activated ( say Draco accepts the protection), does Snape die at this very second or not? Because if he does, all that Dumbledore needs is to take conversation with Draco far far away from Snape. Just speculating of course, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 20:34:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:34:32 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160220 Carol *Not* concentrating on the UV is not an > action. It's more inaction, which is what you seem to find so abhorrent. I guess you think he sould have let the UV kill Snape but I'm asking what he could have done *without* danger to Snape (or to Draco). And I have yet to see a suggestion that would have prevented the DEs from getting into Hogwarts without activating the UV. > > > > What, exactly, could Dumbledore have done without antagonizing Draco, provoking him into a failed murder attempt (which DD would have to deflect) and consequently killing Snape, on whom DD, like it or not, depends? > > > > What additional protections could he have put in place to protect the students? I can't think of a single one. What further investigations could he have made? He says that he knows more than Harry does. Why doubt him? > > > > Alla: > > It seems to me that the problem is the answer which I can give is not > going to be satisfactory for you, > so I guess there is no reason to wait for it, and no concentrating > all his efforts on protecting students and **not** protecting > somebody who swore to finish him off if Draco fails ( we do remember > what is that UV that Dumbledore supposedly is obligated to protect > Snape dear from - Snape dear agrees to fulfill Dumbledore's death > warrant), is not inaction, but exactly the action which I would want > him to take. > > Let me repeat it - > > Dumbledore. Should. Not. Have. Taken. UV. In consideration. At all. > > and let Snape to his fate, if that means death, too bad. > > Maybe in another life he would think twice before taking UV to finish > off his mentor. > > I believe that there was quite a chance that Dumbledore could have > persuaded Draco to take the deal he offers him on the Tower, in fact > without DE around, I believe he would have more chances. > > So I believe in my hypothetical the only one for whom things > definitely look grim is Snape ( although anything can happen, but > everybody else had a pretty good chance of beating tough luck, > everybody but Snape) > > JMO of course, > > Alla, who has no problem with anybody finding her answers > unsatisfactory, but who absolutely finds problematic the implication > that I do not suggest any course of action for Dumbledore when mine > just ignores the fate of Snape dear. > Carol again: So you blame Dumbledore for protecting Snape, whom he believed to be trustworthy and on whom he relied for help? You're seeing Snape in hindsight. Try seeing him through Dumbledore's eyes. Also, he could protect Snape and protect the students at the same time, which, IMO, he did. How would confronting Draco solve the problem and end the danger to the school? Voldemort knows about the Vanishing Cabinet now. He could order Theo Nott to fix it. What makes you think that DD wasn't protecting the students? Again, leaving Draco and Snape aside, what more could he do to protect *them*? I'd say they were pretty well protected as it was once Snape stopped the random cursed and poisoned objects from coming in. Carol, who doesn't need to have answers spelled out one word at a time, thank you, and is still looking for what DD could *actively* have done that he didn't do *aside from* confronting Draco and setting off the UV From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 20:47:11 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:47:11 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160222 --- "Jim Ferer" wrote: > > Jim Ferer (me): > I've always had in mind a much harder sacrifice than > mere physical life; Harry would make that without > hesitation. I once thought that Harry would have to > give up his ability to do magic ... > > Doug: > "That said, and it has been a suspicion all along too, > what would Muggle!Harry's consequent choice be? ... > > Either way he is 'dead' to us." > Jim: > > It may be more poignant for Harry to have to live in > the Muggle world, but there is a good chance that he, > like Squibs, could live in the magical world and be > surrounded at last by love not for the skills he no > longer has but for himself. Having love with Ginny, if > she survives, and all the people he's grown close to > will be his reward. > > Or he may, like Frodo, have to lose what he saved for > others. > > Harry just dying seems anti-climactic. > > Jim Ferer > bboyminn: Keep in mind that Muggle/Magic marriages are common. Seamus's parents are a mixed marriage. Tonk's parents are a mixed marriage. I think the magic and the muggle world can be blended much easier than people are making it out. If Harry loses his powers, there is no reason why he has to abandon the magic world completely. He can certainly still marry Ginny, he can certainly still be a part of the Weasely family, he can still certaily raise a magical family of his own. He can certainly still go to Diagon Alley and hang out with the people he knows. He can still certainly ride at the head of the parade every "Harry Potter Day'. So, he is not cut off from the magic world at all. He is not forced to abandon that life and live as a mere muggle. Most certainly, it would be painful for Harry to have once had magic, and now have lost that power, but none the less, muggle and magic people do marry and seem to integrate their lives nicely. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Mon Oct 23 21:11:13 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:11:13 -0400 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: <1161632989.1795.95531.m35@yahoogroups.com> References: <1161632989.1795.95531.m35@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C8C4FEE7FE1CD6-F90-3E1C@mblk-d50.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160225 Alla wrote: Dumbledore. Should. Not. Have. Taken. UV. In consideration. At all. and let Snape to his fate, if that means death, too bad. Maybe in another life he would think twice before taking UV to finish off his mentor. I believe that there was quite a chance that Dumbledore could have persuaded Draco to take the deal he offers him on the Tower, in fact without DE around, I believe he would have more chances. So I believe in my hypothetical the only one for whom things definitely look grim is Snape ( although anything can happen, but everybody else had a pretty good chance of beating tough luck, everybody but Snape) JMO of course, Alla, who has no problem with anybody finding her answers unsatisfactory, but who absolutely finds problematic the implication that I do not suggest any course of action for Dumbledore when mine just ignores the fate of Snape dear. Julie: Okay, I got it now. It still comes down to whether one trusts Dumbledore's judgment or not. You believe he should have left Snape entirely out of the equation, and perhaps even Draco, because they made their own beds, so to speak. I believe in Dumbledore's judgment, and that Snape is DDM and will prove to be even more necessary to Harry's defeat of Voldemort than Dumbledore could have been. Equally I believe Draco will contribute to the cause, probably by helping unite Slytherin with the other houses. That makes Dumbledore's gamble worth it, IMO, even though I also accept his words to Harry that the safety of his students was his paramount concern (and they did remain safe, even through the DE invasion). So fair enough. I'm rooting for wise Dumbledore, good if very flawed Snape, and truly reformed Draco. You're rooting for bad and heavily punished for it even if he does repent just slightly in the end Snape, not so wise and quite cold hearted Dumbledore (which it seems he must be in your scenario), and slightly-reformed but still out for himself Draco. I guess we'll find out which ones we get in Book 7 ;-) Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 21:10:23 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:10:23 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160226 --- "Erica" wrote: > > > --- "Jeff" wrote: > > > > Hi Everyone. > > > > I've been having my first discussion with another > > member, and we disagree on the seventh horcrux. She > > feels it is Nagini, and I cannot help but feel it is > > Harry's scar (because of the powers he got from > > Voldemort). > Erica: > > I don't believe that Harry is a horcrux. Voldemort has > taken great lenghts to stay alive. Why would he make the > person he is trying to kill a horcrux. Voldemort chooses > what becomes a horcrux. Why would he have choosen Harry > if he was going to kill him. > > Erica > bboyminn: Though I have expressed this opinion many times before, this seems like another good point to interject it. Dumbledore explains to us everything we know about Horcruxes, he explains everything about Harry's Scar Connection to Voldemort, he explains everything about the transfer of Voldemort's powers to Harry. Since he explains everything we know about everything related to this subject, how could Harry-The-Horcrux not have occurred to him. Personally, I suspect it did, and he discounted the idea. As others explain, why would Voldemort intentionally or accidentally create a circumstance in which the person he was about to kill would become a Horcrux? Further, why would a person he has repeatedly and continues to intend to kill be a Horcrux? Sorry, while I can certainly see why speculation about Horcrux!Harry occurs, I can't personally give any credence to it. If Dumbledore hasn't thought of it, and he is our expert on all related matters, then I can't imagine that it is worth thinking of. Of course, it has made for some fastinating in-group discussions, and that in itself has worth, but in the story, I think it is simply not true or productive. Of course, anything can happen, and if I'm wrong I will gladly and humbly eat my electrons. Steve/bboyminn From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 21:30:42 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:30:42 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160228 Pippin: Draco performed a very useful service, though he didn't intend to, by exposing some holes in the Hogwarts defenses. a_svirn: I am with you on that. Seriously, first Draco almost killed Katie thus demonstrating the danger his activities presented to all the students. Not his fault that Dumbledore took no notice, is it? Then he smuggled the mead, thus not only demonstrated the fact that teachers were just as vulnerable, but also exposing Dumbledore's safety measures for a scam they were. Again, he's hardly to blame that Dumbledore's reaction was to take no action. And finally, as you pointed out, he exposed a hole in Hogwarts defenses big enough for a half a dozen death eaters to come. And demonstrated the danger of the twins' merchandise into the bargain. For myself I would like to add "helping the order to get rid of an incompetent leader" to the list of his accomplishments. Really, he should be venerated in the Trophy Room ? next to Tom Riddle. Carol: What, exactly, could Dumbledore have done without antagonizing Draco, provoking him into a failed murder attempt (which DD would have to deflect) and consequently killing Snape, on whom DD, like it or not, depends? What additional protections could he have put in place to protect the students? I can't think of a single one. What further investigations could he have made? He says that he knows more than Harry does. Why doubt him? a_svirn: It's Dumbledore's problem if a man he depends upon goes and does something totally baffling like taking the UV. I don't see why he should solve this problem at the expense of his students and his staff. We seem to be going in circles and circles in this thread. You keep asking what additional protections could Dumbledore have put, while we keep saying that what needed was *investigation*, not *protection*. Especially since all Dumbledore's protections were about as effective as the Ministry's "Protect Your Home" leaflet. Speaking of which, "antagonising Draco" is exactly what Snape did. And antagonising the main suspect is hardly a way to carry out an investigation. Number one in their list should have been Borgin, not Draco. Had they cracked that nut, they would have known about Draco's plan without even triggering the Vow. And thanks to Harry they could have probably done it without even Borgin being the wiser. Didn't Draco threaten Borgin with Grayback? Why, the phoenixes only had to eavesdrop the friendly chat between the two, and the pieces of the puzzle would have fallen into place. Failing that they could have applied some pressure to Borgin. There was also another lead to follow ? Grayback. And, yes, failing all that "antagonising Draco". Though, I really don't see why it all shouldn't have worked. And if it had Dumbledore could have played his cards as well as he liked even without endangering Draco unduly. He could have arranged for the both cabinets to be watched 24/7. He could have "helped" Draco discreetly with repairing his, so that he wouldn't have had to try other plans. He could have used that prodigal brainpower to figure out how to send the DE in limbo once the have boarded the first cabinet. Plenty of possibilities. Yet amazingly enough none of the leads Harry provided is followed, even though Dumbledore had every reason to believe that Draco has accomplices. Even though he had every reason to believe that Grayback is one of them. That's just baffling. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 23 21:26:01 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:26:01 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160229 > Alla: > Sorry, but **no** in all of these cases there are not just > extenuating circumstances, but as far as I remember - absence of the > intent to kill - that is the **huge** difference to me. > Of course we can still uncover that in Sirius case there was intent > to kill, but we do not know that with certainty, so your analogy does > not work for me at all. Pippin: Splendid! Yes, until we have evidence of Sirius's intent we cannot condemn him. I agree. And how would Dumbledore be sure, at the time of the necklace, that Draco had intent to kill? Snape's memory of Bella's hearsay? Foreknowledge of the mead or the tower? Some evidence that we don't know about but that Dumbledore could have found if he'd looked harder? But if Dumbledore had openly searched for evidence, Draco would have been killed or condemned to a miserable life in hiding whether the evidence existed or not. Did the safety of the other students justify that? Perhaps if Draco's intent was indeed murderous. But how is Dumbledore to know? Consider the difficulties Dumbledore would face with Snape's allegation that Lupin was involved in the Prank. If an open investigation had even started, Lupin would have been condemned or forced into hiding whether he intended to harm Snape or not. Did he deserve that? Even I would have to say no, and I think he was guilty! Further, if Dumbledore was satisfied of Snape's intentions in taking the vow, then he could not condemn Snape for it. As for us, since we have no idea what Snape's intentions were, we cannot condemn him at all, I guess. Of course should it turn out that Snape's intentions were transparently ignoble, I will of course bow to your greatness . Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 23 21:32:04 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:32:04 -0000 Subject: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: <4DE9D141-7D68-4BD9-BBAC-284486C25D4E@comcast.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160230 Katherine Coble Wrote: > you, like many others, have come to expect > bloody grand finales as the only > satisfactory conclusion to entertainment. It would be going too far to say that violence is the only way to end a story, but I can't help thinking of the advice Raymond Chandler, one of the greatest mystery writers of all time, gave to aspiring authors: "If the story starts to slow down, have two guys with guns come through the door." That sound like sound advice to me. > Harry will undoubtedly have a glimpse beyond > the veil, but his untimely death will NOT > factor into the conclusion. If you see me reading a scene in book 7 with Harry cavorting with his parents, Dumbledore, and Sirius in the afterlife then stand back; I'm likely to start to projectile vomit. > JKR brags about the chip of ice in her heart. I can't pretend I don't know what you're talking about because I do; but that sliver of ice in her heart is what makes JKR a great writer. In less capable hands the Potter sage could very easily have slipped into sickly sweet maudlin pap; but that's not what happened. From book 1 the reader knows this author is different, this author is ruthless, this author is dangerous, this author may even be unbalanced; none of her characters is safe, not one, not even Harry. Saturday morning cartoons this is not. > I think the message Rowling is trying > to show is that [ .] I don't believe JKR is terribly interested in sending messages through her novels; if she wants to send a message she'll send an Email. I believe JKR just wants to write the best story she possibly can, she wants to write a story that people will remember, an epic, a story for the ages. And Harry living happily ever after just won't do the trick. The fact that a reader loves the hero makes his death all the more powerful; Homer understood this, Shakespeare too. justcarol67 Wrote: > If one of her chapters is entitled > "The Man Who Died," at least half of > her readers will throw the book away unread. Yes that's probably true, and for a good 25 seconds, maybe even 30, the book would lie there in the trash can, but then the temptation would become too great and the book is pulled out of the old circular file and read. > killing Harry off would be to choose the easy way Easy? I think not. When JKR kills Harry she will probably become the most hated women in the world; it will not be easy. She will have to choose between doing what is easy and doing what is right. Killing Harry is right, from the literary point of view. I believe JKR will decide to do what is right. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 21:41:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:41:19 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160231 > Julie: > Okay, I got it now. It still comes down to whether one trusts > Dumbledore's judgment or not. You believe he should have left > Snape entirely out of the equation, and perhaps even Draco, > because they made their own beds, so to speak. I believe in > Dumbledore's judgment, and that Snape is DDM and will prove > to be even more necessary to Harry's defeat of Voldemort than > Dumbledore could have been. Equally I believe Draco will > contribute to the cause, probably by helping unite Slytherin > with the other houses. That makes Dumbledore's gamble worth > it, IMO, even though I also accept his words to Harry that > the safety of his students was his paramount concern (and > they did remain safe, even through the DE invasion). > > So fair enough. I'm rooting for wise Dumbledore, good if > very flawed Snape, and truly reformed Draco. You're rooting > for bad and heavily punished for it even if he does repent > just slightly in the end Snape, not so wise and quite cold > hearted Dumbledore (which it seems he must be in your > scenario), and slightly-reformed but still out for himself > Draco. I guess we'll find out which ones we get in Book 7 ;-) > Alla: I am spending my last post for the day for basically thanking you Julie, but also hoping that I will add something substantive, so will not be in violation of the rules :) So, thank you for acknowledging my position ( now I do not have to think that I am going crasy and cannot explain what my position is), thank you for respecting it even though you disagree with it. Now, something of substance to add :), or basically just to clarify. Yes, definitely you got my position as to Snape correctly - I **do** believe that he made his own bed and he and only he should pay for it and nobody else **but** him. As to Draco - well, despite all my harsh words about him, I actually have no problem with fully reformed Draco, I have no problem with Dumbledore protecting him, as long as it is done in a bit different way, namely not hesitating to restrain Draco a bit more than it was done. I cannot stand the character, but as I mentioned earlier strangely enough my need to see him suffer was completed in HBP, I am fuly satisfied, LOL. Oh, and yes, you got it right that I think that we will see one repentant deed from Snape at the end, but as I said, I won't be surprised if Draco while never being friends with Harry or any Gryffs will see the error of his ways. One more thing just to be clear - so yes, that would make Dumbledore gamble worht it, I am just saying that this is **JKR** foresight, not Dumbledore and from the present moment it was not worth it. Um, yeah, I think that is it. Pleasure talking to you as always ( it is always an uncertainty to me as to how clear I express myself), glad to know that it was clear to you. Pippin: > Further, if Dumbledore was satisfied of Snape's intentions > in taking the vow, then he could not condemn Snape for it. > As for us, since we have no idea what Snape's intentions > were, we cannot condemn him at all, I guess. Of course > should it turn out that Snape's intentions were transparently > ignoble, I will of course bow to your greatness . Alla: Um, since I am actually hesitant to be 100% sure even about theories I believe in, I cannot say with absolute certainty that I am right ;) I mean even with Dumbledore's dead I would not say that it means that Snape's intentions are ignoble, but I would continue to think that it is a pretty big event supporting it. Till JKR says otherwise of course. JMO, Alla From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 21:41:53 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:41:53 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160232 > Pippin: > And how would Dumbledore be sure, at the time of the necklace, > that Draco had intent to kill? Snape's memory of Bella's hearsay? > Foreknowledge of the mead or the tower? Some evidence that we > don't know about but that Dumbledore could have found if he'd > looked harder? But if Dumbledore had openly searched for evidence, > Draco would have been killed or condemned to a miserable life > in hiding whether the evidence existed or not. Did the safety > of the other students justify that? a_svirn: In a word, yes. > Pippin: > Further, if Dumbledore was satisfied of Snape's intentions > in taking the vow, then he could not condemn Snape for it. a_svirn: He didn't have to. Snape had already condemned himself by making the "do or die" kind of bargain. From davidapiper at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 17:54:30 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (Davida Lynne Piper) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 17:54:30 -0000 Subject: Fawkes - (More Than a) New Pet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160233 > >>Kellie: > > >> I see Fawkes as an extraordinary and loyal companion to DD. Their closeness is comparable to LV's closeness to Nagini. There's a reliance, a dependence almost, on these magical creatures that no human could match. << > >>Tonks: > I don't think that Fawkes is anyones 'pet'. As you say above I think that Fawkes and DD have a bond, but not one of master and pet as some here have suggested. I do think that Fawkes will come to Harry aid somewhere near the end of book 7. << Davida: I believe that Fawkes will help Harry out in Book 7 just as he did in Chamber of Secrets. Fawkes saved Harry's life after the basilisk bit Harry but how did Fawkes know that Harry was in trouble in the Chamber? Harry was up against Tom Riddle and the basilisk. Davida From seiruya at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 21:24:53 2006 From: seiruya at yahoo.com (Lirael Goldenhand) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 14:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Looking for fellow Snape lovers Message-ID: <20061023212453.28061.qmail@web52112.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160234 > >>Karen: >> In my heart of hearts I believe that Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders. << Lirael: Hello Karen! That is a very fun idea, and one that I have thought about as well. Although I love Snape's personality, I could care less about how things turn out for him. Perhaps he is on Voldie's side, perhaps he will bring a twist to the story and help Harry bring him down. It is exciting to think that Dumbledore and Snape worked together to form a plan. It would certainly be worthwhile to discover more about Snape's true capabilities, as he is definitely my favorite character. ~Lirael From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 22:18:03 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:18:03 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore LONG, beware In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160235 > Alla: > As to Draco - well, despite all my harsh words about him, I actually > have no problem with fully reformed Draco, I have no problem with > Dumbledore protecting him, as long as it is done in a bit different > way, namely not hesitating to restrain Draco a bit more than it was > done. > > I cannot stand the character, but as I mentioned earlier strangely > enough my need to see him suffer was completed in HBP, I am fuly > satisfied, LOL. zgirnius: I've been following this discussion for quite some time, and thought I would chime in. I think Dumbledore did not 'restrain' Draco, as you put it, precisely because this was the only way to give Draco the moment of true choice which would prove to him, Draco, (and us) that Dumbledore's estimation of his was correct, and he was 'not a killer'. There needed to be a moment what Draco was perfectly free and able to carry out his mission for this to happen. Otherwise, Draco would continue in his little cocoon of 'bad faith' ('someone is making me do this, I have no choice-type thinking'), only now it woudl be Dubledore making him do things. I think Dumbledore always planned for a moment like the Tower, always planned to be helpless in that moment, and knew precisely what he was going to say to Draco. What he did not plan on was the Death Eaters, though he took precautions against them anyway. --zgirnius, who did note this was Alla's last post of the day, so is not expecting a response. From vinkv002 at planet.nl Mon Oct 23 22:23:25 2006 From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:23:25 -0000 Subject: I think Harry will die (was: I don't think that Harry will die) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160237 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: I believe JKR just wants to write the best story she possibly can, she > wants to write a story that people will remember, an epic, a story for > the ages. > > And Harry living happily ever after just won't do the trick. The fact > that a reader loves the hero makes his death all the more powerful; > Homer understood this, Shakespeare too. > Renee: Yes, Homer understood this when he made the Iliad. And then he promptly forgot it when he made the Odyssey. An epic for the ages in which the hero does not die but is happily reunited with his wife and son. Of course not everyone agreed. So someone who believed that popular epic heroes ought to die, made a sequel in which Odysseus is inadvertently killed by a son who doesn't know him. But that's not the story people remember best. Renee p.s., to bring this on topic again: if Harry were a real tragic hero, he'd bring about his own death through an error of judgement or because of a fatal character flaw. That's how it usually works with tragic heroes. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 22:31:35 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:31:35 -0000 Subject: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160238 --- "bridgetteakabiit" wrote: > > I am new to the list, and have some questions that have > popped up while I have been reading the books. > bboyminn: Welcome to the list, you have raised many question that have been discussed before. That in itself is not a problem, since we re-discuss things here all the time. But many of the answers you seek can be found by paging back though the list using the Web interface. It really is very enlightening and educational. An educated consumer is always a good consumer. Plus, it's fun and gives you a real feel for the group. You can certainly respond to old post too. There are recent responses to the 'Fawkes' thread which originally began back in June. > bridgette: > > My main one is.. when Harry tells Dumbledore that > Voldemort used His blood to return (Goblet of fire) > Dumbledore smiles. [Actually 'look of triumph'] > Anyone have any idea what will come out of this in > the end? .. > bboyminn: Well you are asking one of the great unsolved mysteries of the Series. You ask a question of which only JKR knows the answer, and she is not telling, at least no right now. Certainly it is clear that Dumbledore realizes something that no one else knows. Perhaps, sharing Harry's blood has given Harry some strength over Voldemort, or perhaps it has given Voldemort some weakness. We do know this is vitally important, but we don't know how or why. One could speculate that it is related to the 'Blood Protection'. While Harry resides where his mother's blood dwells, there the Dark Lord can not touch him. Supposedly that spell expires when Harry turns 17, but let us, for the moment, say that some aspect of it still continues. Now, when Harry is in Voldemort's presence, he is in a place where his mother's blood, as an extension of his own blood, dwells. Perhaps Voldemort will attack Harry and the 'Protection of his Mother's Blood' will again act as a shield to the Killing Curse. That is just one speculation. Another, perhaps in trying to kill Harry, Voldemort is functionally trying to kill himself. In a sense, by destroying Harry, he is destroying Harry's life's blood which now flows in Voldemort's veins. In killing Harry, he will kill himself. Perhaps, it will be the opposite. Perhaps when Harry trys to kill Voldemort, having Harry's blood, and being cursed by Harry will create a weakness that Voldemort couldn't have anticipated, and that will allow Harry to kill, capture, or vanquish the Dark Lord. That ultimate answer is 'we don't know', but we have discussed it at length. > bridgette: > > Even at the end of HBP, when Snape is escaping with the > death eaters, he is still giving Harry hints... So does > that mean that Snape is truly on Dumbledore's side? I am > convinced that killing Dumbledore was part of > Dumbledore's plan anyway..he seems to know everything, > and he always says there are things worse than death. > > ... > > Anyone have a guess as to how Snape redeemed himself and > proved he was on the good side? ... > bboyminn: Again, you are asking one of the great unresolved mysteries of the series. The answer, as above, is 'we don't know'. However, I this case, I think JKR has intensionally set up this mystery. Snape is a generally nasty guy, and especially nasty to Harry. So, we precieve him as bad. Snape kills Dumbledore, which by any reasonable analysis make his bad and evil. However, as you point out, Snape continues to teach Harry even as he is running from Hogwarts. Why would Snape bother to tell Harry things he specifically needs to defeat Voldemort, when Snape is supposedly running away in triumph? Doesn't make sense, yet Snape did kill Dumbledore, yet Dumbledore trusts Snape. So, we really don't know. I think Snape is a good guy, he is just not and never will be a nice guy. I don't think that Dumbledore consciously planned his own death by Snape's hand. But I do think that Dumbledore set his priorities, and that Snape was well aware of what was vitally important and what was not. In the scene on the tower, Snape followed the priorities set down by Dumbledore but I don't accept that there was a specific plan for Snape to kill Dumbledore. That was simply the strategically best course of action at the moment and under the circumstances. Grim and dour as it may have been it was still the course that served the greatest long term good. > bridgette: > > Has anyone decided what the Horcruxes were > 1. Diary > 2. Locket (is it possibly the locket Sirius threw out?) > 3. Ravenclaw's Goblet? > 4. Snake > 5. something from Hufflepuff/ Gryffindor? > 6. Ring > 7. Voldemort himself > > Is that right? > bboyminn: Close but no cigar. 1.) Diary - gone, destroyed by Harry in the Chamber of Secrets. 2.) The Locket - stolen from Voldemort but current where abouts unknown, though likely the locket mentioned at Grimmauld Place, which I will remind you was supposedly thrown out. 3.) Hufflepuff Cup - not Ravenclaw Goblet. Location still unknown. 4.) The Snake - Nagini - I'm not so sure about this. Dumbledore says the snake is, but he doesn't seem too sure about it in my book. So, likely but not certain. 5.) Something of /Ravenclaw's or Gryffindor's/. What and where completely unknown. 6.) The Ring - destroyed by Dumbledore which resulted in his dead withered hand. 7.) Voldemort himself - Voldemort's body contains not a torn or split piece of soul, but the core-soul that defines Voldemort and provides his identity. That is why it must be the last soul-piece to be dealt with. Given the magnitude of this task, it seems next to impossible. Harry has SO much to learn before he can tackle the Horcruxes, and then once he is prepared, he has to find them; an extremely next to impossible task. Plus, on top of all the Horcrux efforts, Harry has to prepare himself to face Voldemort. Yes, many people say that 'love' will save him, but there is no practical way to apply 'love'. What is Harry going to do, give Voldie a hug and a kiss? I don't think so. So, from Harry's perspective, he must struggle to learn offensive and defensive spells for the Voldemort confrontation. Combining all this, adds up to an impossible task that we know for a fact will somehow be done. It's going to be interesting to see how. > bridgette: > > Regulus is definitely talked about more times than need > be in book 6, so I think he is RAB... > bboyminn: That seems to be an unofficially confirmed fact. JKR as good as said RAB was Regelus Black, but stopped short of actually confirming it. Confirmation has come from other sources, but those confirmations are limited short of a confirmation from the author herself. > bridgette: > ... > > What the heck was the significance of Snape being the > Half Blooded Prince? I don't see why that was important > to find out at all...but maybe it will be explained > later. > bboyminn: I think the 'Half-Blood Prince' is a bit of a McGuffin. It give the characters an excuse to play the story out, it gives them something to focus on while the story unfolds, but beyond the surprise that Snape is the HBP, I don't think the fact itself will be significant to the future story. > I read where 2 more characters die in book 7. Anyone has > any idea? .... > > ... > > ... > > thanks, > bridgette bboyminn: Rumors of their deaths have been greatly exaggerated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that more people are going to die. Look at how many people died in the latest book. I don't have an official death toll, but it is certainly half a dozen or more. So, certainly in the next book even more people are going to die. But fans have taken 'more people are going to die' and turned it into 'significant characters are going to die', something I don't think JKR actually said. Nor did she specifically say TWO people are going to die. So, yes, the mystery is /who/ is going to die, and will they be significant characters or not. The answer is, of course, we don't know; again, one of the great mysteries of the Series. Hope that helps. Steve/bboyminn From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 22:37:54 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:37:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160239 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" wrote: > 3. What other business would you think Dumbledore had to attend to > after midnight on a school night, as alluded to by Nick? zanooda: DD just returned from his Horcrux hunt, I suppose. Maybe he needed a little time with the Pensieve to analyse what he found out that night. > > 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the > description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions > perhaps a clue to something? zanooda: I don't think it's important, JKR probably just wanted to describe the scene both times almost exactly the same way, but not exactly the same way. Or maybe Harry paid more attention to Slughorn's appearance the first time than the second time around. > > 5. This segment of his memory, although perhaps embarrassing and no > longer a view that Slughorn holds, does not appear to do any harm to > Slughorn, unlike the later part regarding Horcruxes, so why do you > think he covered up this portion from his fogged memory? zanooda: He is embarassed, of course. Just listen to him go on about Tom's abilities, promising him Minister's job in fifteen years, bragging about never being wrong about a student! In a way though, he wasn't wrong this time either. He said that Tom will go far, and so he did, only not in the right direction. > > 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions when > he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, was it > more than just a natural conversation in other words? zanooda: Slughorn is a very non-confrontational person, he loves comfort and doesn't want to be "disturbed". He understands that something disturbing is going on, but he tries to convince himself that it's "all academic", that's why he acts as if nothing bad is happening. > 14. Do you agree with Dumbledore that Nagini is a Horcrux zanooda: I never believed that Nagini is a Horcrux. I'm still in the "Harry is an accidental Horcrux" camp, so I think that DD just didn't dare to tell Harry the truth and wanted him to know that a living being can be a Horcrux, in hope that Harry will figure it out himself later. > 17. Why does Dumbledore not categorically say that Lord Voldemort > could be killed if his Horcruxes are destroyed, but only that it will > take uncommon skill and power to kill him? zanooda: DD's "Yes, I think so" sounds categorical enough to me :-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 23 23:49:12 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:49:12 -0000 Subject: Hero Types (was Re: I think Harry will die (was: I don't In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160240 > Renee > > p.s., to bring this on topic again: if Harry were a real tragic hero, > he'd bring about his own death through an error of judgement or > because of a fatal character flaw. That's how it usually works with > tragic heroes. Potioncat: That would be perfect if JKR had written the saga of Dumbledore! But actually this rings a bell. Isn't there a difference between the Classic Hero, the Tragic Hero and the Modern Hero? Certainly we haven't worked out if JKR is writing a saga, a mystery or a coming of age story. A classic hero, a tragic hero and a modern hero walked into a bar.... Alright, I don't have the correct terms. I was only able to take Lit as an elective. Chose nursing to pay the bills..... Potioncat IWHTL This is as good a place as I'll find to tell this story. Our church had a bazaar this past weekend. I was browsing about in the book nook and over heard a girl trying to convince her mother to let her buy a book. "How many times have you read this one!?" "Twice, but it's really good." So the mother gave in, with some shaking of the head and the extremely happy girl walked out with a hardback HBP for $1.00. And I think the mother really does think it was a waste of money. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Mon Oct 23 23:55:47 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:55:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160241 Jen wrote > Thank you, Goodlefrood, you really captured the essence of this > chapter. Thank you, I do my best to satisfy. > > 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions perhaps a clue to something? > Jen: Hmmm, I didn't notice this. I'm leaning toward the very banal > explanation of editorial error, though. ;) Goddlefrood Now: Well, so far no explanation that matches mine has come up, so here it is: I think it is simply a little play by JKR, indicating further what enormous attention to detail she possesses, in that the first version is quite literally the sugar-coated one and the actual true memory is not. A small twopen'orth Goddlefrood From mcdumbledore at juno.com Mon Oct 23 22:57:16 2006 From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:57:16 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160242 > bboyminn: > > Sorry Becca but I think Krum is a good guy. Not being > from Britian he went to the only school that was available > to him which was the Eastern European Durmstrang. Becca: Hey Steve. Yeah, Actually the next sentence of my original reply was: "So he might use his former relationship with Hermione to get to Harry (as a bad guy), or (more likely, IMO) he might spy on the bad guys for the good guys (perhaps taking Snape's [presumed] old job.)" Note the "more likely, IMO." If I were a betting woman, I'd say Krum is a good guy. I just think there's a *possibility* that he's not. Durmstrang *could* have corrupted him, whether he was a good guy to begin with or not. But again, if I were a betting woman, I, too, would bet that he's a good guy. > > Aussie: > > I would also like to see a flying armada with Norbert > > carrying Hagrid into battle. > > Becca: HA! A small part of me will die if this does not happen now. ;) From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 24 00:47:23 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:47:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Scar References: Message-ID: <008801c6f705$fd52b170$148c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160243 > bboyminn: > > Keep in mind that Muggle/Magic marriages are common. > Seamus's parents are a mixed marriage. Tonk's parents > are a mixed marriage. I think the magic and the muggle > world can be blended much easier than people are making > it out. > > If Harry loses his powers, there is no reason why he > has to abandon the magic world completely. He can > certainly still marry Ginny, he can certainly still be > a part of the Weasely family, he can still certaily > raise a magical family of his own. He can certainly still > go to Diagon Alley and hang out with the people he knows. > He can still certainly ride at the head of the parade > every "Harry Potter Day'. So, he is not cut off from the > magic world at all. He is not forced to abandon that life > and live as a mere muggle. > > Most certainly, it would be painful for Harry to have > once had magic, and now have lost that power, but none > the less, muggle and magic people do marry and seem to > integrate their lives nicely. Magpie: Wow. As strange as it sounds, this sounds almost like condemning Harry to a fate worse than death, particularly knowing Harry. We hear about a few Muggle/Wizard marriages (I believe Tonks father is Muggleborn, not Muggle; I don't know if we've ever heard of anyone but Seamus' Witch mother, Dean's mother apparently never learned her husband even was a Wizard) but we rarely if ever see any equal Muggle/Wizard interaction. Harry without magic would make him a Squib like Mrs Figg and Filch. It puts him in a group that everyone casually considers themselves better than all the time. Harry Potter without magic would, I think, be considered by the Wizarding World an almost blasphemous tragedy. I definitely can't imagine him married to Super!Seventh!Witch!Ginny with her doing all the magic for him. Diagon Alley might not be quite as fun that way, but returning to the Muggle World isn't really an option since the Muggle World isn't given much worth in the story. Harry's got nothing there. -m From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 24 01:49:16 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:49:16 -0000 Subject: Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160244 > Potioncat: > we're at the point > where Hermione takes Harry and Ron to the kitchen to meet Dobby and > Winky. This time around the elf relationship has taken on a different > slant to my mind and I was wondering... > > Does anyone else think there is a "real" relationship here? Eddie: Yes, absolutely. As part of my speculations for Book 7 (see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159477), I think Dobby and Winky will marry and become Harry's and Ginny's houseelves --- assuming they all survive. > Potioncat: > Would their child be named Dinky? Wobby? Eddie: I'll guess they'd call them Harry, Ginny, Hermy, Ronny, Albusy, Siriusy, Severusy, Minervy, and Rubiusy. Eddie-y From nancy.hannah at mac.com Tue Oct 24 01:59:24 2006 From: nancy.hannah at mac.com (Nancy Hannah) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 21:59:24 -0400 Subject: Fawkes Message-ID: <9157944.1161655164989.JavaMail.nancy.hannah@mac.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160245 Lana writes: I really don't think that the feather has anything to do with them being drawn together. Fawkes came to Harry's aid not because of the wand, but because of his loyalty to Dumbledore. The wand really doesn't play a role in how the bond was formed. If it did, then Fawkes would show the same loyalty to Voldermort and I just cannot see that happening. Nancy writes: Lana and all, I'd have to disagree with this theory. After all, Harry distinguishes himself from LV in that he uses his free will to chose to do good. I think Fawkes follows this as his cue. In similar vain, the ?rumor as to loss of Hedgewig and replacement of feathered friend... should we discount the Hippogryph? I just still think ,however that Fawkes will play a greater roll, maybe to guide Harry in the secrets in DD office? Nancy From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 02:54:37 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 02:54:37 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160246 >Jeff wrote: >I cannot help but feel it is Harry's scar (because of the powers he got from Voldemort). Goddlefrood: The scar has been discussed many times, quite often in relation to its being a Horcrux. I can't say I buy the theory and having recently spent many hours poring through "Horcruxes" to write the chapter discussion on the said chapter I am persuaded that JKR has informed us what the remainign Horcruxes are and the scar is not one of them. When, towards the end of his days, Dumbledore frankly told Harry all he knew about LV's Horcruxes there was not even a minor hint that Dumbledore had any other Horcrux other than the Cup, the Locket, Nagini and something of Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's in mind. Due to this frankness I am firmly of the view that had Dumbledore suspected the scar was a Horcrux he would have said so or named it as a possible together with the others. He has moved way beyond protecting Harry from distr\urbing information. Goddlefrood From unicornspride at centurytel.net Tue Oct 24 03:29:36 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:29:36 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fawkes References: <9157944.1161655164989.JavaMail.nancy.hannah@mac.com> Message-ID: <008a01c6f71c$a1c5af30$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160247 >Lana writes: >I really don't think that the feather has anything to do with them >being drawn together. >Fawkes came to Harry's aid not because of the wand, but because of >his loyalty to Dumbledore. The wand really doesn't play a role in >how the bond was formed. >If it did, then Fawkes would show the same loyalty to Voldermort >and I just cannot see that happening. >Nancy writes: >Lana and all, I'd have to disagree with this theory. After all, Harry >distinguishes himself from LV in that he uses his free will to chose to >do good. I think Fawkes follows this as his cue. >In similar vain, the ?rumor as to loss of Hedgewig and replacement >of feathered friend... should we discount the Hippogryph? >I just still think ,however that Fawkes will play a greater roll, >maybe to guide Harry in the secrets in DD office? >Nancy Lana Writes: Not sure which "theory" you disagree with. Are you saying you think that it does or doesn't have to do with the feather? I personally don't think it has anything to do with the feather in the wands. I think that Fawkes bonded with Harry thru his devotion to DD. But I also agree that it has to do with his choice to do good. Fawkes is the symbol of all things good. At least that is what is portrayed to me. So of course he will follow and defend what is good. Harry has proven that and Fawkes knows it. I also am not sure that Harry is going to lose Hedwig. I think that he will just gain another. Of course there is the chance that Hedwig gets intercepted and killed, but really... what would that accomplish to the story. The killing of an owl.. Seems a bit strange to me. Unlikely as well. Hugs, Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nmangle at cox.net Tue Oct 24 01:06:01 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:06:01 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore Horcrux? References: <20061021025639.98344.qmail@web57913.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <025901c6f708$92e35990$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> No: HPFGUIDX 160248 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?????? Amy, Personally, I don't think DD would be capable. A horocrux is so dark and terrible its not mentioned in any Hogwarts book, except to say how dark and terrible it is. Not to mention, DD would have to kill someone to create a horocrux, and considering he wouldn't even kill Voldy, I don't think he would. Voldy did it because his biggest & only fear is Death. The worst thing possible to him is Death, so for him to create the horocrux's is his way to live on should he come accross someone who tries to kill him. Plus, he goes above and creates 7 of them, so that it takes that much work to rid of him. Nicole A. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 04:04:04 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 04:04:04 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160249 Great summary, Goddlefrood, thanks! And so many questions!! I shall pick a few, I think... > 3. What other business would you think Dumbledore had to attend to > after midnight on a school night, as alluded to by Nick? zgirnius: I assumed it might be mundane stuff he would have attended to at a more normal hour, had he been around. > 7. Was Tom Riddle initially listening to information he already > possessed, or did he have no knowledge of Horcruxes at all prior to > this conversation? zgirnius: I think he wanted to bounce the idea of a seven-part sould off a knowledgeable wizard. > 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions when > he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, was it > more than just a natural conversation in other words? zgirnius: The guilt SLughiorn feels surrounding this conversation suggests to me that he was acting of his own free will. I think he continued to answer questions in hopes that Tom would say something eventually that would reassure him that this conevrsation was not as ominous as it was starting to seem. > 9. Without going too deeply into the nature of Horcruxes, as that > aspect has been discussed almost ad nauseam, do you think Voldemort > actually has or had seven soul pieces, six of which are or were > Horcruxes? zgirnius: I think there is a possibility he might have inadvertently created an eighth. > 10. How had Dumbledore acquired his knowledge of Horcruxes and why > was it such thorough knowledge? zgirnius: I suspect his defeat of Grindelwald may have involved the destruction of a single Hoircrux. Which does not answer the question of where he initially learned about them, but would motivate his having rather detailed knowledge. > 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the > summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that > Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? zgirnius: If he is wrong, I expect it is about Nagini. > 16. Do you agree that Lord Voldemort is unaware when a Horcrux is > destroyed and if so, and given that he knows of the loss of the Diary > Horcrux, do you think he would create another? zgirnius: I agree he is unaware. I think he would not create another, because the point is to have made exactly six. > 17. Why does Dumbledore not categorically say that Lord Voldemort > could be killed if his Horcruxes are destroyed, but only that it will > take uncommon skill and power to kill him? zgirnius: Because there could perhaps be some other obstacle? From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Oct 24 04:55:12 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 04:55:12 -0000 Subject: Secondary Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160250 > "Steve" (bboyminn) wrote: > > bboyminn: > > Do I really believe that ... the caved in tunnel, ... and a dozen > others can be so promenent, yet ultimately be insignificant; > I don't think so. But look ... aussie: The caved in tunnel? Hmmm, ... magic is traceable, which is why Harry could be caught making a Patronus in Little Whinging. So to clear the tunnel, would muggle methods be used? What Harry needs is a Drill Salesman about Uncle Vernon's height, Uncle Vernon's weight and Uncle Vernon's shoe size to help out ... but will Harry find anyone like that around? Aussie (just doing a bit of lateral thinking) From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Oct 24 05:44:16 2006 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:44:16 -0000 Subject: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemort In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160251 > "Steve" wrote: > > --- "bridgetteakabiit" wrote: > > > > I am new to the list, and have some questions that have > > popped up while I have been reading the books. > > Aussie: Let me guess. An elf already sent you an email saying it is less confusing to ask one question at a time. Each of the ones you asked can be thrashed out again, and are good questions. Let us discuss one at a time. So i will only answer one , or 2 .... ok, 3. > > > > bridgette: > > > > My main one is.. when Harry tells Dumbledore that > > Voldemort used His blood to return (Goblet of fire) > > Dumbledore smiles. [Actually 'look of triumph'] > > Anyone have any idea what will come out of this in > > the end? .. > > > > bboyminn: ... > > Certainly it is clear that Dumbledore realizes something > that no one else knows. ... > > That ultimate answer is 'we don't know', but we have > discussed it at length. > Aussie: Dumbledore (DD) knew something in GOF (Goblet Of Fire), and his attitude to Harry in OOTP(Order Of The Phoenix) was very aloof - DD kept Harry at a distance. It turned out that Harry was able to feel Lord Voldemort's (LV's) mood. Plus whenever Harry looked at DD, he wanted to attack him, as LV would have, given the opportunity. LV didn't expect Harry to live long enough to use that blood connection and wasn't even fully aware of Harry's perception. It was this that helped Harry save Arthur Weasley when the snake attacked him. DD wasn't sure how much LV got from Harry and either kept him away for the Order's plans or got Harry to study Occlumency. It was Harry's failure in Occlumency that made it easy for Snape to know what spell Harry was going to use, not the blood connection. LV would also have been aware what spell Harry was using in the graveyard, but didn't know Harry's wand had the same core as his. That was the only reason Harry didn't join his ancestors at that time. > > > bridgette: > > > > Has anyone decided what the Horcruxes were > > 1. Diary > > 2. Locket (is it possibly the locket Sirius threw out?) > > 3. Ravenclaw's Goblet? > > 4. Snake > > 5. something from Hufflepuff/ Gryffindor? > > 6. Ring > > 7. Voldemort himself > > > > Is that right? > > > > bboyminn: > > Close but no cigar. > > 1.) Diary - gone, destroyed by Harry in the Chamber of > Secrets. > 2.) The Locket - stolen from Voldemort but current where > abouts unknown, though likely the locket mentioned at > Grimmauld Place, which I will remind you was supposedly > thrown out. > 3.) Hufflepuff Cup - not Ravenclaw Goblet. Location still > unknown. > 4.) The Snake - Nagini - I'm not so sure about this. > Dumbledore says the snake is, but he doesn't seem too sure > about it in my book. So, likely but not certain. > 5.) Something of /Ravenclaw's or Gryffindor's/. What and > where completely unknown. > 6.) The Ring - destroyed by Dumbledore which resulted in > his dead withered hand. > 7.) Voldemort himself - Voldemort's body contains not a > torn or split piece of soul, but the core-soul that > defines Voldemort and provides his identity. That is why > it must be the last soul-piece to be dealt with. > Aussie: #2 - The locket that no-one could open was thrown out, hidden by Kreatcher, or stolen by Mundungus and sold to the Hog's Head Barman or someone Harry can find in Book 7. #5 - In Book 1 (PS/SS), there was a mention of Ollivanders having a "... single wand lay on a faded purple cushion in the dusty window" If LV didn't finish off his Horcruxes yet, we may learn that wand belonged to Ravenclaw. That may be why Ollivander's shop was a victim in Half Blood Prince (HBP). And Yes, RAB is Regulus Black. We discussed how in foreign languages, Sirius has a different surname when translated, and the initials also changed to RAN or RAX or whatever. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 06:45:43 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 06:45:43 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: <008801c6f705$fd52b170$148c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160252 --- "Magpie" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > Keep in mind that Muggle/Magic marriages are common. > > Seamus's parents are a mixed marriage. ... I think > > the magic and the muggle world can be blended much > > easier than people are making it out. > > > > If Harry loses his powers, there is no reason why he > > has to abandon the magic world completely. .... He > > is not forced to abandon that life and live as a mere > > muggle. > > > > Most certainly, it would be painful for Harry to have > > once had magic, and now have lost that power, but > > none the less, muggle and magic people do marry and > > seem to integrate their lives nicely. > > Magpie: > Wow. As strange as it sounds, this sounds almost like > condemning Harry to a fate worse than death, > particularly knowing Harry. ... Harry without magic > would make him a Squib like Mrs Figg and Filch. It puts > him in a group that everyone casually considers > themselves better than all the time. ... > bboyminn: Here is where I think you are wrong. Harry would not be a Squib. I would be a once magically powerful person who made the ultimate sacrific to save the wizard world from oppression and tyranny. That is quite different from someone who is born without magic and never accomplishes anything magical in their lifetime. Harry would be the Hero of the Wizard World, the one who defeated Voldemort more times than any person dead or alive. Dumbledore said it himself, that Harry had acted bravely, heroically, and with great magical skill; though as we all know, he also is very lucky, but none the less that does not diminish his accomplishment; past, present, and future. Harry would still have a very special place in the wizard world because while he was magical, he did great magical deeds. > Magpie: > > I definitely can't imagine him married to > Super!Seventh!Witch!Ginny with her doing all the magic > for him. Diagon Alley might not be quite as fun that > way, but returning to the Muggle World isn't really an > option since the Muggle World isn't given much worth in > the story. Harry's got nothing there. > > -m bboyminn: Warren Buffet and Bill Gates were on TV tonight, and they we asked by college students about success. Warren Buffet said that successs is not accumulated wealth. Many wealthy people have empty lives. Wealth is being surrounded by the people you love and who love you. Harry could still be very successful, as long as he has the people he loves there to support him. Don't get me wrong, his life as a non-magical person would be very very bittersweet, yet even with the undeniable 'bitter', there would be plenty of sweetness to be had. It would be a tough life, but it could still be a rewarding one. Especially if the wizard world continues to appreciate the great sacrifice Harry has made for them. I'm not even convinced Harry will lose his magic power, but it is a theory, and I was responding within the framework of that premise. There are plenty of Muggle/Magic marriages in the wizard world, and they seem to work. They seem to reach some compromise between the two worlds. I don't see any reason why Harry can't do the same. Just a thought. STeve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 07:09:03 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 07:09:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore Horcrux?. In-Reply-To: <025901c6f708$92e35990$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160253 If you want a good Snape and a good book 7 the only way I can think of for JKR to pull it off is if Dumbledore had somehow inadvertently become a Horcrux of Voldemort. Eggplant From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 07:20:53 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 00:20:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Scar In-Reply-To: References: <008801c6f705$fd52b170$148c400c@Spot> Message-ID: <2795713f0610240020p62e74455y9772304c4f8c7b99@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160254 Jim Ferer: Harry just dying seems anti-climactic Lynda: Harry "just dying" seems more than anti-climatic to me. Harry having a near death or ressurection experience would be meaningful. The idea of Harry living in the Muggle world, having had to give up his magic doesn't make much sense. He was already magical as a baby, at least according to Hagrid, who apparently was in the know and I've always thought that much of his ability is his own, not a result of the failed AK. Only time and the final book will tell however. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dougsamu at golden.net Tue Oct 24 12:53:40 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 08:53:40 -0400 Subject: was: Hero Types now How many times? Message-ID: <4FDBAAC5-2078-4E00-A5EF-84E0C1C09B88@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160255 potioncat: This is as good a place as I'll find to tell this story. Our church had a bazaar this past weekend. I was browsing about in the book nook and over heard a girl trying to convince her mother to let her buy a book. "How many times have you read this one!?" "Twice, but it's really good." So the mother gave in, with some shaking of the head and the extremely happy girl walked out with a hardback HBP for $1.00. doug: Man! we've had to buy replacement copies they've been read so many times around here! After PoA I insisted on buying two copies of OOtP just so they could be read reasonably simultaneously amongst the four of us. One of those has had binding and page repairs a half-dozen times. 11 year old daughter is reading HBP again, as she said, oh, I think for the 6th time now. Why are Humans the only primates with chins and nuclear weapons? ____________________ From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 13:01:49 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:01:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Q's Harry's blood & Voldemor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610240601r17042bdema403302639eb8c13@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160256 [also sent to -feedback. followups should go there] > Aussie: > > Let me guess. An elf already sent you an email saying it is less > confusing to ask one question at a time. Doubtful. Such a policy, if there was one, would almost directly conflict with the rarely-enforced five-messages-per-person-per-day limit. We're encouraged to put as much together in a single message as we can. Personally, I don't agree with that policy, and I don't think it really reduces volume at all since one big messages takes as long to read as five small ones, but it is the policy. -- Random832 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 24 13:09:43 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:09:43 -0000 Subject: Smoke Snakes (Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160257 Goodlefrood: > 14. Do you agree with Dumbledore that Nagini is a Horcrux and if so > did he conclude this when consulting his machine in OotP or from > some other source? Carol: > "Naturally, naturally. But in essence divided?" Yes, I think he means > that the snake's "essence" is divided into her own nature and > Voldemort's, especially when he's possessing her. I don't think that > the division of the snake into two heads has anything to do with > Harry. Like a two-headed Runespoor, Nagini is of two minds, hers and > her master's. Jen: Dumbledore's primary concern throughout OOTP is the growing connection between Harry and Voldemort. The snake dream was the first moment Harry saw the world through Voldemort's (Nagini's) eyes and was the reason for Occlumency. Dumbledore specifically asks Harry, "I mean...can you remember--er--where you were positioned as you watched this attack happen? Were you perhaps standing beside the victim, or else looking down on the scene from above?" Once DD takes steps to secure Arthur's safety, he immediately heads to the silver instrument. Harry had just answered his question by saying, "I was the snake, I saw it all from the snake's point of view...." Then two smoke snakes appear from the instrument. Dumbledore's concern is for Harry in that moment, not Voldemort's or Nagini's essence. And the 'grim satisfaction' he feels at seeing the answer tells him Harry is not in immediate danger but the connection must be stopped before it grows further. I suspect the instrument has been Dumbledore's key to learning about the scar connection all along although perhaps snakes only appear because of the dream. Jen R. From dougsamu at golden.net Tue Oct 24 13:22:31 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 09:22:31 -0400 Subject: The Scar Message-ID: <29122BC1-CA31-449E-B6F8-0DD2B625FAAE@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160258 bboymin: I'm not even convinced Harry will lose his magic power, but it is a theory, and I was responding within the framework of that premise. doug: I'm working this out on the fly, as it is a collection of related thoughts, not a worked-out idea How many young men actually lost their lives in two great wars? so many at 17 or 18. I think this is part of the British zeitgeist, if you will. This kind of thought haunts a nations consciousness. I suspect there is some underlying notion in this series that may address this theme. Rowling knows that there are only seven books in the story. There must be a really good reason to finish it. Isn't magic and wish fulfillment really an adolescent conception of the world? and so Harry comes of age... isn't the thought that 'I'll never die' an adolescent idea? The adolescent brain is very different from adult brains. IF Harry has a bit of Voldy!soul and loses his powers isn't this a sense of him actually becoming an adult, a human being rather than an adolescent fantasy of power and will controlling the world? Is it a story about that kind of growing up? The loss of 'powers' may metaphorically be about that kind of thing. On the whole though, as you say it would be bittersweet, whatever would happen after the scar... It may be a world of childhood, a world of magic Harry can never get back to. Harry may be blessed with an Obliviate to enable him to actually live a human life in a Muggle world, so that the 'memory's' of magical power to Harry!Muggle would be like a book he read, like comics, like running around with a towel on your back flying. Of course I, and all of us, want Harry to continue happily with his own magic in the wizarding world. (Will we grow up?) But Rowling also needs a *satisfactory* way to close off the story. Harry losing his powers seems more satisfactory than his dying to most of us, but still not the completely happy ending we all want. I don't want Rowling to go there. I want her to pull something out of her hat that we can't possibly have thought of. Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 24 15:08:22 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:08:22 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160259 > bboyminn: > > Here is where I think you are wrong. Harry would not be > a Squib. I would be a once magically powerful person who > made the ultimate sacrific to save the wizard world from > oppression and tyranny. That is quite different from > someone who is born without magic and never accomplishes > anything magical in their lifetime. Magpie: Yes, he would be someone who was once a magical person and was now a Squib. Or a Muggle. A person without magic. bboyminn: > > Harry would be the Hero of the Wizard World, the one who > defeated Voldemort more times than any person dead or > alive. Dumbledore said it himself, that Harry had acted > bravely, heroically, and with great magical skill; though > as we all know, he also is very lucky, but none the less > that does not diminish his accomplishment; past, present, > and future. > > Harry would still have a very special place in the wizard > world because while he was magical, he did great magical > deeds. Magpie: But a place in the world that's all in the past, is my point. I can't speak for what JKR would say on the subject, but I can't imagine the Harry I know in the books enjoying a life where he's trotted out to commemorate what he no longer is. Being a good Wizard is very important in his society. Sure everyone would know that he once was that and gave up his magic. Wouldn't change the fact that he's now incapable of the simplest tasks other Wizards take for granted. I imagine Harry, in that situation, might prefer to not be personally noticed at all. > bboyminn: > > Warren Buffet and Bill Gates were on TV tonight, and they > we asked by college students about success. Warren Buffet > said that successs is not accumulated wealth. Many wealthy > people have empty lives. Wealth is being surrounded by the > people you love and who love you. Harry could still be > very successful, as long as he has the people he loves > there to support him. Magpie: I'm not sure what wealth has to do with it. I just think Harry, based on what I've read of him in the books, would have a very difficult time dealing with the loss of his powers. He'd have to deal not with being supported (something he struggled to get used to) but being taken care of. His abilities are a fundamental part of his identity that he's formed growing up. bboyminn:> > Don't get me wrong, his life as a non-magical person > would be very very bittersweet, yet even with the > undeniable 'bitter', there would be plenty of sweetness > to be had. It would be a tough life, but it could still > be a rewarding one. Especially if the wizard world > continues to appreciate the great sacrifice Harry has > made for them. Magpie: I think that's where I doubt he'd be satisfied, since I wouldn't count on the WW to do that. More importantly I just can't see Rowling doing it to him. The books just don't seem to be prepared to even deal with something like that. I should probably admit that I'm realizing that I'm glad they're not prepared to deal with it. I'm glad that as far as I can tell magic is what Wizards are and not something you can lose. I find the idea disturbing--and also maybe it makes the whole thing a little less real to me if it's the magic is separate enough from the wizard that it can be taken away wholesale. bboyinn: There are plenty of > Muggle/Magic marriages in the wizard world, and they > seem to work. They seem to reach some compromise between > the two worlds. I don't see any reason why Harry can't > do the same. Magpie: As I said, I don't see that. We've been told of Muggle/Magic marriages but canon doesn't really give us much to go on in terms of how it works, so I can't really say whether they seem to work or not. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 16:10:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:10:32 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160260 bboyminn wrote: > > Here is where I think you are wrong. Harry would not be > a Squib. I would be a once magically powerful person who > made the ultimate sacrific to save the wizard world from > oppression and tyranny. That is quite different from > someone who is born without magic and never accomplishes > anything magical in their lifetime. > > Harry would be the Hero of the Wizard World, the one who > defeated Voldemort more times than any person dead or > alive. Dumbledore said it himself, that Harry had acted > bravely, heroically, and with great magical skill; though > as we all know, he also is very lucky, but none the less > that does not diminish his accomplishment; past, present, > and future. > > Harry would still have a very special place in the wizard > world because while he was magical, he did great magical > deeds. > Don't get me wrong, his life as a non-magical person > would be very very bittersweet, yet even with the > undeniable 'bitter', there would be plenty of sweetness > to be had. It would be a tough life, but it could still > be a rewarding one. Especially if the wizard world > continues to appreciate the great sacrifice Harry has > made for them. > > I'm not even convinced Harry will lose his magic power, > but it is a theory, and I was responding within the > framework of that premise. There are plenty of > Muggle/Magic marriages in the wizard world, and they > seem to work. They seem to reach some compromise between > the two worlds. I don't see any reason why Harry can't > do the same. Carol responds: I can see Harry losing the powers that he acquired from Voldemort, but why would he lose those he was born with (and we know that he was born magical because his name was written down by the Hogwarts quill at the moment of his birth)? Also, I don't know where you get the idea that there are plenty of Muggle marriages to witches or wizards. I know of three: Tom Riddle Sr. to Merope Gaunt (disastrous); Tobias Snape to Eileen Prince (apparently unhappy); and the Finnegans (impossible to say, but Mr. Finnegan received "a bit of a nasty shock," did not show up at the QWC (surely as a Muggle who knew about the WW and was married to a witch, he should have received special permission), and seems to have no say in Seamus's education (he has to convince his witch mother to allow him to continue attending Hogwarts in OoP; his father is not mentioned). JKR has said offlist that Remus Lupin is a Halfblood, but it seems likely that his parents, like Harry's, are a Muggleborn and a Pureblood. Tonks, too, is the child of a Muggleborn and a pureblood. I don't know of any other Muggle/witch or wizard marriages besides the three I listed, and no indisputably happy ones. On a sidenote, the Squib Arabella Figg seems to have been married at some point (she's referred to as "Mrs." but we never see a husband). Since she lives among Muggles, she may have been married to one. Yet even she belongs more to the WW than to Little Whinging, as indicated by her part-Kneazle cats, her idioms, her knowledge of magic she can't perform and of Dementors, and her connection with Dumbledore. ("Who doesn't know Dumbledodore?") It must have been one very strange marriage. As for loss of powers, we've only seen it happen temporarily through unrequited love. (Tonks lost only one power and got it back; Merope succumbed to despair and lost everything.) Assuming that Harry doesn't succumb to despair (and how likely is that?) I don't think he'll lose his powers (except Parseltongue; the connection to the now-dead Voldemort; and possession if, as I suspect, he has that power along with the others). Carol, who doesn't see how a boy who was born a wizard could become either a Squib or a Muggle and thinks that JKR will compensate her hero for his sufferings by letting him really live (as the Prophecy implies) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 24 16:06:45 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:06:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160262 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 23, Horcruxes "Goddlefrood" wrote a very nice summary and questions. Good job! > 2. Do you think there is any significance in the Astronomy Tower > being the Bloody Baron's favourite haunt (pun intended) when it is > also later the scene of Dumbledore's death? Potioncat: I loved the joke in this section---at least I did the first time I read it. Doesn't it sound like DD had returned via the Astronomy tower? I mean, we're told that's where The Bloody Baron is and that he spends a lot of time there. So we could guess that's where Nick saw him. Is that where the Baron saw Dumbledore? I suppose the Baron could have been on the tower and seen DD arrive on foot below---but it sounds to me that DD may have come in via the tower. > > > 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the > description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions > perhaps a clue to something? Potioncat: JKR has done a nice job of giving us the same information without repeating herself. I think she was showing the first as a sugar- coated version. She was also able to have Harry pick up something different the second time even from the parts that were the same. > > 5. This segment of his memory, although perhaps embarrassing and no > longer a view that Slughorn holds, does not appear to do any harm to > Slughorn, unlike the later part regarding Horcruxes, so why do you > think he covered up this portion from his fogged memory? Potioncat: It is interesting. DD told Harry earlier that Slughorn offered to write him a recommedation to the MoM and that other teachers were also willing to write letters. Does the fact that Slughorn hints that he would expect favors in return part of his reason to remove the memory? Has he helped the DEs or Tom in other ways after graduation? > > 7. Was Tom Riddle initially listening to information he already > possessed, or did he have no knowledge of Horcruxes at all prior to > this conversation? Potioncat: I think he knew something and was looking for both confirmation of his information and additional information. > > 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions when > he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, was it > more than just a natural conversation in other words? Potioncat: He seems to have mixed feelings himself. It's natural for a wizard of a certain caliber...what has old Slughorn done in his past I wonder? I also find it interesting that Slughorn says DD is fierce about the ban. Not Dippit, Dumbledore. > 10. How had Dumbledore acquired his knowledge of Horcruxes and why > was it such thorough knowledge? Potioncat: JKR says that Dumbledore is self taught in some ways. He's been around a while and would have had to learn something about Dark Arts in order to combat them. > > > 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the > summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that > Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? Potioncat: I think it was prepping us for the next book. There may be a small error within the summary, but I think for the main part it will be sound. > > 16. Do you agree that Lord Voldemort is unaware when a Horcrux is > destroyed and if so, and given that he knows of the loss of the Diary > Horcrux, do you think he would create another? Potioncat: I think he is unaware and I don't think he will create a new one. He, himself, seems to lose something by the effort. Based on DD's comment that LV's anger was horrible to behold, I'm sure he didn't know. I'd love to hear Snape's description of it, as I'm certain it was Snape who told DD about it. The comment about Lucius "feeling safe" to be in Azkaban is haunting, now that we know what DD will offer Draco. It also makes me think DD may have plants at Azkaban who communicate with Lucius. or at least report back about him. Haven't we seen 2 Order members go to Azkaban? > > 17. Why does Dumbledore not categorically say that Lord Voldemort > could be killed if his Horcruxes are destroyed, but only that it will > take uncommon skill and power to kill him? Potioncat: Because even without the Horcruxes, he will be hard to kill. >>>>I'm adding this bit from the summary: . Harry, having heard > Dumbledore's view, quite honestly says that he has no special power, > at which point Dumbledore repeats his oft stated view that Harry has > the power of love (TM) whereas Lord Voldemort does not and indeed is > incapable of understanding love and its power. (Q17)<<<< It's interesting that we have 3 wizards with many similarities: Tom Riddle, Severus Snape and Harry Potter. TR seems to feel nothing but hate and revenge and no love. Snape feels a deep need for revenge. Does he feel love? and Harry who has some aspects of revenge in his nature, but is more loving and forgiving than either of the other two. I wonder how the 3 of them will interact in the next book? > From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 24 17:51:04 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:51:04 -0000 Subject: Harry will use Ministry of Magic in Book 7? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160263 Here's a Book 7 prediction: Harry will use/manipulate the Ministry of Magic for his purposes in various ways: * To lure Voldemort to the Room of Love * To help learn about Horcruxes ( I can just see Hermione having access to the Department of Mysteries' library! ) * To help find the Horcruxes * To act as a diversion from whatever his real plans are (a la "Lord of the Rings" where Gandalf, Aragorn, et al storm Mordor's front gate) * To draw in resources from other countries. ( Imagine Percy being at the center of this international magical cooperation! If it's official MoM policy, he'll be kissing Harry's, er, accio ) * To surreptitiously change some of his poorer Hogwarts grades What do you think? Eddie From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 24 17:55:07 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:55:07 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160264 > Carol responds: snip > > Also, I don't know where you get the idea that there are plenty of > Muggle marriages to witches or wizards. I know of three: Tom Riddle > Sr. to Merope Gaunt (disastrous); Tobias Snape to Eileen Prince > (apparently unhappy); and the Finnegans... JKR has said offlist that Remus Lupin is a Halfblood, but > it seems likely that his parents, like Harry's, are a Muggleborn and a > Pureblood. Tonks, too, is the child of a Muggleborn and a pureblood. Potioncat: Really? Only 3? For some reason I thought there were more. But off the top of my head, I can't come up with others. We know Dean Thomas's father was a wizard, but it's unclear if that story line is still valid. At any rate, none of Dean's family knew it. Perhaps I am thinking of the Muggleborn-Magic couples and that would be different than Muggle-Magic. > Carol: > On a sidenote, the Squib Arabella Figg seems to have been married at > some point (she's referred to as "Mrs." but we never see a husband). > Since she lives among Muggles, she may have been married to one. Potioncat: I'd almost bet--actually I would bet--- that her husband was a wizard. I know she's living in a Muggle community, but that's because she's watching Harry Potter. She still slips up and uses magical phrases "Cat's among the Pixies." She has a business selling Kneasle- cat kittens. Also, it seems the norm for magical families to have houses tucked into Muggle neighborhoods. > Carol, who doesn't see how a boy who was born a wizard could become > either a Squib or a Muggle and thinks that JKR will compensate her > hero for his sufferings by letting him really live (as the Prophecy > implies) Potioncat: Now to the real point. Me too. It boils down to opinion. Whether it is better writing for Harry to live or to die. Whether, if he lives, he makes a huge sacrifice. It's a case of I want against literary tradition. It it were up to a vote, I'd vote to let him live. I'm not sure how tradition really plays into this. If this is a epic hero, I suppose it's tradition for him to die. If it's a coming of age, he should leave school triumphant. If it's a mystery, we should find out who done it. (The mild mannered, quiet wizard in the background.) I think it will be one of Trelawney's correct predictions. Harry will die---that is the bit O'Voldy will die, and Harry will live a long life with his wife and 12 children. That's my opinion anyway. Potioncat IWHTL From jenny1alpha at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 15:39:20 2006 From: jenny1alpha at yahoo.com (jenny1alpha) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:39:20 -0000 Subject: Looking for fellow Snape lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160265 > wynnleaf: > I think you probably didn't intend to write that exactly > that way. In HBP, Harry never overheard a conversation > between Dumbledore and Snape about unbreakable vows. > > However, when Harry talked to Dumbledore after Christmas, > it did seem like Dumbledore already knew about the > Unbreakable Vow. If that's true, then Snape must have > told him. > > When Harry overheard the conversation between Snape and > Draco, Snape told Draco he'd made an Unbreakable Vow. But > he did not in any way indicate that Dumbledore knew of it > -- or indeed that Dumbledore knew anything about Draco's > attempts on his life. However, we learn later that > Dumbledore did in fact know. > > Therefore, it *seems* that Snape wanted to keep Draco > unaware of Dumbledore's knowledge of the situation. Jenny: You are right, Harry did not overhear Dumbledore and Snape talking about unbreakable vows. He heard Snape saying how hard things were for him. I am not sure if Dumbledore did know though. When Draco was trying to kill Dumbledore, Dumbledore said Snape had deceived Draco into thinking the vow had been made, but Draco shouted that it had been (which it had) so it seemed as if Dumbledore had been duped. That is the most confusing part in the book for me. From jenny1alpha at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 15:40:58 2006 From: jenny1alpha at yahoo.com (jenny1alpha) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:40:58 -0000 Subject: Looking for fellow Snape lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160266 Karen: > In my heart of hearts I believe that Snape killed Dumbledore on > Dumbledore's orders. I believe that Dumbledore was trying > to save Draco from something he really did not want to do and I > definitely think that he knew about Snape's vow to Draco's mother. > I have got to believe that Dumbledore trusted Snape for reasons > we will find out in Book 7. I also think that Snape is going to > be instrumental in the final showdown between Harry and he who > must not be named, perhaps even paving the way with his own death. Jenny: Yes, me as well. I think there will be something showing how Snape and Harry's parents became friends, or that Snape had tried to save Lily, but was unable to. From davidapiper at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 16:19:45 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (Davida Lynne Piper) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:19:45 -0000 Subject: The Scar, Harry's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160267 > Carol: > I can see Harry losing the powers that he acquired from > Voldemort, but why would he lose those he was born with > (and we know that he was born magical because his name > was written down by the Hogwarts quill at the moment of > his birth)? > > I don't think he'll lose his powers (except Parseltongue; > the connection to the now-dead Voldemort; and possession > if, as I suspect, he has that power along with the others). Davida: I believe Harry will lose those powers that Lord Voldemort gave Harry when he tried to kill Harry when Harry defeats Lord Voldemort in Book 7 but keep those powers he already had. You've heard the old saying, "good will always triamph (excuse the spelling) over evil". Davida From capricornamy1159 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 17:07:51 2006 From: capricornamy1159 at yahoo.com (Amy Evans) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 10:07:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore Horcrux? Message-ID: <20061024170751.48910.qmail@web57914.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160268 Nicole A: >> Personally, I don't think DD would be capable. A horcrux is so dark and terrible it's not mentioned in any Hogwarts book, except to say how dark and terrible it is. Not to mention, DD would have to kill someone to create a horcrux, and considering he wouldn't even kill Voldy, I don't think he would. Voldy did it because his biggest & only fear is Death. The worst thing possible to him is Death, so for him to create the horcruxes is his way to live on should he come across someone who tries to kill him. Plus, he goes above and creates 7 of them, so that it takes that much work to rid of him. << Nicole, You are correct ... we were talking about this here at work, and one of the customers said the same as you, but I am still confused ... if you accept the possibility of Snape and DD working together, and it being Snape's job to kill DD just to clear the way for Harry to kill LV, then is Harry being used as a pawn to do the work?, or does DD intend Snape to mentor Harry (after of course, Harry apologizes to Snape for the way his father treated Snape during their youth?) after taking out LV, assuming Harry lives of course. It just seemed a waste to kill DD when he was mentoring Harry the way he was. Amy From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 24 19:04:54 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:04:54 -0000 Subject: Looking for fellow Snape lovers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160269 > Jenny: > You are right, Harry did not overhear Dumbledore and Snape > talking about unbreakable vows. He heard Snape saying how > hard things were for him. Potioncat: Welcomed to the list, Jenny. I'm not sure if you've had time to notice how much we like to nitpick here. Arguing over itty-bitty details is what we do best. So, are you talking about 2 different situations, by chance? It sounds like you mean the convesation Hagrid overheard and told Harry about. Snape didn't want to do something, but DD seemed to be holding him to it? Harry didn't hear the actual conversation, he heard Hagrid's report of it. Most of are very cautious about Hargrid's reporting skills. Jenny: I am not sure if Dumbledore did > know though. When Draco was trying to kill Dumbledore, > Dumbledore said Snape had deceived Draco into thinking the > vow had been made, but Draco shouted that it had been (which > it had) so it seemed as if Dumbledore had been duped. That > is the most confusing part in the book for me. Potioncat: I don't recall whether the vow was real ever being an issue. Draco was insisting that Snape was really working for LV, not for DD and that Snape's only intent by interfering with Draco's plans, was so Snape could kill DD himself and steal the glory from Draco. I'm very sure that DD knew all about the plan all along. But JKR has done a nice job of keeping the readers and the different characters from knowing what's really going on. Potioncat, wondering if this makes Snape an Interferius? From rita_dabrowicz at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 17:01:04 2006 From: rita_dabrowicz at yahoo.com (Rita) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:01:04 -0000 Subject: Lavender Brown - help needed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160270 Hello everyone! I need help. As you probably know HP lexicon has recently updated bios of minor characters in HP books (Seamus, Rosmerta, Ernie, Griselda and many others). It was a great read and I highly reccommend it for everyone. One thing really bugs me: Lavender Brown's page. Lavender, as shown on the fanart by Marta T (http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/brown.html), is a white girl with blond hair, while the actress who played her in the third movie (Jennifer Smith, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Lavender_brown.jpg) is black. I remember reading an article in Polish press when the first movie came out, that JK Rowling personally supervised the process of casting young actors to make sure they all look the way she imagined her characters (I don't know if she supervised the casting for third movie). Now I find myself wondering, how Lavender looks like after all? I cannot recall Lavender's description from the books since I do not own original English version. I was trying to find anything myself in my books (Polish version) and I found nothing. If anyone of you have came across any decent description of Lavender I would be grateful for your help! If this issue was already discussed then forgive me for bringing it up again. Thanks in advance! Rita From nmangle at cox.net Tue Oct 24 18:31:58 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (nmangle at cox.net) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:31:58 -0500 Subject: Harry will use Ministry of Magic in Book 7? Message-ID: <6532436.1161714718743.JavaMail.root@centrmwml06.mgt.cox.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160271 ---- Eddie wrote: > Here's a Book 7 prediction: > Harry will use/manipulate the Ministry of Magic for his > purposes in various ways: > > * To lure Voldemort to the Room of Love > > * To help learn about Horcruxes ( I can just see Hermione > having access to the Department of Mysteries' library! ) > > * To help find the Horcruxes > > * To act as a diversion from whatever his real plans are (a > la "Lord of the Rings" where Gandalf, Aragorn, et al storm > Mordor's front gate) > > * To draw in resources from other countries. ( Imagine Percy > being at the center of this international magical cooperation! > If it's official MoM policy, he'll be kissing Harry's, er, accio ) > > * To surreptitiously change some of his poorer Hogwarts grades Eddie, Minus the grades adjustment, that is the best new idea I have heard or read in a very long time, and even though it's not exciting & adventurous, it's still new and possible. It's little, but big ideas like that why I really enjoy being on this group. I really enjoy reading a lot of your responses, just because you seem to really be reading my mind sometimes. Just think of Harry putting on his front for the MoM, while using it to further his search for the horcruxes. Plus, DD really wanted him to learn about Tom Riddle to strengthen his knowledge on how to destroy him. Is there anyone at the MoM who can help him study Occlumency (sp)? He needs to master it before he can fight, who can teach him best now? Nicole From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 19:20:05 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:20:05 -0000 Subject: The Scar - 'All or Nothing' Clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160272 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > Here is where I think you are wrong. Harry would not > > be a Squib. I would be a once magically powerful > > person who made the ultimate sacrific to save the > > wizard world from oppression and tyranny. ... > > > > Harry would be the Hero of the Wizard World, ... > > > > Harry would still have a very special place in the > > wizard world because while he was magical, he did > > great magical deeds. > > > Don't get me wrong, his life as a non-magical person > > would be very very bittersweet, ... > > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > I'm not even convinced Harry will lose his magic > > power, but it is a theory, and I was responding > > within the framework of that premise. There are > > plenty of Muggle/Magic marriages in the wizard world, > > and they seem to work. They seem to reach some > > compromise between the two worlds. I don't see any > > reason why Harry can't do the same. > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > > Carol responds: > I can see Harry losing the powers that he acquired > from Voldemort, but why would he lose those he was born > with (and we know that he was born magical because his > name was written down by the Hogwarts quill at the > moment of his birth)? > > Also, I don't know where you get the idea that there > are plenty of Muggle marriages to witches or wizards. > I know of three: ... > > ...edited... > > As for loss of powers, we've only seen it happen > temporarily through unrequited love. ... Assuming that > Harry doesn't succumb to despair (and how likely is > that?) I don't think he'll lose his powers (except > Parseltongue; the connection to the now-deadVoldemort; > and possession if, as I suspect, he has that power > along with the others). > > Carol, ... bboyminn: (responding in general) I will once again bring everyone's notice to the paragraph above that I highlighted with stars ('*'). I don't personally believe that Harry will lose his powers. What I am objecting to and responding to is the 'all or nothing' approach that people who /do/ believe this are taking. Yes, we only have three or four specified pure-muggle/ magic marriages, but that is because they are somewhat significant to the minor story, but their existance implies many more. I do agree that muggle-born/magic are more common than pure-muggle/magic, but none the less, it is clear that pure-muggle/magic marriages to exist. Back to the main point, what I object to is the idea that /IF/ Harry loses his powers, that he will be completely cut off from the magical world. I don't think so. He will still have his friends, he will still have access to their world. Admittedly it will be painful for Harry to have to do this, to have been so magically important and to now be dependant on others for magic. But being dependant on others for magic doesn't mean Harry will suddenly be helpless, pointless, or worthless. He is still quite capable, as we all are, of boiling a pot of water for tea. He is not going to starve. He is not going to go around in tattered clothes. He is not going to wander the streets alone and homeless. He /is/ still perfectly capable of, and certainly will have, a normal productive life. Being non-magical and being associated with the magical world are not mutually exclusive. Look at the Dursleys, as much as they try with all their might to disassociate themselves with the magical world, they can't escape it; the magical world intrudes on their lives all the time. So, my objection is to the idea that /IF/ Harry loses his magic that he will become this isolated wreak of a human living in cold isolation and dispare (slightly overstated). Painful as it is, Harry is perfectly able to remain integrated into the magical world. Further, given that Harry, over a decade later, is still known as 'The Boy Who Lived', I don't think the wizard world is so short sighted that they would forget the great sacrifice that Harry made for them. Again, for the record, I don't think Harry will lose his powers, but /if/ he does, that certainly doesn't mean he will be completely cut off from the wizard world as some people seem to imply. I think we have sufficient evidence to the contrary. Finally, Harry will still be able to live a perfectly normal and productive life if he loses his powers. Just trying to clarify. Steve/bboyminn From davidapiper at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 16:36:29 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (Davida Lynne Piper) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:36:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160273 > Goddlefrood: > 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the > summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that > Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? > Davida: How did Voldemort split his soul into 7 horcruxes and is Harry's scar one of them? Davida From followingmytruth at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 19:43:17 2006 From: followingmytruth at yahoo.com (Sean-Michael) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 12:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Scar - 'All or Nothing' Clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061024194317.98201.qmail@web33704.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160274 bboyminn: (responding in general)wrote: I will once again bring everyone's notice to the paragraph above that I highlighted with stars ('*'). I don't personally believe that Harry will lose his powers. What I am objecting to and responding to is the 'all or nothing' approach that people who /do/ believe this are taking. Back to the main point, what I object to is the idea that /IF/ Harry loses his powers, that he will be completely cut off from the magical world. I don't think so. He will still have his friends, he will still have access to their world. Admittedly it will be painful for Harry to have to do this, to have been so magically important and to now be dependant on others for magic. But being dependant on others for magic doesn't mean Harry will suddenly be helpless, pointless, or worthless. Sean-Michael's quick point: I tend to agree with bboyminn on his above points. I also think that the fact that Harry gave the Weasley twins the money to start up their "joke shop" which seems to me a bit more than your average shop didn't they have cures for some things in there as well....sort of a joke shop/magical apothecary? Anyway... I believe the weasly twins would provide Harry with various magical items as would other people in his life even if he were left with no magic...which I doubt. I also believe the gold his parents left him would provide for many things in the magical world he would need. Can't forget the value of a bit of gold even in the magical world. Plus he has at least one house elf who is completely capable of protecting him magically as shown when Dobby stopped Malfoy Sr from using the unforgivable death curse...Avada cadavre is it? Just some 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 ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Oct 24 19:56:43 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:56:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160275 Goddlefrood > 2. Do you think there is any significance in the Astronomy Tower being the Bloody Baron's favourite haunt (pun intended) when it is also later the scene of Dumbledore's death? Ceridwen: It's possible that the Bloody Baron could be a witness to the events on the tower, or at least some of them. I doubt if a ghost's testimony would be taken seriously in a court of law such as the Wizengamot, but his information could help the Order. Goddlefrood > 3. What other business would you think Dumbledore had to attend to after midnight on a school night, as alluded to by Nick? Ceridwen: He had just returned to the school. He probably had thoughts to sort out in the Pensieve, as well as tying up any lose administrative ends that he had let go while he was out. Goddlefrood > 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions perhaps a clue to something? Ceridwen: I think, along with others, that this is just variation of description to make the same story easier to read a second time. Goddlefrood > 5. This segment of his memory, although perhaps embarrassing and no longer a view that Slughorn holds, does not appear to do any harm to Slughorn, unlike the later part regarding Horcruxes, so why do you think he covered up this portion from his fogged memory? Ceridwen: I think that in hindsight, Slughorn is embarrassed that he spent so much time on Tom Riddle and thought he could become Minister of Magic. He shows himself earlier making some prophetic judgement of Tom's coming to ruin, he may just have wanted to appear wise beyond what would have logically been expected. Maybe he's jealous of Dumbledore's apparent prescience? Goddlefrood > 6. Why would Uncle Horace become excited when describing Horcruxes? Ceridwen: He wasn't, he was nervous. Tom Riddle was excited. Goddlefrood > 7. Was Tom Riddle initially listening to information he already possessed, or did he have no knowledge of Horcruxes at all prior to this conversation? Ceridwen: I think he had a very good idea of what a horcrux was, and a general idea of what needed to be done to make one. He may have been trying to find out exactly how to do it, what spell to use, where to find it, in order to get it done; but it seemed to me that he became more and more agitated as he led Slughorn to the question of how many horcruxes could reasonably be made. I don't have the book with me right now, but didn't he get more flushed, and his eyes more glittery or glowing, as he pressed this particular question? I think he had generalities and a basic understanding. He merely wanted specifics. Goddlefrood > 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions when he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, was it more than just a natural conversation in other words? Ceridwen: It was probably one of those nightmare conversations with someone that Slughorn thought he knew, but was beginning to suspect he didn't know at all. He continued to answer because Tom pressed him, and at the time Tom was one of his more favorite students. He probably kept telling himself that this couldn't be for the reason it seemed to be, but for research or a healthy interest in all things magic instead. He did seem to learn his lesson. When Harry brings up horcruxes, he avoids Harry after that. Either he learned from hindsight again, or he also avoided Tom after this conversation, I think. Goddlefrood > 9. Without going too deeply into the nature of Horcruxes, as that aspect has been discussed almost ad nauseam, do you think Voldemort actually has or had seven soul pieces, six of which are or were Horcruxes? Ceridwen: Yes, I think he did have seven pieces including the core soul which resides in his body now, and was cast adrift when his old body was destroyed at Godrick's Hollow. I think he made the sixth and last horcrux after his return, since he had been meaning to make a horcrux with Harry's significant death. His agenda called for seven, when he returned, he made his last. Goddlefrood > 10. How had Dumbledore acquired his knowledge of Horcruxes and why was it such thorough knowledge? Ceridwen: Slughorn told Tom Riddle that it was Dumbledore who had the topic banned at Hogwarts. Since Dumbledore the student had no hand in policymaking, he probably learned something about horcruxes in school, most likely in the DADA class or whatever it was called 150 or so years ago. He may have followed up on this education when he became a teacher or apprenticed to be one (we don't know how WW teachers get their credentials). And he may have had call to look them up again when he faced the Dark Wizard Grindelwald, too, if that wizard had made a horcrux. Goddlefrood > 11. Did Lord Voldemort treat the Diary Horcrux carelessly as Dumbledore suggests or is there more to its destruction than initially met the eye? Ceridwen: He apparently left it with Lucius Malfoy without stressing thoroughly enough how valuable it was to him, and how cautiously it should be used. It didn't seem to have the same sorts of protections on it as the ring horcrux, since it was also meant to be an interactive piece of dark magic to be used in opening the Chamber of Secrets. By not stressing its value to Lucius Malfoy, possibly because he didn't want LM to get too curious about it, he was a bit careless. Goddlefrood > 12. Would you agree that there are four Horcruxes to find, and if not why not? Ceridwen: Yes, four: The locket, the Hufflepuff cup, the object belonging to Ravenclaw or Gryffindor, and probably Nagini, who is with Voldemort and won't be destroyed until almost the end. Goddlefrood > 13. As far as I recall the Sorting Hat was whipped from the head of Godric Gryffindor (with the implication nthat it was his), so why would Dumbledore not at least make a mention of this? Ceridwen: As others have mentioned, it received the thought processes of all the founders and so became more of a universal artifact than one specific to Gryffindor. I don't know why this wouldn't make it more of a prize to LV, unless he knows the addage that one shouldn't trust an object that can think for itself. Goddlefrood > 14. Do you agree with Dumbledore that Nagini is a Horcrux and if so did he conclude this when consulting his machine in OotP or from some other source? Ceridwen: This would certainly explain the divided snake head and Dumbledore's comment about 'in essence divided' as well as any other explanation offered. Goddlefrood > 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? Ceridwen: I think that if Dumbledore is wrong about any of the horcruxes, it will only be one, and there will be an almost immediate revelation about the true horcrux so there won't be a lot of time spent on it. Goddlefrood > 16. Do you agree that Lord Voldemort is unaware when a Horcrux is destroyed and if so, and given that he knows of the loss of the Diary Horcrux, do you think he would create another? Ceridwen: No. Seven was the mystic number, and LV is superstitious about things. He was too angry when one was destroyed, I think, for it to be no big deal to him to create another one. He sets store by the number seven, so making another one would mess that up in his mind. Goddlefrood > 17. Why does Dumbledore not categorically say that Lord Voldemort could be killed if his Horcruxes are destroyed, but only that it will take uncommon skill and power to kill him? Ceridwen: I think this is cautionary advice not to get too cocky once the horcruxes are destroyed. LV is still a formidable wizard, and he is harboring the last, the core, soul. Destroying the horcruxes does not weaken him, so beware. Goddlefrood > 18. Lord Voldemort is said to be a powerful and gifted wizard so why would he set such store by the Prophecy? Ceridwen: For the same reason he set store by the number seven. He is superstitious that way. In your (Q18) paragraph, you say, "The tools Harry possesses to fight with Lord Voldemort have been partially bestowed on him by Lord Voldemort himself." I hadn't thought of Lily's blood protection sacrifice as something LV had bestowed on Harry before, but it just leaped out of the paragraph when I read it. Thanks for an interesting discussion! Ceridwen. From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 24 20:27:32 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:27:32 -0000 Subject: The Scar - 'All or Nothing' Clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160277 > bboyminn: (responding in general) > Back to the main point, what I object to is the idea that > /IF/ Harry loses his powers, that he will be completely > cut off from the magical world. I don't think so. He > will still have his friends, he will still have access to > their world. Admittedly it will be painful for Harry to > have to do this, to have been so magically important and > to now be dependant on others for magic. But being > dependant on others for magic doesn't mean Harry will > suddenly be helpless, pointless, or worthless. He is > still quite capable, as we all are, of boiling a pot > of water for tea. He is not going to starve. He is not > going to go around in tattered clothes. He is not going > to wander the streets alone and homeless. He /is/ still > perfectly capable of, and certainly will have, a normal > productive life. Magpie: I can't speak for others, but I personally never thought I was saying anything about Harry being a wreck or homeless (I realize you're exaggerating there, though). But I am disagreeing with the ease with which you're describing the magical and non-magical blending. I think Harry would be a second-class citizen, part of a group that's been casually and consistently considered inferior throughout the series. (I also actually do think the WW is easily short-sighted enough to forget Harry's sacrifice for them, though that's not necessarily here nor there. They can respect the idea of HP while still considering him to be not what he once was without magic.) There's just nothing in the series that I see that points towards this happy productive life in the magical world if you don't have magic. On the contrary, everything I see seems to indicate the opposite would be true. Sure Harry could make a cup of tea...err, if someone lit the fire for him, presumably, or got him a magical flame. But nothing in the books to me suggests this kind of life has been set up as an alternative for Harry. I don't see how one could define him so much through competence, show him growing up by mastering magical skills and considering magical careers, give non- magical people the role they have (including the difficulties presented in all Magical/Muggle marriages hinted at from Merope/Tom all the way down to the Witch using her Muggle husband for a table- though at least all of those Muggles had a place in the Muggleworld), and then end it by taking away Harry's magic as if this is a life prepared for in the text. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 20:26:45 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:26:45 -0000 Subject: The WW as Neverland / Squib!Harry (was:Re: The Scar - 'All or Nothing'...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160278 > >>doug: > > Isn't magic and wish fulfillment really an adolescent conception of > the world? and so Harry comes of age... isn't the thought > that 'I'll never die' an adolescent idea? The adolescent brain is > very different from adult brains. > Betsy Hp: I actually *do* think Harry will need to deal fully with death. (So much of the Potter books revolve around it.) But I think he'll deal with it head on, not metaphorically. Because death is real death in these books, not a metaphorical leaving of Neverland. One of the first things Harry learns is that even wizards die. The WW isn't a magical detachment from that particular truth. Cedric, Sirius, Dumbledore, Lily, James all die. They don't become Muggles. So rather than a Peter Pan type tale (which had *plenty* of foreshadowing of the need to eventually leave Neverland, and showed Peter, and Hook for that matter, paying a steep price for their immortality) I think Harry will go through a form of death and resurrection that helps him get a handle on what death actually is. > >>doug: > On the whole though, as you say it would be bittersweet, whatever > would happen after the scar... It may be a world of childhood, a > world of magic Harry can never get back to. Harry may be blessed > with an Obliviate to enable him to actually live a human life in a > Muggle world, so that the 'memory's' of magical power to Harry! > Muggle would be like a book he read, like comics, like running > around with a towel on your back flying. > Betsy Hp: But the WW isn't that magical in the end. I mean, it's not a child's paradise. There's unfairness, and small-mindedness, and fear, and all of the icky things adults have to deal with every day, muggle or wizard. The WW has never let Harry off the hook, has never been a place where he could escape the pressures of growing up. Harry is growing *within* the WW. He's not hiding out from life by staying there. (Which is what Peter Pan is doing in Neverland.) > >>bboyminn: > > Back to the main point, what I object to is the idea that > /IF/ Harry loses his powers, that he will be completely > cut off from the magical world. I don't think so. He > will still have his friends, he will still have access to > their world. Betsy Hp: I agree that Harry wouldn't be automatically cut off. His friends would still want to visit him and have him visit them. But it'd be tough for Harry to live there and frankly I think Harry would choose to cut himself off. > >>bboyminn: > Admittedly it will be painful for Harry to have to do this, to > have been so magically important and to now be dependant on others > for magic. But being dependant on others for magic doesn't mean > Harry will suddenly be helpless, pointless, or worthless. > Betsy Hp: He'd be considered such by other wizards though. He wouldn't be considered a full citizen of the WW as per their treatment of Mrs. Figg. He wouldn't be able to hold office or work for either of the big three WW institutions in any sort of powerful position. Harry would have a hard time turning on lights, running water, turning up the heat, while in the WW. He'd have to figure out the old-fashioned Muggle way of doing such things. (Building and maintaining fires, keeping matches on hand, etc.) So not totally helpless, pointless, worthless. But close enough to make visiting the WW a tad uncomfortable. > >>bboyminn: > > Being non-magical and being associated with the magical > world are not mutually exclusive. Look at the Dursleys, > as much as they try with all their might to disassociate > themselves with the magical world, they can't escape it; > the magical world intrudes on their lives all the time. Betsy Hp: Right. And it victimizes them every single time. Why would Harry choose to stick around a world that sees that sort of treatment of non-magical folk as okay? Why would he put up with that sort of treatment if he didn't have to? If his connection to that world is gone? > >>bboyminn: > > Further, given that Harry, over a decade later, is still known > as 'The Boy Who Lived', I don't think the wizard world is so short > sighted that they would forget the great sacrifice that > Harry made for them. Betsy Hp: Considering they were calling him the *crazy* boy who lived within five years of his returning to them, I'm pretty darn sure their compassion would turn to condescension, discomfort, and probably distaste. Especially since Harry would be a reminder that it was possible to actually lose your magical abilities. I'd give it 10 years tops, before public opinion turned against him. > >>bboyminn: > > Finally, Harry will still be able to live a perfectly normal and > productive life if he loses his powers. Betsy Hp: Of course he would! But in the muggle world. And I'm betting he'd need to make the break a clean one to do so. Betsy Hp (doesn't see Harry as Peter by any stretch, or Wendy for that matter) From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 20:39:19 2006 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (David) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:39:19 -0000 Subject: House elves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160279 Does any understand the true relationship between the house elves and the wizards? I'm reading the Goblet of Fire and the more I read about House Elves (although they seem more like a cross between gnomes and goblins). I know they are servants and they enjoy what they do, despite who owns them. I am more fascinated with the linking history between the two groups. It would make a fascinating story within itself. Dragonkeeper From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 24 20:53:46 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:53:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160280 > Goddlefrood > > 12. Would you agree that there are four Horcruxes to find, and if > not why not? > > Ceridwen: > Yes, four: The locket, the Hufflepuff cup, the object belonging to > Ravenclaw or Gryffindor, and probably Nagini, who is with Voldemort > and won't be destroyed until almost the end. Eddie: That triggered an interesting thought: suppose Harry and Voldemort struggle with each other over control of Nigini? (Whether Nigini is a horcrux or otherwise) Once before (during the cemetary duel in GoF), Harry bested Voldemort in a duel. That was with wands and the ball of light forced it's way into Voldemort's wand (not Harry's!). A duel for control of Nigini would be a duel of mental/magical power itself. Perhaps the intensity of the duel itself would kill Nigini (and thus the Voldy soul bits). Ah, that flighty temptress, Speculation! Eddie From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Oct 24 21:57:56 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:57:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160281 >Snipped very good summary from Goddlefrood< 1.Given that Harry, in the course of the series, has often turned up late to the Gryffindor Tower without a real complaint from the Fat Lady, why do you think she is so liverish in this instance? Snow: Dumbledore had beefed up security that evening on his return from his outing telling the Fat Lady that all passwords were to be changed at midnight. From the way the Fat Lady acted she seemed to be annoyed by this new rule telling Harry if he didn't like it to take it up with Dumbledore as if to say its not my rule its his and don't yell at me about it if you don't like it, the rule has inconvenienced me as well. 2. Do you think there is any significance in the Astronomy Tower being the Bloody Baron's favourite haunt (pun intended) when it is also later the scene of Dumbledore's death? Snow: Absolutely, but which side is he playing for is he spying on or for Dumbledore? It does appear that he is under Dumbledore's confidence since the Baron was aware that Dumbledore had matters to attend to before retiring for the evening. 3. What other business would you think Dumbledore had to attend to after midnight on a school night, as alluded to by Nick? Snow: I think that Dumbledore arrived back at school before midnight so as to change the passwords to the common rooms before midnight. Dumbledore has many people, friend and foe, that are better dealt with under the cloak of darkness. I believe that he had just came back, from this particular late night jaunt, from the cave area since he was in good spirits according to information retrieved from the Baron. Dumbledore had to let a few choice persons know of his findings that night in case he had to execute the plan soon 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions perhaps a clue to something? Snow: Its just part of his facetious memory to convince whomever is checking on this memory, to believe that someone was attempting to control him, via tainted candy, into speaking about the Horcruxes and he refused. 5. This segment of his memory, although perhaps embarrassing and no longer a view that Slughorn holds, does not appear to do any harm to Slughorn, unlike the later part regarding Horcruxes, so why do you think he covered up this portion from his fogged memory? Snow: Actually it does more than embarrass Slughorn, he is promoting the fact that he has connections with the Ministry and that he can be bribed to use those contacts to assist their endeavors. 6. Why would Uncle Horace become excited when describing Horcruxes? Snow: Power does that to a person, Slughorn was very open with the simplification of what a Horcrux is and that it was very natural with someone such as Tom to be curious about dark magic but notice however, that when the conversation turns to how you achieve such a feet, Horace changes his tune drastically. Slughorn got caught up in the moment sharing a topic that was extremely forbidden by Dumbledore to a bright student because he likes that the children look up to him; his own arrogance became his hidden shame. 7. Was Tom Riddle initially listening to information he already possessed, or did he have no knowledge of Horcruxes at all prior to this conversation? Snow: Tom's true objective was to find out if you could make multiple Horcruxes and to find the spell needed to transfer the soul fragment. Tom couldn't very well appear knowledgeable at all about Horcruxes even though he was already aware that such capability existed. Wouldn't it come across a bit strange to Horace if Tom were to have said I know how you make a Horcrux, I'm just not sure how you encase one or if you can make more than one? 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions when he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, was it more than just a natural conversation in other words? Snow: You think it may have been that same Legilimency power that Dumbledore used on Draco on the Tower? Both Draco and Slughorn appear to be speaking almost against their will at times. 9. Without going too deeply into the nature of Horcruxes, as that aspect has been discussed almost ad nauseam, do you think Voldemort actually has or had seven soul pieces, six of which are or were Horcruxes? Snow: I think there are or were five Horcruxes with the intent of a sixth with the death of Harry he didn't kill Harry but he did kill an unarmed Lily; so the first step in making a Horcrux had been accomplished before he faced little Harry with the AK. Harry is not a Horcrux in the conventional sense but he did receive powers that made him equal to Voldemort, in other words he received the portion of soul that would have normally been encased to make a Horcrux; Harry is a living non-Horcrux but with all the necessary components, which makes him unique since he is not a Horcrux but obviously (to me) received the properties of one. 10. How had Dumbledore acquired his knowledge of Horcruxes and why was it such thorough knowledge? Snow: Personal experience! 11. Did Lord Voldemort treat the Diary Horcrux carelessly as Dumbledore suggests or is there more to its destruction than initially met the eye? Snow: Interesting that it seems implied that Bella was entrusted with the Dark Lord's most precious secrets and yet Lucius was the one who initiated the Diary's coming out party, then again she was in Azkaban at the time ;) 12. Would you agree that there are four Horcruxes to find, and if not why not? Snow: I know that Voldemort was defiantly one short of his most powerful goal of seven when he entered Godric's Hollow. 13. As far as I recall the Sorting Hat was whipped from the head of Godric Gryffindor (with the implication nthat it was his), so why would Dumbledore not at least make a mention of this? Snow: The Hat had belonged to Gryffindor but when it became the all- knowledgeable Sorting Hat it ceased to belong to Gryffindor alone. 14. Do you agree with Dumbledore that Nagini is a Horcrux and if so did he conclude this when consulting his machine in OotP or from some other source? Snow: This seems to be one of the only times that I felt like Dumbledore was dishing out information beyond his normal vagueness. Harry needs to understand that a living creature can be a Horcrux, although it would be inadvisable to do so. This leaves the door open for Nagini but it just as simply could relate to Harry. If Dumbledore suspected Harry to be directly connected with Voldemort in a Horcrux-like capacity, would he have told Harry? remember this is the man who kept the prophecy from Harry for five years. 15. At this advanced stage of the series do you think that the summary of the remaining Horcruxes is correct or think that Dumbledore is wrong, as he himself professes to be on occasion? Snow: I would say it is nothing less than an educated guideline. There are no definitive answers, only direction based on theory, something from the four founders, the diary and a living Horcrux. 16. Do you agree that Lord Voldemort is unaware when a Horcrux is destroyed and if so, and given that he knows of the loss of the Diary Horcrux, do you think he would create another? Snow: I think Voldemort had an objective of seven, only. I'm not certain that he would be able to make more than that number given the transformations that occur with each loss of soul fragment less he completely turn into the creature that he now resembles so closely. 17. Why does Dumbledore not categorically say that Lord Voldemort could be killed if his Horcruxes are destroyed, but only that it will take uncommon skill and power to kill him? Snow: Possibly to remind Harry that destroying the Horcrux does not diminish Voldemort's powers. The Horcruxes are like clones under a master, killing the clones doesn't kill the master but to totally destroy the master the clones must also be destroyed. 18. Lord Voldemort is said to be a powerful and gifted wizard so why would he set such store by the Prophecy? Snow: All threats to his power must be taken into consideration. There is no rationality with someone who is controlled by his own obsession. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 21:54:13 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:54:13 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160282 This may have already been discussed here, just keep in mind I am still sort of new. I've often wondered whether or not Petunia was born with magical powers but doesn't use them. She certainly seems to know a heck of a lot more about the magical world than she is letting on. I once wondered if Dudley was magical, but that question was answered when I read about the Dementors' attack on Harry and Dudley in the OOTP. Dudley couldn't see the dementors. Harry yelled at him that he was running the wrong way - right towards one of them. Ms. Figg could see them (being a squib) so I knew then that Dudley had inherited Vernon's muggleness. I still wonder about Petunia though. It has never been proven that Petunia isn't magical, just that she doesn't do magic. I've wonder if she has that ability but chooses not to use it. Is there proof against this theory? Has J.K. said something to debunk it? Jenni from Alabama From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 23:40:45 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:40:45 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160285 Q6. Why would Uncle Horace become excited when describing Horcruxes? > Ceridwen: > He wasn't, he was nervous. Tom Riddle was excited. Goddlefrood comments: Slughorn is described as both nervous at certain points and excited at others during the conversation with Tom. I read and reread the Chapter under discussion several times in my Bloomsbury hardback edition before writing the summary, although due to now being at work I do not have an exact reference to point to. Another response also made the same observation as Ceridwen. What I took out of this statement that Horace was excited was that he clearly enjoyed discussing a somewhat taboo subject with Riddle and seemed, at least initially, to revel in his knowledge. It appears there is more to Slughorn thatn meets the eye and reasonable inferences include that he was sympathetic to LV at first a la Blacks seniors and that he only belatedly came to disapprove of LV's stated aims. It also made clear that the argument that Slughorn may have been a Death Eater was wide of the mark and that he certainly never did support LV once the true agenda came out. > Ceridwen: > As others have mentioned, it received the thought processes of all the founders and so became more of a universal artifact than one specific to Gryffindor. I don't know why this wouldn't make it more of a prize to LV, unless he knows the addage that one shouldn't trust an object that can think for itself. Goddlefrood: In respect of the Sorting Hat I must say that I found it odd that not even a passing mention of it was made by Dumbledore when he and harry were discussing possessions of the founders. Even though it is now true that the Sorting Hat has taken on a personality of its own due to whatever it was the founders did to it, it is clearly implied that the Hat had been Godric's due to his having whipped it off his head. Having said this now that JKR has confirmed on her website that the Hat is not a Horcrux there is probably no gr\eat further illumination to be had in speculating on it, but I do contend that the hat will play a significant, if not necessarily large, role in the resolution of the story. > Ceridwen: > In your (Q18) paragraph, you say, "The tools Harry possesses to fight with Lord Voldemort have been partially bestowed on him by Lord Voldemort himself." I hadn't thought of Lily's blood protection sacrifice as something LV had bestowed on Harry before, but it just leaped out of the paragraph when I read it. Goddlefrood: Quite honestly I had not noticed this myself, but now you have pointed it out perhaps it will be one small contribution to further discussion regarding Harry's powers and how he will ultimately deal with LV. > 8. What compelled Horace to continue answering Tom's questions when he was clearly described as being uneasy about the subject, was it more than just a natural conversation in other words? > Snow: > You think it may have been that same Legilimency power that Dumbledore used on Draco on the Tower? Both Draco and Slughorn appear to be speaking almost against their will at times. Goddlefrood: Indeed, or at least something along that line, and I'm glad you picked this up. It seemed to me, particularly after Slughorn got more and more nervous, that he was continuing the conversation against his will and in some way Tom was forcing things along. I had been thinking more of Veratiserum rather than Legilimency. This sort of tied back to the earlier version in which Uncle Horace's fingers were sugar-coated, although as I earlier, and Potioncat have said this probably goes to the fact that the first fogged version of the conversation was the sugar-coated one. Then again, perhaps not, and Slughorn only answered due to his favouritism of Tom. > Snow: > Harry is not a Horcrux in the conventional sense but he did receive powers that made him equal to Voldemort, in other words he received the portion of soul that would have normally been encased to make a Horcrux; Harry is a living non-Horcrux but with all the necessary components, which makes him unique since he is not a Horcrux but obviously (to me) received the properties of one. Goddlefrood: This is very interesting, and as far as I recall, original thinking. What it would actually add for Harry to be a living non-Horcrux may be best left to others to speculate on. > Snow: > If Dumbledore suspected Harry to be directly connected with Voldemort in a Horcrux-like capacity, would he have told Harry? remember this is the man who kept the prophecy from Harry for five years. Goddlefrood: This point, although well made, is not something I can agree with. At the point reached in the story in HBP Dumbeldore was beyond hiding information from Harry and if he suspected Harry or his scar could be a Horcrux he would certainly have mentioned this and not only made a vague allusion to it by showing that a living being could be a Horcrux. On this point, like Dumbledore, I am particularly fierce, neither Harry nor his scar is a Horcrux. Book 7 will reveal the truth of course but I have had a reasonable success rate with predictions I made before book 6 came out. Just some observations to push it along. Goddlefrood From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 22:23:03 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:23:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Petunia magical? Message-ID: <20061024222303.58298.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160286 jlenox2004 at yahoo.com: This may have already been discussed here, just keep in mind I am still sort of new. I've often wondered whether or not Petunia was born with magical powers but doesn't use them. . I still wonder about Petunia though. It has never been proven that Petunia isn't magical, just that she doesn't do magic. I've wonder if she has that ability but chooses not to use it. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremiah wow. I had once thought Petunia was a Squib but since her parents weren't magical then I wondered... We don't know about Harry's Grandparents (Petunia's parents) so it is possible that Petunia is a Squib, indeed. but I think JKR has hinted that Petunia's anger is born from her lack of magic and I have just assumed that she was left out of the whole "WW." But if she'd a Squib then I can see why she's so friggin' bitter about Lily and James. Thought Petunia seems to know a lot more than she lets on, it could be because lily was so involved with the first Order that Petunia learned about things such as Demetors (she frantically looks out the window in 5 at the mention of them) and things like that. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Oct 25 00:05:38 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 00:05:38 -0000 Subject: The Scar - 'All or Nothing' Clarification In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160287 Magpie: > *(snip)* I think Harry would be a second-class citizen, part of a group that's been casually and consistently considered inferior throughout the series. (I also actually do think the WW is easily short-sighted enough to forget Harry's sacrifice for them, though that's not necessarily here nor there. They can respect the idea of HP while still considering him to be not what he once was without magic.) Ceridwen: There might be a danger to leaving him powerless and visible. If younger witches and wizards see that this is what happens to Harry Potter when he tries to save the WW, the loss may be too much for them to contemplate. There will be fewer magical youths stepping up to do anything even ***remotely*** akin to what Harry did. If he lost all of his powers, the Ministry might want to hide him away, not advertise his disability, and make a mystery of the Hero. Magpie: > I don't see how one could define him so much through competence, show him growing up by mastering magical skills and considering magical careers, give non-magical people the role they have (including the difficulties presented in all Magical/Muggle marriages hinted at from Merope/Tom all the way down to the Witch using her Muggle husband for a table- though at least all of those Muggles had a place in the Muggleworld), and then end it by taking away Harry's magic as if this is a life prepared for in the text. Ceridwen: Harry hasn't had any preparation at all for living in the Muggle World. He hasn't had a decent Muggle education since he was ten years old. He has no job skills and no contacts to help him get a job or a place to stay. Aside from his yearly visit to the Dursleys, he has no contact with the world in which he was raised. And the Dursleys apparently kept him out of the fashion trends as it was - he'll be nearly as ridiculously clad as Bob Ogden was when he visited the Gaunts. He would be out of place, and he would be missing his former world. In such a case, I could very well see a Frodo-like ending for him, so different from his world that he had to leave it. Ceridwen. From unicornspride at centurytel.net Wed Oct 25 00:26:15 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:26:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg References: <20061024222303.58298.qmail@web54501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <01e001c6f7cc$2ea19bd0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160288 >Jenni wrote: > Ms. Figg could >see them (being a squib) Lana writes: I just read in the book that Mrs. Figg did not see them. She was merely guessing. She couldnt' describe them, but described the feeling. >Jenni: >It has never >been proven that Petunia isn't >magical, just that she doesn't do >magic. I've wonder if she has that >ability but chooses not to use it. Lana: I don't think it was proven, but she herself says that her parents were excited that there was a witch in the family. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Petunia older than Lily? If so, then her parents wouldn't have been so excited. If Petunia had powers, then she would have gone to a magical school as well. Or at least gotten a letter from one. I don't think she is magical, but she has to know alot more than she lets on. She lived in a house with a witch for how long. Her parents always raving and James and Lily always talking.. So, she has to know more than she wants to admit. Hugs, Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dossett at lds.net Wed Oct 25 01:25:25 2006 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 01:25:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160289 Goddlefrood: > > 13. As far as I recall the Sorting Hat was whipped from the head of > > Godric Gryffindor (with the implication that it was his), so why > > would Dumbledore not at least make a mention of this? > > Carol: > I don't think that Tom would consider making the dirty old hat that he > sneers at in CoS into a Horcrux, whatever its powers, and Dumbledore > knows that Tom prefers objects that in themselves are valuable (and > durable), Objects that have "a certain grandeur"--preferably made of > gold, apparently. The Sorting Hat doesn't qualify. Also, since the > Sorting Hat can think for itself, its thinking would probably be > altered by the addition of a Horcrux, which Dumbledore would easily > detect and destroy. It doesn't seem to occur to DD that Riddle would > use the Sorting Hat any more than he'd use an old mouth organ if he > still had one. And it isn't really a relic of Gryffindor since, as > others have pointed out, it has "brains" from all four Founders in > it. (For some reason, I'm getting menatal images of the Scarecrow's > brain from the book version of Wizard of Oz.) > > Pat, delurking to add a small comment: There's also the point that the Sorting Hat has been used by every student that has ever come to Hogwarts, since it *became* the Sorting Hat, and therefore has lost any special-ness that it might once have had. The other objects are special because they are one-of-a-kind and rare: the Sorting Hat, it seems to me, would be considered by Voldemort to be too common for something as precious as one seventh of his soul. Pat, humbly intruding on a great chapter discussion, but wanting to throw this in. From dossett at lds.net Wed Oct 25 02:23:54 2006 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 02:23:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160290 > > Goddlefrood > > 9. Without going too deeply into the nature of Horcruxes, as that > aspect has been discussed almost ad nauseam, do you think Voldemort > actually has or had seven soul pieces, six of which are or were > Horcruxes? > > Ceridwen: > Yes, I think he did have seven pieces including the core soul which > resides in his body now, and was cast adrift when his old body was > destroyed at Godrick's Hollow. I think he made the sixth and last > horcrux after his return, since he had been meaning to make a horcrux > with Harry's significant death. His agenda called for seven, when he > returned, he made his last. > now Pat: I'm starting to wonder if Voldemort has still been saving the last horcrux for Harry's death, thus Snape's insistence on "saving Harry for the Dark Lord." Dumbledore was definitely uncertain as to the last horcrux, and so now I'm wondering if the DL has decided that Harry will be the Gryffindor horcrux. Just a thought. thanks, Pat, enjoying this chapter discussion and everyone's responses From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 03:06:59 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:06:59 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts elves/ Was:Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160291 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Oh, and one more thing, Dobby says he's proud to keep DD's secrets. > That has a new depth given HBP. zanooda: Sorry for the change of topic, but this phrase reminded me of one question about elves that I still can't find an answer to. It has nothing to do with elves love life (although I agree that there is more between Dobby and Winky than just friendship). There is something that I never quite understood about Hermione's hats-and-socks distribution campaign. Here is the question: in a place like Hogwarts, who is considered the house-elves' master? The headmaster seems like an obvious choice. The teachers also can give orders to the elves (Slughorn makes an elf to taste his wine, elves serve drinks at his party). But what about students? Somehow I don't believe that students are considered Hogwarts house-elves' masters. Sure, they give food to the Trio (and to Fred and George before them), but I don't think they do it because they have to obey the students' orders. They probably just do it out of desire to please humans. It doesn't seem believable that any student can summon an elf from the kitchens and give him any order and the poor thing will have to obey. I don't know if I'm right, but if I am, I don't see the point of Hermione giving her handiwork to the elves at all. If she is not their master, they won't get free even if they took the clothes. If anyone could give clothes to someone else's elves to free them, Harry wouldn't need to trick Lucius Malfoy into giving the sock to Dobby, he could just do it himself. Maybe I misunderstand something here, but this aspect of Hermione's SPEW activities always seemed confusing to me. If it was discussed before, please point me to a thread, I tried to find something through "search" and got 1400 results, so I gave up :-) Thanks, zanooda From kking0731 at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 03:09:35 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:09:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160292 Snow previously: > If Dumbledore suspected Harry to be directly connected with Voldemort in a Horcrux-like capacity, would he have told Harry? remember this is the man who kept the prophecy from Harry for five years. Goddlefrood: This point, although well made, is not something I can agree with. At the point reached in the story in HBP Dumbeldore was beyond hiding information from Harry and if he suspected Harry or his scar could be a Horcrux he would certainly have mentioned this and not only made a vague allusion to it by showing that a living being could be a Horcrux. Snow: Don't you think that it would be a system overload for Harry to deal with the fact that all of his counted mentors are now deceased and he is not only the prophesy boy that has to kill or be killed but that he also has a prominent portion of Voldemort inside his living being? Wouldn't Harry feel like so many of us suspected, that he is a possible Horcrux and would have to destroy himself in order to succeed in killing Voldemort? Harry wouldn't allow himself any luxury of time to think the matter over and rationalize that a living being could think for itself and therefore realize that he has the power to control that which resides within, which is exactly what Dumbledore needs Harry to recall. Harry acts on inpulse induced by recollection. The table turns where and when a Horcrux is created using a living soul, especially one that can think for themselves. Here's a question for those who believe that Nagini is a Horcrux; how can a snake such as Nagini or any other snake think for themselves and does a snake have a soul that can choose? Was Dumbledore really speaking of Nagini here or was he speaking of a living soul that actually could think for himself? As for not hiding anything anymore from Harry I would have to say balderdash. Harry is persistent all year about Draco's attempts with little consolation from Dumbledore and yet Dumbledore, in the end, admits that he knew of Draco's attempts but could not let on for fear of Draco's safety. Did Dumbledore admit this to Harry until the tower scene, well no! Did Dumbledore admit to Harry why he trusts Snape, no again why? The boy either can't be trusted with the information lest Voldemort gain access or it isn't time for Harry to learn such crucial information because Harry is already under a system overload and cannot fully rationalize the situation. Dumbledore speaks in code and Harry deciphers the code when the moment of clarity becomes relevant to Harry's sane and understanding rational. Goddlefrood: On this point, like Dumbledore, I am particularly fierce, neither Harry nor his scar is a Horcrux. Book 7 will reveal the truth of course but I have had a reasonable success rate with predictions I made before book 6 came out. Snow: I am never too adamant about my predictions; I can sincerely appreciate yours and others non-acceptance to Harry and/or his scar having become a Horcrux, although I have suggested neither circumstance. Harry is equal to Voldemort according to the prophecy; Harry does have a bit of Voldemort in him according to Dumbledore; and Harry has displayed uncanny knowledge over Voldemort's feelings via his scar, therefore I must conclude that there is a part of Voldemort within Harry no matter how you slice the bread. We need to get past the Horcrux tie. Harry is not a Horcrux but he does appear to obtain characteristics of a Horcrux, which is in fact a portion of Voldemort how can it not be. For lack of a better terminology most people, who believe, refer to Harry as a Horcrux or unintentional Horcrux when in fact Harry, and the situation surrounding him, is unique. As Dumbledore explains a living soul would be an inadvisable subject to endow with such a commodity (a piece of soul) and further more inadvertently explains that Voldemort didn't intend on bestowing any power on Harry and yet he did. How did Harry receive powers that Voldemort possesses and feel pain when Voldemort is outraged unless there is a connection? Why would Dumbledore take such utter interest in an orphan boy and protect and teach him to such great lengths unless he knew that Harry Was in fact the only way to defeat Voldemort? JKR can twist and turn this to any liking given the circumstance that `it is inadvisable to bestow a portion of soul to another living soul that can think and act for itself'. Snow Long Live Non-Horcrux Harry! The boy who had Soul From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 25 03:24:05 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:24:05 -0000 Subject: House elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160293 > Dragonkeeper wrote: > I'm reading the Goblet of Fire and the more I read about House Elves > (although they seem more like a cross between gnomes and goblins). I > know they are servants and they enjoy what they do, despite who owns > them. I am more fascinated with the linking history between the two > groups. It would make a fascinating story within itself. Potioncat: Have you ever read the "Shoemaker and the Elves"? I think that story is a good basis. Little elves come by night and make shoes for a poor shoemaker. He becomes well off because of their work and repays them by giving them new clothes. Once they're given the gift of clothes, they leave. I think Brownies are similar. They perform tasks for the house. It seems in both cases the wee folk come of their own choosing and leave after being given a gift. Brownies in the GSUSA get their name from these little creatures. (Being a Brownie did not make my daughter more interested in performing chores.) From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Oct 25 03:21:03 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:21:03 -0400 Subject: The Scar Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160294 The hero defeating the evil wizard at the cost of his own magic? Ursula K. LeGuin did that already. BAW. From mperry at efn.org Wed Oct 25 03:43:08 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 03:43:08 -0000 Subject: New join Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160295 Thanks for letting me join... I just found the group. Interesting ideas here, and they'll take some thinking on. Just my rough views, having read the books and watched the movies a few times. The movies don't follow the books 100% (per the comments on the DVDs) but she gives them hints when they are going wrong... perhaps except the last movie. For a part, there may be some hints given there that aren't in the books. As for the characters not being quite the way the book was written, she didn't have as much feedback there. (They tried to make the movies more international.) I don't think we've seen the last of DD. He's protected HP from being harmed before. We've seen his parents reappear from the wand to protect him... but that's a one time thing. I'm thinking DD might just appear, at the proper instance, probably as a magical spirit form. (This would be a bit of StarWars take, but in line with the writing, I think.) Harry has ties to V. True, V can now come in contact with HP, but that doesn't stop the tie. It's dangerous for HP to be reading V, but it can still be done, once (if) he learns S's lessons... something he avoided. HP has the makings (even w/o the powers from V) to be a powerful sorcerer and a "thumpin' good one, once your trained up a bit". He's from powerful parents and inherited a *lot* from them. Tie that to what he inherited from his enemy, not to mention a wand that's a twin to V's, and he has a lot of power. (Though he's still rather untrained, that will change in the coming year.) In the coming book, you'll see H & R linked romantically. HP will try to stand on his own. Basically, a rather depressing book, compared to the lightness of the early books. V will be more powerful than ever. Hogwarts will split and many students will probably leave. But, I think HP will find himself and realize he's stongest with his friends beside him. That's where his strength comes from and always has. His DODA class was where he really shined... especially when he taught it himself. I think he'll find he's leading an army against darkness, w/ himself a direct contrast to V's evil. I think there will be some interesting changes. I'm wondering which of his enemies will come to his aid. It could be S, or perhaps from his other key enemy. I'm thinking V will break S down. (I certainly wouldn't trust him, though he "killed" DD.) I shouldn't even be surprised if, in the end, his "family" realizes his worth. OK... now I'm ready to hear why this is all wrong. Michael From nmangle at cox.net Wed Oct 25 01:02:13 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:02:13 -0500 Subject: Is Petunia magical? References: Message-ID: <01b701c6f7d1$353fd880$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> No: HPFGUIDX 160296 Jenni from Alabama: I still wonder about Petunia though. It has never been proven that Petunia isn't magical, just that she doesn't do magic. I've wonder if she has that ability but chooses not to use it. Is there proof against this theory? Has J.K. said something to debunk it? Hey Jenni from Alabama, If you go to JK's site, in either FAQ, or rumors she does say that Petunia is not magical. In several of the books, it does say that Lily was Muggleborn. Nicole in Oklahoma From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Oct 25 03:23:55 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:23:55 -0400 Subject: Vernon's odd behavior Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160297 Steve/bboyminn: "What I do hope for is that the Dursleys have to seek refuge in Harry's house for a change. Their health, safety, and wellbeing will be at Harry's good graces. While I expect a certain degree of retribution humor in that scene, I'm sure Harry will treat the Dursleys far better than they ever treated him." Anything less than turning them all into frogs would be too good for them. I think that Harry is too good to do something like that--after all, he did rescue Dudley from the Dementors. He could have done nothing and said, "I'm not supposed to do magic outside of school."--but I don't think he would be human if he didn't make them squirm at least a little. BAW From nmangle at cox.net Wed Oct 25 00:56:45 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:56:45 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore Horcrux? References: <20061024170751.48910.qmail@web57914.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <017d01c6f7d0$71cb1270$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> No: HPFGUIDX 160298 Nicole: >> Personally, I don't think DD would be capable. A horcrux is so dark and terrible it's not mentioned in any Hogwarts book, except to say how dark and terrible it is. Not to mention, DD would have to kill someone to create a horcrux, and considering he wouldn't even kill Voldy, I don't think he would. Amy: You are correct ... we were talking about this here at work, and one of the customers said the same as you, but I am still confused ... if you accept the possibility of Snape and DD working together, and it being Snape's job to kill DD just to clear the way for Harry to kill LV, then is Harry being used as a pawn to do the work?, or does DD intend Snape to mentor Harry (after of course, Harry apologizes to Snape for the way his father treated Snape during their youth?) after taking out LV, assuming Harry lives of course. It just seemed a waste to kill DD when he was mentoring Harry the way he was. Nicole: In that, your assuming that Snape killed DD for Harry to kill Voldy, which is one theory in thousands. Then yeah, too little of a reason, but I think there is so much more to it. There has to be, JK wouldn't just kill DD for that little. On Snape tutoring Harry, I don't think there is enough time for that in 1 book. In book 7, we have quite a few things that will happen. 1. We should find out why DD died & why Snape did it/but I don't think we will get an explination of that until the very end, so no time for tutoring.2. The end will most likely take at least the last 1/4 of the book to build to. 3. JK has said we will find out a little about Lily. 4. Find 4? horocrux,. 5 possible do this all while at Hogwarts.. Too much in book 7 that I can't wait to read! But there are lots of unsolved issues open to fill. Bellatrix better die, Peter Pettigrew somehow has to fulfill his life debt to Harry from PoA, Snape, good/bad?, Who dies, who lives, Fleur & Bills wedding, Gosh, you think about everything that we are still trying to figure out, how will it all be finished in one book? And find out who RAB is... Nicole A From danielle_qt08 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 06:44:32 2006 From: danielle_qt08 at yahoo.com (Danielle Cruz) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:44:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Contradictions-R.A.B. Message-ID: <20061025064432.88815.qmail@web36712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160299 I have read many editorials about R.A.B. Some says that he was Regulus Black. Remember in the OotP that they found a locket in Grimmauld Place and none of them could open it? Would it be possible that it was the real locket horcrux? But, on the other hand, we all know that Regulus Black was "dead" (if he really is). Danielle From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 25 10:10:26 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:10:26 -0000 Subject: Contradictions-R.A.B. In-Reply-To: <20061025064432.88815.qmail@web36712.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Danielle Cruz wrote: > > I have read many editorials about R.A.B. Some says that he was > Regulus Black. Remember in the OotP that they found a locket > in Grimmauld Place and none of them could open it? Would it be > possible that it was the real locket horcrux? But, on the other > hand, we all know that Regulus Black was "dead" (if he really > is). Geoff: These are points which have been discussed at length since HBP came out. Bear in mind that RAB said in his note with the locket recovered from the cave: "I know I will be dead long before you read this..." which suggests that the writer knew he was doomed. It has been suggested that the locket at Grimmauld Place was the real one, which would fit with Regulus being a Black family member and having placed it there before his death. The other evidence (apart from canon) is that in foreign translations of the book, the initials in the various editions match the translation of Black. For example, I believe the German edition has RAS, "Black" being rendered as "Schwarz". From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Wed Oct 25 10:29:03 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:29:03 -0000 Subject: Contradictions-R.A.B. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160301 > Geoff: > > The other evidence (apart from canon) is that in foreign translations > of the book, the initials in the various editions match the translation > of Black. For example, I believe the German edition has RAS, "Black" > being rendered as "Schwarz". > Hickengruendler: Nope. R.A.B. is R.A.B. in the German translation, and not R.A.S. . But the name Black hasn't been translated either. So Regulus Black is "Regulus Black" in German and not Regulus Schwarz. But I think in some other translations, like the Dutch one, Regulus last name has been translated, and R.A.B. has been translated to fit Regulus initials. Hickengruendler, absolutely sure that R.A.B. is Regulus and nobody else From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Oct 25 12:48:51 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:48:51 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts elves/ Was:Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160302 >Zanooda >snip> >I don't know if I'm right, but if I am, I don't see the point of >Hermione giving her handiwork to the elves at all. If she is not their >master, they won't get free even if they took the clothes. If anyone >could give clothes to someone else's elves to free them, Harry >wouldn't need to trick Lucius Malfoy into giving the sock to Dobby, he >could just do it himself. Nikkalmati: Very good point here. I think that HG, not being of the WW, has misunderstood the possible result of her actions. She doesn't have elves and so doesn't understand that she cannot free the Hogwarts elves. The elves themselves are so adverse to being freed (and kicked out of their no doubt cushey job) that they will not take the chance by picking up her hats. ( If the students could order the elves around they wouldn't need to sneak down to the kitchens for food ). Does this mean Ron knows that H is wasting her time and just doesn't tell her or doesn't he give it any thought? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 13:08:51 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:08:51 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: <01e001c6f7cc$2ea19bd0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160303 > Lana writes: > I just read in the book that Mrs. Figg did not see them. She > was merely guessing. She couldnt' describe them, but described > the feeling. No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken! She comes to the hearing and is an EYE WITNESS in Harry's defense. She states emphatically that she saw them. Two of them, one for each boy - Harry and Dudley. She also describes their attack on the boys very accurately. Pg. 145 "They went for the boys" said Mrs. Figg, her voice stronger and more confident now, the pink flush ebbing away from her face. "One of them had fallen. The other was backing away, trying to repel the dementor. That was Harry. He tried twice and produced silver vapor. On the third attempt, he produced a Patronus, which charged down the first dementor and then, with his encouragement, chased away the second from his cousin. And that...that was what happened," Mrs. Figg finished, somewhat lamely. Also, earlier in the book on page 143 she states that she saw them. "I'm a Squib," said Mrs. Figg. "So you wouldn't have me registered, would you?" "A Squib, eh?" said Fudge, eyeing her closely. "We'll be checking that. You'll leave details of your parentage with my assistant, Weasley. Incidentally, can Squibs see dementors?" he added, looking left and right along the bench where he sat. "Yes, we can!" said Mrs. Figg indignantly. If she couldn't see the dementors, Dumbledore would never have called on her to be part of the defense. Mrs. Figg was just nervous. Harry was tried by the whole court, for goodness sakes. She didn't realize how much her testimony would be worth! Plus being in the room where many prisoners had been sentenced to Azkaban had to be pretty intimidating too! So, even if Petunia were a Squib, she would still be able to see dementors, see 'magical' things, beings and places. Muggles aren't supposed to be able to see Hogwarts. I wonder if Petunia could? Jenni from Alabama From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Oct 25 13:48:42 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:48:42 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160304 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jdl3811220" wrote: > > > Lana writes: > > I just read in the book that Mrs. Figg did not see them. She > > was merely guessing. She couldnt' describe them, but described > > the feeling. > Jenni: > No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken! She comes to the hearing and is an > EYE WITNESS in Harry's defense. She states emphatically that she saw > them. Two of them, one for each boy - Harry and Dudley. She also > describes their attack on the boys very accurately. Potioncat jumps in, racket at the ready: Nope. She did not see the Dementors. She knew what was happening because she knows what Dementors are and she could feel their presence. She described them incorrectly at least once in the trial. I'm convinced of that. I'm sure DD knew she wasn't telling the conplete truth, but she was telling the truth about what happened. I'm less convinced that I've seen an interview in which JKR confirms this. Can't find it now anyway. Potioncat IWHTL > > From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 13:58:50 2006 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:58:50 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160305 Lana wrote: > > I just read in the book that Mrs. Figg did not see them. She > > was merely guessing. She couldnt' describe them, but described > > the feeling. Jenni from Alabama wrote: > No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken! She comes to the hearing and is an > EYE WITNESS in Harry's defense. She states emphatically that she saw > them. Two of them, one for each boy - Harry and Dudley. She also > describes their attack on the boys very accurately. > > If she couldn't see the dementors, Dumbledore would never have > called on her to be part of the defense. Mrs. Figg was just nervous. > Harry was tried by the whole court, for goodness sakes. She didn't > realize how much her testimony would be worth! Plus being in the > room where many prisoners had been sentenced to Azkaban had to be > pretty intimidating too! KathyK: See, I read Mrs. Figg's testimony completely different. I am 100% certain she was lying about being able to see dementors and it showed in her testimony. I agree she was nervous about testifying, but not because she was intimidated by the atmosphere and the number of people. Rather it's because she did have to fudge some facts. I have no doubts at all that she saw Harry and Dudley and felt the dementors. That is why she is able to describe so well what transpired. Where her testimony does fall apart is in actually describing the dementors. First she says she saw them "running," which Madam Bones picked up immediately and stated that the dementors glide. This gave Mrs. Figg the opportunity to say she *meant* to say "glide" even if she had no idea previously that they do glide. And even Harry thinks she's describing dementors vaguely and has never seen one in person. She gets their attention and is most believable in describing their effects, and then describing what transpired between the dementors and Harry and Dudley. Because she *could* see Harry and Dudley. JKR has also confirmed that Squibs cannot see dementors on her website: "Incidentally, Arabella Figg never saw the Dementors that attacked Harry and Dudley, but she had enough magical knowledge to identify correctly the sensations they created in the alleyway." http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 As far as Dumbledore is concerned, she *did* witness the dementor attack and they needed a witness at the hearing. So having her testify was a great move. Her testimony was convincing enough to help Harry. KathyK, fan of all-muggle Petunia From random832 at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 13:35:57 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:35:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: References: <01e001c6f7cc$2ea19bd0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610250635l7708a6e4s36b691fa161915b3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160306 > > Lana writes: > > I just read in the book that Mrs. Figg did not see them. She > > was merely guessing. She couldnt' describe them, but described > > the feeling. Jenni: > No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken! She comes to the hearing and is an > EYE WITNESS in Harry's defense. She states emphatically that she saw > them. Two of them, one for each boy - Harry and Dudley. She also > describes their attack on the boys very accurately. Random832: JKR has said that squibs can't see dementors. She was able to identify the attack, and when put on the spot by Fudge with this line... > "Yes, we can!" said Mrs. Figg indignantly. ...She's lying. After all, who can prove anything? http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19 > So, even if Petunia were a Squib, she would still be able to see > dementors, see 'magical' things, beings and places. Muggles aren't > supposed to be able to see Hogwarts. I've always held the view that they only can't see it from the outside - the fact that Filch can work there is proof enough IMO that once they're safely on the grounds they can perceive it normally -- Random832 From mros at xs4all.nl Wed Oct 25 14:00:21 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:00:21 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Contradictions-R.A.B. References: Message-ID: <000f01c6f83d$e9a5ab80$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 160307 Hickengruendler: Nope. R.A.B. is R.A.B. in the German translation, and not R.A.S. . But the name Black hasn't been translated either. So Regulus Black is "Regulus Black" in German and not Regulus Schwarz. But I think in some other translations, like the Dutch one, Regulus last name has been translated, and R.A.B. has been translated to fit Regulus initials. Hickengruendler, absolutely sure that R.A.B. is Regulus and nobody else Marion: Yup, that's true. In Dutch, 'Black' has been translated to 'Zwarts' and R.A.B. has become R.A.Z. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 25 14:05:13 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:05:13 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160308 > Carol responds: > I can see Harry losing the powers that he acquired from Voldemort, but > why would he lose those he was born with (and we know that he was born > magical because his name was written down by the Hogwarts quill at the > moment of his birth)? > Ken: When you ask why do you mean logically why? Since when did logic apply to the Potterverse? I don't see that losing all his magical power is the most likely outcome but in "this sort of story", as the author likes to say, that kind of ending has precedent. Giving up power or wealth or ability to gain some end is a common ending. It is the same sort of ending as a hero who dies to save the world or someone, just less extreme. There is no logical reason why this would occur in this story but a logical reason for it could be introduced in book 7 and I don't see any reason to exclude the possibility. Nor do I expect it to happen. > Carol: > Also, I don't know where you get the idea that there are plenty of > Muggle marriages to witches or wizards. I know of three: Ok, lets work with those three. How many marriages in the WW do we know *any* detail of? Is it as many as 30? I doubt it is that many but let's say it is 30, that implies that 10% of wizards and witches marry muggles. Statistically speaking neither 3 nor 30 are large numbers on which to base a conclusion yet if the author intends to give us a true picture of the typical condition of the WW then we can conclude that around 10% of WW marriages involve a muggle partner. An intermarriage rate of 10% is a fairly significant number and not out of line with what we see between other minority groups and the majorities they live among. There is nothing I read in HP that would scare me off from marrying a witch. Replying to the thread in general now and not Carol in particular I don't understand the reaction to a Harry without magic. Would not Harry losing his magical power be akin to losing sight, hearing, or limbs in the real world? Do those of you who say Harry without magic would and could have no purpose or place in either world say the same about the blind, deaf, and paraplegic? I doubt that many of you do. It would be quite a tragedy for Harry as it is for real folk who have faced this kind of loss but humans are resiliant and adaptable and go on to live fulfilling lives in spite of handicaps. One of our greatest living astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, has been reduced to a barley functioning physical shell by ALS, yet his mind is as brilliant as ever and comparable to the great minds of history and legend. He still holds a revered place in the world and contributes to his field at the highest level. Why would we expect any less from Harry or ourselves? Harry seems to want to be an auror. If he had no magic he could not be an auror in the usual sense. He could still work in the auror's office though in much the same way as muggle police detectives work. A brain can be more effective than a wand for catching criminals even though those who can use a wand are required in the actual capture. Ken From virpshas at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 25 14:00:30 2006 From: virpshas at tiscali.co.uk (Edis) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:00:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610201024v275889delf0eb9045563ca67@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160309 Oh I am not suggesting Dumbledore knew Bella and Cissie were coming to Spinners End. It was an event that happened and had to be dealt with. But a thought on Dumbledore's unexplained injury. At Spinners End Snape enters into an Unbreakable Vow. The description of The UV here specifes that the participants clasp right hand to right hand and at the climax of the oath the clasped hands are enveloped in a swirl of fire. Now my speculation. Dumbledore has been spying on Voldemort assuming Sapes form, using Polyjuice. He is searching for Horcruxes. In this Polyjuice speculation Cissy and Bella unexpectedly confront Dumbledore/Snape at Spinners End. Dum/Snape finds it necessary to go through the unbreakable vow procedure to carry forwards his overall mission. Maybe Bella has a Horcrux in her posession -a ring perhaps? Later we find Dumbledore with a fire-ravaged hand - and it is NOT specified whether this is his right or his left hand as far as I can see in any Canonical Text. Text-Experts - can anyone check out the ravaged hand references in HBP? What would be the effect of Dumbledore re-assuming his own form with an oath like the UV impacting on it even though the oath was taken in Snape-Form? Maybe combatting the immediate influence of the UV caused his hand to be ravaged by magical Fire? OK all speculation - but the circumstances of the Ravaged Hand MUST form part of the core Text in Book 8 or all the hand references in HBP are padding. Edis From virpshas at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 25 14:08:29 2006 From: virpshas at tiscali.co.uk (Edis) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:08:29 -0000 Subject: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160310 The Dursleys hiding out at Grimauld Place and having to cope with screaming portraits, Doxies and other messy whatevers. Oh what fun that chapter would be to write, and we know Jo relishes her writing..! But could Muggles get into a Secret-Keeper protected property? Edis --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > What I do hope for is that the Dursleys have to seek > refuge in Harry's house for a change. Their health, > safety, and wellbeing will be at Harry's good graces. > While I expect a certain degree of retributional humor > in that scene, I'm sure Harry will treat the Dursleys > far better than they ever treated him. > Just a few thoughts. > Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Oct 25 14:29:18 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:29:18 -0000 Subject: Contradictions-R.A.B. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160311 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" wrote: > > > > Geoff: > > > > > The other evidence (apart from canon) is that in foreign translations > > of the book, the initials in the various editions match the > translation > > of Black. For example, I believe the German edition has RAS, "Black" > > being rendered as "Schwarz". > > > > Hickengruendler: > > Nope. R.A.B. is R.A.B. in the German translation, and not R.A.S. . But > the name Black hasn't been translated either. So Regulus Black > is "Regulus Black" in German and not Regulus Schwarz. > But I think in some other translations, like the Dutch one, Regulus > last name has been translated, and R.A.B. has been translated to fit > Regulus initials. > > Hickengruendler, absolutely sure that R.A.B. is Regulus and nobody else Geoff: Danke sch?n f?r Ihre Korrektur! I am on much safer ground in saying that the Dutch version, for example, has RAZ (Black=Zwart). And, having just written that, I made a quick trip down memory lane via Yahoo's (much improved archive search); as a result, may I direct members to message 153268 which is on this topic? From unicornspride at centurytel.net Wed Oct 25 14:32:58 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:32:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg References: Message-ID: <016e01c6f842$77a74a20$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160312 >Jenni wrote: >No, I'm sorry, you're mistaken! She comes to the hearing and is an >EYE WITNESS in Harry's defense. She states emphatically that she saw >them. Two of them, one for each boy - Harry and Dudley. She also >describes their attack on the boys very accurately. Lana writes: It is all interpretation. A better way to say it would have been "I believe" you were mistaken. You do not know for sure that I am wrong. Just as I do not know that you are wrong. There is also a part in the book that states "Whatever Mrs. Figg said to the contrary, it sounded to him as though the most she had ever seen was a picture of a dementor, and a picture could never convey the truth of what these beings were like." She described the feeling of the dementors accurately because even Muggles can feel them. So a squib would too. Even without seeing them, she would have known right away what it was just because of the eerie feeling she got upon entering the alley way. Being from a wizarding family, she would know all about them. My interpretation is that the only believeable thing about her testimony was her description of the way it made her feel. >Jenni wrote: >If she couldn't see the dementors, >Dumbledore would never have >called on her to be part of the defense. Mrs. >Figg was just nervous. >Harry was tried by the whole court, for >goodness sakes. She didn't >realize how much her testimony would be >worth! Plus being in the >room where many prisoners had been >sentenced to Azkaban had to be >pretty intimidating too! Lana Writes: DD would have still called her to witness. Nothing says she didn't just add that she could see them. It wouldn't be the first time in the book that someone has stretched the truth a bit. "Not a very convincing witness," said Fudge loftily. "Oh, I don't know," said Madam Bones in her booming voice. "She certainly described the effects of a dementor attack very accurately. And I can't imagine why she would say they were there if they weren't---" This in itself says that her testimony was worth everything whether she saw them or not. So either way, DD would have had her testify. She may have felt that she needed to say that she saw them even if she didn't. JMO. I am not saying she definately didn't see them. I am saying that I do not think she did. >Jenni writes: >So, even if Petunia were a Squib, she would still be able to see >dementors, see 'magical' things, beings and places. Muggles aren't >supposed to be able to see Hogwarts. I wonder if Petunia could? But Petunia is not a squib. Her parents were not magical. A squib comes from 2 magical parents. So, she would not be able to see a dementor. A muggle can see magical things unless they are covered by invisibility charms and such -- like they did with the Quidditich campgrounds in GOF. So, yes, if uncharmed and close enough, she would be able to see it just like anyone else. Please understand that everyone has opinions. We do not have any genuine proof of our theories , until JK proves us right or wrong. Hugs, Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 14:58:43 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:58:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610250758nb1404b6ge1d786d7d99bda26@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160313 On 10/25/06, Edis wrote: > But could Muggles get into a Secret-Keeper protected property? Why not? Dumbledore told them the secret, we all saw that. There's no reason to think that's not enough - that's how the protection works, it's not wizard- or muggle-specific in any way. -- Random832 From unicornspride at centurytel.net Wed Oct 25 14:41:05 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:41:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg References: Message-ID: <01e601c6f843$99cc2cf0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160314 >Lana Wrote: >A squib comes from 2 magical parents. Correction by Lana: A squib is a person born to at least one magical parent. Hugs, Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 15:38:15 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:38:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160315 Pat wrote: > > I'm starting to wonder if Voldemort has still been saving the last > horcrux for Harry's death, thus Snape's insistence on "saving Harry > for the Dark Lord." Dumbledore was definitely uncertain as to the > last horcrux, and so now I'm wondering if the DL has decided that > Harry will be the Gryffindor horcrux. Just a thought. > > thanks, > Pat, enjoying this chapter discussion and everyone's responses > Carol responds: I'm a bit confused. "Saving the last Horcrux for Harry's death" and making Harry a Horcrux are two different things, and essentially incompatible. Dumbledore thinks that Voldemort intended to use Harry's death to split his soul and then encase that soul bit in a Horcrux (an object, preferably a powerful magical object that's unlikely to corrode or be otherwise destroyed (to keep the soul bit from being released). The diary (and Nagini, if she's a Horcrux, are atypical in this respect). Voldemort would not want to make Harry into a Horcrux. He wants Harry, the Chosen One who, according to the prophecy, can defeat him, to be dead. If, as Snape tells the DEs, LV wants to kill Harry himself, it may be because he still lacks a Horcrux and, as before, wants to use Harry's murder to split his soul, but that doesn't mean that he would make a Horcrux of Harry's body--hardly a powerful magical object that's likely to endure forever like, say, the locket or the cup. Those who believe that Harry (or his scar) is a Horcrux believe that it was made one accidentally when the soul bit entered Harry. I have a different view. I think the cut on his forehead was caused by the deflected AK bursting outward with renewed force, causing Voldemort's body to be ripped apart and releasing his core soul fragment. I don't think that the soul bit(s) from Lily's murder (and the various other murders he had committed but hadn't used for Horcruxes) was floating around loose and somehow made its way into Harry. Perhaps a drop of Voldemort's magical blood got into Harry's cut and transferred some of his powers to Harry. But Harry's soul is uncontaminated, as Dumbledore has said, and I don't think that his scar is a Horcrux, either, because a spell is required to encase the soul bit and no such spell was used--only the killing curse that rebounded onto Voldemort. So the question for me is only whether Nagini was already a Horcrux and what the Ravenclaw object is. For others, its whether Harry is an accidental Horcrux. But the idea that Voldemort might deliberately make Harry a Horcrux, which IMO would require keeping him alive forever, seems incompatible with Harry's death, which we know Voldemort wants (and has attempted on at least three occasions, four if we count Diary!Tom). Carol, who thinks that Harry also has the power of possession, which will play a role in the destruction of Voldemort From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 15:18:36 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:18:36 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: <016e01c6f842$77a74a20$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160316 > Please understand that everyone has opinions. We do not have any > genuine proof of our theories , until JK proves us > right or wrong. > > Hugs, Lana I found the part you were talking about on JK's website where she says that Squibs can't see dementors. But Mrs. Figg does state in the book that she could see the dementors. This makes JK's statement a contradiction. Isn't the first time ol' Jo has done this, probably won't be the last. Jenni from Alabama From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 15:55:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:55:42 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160317 > Snow: > > I am never too adamant about my predictions; I can sincerely > appreciate yours and others non-acceptance to Harry and/or his scar > having become a Horcrux, although I have suggested neither > circumstance. > > Harry is equal to Voldemort according to the prophecy; Harry does > have a bit of Voldemort in him according to Dumbledore; and Harry has > displayed uncanny knowledge over Voldemort's feelings via his scar, > therefore I must conclude that there is a part of Voldemort within > Harry no matter how you slice the bread. > > We need to get past the Horcrux tie. Harry is not a Horcrux but he > does appear to obtain characteristics of a Horcrux, which is in fact > a portion of Voldemort how can it not be. Carol responds: I'm not sure what you mean by "obtain characteristics of a Horcrux." Possibly "obtain" is the wrong verb, but aside from that, the only characteristic of a normal Horcrux (cup, locket, ring, etc.) is its capacity to keep a bit of Voldemort's soul earthbound. We can't deduce the characteristics of a Horcrux from the properties of the diary, which was always an interactive magical object different from the others, and Nagini, if she is a Horcrux, is also atypical. Carol, in a hurry for an appointment From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 25 16:00:55 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:00:55 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160318 > > Carol: > > > Also, I don't know where you get the idea that there are plenty of > > Muggle marriages to witches or wizards. I know of three: Ken: > Ok, lets work with those three. How many marriages in the WW do we > know *any* detail of? Is it as many as 30? I doubt it is that many but > let's say it is 30, that implies that 10% of wizards and witches marry > muggles. Magpie: Not necessarily. But regardless, of the three that we hear of two involve deceit--the Muggle doesn't know they're married to a Witch. If you add Dean that's another one where the marriage is a lie. And there's the woman using her husband as a table. So out of those Muggle/Magic marriages they're not doing to well in terms of it being the same as marrying a magical person. Obviously that wouldn't be a problem with Harry and Ginny, but based on what I've seen of their relationship it would be a major shift from Harry the Wizard and Ginny the Witch to Ginny and Harry the non-magical person. I can't imagine their relationship lasting based on what I've seen of it so far. Ken: > Replying to the thread in general now and not Carol in particular I > don't understand the reaction to a Harry without magic. Would not > Harry losing his magical power be akin to losing sight, hearing, or > limbs in the real world? Do those of you who say Harry without magic > would and could have no purpose or place in either world say the same > about the blind, deaf, and paraplegic? Magpie: No, I wouldn't--and I flatly reject trying to put it in those terms because it's not my society I'm imagining Harry adapting to-and also because this is an aspect of Wizarding Society that consistently bothers me. People with different physical limitations have always been part of our society as much as anyone else. Harry's society is the Wizarding World, defined by those who have magic. He could certainly continue to live as a Squib, sure. But the books have shown him growing up by mastering magical techniques, sometimes as metaphors for emotional growth. So taking away his magic is taking away a bit more than one isolated physical ability. A Muggle Harry going to Muggle school who then loses his sight retains more than a Magical Harry who loses his Magic after getting a Magical education. Ken: I doubt that many of you do. It > would be quite a tragedy for Harry as it is for real folk who have > faced this kind of loss but humans are resiliant and adaptable and go > on to live fulfilling lives in spite of handicaps. Magpie: Yes, of course. But my point isn't that there's no point in living without magic. Obviously I do it myself and sometimes am totally annoyed at the way non-magical people are dismissed by characters with magic in the books. I don't think Muggles are inferior to wizards. But if we're talking about a character in a book about the real world who loses his sight, even if his sight has been important up until that point, I have some idea of the kind of adaptation and adjustment he needs to make to still live like other people. This does not exist in Rowling's world. Doing magic is central to participating in Harry's world. Squibs and Muggles barely interact with Wizards, and when they do it's not as equals. Harry's entire education mostly comes down to learning how to do this spell and that spell. It's all erased if he no longer can do any magic at all. Ken: One of our greatest > living astrophysicists, Stephen Hawking, has been reduced to a barley > functioning physical shell by ALS, yet his mind is as brilliant as > ever and comparable to the great minds of history and legend. He still > holds a revered place in the world and contributes to his field at the > highest level. Why would we expect any less from Harry or ourselves? > Harry seems to want to be an auror. If he had no magic he could not be > an auror in the usual sense. He could still work in the auror's office > though in much the same way as muggle police detectives work. A brain > can be more effective than a wand for catching criminals even though > those who can use a wand are required in the actual capture. > Magpie: He could if the author devoted herself to a book creating this possibility, but since she has not so far carved out that possibility I don't think it's been properly prepared for. You're imagining how it could work, but the requirements for Aurors are clearly laid out in canon as all involving magic. (And Harry's not always been primarily a detective.) The place of people without magic has also been so far laid out. There are no Stephen Hawking equivalents in the WW, Squibs who are brilliant in some respected field in the WW. I can't imagine Muggle!Ron explaining SH's condition in the same terms he does Filch's in CoS. One would hope that an intelligent Squib could show Wizards that s/he had something to offer, but if Harry would to do that he'd have to come up with it himself. Stephen Hawking does the same physics as anyone else. Walking isn't a requirement for all jobs. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 25 16:02:59 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:02:59 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160319 > Jenni from Alabama > > I found the part you were talking about on JK's website where she says > that Squibs can't see dementors. But Mrs. Figg does state in the book > that she could see the dementors. This makes JK's statement a > contradiction. Isn't the first time ol' Jo has done this, probably > won't be the last. Magpie: It's not a contradiction. Mrs Figg is lying, and that's made clear in the text when she makes mistakes about what the Dementors look like and Harry himself describes her as sounding like she's describing them second hand. JKR is just confirming that Figg was indeed lying. -m From harryp at stararcher.com Wed Oct 25 16:20:21 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:20:21 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160320 > Jenni from Alabama: > I've often wondered whether or not Petunia was born > with magical powers but doesn't use them. She certainly seems to know > a heck of a lot more about the magical world than she is letting on. > [...] > I still wonder about Petunia though. It has never > been proven that Petunia isn't magical, just that she doesn't do > magic. I've wonder if she has that ability but chooses not to use it. Eddie (from Potterverse (in Iowa)): Rowling said (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm) that "She is a Muggle, but [...] there is a little bit more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye". While on the subject of Petunia, do we have any canon to tell us whether Petunia or Lily is the older of the two sisters? Eddie From davidapiper at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 15:21:50 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (Davida Lynne Piper) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:21:50 -0000 Subject: House elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160321 > Potioncat: > Have you ever read the "Shoemaker and the Elves"? I think that > story is a good basis. Little elves come by night and make shoes for > a poor shoemaker. He becomes well off because of their work and > repays them by giving them new clothes. Once they're given the gift > of clothes, they leave. > I think Brownies are similar. They perform tasks for the house. It > seems in both cases the wee folk come of their own choosing and > leave after being given a gift. Davida: If you recall, Hermonie would knit hats and scarves but the house elves were offended at this. Only Dobbie took them to wear. My question is this: Why were the people not so concerned about the house elves welfare? Hermonie thought that was servitude and not right. Davida From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 16:11:53 2006 From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:11:53 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical? In-Reply-To: <01b701c6f7d1$353fd880$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160322 > Jenni from Alabama: > > I still wonder about Petunia though. It has never been proven that > Petunia isn't magical, just that she doesn't do magic. I've wonder > if she has that ability but chooses not to use it. > > Is there proof against this theory? Has J.K. said something to > debunk it? > Nicole in Oklahoma: > > If you go to JK's site, in either FAQ, or rumors she does say > that Petunia is not magical. In several of the books, it does say > that Lily was Muggleborn. > hpfan_mom: One of my favorite theories was that Petunia was the person who would exhibit magic later in life, as JKR has said will happen. I also liked the suggestion someone made awhile back in this group, that Petunia is part-House Elf (she's always cleaning, doesn't really go out without another member of the family, etc). But JKR squashed those theories pretty well on her website: RUMOR: Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies RESPONSE: No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she ever be able to do so. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=37 Sigh. hpfan_mom From davidapiper at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 15:29:26 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (Davida Lynne Piper) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:29:26 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical? In-Reply-To: <01b701c6f7d1$353fd880$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160323 Jenni from Alabama: > I still wonder about Petunia though. It has never been proven that > Petunia isn't magical, just that she doesn't do magic. Has > J.K. said something to debunk it? Nicole: > If you go to JK's site, in either FAQ, or rumors she does say > that Petunia is not magical. In several of the books, it does say > that Lily was Muggleborn. Davida: Petunia was afraid of what the neighbors would think if Harry used his magic. Though DD did send her a howler when Vernon was wanting to kick Harry out. She might have had magical powers but chose not to use them even though her sister Lily had magical powers. Davida From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 16:07:28 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:07:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg Message-ID: <20061025160728.41478.qmail@web54514.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160324 > Please understand that everyone has opinions. We do not have any > genuine proof of our theories , until JK proves us > right or wrong. > > Hugs, Lana I found the part you were talking about on JK's website where she says that Squibs can't see dementors. But Mrs. Figg does state in the book that she could see the dementors. This makes JK's statement a contradiction. Isn't the first time ol' Jo has done this, probably won't be the last. Jenni from Alabama ---------------------------- Jeremiah No, I remember when she appears in front of the Wizengamot that she gives a description that sounds like she's seen a picture or heard a description (I don't have the books with me... It's from memory) and Harry thinks she sounds silly but then she describes the feeling. That's where she nails it on the head. Even Dudley feels it. And, I think Sirius (could be wrong on the character) mentions that Muggles can feel them but can't see them. So, no contradictions with JKR. She's just tricky like that. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dk59us at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 17:25:45 2006 From: dk59us at yahoo.com (Eustace_Scrubb) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:25:45 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160325 Jenni from Alabama: > > I've often wondered whether or not Petunia was born > > with magical powers but doesn't use them. She certainly seems to know > > a heck of a lot more about the magical world than she is letting on. > > [...] > > I still wonder about Petunia though. It has never > > been proven that Petunia isn't magical, just that she doesn't do > > magic. I've wonder if she has that ability but chooses not to use it. > Eddie (from Potterverse (in Iowa)): > Rowling said > (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm) that > "She is a Muggle, but [...] there is a little bit more to Aunt > > Petunia than meets the eye". Now Eustace_Scrubb: And she repeated this on the second night of An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp this past August, with just a little bit of added detail in answer to a question about whether Petunia's behavior in HBP means that she harbors a secret fondness for either Harry or the Wizarding World (http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html): "...I will say this. There is a little more to Aunt Petunia than meets the eye and you will find out what that is in book seven (crowd roars and applauds)." It's good to get a post-HBP confirmation that this still lies ahead, I guess. Cheers, Eustace_Scrubb From darksworld at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 16:34:12 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:34:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Edis" wrote: > Later we find Dumbledore with a fire-ravaged hand - and it is NOT > specified whether this is his right or his left hand as far as I can > see in any Canonical Text. Text-Experts - can anyone check out the > ravaged hand references in HBP? > > What would be the effect of Dumbledore re-assuming his own form with > an oath like the UV impacting on it even though the oath was taken in > Snape-Form? Maybe combatting the immediate influence of the UV caused > his hand to be ravaged by magical Fire? > > OK all speculation - but the circumstances of the Ravaged Hand MUST > form part of the core Text in Book 8 or all the hand references in HBP Charles: When DD is taking Harry to get Slughorn to come to hogwarts, he takes Harry for side-along apparition. He says "[Take]my left, if you don't mind, as you have noticed my wand arm is a little fragile at the moment." This is an interesting theory with only one possible hole that I see. I don't think DD would want to disguise himself as Snape and visit the DE, for the simple fact that Snape must surely still participate in some of the, shall we say less savory aspects of DE life to maintain his cover. I don't think DD would want to have to perform said acts. Charles Walker, Intrigued but unconvinced. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 17:50:47 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:50:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160327 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Edis" wrote: > > > Later we find Dumbledore with a fire-ravaged hand - and it is NOT > specified whether this is his right or his left hand as far as I can > see in any Canonical Text. Text-Experts - can anyone check out the > ravaged hand references in HBP? zanooda: I'm not a big fan of "polyjuiced Dumbledore" idea, but yes, it was his right hand that was injured. After Harry and DD leave Privet Drive, they need to Apparate to the village where Slughorn is hiding, and DD says to Harry:"...you will need to hold on to my arm very tightly. My left, if you don't mind - as you have noticed, my wand arm is a little fragile at the moment" (HBP, "Horace Slughorn" ch., p.58 US or p.60 UK).Hope it helps. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 17:59:00 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:59:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160328 "Edis" wrote: > Now my speculation. Dumbledore has been spying on Voldemort assuming > Sapes form, using Polyjuice. He is searching for Horcruxes. In this > Polyjuice speculation Cissy and Bella unexpectedly confront > Dumbledore/Snape at Spinners End. Dum/Snape finds it necessary to go > through the unbreakable vow procedure to carry forwards his overall > mission. > > Maybe Bella has a Horcrux in her posession -a ring perhaps? > > Later we find Dumbledore with a fire-ravaged hand - and it is NOT > specified whether this is his right or his left hand as far as I can > see in any Canonical Text. Text-Experts - can anyone check out the > ravaged hand references in HBP? > > What would be the effect of Dumbledore re-assuming his own form with > an oath like the UV impacting on it even though the oath was taken in > Snape-Form? Maybe combatting the immediate influence of the UV caused > his hand to be ravaged by magical Fire? > > OK all speculation - but the circumstances of the Ravaged Hand MUST > form part of the core Text in Book 8 or all the hand references in HBP > are padding. > > Edis > Carol responds: Snape refers to Dumbledore's injury in the "Spinner's End" chapter, noting that DD has sustained a serious injury since the battle at the MoM. (Like DD with Slughorn and later on the tower, he lets his listeners think that the cause is slowed reflexes--no hint that it was caused by a Horcrux curse, much less that Snape took "timely action" to keep it from killing Dumbledore.) DD does tell Harry that his injury is caused by the terrible curse placed on the ring Horcrux and that Snape saved him, but he neglects to tell the rest of the "thrilling tale." As for Snape's vow, the UV has no visible effects (no injury to his hand or to Narcissa's, which was also bound by ropes of fire), but it's possible that invisible ropes of fire burn Snape when the vow is in danger of being activated or when Draco is in danger. (We don't know how the UV works, but surely it would give him warning that it needed to be fulfilled or he would die?) Also, Snape tells Draco that he made the Unbreakable Vow with Draco's mother to protect Draco. I doubt he'd mention a UV that Dumbledore had made in his name and form, or that DD would have tied Snape or himself to such a bargain. On a sidenote, the UV is part of Snape's tragedy and for DD to have made it in Snape's name would take away from Snape as a character, especially if the UV turns out to be his tragic flaw. IMO, it's tied in with the curse on the DADA position. Here's a link to that theory if you're interested: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/137961?threaded=1&l=1 Snape as a character is also diminished if Dumbledore, whom we know to be searching for Horcruxes and related information in his absences from Hogwarts, is also doing the job of double agent and "superb Occlumens" Severus Snape, who has been (in the view of DDM!Snapers) risking his life since the end of GoF to find out "what Voldemort is telling his Death Eaters," to use Snape's own words in OoP *"Yes, Potter, that is my job"). Re Bellatrix: I think she hid the original locket Horcrux with Kreacher's help and cousin Regulus somehow found out about it, using Kreacher to help him steal (but not destroy) the locket, the same unopenable locket that we saw in OoP. Carol, who has no doubt that the Snape we see in "Spinner's End" is the real Snape but still wonders how much of what he told Bellatrix in that chapter is half-truth with a pro-Voldie spin rather than the full and honest truth (which IMO would get him killed) From aceworker at yahoo.com Tue Oct 24 23:34:49 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:34:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lavender Brown - help needed Message-ID: <20061024233449.9698.qmail@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160329 <> Rita, I don't think this has been discussed before, at least not much. Also since it mentions the movies it might belong on the movie discussion board, but the reason you can't find a description of Lavender, in the books is because there is none in canon. Part of JKR's style is very sparse with descriptions of the appearance of char'. She tells you more about how the food looks then about the appearance of background players and even some of the major char. Lavender has never been described. However, even before the movie's came out, fan fiction convention had turned Lavender into a skinny blond. In fan fiction at least before HBP Lavender was one of the most written char'. (She is still popular) Most fanfiction was written by young teen girls and most pictured themselves as Lavender and not Hermione or Ginny. Jackie Smith's portrayal of Lavender is a bit part and a lot of fans did not even realize that Lavender was black who saw the movie. The closest thing to canon we have for Lavender is the movie, so I would say the Lavender is black, esp because as you say JKR has some pull with casting. I doubt Jackie Smith will be back for HBP, as she hasn't been in any of the movie's since and since a Lavender is not in the DA picture for the movie she prob won't be in that. Which means if Lavender is cast at all, the casting may shake up her fans. If Lavender is cast as 'black' that will actually 'bother' here most avid readers who are white femalke teenagers and assume Lavender is lilke them. My guess is that the producers won't cast Lavender to avoid all this and will either just give the veteran actress who plays Parvati or give the part Lavender plays to a new 'introduced char' who will be blond. I doubt the prod are brave enough to have two interracial romances that go sour in the same movie. But that is not my main point and if you want to follow-up on it, please do so on the movie chat group. My main point is what does it say about our society that Lavender evolved this way in fanfiction. It is almost considered violating canon in fanfiction to write her another way and most fanfiction authors assume that 'canon' Lavender is this way. But we don't know what she looks like and the closest thing to canon is the movie in which she is black. Why do so many girls want to be Lavender instead of Hermione, when Hermione is heroic. Aren't readers supposed to identify with the hero? DA Jones From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 18:41:20 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:41:20 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts elves/ Was:Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160330 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > Nikkalmati: > Very good point here. I think that HG, not being of the WW, has > misunderstood the possible result of her actions. She doesn't have elves and so doesn't > understand that she cannot free the Hogwarts elves. The elves themselves > are so adverse to being freed (and kicked out of their no doubt cushey job) > that they will not take the chance by picking up her hats. ( If the students > could order the elves around they wouldn't need to sneak down to the kitchens > for food ). Does this mean Ron knows that H is wasting her time and just > doesn't tell her or doesn't he give it any thought? > Nikkalmati Yeah, you are probably right. I don't know why I didn't think about Hermione being Muggleborn, maybe because she usually knows everything. What was she doing in the library then while researching for SPEW? She looked through magical law books reading about elf rights, I guess, instead of trying to find out more about their lifestyle and habits. I also agree that the elves, even if they know that they won't be freed by Hermione's hats, don't pick them up, because even her intent is insulting to them. As for Ron, I'm not sure what he knows. He seem to believe that Hermione's ruse can work, remember how he takes off the trash that she covers the hats with? Then again, the Weasleys never had an elf, so Ron wouldn't have any personal experience with them. Thanks for the idea! Take care, zanooda From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 18:43:33 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:43:33 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160331 Davida wrote: > Petunia was afraid of what the neighbors would think if Harry used > his magic. Though DD did send her a howler when Vernon was wanting to kick Harry out. She might have had magical powers but chose not to use them even though her sister Lily had magical powers. > Carol responds: As others have pointed out, JKR herself has squashed that rumor. Petunia is a Muggle and will never exhibit magical powers--except that "magical" ability to create a sparkling clean house that some people with OCD exhhibit in real life. (She'd get along reasonably well with another fictional character, Adrian Monk.) And given Petunia's jealousy of "the witch in the family," I can't see her choosing not to use her magical powers if she had them, much less marrying the arch-Muggle Vernon Dursley. Nope, she'd have gone to Hogwarts and probably been placed in Slytherin, if only because that's where JKR places most of her unpleasant characters. It's been clear, at least to me, since Book 1 that Petunia knows more about the magical world than Vernon does and that she's keeping secrets from him as well as from the neighbors. When she looks out the window in PoA "as if expecting to see an escaped rhinocerous" after seeing Sirius Black on TV, it's just possible that she knows who Sirius Black is (Harry's godfather and a friend of the Potters). Does she also know that he was (supposedly) the Potters' Secret Keeper, the betrayer of her sister and brother-in-law? Might Mrs. Figg have told Petunia (but not Vernon) about the aftermath of Godric's Hollow, including Black's ostensible role? (If so, he could very well be the "awful boy" who told Lily about Dementors.) Or does Dumbledore's "Petunia, remember my last!" imply a correspondence with Dumbledore as opposed to a single earlier letter tucked inside Harry's baby blankets? (Must have been some sort of spell on him to keep him from toddling off if he woke up in the night, BTW!) At any rate, Petunia knows more than Harry or Vernon thinks she does about the WW. I hope she'll at least show Harry the note tucked into his baby blankets in Book 7, possibly after Harry saves her life.) I expect (and hope) that it'll be Mrs. Figg who reveals previously dormant magical powers in Book 7, and I think that one of DD's purposes in imposing himself on the Dursleys' hospitality in HBP was to mention 12 GP as "headquarters" in front of the Dursleys so they'll be able to take sanctuary there in Book 7 despite the Muggle-repelling spells and other protections, which perhaps Mad-Eye or Bill Weasley can lift now that the SK has told them the secret. (Maybe Vernon won't make it out of 4 Privet Drive alive, but I suspect that Petunia and Dudley will, as JKR has promised to reveal what Dudley heard when the Dementor attacked him.) Carol, imagining Petunia shrieking in horror at the house-elf heads and standing on a chair to avoid Kreacher From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Oct 25 18:51:29 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:51:29 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160332 -> > Ken: > > > Ok, lets work with those three. How many marriages in the WW do we > > know *any* detail of? Is it as many as 30? I doubt it is that many > but > > let's say it is 30, that implies that 10% of wizards and witches > marry > > muggles. > > Magpie: > Not necessarily. But regardless, of the three that we hear of two > involve deceit--the Muggle doesn't know they're married to a Witch. > If you add Dean that's another one where the marriage is a lie. And > there's the woman using her husband as a table. So out of those > Muggle/Magic marriages they're not doing to well in terms of it > being the same as marrying a magical person. Ken: There is no getting around the fact that canon implies that intermarriage is reasonably common, the numbers speak for themselves. As to how happy and successful those marriages are, I was not addressing that. We all know muggle/muggle marriages as bad as the examples you give, some of us may have been in one. The muggleborn and effectively muggleborn w/w like Hermione and Harry are certainly well positioned to have successful mixed marriages, if they choose. If Ginny Weasley is like her mother, well probably not, if she takes after her father, perhaps so. I suspect that in the real world mixed marriages fail more often than homogeneous marriages though the failure rate of the latter is high too. If true, that fact does not doom individual marriages to failure. The fate of any marriage lies in the hands of the partners. In any event a suddenly non-magical Harry would be a unique case and normal rules would not apply. > > Ken: > > Replying to the thread in general now and not Carol in particular I > > don't understand the reaction to a Harry without magic. Would not > > Harry losing his magical power be akin to losing sight, hearing, or > > limbs in the real world? Do those of you who say Harry without > magic > > would and could have no purpose or place in either world say the > same > > about the blind, deaf, and paraplegic? > > Magpie: > No, I wouldn't--and I flatly reject trying to put it in those terms > because it's not my society I'm imagining Harry adapting to-and also > because this is an aspect of Wizarding Society that consistently > bothers me. People with different physical limitations have always > been part of our society as much as anyone else. Harry's society is > the Wizarding World, defined by those who have magic. > Ken: The WW is *defined* by those who do magic but they have defined it to include others: spouses, siblings, squibs, parents, and the occasional PM. Harry can fit into that, it is more than speculation on my part. At the very least he would fit in somewhere between Hagrid and Mrs. Figg. The WW is not our society yet it is comprised of human beings, not aliens from another planet. There is no reason to suppose that the WW would turn its back on a disabled member any more than we do. A power-less Harry might not find a place he could accept, not everyone does, but he certainly could find a place in the WW that many would be happy with. > > Magpie: > Yes, of course. But my point isn't that there's no point in living > without magic. Obviously I do it myself and sometimes am totally > annoyed at the way non-magical people are dismissed by characters > with magic in the books. I don't think Muggles are inferior to > wizards. But if we're talking about a character in a book about the > real world who loses his sight, even if his sight has been important > up until that point, I have some idea of the kind of adaptation and > adjustment he needs to make to still live like other people. This > does not exist in Rowling's world. Doing magic is central to > participating in Harry's world. Squibs and Muggles barely interact > with Wizards, and when they do it's not as equals. Harry's entire > education mostly comes down to learning how to do this spell and > that spell. It's all erased if he no longer can do any magic at > all. Ken: I think you are too caught up in one gift of many that Harry has. His magical education and experience would allow him to edit books at a magical book publisher, it would allow him to work at the Ministry of Magic in a variety of capacities, he could help run the twin's budding business empire, he could be a Quidditch commentator, he could be a reporter, he could emulate his creator and write books, he could help Hermione run SPEW ... the possibilities are as endless as the human imagination. An understanding of magic at the level Harry has mastered would allow him to perform many tasks that ordinary squibs and muggles could not. His fame would open many doors for him that would be closed to us, or Figgy. He would not be left without resources or friends, just the actual ability to perform magic. If Gilderoy Lockhart could have the career he had based on the mastery of a single spell then the boy and former wizard who actually vanquished Lord Voldemort should be able to do as well without any magic at all. No, I don't expect this to be the way the series concludes. I do think it is a plausible conclusion and I think it could be used to convey several powerful messages. I expect that Harry will remain a wizard and I hope that he will survive to old age. Ken From jfite at midsouth.rr.com Wed Oct 25 19:37:35 2006 From: jfite at midsouth.rr.com (n8483483) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:37:35 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts elves/ Was:Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160333 > > Nikkalmati: > > I think that HG, not being of the WW, has misunderstood the > > possible result of her actions. She doesn't have elves and > > so doesn't understand that she cannot free the Hogwarts elves. > > The elves themselves are so adverse to being freed (and kicked > > out of their no doubt cushey job) that they will not take the > > chance by picking up her hats. > > zanooda: > > I also agree that the elves, even if they know that they won't > be freed by Hermione's hats, don't pick them up, because even > her intent is insulting to them. Hey, Don't House Elves have to pick up clothes off the floor? Who thinks hundreds of teenagers nicely fold their clothes and put them away? And who is doing all the laundry at Hogwarts? I assume it is the Hogwarts elves which made me think their master must be the one to give them clothes in order to be free. I think Hermione making clothes is insulting them but not endangering them. Gina From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 20:08:47 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:08:47 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160334 > >>Ken: > There is no getting around the fact that canon implies that > intermarriage is reasonably common, the numbers speak for > themselves. Betsy Hp: How do you figure that? We have a bare handful of wizard marriages described, and an even tinier portion of that are of the non- magical/magical variety. Now, I'm not mathametician, but even I can see that you have no proper statistics to play with here. JKR has not given us enough information to make those sort of judgements, IMO. > >>Ken: > As to how happy and successful those marriages are, I was not > addressing that. We all know muggle/muggle marriages as bad as the > examples you give, some of us may have been in one. Betsy Hp: I've never been in, nor have I known anyone in a marriage in which one spouse has such utter and total control over the other. (If my friends are able to have their husbands fill in for a missing coffee table, they've kept quite quiet about it. ) > >>Ken: > > The WW is *defined* by those who do magic but they have defined it > to include others: spouses, siblings, squibs, parents, and the > occasional PM. Betsy Hp: Ooh, I *fully* disagree. Hermione, IMO, perfectly demonstrates that by entering the WW you leave the Muggle world behind. Her parents have no knowledge of what is going on in her world except for what she tells them. Frankly, every single time there is a Muggle - Wizard interaction it is made *very* clear that the non-magical person is lesser than. Any say they may feel they have is purely on the whim of the wizard involved. > >>Ken: > Harry can fit into that, it is more than speculation on my part. > At the very least he would fit in somewhere between Hagrid and Mrs. > Figg. Betsy Hp: Harry without magic would possibly equal Mrs. Figg. He'd never have any hope of coming anywhere near Hagrid. No chance at all. And frankly, as a person whose magic had been forcably removed I think he'd be classed lower than Mrs. Figg. > >>Ken: > The WW is not our society yet it is comprised of human beings, > not aliens from another planet. There is no reason to suppose that > the WW would turn its back on a disabled member any more than we > do. Betsy Hp: Yes they do. If you aren't a wizard or a witch you just cannot hold any kind of powerful position. Harry will never be able to work at St. Mungos, Hogwarts, or the MoM unless it was in the most menial levels of labor. > >>Ken: > A power-less Harry might not find a place he could accept, not > everyone does, but he certainly could find a place in the WW that > many would be happy with. Betsy Hp: Who had not graduated from Hogwarts. Yes, Harry could *survive* I think. But he'd be worse off than his horrified imaginings of being Hagrid's assistant in PoA (IIRC). A non-magical Harry might possibly become Filch's assistant. Though I honestly doubt the WW would be thrilled to have him around their children. > >>Ken: > > His magical education and experience would allow him to edit books > at a magical book publisher, Betsy Hp: If only he could work the pens. > >>Ken: > it would allow him to work at the Ministry of Magic in a variety > of capacities, Betsy Hp: If only he were a fully recognized legal member of the WW. > >>Ken: > he could help run the twin's budding business empire, Betsy Hp: If only he could place fire calls. > >>Ken: > he could be a Quidditch commentator, Betsy Hp: If only he could use Saronus (I think it is? That voice amplifying spell). > >>Ken: > he could be a reporter, Betsy Hp: If only he could use the pens. (I said that before... Ah well, anything with writing involved is right out. It be like a reporter in the Muggle world who couldn't use a computer.) > >>Ken: > he could emulate his creator and write books, Betsy Hp: See above. > >>Ken: > he could help Hermione run SPEW Betsy Hp: Except that Hermione would have to drop SPEW to work full time at getting Harry some reasonable rights as a non-magical person within the WW. (Posterboy -- just what Harry's always wanted to be! ) > >>Ken: > ... the possibilities are as endless as the human imagination. Betsy Hp: Until you run full tilt into the WW's bureaucracy. Kills imagination dead. > >>Ken: > His fame would open many doors for him that would be closed to us, > or Figgy. Betsy Hp: Frankly, I think Harry's fame would be a massive part of the problem. What a horrifying reminder of your worst nightmare to have hanging around. I think more doors would close in the end. The only way I see a non-magical Harry working is if he decided to turn his back completely on the WW and, well, I guess go back to high school. Figure out how planes stay up, etc. Betsy Hp (determined to change the title of this thread is it's the last thing I do! ) From kapala_43 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 20:01:03 2006 From: kapala_43 at yahoo.com (donna poissant) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:01:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061025200103.93698.qmail@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160335 > >>Cyndi: > >> Why does Vernon so viciously try to keep Harry from going back to Hogwarts? >> kap: It could be that he is kind of trying to hold Harry hostage to the highest bidder. kap From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Oct 25 20:39:07 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:39:07 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160336 > Ken: > > The WW is *defined* by those who do magic but they have defined it to > include others: spouses, siblings, squibs, parents, and the occasional > PM. Harry can fit into that, it is more than speculation on my part. > At the very least he would fit in somewhere between Hagrid and Mrs. > Figg. The WW is not our society yet it is comprised of human beings, > not aliens from another planet. There is no reason to suppose that the > WW would turn its back on a disabled member any more than we do. Magpie: Actually, I think there is good reason to suppose that they might turn their back on a disabled member. For six books there's been no problem with Magical people considering themselves superior to non- magical ones (and Hagrid is a Wizard). There's no hint of any kind of true support system for the non-Magical, while we have plenty of examples that the non-Magical are ostracized or not spoken of. From what I've seen the parents of Muggleborns especially are stripped of their normal parental roles. It feels like the only reason the possibility of such inclusiveness is being suggested now is because we're discussing a hypothetical situation where Harry, one of our superior characters, would suddenly be one of them. So now the WW is being endowed with the level of open-mindedness we have in 21st century Muggle society, where a non-Magical person is like someone with a physical disability understood to be the equal of those without disabilities, but I just don't think they have that. My point isn't that nobody could come up with a way for Harry to have a life this way--of course they could. It's probably been done by a lot of fandom writers. My point is that I see no sign that the author has prepared for such an ending for her character. Ken: A > power-less Harry might not find a place he could accept, not everyone > does, but he certainly could find a place in the WW that many would be > happy with. Magpie: Sure--we've got examples of Squibs who exist in the WW. Muggles who are married to Witches and Wizards but presumably live lives in the Muggle World. But my point isn't that Harry would have nothing to live for without Magic. It's that I don't think the author has at all set up this alternative for Harry--or any of the characters we know. > Ken: > > I think you are too caught up in one gift of many that Harry has. His > magical education and experience would allow him to edit books at a > magical book publisher, it would allow him to work at the Ministry of > Magic in a variety of capacities, he could help run the twin's budding > business empire, he could be a Quidditch commentator, he could be a > reporter, he could emulate his creator and write books, he could help > Hermione run SPEW ... the possibilities are as endless as the human > imagination. An understanding of magic at the level Harry has mastered > would allow him to perform many tasks that ordinary squibs and muggles > could not. Magpie: And this is all fine if we were talking about Harry the real person, but it doesn't read like something that's been reasonably set up by the story Rowling is writing. Harry the Quidditch commentator, writer or reporter or helper of Hermione running SPEW don't seem to come out of the Harry that we've seen so far, imo. Particularly not Harry suddenly becoming a helper to one of the supporting characters instead of the leader or loner he's always been. Vernon might be able to get him a job at the drill factory despite his not having an education too, but I don't think that ending would fit either. Ken: > No, I don't expect this to be the way the series concludes. I do think > it is a plausible conclusion and I think it could be used to convey > several powerful messages. I expect that Harry will remain a wizard > and I hope that he will survive to old age. Magpie: Then we're arguing at cross-purposes. I'm not trying to say that Harry, if he were a real person, would be unable to live any kind of life without Magic. I'm arguing that in terms of the story the ending has to come out of what we've seen before, and a magicless Harry starting out in life feels like ending the story with one big question mark or starting a new story. BTW, I think it's PS/SS that Harry has fears of being Hagrid's assistant. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 20:40:44 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:40:44 -0000 Subject: Lavender vs Hermione (was:Re: Lavender Brown - help needed) In-Reply-To: <20061024233449.9698.qmail@web30207.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160337 > >>DA Jones: > > However, even before the movie's came out, fan fiction convention > had turned Lavender into a skinny blond. > > My main point is what does it say about our society that Lavender > evolved this way in fanfiction. It is almost considered violating > canon in fanfiction to write her another way and most fanfiction > authors assume that 'canon' Lavender is this way. But we don't > know what she looks like and the closest thing to canon is the > movie in which she is black. > Why do so many girls want to be Lavender instead of Hermione, when > Hermione is heroic. Aren't readers supposed to identify with the > hero? Betsy Hp: The very fact that JKR doesn't describe Lavender in the books means that she's open for fans to picture in their own way. I'm not aware enough of teenage fanfiction to know what "look" is popular, though I honestly don't see a problem with describing Lavender anyway you want to. That's what the imagination is for. I'm also not aware of Lavender being more popular among young female readers than Hermione, but I will say that I can understand why Hermione is not a character every young girl can relate to. Heck, *I* don't relate to Hermione (at this point I out and out don't like her), and I certainly wouldn't have related to her as a teenager, hero of the book or no. She looks down on the sort of girlish behavior I always enjoyed. And she's also down on the sort of imagining I was into. (For a "bookish" character, Hermione is very factually oriented.) I hate to sling the "misogynist" claim around (it gets used too quickly, I think). But I don't think JKR and I see eye to eye on what it is to be a girl. It doesn't surprise me, therefore, that there are young girls out there who feel the same way. (As a caveat, of *course* Hermione doesn't have to be the poster- girl for young girlhood. It's good that she's her own character with her own strengths and foibles. And I'm betting Lavender's popularity in teenage fanfics has more to do with her being more of a blank slate than something being wrong with Hermione.) Betsy Hp (not sure she's made any sense... but posting anyway! ) From snowman.birthday at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 21:19:43 2006 From: snowman.birthday at gmail.com (jodi B) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:19:43 -0000 Subject: Regulus Black / locket / horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160338 Hi! My name is Jodi. This is my first post. I am writing to all of you from Virginia, U.S.A., very near to Washington, D.C. This list is a wonderful read! I hope I can keep up with all the posts. What a treasure to find this! Danielle wrote: Remember in the OotP that they found a locket in Grimmauld Place and none of them could open it? Would it be possible that it was the real locket horcrux? But, on the other hand, we all know that Regulus Black was "dead" (if he really is). Jodi responds: I wonder if anyone ever mentioned this on this list. If so, please accept my apology for being repetitive. I only just thought of it while I read her post. What if Regulus Black was killed by Voldemort - before he created the horcrux-locket? I am definitely not the one who is a huge authority on these books the way some folks on this list are. So if Regulus is still alive and I don't know it, I wouldn't be surprised. I couldn't stand books 5&6 so much, that I only read each of them once. But I am thinking of re-reading book 5 if I have the time with two small children running around my house. (My two sons.) -Jodi in VA, U.S.A. http://ian-jareth.blogspot.com From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 23:30:27 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:30:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's lapses of Information (Was:CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160339 > Snow: > As for not hiding anything anymore from Harry I would have to say > balderdash. Goddlefrood: You are correct from the standpoint of the two instances cited (Dumbledore's suspicions of Draco and his failure to trust Harry with the real reason he trusted Snape). Having said this on the latter point at least Dumbledore offers an explanation for trusting Snape, which has been analysed by numerous contributors to this list and found wanting. All I would say on this is that while the stated reason may not seem enough it may well be truly the reason Dumbledore trusted Severus. Regarding hiding his views on Draco the explanation proffered atop the Tower when discussing the matter with Draco himself would fit with Dumbledore's reluctance to inform Harry of absolutely everything relative to Draco. Harry is hardly discrete and had Dumbledore shown he was of the same view as Harry earlier with Harry himself how long do you suppose Draco would have lasted? To allow Draco's plot to reach fruition was arguably something Dumbledore wanted. In respect now of the information Dumbledore supplied regarding Horcruxes themselves I formed the view while reading the relevant chapter under discussion that Dumbledore gave Harry all the information he had. That he did not mention Harry or his scar as a potential Horcrux strengthened my opinion that neither Harry nor his scar is a Horcrux. Dumbledore could have no reason to suppress that particular information. > Snow: > Harry is equal to Voldemort according to the prophecy; Harry does have a bit of Voldemort in him according to Dumbledore; and Harry has displayed uncanny knowledge over Voldemort's feelings via his scar, therefore I must conclude that there is a part of Voldemort within Harry no matter how you slice the bread. > We need to get past the Horcrux tie. Harry is not a Horcrux but he does appear to obtain characteristics of a Horcrux, which is in fact a portion of Voldemort how can it not be. Goddlefrood: Dumbledore said that LV had transferred some of his powers to Harry the night he obtained the scar, which is an important distinction. A Horcrux in and of itself does not appear to have power, except to revive the person who has need of reviving. It seems you suggest that a Horcrux is a power in itself. The Horcrux is the vessel for storing the external portion of soul, unless I'm much mistaken. For any particularly interested in the various ways in which external souls work there is available Chapter 66 "The External Soul in Folk-Tales" by Sir James George Frazer from The Golden Bough. THis is at Bartlebys and other literature sites. The only power attributed to the external soul is to keep the owner of the soul alive no matter what happens and this aspect of the myth appears to have been adhered to by JKR. In fact it is quite likely that she followed the legend of Koschei the Deathless whose soul was outside his body and there were seven levels of protection (although not seven separate soul pieces) to destroy in order that he could himself die. Just some thoughts Goddlefrood From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 23:42:21 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:42:21 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160340 --- "jdl3811220" wrote: > > > Please understand that everyone has opinions. We do > > not have any genuine proof of our theories > wrong>, until JK proves us right or wrong. > > > > Hugs, Lana > Jenni: > > I found the part you were talking about on JK's website > where she says that Squibs can't see dementors. But Mrs. > Figg does state in the book that she could see the > dementors. This makes JK's statement a contradiction. > ... > > Jenni from Alabama > bboyminn: As has already been pointed out, this is a contraduction, but not necessarily an inconsistency. Mrs.Figg was probably ammending the truth a bit. I won't come right out an say she was lying because, while she may not have been able to literally see the Dementors, she could see Harry and Dudley /interacting/ with the Dementors. Keep in mind that I'm not saying she could see them /reacting/ to the Dementor, which she certainly could see, but she could also see them interacting. One Dementor was prying Dudley's hands away from his mouth. Another was lifting Harry up to his mouth to give him the kiss. Seeing these actions combined with actually feeling the Dementors herself, would have certainly qualified her as an EYE witness. I think she stretched the details a bit to help Harry, but combining what she did see with how she felt made it pretty clear she knew what was happening. Note that Mrs. Figg is the first to mention the Dementors, if I recall correctly, not Harry. So, she clearly understood the situation even if she didn't literally see the Dementors. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From jferer at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 23:48:59 2006 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:48:59 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160341 Ken: " There is no getting around the fact that canon implies that intermarriage is reasonably common, the numbers speak for themselves." Betsy Hp: "How do you figure that? We have a bare handful of wizard marriages described, and an even tinier portion of that are of the non-magical/magical variety. Now, I'm not mathametician, but even I can see that you have no proper statistics to play with here. JKR has not given us enough information to make those sort of judgements, IMO." JKR doesn't imply wizard / muggle marriages; she just says so. "It's a disgusting thing to call someone," said Ron, wiping his sweaty brow with a shaking hand. "Dirty blood, see. Common blood. It's ridiculous. Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway. If we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out." (Chamber of Secrets, pg. 115 American) Other examples are too numerous to list. I submit that Ron's gotten the word from JKR to make this speech. "How come I have to do all this backstory exposition, Ms. Rowling?" " Somebody has to do it, and you're Harry and Hermione's guide to the wizard world for at least the first two books." "Oh, all right, but remember you promised I can play on the Quidditch team." Prejudice against half-bloods and Muggle-borns is a major issue in the entire Harry Potter story; wizard purity and "ethnic" bigotry is a big part of the Death Eater credo. Betsy, you seem to be denying a major theme of all JKR's work. Yes, there is a lot of separation and misunderstanding between the worlds (I once wrote a fic about a loving Muggle father whose child gets the letter and the anguish it give him), but Muggle-wizard marriages are common and necessary for the wizard world to survive. Without them, the wizard world would fade, like so many other excessively insular groups. It's been argued that the wizard world is suffering from low birth rates even with Muggle intermarriage. Harry could find a place in the wizarding world if he lost his powers. He'd still be wizarding folk, like Filch or Mrs. Figg, but with more distinction than any wizard ever has had. Whether or not he'd choose it is another discussion. I believe he would, but there's no way to prove that. From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 00:00:45 2006 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:00:45 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: <016e01c6f842$77a74a20$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160342 Lana Writes: DD would have still called her to witness. Nothing says she didn't just add that she could see them. It wouldn't be the first time in the book that someone has stretched the truth a bit. " 'A Squib, eh?' said Fudge, eyeing her closely. 'We'll be checking that. You'll leave details of your parentage with my assistant Weasley. Incidentally, can Squibs see Dementors?' he added, looking left and right along the bench. 'Yes, we can!' said Mrs Figg indignantly." (OOP) That testimony wasn't contradicted by anybody in a powerful wizarding body. If it's anything like our courts, uncontradicted testimony stands. I believe nobody contradicted Mr. Figg because they knew she spoke the truth, unlike Idiot!Fudge, who just plain didn't want to hear anything that might be favorable to Harry. While a Squib may not be a wizard, they're wizarding folk who can live their lives in the magical world. Mrs. Figg doesn't, Argus Filch does. Heck, Mrs. Figg is in the Order of the Phoenix. From gg682000 at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 22:41:04 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (Louis) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:41:04 -0000 Subject: dumbledore as a ghost Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160343 Here's a question. Do you think Dumbledore will cross over knowing Harry needs a lot of training up? As a ghost he could be with Harry all the time. Although I know he has no fear of death could his love for Harry and desire to end the war overtake him and make him want to stay? Louis From onlygoofy at yahoo.com Wed Oct 25 23:18:35 2006 From: onlygoofy at yahoo.com (Jennifer Cardell Newton & Matthew Newton) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:18:35 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place/ Was: Re: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610250758nb1404b6ge1d786d7d99bda26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160344 Edis wrote: > > But could Muggles get into a Secret-Keeper protected property? Random832: > Why not? Dumbledore told them the secret, we all saw that. There's no > reason to think that's not enough - that's how the protection works, > it's not wizard- or muggle-specific in any way. onlygoofy: Hi all, another newish lurker here. I'm slightly confused. In HBP when Dumbledore died, the spell he cast on Harry lifted. Does this also mean that any protections Dumbledore placed on 12 Grimmaud Place was also lifted? If not, how would anyone new to the Order ever find it? Could the headquarters transfer to a new secret keeper? What about those spells he placed on Hogwarts, is it not as well protected as before? I searched the posts and couldn't find an answer, forgive me if I overlooked. :), onlygoofy From mcdumbledore at juno.com Thu Oct 26 00:08:32 2006 From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:08:32 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160345 Besty HP: > Heck, *I* don't relate to Hermione (at this point I out and out > don't like her), and I certainly wouldn't have related to her as a > teenager, hero of the book or no. Becca: That's interesting! What causes you to out and out not like her? What sort of imagining is she down on? What do you think of the other witches in the books? I feel somewhere between indifferent and positive about Hermione. I think it's nice that she's smart, and I really like that Ron likes her. Ron is my favorite character, actually, and I like that he goes for the smart girl. But I don't adore Hermione, and am not asking for clarification out of a 'how dare you?!' emotional response. I'm just curious. I don't see a lot about Hermione to be adamantly opposed to. Ginny, on the other hand, I really like. She's grown up in a house full of boys, is tough as nails, and is a talented enough witch to catch the eye of Horace Slughorn, even though she is not (at first glance) connected to anyone powerful. She's also not shy with the boys (except for Harry, and only back in books 1 and 2), which is one of my pet peeves about girls (including myself!!). And I also love Molly. What a wonderful mother lion. :) And McGonnegal! She rocks :) Lavender and Parvati, I would say, are the girls that I made nice with in school, but would never have hung out with on the weekends. They both seem somewhat superficial to me... not a lot there to hold my attention. Lavender more so than Parvati, I guess, although I think Parvati has a bit of a backstabbing streak in her... And, though they've not gotten a lot of page/screen time, I reckon the Quidditch girls (Angelina, Katie) are alright... Any girl that goes to the Yule Ball with one of the Weasley twins is alright with me ;) Anyway, your stated dislike of Hermione just got me thinking. I'm curious to know what your thoughts are on the other witches we know! Becca From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 00:26:31 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 00:26:31 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160346 > >>Jim: > JKR doesn't imply wizard / muggle marriages; she just says so. > > "It's a disgusting thing to call someone," said Ron, wiping his > sweaty brow with a shaking hand. "Dirty blood, see. Common blood. > It's ridiculous. Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway. If > we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out." > (Chamber of Secrets, pg. 115 American) > > Other examples are too numerous to list. > I submit that Ron's gotten the word from JKR to make this > speech. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, but Harry's considered a half-blood, isn't he? And both of his parents are magical, it's just that his mom is Muggle-born. (This is as far as I can recall, anyway. If Harry's considered a full blood, than my theory takes a pretty big hit, I agree. ) So, yeah, Andromeda marrying a Muggle-born is doing her part to keep the wizards from extinction. But her husband is just as magical as she is. They can live quite comfortably in the WW. > >>Jime: > Prejudice against half-bloods and Muggle-borns is a major issue in > the entire Harry Potter story; wizard purity and "ethnic" bigotry > is a big part of the Death Eater credo. Betsy Hp: I agree. Which makes the "how fun it is to pick on Muggles!" an odd juxtaposition, IMO. > >>Jime: > Betsy, you seem to be denying a major theme of all JKR's work. Yes, > there is a lot of separation and misunderstanding between the > worlds (I once wrote a fic about a loving Muggle father whose > child gets the letter and the anguish it give him), but Muggle- > wizard marriages are common and necessary for the wizard world to > survive. Betsy Hp: I'm still not sure pure Muggle-wizard marriages are all that common. And I'm not sure about their necessity. Frankly I think it's more JKR whose been a bit unclear about her own theme. I think she really is trying to keep the Muggle world and the WW seperate. The issue is how the WW deals with incoming magical folk, not how they treat non-magical folk. (Or, it comes up, but JKR doesn't seem to have made a call on it as of yet. And I'm not sure she's ever going to.) > >>Jim: > > Harry could find a place in the wizarding world if he lost his > powers. He'd still be wizarding folk, like Filch or Mrs. Figg, but > with more distinction than any wizard ever has had. > Betsy Hp: I haven't seen that sort of compassion expressed in the WW. Ever. Dumbledore is more the exception that proves the rule rather than a sign of a wonderful new trend. Remember, this is the same world that would have killed off baby Neville if he hadn't been magical. Harry would have his own distinction. But it would be a horrible one. Again, I don't think they'd want a "lost his powers"!Harry around. (I think his friends would be supportive, but they'd be fighting an uphill battle.) Betsy Hp From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 00:37:43 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:37:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0610251737t721fbe9au586cba2e72fb85cb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160347 thekrenz wrote: > Why does Vernon so viciously try to keep Harry from going > > back to Hogwarts? One would assume Vernon would be quite pleased to > be > > rid of Harry, so why does he exert so much effort to keep Harry at > > Privet Drive? > > Magpie replied: > I think one of the "keys" to the Dursleys is that for all they are > supposed to hate Harry their behavior is modeled more along the lines > of pain-in-the-butt parents than actual neglectful parents. [snip] > > I think the Dursleys are easier > for kids to relate to because their job is basically to always keep > Harry from having fun--as many normal kids probably feel their parents > do. If it were a realistic story you're right, Vernon would probably > be glad to be rid of Harry. But really he's more a nightmare version > of all the bad things about parents--always saying no, always keeping > Harry from doing what he wants to do etc. > Debbie: Magpie is certainly right from a literary point of view; one of the ways she mines the Dursleys for humor is to parody overly strict parents by layering the Dahl-esque parent on top. But Vernon has very good reasons to want to keep Harry away from Hogwarts. He is terrified of magic. He'd be happy to believe that the WW is nothing more than a bunch of New Age weirdos, but he knows better. He knows what Harry can do, and he most definitely doesn't want Harry to go to a school that would teach him how to use and control his magical abilities. That would give Harry power over Vernon, and Vernon can't handle not being able to bully others into submission. To the contrary, Harry would have the tools to humiliate Vernon, and Vernon may fear that sort of humiliation even more than he would fear death at the hands of a Dark Wizard (though he does seem to fear the loss of his car or house equally as much). Debbie who would rather enjoy seeing the Dursleys hiding out at 12GP for their own protection > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 26 00:49:58 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:49:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) References: Message-ID: <003d01c6f898$a9e396a0$0b66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160348 Jim: > JKR doesn't imply wizard / muggle marriages; she just says so. > > "It's a disgusting thing to call someone," said Ron, wiping his sweaty > brow with a shaking hand. "Dirty blood, see. Common blood. It's > ridiculous. Most wizards these days are half-blood anyway. If we > hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out." > (Chamber of Secrets, pg. 115 American) > > Other examples are too numerous to list. > > I submit that Ron's gotten the word from JKR to make this speech. "How > come I have to do all this backstory exposition, Ms. Rowling?" > " Somebody has to do it, and you're Harry and Hermione's guide to the > wizard world for at least the first two books." > "Oh, all right, but remember you promised I can play on the Quidditch > team." > > Prejudice against half-bloods and Muggle-borns is a major issue in the > entire Harry Potter story; wizard purity and "ethnic" bigotry is a > big part of the Death Eater credo. > > Betsy, you seem to be denying a major theme of all JKR's work. Yes, > there is a lot of separation and misunderstanding between the worlds > (I once wrote a fic about a loving Muggle father whose child gets the > letter and the anguish it give him), but Muggle-wizard marriages are > common and necessary for the wizard world to survive. Without them, > the wizard world would fade, like so many other excessively insular > groups. It's been argued that the wizard world is suffering from low > birth rates even with Muggle intermarriage. Magpie: I don't think Ron's speech indicates anything about how common it is for Wizards to marry actual Muggles are. He says if they hadn't married Muggles at some point they'd have died out (though his family are all Pureblood.). The word in question is Mudblood which refers to Wizards with Muggleblood, so I think when Ron talks about marrying Muggles he's also referring to marrying Muggleborns when he says most Wizards are half-bloods. They don't need to marry actual Muggles to become Half-bloods. Regardless, Betsy isn't denying that these marriages are possible. I believe she's mentioned the ones we see in canon. But just as one can't ignore they happen one also can't ignore that the way the books are set up JKR isn't really prepared to make them work with the two partners as equals. Even Ron's speech doesn't deny that--Muggles are better than dying out--I believe this is the same book where Ron mentions a relative who's an accountant his family doesn't talk about (not being Magical). I think the Muggle/Magical interactions we see in the books makes Betsy's point valid. And speaking of non-Magical folk and the non-prejudice Wizards: Jim Ferrer: That testimony wasn't contradicted by anybody in a powerful wizarding body. If it's anything like our courts, uncontradicted testimony stands. I believe nobody contradicted Mr. Figg because they knew she spoke the truth, unlike Idiot!Fudge, who just plain didn't want to hear anything that might be favorable to Harry. Magpie: I disagree. I think the text suggests strongly that Mrs Figg can't literally see Dementors at all, and JKR has confirmed this. I think she isn't contradicted because nobody knows whether she can see Dementors or not because nobody knows or cares that much about Squibs. I don't think Fudge is an idiot for not knowing this about Squibs--I think that probably makes him a normal Wizard. -m From scarah at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 01:21:47 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:21:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590610251821i5928752fi9f8d70d257b59e98@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160349 Alla: Why boring? I do not agree at all - normal happy life, something that Harry craves IMO, something that would be of the sort of the reward, besides if you do not like reading about his post Voldemort **life** which I hope will exist, I am sure JKR will deal with it in a few sentences in epilogue - married Ginny, had twelve kids, etc :), or at least that is the epilogue I want to see,hehe. Sarah: I guess one reader's bore is another reader's gold mine, but I would think that was the biggest snoozefest ever. Alla: She never said AFAIK that she will kill Harry though. She teases all the time, yes, she asks that questions, she recently flat out refused to tell anybody what is going to happen to Harry, so I am not sure at all that we know what she set out to write. Sarah: Yes, I never meant to unequivocally prove that he will die, simply that she never said otherwise. 50/50 chance, as I see it. I don't give much credence to the argument that "Oh, she just wouldn't do it, think of the children," because if that were her modus operandi, she'd not have killed Cedric, Sirius, Dumbledore... she's not writing books that are designed to build self esteem and warm feelings of safety and security and bunnies. She's writing the story she's writing. Geoff: Perhaps my main argument is that, to kill Harry, all the wrong messages would be sent to the millions of /young/ readers throughout the world. Sarah: My question is, is she writing to give people a role model, or writing to tell a story? I believe the latter. If Harry is meant as a role model, he's already got some problems. - He considers himself above the rules and breaks them at every occasion, often to be rewarded for it - He's disrespectful to every authority figure that he doesn't like - Seriously considers using magic to get the girl he wants - Gets people wasted in order to manipulate them Does that sound like a good role model already? That's just the tip of the iceberg. Do I like Harry? Yes. But not because he's pure and good, because he's grey like every other character. That's the reason I like these books. And also, the reason why I don't quite get the "Harry as Awesome Role Model" argument as to why he won't die. Aussie: Ugh. For Harry to be an Auror, he would have to go back and complete his NEWTs at Hogwarts. Sarah: And then, three years of training. Can you honestly see him putting up with anything so tedious? I prefer the blaze of glory. Magpie: Frodo was an adult with a mature outlook on life and death. Sarah: Harry is an adult too. Or he will be within a couple weeks of the beginning of the next book. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 01:40:07 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:40:07 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160350 > >>Becca: > That's interesting! What causes you to out and out not like her? Betsy Hp: I really didn't like how Hermione treated Ron in HBP. And I'm not a fan of her moral equivocating. e.g. It's okay when Hermione cheats but she's death on others doing something similar. I don't like how easily she disfigured another classmate and never blinked an eye that we see. That particular side of Hermione (ruthless judge) has grown throughout the books, but by the time HBP comes around Hermione seems perfectly comfortable in her self-designated role. Her smug certainty that she knows all has pushed me into active dislike at this point. (Book 7 can still save the character for me. If Hermione admits that she doesn't actually know everything that could make a difference for me.) > >>Becca: > What sort of imagining is she down on? Betsy Hp: Hermione is a reader, which should be attractive to me, but she seems to be a pure non-fiction girl. The way she's so quick to dimiss all of Luna's ideas suggests to me that she'd be the chick in the back of the theater saying "oh *this* could never happen". The party pooper, IOWs, so confident of her own knowledge she refuses to contemplate, "what if?". > >>Becca: > What do you think of the other witches in the books? Betsy Hp: I've actually been thinking about this for a while. Because in general, I don't like JKR's girls (or women for that matter). I'm not a fan of either Ginny or Molly. Tonks strikes me as rather flat. Though Fluer is cool, and I like McGonagall, even as she scares the crap out of me. I do like the women I'm not sure I'm supposed to like (Narcissa, Pansy, Lavender and Parvati) but part of that could well be the blank slate effect. > >>Becca: > > Lavender and Parvati, I would say, are the girls that I made nice > with in school, but would never have hung out with on the > weekends. > They both seem somewhat superficial to me... not a lot there to > hold my attention. Lavender more so than Parvati, I guess, > although I think Parvati has a bit of a backstabbing streak in > her... Betsy Hp: Hee! I *was* Lavender or Parvati in school. (For this reason I don't see either of them quite as superficial as all that. ) Had a best friend, would totally sigh over cute boys and hot teachers (though sadly lacking in the hot teachers, unfortunately -- in high school anyway). I don't think Parvati is a backstabber. I loved her egging on Lavender's crush on Ron. Their world has become so ugly by that point, I think it was very sweet of Parvati to encourage Lavender to concentrate on other things. > >>Becca: > And, though they've not gotten a lot of page/screen time, I reckon > the Quidditch girls (Angelina, Katie) are alright... > Betsy Hp: I like them too. So I guess I don't dislike *all* of JKR's women. Betsy Hp (enjoyed the questions, Becca!) From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 02:01:34 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:01:34 -0000 Subject: Lavender vs Hermione (was:Re: Lavender Brown - help needed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160351 > Heck, *I* don't relate to Hermione (at this point I out and out > don't like her), and I certainly wouldn't have related to her as a > teenager, hero of the book or no. She looks down on the sort of > girlish behavior I always enjoyed. And she's also down on the sort > of imagining I was into. (For a "bookish" character, Hermione is > very factually oriented.) AD: Huh. Of all the HP characters, I identify with Hermione the most. In fact I have a fanfic work-in-progress that may never see the light of day because Hermione keeps wanting to take it over, to the point of becoming a Hermione-Sue. It was, you might imagine, a bit of a shock for for a straight, distinctly non-teenaged male to realize that. His obvious attraction for her is one of the reasons I appreciate Ron so much, though I suspect he'd hate my guts. Amiable Dorsai From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Oct 26 03:04:52 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:04:52 -0000 Subject: movie/canon (was Re: Lavender Brown - help needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160352 Rita: snip >I remember reading an article in Polish press when the first movie > came out, that JK Rowling personally supervised the process of > casting young actors to make sure they all look the way she > imagined her characters Potioncat: As a group we are very canon based, which means we go strictly by the book. But, we do look for clues in everything that JKR touches. We have some fun when movies come out, wondering if JKR gave the director some secret information, or if an actor knows something we don't. Ususally our questions are based on some comment that someone is quoted about or that JKR has said. And you're right---I think---I recall an interview the producer of SS/PS saying that JKR was very definite about how the characters look and what their background was. At the time the British edition did not specify that Dean Thomas was black. So it was important that she told them how to cast that character. On the other hand, there is at least one statement by JKR saying she has nothing to do with choosing the actors who play the parts. So we have to be somewhat cautious in making connections between the actor and the character. After all, look at the difference between the age of movie!Snape and canon!Snape. My point is we have to be very careful in how the movies influence us in our delving for HP truths. We call it movie contamination and it happens to all of us from time to time. But after all this, I really don't think it matters how you personally visualise Lavender. Of course, Rickman has forever improved Snape's standing with fandom and you won't hear me complaining. Potioncat, hoping this is canon-based enough to be here. From mperry at efn.org Thu Oct 26 01:45:09 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 18:45:09 -0700 Subject: Hogwarts elves/ Was:Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... References: Message-ID: <003901c6f8a0$c885b720$980dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160353 puduhepa98 at aol.com: > Very good point here. I think that HG, not being of the WW, has > misunderstood the possible result of her actions. She doesn't have elves and so doesn't > understand that she cannot free the Hogwarts elves. The elves themselves > are so adverse to being freed (and kicked out of their no doubt cushey job) > that they will not take the chance by picking up her hats. ( If the students > could order the elves around they wouldn't need to sneak down to the kitchens > for food ). Does this mean Ron knows that H is wasting her time and just > doesn't tell her or doesn't he give it any thought? > That's a wonderful point about the House Elf. If picking up an article of clothing constituted being freed, they couldn't very well do their job... if laundry is one of their jobs for a family. Perhaps the difference lies in that they work for Hogwarts, instead of for a family? Then if any student gave them clothing, they'd be freed (fired) since the clothing is left for an elf? Perhaps it's the intent (a magical bargain/contract, as with the cup) that makes the difference? Or perhaps the author isn't quite up on her own story line? The cup couldn't really bind HP, I'd think, since he hadn't submitted his name, except that the cup had been confused by a spell put on it. Michael Perry From mperry at efn.org Thu Oct 26 03:20:37 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:20:37 -0700 Subject: muggles... the root References: Message-ID: <019301c6f8ad$ba3676c0$980dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160354 BTW, I don't know if anyone knows it, or if had a part in this book... In the US, "muggles" was a term (I assume used by beatnicks) to mean pot. I heard the term from a friend who had read a pamplet put out by the police... "key words to disguise marajuana use". Back in the early 70's, I named a "brain damaged" puppy we got Muggles. I certainly never expected to see the term again. Michael Perry From mperry at efn.org Thu Oct 26 03:15:41 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:15:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg References: Message-ID: <019201c6f8ad$b9b95780$980dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160355 Jenni from Alabama: > So, even if Petunia were a Squib, she would still be able to see > dementors, see 'magical' things, beings and places. Muggles aren't > supposed to be able to see Hogwarts. I wonder if Petunia could? > > I should imagine that Hogwarts is protected by various spells... including being Unmappable. I should assume, if a person (non-magical) somehow found their way there and saw it, it would look like a ruin. (I seem to recall that, also.) There are magical things that even Muggles can see... but they ignore them. Michael Perry From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 03:35:00 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:35:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: <3202590610251821i5928752fi9f8d70d257b59e98@mail.gmail.com> References: <3202590610251821i5928752fi9f8d70d257b59e98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0610252035o658bb488w92fc27078a11c7e4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160356 Sarah: My question is, is she writing to give people a role model, or writing to tell a story? I believe the latter. If Harry is meant as a role model, he's already got some problems. - He considers himself above the rules and breaks them at every occasion, often to be rewarded for it - He's disrespectful to every authority figure that he doesn't like - Seriously considers using magic to get the girl he wants - Gets people wasted in order to manipulate them Lynda: I think that she's writing the story she wants to tell, and in the course of doing so, she has/is creating a role model. Now as to your points claims--I'll take each in order-- -He considers himself above the rules and breaks them at every occasion, often to be rewarded for it. -He comes upon situations in which a rule needs to be broken for him to proceed with the task he is trying to accomplish. When he is rewarded for that behaviour it is because in the end it accomplished a greater good than not using his "considerable ingenuity" would have done. -He is disrepectful to every authority figure that he does not like -He is only disrespectful to authority figures he dislikes after they have treated him with contempt or disrespect on their own part. -Seriously considers using magic to get the girl he wants -Considering that he fought off the impulse to act on this temptation, I'm not sure why you listed this, especially considering what some of the girls tried to do to him. -Gets people wasted in order to manipulate them. -The people in question were old hands at getting themselves wasted and more than likely would have been far gone on their own before the evening was out. This is one of those situations where, yes, Harry had a choice to act and enable himself to be able to complete a task that needed doing or sit back on his haunches and lose the opportunity. Had he not refilled the wine, I'm sure that Slughorn would have done so. Am I saying that Harry "always does the right things for the right reasons"? No. Rowling's made Harry too human for that, but I don't see the purpose of laying his actions out in the worst possible light either. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aliciamedina1979 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 03:15:54 2006 From: aliciamedina1979 at yahoo.com (aliciamedina1979) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 03:15:54 -0000 Subject: This is new to me but i kinda found a link last night between HP and LV Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160357 Are Harry and Voldermort linked because Harry's mom died trying to save his life and Voldermort's mom died becuase she didn't care enough for her unborn son to care for herself properly and died in spite of him? I kind of made that link last night when i was reading HBP for the third time. It is probably my favortive! Like I said, I am new to this. I picked up book number 4 the summer before the movie came out and got hooked. I had seen the movies but, the books are insane. I am a big reader - at least I was till I became a mom and all my time is spent with my beatuiful two kids; but when I read a new Harry Potter book I become the worst mommie. Dinner can wait - just need to finish this chapter. So has anyone seen this link or am I crazy? aliciamedina1979 From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 26 03:44:03 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 23:44:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I don't think that Harry will die References: <3202590610251821i5928752fi9f8d70d257b59e98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a301c6f8b0$fe59d330$0b66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160358 > Magpie: > Frodo was an adult with a mature outlook on life and death. > > Sarah: > Harry is an adult too. Or he will be within a couple weeks of the > beginning of the next book. Magpie: Harry would be officially an adult, but one just starting his life. Put them together and Frodo is obviously the adult character. There's a huge difference between 18 and 50, even in hobbit years. Harry's just come of age. I don't think he's ready to leave his Shire. Pippin going over the sea would have had a slightly different feel to it. It's sort of the difference between "I can legally drink--woohoo!" adulthood and the "I'm well-established in my adult life" adulthood. -m From sherriola at earthlink.net Thu Oct 26 04:48:52 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 21:48:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160359 > Ken: > > The WW is *defined* by those who do magic but they have defined it to > include others: spouses, siblings, squibs, parents, and the occasional > PM. Harry can fit into that, it is more than speculation on my part. > At the very least he would fit in somewhere between Hagrid and Mrs. > Figg. The WW is not our society yet it is comprised of human beings, > not aliens from another planet. There is no reason to suppose that the > WW would turn its back on a disabled member any more than we do. Magpie: Actually, I think there is good reason to suppose that they might turn their back on a disabled member. For six books there's been no problem with Magical people considering themselves superior to non- magical ones (and Hagrid is a Wizard). There's no hint of any kind of true support system for the non-Magical, while we have plenty of examples that the non-Magical are ostracized or not spoken of. From what I've seen the parents of Muggleborns especially are stripped of their normal parental roles. It feels like the only reason the possibility of such inclusiveness is being suggested now is because we're discussing a hypothetical situation where Harry, one of our superior characters, would suddenly be one of them. So now the WW is being endowed with the level of open-mindedness we have in 21st century Muggle society, where a non-Magical person is like someone with a physical disability understood to be the equal of those without disabilities, but I just don't think they have that. s hurry now: Speaking as a disabled person, I believe that Harry *could* learn how to live as a muggle in the WW. However, I do not believe the WW would accept him. I also don't think he'd have a very easy adjustment. I think the WW would turn its back on him, as easily as the so-called able bodied world turns its backs on disabled people. Even in 2006, just among blind people in the US, there is a 70 percent unemployment rate, so we have not yet come near to full equality. In the WW, which as a society is far behind our supposedly enlightened times, I imagine it would be even worse. Worst of all, I think Harry's perception of himself as a Squib would make him unable to learn how to be a nonmagical person in a magical world. Sherry From kat7555 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 03:09:55 2006 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kathy kulesza) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:09:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0610251737t721fbe9au586cba2e72fb85cb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061026030955.18679.qmail@web53315.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160360 > thekrenz wrote: > Why does Vernon so viciously try to keep Harry from going > back to Hogwarts? One would assume Vernon would be quite > pleased to be rid of Harry, so why does he exert so much > effort to keep Harry at Privet Drive? kat7555: The Dursleys are evil IMO. They never showed Harry the least bit of affection before they knew he even had magicial powers. They allowed Dudley to abuse Harry and other children and they did nothing about it. The Dursleys knew Harry considered Hogwarts to be home so they want to prevent him from being with people who care about him. I loved Dumbledore's rebuke of them in HBP. It should've happened a long time ago. From mperry at efn.org Thu Oct 26 03:27:32 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:27:32 -0700 Subject: Vernon's odd behavior References: <7b9f25e50610250758nb1404b6ge1d786d7d99bda26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <01b401c6f8af$adfde260$980dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160361 > Edis wrote: > > But could Muggles get into a Secret-Keeper protected > > property? > > Random832: > Why not? Dumbledore told them the secret, we all saw that. > There's no reason to think that's not enough - that's how > the protection works, it's not wizard- or muggle-specific > in any way. Michael: But isn't the Black house protected beyond this? Harry had to be shown a piece of paper (filled out by DD???) with the key to the house. He had to invoke the key to get into the house, as I recall. Could Muggles invoke such a key? Why have HP invoke it, if the house isn't hidden from all who haven't invoked it? From mperry at efn.org Thu Oct 26 03:34:16 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:34:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes References: Message-ID: <01b501c6f8af$ae842960$980dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160362 > Pat wrote: > I'm starting to wonder if Voldemort has still been saving the > last horcrux for Harry's death, thus Snape's insistence on > "saving Harry for the Dark Lord." Dumbledore was definitely > uncertain as to the last horcrux, and so now I'm wondering if > the DL has decided that Harry will be the Gryffindor horcrux. > Just a thought. Michael: Pat... that could be the ultimate twist. Horcruxes are a bit of the soul (or a memory) stored to safe keep part of a wizard. HP certainly meets that goal, w/ most of V's powers, though not as advanced. Personally, I'm betting he'll just be the light side of V. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't end this adventure by being a teacher of the dark arts at Hogwarts... following in DD's shoes. From phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net Thu Oct 26 04:39:41 2006 From: phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net (Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 04:39:41 -0000 Subject: Is Petunia magical? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160363 Jenni from Alabama wrote: > I've often wondered whether or not Petunia was born with > magical powers but doesn't use them. She certainly seems > to know a heck of a lot more about the magical world than > she is letting on. > > Is there proof against this theory? Has J.K. said something > to debunk it? Phyllis: This may have been answered below. But JKR says on her site that Petunia is not magical. I think her jealousy of Lily drove her to eavesdrop and hence find out about the magical world. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Oct 26 06:10:02 2006 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:10:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Occupation (was Re: Why Snape turned Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160364 In a message dated 10/21/06 2:56:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, puduhepa98 at aol.com writes: > I would also like to think he was an intern at St. Mungo's. It makes > >the most sense to me--even if Snape is no Dr. Kildare. > > >Marion: > No, but he *is* House, MD... > > Nikkalmati: > > More like Ben Casey (for those who remember). > > Sandy: (heating the iron so the elves don't have to send a Howler for the one-liner. I remember both Dr. Kildare AND Ben Casey very well (sigh). Sandy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 26 06:32:31 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 06:32:31 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160365 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Yeah, but Harry's considered a half-blood, isn't he? And both of > his parents are magical, it's just that his mom is Muggle-born. > (This is as far as I can recall, anyway. If Harry's considered a > full blood, than my theory takes a pretty big hit, I agree. ) Geoff: He's certainly considered a half-blood where it really matters...... "Because there are strange lkenesses between us, Harry Potter. Even you must have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great Slytherin himself. we even look something alike...." (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.233 UK edition) No prizes for guessing who said that.... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 07:09:40 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:09:40 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place/ Was: Re: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160367 --- "Jennifer Cardell Newton & Matthew Newton" > wrote: > > Edis wrote: > > >But could Muggles get into a Secret-Keeper protected > > >property? > > Random832: > > Why not? Dumbledore told them the secret, we all saw > > that. There's no reason to think that's not enough - > > that's how the protection works, ... > > > > > onlygoofy: > > > > I'm slightly confused. In HBP when Dumbledore died, the > spell he cast on Harry lifted. Does this also mean that > any protections Dumbledore placed on 12 Grimmaud Place > was also lifted? If not, how would anyone new to the > Order ever find it? Could the headquarters transfer to a > new secret keeper? What about those spells he placed on > Hogwarts, is it not as well protected as before? > > ... > > :), > onlygoofy > bboyminn: In general, some spells are lifted when the caster dies, and some spells are not. Remember that 12 Grimmauld Place is still protected by spells cast by Sirius's forefathers. Some of the spells on Hogwarts are ancient, they have out lived many Headmasters. Yet, the spell that held Harry in the 'binding' charm, was lifted. So, again, some are lifted, some are not. Specifically, to the nature of the Secret Keeper Charm, JKR addressed this issue on her website - http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm Q: What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies? JKR-A: " ...the status of their secret will remain as it was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else. ..." So, you are right, no new people can know the secret, because the now dead Secret Keeper is no longer alive to tell them. Clearly, this spell outlasts the Secret Keeper, but we don't know for a fact that the Secret Keeper is the caster of the Secret Keeper Spell. As we see with the Unbreakable Vow, a third party /binds/ the charm. It is possible, though certainly not established, that we have the subject of the secret, the Secret Keeper, and the 'binder' of the secret. Though this third party has never been mentioned, it is slightly possible that JKR is keeping that revelation until the last book. Keep in mind that when Dumbledore visited the Dursleys in HBP, he had Harry spoke openly about 12 Grimmauld Place being the Headquarters for the Order, therefore, the Dursleys have been let in on the Secret of that location. As for a bit of speculation, it is still possible for people to get into Grimmauld Place without knowing the Secret, it's just not easy. Say, for example, that Harry wants Neville (or some other DA Club member) to come to Grimmauld Place. They can't actually be told about 12 Grimmauld Place because it is protected; those words can not be spoken, however, they could be told about Grimmauld Square because that is not protected. So, Harry could tell Neville (or who ever) to be at Grimmauld Square at 1:00pm. When Neville arrives, Harry steps outside and leads Neville into the house. I do believe that is a workable solution. I think this is also how Hermione's parents get into Diagon Alley. Diagon Alley is a protected magical space, though probably not protected by a Secret Keeper Charm. In any event, Muggles simply can't see it, but Herione, being a magical person could see it and could lead her parents inside The Leaky Cauldron. From there, they would have no trouble navigating on their own. As far as the 'Secret' being transferred to a new Secret Keeper, I don't think so, but that is just speculation. It may be possible under the right circumstances to break the Secret Keeper Charm, though I think that would be extremely difficult, and at best would require special knowledge. Once the Charm is successfully broke, assuming it can be, it could be re-cast with a new Secret Keeper. One small technicality, the Secret as quoted in the note Harry was given that revealed Grimmauld Place to him, said '...the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix is located at 12 Grimmauld Place...'. To some of us that implies that the Secret is 'Headquarters' not '12 Grimmauld Place'. One could speculate that when 'Headquarters' moved, the Secret moved with it. So, the new location of 'Headquarters' is now the Secret being guarded. In otherwords, at that moment, 12 Grimmauld Place was only incidentally the location of 'Headquarters'. I don't think I'll get a lot of support for that theory, but it could be true. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From technomad at intergate.com Thu Oct 26 07:25:11 2006 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:25:11 -0500 Subject: Views of Hermione Message-ID: <002b01c6f8cf$ed60a350$8d570043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 160368 As the originator (AFAIK) of the "Hermione Granger Is (or Will Be) Ever So Evil" theory, as well as the author of what I think is the definitive "Dark Hermione" story, "The Girl Nobody Knows---A Soliloquy" (up at Fanfiction.net and Fiction Alley), I think I can understand the people who don't like her or distrust her---even though I, myself, like her a lot and can identify with her in some ways. She has many virtues: intelligence, fierce loyalty to her friends, and courage are the most visible. At the same time, she has some very bad points. One of her worst flaws is ruthlessness---IOW, she'll do what she has to to get what she wants, and anybody or anything that gets in the way be damned. _She_ has decided, on the basis of a childhood spent in Muggle culture, that house-elves, a non-human species with very different needs and powers than humans (muggle or magical; house-elves can do magic that humans can't) should be freed---whether they _want to_ be freed or not. A lot of this, to be sure, can be laid to Dobby being the first house-elf she had much to do with, but Dobby is considered odd, at best, by his own people. Generalizing from his own happiness at being free (or, at least, free of Lucius Malfoy; Dobby seems to have bonded with Harry to some extent, despite his nominal free status) Hermione tries to set all the house-elves at Hogwarts free, despite having no authority to do any such thing. If her little plan had worked the way she wanted it to, she could have been expelled for sabotaging Hogwarts' workings. She also had no problem with disfiguring a fellow student (admittedly, Marietta had betrayed a great many other students and could have caused their expulsion), and AFAWK she did nothing to remove the curse once the danger had passed. Hermione decoyed a teacher into a situation where she was in real danger of death or various other nasty fates (anybody familiar with real Greek mythology will understand what I mean; centaurs were Not Nice People as a rule) and never seemed to suffer a moment's qualm about what she had done. Other things she's done---stealing potions supplies and making Polyjuice Potion, for example---do not show her to be the most trustworthy person at Hogwarts. If she likes you, you're all right, but if you're in the way, well, too bad for you. Between her ruthless streak and her self-righteousness, combined with her ability to argue others down (it's not that she's necessarily right, but she's able to talk others into going along with her plans) Hermione could go Dark. This doesn't mean she'd become a DE, even if she were eligible---there's too much bad blood on both sides for that to ever be a possibility. However, she could become a sort of "Oliver Cromwell" figure, imposing her own views on the rather anarchic Wizard World, possibly to its great detriment. --Eric, whose nom-de-fanfic is "Technomad." From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Oct 26 08:53:10 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:53:10 -0000 Subject: I don't think that Harry will die In-Reply-To: <3202590610251821i5928752fi9f8d70d257b59e98@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160369 Re: I don't think that Harry will die --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > Geoff: > Perhaps > my main argument is that, to kill Harry, all the wrong messages > would be sent to the millions of /young/ readers throughout >the world. > Sarah: > My question is, is she writing to give people a role model, or writing > to tell a story? I believe the latter. If Harry is meant as a role > model, he's already got some problems. Geoff: I think you missed the point of what I said in message 160146 and snipped too heavily. The relevant part of what I wrote was: I think several valid points have been made by other contributors to this thread. Perhaps my main argument is that, to kill Harry, all the wrong messages would be sent to the millions of /young/ readers throughout the world. Harry comes from a disadvantaged background. He is not a muscle-bulging, bronzed, advert for an anti-perspirant deodorant. He is not a world-renowned sporting name who gets millions of pounds for just showing his face on the advertisement hoardings. He is a fairly ordinary guy. He wears glasses, he is described as small and skinny, untidy and we know that he is not a great academic. He is also often guilty of jumping into a situation without thinking it through first. In other words, a boy much as many others of the hundreds of teenagers I taught for over 30 years. But because exciting things happen to him, he is a model for the great majority of young people who do not fit the poster boy CV of my previous paragraph. Youngsters see that someone ordinary, whom you might pass in the street without noticing can achieve great things. That isn't setting him up as a role model as I read it in the sense that one of the types I mentioned above is. It's being more a member of a peer group that a slightly awkward, perhaps geeky, youngster who is not the sort to have the girls swarming round him or be great at things like physical activity might seek. I can see myself at that age in that sort of scenario. Looking at the Harry-Frodo contrast which someone raised, it has been pointed out that Frodo was 50 when he set off for Rivendell. He had learned a lot about life since his "irresponsible tweens" as JRRT terms them. I concur absolutely. I think if I was transported back with my present knowledge to my mid-teens, I would run screaming with embarrassment from the room! Getting married, raising a family or whatever path we have followed in our life may be a yawn to other people but they are a part ofeach of our own experiences. We may not write a book about them. JKR may decide in her epilogue that that is the way things have turned out and as she is not going to write any more, we can leave Harry toget on with his life without all of us here peering over his shoulder. It's a bit like when our own children leave home and set out on their own. We don't follow every bit of their life; we don't show wads of photographs to the family as we did when they were tiny. The world has moved on; we can't hold on to Harry as if he were still in the First Year. From jferer at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 09:22:44 2006 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:22:44 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: <002b01c6f8cf$ed60a350$8d570043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160370 There's an abiding truth about people who share Hermione's goal-driven, shall we say "ruthless" streak - these are the people who get stuff done. Yes, that can go Dark, but most great qualities have a Dark side. It wouldn't be so interesting if it was too easy not to go Dark. Luke Skywalker to James T. Kirk have had to deal with it, and I believe in Hermione's ability to do the same. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Oct 26 09:59:27 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:59:27 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts elves/ Was:Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... In-Reply-To: <003901c6f8a0$c885b720$980dadcf@michaelp> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160371 Michael: > That's a wonderful point about the House Elf. If picking up an article of clothing constituted being freed, they couldn't very well do their job... if laundry is one of their jobs for a family. Ceridwen: I think one distinction could be made here. When Hermione leaves her knitting around, she intends for the elves to pick it up and be freed. These pieces are clothes looking for an owner. When she leaves her clothes out to be laundered, she expects the clothes to be returned, or, if the item is old, she expects it to be recycled in some way, not kept by the elves. Michael: > Perhaps the difference lies in that they work for Hogwarts, instead of for a family? Then if any student gave them clothing, they'd be freed (fired) since the clothing is left for an elf? Perhaps it's the intent (a magical bargain/contract, as with the cup) that makes the difference? Or perhaps the author isn't quite up on her own story line? Ceridwen: And, perhaps it's the position of the person offering clothes that counts. Can any member of a family offer clothes? Or only the 'master' or his or her designee? It's hard to imagine a system which would free an elf on a child's whim if the child is angry at the parents, for example. Ceridwen. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Thu Oct 26 11:37:23 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 07:37:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place/ Was: Re: Vernon's odd be... Message-ID: <373.d3fb95e.3271f7f3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160372 In a message dated 10/26/2006 3:13:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: One small technicality, the Secret as quoted in the note Harry was given that revealed Grimmauld Place to him, said '...the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix is located at 12 Grimmauld Place...'. To some of us that implies that the Secret is 'Headquarters' not '12 Grimmauld Place'. ----------------------- Oooh, I LIKE this!!! But then, I'm an old MAN FROM UNCLE fan - where anyone could find DeLoria's Tailor Shop, but only a select few knew that that was the Security and Enforcement entrance to UNCLE HQ! :-) That would also cover any remembrance of the house that might slumber in Narcissa's or Bellatrix's memories... If it's no longer HQ, then it wouldn't matter if they remembered it existed. Sherrie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From marlowe at locl.net Thu Oct 26 09:57:45 2006 From: marlowe at locl.net (minqueen1) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:57:45 -0000 Subject: Lavender Brown Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160373 Don't you think that everyone has their own "vision" of the characters? I know that when I first read SS and then later saw the movie - I was disappointed. Petunia is described differently in the book - The characters just didn't look like I expected or pictured. Just as a side note - do you think the pictures we form in our heads might be connected with what we know on a day to day basis? If we spend a lot of our time with one ethnic group - won't we "picture" one type of character, unless it is spelled out in the book? Just a thought - I have to say, I am almost always disappointed when books are made into movies - the characters never quite look or act like I picture. Weird, huh? On a side note - this is such an interesting group! I love all the diverse topics! Thanks - Beth Ann From kking0731 at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 12:06:51 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:06:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160374 Carol responds: I'm not sure what you mean by "obtain characteristics of a Horcrux." Possibly "obtain" is the wrong verb, but aside from that, the only characteristic of a normal Horcrux (cup, locket, ring, etc.) is its capacity to keep a bit of Voldemort's soul earthbound. Snow: A Horcrux holds a portion of Voldemort; therefore Harry does have the same characteristics as a Horcrux since he also holds a portion of Voldemort. According to the Encarta dictionary the definition of obtain: as a transitive verb get something: to get possession of something, especially by making an effort or having the necessary qualifications Harry did (obtain) get possession of something (a bit of Voldemort) that is characteristic of all the other Horcruxes. Carol: We can't deduce the characteristics of a Horcrux from the properties of the diary, which was always an interactive magical object different from the others, and Nagini, if she is a Horcrux, is also atypical. Snow: Harry does possess a feature that is quite necessary when creating a Horcrux, which is a bit of Voldemort, however that does not make Harry a Horcrux like the other items mentioned since they are all inanimate objects (even the Diary without Ginny's soul) as opposed to Harry who is a living soul. Let's see how Harry does fit the Horcrux definition. "A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul." HBP pg. 497 The three stages to make a Horcrux as conveyed by Slughorn are step: (1) "By an act of evil ? the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. 498 What could be more evil than to kill an unarmed mother who is not even attempting to fight back? I would say that Voldemort secured the first stage of making a Horcrux that night at GH. (2) "and hide part of it in an object outside the body." 497 The part of Voldemort's soul that was split when he murdered Lily did hide itself outside of Voldemort's body. Again I would have to say that Voldemort did secure step two when he blew himself up attempting to AK Harry. (You have a split soul inside a body that was just blown up. The split portion is separated from the core soul so it can no longer remain with the core soul, that little bugger had to go somewhere) (3) "Encase? But how - ?" "There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" 498 So it takes a spell to purposely encase an object in something according to the Slughorn-suggestions-on-how-to-make-a-Horcrux. I think he is right when you are speaking of the conventional Horcrux that has no soul of its own, which I believe he was since attempting to use a living soul is inadvisable. What we are left with as a conclusion to this third part of the Horcrux endeavor as it might apply to Harry is that Voldemort did not purposely say a spell to encase a piece of himself inside of Harry otherwise he would be aware that Harry had a piece of his soul. In final conclusion of this enactment of events at GH as compared with the making of a Horcrux, I would have to say that Voldemort willing or not created the conditions for 2/3rds of the process. Since the final 1/3 of the process was mute we must conclude that Harry is not an official Horcrux as per Slughorn's how-to process. Whether Harry is a Horcrux or not the fact still remains that Harry has a bit of Voldemort ["Voldemort put a bit of himself in me? [ ] "It certainly seems so." COS pg. 333] that was marked with a scar [" and in marking you with that scar, he did not kill you, as he intended, but gave you powers, and a future OOP pg. 842] and Dumbledore realized the moment he laid eyes on little Harry what that scar was. ["when I saw the scar upon your forehead, what it might mean. I guessed that it might be the sign of a connection forged between you and Voldemort." OOP pg. 827] Voldemort made Harry equal to himself when he attacked baby Harry a connection by putting a bit of himself in Harry 1/7th of a bit I would say. Snow From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 26 13:36:07 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:36:07 -0000 Subject: Lavender vs Hermione (was:Re: Lavender Brown - help needed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160375 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > > > Heck, *I* don't relate to Hermione (at this point I out and out > > don't like her), and I certainly wouldn't have related to her as a > > teenager, hero of the book or no. > > AD: > Huh. Of all the HP characters, I identify with Hermione the most. Tesha: I love Hermione. Something bad happens - like Draco hitting her with a spell that grew her teeth - she takes the lemons and makes lemonaide. She has Madam Pomfrey adjust her teeth to better than before. She's teased by Draco, she walks away - but when she's really had enough, she pops him in the nose. She has a question, she finds the answers. Her friends need her - she's there. She doesn't have the benefit of having magical parents, so she's "different". She can stand on her own, so she's "different". She's not afraid of being Hermione, and I really love her character - I'd love to she what she becomes as an adult character - would she be another McGonagall? From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 13:47:51 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 08:47:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Lavender vs Hermione (was:Re: Lavender Brown - help needed) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610260647i2db271fve1f3074f6f333b48@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160376 > > Tesha: > I love Hermione. Something bad happens - like Draco hitting her with a > spell that grew her teeth - she takes the lemons and makes lemonaide. > She has Madam Pomfrey adjust her teeth to better than before. She's > teased by Draco, she walks away - but when she's really had enough, > she pops him in the nose. She has a question, she finds the answers. > Her friends need her - she's there. She doesn't have the benefit of > having magical parents, so she's "different". She can stand on her > own, so she's "different". montims: I agree with this - I'm rereading Goblet, for the LC reading group, and I love the way she deals with the newspaper articles written about her, and just shrugs it off when the Slytherins torment her with it. And she worked out about Rita Skeeter being an animagus. She spent many hours with Harry helping him prepare for his tasks, as well as her class load, and she was really mature over the whole Krum thing... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 13:25:29 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:25:29 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: <002b01c6f8cf$ed60a350$8d570043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160377 Eric: > She also had no problem with disfiguring a fellow student > (admittedly, Marietta had betrayed a great many other students and > could have caused their expulsion), and AFAWK she did nothing to > remove the curse once the danger had passed. > Hermione decoyed a teacher into a situation where she > was in real danger of death or various other nasty fates (anybody > familiar with real Greek mythology will understand what I mean; > centaurs were Not Nice People as a rule) and never seemed to > suffer a moment's qualm about what she had done. > Other things she's done---stealing potions supplies and making > Polyjuice Potion, for example---do not show her to be the most > trustworthy person at Hogwarts. If she likes you, you're all right, > but if you're in the way, well, too bad for you. As you said, Marietta had betrayed a great students. Many of them, her friends. She went to Draco, his gang and Umbridge, who 'are' Dark. So Marietta turned her back on her friends and sided with the enemy. I feel that what happened to Marietta was quite appropriate! True, as far as we know, Hermione never removed the hex. But I'm sure that Dumbledore, McGonagall or Mdm. Pomfrey was able to do so. However, I think Marietta should have had to live a little while with the consequences of her actions. It's bad enough that she betrayed the others in the DA, but she betrayed Cho, her very best friend who wasn't caught, but very well could've been in there right along with Harry and the crew. Also think about this, Harry had been made to do 'lines' by Umbridge. He had the wounds in his hands where Umbridge had cut them into him, little by little, deeper and deeper. It was torture for Harry. Really hurt him. I'm sure the members of the DA were aware of what Umbridge was doing to Harry, so Marietta knew too. Yet she still betrayed them. Marietta didn't suffer all the physical 'and' emotional pain like Harry did. Harry almost lost his own life to Voldemort and saw Cedric lose his life right before his eyes. He suffered the ultimate terror, knowing he was utterly alone to face the ultimate evil. Yet he escaped. Harry was only trying to tell the truth of what he faced, to make others aware of Voldemort's return and take precautions. And he was made to suffer for it! Had his hands carved and marred by that evil Umbridge. Marietta's pain was only one of humiliation, shame and guilt! Hermione didn't target Marietta personally. Marietta's betrayal activated that hex. So, she unwittingly brought this on herself. If no one ever betrayed the DA, then no one would be 'marked' as traitor. So, really, Marietta brought that on herself. As far as Hermione leading Umbridge into the forest to the centaurs, well, you saw Umbridge's reaction to what she considered 'half-breeds' and 'inferior'. She talked down to them, showed no kindness or respect for them, and therefore brought much of what she suffered on herself also. Hermione maybe shouldn't have let Umbridge into the forest. But Umbridge had already threatened to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry and admitted that she had sent the dementors after Harry that summer. Umbridge had proven that she was 'dark' so Hermione felt no qualms whatsoever about leading Umbridge into danger. (See pgs. 746 & 747 in OOTP, US Ed.) As far as her stealing the Polyjuice potion items, she was just trying to help Harry and Ron find out who the Heir of Slytherin was so they could stop the attacks. The only one who I know of who got in her/their way was Neville in the first book. She froze him temporarily so they could stop Voldemort from getting the Stone. Her heart and intentions are always in the right place and good. All she is doing is defending her friends and protecting them and herself. As far as her being involved in SPEW, I know, she just doesn't 'get it'! She hasn't been raised in the magical world, so some things will take time to get used to. The Elves views of the world are one. Dobby is an exception. Malfoy and his crew were just too evil for Dobby to stomach. He had to get out, and Harry helped him. Doesn't mean that Dobby would have wanted to be free if he had decent masters. Jenni from Alabama From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 26 14:56:18 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:56:18 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Ken: > > There is no getting around the fact that canon implies that > > intermarriage is reasonably common, the numbers speak for > > themselves. > > Betsy Hp: > How do you figure that? We have a bare handful of wizard marriages > described, and an even tinier portion of that are of the non- > magical/magical variety. Now, I'm not mathametician, but even I can > see that you have no proper statistics to play with here. JKR has > not given us enough information to make those sort of judgements, > IMO. > Ken: I figure it from the fact that of the small number of marriages described a sizable fraction are mixed. No, in the real world this is not a large enough sample to draw precise numerical conclusions from nor is it a scientificly chosen sample. But even in the real world a fraction of 10% or greater even from such a small sample does imply that the true fraction is significant unless some bias has been put into the data. It is very unlikely the intermarriage rate is as small as 1% given the data we have seen. But this isn't the real world, this is an author painting a picture of an imaginary world. Given that we can be much more certain that numbers represent the "truth" of this imaginary world. You and many others here draw even stronger conclusions about the WW from much smaller samples of WW behaviour. However since most of those are "touchy-feely" issues and don't involve anything as obviously mathematical as percentages you do not even realize that you are doing this. Everything that is said here is based on samples as small as the mixed marriage numbers. We have seen only a tiny fraction of Harry's life yet we all draw many conclusions about it and him and we hold those conclusions with the strength of 100 Olympians. We depend on the author to paint us a true picture of the world she envisions, this particular instance is no different than any other that we discuss. > > >>Ken: > > As to how happy and successful those marriages are, I was not > > addressing that. We all know muggle/muggle marriages as bad as the > > examples you give, some of us may have been in one. > > Betsy Hp: > I've never been in, nor have I known anyone in a marriage in which > one spouse has such utter and total control over the other. (If my > friends are able to have their husbands fill in for a missing coffee > table, they've kept quite quiet about it. ) > Ken: I think we all hear about some pretty awful behaviour between romantic partners on the nightly news. Each of us who are married or in a live in relationship hold the power of life and death over our partners as they do over us, how much more control do you want? Murder reports on the news demonstrate this over and over and over again. Some men and women live in slavery to their partners. I know that many of you feel the WW is exceptional in this regard but I do not see it that way. The WW is a reflection of our own though obviously the magical half of a mixed marriage has resources that are not available to the muggle half. My wife could easily stab or shoot me while I sleep or poison me with food she has prepared. She could not as easily devise and implement some cunning plan to kill me with an electromechanical contrivance the way I, as an electrical engineer, could readily do to her. If she were in fact a witch she would have similar power over me but this would not diminish my power over her. My cunning device would still work. But in fact I love my wife as she loves me and neither one of us is going to kill the other. Our arguments would end much differently if she could turn me into a table instead of storming out of the room but I would still stand my ground with her because I would trust her to release me from the spell once her anger had cooled. I simply am not intimidated by the WW the way so many of you are. > > >>Ken: > > > > His magical education and experience would allow him to edit books > > at a magical book publisher, > > Betsy Hp: > If only he could work the pens. > > > >>Ken: > > it would allow him to work at the Ministry of Magic in a variety > > of capacities, > > Betsy Hp: > If only he were a fully recognized legal member of the WW. > > > >>Ken: > > he could help run the twin's budding business empire, > > Betsy Hp: > If only he could place fire calls. > > > >>Ken: > > he could be a Quidditch commentator, > > Betsy Hp: > If only he could use Saronus (I think it is? That voice amplifying > spell). > > > >>Ken: > > he could be a reporter, > > Betsy Hp: > If only he could use the pens. (I said that before... Ah well, > anything with writing involved is right out. It be like a reporter > in the Muggle world who couldn't use a computer.) > > > >>Ken: > > he could emulate his creator and write books, > > Betsy Hp: > See above. > > > >>Ken: > > he could help Hermione run SPEW > > Betsy Hp: > Except that Hermione would have to drop SPEW to work full time at > getting Harry some reasonable rights as a non-magical person within > the WW. (Posterboy -- just what Harry's always wanted to be! ) > Ken: Betsy, all a pen does is put ink on paper, even in the WW. The exceptions I can think of are Rita's Quick Quotes Quill which is hardly an asset to a responsible journalist and the spell-checking functions of Ron's pen. The act of writing, editing, or commentating is not a fundamentally magical act, it is an exercise in human intelligence. Harry has the training to edit magical books, he can write or report as well as Rita Skeeter or Gilderoy Lockhart, he has the Quidditch experience to be a commentator. He can easily use a common muggle pen or computer to do his writing, someone can charm a megaphone for him to announce Quidditch matches. These are tiny hurdles, easily stepped over, barely lines scratched in the dirt. Running a business or civil rights organization involves far more than being a talking head in a fireplace. There are enormous ammounts of work to be done that any muggle could accomplish for these organizations. Jobs in the MoM would generally be beyond muggles but you don't have to *do* magic to do most of them. You have to *understand* magic and Harry has that understanding. Even *I* could monitor the thickness of imported cauldron bottoms!! What Harry has is wealth, celebrity, experience, training, friendships, connections, and resourcefulness. The Harry I know can and would use those to overcome the barriers that are put in his way. When Jackie Robinson accepted the offer to play major league baseball he faced huge obstacles. He overcame them and paved the way for many others, in sports and later in ordinary life even as generations of black musicians had laid a foundation he could build on. He helped the United States achieve social goals it had struggled with for 200 years. To be sure Harry would face similar social obstacles. Facing them down would be a worthy conclusion to this story and I believe him capable of it. I am sorry that your Harry is only a pale imitation of the Harry I read about. The HP books I read have prepared Harry for life in the WW without magic, they have prepared this reader to believe that he can pull it off. I doubt that Rowling intends to go that way because it would take a book not an epilogue to do it justice but I am with her if she does. Ken From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 26 15:02:01 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:02:01 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160379 Jenni: > As you said, Marietta had betrayed a great students. Many of them, her > friends. She went to Draco, his gang and Umbridge, who 'are' Dark. So > Marietta turned her back on her friends and sided with the enemy. > > I feel that what happened to Marietta was quite appropriate! True, as > far as we know, Hermione never removed the hex. But I'm sure that > Dumbledore, McGonagall or Mdm. Pomfrey was able to do so. Magpie: No, in HBP the marks are still there, which is why for many of us Hermione's revenge hex crosses the line into more of a problem with Hermione's character than it is for Marietta's. Jenni: > He had the wounds in his hands where Umbridge had cut them into him, > little by little, deeper and deeper. It was torture for Harry. Really > hurt him. I'm sure the members of the DA were aware of what Umbridge > was doing to Harry, so Marietta knew too. Yet she still betrayed them. Magpie: Harry hid the marks on his hands. Nobody knew except a few people, certainly not Marietta. However wrong her actions are, they make sense to me from her pov without her intentionally trying to do what Harry sees from his pov. Jenni: > Marietta didn't suffer all the physical 'and' emotional pain like > Harry did. Harry almost lost his own life to Voldemort and saw Cedric > lose his life right before his eyes. He suffered the ultimate terror, > knowing he was utterly alone to face the ultimate evil. Magpie: That's really here nor there, though. What Harry suffers has nothing to do with Hermione's hex plan, just as Marietta's actions are not what Harry is dealing with earlier when he's trying to tell people the truth. Comparing their suffering is kind of beside the point. (Though I would say that I suspect the author would never make Harry suffer from this kind of hex.) Jenni: > Marietta's pain was only one of humiliation, shame and guilt! Hermione > didn't target Marietta personally. Marietta's betrayal activated that > hex. So, she unwittingly brought this on herself. If no one ever > betrayed the DA, then no one would be 'marked' as traitor. So, really, > Marietta brought that on herself. Magpie: Actually, Hermione brought it on her quite deliberately. It wasn't the universe that made her face break out, it was a hex Hermione Granger put on the parchment. I get that a lot of people think this was a satisfying punishment and well-earned, but if Hermione's going to get comfortable in the role of Punisher of the Universe as She Sees Fit (which is the problem Betsy brought up) she can't also have no responsibility for her own actions. Taking Hermione out of the equation is disturbing to me. Jenni: > As far as Hermione leading Umbridge into the forest to the centaurs, > well, you saw Umbridge's reaction to what she considered 'half- breeds' > and 'inferior'. She talked down to them, showed no kindness or respect > for them, and therefore brought much of what she suffered on herself > also. Magpie: As would Hermione have, if Grawp hadn't come to the rescue. If Hermione had been trampled and killed by the centaurs for her insults to them I'd still consider the centaurs responsible and say they overreacted. Even seeing that Hermione had insulted them, I wouldn't consider her responsible for other people deciding to attack her. Jenni: Hermione maybe shouldn't have let Umbridge into the forest. But > Umbridge had already threatened to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry > and admitted that she had sent the dementors after Harry that summer. > Umbridge had proven that she was 'dark' so Hermione felt no qualms > whatsoever about leading Umbridge into danger. (See pgs. 746 & 747 in > OOTP, US Ed.) Magpie: Well, yeah. That's the problem. Hermione considers someone dark and therefore feels no qualms about leading them into danger. That's not an attitude everyone's comfortable with--Harry didn't like it much when James took that attitude with Snape either. That's why Hermione doesn't seem like a great role-model to me in all ways. She's an interesting character, but I don't think kids particularly need to get better at justifying actions that hurt other people. Jenni:> > As far as her stealing the Polyjuice potion items, she was just trying > to help Harry and Ron find out who the Heir of Slytherin was so they > could stop the attacks. Magpie: Yes, but Hermione always thinks whatever she's trying to do is justification for whatever she wants to do--even if she'd turn around and scold or punish someone else for something similar. In the case of CoS she steals Potions, encourages the boys to cause havoc in class, knocks out two students, steals their bodies and invades their privacy...and they're all innocent of the crime she's using to justify doing these things to learn if they're guilty. It's not that I don't get Hermione's thinking there, but she's imo rarely truly logical when she tries to argue philosphically or ethically. So while I can forgive her for her actions in CoS (and it's a fun little spy mission even if it wouldn't produce evidence that could hold up in many courts) I still think it's important to point out where she's wrong in her thinking and not come away saying that considering someone Dark immediately makes anything okay when dealing with them. Jenni: > Her heart and intentions are always in the right place and good. All > she is doing is defending her friends and protecting them and herself. Magpie: Heart and intentions being in the right place can easily lead to evil, however. I don't think Hermione is evil, but it's easy for me to imagine her crossing the line with this attitude, even if I don't think it's going to happen in canon. To truly think about right and wrong, imo, you have to think beyond what your own intentions are. -m From nmangle at cox.net Thu Oct 26 14:53:02 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:53:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] This is new to me but i kinda found a link last night between HP and LV References: Message-ID: <0be301c6f90e$700b3980$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> No: HPFGUIDX 160380 aliciamedina1979 wrote: Are Harry and Voldermort linked because Harry's mom died trying to save his life and Voldermort's mom died becuase she didn't care enough for her unborn son to care for herself properly and died in spite of him? I kind of made that link last night when i was reading HBP for the third time. It is probably my favortive! Like I said, I am new to this. I picked up book number 4 the summer before the movie came out and got hooked. I had seen the movies but, the books are insane. I am a big reader - at least I was till I became a mom and all my time is spent with my beatuiful two kids; but when I read a new Harry Potter book I become the worst mommie. Dinner can wait - just need to finish this chapter. So has anyone seen this link or am I crazy? Nicole: First of all, welcome to the world of Harry Potter, isn't it amazing how much it eats you up? HBP got me through a very hard time in my life getting lost in it. Second, even though you have probably seen the movies, and they are short and not as complexed, you should really read the first three. There are a lot of little things that explain stuff in the last three. A month before HBP came out, I read all five books in order, back to back. That was great. But as far as your link goes, their connection comes from the prophecy. LV chose to "mark" Harry as his equal, and therefore chose Harry to be the one with the power to vanquish him in the end. Maybe LV chose Harry over Neville because he is half blood, we don't know, Harry & Neville were both born as the seventh month ends, both their parents thrice thwarted LV, and so really, it could have been either one of them. He chose Harry. So their wands, also being the same wands (feather from same phoenix) won't work properly against each other also. I really think that since LV's mom died because she lost her will, lost her love, she chose not to carry on=not to live. That is not a sacrifice of any kind. Lily, on the other hand sacrificed her life, because LV told her she didn't have to die, she could have moved out of the way and let him have him to save her own (but really an ass as big as LV probably would have laughed and killed her anyways). Anyways, that was the protection. Totally opposite choices..... my point in that babble is that I don't think that mom factor is a connection... Nicole From random832 at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 15:36:45 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:36:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: <019201c6f8ad$b9b95780$980dadcf@michaelp> References: <019201c6f8ad$b9b95780$980dadcf@michaelp> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610260836r51532a79yb7d8973a4df02661@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160381 On 10/25/06, Michael Perry wrote: > I should imagine that Hogwarts is protected by various spells... including > being Unmappable. Actually - I think it's stated that the other two schools are unplottable but Hogwarts is not. (though, we've never seen anyone try to put anything on a map, which failure is the only stated effect of unplottable, and thus the only way of knowing something is unplottable other than being told directly) > I should assume, if a person (non-magical) somehow found > their way there and saw it, it would look like a ruin. (I seem to recall > that, also.) Right. from the outside, from a distance, and with a strong suggestion not to approach closer. There's no reason to think that if they were brought onto the grounds they wouldn't then be "inside" the illusion, and able to function as normally as Filch can. > There are magical things that even Muggles can see... but they ignore them. Actually - the only person who actually says that is Stan Shunpike - who isn't exactly the most educated person in the series. Vernon doesn't seem to have a problem noticing all kinds of things on 31 Oct 1981, certainly. -- Random832 From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Oct 26 15:48:47 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:48:47 -0000 Subject: dumbledore as a ghost In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160382 > Louis: > Here's a question. Do you think Dumbledore will cross over knowing > Harry needs a lot of training up? As a ghost he could be with Harry all the time. Although I know he has no fear of death could his love for Harry and desire to end the war overtake him and make him want to > stay? Eddie: Good question. But I think the answer is that Dumbledore _WILL_ cross over and not remain as a ghost. Here's why: * As you said, he has no fear of death * I'm assuming DD can still communicate with Harry via his portrait and/or via his picture on the chocolate frog cards. Some people in this forum have argued that we've never seen the people on the chocolate frog cards be able to talk, but I think that -- at least -- the talking portrait of DD could visit any one of his cards and speak. My point: what advantage is there to being a ghost if he can still communicate with Harry in other ways? * DD's portrait has already appeared in the Headmistress' office. Does that mean he is _NOT_ a ghost and has _ALREADY_ crossed over? I have no canon to support this, but I believe it means he has crossed over. (Have we ever seen a portrait of any of the ghosts?) * The man deserves a rest. No much canon, but that's my opinion. Eddie From random832 at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 15:26:58 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:26:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610260826x5a656db3xc0ac792c220a02bb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160383 > Betsy Hp: > I really didn't like how Hermione treated Ron in HBP. And I'm not a > fan of her moral equivocating. e.g. It's okay when Hermione cheats > but she's death on others doing something similar. It seems that again and again, Hermione comes across as a hypocrite - the one line that stood out most to me out of everything anyone ever said in HBP was that the stuff the HBP writes about is "probably not ministry approved" - so, what, she's having delusions that the DA was? If "not ministry approved" is really the worst thing she can say about something maybe she shouldn't have a problem with it. And comparing following a recipe in a book with taking orders from tom riddle - EXCUSE me, how's that comparison any more valid than if he were following the recipe that was typeset rather than the extra handwritten instructions? Is there some moral threshold at the margin line of the page? At least the argument that it was "probably not ministry approved" had some chance of maybe having merit in some parallel universe > Betsy Hp: > Hermione is a reader, which should be attractive to me, but she > seems to be a pure non-fiction girl. The way she's so quick to > dimiss all of Luna's ideas That's always ticked me off - not so much that it's a problem in general as that it makes no sense in her position "well, I *know* there's no such thing as a crumple-horned snorkack" bah. less than a decade ago she also *knew* there was no such thing as magic. It is absolutely inexcusable for a muggleborn witch to so easily dismiss the possibility that something exists that is widely believed not to. And where'd she get all this knowledge that she's so confident nothing she doesn't know about can exist? books. Which means it's even less excusable for to take a "never trust anything you read" attitude in book 6. > Betsy Hp: > I do like the women I'm not sure I'm supposed to like (Narcissa, > Pansy, Lavender and Parvati) but part of that could well be the > blank slate effect. It probably is, IMO. I mean... does Pansy even have a speaking part? She gets page time, sure, which is more than we can say for Daphne Greengrass or Tracy Davis... but still, does she have any lines? Out of curiosity, how do you see Pansy, in terms of personality / etc? -- Random832 From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Oct 26 16:02:57 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:02:57 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts elves/ Was:Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... In-Reply-To: <003901c6f8a0$c885b720$980dadcf@michaelp> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160384 > puduhepa98 at ...: > > Very good point here. I think that HG, not being of the WW, has > > misunderstood the possible result of her actions. She doesn't have elves > and so doesn't > > understand that she cannot free the Hogwarts elves. The elves themselves > > are so adverse to being freed (and kicked out of their no doubt cushey > job) > > that they will not take the chance by picking up her hats. > > > Michael Perry: > That's a wonderful point about the House Elf. If picking up an article of > clothing constituted being freed, they couldn't very well do their job... if > laundry is one of their jobs for a family. Eddie: I'm reminded now that Sirius thought he saw "Kreacher snogging one of my dad's old pants." (or something like that) But that didn't free Kreacher. So just touching the clothing isn't enough. There must be some intent, I guess. Lucius Malfoy threw the sock _AWAY_ and Dobby received it. Hmmmmmm..... Eddie From random832 at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 15:58:02 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:58:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610260858i1268c2ecjbb420d3232cc9aa0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160385 > Betsy Hp: > If only he could use the pens. (I said that before... Ah well, > anything with writing involved is right out. It be like a reporter > in the Muggle world who couldn't use a computer.) Eh? It's quills and parchment. We have seen nothing indicating they're anything more than ordinary quills and parchment. Muggles used quills and parchment for hundreds of years before pens and paper were invented. They were in use for much longer than any later tool has been to date. -- Random832 From ibchawz at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 16:52:44 2006 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:52:44 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610260826x5a656db3xc0ac792c220a02bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160386 > > Betsy Hp: > > I do like the women I'm not sure I'm supposed to like (Narcissa, > > Pansy, Lavender and Parvati) but part of that could well be the > > blank slate effect. > > Random832 > It probably is, IMO. I mean... does Pansy even have a speaking part? > She gets page time, sure, which is more than we can say for Daphne > Greengrass or Tracy Davis... but still, does she have any lines? ibchawz responds: Pansy Parkinson does have a few speaking parts. IMO, they make her even less likeable. These are typically jabs at Harry, Ron, Hermione, or Hagrid. In GOF, shortly after Rita Skeeter's first Daily Prophet article is printed, she does. Rita's article stated that Harry and Hermione were always together and referred to Hermione as a stunningly pretty Muggleborn. Pansy comments that Hermione would be stunningly pretty compared to a chipmunk. ibchawz, who has learned the joys of books on CD with a 1 hour commute. I listened to this scene this morning while driving. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 26 16:56:46 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:56:46 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160387 Tesha: I'm sorry but I got to this and just had to respond: > Magpie: > Yes, but Hermione always thinks whatever she's trying to do is > justification for whatever she wants to do--even if she'd turn > around and scold or punish someone else for something similar. In > the case of CoS she steals Potions, encourages the boys to cause > havoc in class, knocks out two students, steals their bodies and > invades their privacy. Tesha: Knocks them out? are you refering to the Crabbe and Goyle incident? Knocks them out? They grab cupcakes floating in mid air and fall asleep. Steals their bodies? Invades their privacy? Come on! The worse that happens is that they have their shoes borrowed without their permission - and the purpose of the whole exercise is to find out what Draco knew about the CoS... and who was the only one hurt? Hermione! She paid a high price for trying to help save the school. From kking0731 at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 17:24:26 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:24:26 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's lapses of Information (Was:CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160388 Goddlefrood: In respect now of the information Dumbledore supplied regarding Horcruxes themselves I formed the view while reading the relevant chapter under discussion that Dumbledore gave Harry all the information he had. That he did not mention Harry or his scar as a potential Horcrux strengthened my opinion that neither Harry nor his scar is a Horcrux. Dumbledore could have no reason to suppress that particular information. Snow: Dumbledore does give all the information necessary but as usual always in code. Dumbledore did tell him the guideline for the proposed Horcruxes that were left to be found; there is something from the four houses, the diary and a living Horcrux that he proposed may be Nagini. What would have happened had Dumbledore given any more clues about his suspicions than he already has (the bit of Voldemort in him, the fact that the scar represented a connection forged between Voldemort and Harry)? Would Harry have viewed himself as one of the proposed destructible Horcruxes as many on this list believe that Harry will have to sacrifice himself in order to rid himself of the unwanted Voldemort soul? Harry is not a Horcrux therefore he does not have to be destroyed. Harry didn't receive his portion of Voldemort soul via the Horcrux process so his situation is unique. Harry, however, may not have viewed it this way if Dumbledore were to have explicitly stated that he suspects Harry to have one seventh of Voldemort's soul residing in him. Instead Dumbledore tells Harry that it is inadvisable to use a living soul that can think and act for itself as a Horcrux. This lays the groundwork for a later date when Harry does think for himself and connects the fact that he is forged with Voldemort but also understands that he can think and act for himself so the fragment that is in him does not control him or his destiny. Dumbledore never came straight out in SS and told Harry how to get to the Chamber or that their was a stone or that Voldemort was attempting to steal it but he did lead him down the path and as Harry suspected at the end Dumbledore allowed him to find out on his own and deal with it himself, with a bit of help from his friends. Dumbledore set the groundwork for Harry with the mirror knowing that he would confront it again, did he tell him that no, he had to work it out himself. I view this situation in the same manner since Dumbledore has done quite a few things in a similar way. Goddlefrood: Dumbledore said that LV had transferred some of his powers to Harry the night he obtained the scar, which is an important distinction. Snow: Dumbledore also agreed with Harry in CoS that Voldemort appeared to put a bit of himself in Harry. Goddlefrood: A Horcrux in and of itself does not appear to have power, except to revive the person who has need of reviving. It seems you suggest that a Horcrux is a power in itself. Snow: Not just any Horcrux, one with a soul that can think for itself. If the Diary had succeeded in its plan with Ginny's soul, "it would have strengthened the present-day Voldemort considerably". You see that a Horcrux can have power when combined with a living soul. Goddlefrood: The Horcrux is the vessel for storing the external portion of soul, unless I'm much mistaken. For any particularly interested in the various ways in which external souls work there is available Chapter 66 "The External Soul in Folk-Tales" by Sir James George Frazer from The Golden Bough. THis is at Bartlebys and other literature sites. The only power attributed to the external soul is to keep the owner of the soul alive no matter what happens and this aspect of the myth appears to have been adhered to by JKR. In fact it is quite likely that she followed the legend of Koschei the Deathless whose soul was outside his body and there were seven levels of protection (although not seven separate soul pieces) to destroy in order that he could himself die. Snow: That may very well be the case and it probably is, but we are not dealing with a conventional Horcrux when it comes to Harry. Voldemort didn't make Harry a Horcrux by casting a spell to release the ripped soul fragment from his body and place it in Harry but; Harry did end up with a bit of Voldemort that night along with a scar, that according to Dumbledore represents a forged connection with Voldemort; Voldemort did lose his body that night along with all his powers except the power of possession; Lily was killed that night despite his offer to step aside. All of these conditions set up a very nice scenario that Harry did receive Voldemort soul. Snow From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 17:22:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:22:12 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place/ Was: Re: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160389 bboyminn wrote: > > In general, some spells are lifted when the caster dies, > and some spells are not. Remember that 12 Grimmauld Place > is still protected by spells cast by Sirius's forefathers. > Some of the spells on Hogwarts are ancient, they have > out lived many Headmasters. Yet, the spell that held > Harry in the 'binding' charm, was lifted. So, again, > some are lifted, some are not. > > Specifically, to the nature of the Secret Keeper Charm, > JKR addressed this issue on her website - > > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_poll.cfm > Q: What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies? > > JKR-A: > " ...the status of their secret will remain as it was at > the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided > will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody > else. ..." > > So, you are right, no new people can know the secret, > because the now dead Secret Keeper is no longer alive to > tell them. Clearly, this spell outlasts the Secret Keeper, > but we don't know for a fact that the Secret Keeper is the > caster of the Secret Keeper Spell. As we see with the > Unbreakable Vow, a third party /binds/ the charm. It is > possible, though certainly not established, that we have > the subject of the secret, the Secret Keeper, and the > 'binder' of the secret. Though this third party has never > been mentioned, it is slightly possible that JKR is > keeping that revelation until the last book. > > Keep in mind that when Dumbledore visited the Dursleys in > HBP, he had Harry spoke openly about 12 Grimmauld Place > being the Headquarters for the Order, therefore, the > Dursleys have been let in on the Secret of that location. > > As for a bit of speculation, it is still possible for > people to get into Grimmauld Place without knowing the > Secret, it's just not easy. Say, for example, that Harry > wants Neville (or some other DA Club member) to come to > Grimmauld Place. They can't actually be told about 12 > Grimmauld Place because it is protected; those words can > not be spoken, however, they could be told about Grimmauld > Square because that is not protected. So, Harry could > tell Neville (or who ever) to be at Grimmauld Square at > 1:00pm. When Neville arrives, Harry steps outside and > leads Neville into the house. I do believe that is a > workable solution. > > One small technicality, the Secret as quoted in the note > Harry was given that revealed Grimmauld Place to him, > said '...the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix is > located at 12 Grimmauld Place...'. To some of us that > implies that the Secret is 'Headquarters' not '12 > Grimmauld Place'. > > One could speculate that when 'Headquarters' moved, the > Secret moved with it. So, the new location of > 'Headquarters' is now the Secret being guarded. In > otherwords, at that moment, 12 Grimmauld Place was only > incidentally the location of 'Headquarters'. > > I don't think I'll get a lot of support for that theory, > but it could be true. Carol reponds: First, regarding a third party. With the Unbreakable Vow, there are necessarily three participants, one to state the provisions of the vow, one to take it, and one (the Binder) to cast the spell that "binds" them to one another with chains (or ropes or snakes) of fire. No one is being "bound," either to his word or to another person in the Fidelius Charm. The SK merely becomes the repository of the secret; only he can reveal it and only those he tells can know it. I think that two people must be involved, one to cast the spell and one to receive it; otherwise, Dumbledore could have made himself the Secret Keeper for the Potters. I'm guessing that Lily, who is good at Charms and is part of the secret, cast the spell that made Peter Pettigrew the SK. With DD as Secret Keeper for the HQ of the Order, I suppose the caster must have been Sirius Black, who owned the house, or possibly Remus Lupin, one of the first to know about it. Again, I don't see how DD could have made himself the Secret Keeper, but I see no need for a third person (a "binder", only the spell caster and the recipient of the spell, as with most spells that we see in the HP books. Regarding the Dursleys and the secret of 12 GP, Harry was told explicitly (through words written on a piece of paper by Dumbledore), the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix may be found at 12 Grimmauld Place. *That* is the secret. Dumbledore mentions 12 Grimmauld Place in front of the Dursleys and he said that it was Sirius Black's house, now inherited by Harry (along with Kreacher), and he states that the Order of the Phoenix may need to find new headquarters, but he never states the secret in the exact phrasing of the note to Harry. Either he's casually (and deliberately) revealing the secret to the Dursleys for their own protection without seeming to say anything important, or the scattered information he provides is not the same as revealing the secret. I think the first interpretation is more likely. Otherwise, DD had no need or reason to reveal either the address or the existence of the OoP, a name that still means nothing to the Dursleys, in front of them. He even, eventually, uses the exact phrase "the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix" in reference to Kreacher's living quarters (HBP am. ed. 52). Surely, the Dursleys, even Dudley, can put that information together with the address 12 Grimmauld Place, at least in their subconscious minds. Harry might even be able to speak the address to them now that they've heard it from Dumbledore. However, it seems unlikely that DD removed the other protections on the house, including the Muggle-repelling charms. Someone else will have to do that, or at least point out the house to them as someone (Hermione?) pointed out Diagon Alley to the Grangers in CoS. There must be a reason why Dumbledore gave Harry all this information at the Dursleys rather than confiding it to him privately. The only reason I can think of is that he anticipated their need for a refuge once the blood protection wore off. (The Kreacher test gave them a taste of what they're in for though that wasn't its primary purpose.) Carol, wondering why neither Harry nor Sirius Black ever ordered Kreacher to take a bath and change to a clean loincloth From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 26 17:22:32 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:22:32 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160390 > ibchawz responds: > Pansy Parkinson does have a few speaking parts. IMO, they make her > even less likeable. These are typically jabs at Harry, Ron, > Hermione, or Hagrid. In GOF, shortly after Rita Skeeter's first > Daily Prophet article is printed, she does. Rita's article stated > that Harry and Hermione were always together and referred to > Hermione as a stunningly pretty Muggleborn. Pansy comments that > Hermione would be stunningly pretty compared to a chipmunk. > > ibchawz, who has learned the joys of books on CD with a 1 hour > commute. I listened to this scene this morning while driving. > Hickengruendler: She also gets interviewed by Umbridge during Hagrid's inspection. I wanted to throttle her while reading the part, even though I don't like Hagrid as a teacher and think he should have stayed groundskeeper. My favourite female character is Hermione, because I think she's the best written. I do not hold sending Umbridge to the centaurs against her, since she was in a despereate situation and had to do something to stop Dolly from torturing Harry. I find the Marietta jinx much more problematic. It's about the only time, where I didn't like how JKR wrote her, particularly that the jinx was still on Marietta's face in HBP. I'll see if this stays one of the times, where I don't like what JKR did, or if it will be used in a similar way the Vanishing cabinet incident with the twins and Montague was used, where I had problems with after OotP but bow like it very much, after what happened in HBP, since I see why JKR wrote this. Other than this, I adore Hermione. Sure, she's not perfect and has her nasty streak, but I love her very much, flaws and all. I don't think her flaws are worse than "Crucio"-Harry's, or "I'll make fun of Myrtle, so that I can feel better" Ron's. ;-) About the other females: I thoroughly enjoy Trelawney's appereances, therefore I can guess I can say that I like her. At the very least I like her as a character. McGonagall kicks ass, and I adore the ground over which Luna's walking. Tonks I find a bit flat, but on the other hand, she's one of the not so many characters, that I would call genuinely nice. Fleur is a bit too stereotypical French for my taste, but her line about being beuatiful enough for two redeems her in many ways. I love Molly, even though she can be a pretty nasty shrew. (Or maybe because she can be, *veg*). Petunia, Umbridge and Rita are caricatures, and most of the time I think they are well done caricatures, particularly Umbridge. The scene with Trelawney's breakdown I find very chilling, because I think JKR portrayed really well here, how a nasty-minded yet powerful person can ruin other people's lives, if she want to. I like Lily, but find her uninteresting so far, particularly compared to James. Hickengruendler From elsa_bard at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 16:31:02 2006 From: elsa_bard at yahoo.com (elsa_bard) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:31:02 -0000 Subject: The Scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160391 > Becky Brown: > Hi Jeff, > I really don't think Harry is a horcrux. Voldemort was not able > to destroy him because Harry's mother sacraficed herself for him. > But if you think about it. It would provide JKR with a good way to > end the series. With Harry killing Voldemort and then himself to > keep him from coming back. > > Elsa: I don't see that as a viable ending for the series. While the books are wildly popular with adults, ultimately they are written for children and the concept of suicide by a child for the greater good is, to my mind, just too heavy. I don't see JKR using a plot device that is so potentially age inappropriate to her target audience. Elsa From unicornspride at centurytel.net Thu Oct 26 17:26:57 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 12:26:57 -0500 Subject: Hogwarts elves part 2 References: Message-ID: <02a201c6f923$f0266ee0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160392 Here are my thoughts. 1. A house elf needs to be "given" clothing in order to be freed. Doing laundry, picking up clothing off the floor, cleaning the common room etc.. This to me would be considered "doing their job". I think it is much different than LM just handing a sock to Dobby setting him free. 2. A child of the home would not be able to set the house elf free because someone long ago would have adjusted the law so it wouldn't happen. I can't imagine them leaving their slaves open to being freed by their 3 year old child..LOL I would think that only the eldest master of the home could do that. Pure speculation though. 3. Hermione leaving hats only upsets the elves. I think Dobby states it at some point when they are all in the kitchen. Can't find it in the book, but I am sure that I read that somewhere. And something about Dobby being the only one that would clean the common room because of it. So, it must mean that it will not set them free, but it is an offensive behavior that the elves do not like. Anyway, those are my thoughts.. LOL Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 17:53:07 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:53:07 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160393 > Ken: > What Harry has is wealth, celebrity, experience, training, > friendships, connections, and resourcefulness. The Harry I know can > and would use those to overcome the barriers that are put in his way. > When Jackie Robinson accepted the offer to play major league baseball > he faced huge obstacles. He overcame them and paved the way for many > others, in sports and later in ordinary life even as generations of > black musicians had laid a foundation he could build on. He helped the > United States achieve social goals it had struggled with for 200 > years. To be sure Harry would face similar social obstacles. Facing > them down would be a worthy conclusion to this story and I believe him > capable of it. I am sorry that your Harry is only a pale imitation of > the Harry I read about. The HP books I read have prepared Harry for > life in the WW without magic, they have prepared this reader to > believe that he can pull it off. I doubt that Rowling intends to go > that way because it would take a book not an epilogue to do it justice > but I am with her if she does. Alla: I may be wrong, but from what I read so far, I do not think that Betsy ( and Magpie) argue that Harry cannot do it. I am certainly with you on admiring him and believing that he can face social obstacles and overcome them too. I thought that at the heart of their argument is that this ending is just not supported by sufficient hints in the text ( besides the strength of Harry's character, if that makes any sense) That there is nothing in WW to see that this indeed can happen - happy satisfying life for the person who lost his magic, even if it is with overcoming obstacles, that Rowling did not set it up, this type of ending, I mean. For example ( here Alla prepares to run from Magpie and Betsy :)), the story of Draco in HBP. They would disagree with me here, but I fully believe that story of Redeemed!Draco is not set up in the books **at all**, for me it was pretty much out of the blue. I see zero clues in the books that Draco has **any** good qualities whatsoever. That does not mean that Rowling did not envision him having those qualities, that just means that she failed to convince me that he does based on those five books. Now, in HBP she IMO obviously went for Draco, who is going to be redeemed. I think it may even work well enough in book 7, but do I see support for this in the previous books? No, I do not. Same thing with this type of ending. If she goes there, at least it can work based on strength of Harry's character, I guess. But nothing else prepares me for this sort of ending so far. I do **not** see this kind of tolerance in WW whatsoever and I do see everything to the contrary. IMO of course. Of course maybe the plan will be indeed to show social change in that way, I do not know. Another thing, I am following this thread with great interest, but didn't JKR already squashed this type of ending in the interview last year? Cannot find the quote, but try again later. Something to the effect that Harry losing his powers and leaving WW would be interesting, but she does not want to plagiarise or something like that :) Alla From darksworld at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 17:44:59 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:44:59 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160394 > Jenni: True, > as > > far as we know, Hermione never removed the hex. But I'm sure that > > Dumbledore, McGonagall or Mdm. Pomfrey was able to do so. > > Magpie: > No, in HBP the marks are still there, which is why for many of us > Hermione's revenge hex crosses the line into more of a problem with > Hermione's character than it is for Marietta's. Charles: That only proves that they did not do so, not that they *could* not. > Jenni: > > He had the wounds in his hands where Umbridge had cut them into > him, > > little by little, deeper and deeper. It was torture for Harry. > Really > > hurt him. I'm sure the members of the DA were aware of what > Umbridge > > was doing to Harry, so Marietta knew too. Yet she still betrayed > them. > > Magpie: > Harry hid the marks on his hands. Nobody knew except a few people, > certainly not Marietta. However wrong her actions are, they make > sense to me from her pov without her intentionally trying to do what > Harry sees from his pov. > Charles: In HBP, Hermione mentions that the marks on Harry's hands were still visible and that others knew what they were. Besides that, we know that Umbridge used what I have seen called a blood quill on other students, notably Lee Jordan, so it would be common knowledge amongst the students what she was doing. > Jenni: > > Marietta didn't suffer all the physical 'and' emotional pain like > > Harry did. Harry almost lost his own life to Voldemort and saw > Cedric > > lose his life right before his eyes. He suffered the ultimate > terror, > > knowing he was utterly alone to face the ultimate evil. > > Magpie: > That's really here nor there, though. What Harry suffers has nothing > to do with Hermione's hex plan, just as Marietta's actions are not > what Harry is dealing with earlier when he's trying to tell people > the truth. Comparing their suffering is kind of beside the point. > (Though I would say that I suspect the author would never make Harry > suffer from this kind of hex.) > Charles: Actually, Harry has suffered all his life from something frighteningly similar to what Marietta did to activate that jinx. It was *betrayal* that activated the jinx, not Hermione's nastiness. I don't like Hermione myself, because of her hypocrisy and her Umbridgeness in HBP. After all that Harry has suffered from the ministry, she speaks of "official" and "ministry approved." But in the DA jinx I happen to support her, because she did tell the prospective DA members that they were signing an agreement to not inform anyone what they were doing. Marietta chose to break that agreement, knowing what was happening to people at Hogwarts who fell afoul of the toad. I guess what I'm saying is that I understand her actions, but don't like her attitude. I would write more, but I'm late getting out the door as it is. From mros at xs4all.nl Thu Oct 26 17:55:04 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:55:04 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione References: Message-ID: <001601c6f927$ddb75c20$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 160395 Tesha: I'm sorry but I got to this and just had to respond: > Magpie: > Yes, but Hermione always thinks whatever she's trying to do is > justification for whatever she wants to do--even if she'd turn > around and scold or punish someone else for something similar. In > the case of CoS she steals Potions, encourages the boys to cause > havoc in class, knocks out two students, steals their bodies and > invades their privacy. Tesha: Knocks them out? are you refering to the Crabbe and Goyle incident? Knocks them out? They grab cupcakes floating in mid air and fall asleep. Steals their bodies? Invades their privacy? Come on! The worse that happens is that they have their shoes borrowed without their permission - and the purpose of the whole exercise is to find out what Draco knew about the CoS... and who was the only one hurt? Hermione! She paid a high price for trying to help save the school. Marion: Identity-theft is a felony both in the Real World as in the WW. That's why Polyjuice is a controlled substance and why you would be thrown into jail for forging id's, stealing ATM card and/or their codes or internet-piracy. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 26 18:14:08 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:14:08 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160397 > Hickengruendler: > > She also gets interviewed by Umbridge during Hagrid's inspection. I > wanted to throttle her while reading the part, even though I don't > like Hagrid as a teacher and think he should have stayed > groundskeeper. Magpie: I like Pansy--though I don't find her a character to admire. I think it's because I see vulnerability in her despite her nastiness (I find her friendship with Draco believable as well). The last time I genuinely *felt* vulnerability from Hermione was in PS/SS when Ron says she's got no friends. (The "I see no difference line" seems like it should make me feel that, but I don't.) GinnyII in the last two books is even worse in this regard--I find it hard to even believe in her as anything but a fictional construct. Pansy seems genuinely insecure about Hermione and other girls, and makes mistakes in her attempts to be feminine herself. > Tesha: > Knocks them out? are you refering to the Crabbe and Goyle incident? > Knocks them out? They grab cupcakes floating in mid air and fall > asleep. Steals their bodies? Invades their privacy? Come on! Magpie: Um, yes. They're given knock out drops and Harry and Ron Polyjuice themselves into them to get into their common room and pretend to be them to listen to private conversation. That's a perfectly accurate description of what happens. I can't believe if Harry lived through a similar experience it wouldn't be seen that way. (Interestingly, Crabbe and Goyle aren't the only student who ever find themselves temporarily borrowed by someone else in CoS.) Tesha: > > The worse that happens is that they have their shoes borrowed without > their permission - and the purpose of the whole exercise is to find > out what Draco knew about the CoS... > > and who was the only one hurt? Hermione! She paid a high price for > trying to help save the school. Magpie: I doubt that if this was done to the Trio (even to find out what Harry knew about the CoS) it would be considered such a minor thing. I imagine Hermione herself would be *furious* if an enemy did this to them--as would anyone--and Hermione would probably enact some sort of revenge along the lines of her revenge on Rita Skeeter or Marietta. Sure none of the Slytherins are physically hurt (and Hermione's being hurt is genuinely all from her own actions, part of the risk she agrees to with her own plan) and the biggest thing that happens to them is that the Malfoy's secret chamber becomes known to Harry and Ron (something that is certainly a big deal for him and would be a bigger deal to us if it were one of the Trio's secrets), but I don't see how this makes it such a great thing to justify this kind of thing so much there's nothing questionable about it. As I said, I get what Hermione's intentions were. There's more to right and wrong than just identifying the reason the person in question had for doing something. There's a reason some things need to apply to everyone, not just the good guys. Only being able to see things from the pov of what Hermione wants or what the good side needs in the short term isn't, imo, a workable ethical system. Charles: That only proves that they did not do so, not that they *could* not. Magpie: I guess I assumed if they could they would have--at least Madam Pomfrey. Though that doesn't change Hermione's continued choice to not undo the hex--or perhaps her having created a hex she couldn't undo. Charles: In HBP, Hermione mentions that the marks on Harry's hands were still visible and that others knew what they were. Besides that, we know that Umbridge used what I have seen called a blood quill on other students, notably Lee Jordan, so it would be common knowledge amongst the students what she was doing. Magpie: Personally, I think it's very possible the quill isn't known by many people during the year. Harry knows what the marks on Lee Jordan's hands are and feels solidarity with him. But actually, I don't think that necessarily informs Marietta's actions one way or the other. Students are probably capable of rationalizing a lot of punishments that are over the line if they want. Charles: Actually, Harry has suffered all his life from something frighteningly similar to what Marietta did to activate that jinx. It was *betrayal* that activated the jinx, not Hermione's nastiness. Magpie: I meant that Harry would never be subjected to acne, a humiliating and repulsive punishment. Harry's suffering is far cooler. I would never suggest anything but Marietta's actions activitated the jinx. It's just that the jinx's origins are equally clear. Charles: But in the DA jinx I happen to support her, because she did tell the prospective DA members that they were signing an agreement to not inform anyone what they were doing. Magpie: Actually, one of the problems I have is that I think she implies something a lot less formal than she really means. Had she made it more clear I think her hex would have been more useful. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 18:19:44 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:19:44 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160398 > Charles: > > Actually, Harry has suffered all his life from something > frighteningly similar to what Marietta did to activate that jinx. It > was *betrayal* that activated the jinx, not Hermione's nastiness. > Alla: I remember in the past discussions about the jinx the arguments were made that punishment was not thought out well, etc( among others). I mean, putting that aside, I suppose I would have *much** bigger issue with Hermione if she would have placed that jinx on Marietta afterwards, if that makes any sense. That would mean for me that Hermione targeted Marietta specifically. I know it was already said upthread and I agree with it - Hermione targeted a potential traitor, not Marietta specifically. Now, of course Hermione's actions caused it, I cannot taker her out of the equation, but the fact that she targeted just **any** traitor, makes it indeed much easier to understand for me. Strangely, I would be more upset if Hermione decided to punch Marietta when she is down, so to speak - I mean punish her after we would learn that she did the betrayal. As it stands now ( in my mind of course) - preventive measure ( if not perfectly thought out), I support Hermione as well. And yes, I do see the parallels although on smaller scale of Harry sufferings and what Hermione at least tried to prevent. It also makes me think of Mcgonagall humiliating Neville for passwords being stolen in PoA. I extremely dislike what she did in that scene, but I do not call it flat out verbal abuse, because IMO Minerva would have done it to **any** student who would wrote the passwords, not just Neville, I sort of think that she is an equal opportunity humiliator ( contrary to someone we all know :)) Just as here Hermione targeted anyone, who would betray the group, not just Marietta. JMO, Alla From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Oct 26 18:23:03 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:23:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160399 > > Magpie: > > Yes, but Hermione always thinks whatever she's trying to do is > > justification for whatever she wants to do--even if she'd turn > > around and scold or punish someone else for something similar. In > > the case of CoS she steals Potions, encourages the boys to cause > > havoc in class, knocks out two students, steals their bodies and > > invades their privacy. > >Tesha: >Knocks them out? are you refering to the Crabbe and Goyle incident? >Knocks them out? They grab cupcakes floating in mid air and fall >asleep. Steals their bodies? Invades their privacy? Come on! > >The worse that happens is that they have their shoes borrowed without >their permission - and the purpose of the whole exercise is to find >out what Draco knew about the CoS... > >and who was the only one hurt? Hermione! She paid a high price for >trying to help save the school. wynnleaf, I agree with magpie. For instance in the COS insident, the trio really only had the most flimsy reasons for thinking Draco was opening the COS ("he's a pureblood elitist who says awful things" just doesn't rank as a good reason). And on this flimsy excuse, Hermione thinks up a plans to 1. deceive a teacher and get into the restricted section of the Library on false pretenses, 2. steal from a teacher 3. have Harry and Ron create a diversion that injures innocent students in class 4. drug two students who have absolutely nothing to do with the problem at hand and steal their identities for a time. And they never even got any good information for the simple reason that the person they suspected, Draco, had nothing to do with it. Their assumption that just because Draco was their schooltime rival and pureblood elitist meant that *he* had to be the one trying to kill kids is simply ridiculous. Hermione likes Harry and Ron, but some of her actions show an incredible insensitivity. To attempt to trick the house elves into accepting freedom on *her* terms is terrible. It would be one thing to try and talk them into it, or convince them of the desirability of freedom. But Hermione doesn't much bother with this option -- after all, what does it matter whether or not they agree? I was having a conversation just yesterday with a teacher of gifted kids in which we discussed how, when one is extremely intelligent -- and particularly a very bright child -- one gets used to being always "right," at least in an academic sense. It is very easy for such children to be so used to being always "right," and always knowing more than their friends, classmates and sometimes teachers, that they simply assume that not only are their *facts* always right, so are their opinions, decisions and choices. Hermione strikes me as very much this way. It's probably even worse with her being an only child. If Hermione were my kid, I'd want to see her in an environment with some other similarly or more highly gifted kids so she could be around people who could challenge her opinions and decisions. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Try the next generation of search with Windows Live Search today! http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 18:55:53 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:55:53 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160400 Magpie wrote: > I doubt that if this was done to the Trio (even to find out what > Harry knew about the CoS) it would be considered such a minor > thing. I imagine Hermione herself would be *furious* if an enemy > did this to them--as would anyone--and Hermione would probably > enact some sort of revenge along the lines of her revenge on Rita > Skeeter or Marietta. Sure none of the Slytherins are physically hurt > (and Hermione's being hurt is genuinely all from her own actions, > part of the risk she agrees to with her own plan) and the biggest > thing that happens to them is that the Malfoy's secret chamber > becomes known to Harry and Ron (something that is certainly a > big deal for him and would be a bigger deal to us if it were one of > the Trio's secrets), but I don't see how this makes it such a great > thing to justify this kind of thing so much there's nothing > questionable about it. As I said, I get what Hermione's intentions > were. There's more to right and wrong than just identifying the > reason the person in question had for doing something. There's a > reason some things need to apply to everyone, not just the good > guys. Only being able to see things from the pov of what > Hermione wants or what the good side needs in the short term isn't, > imo, a workable ethical system. Magpie wrote some more: > Personally, I think it's very possible the quill isn't known by many > people during the year. Harry knows what the marks on Lee > Jordan's hands are and feels solidarity with him. But actually, I > don't think that necessarily informs Marietta's actions one way or > the other. Students are probably capable of rationalizing a lot of > punishment that are over the line if they want. Amiable Dorsai: So, let me see if I understand: Hermione was wrong, wrong, wrong to do what she did to try to find and stop the person who was attempting to murder (as in kill) *people like her*, but Marietta's betrayal of 20-odd students--including her best friend?to a torturer is really no big deal? Amiable "but puzzled" Dorsai From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 26 18:56:28 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:56:28 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160401 > wynnleaf, > > I agree with magpie. For instance in the COS insident, the trio really only > had the most flimsy reasons for thinking Draco was opening the COS ("he's a > pureblood Tesha: I believe Draco was hinting that he was or knew the "Heir"- and - She does this for Harry - she does this for the school - she does this because she's a child and has no adult to go to for help. She does this because she's a know-it-all - who's not afraid to face a problem head on, and she always accepts the consequences of her actions. >To attempt to trick the house elves into accepting freedom Tesha: I'm sure you understand that this is a part of the plot, I'm sure you know that in a muggle school childern are taught that slavery is "evil", I'm sure you see that this is Hermione is going overboard - just like always. > If Hermione were my kid, I'd want to see her in an environment with some > other similarly or more highly gifted kids so she could be around people who > could challenge her opinions and decisions. > > wynnleaf > Tesha: She's very much like my first child - I know this character. And as much as she often does the wrong thing, she does it with an open heart. She is a good person. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 19:13:01 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:13:01 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160402 Carol earlier: > I'm not sure what you mean by "obtain characteristics of a Horcrux." > Possibly "obtain" is the wrong verb, but aside from that, the only > characteristic of a normal Horcrux (cup, locket, ring, etc.) is its > capacity to keep a bit of Voldemort's soul earthbound. > > Snow: > > A Horcrux holds a portion of Voldemort; therefore Harry does have the same characteristics as a Horcrux since he also holds a portion of > Voldemort. Carol again: Forgive me, but you're begging the question here by taking your point for granted. As I said, we don't know the characteristics of a Horcrux, other than that a Horcrux contains a soul fragment, anchoring the main or core soul to the earth and preventing the wizard from dying. And the "bit" of Voldemort contained in Harry seems to be some of his powers, including Parseltongue. We do not know and have not been told either by DD or the narrator that that "bit" is a soul fragment. > Snow: > According to the Encarta dictionary the definition of obtain: as a > transitive verb get something: to get possession of something, > especially by making an effort or having the necessary qualifications > > Harry did (obtain) get possession of something (a bit of Voldemort) > that is characteristic of all the other Horcruxes. Carol responds: Thanks for the clarification. If you'll forgive me, I think "acquire" might be closer to your intended meaning since "obtain" implies intention, and Harry certainly made no effort to "obtain" a bit of Voldemort, whether we're speaking of powers or a soul fragment. > Carol earlier: > > We can't deduce the characteristics of a Horcrux from the properties > of the diary, > which was always an interactive magical object different from the > others, and Nagini, if she is a Horcrux, is also atypical. > > Snow: > > Harry does possess a feature that is quite necessary when creating a > Horcrux, which is a bit of Voldemort, however that does not make > Harry a Horcrux like the other items mentioned since they are all > inanimate objects (even the Diary without Ginny's soul) as opposed to Harry who is a living soul. Carol responds: Here I agree with you. The Voldiebit, whatever it is (and it may not be a soul bit) does not necessarily make Harry a Horcrux, any more than Ginny was a Horcrux when Diary!Tom possessed her. The diary, even without Ginny's soul, is different from the other Horcruxes because it contains at least one *memory* of Tom Riddle in addition to the soul bit. Consequently, we can't use it to determine the characteristics of a standard Horcrux, which is merely an object (preferably a valuable, magical object) in which a soul bit is encased. It may or may not contain a protective curse, as the ring did. (I expect that the locket and the cup will be similarly protected, but we just don't know.) As for Nagini, her closeness to Voldemort is the antithesis of Harry's enmity, and Voldemort can possess her without killing or even paining her (Harry seeing from the snake's pov felt no pain)--very different from the pain Harry feels in his scar even before Voldie is restored using his blood. So, yes, I agree. Harry is not like any of the Horcruxes, including Nagini, who is a living being with a will of her own whether or not she has a soul. > Snow: > Let's see how Harry does fit the Horcrux definition. > > "A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has > concealed part of their soul." HBP pg. 497 Carol: And right away it appears that he isn't a Horcrux because Voldemort hasn't concealed anything in him. All he's done is try, more than once, to kill him. > Snow: > The three stages to make a Horcrux as conveyed by Slughorn are step: > > (1) "By an act of evil ? the supreme act of evil. By committing > murder. 498 > > What could be more evil than to kill an unarmed mother who is not > even attempting to fight back? I would say that Voldemort secured the first stage of making a Horcrux that night at GH. Carol: Certainly, he murdered Harry's mother though it was Harry he intended to murder, and the soul bit created by Harry's murder that he intended to encase. To me, that's clearly the reason that he wanted Lily to step aside. The soul fragment detached by her death would be too insignificant, in his view, for a Horcrux. (We're left to presume that James's death in a duel or battle didn't qualify as a murder for the purpose of creating a Horcrux, however unfair Voldemort's tactics, and to wonder what became of the soul fragments from all those other murders. Did they go floating off, too? If so, Voldie is left with considerably less than one-seventh of a soul, even assuming that he can detach an exact seventh each time he creates a Horcrux regardless of the number of murders he's committed.) But a split soul does not a Horcrux make, or most of the Death Eaters and every other murderer in the WW would have one. (We don't even know whether all killing results in a split soul or what exactly a split soul means.) > > (2) "and hide part of it in an object outside the body." 497 > > The part of Voldemort's soul that was split when he murdered Lily did hide itself outside of Voldemort's body. Again I would have to say that Voldemort did secure step two when he blew himself up attempting to AK Harry. (You have a split soul inside a body that was just blown up. The split portion is separated from the core soul so it can no longer remain with the core soul, that little bugger had to go somewhere) Carol: Did it? Where is your evidence that it didn't say with the core soul? Certainly he didn't deliberately detach the torn soul and encase it in an object, which requires both an object (not a person) and a spell. and what about all the other murders he committed that weren't used for Horcruxes? We have, at the very least, Myrtle, three Riddles, Hepzibah Smith, an Order member he killed personally, James if he counts, and Lily. That's eight, more than enough for the five Horcruxes he would have had before Godric's Hollow if DD's calculations are correct. There are certainly many others considering the number of Inferi in the cave. But my point is, how do you know that the Lily fragment hid itself outside Voldemort's body? What was left of his soul was expelled from his body, but how do you know that the Lily fragment didn't remain with the core soul? Can you cite canon that it didn't, or that it "hid itself"? What would prevent that unencased fragment from going behind the Veil or simply ceasing to exist if it were somehow detached from the main soul with no container to encase it? Suppose that it is merely detachable but not detached? Snow: > (3) "Encase? But how - ?" > "There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" 498 > > So it takes a spell to purposely encase an object in something > according to the Slughorn-suggestions-on-how-to-make-a-Horcrux. I > think he is right when you are speaking of the conventional Horcrux > that has no soul of its own, which I believe he was since attempting > to use a living soul is inadvisable. > Carol: I'm not sure what you mean here since the spell would be required regardless of whether the object had a soul or not. And DD doesn't mention souls, only living beings that can think and move on their own, meaning Nagini. (There are, IMO, other reasons not to use a living being, such as mortality, but DD for some reason didn't mention that.) At any rate, I'm quite sure that the same spell that was used on the diary, the ring, the cup, the locket, and the unknown Ravenclaw object was also used on Nagini, if she's a Horcrux. And it emphatically was *not* used on Harry. As you say, it's a spell to *purposely* encase an object, and LV would have to be crazier than he is already to make a Horcrux of the child he intended to kill, using the soul fragment from the murder of that child before he'd killed the child (oops, not possible) or using the child's very biodegradable body--I doubt that he would have wanted a baby's skull as his "something from Gryffindor." And there's no chance that he would have let the Chosen One live as a living Horcrux. We know the spell he cast was the Killing Curse. Snow: > What we are left with as a conclusion to this third part of the > Horcrux endeavor as it might apply to Harry is that Voldemort did not purposely say a spell to encase a piece of himself inside of Harry > otherwise he would be aware that Harry had a piece of his soul. Carol: Agreed. > Snow: > In final conclusion of this enactment of events at GH as compared > with the making of a Horcrux, I would have to say that Voldemort > willing or not created the conditions for 2/3rds of the process. > Since the final 1/3 of the process was mute we must conclude that > Harry is not an official Horcrux as per Slughorn's how-to process. Carol: I'd say that the only condition that was indisputably met is the first, and LV has committed other murders that weren't made into Horcruxes. We have not been told that a soul bit or bits were released when Voldemort's soul was ripped from his body. Surely Dumbledore would have raised the possibility when he was talking about Horcruxes and Harry would say, "So that's how I got some of his powers!" if that were the case. So not only is Harry not an official Horcrux, IMO he's not even an unofficial one. Even if there's a soul bit in him, there's no spell to encase it. He doesn't act like the only known living Horcrux, Nagini (assuming that she is one). All we know is that he has some of Voldemort's powers, which could as easily have entered the cut that would later become a scar through a drop of LV's magical blood as through a detached soul fragment. IMO, if Harry had been possessed by a soul bit, he'd have behaved a lot more like possessed!Ginny, Quirrel!mort, or possessed!Nagini. Not a sign of it, and we know that Lily's sacrifice has made him unpossessable, at least by Voldemort. Snow: > Whether Harry is a Horcrux or not the fact still remains that Harry > has a bit of Voldemort > > ["Voldemort put a bit of himself in me? [ ] > "It certainly seems so." COS pg. 333] Carol: Granted. He has some of Voldemort's *powers*, including Parseltongue, a unique form of mutual Legilimency, and possibly possession, which I expect to see in Book 7. But we're told that magic resides in the blood (not a drop of magical blood in the Dursleys' veins, the whole pureblood, half-blood, "Mudblood" concept, Harry's blood used to restore Voldemort--note that Wormtail used the *bone* of Voldemort's Muggle father but the *blood* of a powerful fellow wizard). I see no evidence anywhere that powers reside in the soul. "A bit of himself" is not necessarily a soul fragment. > Snow: > that was marked with a scar > > [" and in marking you with that scar, he did not kill you, as he > intended, but gave you powers, and a future OOP pg. 842] > > and Dumbledore realized the moment he laid eyes on little Harry what that scar was. Carol: This is your interpretation. IMO, the scar resulted from the AK bursting out of Harry's head. Granted, it serves both as a symbol that Voldemort has "marked him as his equal" and as a conduit of communication between them, but I think it's a stretch to imply that Voldemort deliberately or otherwise put a bit of himself in Harry and marked the bit with the scar. IMO, the scar, which was originally a cut on Harry's forehead, came before the "bit" entered Harry *by means of* the cut. Certainly, Voldemort didn't deliberately put it there. I think DD is condensing events a bit. Yes, the scar contains the powers, but that doesn't mean that it contains a soul bit. All DD is saying is that instead of being killed, Harry now has a scar, some of Voldemort's powers, and a future as the Chosen One. Not a word about being an accidental Horcrux or unofficial Horcrux. Powers, yes; soul bit, unmentioned. > Carol: > ["when I saw the scar upon your forehead, what it might mean. I > guessed that it might be the sign of a connection forged between you > and Voldemort." OOP pg. 827] Carol: Granted. But no soul bit is required for the scar to serve as a connection, as we know it does. All that's required is one of Voldemort's peculiar powers, in this case, Legilimency. > Snow: > Voldemort made Harry equal to himself when he attacked baby Harry a > connection by putting a bit of himself in Harry 1/7th of a bit I > would say. Carol: So in your view, he might as well be a Horcrux. Wouldn't he have to die for the soul bit to be destroyed, just as he would if he were an official Horcrux? And in that case, how can he kill or destroy the Horcruxless Voldemort? Carol, whose scenario doesn't require any such complications From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 26 19:03:22 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:03:22 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: <001601c6f927$ddb75c20$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160403 > > Marion: > > Identity-theft is a felony both in the Real World as in the WW. That's why Polyjuice is a controlled substance and why you would be thrown into jail for forging id's, stealing ATM card and/or their codes or internet-piracy. > Tesha: mmm, her last instruction to the boys as off they went, "Remember to rifle throught their sock drawers." no, I'm not saying it's a good thing to break the law, but this gave JKR an opportunity for the kids to be in the girls bathroom - to get to know Myrtle - to set up the rest of the action that happens there. and remember their ages! when searching for a solution as an adult, I'll be you can think of other ways to find out if the bad guy is hiding something - to kids this drama-filled action-packed adrenalin-rushing trip to the lower dungeons is cool. From elsa_bard at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 16:39:59 2006 From: elsa_bard at yahoo.com (elsa_bard) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:39:59 -0000 Subject: Lavender vs Hermione (was:Re: Lavender Brown - help needed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160404 > Tesha: > I love Hermione. Something bad happens - like Draco hitting her with a > spell that grew her teeth - she takes the lemons and makes lemonaide. > SNIP >She's not afraid of being Hermione, and I > really love her character - I'd love to she what she becomes as an > adult character - would she be another McGonagall? Elsa: I agree completely. If she survives book 7 and nothing specific is said I will go happily into the unwritten future believing that Hermione becomes a teacher at Hogwarts and possibly even Headmistress someday. She's brilliant, rule-oriented and passionate about knowledge. She'd be perfect. McGonagall is defintely the teacher she's most like. Elsa From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 19:43:08 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:43:08 -0000 Subject: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: <01b401c6f8af$adfde260$980dadcf@michaelp> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160405 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Michael Perry" wrote: > But isn't the Black house protected beyond this? Harry had > to be shown a piece of paper (filled out by DD???) with the > key to the house. He had to invoke the key to get into the > house, as I recall. > > Could Muggles invoke such a key? Why have HP invoke it, if > the house isn't hidden from all who haven't invoked it? zanooda: No, there was no any invoked key, but you are right in a way, because it was no ordinary door. There was no keyhole at all, and to open it, Lupin had to tap the door with his wand. Only then Harry heard many locks unlock by themselves from the inside, and the door opened. I don't have the book with me, but if you are interested in the exact quote, it should be in OotP, "Number twelve, Grimmauld Place" chapter. If it always works like that, a Muggle only can enter if accompanied by a wizard, or if someone opens the door for him from inside the house. From gg682000 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 16:22:54 2006 From: gg682000 at yahoo.com (louis ruggiero) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:22:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: dumbledore as a ghost In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061026162254.27465.qmail@web82401.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160406 > >>Eddie: >> Good question. But I think the answer is that Dumbledore _WILL_ cross over and not remain as a ghost. << Louis: The reason I suggested this is I read a interview with JKR and she herself said portraits are limited as a ghost he could do more. And also hinted that she may be giving something away by saying this. Louis From shmantzel at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 19:40:44 2006 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (shmantzel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:40:44 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: <002b01c6f8cf$ed60a350$8d570043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160407 > >>Eric: >> As the originator (AFAIK) of the "Hermione Granger Is (or Will Be) Ever So Evil" theory, as well as the author of what I think is the definitive "Dark Hermione" story, "The Girl Nobody Knows---A Soliloquy" (up at Fanfiction.net and Fiction Alley), I think I can understand the people who don't like her or distrust her---even though I, myself, like her a lot and can identify with her in some ways. << >> Between her ruthless streak and her self-righteousness, combined with her ability to argue others down (it's not that she's necessarily right, but she's able to talk others into going along with her plans) Hermione could go Dark. This doesn't mean she'd become a DE, even if she were eligible---there's too much bad blood on both sides for that to ever be a possibility. However, she could become a sort of "Oliver Cromwell" figure, imposing her own views on the rather anarchic Wizard World, possibly to its great detriment. << Dantzel: I can never quite agree with the fact that Hermione is capable of being dark or even a bad character, using various examples of 'ruthless' or that she stole things (ie Polyjuice Potion). Rowling did not create characters that were virtuous in all aspects of their lives. She tried to make them real people, as I see it. Think back to your days as a teenager - not 18, but 13 or 14. I, for one, slapped a boy when I was that age when I got fed up with his crap. I don't know anyone that hasn't been hypocritical at some point in their lives. To back this up with the HP world, look at Sirius. He was brave and loyal and at one point said "If you want to know the measure of a man, look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals." But did he live up to that? Look at his treatment of Kreature. It was a mistake, yes, but everyone has a hard time getting over prejudices in their lives, both in the HP world and our real-life world. Rowling's characters are fallible. They scream at their friends, they talk back to their parents/guardians. As to Marietta's face, remember that Hermione didn't target HER, she put the hex on in case ANYONE betrayed the group. What they were doing was dangerous but necessary in my opinion, and pretty much any secret society has *some* way to keep track of its members, right? I think Hermione's punishment (ugly face) is far less harsh than Voldemort's (death). All that was hopefully to point that despite imperfections, the basic part of Hermione is good and decent. She is a little bossy, yes, and she may be ruthless (I noticed noone berated her for blackmailing *poor* Rita Skeeter), but she does what she thinks is best, and she is much better at following the rules than most of the school is (not to mention much more sensitive to people's feelings than Ron or Harry). Dantzel, who appreciates the integrity of Rowling who does not allow her characters to be too perfect. :) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 21:13:42 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:13:42 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610260826x5a656db3xc0ac792c220a02bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160408 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I do like the women I'm not sure I'm supposed to like (Narcissa, > > Pansy, Lavender and Parvati) but part of that could well be the > > blank slate effect. > >>Random832: > It probably is, IMO. I mean... does Pansy even have a speaking > part? > She gets page time, sure, which is more than we can say for Daphne > Greengrass or Tracy Davis... but still, does she have any lines? > Out of curiosity, how do you see Pansy, in terms of personality / > etc? Betsy Hp: Okay, I thought about this some more, and I've realized that it's not *all* blank slate. For example, the reason I like Narcissa is because of her actions in Spinner's End. To grab Becca's (I believe) description of Molly, Narcissa is a lion when it comes to her child (and possibly husband). So I see something to admire there. With Pansy... I agree with Magpie's thing about Pansy's vulnerability. (Unlike Hermione: smart *and* pretty *and* above feeling the need to be pretty *and* popluar with all the cool boys *and* above the need to be popular with all the cool boys *and* so above being girly with the girls... -- blech.) But there's another thing Pansy's got going for her. Girl's got a sense of humor. Sure, Umbridge's interview of Hagrid was horrible, but it was also funny. And Pansy easily saw the humor in it. She's often described as laughing, IIRC. Whereas Hermione rarely is. (Actually, Hermione doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor at all.) You know, another part of this may well be the "enemy of my enemy" thing, too. I really dislike Molly. And Narcissa is sort of the anti-Molly. In a situation that would have had Molly crying in a heap on her kitchen floor, Narcissa put on her kickiest witch-boots and headed off to rescue her son. Hermione reeks of disapproval of Pansy, and since I'm *positive* she'd have disapproved of me, well then, Pansy must be doing something right. Betsy Hp From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Oct 26 21:19:02 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:19:02 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160409 > Dantzel: > [...] > Rowling did not create characters that were virtuous in all aspects > of their lives. She tried to make them real people, as I see it. > [...] > Rowling's characters are fallible. They scream at their friends, they talk back to their parents/guardians. Eddie: Yep. Also, much of this discussion is applying a standard of consistency that is unrealistic (IMHO) for a realistic 3-Dimensional character. I've certainly said and done things due to anger, fatigue, stress, immaturity (when I _THOUGHT_ I was so mature) that I so wish I hadn't. But that's the real world. > Dantzel: > As to Marietta's face, remember that Hermione didn't target HER, she > put the hex on in case ANYONE betrayed the group. Eddie: There are two things Hermione should have done differently: (1) Warned / Reminded people that they were signing a _MAGICAL_ contract which has magical consequences for breaking it; (2) Given poor Marietta a break and lifted the curse at the end of the year (assuming Hermione knew how!) I don't think these made her evil. Just oh so 16. Eddie From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Oct 26 21:37:49 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:37:49 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160410 > Amiable Dorsai: > So, let me see if I understand: Hermione was wrong, wrong, wrong to > do what she did to try to find and stop the person who was attempting > to murder (as in kill) *people like her*, but Marietta's betrayal of > 20-odd students--including her best friend?to a torturer is really no > big deal? > > Amiable "but puzzled" Dorsai Magpie: No, this sounds like a false dilemma, but maybe that's the wrong term. First it assumes that one having a problem with Hermione's actions means one can't also have problems with Marietta's actions, so changes "I think Hermione did wrong" to "I don't think Marietta did wrong." Also one's only choices aren't only Marietta betraying a secret club formed in adversity to someone who might expel them being no big deal or Hermione being forbidden to do anything to try to stop a snake that wants to eat her. Both option A and B are unacceptable. Marietta's betrayal being a bad thing does not automatically make anything Hermione did beyond reproach. Having a problem with Hermione's behavior does not give Marietta a free pass on what she did. The basilisk going after Muggleborns doesn't give Hermione a blank check to do whatever she wants because she's Muggleborn. Having a problem with one thing Hermione does in response to the basilisk doesn't mean doing anything in response to the basilisk is off limits. Tesha: She does this for Harry - she does this for the school - she does this because she's a child and has no adult to go to for help. She does this because she's a know-it-all - who's not afraid to face a problem head on, and she always accepts the consequences of her actions....She's very much like my first child - I know this character. And as much as she often does the wrong thing, she does it with an open heart. She is a good person. Magpie: But what's the difference in the way we judge the actions of good people? When good people do wrong, is it wrong or is it justified and rationalized because they're good so it doesn't count? Something tells me if Mrs. Crabbe came in for a meeting with Dr. Granger over the Polyjuicing incident she wouldn't be too emotionally moved by speeches about how Hermione slipped her son a mickey with an open heart. (And there are times she's a bit too ruthless for me to think her heart's a good guide.) Hermione sometimes accepts the consequences of her actions, but I don't know that she always has to face realistic ones. Would you support Hermione's actions if it were your daughter she was acting against? Or yourself? And btw, Hermione actually did have adults she could go to for help in CoS iirc. I accept what she did and don't consider the character evil for doing it. But just as it may feel that is what some of us are doing from this side it sometimes feels like you can only judge Hermione's actions in a positive way. Tesha: no, I'm not saying it's a good thing to break the law, but this gave JKR an opportunity for the kids to be in the girls bathroom - to get to know Myrtle - to set up the rest of the action that happens there. and remember their ages! Magpie: But...isn't that what you're saying, that it was a fine thing? You seemed to be disagreeing she'd even done the things I'd said she'd done. Because I don't think anybody is saying this was bad for the story. I think I acknowledged it was good for the plot and a fun spy caper. It is a great way for the kids to meet Myrtle as well. But I can see that without giving Hermione a gold star for ethics--and I think plenty of kids could handle that. I've no doubt if some other student had done this for their own reasons Hermione herself would be horrified--say, if someone had done exactly the same thing to the Trio because they suspected Harry of being the Heir. It seemed to me that that was what was being argued, that there was nothing wrong with Hermione's actions. I don't think it would be a bad thing for Hermione to get a wake-up call about this sort of thing either. Dantzel: What they were doing was dangerous but necessary in my opinion, and pretty much any secret society has *some* way to keep track of its members, right? Magpie: Actually, Hermione's hex didn't much keep track of the members. It just punished anyone who'd betrayed them after the fact. That's its main strength. Dantzel: I think Hermione's punishment (ugly face) is far less harsh than Voldemort's (death). Magpie: She is a bit better than the murderous sociopath advocating genocide. Dantzel: She is a little bossy,yes, and she may be ruthless (I noticed noone berated her for blackmailing *poor* Rita Skeeter), Magpie: Actually she has been called on blackmailing Rita Skeeter in the past-- it's a step further down the same road, and part of the whole "I'm not comfortable with her assuming that much power..." angle. Dantzel: but she does what she thinks is best, and she is much better at following the rules than most of the school is Magpie: Well, she's good at telling others to follow the rules. Doing what she thinks is best usually takes precedence. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other students who have followed the rules more than Hermione during their time at Hogwarts. Not that following the rules in itself is always a good thing. Dantzel: (not to mention much more sensitive to people's feelings than Ron or Harry). Magpie: Of course, being sensitive to others' feelings doesn't always translate into respecting them. -m, who likes Hermione and doesn't like characters to be too perfect, but has been in fandom long enough to know that sometimes "not perfect" means "they're flawed in the good way." From caaf at hotmail.com Thu Oct 26 21:40:45 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:40:45 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes - a different thought Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160411 Hi all, With all the discussion about Horcruxes after Goddlefrood's excellent summary, I again remembered something that had been back of mind for quite some time. Before I write about the item in particular, just a few reminders about what Harry and DD believe (do not even want to get into the discussion about what Hircruxes may actually be out there) There were 6 Horcruxes in all, of which 2 were destoyed, leaving the following four: a) The cup b) The locket c) Something of Gryffindors or Ravenclaws d) Possibly Nagini Now, there has been substantial evidence represented here that has convinced me that RAB is indeed Regulus Black, and that information along with the locket found at 12,GP does make me believe that Slytherin's locket was probably there during the OoTP timeline. It may still be there or it may have been nicked by Dung and may even be with Dumbledore (not Albus but Aberforth). Now, the question in my mind - in the cave, when Harry tried the Sumoning Charm - he said Accio Horcrux. Quote from HBP: The Cave With a noise like an explosion, something very large and pale erupted out of the dark water some twenty feet away; before Harry could see what it was, it had vanished again with a crashing splash that made great, deep ripples on the mirrored surface. This looks like one of the Inferi has probably leapt out of the lake and then fell back in. DD's explanantion was that it was something that is "ready to respond should we attempt to seize the Horcrux" However, that does not add up for me. Why would something have responded if there was no real Horcrux to be retreived? I believe that one of the Inferi had a Horcrux on him or her, and that particular Inferius (sp?) was pulled up with the Accio Horcrux, but fell back into the lake after that, a the charm may not have been sufficient to summon it all the way. If so, it maybe that RAB is now one of the many Inferi in that lake, with the difference that he has a Horcrux on him. And that Horcrux maybe a different one from the Locket. If so, I would bet that it was the cup, which was the only thing that could have scooped out the potion from the basin in the center of the lake. (This thought is based on one of the incredible editorials I read on Mugglenet, by Maya) You can go to http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-maya03.shtml to read the editorial. Just waiting for this to be ripped apart - but the main question I have is, why did something in the cave respond to the Accio Horcrux spell? Cyril. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 21:44:41 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:44:41 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160412 > >>Amiable Dorsai: > So, let me see if I understand: Hermione was wrong, wrong, wrong > to do what she did to try to find and stop the person who was > attempting to murder (as in kill) *people like her*... Betsy Hp: I think just one "wrong" will do it. Hermione did steal, she did assult, she did invade. Was it worth it? Eh, I'm of two minds. On the one hand, Draco wasn't guilty so it's a massive waste of her "wrongs done" quota. But on the other hand, now they *know* Draco isn't guilty, and that's one name scratched off the list. But I do think it's bad to suggest that because Hermione was the one to come up with the plan, and that because she had a "good reason" for it, suddenly stealing, assult and invasion becomes a *good* thing. It makes me think of that saying: "Take what you want, but pay for it." Hermione should have recognized that she was doing something wrong there. She might see it as worth it, but she should recognize her own culpability. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > but Marietta's betrayal of 20-odd students--including her best > friend?to a torturer is really no big deal? Betsy Hp: Not at all. This isn't about Marietta or Marietta's actions. It's about Hermione and Hermione's actions. Hermione felt there were circumstances that gave her authority to disfigure (possibly permanently) a peer. And she has shown no signs of either regret or misgiving. Marietta was wrong. Hermione was horrifying. Betsy Hp From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 22:05:03 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:05:03 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160413 > Hickengruendler: > > > > My favourite female character is Hermione, because I think she's the > best written. I do not hold sending Umbridge to the centaurs against > her, since she was in a despereate situation and had to do something > to stop Dolly from torturing Harry. I find the Marietta jinx much > more problematic. It's about the only time, where I didn't like how > JKR wrote her, particularly that the jinx was still on Marietta's > face in HBP. I'll see if this stays one of the times, where I don't > like what JKR did, or if it will be used in a similar way the > Vanishing cabinet incident with the twins and Montague was used, > where I had problems with after OotP but bow like it very much, after > what happened in HBP, since I see why JKR wrote this. Amiable Dorsai: I have an idea about that: JKR seems to be making a lot of magical obligations of various kinds--Life Debts, the magical contract that Harry was entered into against his will, the Unbreakable Vow, and so on. It's my belief that a magical obligation, or obligations, will turn out to be important to the resolution of book 7--JKR does love to plant her seeds for later harvest, your example of the Vanishing Cabinet is right on the money, I think. In that vein, I'd speculate that what Marietta did was violate a magical contract between herself *and the rest of the DA*. If so, then Hermione probably can't lift the curse by herself--to do so, I'm guessing, would require that at least a majority of the DA members forgive the violation. I won't insist on this explanation, there are too many uncertanties in my chain of logic for that, but it would fit a theme that I think JKR is developing. Amiable Dorsai. From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Thu Oct 26 22:12:37 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:12:37 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place/ Was: Re: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160414 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jennifer Cardell Newton & Matthew Newton" wrote: > > I'm slightly confused. In HBP when Dumbledore died, the spell he cast > on Harry lifted. > :), > onlygoofy > Joe: I'm not entirely convinced that DD's death lifted the spell he cast on HP freezing him. I suspect that DD communicated to SS (through legilimency/occlumency) to AK DD and to lift the freezing spell on HP (non-audibly) as SS left the room. He (SS) was visibly angry before cursing DD and I suspect it was over his objection to both commands. Just my own humble opinion of course. From harryp at stararcher.com Thu Oct 26 22:13:02 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:13:02 -0000 Subject: Why didn't basilisk kill? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160415 OK, I know that everybody in Book 2: CoS who encountered the basilisk was petrified for one reason or another (basilisk gave deadly glare via mirror, camera, ghost, etc). But why didn't the basilisk then go ahead and kill/eat the victims _AFTER_ petrifying them? Surely this must be an ongoing problem for basilisks, that their intended dinners keep getting petrified instead of killed? Eddie From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 22:14:59 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:14:59 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160416 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Now, I'm not mathametician, but even I can see that you have no > > proper statistics to play with here. JKR has not given us > > enough information to make those sort of judgements, IMO. > >>Ken: > I figure it from the fact that of the small number of marriages > described a sizable fraction are mixed. No, in the real world this > is not a large enough sample to draw precise numerical conclusions > from nor is it a scientificly chosen sample. But even in the real > world a fraction of 10% or greater even from such a small sample > does imply that the true fraction is significant unless some bias > has been put into the data. Betsy Hp: Ah, but I think a bias *has* been put into the data. Harry is best friends with the son of a man devoted to Muggle rights. The information Harry receives (and we receive) is therefore going to be skewed. > >>Ken: > It is very unlikely the intermarriage rate is as small as 1% given > the data we have seen. But this isn't the real world, this is an > author painting a picture of an imaginary world. > Betsy Hp: Exactly!! I like to say that this is not anthropology. We may safely draw conclusions based on one tiny little scene because we *know* the author sees that scene as important and therefore defining. (Something an anthropologist can not, or should not, do.) Therefore I do think it's important that of the tiny amount of Muggle/Wizard marriages we've seen, all of them involve some sort of deception, and the bulk of them include an *incredibly* unequal power distribution. > >>Ken: > > I think we all hear about some pretty awful behaviour between > romantic partners on the nightly news. Betsy Hp: Yes, but they're in the news *because* they aren't the norm. > >>Ken: > Each of us who are married or in a live in relationship hold the > power of life and death over our partners as they do over us, how > much more control do you want? > Betsy Hp: Ken, your wife hasn't forced you to become a coffee table, has she? *That's* the kind of power I'm talking about. You could kill your wife, she could kill you: you're both equally powerful there. In a wizarding marriage I suppose either spouse could turn the other into random pieces of furniture: they're both equally powerful. But in a Muggle/Wizard marriage, the wizard has powers the muggle could never match. And in the few Muggle/Wizard marriages we've seen, that power has been abused. > >>Ken: > Betsy, all a pen does is put ink on paper, even in the WW. The > exceptions I can think of are Rita's Quick Quotes Quill which is > hardly an asset to a responsible journalist and the spell-checking > functions of Ron's pen. Betsy Hp: Okay, so Harry wouldn't be able to guarantee a proper quote. (Unless he learned short-hand... somewhere.) > >>Ken: > The act of writing, editing, or commentating is not a > fundamentally magical act, it is an exercise in human > intelligence. Harry has the training to edit magical books, he can > write or report as well as Rita Skeeter or Gilderoy Lockhart, he > has the Quidditch experience to be a commentator. > Betsy Hp: Right, only how many book editors or journalists can get by today without a computer? How many could get hired today if they explained that due to some horrible experience computers refuse to function for them? That's what Harry would be facing. > >>Sherry: > Speaking as a disabled person, I believe that Harry *could* learn > how to live as a muggle in the WW. However, I do not believe the > WW would accept him. I also don't think he'd have a very easy > adjustment. I think the WW would turn its back on him, as easily > as the so-called able bodied world turns its backs on disabled > people. > Betsy Hp: I completely agree. And I honestly think the WW would probably have the kind of fear and superstition that would lead them to shun and possibly even harm squib!Harry. > >>Ken: > I am sorry that your Harry is only a pale imitation of the Harry I > read about. > Betsy Hp: You know, I don't think I'm really talking about Harry though. I'm focused more on how the WW would receive him. Sure, Harry could figure out how to function. But the WW still wouldn't accept him. Betsy Hp From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Thu Oct 26 22:28:32 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:28:32 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160417 > Magpie: > But...isn't that what you're saying, that it was a fine thing? You > seemed to be disagreeing she'd even done the things I'd said she'd > done. Tesha: She read a book that was in the "Banned Area" She took some material from a teacher's private stock. She made and made available a spiked treat. She used her skills and knowlege to help her friend find out some information that might have helped save others. There was no violence, there was no physical harm (except to herself) - and she is just a child - I think that's pretty remarkable. I fail to see how you come to these conclusion... unless you simply despise her??? > Magpie: > She is a bit better than the murderous sociopath advocating genocide. >Betsy Hp: >Marietta was wrong. Hermione was horrifying. (This is rather of like hearing my husband's ex list off all the horrible things he's ever done in his life to prove he's worthy of her distain - when in fact he's the sweetest man I've ever met - we're going to just have to agree to disagree) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Oct 26 22:33:35 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:33:35 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160418 > Betsy Hp: > You know, another part of this may well be the "enemy of my enemy" > thing, too. I really dislike Molly. And Narcissa is sort of the > anti-Molly. In a situation that would have had Molly crying in a > heap on her kitchen floor, Narcissa put on her kickiest witch-boots > and headed off to rescue her son. Hermione reeks of disapproval of > Pansy, and since I'm *positive* she'd have disapproved of me, well > then, Pansy must be doing something right. > > Betsy Hp > Hickengruendler: Funny, because if I remember correctly, the very thing Narcissa did was "crying on the floor". Granted, it was Snape's floor, but still. ;-) Admittingly, she did reach her goals, and one could easily read the scene as that she was manipulating Snape into helping her. But instead of any difference between her and Molly, what always struck me about this scene is how "similar" they were portrayed, Molly in the Boggart chapter and Narcissa in "SPinner's End". Both were desperate for their children and broke down of it. Both had a very good reason for their reaction, even though with Molly it was more a general fear after Voldie's return, while with Narcissa a concrete was the reason. And both were in the end reassured by someone they consider a friend, Lupin and Snape, that the friend would care for their children. Therefore if anything, I see Narcissa as an echo of Molly, and far from being the Anti Molly, except possibly in looks. Hickengruendler From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 23:18:10 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:18:10 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160419 > Betsy Hp: > But I do think it's bad to suggest that because Hermione was the one > to come up with the plan, and that because she had a "good reason" > for it, suddenly stealing, assult and invasion becomes a *good* > thing. It makes me think of that saying: "Take what you want, but > pay for it." Hermione should have recognized that she was doing > something wrong there. She might see it as worth it, but she should > recognize her own culpability. Amiable Dorsai: Why do you believe that she does not? > > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > but Marietta's betrayal of 20-odd students--including her best > > friend?to a torturer is really no big deal? > > Betsy Hp: > Not at all. This isn't about Marietta or Marietta's actions. It's > about Hermione and Hermione's actions. Hermione felt there were > circumstances that gave her authority to disfigure (possibly > permanently) a peer. And she has shown no signs of either regret or > misgiving. > > Marietta was wrong. Hermione was horrifying. Amiable Dorsai: Ah, yes I see; you're right, of course, an embarrassing facial blemish is so much worse than a snapped wand, expulsion from school and blighted career prospects (times 28, including her best friend), plus probable Azkaban time for Harry, and perhaps for Hermione herself as a co-conspirator. I'm glad you put it in perspective for me like that. Amiable Dorsai From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 23:29:03 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:29:03 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160420 > >>Betsy Hp: > > You know, another part of this may well be the "enemy of my > > enemy" thing, too. I really dislike Molly. And Narcissa is > > sort of the anti-Molly. In a situation that would have had > > Molly crying in a heap on her kitchen floor, Narcissa put on her > > kickiest witch-boots and headed off to rescue her son. > > > >>Hickengruendler: > Funny, because if I remember correctly, the very thing Narcissa > did was "crying on the floor". Granted, it was Snape's floor, but > still. ;-) > Betsy Hp: Hee! True. However Narcissa did come up with a plan and execute it. And it was a dangerous plan, too. Recognizing that she wasn't going to be in a position to help Draco, she gathered the courage to go to someone who *might* have been able to help, managed to get him to say he'd help, and even got him to commit himself to helping. All in complete defiance of Voldemort. Which takes some guts, IMO. > >>Hickengruendler: > But instead of any difference between her and Molly, what always > struck me about this scene is how "similar" they were portrayed, > Molly in the Boggart chapter and Narcissa in "SPinner's End". Both > were desperate for their children and broke down of it. Both had a > very good reason for their reaction, even though with Molly it was > more a general fear after Voldie's return, while with Narcissa a > concrete was the reason. And both were in the end reassured by > someone they consider a friend, Lupin and Snape, that the friend > would care for their children. > Therefore if anything, I see Narcissa as an echo of Molly, and far > from being the Anti Molly, except possibly in looks. Betsy Hp: Hmm, I grant that both scenes showed that each woman loves their child(ren). But Molly was dealing with a mere possibility and fell apart. Narcissa had to face up to, and deal with, that fear becoming real. However... One thing that isn't fair is that we've not seen Molly dealing with a child in actual danger. She's not been given an opportunity to show how she'd handle an honest to goodness crisis. In many ways Molly is dealing with the more stressful *waiting* for the crisis to come. So while Narcissa has had a chance to show her courage, poor Molly is left at home clutching her clock. And I won't say that Narcissa would handle the clock better, or that Molly would deal with an actual crisis worse. (Or, well, I guess I have, but I recognize that I'm not being fair when I do so. ) That Narcissa has had her trial gives me something to like in her. That Molly has not... well, I'm left without a reason. So I guess in this case it's really apples and oranges. It's not fair for me to judge Molly until she's had her day. (And there are plenty of other reasons for me to dislike Molly. ) > >>Tesha: > She read a book that was in the "Banned Area" She took some > material from a teacher's private stock. Betsy Hp: Ah, but see you're already watering down. Hermione *stole* supplies from Snape's stock. Supplies that might be monitered for a reason. Who knows their expense or their volitility. You might argue that it was for a good cause, and I might even agree. But Hermione did steal. > >>Tesha: > She made and made available a spiked treat. Betsy Hp: Right. She caused both Crabbe and Goyle to be unconsious for a certain length of time. Again, her ends might have been worth it, but she still caused harm to two fellow students. (By encouraging Harry and Ron to cause a distraction in Potions, Hermione also took part in physically hurting members of her Potions class.) > >>Tesha: > > There was no violence, there was no physical harm (except to > herself) - and she is just a child - I think that's pretty > remarkable. Betsy Hp: Again, you're watering down. Hermione did cause physical harm. You knock someone out, you've harmed them. Yes, her plan *was* remarkable. But I think it's important to at least acknowledge that she did some wrong things to implement the plan. Especially since Hermione seems to be heading down a slippery slope of ends making all of her means right and good. > >>Magpie: > > She is a bit better than the murderous sociopath advocating > > genocide. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Marietta was wrong. Hermione was horrifying. > >>Tesha: > (This is rather of like hearing my husband's ex list off all the > horrible things he's ever done in his life to prove he's worthy of > her distain - when in fact he's the sweetest man I've ever met - > we're going to just have to agree to disagree) Betsy Hp: I think Magpie was more pointing out that saying "it's better than what Voldemort would have done" isn't the best way to argue that someone's choice is ethically sound. And I'm saying that when you start branding other people on the face, you're slipping into a fairly horrifying place. At least, IMO. I don't think Hermione is the sweetest character I've ever met. I don't even think she's the sweetest character in Potterverse. (I think Neville more fits that bill.) And I do refuse to discount Hermione's wrongs in order to try and shoe-horn her in to "sweet character" status. Or to try and force myself to like her. Betsy Hp From random832 at gmail.com Thu Oct 26 23:49:12 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 19:49:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610261649s6dedf541j155bd606bac92409@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160421 > Betsy Hp: > Therefore I do think it's important that of the tiny amount of > Muggle/Wizard marriages we've seen, all of them involve some sort of > deception, Andromeda Black & Ted Tonks? > >>Ken: > > Betsy, all a pen does is put ink on paper, even in the WW. The > > exceptions I can think of are Rita's Quick Quotes Quill which is > > hardly an asset to a responsible journalist and the spell-checking > > functions of Ron's pen. You've missed out one that Harry has had some unpleasant experience with. > Betsy Hp: > Okay, so Harry wouldn't be able to guarantee a proper quote. > (Unless he learned short-hand... somewhere.) Wizarding journalism doesn't appear to demand proper quotes. Hence, the quick quotes quill. and - for that matter it appears that the quick quotes quill is something you can buy at a store, not something you have to charm yourself - no evidence it wouldn't work for a muggle. We have no evidence that what's used by most wizards - even honest journalists (if such a thing exists), are anything more than ordinary quills with ordinary ink and ordinary parchment. > Betsy Hp: > Right, only how many book editors or journalists can get by today > without a computer? How many could get hired today if they > explained that due to some horrible experience computers refuse to > function for them? That's what Harry would be facing. You have not properly established that anything more than an _ordinary_ quill and _ordinary_ parchment are necessary - if he tried to be a reporter though he might have trouble establishing honest journalism as a genre. -- Random832 From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Thu Oct 26 22:32:00 2006 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Snape's Witch) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:32:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice Message-ID: <20061026223200.19650.qmail@web50115.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160422 Edis wrote: >Now my speculation. Dumbledore has been spying on Voldemort assuming >Sapes form, using Polyjuice. He is searching for Horcruxes. In this >Polyjuice speculation Cissy and Bella unexpectedly confront >Dumbledore/Snape at Spinners End. Dum/Snape finds it necessary to go >through the unbreakable vow procedure to carry forwards his overall >mission. Snape's Witch replies: This is an interesting theory. However after a careful reading, I'm convinced that the first three chapters of HBP take place on the same night at the same time. 'The Other Minister' opens "nearing midnight"; 'Spinner's End' begins with "the chilly mist that had pressed against the PM's windows drifted over a dirty river . . .": and Dumbledore appears at 4 Privet Drive at midnight in 'Will and Won't'. In addition 'Horace Slughorn' follows immediately after 'Will and Won't'. Although a definite time isn't stated in 'Spinner's End' I believe that it is inferred because of it's placement between the lst and 3rd chapters. If Snape is a polyjuiced Dumbledore then who is the man with Harry in Chapters 3 and 4? Surely not Snape? No, no, no. From k.coble at comcast.net Thu Oct 26 23:01:22 2006 From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:01:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Horcruxes - a different thought In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160423 On Oct 26, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Cyril A Fernandes wrote: > > However, that does not add up for me. Why would something have > responded if there was no real Horcrux to be retreived? >> . > Katherine: Because the Inferi were programmed to respond to any use of magic by anyone other than Voldemort. Voldemort had a better way to seize the locket, and so the Inferi knew that Harry's spell was coming from a wizard other than V. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dougsamu at golden.net Fri Oct 27 00:13:10 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:13:10 -0400 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160424 Betsy Hp: I completely agree. And I honestly think the WW would probably have the kind of fear and superstition that would lead them to shun and possibly even harm squib!Harry. Doug: Not only this, but there would be a few Death Eaters, even neo-DE's gunning for a powerless Harry. All in all it is such a black scenario, that I don't think Rowling will go there. As such then, because the outcomes just aren't pleasant as a consequence of being Squib!Harry - if all his powers are Voldemort's - and I don't want to be accused of using some kind of faulty logic structure - but because the consequence B is so distasteful, the cause, A should, in our best wishes, be not true. So, because it is merely a more pleasant thought to consider, Harry's powers are his own, and he has extra from Voldemort. No one, no one is here. We stand in the Atlantic. We become panoramic. ____________________ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 00:27:25 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:27:25 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160425 > > Magpie: > > But...isn't that what you're saying, that it was a fine thing? You > > seemed to be disagreeing she'd even done the things I'd said she'd > > done. > > Tesha: > She read a book that was in the "Banned Area" She took some material > from a teacher's private stock. She made and made available a spiked > treat. She used her skills and knowlege to help her friend find out > some information that might have helped save others. There was no > violence, there was no physical harm (except to herself) - and she is > just a child - I think that's pretty remarkable. > > > I fail to see how you come to these conclusion... unless you simply > despise her??? Alla: You know, you had me in your camp, still do for the most part .... up till "unless you simply despise her" part of your argument. Yes, while I can understand how some actions of Hermione could be criticised ( still would disagree, but at least understand), criticising operation polyjuice is well.... impossible to understand for me. I think it is a classical example of breaking the rules for the good purpose. I think the goal of catching the bastard who hates Muggleborns and could be Slytherin heir fully justifies knocking his two lackeys unconscious for an hour, especially when indeed IMO no physical harm was done here AND Hermione IMO was indeed the one who suffered the most after that operations. After Draco's little talk, I think they had perfect reasons to think of him as guilty party. So, yeah, if I **may** think that after jinxing Marietta Hermione's conscience should bother her very slightly ( NOT for coming up with the idea of punishing the traitor in the first place mind you), but for not removing the jinx after such long time, although I love Amiable Dorsai idea that Marietta violated magical contract and Hermione may not have been able to do so anyways. Searching for Slytherin heir, though I think was very well done, and Hermione can sleep well after that. It is still interesting though that JKR does punish her even then, hehe. Anyways, "unless you simply despise her" reminds me of the arguments I get sometimes when I criticise Snape. It goes like that, I bring some canon action of Snape that I consider despicable ( and there are plenty of those, hehe), the response I get sometimes - "Oh, you just do not like Snape" That implies to me that my argument based on canon example somehow gets discounted because I do not like Snape ( HAHA - as if I am trying to keep that fact a secret - Die Snape, die now :)) Magpie brought specific canon based action of Hermione that she dislikes,and while I personally as I said above cannot grasp how this action can be disliked, I find the response "you despise her" not to be very relevant. Sorry! JMO, Alla From kjones at telus.net Fri Oct 27 00:53:39 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 17:53:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45415893.4000903@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160426 > bboyminn wrote: >> As for a bit of speculation, it is still possible for >> people to get into Grimmauld Place without knowing the >> Secret, it's just not easy. Say, for example, that Harry >> wants Neville (or some other DA Club member) to come to >> Grimmauld Place. They can't actually be told about 12 >> Grimmauld Place because it is protected; those words can >> not be spoken, however, they could be told about Grimmauld >> Square because that is not protected. So, Harry could >> tell Neville (or who ever) to be at Grimmauld Square at >> 1:00pm. When Neville arrives, Harry steps outside and >> leads Neville into the house. I do believe that is a >> workable solution. KJ writes: While it seems like that might work, I am thinking that there are protections against that type of entry, otherwise anyone could bring whoever they wanted into the residence. I suspect that Harry, in that situation, might be able to see 12 Grimmauld Place because he has been given the information by the secret keeper. I don't believe that he would be able to pass that information on to anyone else, including inviting them inside. Neville would not be able to see it, Harry would not be able to explain it, and together, they would not be able to enter it. It seems to me that Moody was unable to speak the words of the address or information about where they were going to Harry, and it was necessary to give Harry the information via a note from the secret keeper before Harry could enter the residence. This would explain why it was necessary for Dumbledore to provide that information directly to the Dursleys because Harry would not be able to do so. In fact, that whole, scene with the Dursleys seemed to me to be staged for the sole purpose of providing that information to the Dursleys and reminding them all that the protections were over on his birthday. KJ From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 01:16:46 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:16:46 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160427 - > Dantzel: > Think back to your days as a teenager - not 18, but 13 or 14. I, for > one, slapped a boy when I was that age when I got fed up with his > crap. I don't know anyone that hasn't been hypocritical at some > point in their lives. wynnleaf, How many of us drugged our classmates, started intentional explosions that injured our friends, stole restricted supplies from teachers, permenantly disfigured others, or set up a very nasty teacher to get seriously injured or killed? Sorry, I don't buy Hermione's behavior as typical. Dantzel > To back this up with the HP world, look at Sirius. wynnleaf, Actually, very few teens contrive pranks to kill their teenage enemies. However, giving Sirius the benefit of the doubt -- that perhaps he never thought Snape would actually get hurt -- I think the "after Azkaban" actions of Sirius cannot be compared to Hermione. Sirius had just spent 12 years in Azkaban and two years living rough and on the run. It's unsurprising that his behavior was messed up. Dantzel > All that was hopefully to point that despite imperfections, the > basic part of Hermione is good and decent. She is a little bossy, > yes, and she may be ruthless (I noticed noone berated her for > blackmailing *poor* Rita Skeeter), wynnleaf, Oh, there's much more that could be mentioned! :D Rita is a good example. I don't too much blame her for blackmailing Rita -- after all, what Hermione is basically saying is for Rita not to lie any more about Harry or Hermione would reveal how Rita was breaking the law. But imprisoning Rita for --- how long? Can't recall. Would we have felt the same about Hermione imprisoning Rita if she had imprisoned her as a human in a hidden dungeon room? What gives Hermione this right? Dantzel but she does what she thinks is > best, and she is much better at following the rules than most of the > school is (not to mention much more sensitive to people's feelings > than Ron or Harry). wynnleaf Hermione is quite willing to break any rule that gets in her way. And she is sensitive primarily to those she likes, but has little sympathy for those she doesn't, or those she's angry at. wynnleaf, > > > > I agree with magpie. For instance in the COS insident, the trio > really only > > had the most flimsy reasons for thinking Draco was opening the COS > ("he's a > > pureblood > > Tesha: I believe Draco was hinting that he was or knew the "Heir"- > and - She does this for Harry - she does this for the school - she > does this because she's a child and has no adult to go to for help. > She does this because she's a know-it-all - who's not afraid to face a > problem head on, and she always accepts the consequences of her actions. wynnleaf I'm not sure what you mean by "accepts the consequences." There wasn't much to do about being turned into a cat. I wouldn't credit her with "accepting the consequences" when there's no other choice. She certainly doesn't confess to anything does she? I think she only accepts consequences when they cannot be avoided. > >To attempt to trick the house elves into accepting freedom > > Tesha: > I'm sure you understand that this is a part of the plot, I'm sure you > know that in a muggle school childern are taught that slavery is > "evil", I'm sure you see that this is Hermione is going overboard - > just like always. wynnleaf What does it being part of the plot have to do with what it says about Hermione's character? Voldemort murders people. We don't say "well, it's because of the plot," when we consider what that means about his character. > Tesha: > She's very much like my first child - I know this character. And as > much as she often does the wrong thing, she does it with an open > heart. She is a good person. > wynnleaf, She's a lot like one of my kids and I was sort of like that as a teen. But Hermione's character takes it a whole lot further than I would have, or my daughter, or probably most of the very bright kids we've known. Hermione is willing to truly hurt people to make what she wants to happen occur. Drugged students, students injured in classroom explosions, a student jinxed with a disfigurement, a teacher set up to be injured or killed. Sure, we can think that Hermione was trying to help, but most of the really bright kids I know do stop and think when their plans start reaching the level of intentionally harming others, especially when some of those others were basically just innocent bystanders. Further, in addition to actual physical harm, Hermione is willing to steal repeatedly to get her way. Not to mention the other deceptions. This kind of behavior is not typical teenage behavior, nor is it typical of the very bright headstrong child. Hermione is extreme in her desire to make things go her way. wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 27 01:34:36 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:34:36 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160428 -> Magpie: > Well, she's good at telling others to follow the rules. Doing what she > thinks is best usually takes precedence. I wouldn't be surprised if > there were other students who have followed the rules more than > Hermione during their time at Hogwarts. Not that following the rules > in itself is always a good thing. > > Pippin: Hermione has learned that rules are not gods, and that's good, IMO. She's learned to face danger without flinching, and that's good, too. Like Dumbledore, her habit is to consult with the most knowledgeable and intelligent person she knows, which is usually herself. That's also good, IMO, even if it's galling because we wish the most knowledgeable and intelligent person was Harry. But unlike Dumbledore, Hermione doesn't always let people know in advance when she's involving them in something that's against the rules or more than routinely dangerous and she doesn't give them a chance to back out. So far Harry has been willing to back her up after the fact, even when he has inner reservations. But, IMO, one of these days her habit of not giving people fair warning is going to catch up with her. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 01:35:34 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 01:35:34 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160429 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Hermione should have recognized that she was doing something > > wrong there. She might see it as worth it, but she should > > recognize her own culpability. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > Why do you believe that she does not? Betsy Hp: Hermione's steady slide into her ruthless judge persona is suggestive to me. Perhaps she needed a strong yank at this point. Maybe if Pomfrey had done a bit of investigating and McGonagall was brought in, Hermione would think about consequences a bit more. > >>Betsy Hp: > > This isn't about Marietta or Marietta's actions. It's about > > Hermione and Hermione's actions. > > > > Marietta was wrong. Hermione was horrifying. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > Ah, yes I see; you're right, of course, an embarrassing facial > blemish... Betsy Hp: Ah, the watering down continues. > >>Amiable Dorsai: > is so much worse than a snapped wand, expulsion from school and > blighted career prospects (times 28, including her best friend), > plus probable Azkaban time for Harry, and perhaps for Hermione > herself as a co-conspirator. > Betsy Hp: And we're back to making it all about Marietta again. Sorry, but I'm not talking about Marietta's actions. I'm talking about Hermione's action and only Hermione's actions. No one (including Marietta) held a gun to Hermione's head and said you must disfigure your classmate. Hermione did that all by her little, heartless, lonesome. Hermione came up with a form of punishment that went out with the 20th century. (It's outlawed in most civilized countries, I believe.) I cannot admire her for that. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 27 01:46:09 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:46:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) References: Message-ID: <006801c6f969$ad84c640$f66c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160430 > Tesha: > She read a book that was in the "Banned Area" She took some material > from a teacher's private stock. She made and made available a spiked > treat. She used her skills and knowlege to help her friend find out > some information that might have helped save others. There was no > violence, there was no physical harm (except to herself) - and she is > just a child - I think that's pretty remarkable. Magpie: So you're intentionally glossing over everything questionable? I guess I don't even really get why one would want to do that. Is it really strange my thinking it could be violating to be drugged and then have your body taken by another person to use to spy on your friends? To me it just obviously begs the question: is it okay if everyone does this? Who are the people who get to do it to others? What kind of situations is this okay in? What do you have to do to leave yourself open for this? This is all outside of just enjoying the caper within the story, of course. But I don't see why you can't do both. Tesha:> > > I fail to see how you come to these conclusion... unless you simply > despise her??? Magpie: Err..what on earth conclusion did I come to that you'd think I despised the character? I don't despise her. (I occasionally criticize characters I really like.) I just honestly described what she did. Instead of saying, "she used her skills and knowledge to help her friend find out some information that might save others" I said she slipped two innocent kids a mickey so that her friends could transform into their bodies for a while hoping to get another kid to say something to them they could use against him because they thought he was guilty. That would be true even if I thought what she did was a great blow for justice. I think Hermione would be angry at this if it were done to her and her friends, and still think so. Hermione has a pattern of doing some really extreme things when she decides what ought to happen, and of not always respecting the rights or desires of others. If we're talking about the character, I don't think this is something that should just be dismissed with a generic compliment about her good intentions. If we were talking about a real girl I'd think there was even less reason to do that--the girl's already convinced she knows best. She doesn't need encouragement. > >> Magpie: >> She is a bit better than the murderous sociopath advocating genocide. Tesha:> > (This is rather of like hearing my husband's ex list off all the > horrible things he's ever done in his life to prove he's worthy of her > distain - when in fact he's the sweetest man I've ever met - we're > going to just have to agree to disagree) Magpie: Wow. I think I'm debating at a wacky ethical situation in a work of fiction, but first the fictional character in question is your eldest daughter I can't appreciate and now when I make the imo obvious remark about the irony of defending a character's morals with the equivalent of "she's better than Hitler" I'm the hateful ex attacking your sweetest guy in the world husband. That's a bit uncomfortable. Hermione's not your daughter or your husband and I'm not the ex. If it always came down to whether we like the characters or not we'd never be able to discuss the books together. I tried to lay out the way I see the situation in terms of what's right and wrong. If I was reading the book to a kid I think I'd want to talk about this kind of thing. One thing I definitely wouldn't want the kid to come away with is the idea that because Hermione is a "good" person whatever she does must naturally be good. wynnleaf, How many of us drugged our classmates, started intentional explosions that injured our friends, stole restricted supplies from teachers, permenantly disfigured others, or set up a very nasty teacher to get seriously injured or killed? Sorry, I don't buy Hermione's behavior as typical. Magpie: True, and even if it were typical, that wouldn't mean it was wrong to point out where it's wrong, imo. There's plenty of things I've done in my life that were wrong, but I don't think that makes it hypocritical to identify it as wrong if someone else does it--as long as I'm saying it was wrong when I did it as well. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 02:03:37 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:03:37 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160431 > > >>Tesha: > > She read a book that was in the "Banned Area" She took some > > material from a teacher's private stock. > > Betsy Hp: > Ah, but see you're already watering down. Hermione *stole* supplies > from Snape's stock. Supplies that might be monitered for a reason. > Who knows their expense or their volitility. > > You might argue that it was for a good cause, and I might even > agree. But Hermione did steal. > > > >>Tesha: > > She made and made available a spiked treat. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. She caused both Crabbe and Goyle to be unconsious for a > certain length of time. Again, her ends might have been worth it, > but she still caused harm to two fellow students. (By encouraging > Harry and Ron to cause a distraction in Potions, Hermione also took > part in physically hurting members of her Potions class.) > > > >>Tesha: > > > > There was no violence, there was no physical harm (except to > > herself) - and she is just a child - I think that's pretty > > remarkable. > > Betsy Hp: > Again, you're watering down. Hermione did cause physical harm. You > knock someone out, you've harmed them. > > Yes, her plan *was* remarkable. But I think it's important to at > least acknowledge that she did some wrong things to implement the > plan. Especially since Hermione seems to be heading down a slippery > slope of ends making all of her means right and good. Carol responds: Essentially I agree with Betsy, but I would add that the Polyjuice was brewed specifically to infiltrate the Slytherin Common Room and spy on Draco. Granted, spying and eavesdropping is rather common in the HP books (it constitutes one of the parallels between Harry and Snape, for one thing), but in this case it involves borrowed identities (as well as borrowed shoes). What would Hermione's defenders think if Draco had resorted to similar tactics and Polyjuiced Crabbe, Goyle, and himself to look like Gryffindors to spy on Harry? Wouldn't readers be up in arms at the invasion of privacy? Why is Draco's privacy not sacrosanct, just because he's a Slytherin and the son of a Death Eater? Common rooms are off limits to students from other Houses, and just being there violated a school rule, just as it would have done if Draco and co. had entered Gryffindor Tower. To quote our dear ex-Potions master, I see no difference. Carol, who thinks that Hermione's cat whiskers and tail should have provided her with a taste of her own medicine but fears that she has another lesson coming in Book 7 From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 02:54:06 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:54:06 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes - a different thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160432 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble wrote: > > On Oct 26, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Cyril A Fernandes wrote: > > > > However, that does not add up for me. Why would something have > > responded if there was no real Horcrux to be retreived? > > > Katherine: > > Because the Inferi were programmed to respond to any use of magic > by anyone other than Voldemort. Voldemort had a better way to > seize the locket, and so the Inferi knew that Harry's spell > was coming from a wizard other than V. Mike: Actually, I think Cyril has an interesting point. We have no indication that Inferi can think for themselves, rather they do the bidding of the wizard that enchants them. I can think of no canon to back this up, but it doesn't seem likely that the Inferi could be programmed to react to any other's magic besides LV's. Besides, if one of them is reacting to Harry's use of magic, why didn't they react to Dumbledore's magic when he pulled the boat up by the chain? He didn't do that with physical labor. I'm not buying the Inferi could have distinguished between spells or discern which spell has more of a chance to retrieve the Horcrux. Non-verbal means nothing, Inferi are not Legilemens capable. AFAWK they only react to touching the water. I suppose there must be some magic in place inside the cave which prevents apparating, broom flying or the like; which requires one to take "Voldemort's boat" to get to the birdbath of doom. But couldn't Voldemort remove the magic if he put it in place? Why did he need a boat? Is Voldemort immune from Inferi attack or does he also have to avoid touching the water? Back to Cyril's point. We do know that 'Accio' requires good concentration to retrieve something at distance. I suspect the same principle holds for something being impeded; such as a cup inside a robe pocket being worn buy a dead body that is also waterlogged. More especially, once that dead body left the water, I suspect Harry lost all thought of his Accio and the summoning ceased. The only thing that dissuades me from this theory is that I don't see JKR wanting to make a return to the cave. And I can't see Harry figuring that Dumbledore was wrong on this seemingly innocuous point. Harry's not that brilliant! Mike, hoping Harry is at least on the ball enough to tell the MoM where Voldemort hides his army of Inferi. Hey, didn't someone bring up Harry getting the MoM to do some of his Horcrux hunting for him? From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Oct 27 02:48:15 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:48:15 -0400 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160433 "> Tesha: > Knocks them out? are you referring to the Crabbe and Goyle incident? > Knocks them out? They grab cupcakes floating in mid air and fall > asleep. Steals their bodies? Invades their privacy? Come on! Magpie: Um, yes. They're given knock out drops and Harry and Ron Polyjuice themselves into them to get into their common room and pretend to be them to listen to private conversation. That's a perfectly accurate description of what happens. I can't believe if Harry lived through a similar experience it wouldn't be seen that way. (Interestingly, Crabbe and Goyle aren't the only student who ever find themselves temporarily borrowed by someone else in CoS.)" Nobody forced them to eat the cupcakes. Even in the WW, a pair of cupcakes appearing hovering in midair for no apparent reason should ring alarm bells. There's an old saying: "Sheep were made to be shorn." BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Oct 27 02:50:40 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:50:40 -0400 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place/ Was: Re: Vernon's odd behavior Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160434 If for no other reason, I'd love to see the Dursleys--or any group of Muggles--at 12 GP just to hear Mrs. Black's portrait's reaction. I mean, if half-breeds and Muggleborns made her throw such a hissy fit, what would outright Muggles to her? BAW [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Oct 27 02:39:37 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:39:37 -0400 Subject: Is Petunia magical? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160435 JKR has said that as far as Dudley goes "what you see is what you get" and that Petunia (a) is not a Squib and (b) is not the 'person who will use magic late in life.' Personally--and I know I've said it before--I think it will be Uncle Vernon; it would be such a kick in the pants for him to find out that HE has wizardling blood, too. I can imagine him carefully examining the genealogies of Dudley's girlfriends. (Yes, I'm sure Dudley will have a few. As my great-grandmother used to say, "No pot's so crooked that no lid will fit it.") BAW From mcdumbledore at juno.com Fri Oct 27 03:16:55 2006 From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:16:55 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: <20061026223200.19650.qmail@web50115.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160436 Snape's Witch: > If Snape is a polyjuiced Dumbledore then who is the man with > Harry in Chapters 3 and 4? Surely not Snape? No, no, no. I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I can't speak to chapters 3 and 4 specifically, but I will say that something that struck me overwhelmingly in HBP was Dumbledore's newfound tendency to gloat. It was subtle, in most respects, but that - more than anything else (the Unbreakable Vow, the stuff on the Astronomy tower) - made me suspicious of a Polyjuice situation right away. Maybe tomorrow I'll have a minute to dig out the book and give some canon examples of Dumbledore's oddly Snape-like self aggrandizement, or maybe some kind soul who noticed the same thing and has a few minutes tonight will do it for me? Becca From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 27 03:35:02 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:35:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) References: Message-ID: <00a001c6f978$e37b2cd0$f66c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160437 Bruce: > Nobody forced them to eat the cupcakes. Even in the WW, a pair of > cupcakes > appearing hovering in midair for no apparent reason should ring alarm > bells. > There's an old saying: "Sheep were made to be shorn." Magpie: No, nobody forced them--nobody forced the Trio to drug food either. But being stupid isn't a crime--drugging food can be. I mean, it's only natural that someone less naturally suspicious or more greedy is going to fall for cons more often than another person. That's why Neville falls for the Twins' pranks more than Harry or Hermione do. If instead of letting the cupcakes hover in the air they'd laid them out on a plate would that make them actually responsible? Suggesting they in any way deserve what was done to them because they're dumb or gluttonous seems to sort of encourage seeing certain people as lower beings the higher folks can do anything to because they're better. Like Jimmy Stewart's character's ideas put into action by his ex-students in Rope. Ginny Weasley's even more complicit in her possession, but I still consider Voldemort the one behind the Basilisk attacks. -m (who must admit after conversations about this and the Twins' Toffee, would think twice about eating or drinking anything at an HP4GU get together!;-) From kking0731 at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 03:44:39 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:44:39 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160438 Carol again: Forgive me, but you're begging the question here by taking your point for granted. As I said, we don't know the characteristics of a Horcrux, other than that a Horcrux contains a soul fragment, anchoring the main or core soul to the earth and preventing the wizard from dying. And the "bit" of Voldemort contained in Harry seems to be some of his powers, including Parseltongue. We do not know and have not been told either by DD or the narrator that that "bit" is a soul fragment. Snow: This is speculation at this point backed by canon you can produce, or am I wrong? Carol responds: Thanks for the clarification. If you'll forgive me, I think "acquire" might be closer to your intended meaning since "obtain" implies intention, and Harry certainly made no effort to "obtain" a bit of Voldemort, whether we're speaking of powers or a soul fragment. Snow: You are absolutely correct in your observation. The terminology although both apply, the best fitted for my contention would be acquire. Carol responds: Here I agree with you. The Voldiebit, whatever it is (and it may not be a soul bit) does not necessarily make Harry a Horcrux, any more than Ginny was a Horcrux when Diary!Tom possessed her. Snow: Thank you and I quite agree with the comparison that Ginny would no more be considered a Horcrux than Harry. Carol: The diary, even without Ginny's soul, is different from the other Horcruxes because it contains at least one *memory* of Tom Riddle in addition to the soul bit. Snow: How, oh yeah because it had a possible living soul within its binding? Carol: Consequently, we can't use it to determine the characteristics of a standard Horcrux, which is merely an object (preferably a valuable, magical object) in which a soul bit is encased. It may or may not contain a protective curse, as the ring did. (I expect that the locket and the cup will be similarly protected, but we just don't know.) Snow: I totally agree again that we cannot treat the Diary the same as the other Horcruxes that were made because of the living soul aspect. Carol: As for Nagini, her closeness to Voldemort is the antithesis of Harry's enmity, and Voldemort can possess her without killing or even paining her (Harry seeing from the snake's pov felt no pain)--very different from the pain Harry feels in his scar even before Voldie is restored using his blood. So, yes, I agree. Harry is not like any of the Horcruxes, including Nagini, who is a living being with a will of her own whether or not she has a soul. Snow: Voldemort possessed Nagini not Harry! Harry sees what Voldemort sees, which is why when Voldemort possessed Nagini Harry saw the events through the snakes eyes. Nagini is a soulless creature, which is where Harry and `her' part company. Nagini cannot think for herself and has no outward feelings, which is a very big part of a soul; therefore Harry's uniqueness is quite solitary. Carol: Certainly, he murdered Harry's mother though it was Harry he intended to murder, and the soul bit created by Harry's murder that he intended to encase. To me, that's clearly the reason that he wanted Lily to step aside. The soul fragment detached by her death would be too insignificant, in his view, for a Horcrux. (We're left to presume that James's death in a duel or battle didn't qualify as a murder for the purpose of creating a Horcrux, however unfair Voldemort's tactics, and to wonder what became of the soul fragments from all those other murders. Snow: So glad you brought this up since it is very relevant. What was the difference between Voldemort killing James that night and his killing Lily? James fought back and Lily didn't. Most every death that was used as a Horcrux was an unarmed victim, which is murder! But worse than that would be an unarmed victim that was begging not for them self but for someone else! Carol snipped slightly: But a split soul does not a Horcrux make, or most of the Death Eaters and every other murderer in the WW would have one. (We don't even know whether all killing results in a split soul or what exactly a split soul means.) Snow: If someone commits a hennas crime there soul may surely be split but without a spell and/or destination for that split to adhere to, it may just dissolve without a soul to keep it alive but only in the event that such an occurrence coincided almost simultaneously with there own death, which of course in this particular case it did. Carol: Did it? Where is your evidence that it didn't say with the core soul? Snow: Evidence? I though we were speculating but I'll go with it To separate does mean to split or am I wrong again? If the soul split and the core goes with Voldemort where does the fragment caused by Lily's death go? Carol: Certainly he didn't deliberately detach the torn soul and encase it in an object, which requires both an object (not a person) and a spell. Snow: Voldemort did not deliberately cause this event nor did he use a spell, which is why Harry is not a Horcrux. By the way, I think an object could be a living thing otherwise your Nagini theory is out as well. Carol: and what about all the other murders he committed that weren't used for Horcruxes? Snow: I have accounted for the majority that could possibly fit into the Lily scenario in the past and don't wish to rehash unless necessary. Carol: We have, at the very least, Myrtle, three Riddles, Hepzibah Smith, an Order member he killed personally, James if he counts, and Lily. That's eight, more than enough for the five Horcruxes he would have had before Godric's Hollow if DD's calculations are correct. There are certainly many others considering the number of Inferi in the cave. Snow: It depends on how you look at the murders. If you count all Voldemort's appointed murders by his deatheaters as his killing them then we will come to a draw on the subject. Myrtle was not killed by Voldemort anymore than Cedric was. Carol: But my point is, how do you know that the Lily fragment hid itself outside Voldemort's body? What was left of his soul was expelled from his body, but how do you know that the Lily fragment didn't remain with the core soul? Snow: Because somehow, someway Harry did receive a bit of Voldemort, a connection that endowed him with equal powers (as per the prophecy) that night. The night that his mother saved him with her love by sacrificing herself and ensuring that Voldemort commit the most evil act of murder. Carol: Can you cite canon that it didn't, or that it "hid itself"? What would prevent that unencased fragment from going behind the Veil or simply ceasing to exist if it were somehow detached from the main soul with no container to encase it? Suppose that it is merely detachable but not detached? Snow: Split is just that split. This is not a-suppose or a what-if. Voldemort committed the most hennas of crimes and his soul was split by his actions. The point is that he disregarded those actions because he felt that he was already invincible and there would be no repercussion because he cannot die; he made too many Horcruxes before this. Voldemort gave Lily an opportunity initially but felt that he was covered by his Horcruxes and underestimated the result. Snow previously: > (3) "Encase? But how - ?" > "There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know!" 498 > > So it takes a spell to purposely encase an object in something > according to the Slughorn-suggestions-on-how-to-make-a-Horcrux. I > think he is right when you are speaking of the conventional Horcrux > that has no soul of its own, which I believe he was since attempting > to use a living soul is inadvisable. Carol: I'm not sure what you mean here since the spell would be required regardless of whether the object had a soul or not. Snow: This was my point, that Harry was not intentionally made a Horcrux. Carol: I'd say that the only condition that was indisputably met is the first, and LV has committed other murders that weren't made into Horcruxes. We have not been told that a soul bit or bits were released when Voldemort's soul was ripped from his body. Surely Dumbledore would have raised the possibility when he was talking about Horcruxes and Harry would say, "So that's how I got some of his powers!" if that were the case. So not only is Harry not an official Horcrux, IMO he's not even an unofficial one. Even if there's a soul bit in him, there's no spell to encase it. He doesn't act like the only known living Horcrux, Nagini (assuming that she is one). Snow: I'm not sure what I can say this without reiterating everything I have already said, if you don't get where I'm coming from at this point, I'm at a loss for words. Carol: All we know is that he has some of Voldemort's powers, which could as easily have entered the cut that would later become a scar through a drop of LV's magical blood as through a detached soul fragment. Snow: This is not just about obtaining some of Voldemort's powers through some means. This is also about a connection that was forged between them that happened when Harry received the scar. Carol: IMO, if Harry had been possessed by a soul bit, he'd have behaved a lot more like possessed!Ginny, Quirrel!mort, or possessed!Nagini. Not a sign of it, and we know that Lily's sacrifice has made him unpossessable, at least by Voldemort. Snow: Ginny is not Harry! Neither is Quirrelmort! Both of them were being manipulated. Nagini is a reptile, no matter how you role the dice, she is not in the same league as a human with a soul. Harry is as unique as the wand that he holds. Carol: Granted. He has some of Voldemort's *powers*, including Parseltongue, a unique form of mutual Legilimency, and possibly possession, which I expect to see in Book 7. But we're told that magic resides in the blood (not a drop of magical blood in the Dursleys' veins, Snow: Not a drop? And yet Harry is most protected there beyond anything that Dumbledore could have ever have empowered for a protection, why? Carol: the whole pureblood, half-blood, "Mudblood" concept, Harry's blood used to restore Voldemort--note that Wormtail used the *bone* of Voldemort's Muggle father but the *blood* of a powerful fellow wizard). I see no evidence anywhere that powers reside in the soul. "A bit of himself" is not necessarily a soul fragment. Snow: Would you consider `a bit of himself with a connection'? The scar was viewed by Dumbledore as a connection between them? Carol: This is your interpretation. IMO, the scar resulted from the AK bursting out of Harry's head. Granted, it serves both as a symbol that Voldemort has "marked him as his equal" and as a conduit of communication between them, but I think it's a stretch to imply that Voldemort deliberately or otherwise put a bit of himself in Harry and marked the bit with the scar. Snow: I didn't say it, Dumbledore did! Carol: IMO, the scar, which was originally a cut on Harry's forehead, came before the "bit" entered Harry *by means of* the cut. Certainly, Voldemort didn't deliberately put it there. I think DD is condensing events a bit. Yes, the scar contains the powers, but that doesn't mean that it contains a soul bit. All DD is saying is that instead of being killed, Harry now has a scar, some of Voldemort's powers, and a future as the Chosen One. Not a word about being an accidental Horcrux or unofficial Horcrux. Powers, yes; soul bit, unmentioned. Snow: Voldemort did not purposely put a scar on Harry's head, he did not intend on giving powers to the babe that was pronounced to destroy him, he did not foresee nor does he realize to this time, that Harry will live when he conquers him cause neither can live while the other survives. Carol snipped again: So in your view, he might as well be a Horcrux. Wouldn't he have to die for the soul bit to be destroyed, just as he would if he were an official Horcrux? And in that case, how can he kill or destroy the Horcruxless Voldemort? Snow: Harry is unique! He is a living soul that does possess a portion of Voldemort. Harry does not have to die but one of them does according to the prophecy, neither can live Harry is not a Horcrux, so all rules that we know of to the typical Horcrux do not apply. The closest we come to a living Horcrux is the Diary, which is controlled by a memory of the most evil person on earth. Nagini is living but without a soul that can make her own decisions. Harry is unique and in the end anything can apply. Carol, whose scenario doesn't require any such complications Snow, who never viewed JKR as uncomplicated From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Oct 27 02:42:58 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 22:42:58 -0400 Subject: muggles... the root Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160439 In Marjorie Kendall's (I think that's the name) THE GAMMIDGE CUP, the heroine's name was Muggles. BAW. From darksworld at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 03:49:12 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:49:12 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160440 > Betsy Hp: > And we're back to making it all about Marietta again. Sorry, but > I'm not talking about Marietta's actions. I'm talking about > Hermione's action and only Hermione's actions. No one (including > Marietta) held a gun to Hermione's head and said you must disfigure > your classmate. Hermione did that all by her little, heartless, > lonesome. > > Hermione came up with a form of punishment that went out with the > 20th century. (It's outlawed in most civilized countries, I > believe.) I cannot admire her for that. > Charles: Marietta's actions by necessity figure into it whether you like it or not. Hermione put the jinx on the parchment in *self-defense*, not in some desire to disfigure someone. To use your own phrase, you keep watering down the very real danger that the DA members would be put in by anyone who betrayed them. This was a defensive act, not an offensive one. If, as you seem to be arguing, Hermione had tricked Marietta into being disfigured, I might agree with you. The reason Marietta's actions figure into this is *because if she had not betrayed the DA, the jinx would not have come into effect*. If anyone could be blamed other than Marietta for her disfigurement, its Cho, for pressuring her into making an agreement she didn't intend to keep. But that to me still sounds like trying to pass the buck for "poor disfigured Marietta" who just happened to try and land a load of people in Azkaban. I don't think that Hermione should necessarily be admired, indeed I myself detest her. I do however defend her right to defend herself and the rest of the DA. Remember this is the WW, where they sell lollipops to kids that eat holes in their tongues, fanged frisbees that can take a bite out of those playing with them or even innocent bystanders, and they teach spells to 11 year olds like "petrificus totalus" that freezes their friends. Twelve year olds are taught to "duel", i.e., throw spells such as the afforementioned petrificus at each other. Heck, even look at the disarming spell. When enough force is put behind it, it can be devastating. Don't believe me? Look at what happened to Snape when three people decided to disarm him at once. In this case, what Hermione did was right. Especially when you *objectively* look at the major differences between real life and the WW. Charles Walker From mcdumbledore at juno.com Fri Oct 27 03:45:58 2006 From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:45:58 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160441 Hmmm, wow. Way too much has been said here for me to dig back through and find individual snippets to respond to, so... 1.) I think that Hermione is a good example of what a smart adolescent girl who has magical powers could be. None of us brewed illicit potions as teens, but lots of teens steal. And it's very common for kids to sabotage each other - 'kick me' signs, girls messing with each others' makeup, replacing someone's deodorant with Raid, boys locking other boys in lockers, incessant gossiping/tattling/backstabbing, etc. IMO, Hermione has not done anything that at least 50% of normal kids would not do in her situation, IF THEY HAD MAGICAL POWERS. The fact that we are dealing with a work of fiction and a totally untestable universe, of course, makes that somewhat contentious, but I can certainly imagine *my* sixeteen year old self flying off into a fit of rage and shooting canaries at a boy I deemed to be "cheating" on me. I have some sympathy for Hermione, though I couldn't say that everything she does is 'justified.' For me, however, it is understandable. 2.) The one possible exception I see to the above is the Marietta situation. Placing the hex on the sign up sheet in the first place is not problematic for me, but not removing Marietta's 'pox' after the point was made could be. However, I've never been in such a high stakes situation, myself... That is, I've never been betrayed by someone to a group that could (and wanted to) ruin my life forever (or end it). At 16, under those circumstances, it might take me a goodly long time (say, until the end of book 7) to get over it. Nonetheless, the Marietta situation is clearly in another category from Hermione's other transgressions, as far as I'm concerned. Tangentially, I was similarly concerned about Ron knocking out Lockhart in COS. I love Weasleys so much, though, that I'm willing to forget most of their transgressions ;) 3.) How could I have forgotten Luna when I first wrote about this??? Yes, yes, I love Luna! 4.) I think Betsy hit the nail on the head when she said that the constant waiting for disaster that Molly is coping with is worse than actually having a disaster to cope with. At least when you have the disaster at hand, you can start formulating plans, which is what Narcissa did. I think Molly will excel when finally put in that situation. 5.) The difference that I see between Molly and Narcissa is that Narcissa nurtures only Draco, while Molly nurtures all 7 of her own children, plus Harry and Hermione and anyone else that happens to need a hug and hot bowl of onion soup. Molly is a very big hearted character. Yes, she worries a lot. Yes, she places too much stock in the writings in Witch Weekly. But I think that it takes a lot out of a person to constantly nurture others, and I think that - given that fact - Molly is far stronger than most people give her credit for. Becca. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 03:49:53 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 03:49:53 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: <006801c6f969$ad84c640$f66c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160442 Magpie: > That would be true even if I thought what she did was a great blow for > justice. I think Hermione would be angry at this if it were done to her and > her friends, and still think so. Alla: I just want to comment on Hermione being angry if this was done to her and her friends. I am thinking about my reaction as someone who as you know certainly thinks that Draco deserves certain things and more done to him because he is Draco ;) But if something like that was done to Trio, namely spying on them and polijuicing them in the name of catching a murderer, a **real murderer** with no real physical harm done, believe me, I would not be angry for one second, so incredibly harmless I consider this adventure and of course I cannot imagine Harry and Ron taking drugged cupcakes, floating in the midair ( as Bruce said, that should raise a bell even in WW and they are IMO too suspicious for that, although cetainly hungry enough, hehe), but if they would, I would find that incredibly funny and well executed too. So, yeah, Hermione gets A+ for this one from me, what I do find more interesting as I said is apparently that JKR does not give her a pass - turning her into cat, etc. I think she is saying that while it was breaking rules with good intentions, the consequences have to be suffered too, I think Hermione as cat symbolises consequences. IMO, Alla From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 27 05:04:17 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 05:04:17 -0000 Subject: Wizard Baruffio and the Wingardium Leviosa Charm In-Reply-To: <8o8bpr+hel8@eGroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, msmacgoo at ... wrote: > > Hallo everyone and loverly to met you all, now, down to bussness, can > anyone explain the joke in the wl charm - i've puzziling how Wizard > Baruffio finishes up with a Buffalo on his chest when there is no "f" > in Wingardiun Leviosa to misspronounce as a "s". > So how come ? [HP1 page 126 UK Ed] Secca Responds: Bet you thought this topic was dead! So did I! Then I found this: > Hogwarts Librarian wrote > in Mugglenet's "New Clues 5 Forum"; here: > http://newclues.mugglenet.com/archive/viewtopic.php? t=794&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60 > /Quote/ What if we're looking at this all wrong? What if the point is that Baruffio is being used to teach a lesson? > The phrase has a very catchy ring to it: > > "Never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said 's' instead of 'f' and found himself on the floor with a buffalo on his chest." > > Kind of similar to other catchy phrases we use to remember little things (for example, when trying to remember which way a screw goes we might say to ourselves "righty tighty, lefty loosey"). /End quote/ > > Now Secca: Or more like -- "I before E except after C, Or when sounding like A as in Neighbor and Weigh" The point is, if it was meant as an easy-to-remember jingly little rhyme, then its purpose is simply to drive home the importance of pronunciation in spells. In which case, the poem need not make any sort of logical sense, in either the muggle OR wizarding world. Actually, the more stark and absurd the image, the better it works as a mnemonic. This also might explain the 'Wizard' title given to Baruffio, which is not seen anywhere else in canon -- it is there to fit the scan of the rhyme. So then, "Baruffio's Brain Elixir" would not necessarily have been made by Baruffio -- This could be the equivalent to naming a product "Georgy Porgy's Love Elixir" Now -- Jo has given us an early version of this Flitwick quote, as 'Scrapbook Content' on her website. In that "First Typed Version of PS," which became Chapter 10 - Hallow'een in the book, the Flitwick quote is *not* set off like a poem. It appears as simply a continuation of the sentence -- "Swish and flick, remember, swish and flick. And saying the magic words properly is very important, too ? never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said 's' instead of 'f' and found himself lying on the floor with a buffalo on is chest ?" But if you look closely, you can see that what I am treating as a 'poem' *is* set off from the rest of the text by dashes. Well -- /I/ like this better than any other theory I've ever heard, by far... Any comments? From mperry at efn.org Fri Oct 27 04:14:59 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:14:59 -0700 Subject: Hogwarts elves/ Was:Dobby and Winkie sitting in a tree... References: Message-ID: <013001c6f97f$7ed21da0$260dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160444 Eddie: > I'm reminded now that Sirius thought he saw "Kreacher snogging one of > my dad's old pants." (or something like that) But that didn't free > Kreacher. So just touching the clothing isn't enough. There must be > some intent, I guess. Lucius Malfoy threw the sock _AWAY_ and Dobby > received it. > mperry600256: Kreacher (what a name... if you sound it out) snagged a number of pieces of clothing from his previously dead masters. I think this points out the "dog" type arrangement... where a dog will pick up clothing from a human and lie on them for a bed... but never think of simply going out the front door to be free. I am still confused by the elf "thing". Obviously the thrown sock was not intentional, but it freed the elf. He'd received a piece of clothing directly from an unintentional toss. I'm thinking this is simply a frame of mind, or part of a magical contract. In direct contact with people, an elf could always free themselves by simply placing themselves to help their "master" undress... but they have a different concept of things. (Most elves don't want to be free of an abusive relationship... as per Dobby's ironing his own hands. It takes the intent of some wizard to give them this freedom.) H is very good with spells. Perhaps she found a way to free the elves... implanting a spell into the clothing. Or perhaps it was just her intent to do so. She had no luck because she forgot one simple thing... elves are more magical (in some parts of the story) than their masters. It is basically an insult to an elf to just hide "freedom" in a pile of debris. They could see such magic from across the room. Ceridwen wrote: > And, perhaps it's the position of the person offering clothes that > counts. Can any member of a family offer clothes? Or only > the 'master' or his or her designee? It's hard to imagine a system > which would free an elf on a child's whim if the child is angry at > the parents, for example. mperry600256: An excellent point. I'm not sure it was thought that far through. From mperry at efn.org Fri Oct 27 03:36:31 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:36:31 -0700 Subject: Vernon's odd behavior References: <20061026030955.18679.qmail@web53315.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00e201c6f979$c52a98a0$260dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160445 > > thekrenz wrote: > > Why does Vernon so viciously try to keep Harry from going > > back to Hogwarts? One would assume Vernon would be quite > > pleased to be rid of Harry, so why does he exert so much > > effort to keep Harry at Privet Drive? > > > kat7555: > The Dursleys are evil IMO. They never showed Harry the least bit > of affection before they knew he even had magicial powers. They > allowed Dudley to abuse Harry and other children and they did > nothing about it. The Dursleys knew Harry considered Hogwarts to > be home so they want to prevent him from being with people who > care about him. I loved Dumbledore's rebuke of them in HBP. It > should've happened a long time ago. First, I think the Dursleys are necessary for the plot. You have to have a background that keeps HP humble. There's nothing like that as well as an "evil" upbringing prior to him being a major figure. That's probably the author's point. That said, think of it from the Dursley's point. Here's a sister who was suddenly no longer the attention of her parents. She's a non-entity from her parent's view... though that's right or not... it's how she sees it. He marries her and he's of her point of view, as he sees it. He's blinded to her real feelings. She takes HP in because of her deep seated guilt at having abandoned her sister. She's probably been told that this is her due. She feels this more deeply than the plot has revealed so far... or will probably ever reveal. Family has meaning... and she feels trapped by this meaning... and her husband is picking up on the wrong signals. In either case, both feel their son can do no wrong. That's not totally out of line for many families. She has an obligation (as presented in the latter letter to her, which gets her somewhat back in line... can't let the nephew be killed due to negligence... but also can't counter my husband). I think she wanted to "kill" the magical factor, but knew it couldn't happen. Her husband, however, went nuts for a while, trying to protect the wife... and keep HP down. It doesn't work, though they both ignore their son for a while... letting him be miserable. It's more important to protect their limited view of HP, rather than accepting facts. It's more important to him to maintain, rather than letting their lifestyle be affected. Vernon will let anything come to be, rather than alter his view of life. mperry600256 From mperry at efn.org Fri Oct 27 04:35:22 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:35:22 -0700 Subject: Views of Hermione References: Message-ID: <016801c6f981$571aa820$260dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160446 Charles wrote: > Marietta's actions by necessity figure into it whether you like it > or not. Hermione put the jinx on the parchment in *self-defense* Michael: ...and why should she not wish to disfigure a horrid sneak? She did this deliberately, knowing the consequences. This is life and death for members... where they could be put in Azkaban prison for their actions. She's the first one to realize this is not just a game, but it's real life. She was always the smartest of them all. I can't buy that H deliberately has harmed anyone. She is a genius, and that feeds her ego. Where has she done harm? I'm trying to find references to disfiguring others and so forth. On her side, she intercepted a member of a different group and used a mirror... at her own detriment, to avoid the baskilisk. Her one "human" event was to knock the teeth out of a person who called her mudblood... but if I recall that was only in the movie. The books are a different reality from the movies. From mperry at efn.org Fri Oct 27 04:04:28 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:04:28 -0700 Subject: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg References: <019201c6f8ad$b9b95780$980dadcf@michaelp> <7b9f25e50610260836r51532a79yb7d8973a4df02661@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <012f01c6f97f$7e65c740$260dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160447 Michael Perry wrote: > > I should imagine that Hogwarts is protected by various spells... including > > being Unmappable. Random832: > Actually - I think it's stated that the other two schools are > unplottable but Hogwarts is not. (though, we've never seen anyone try > to put anything on a map, which failure is the only stated effect of > unplottable, and thus the only way of knowing something is unplottable > other than being told directly) Michael Perry: > > I should assume, if a person (non-magical) somehow found > > their way there and saw it, it would look like a ruin. (I seem to recall > > that, also.) Random832: > Right. from the outside, from a distance, and with a strong suggestion > not to approach closer. There's no reason to think that if they were > brought onto the grounds they wouldn't then be "inside" the illusion, > and able to function as normally as Filch can. Michael Perry: > > There are magical things that even Muggles can see... but they ignore them. Random832: > Actually - the only person who actually says that is Stan Shunpike - > who isn't exactly the most educated person in the series. Vernon > doesn't seem to have a problem noticing all kinds of things on 31 Oct 1981, certainly. Michael Perry: I would love to hear more. H says that there are numerous ways to hide the school... including being unplottable. (Sorry about the unmappable... unplottable would have a wider meaning.) She doesn't really go into Hogwarts... and we don't get a clear clue, except it's very magical... such as not being able to port into the school... and the flying car loses its magic when approaching. We do know that folks can may be able to use the flu network (or appear in fires) but apparently this is at a discretion. >From this, I should assume that much of HW's security is based on the whims of DD... that he's turned it from a properly protected site to a fortress, impenetrable to most of V's influences... except those he allows. (W/o him, HW's may be transparent to the talented.) Some magic does work when approaching (or inside an outer barrier???) of the school. Within the grounds proper, some flying spells work, while others don't... or the car was not going to try flying again to escape spiders. It's hard to say what the effect of viewing the school would be. There is probably an anti-magic spell put on the school... so Muggles would simply not want to be there. I'd assume there are stronger spells to keep magical folk out, though the ministry somehow finds their way in, and DD can probably "pop" out using his phoenix. HP certainly flies *away* from the grounds using his own means, though perhaps he's away from the spell in the forest. (Recall, that's where he meets one of the MM... at the edge of the forest. Perhaps that's how all arrive... "teleport" to the forest then walk to the castle.) As for Stan, he's magical. Granted, he's a doof, but he's still magical. Michael Perry From mperry at efn.org Fri Oct 27 04:47:11 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:47:11 -0700 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) References: <00a001c6f978$e37b2cd0$f66c400c@Spot> Message-ID: <019b01c6f983$940dc440$260dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160448 Magpie: > No, nobody forced them--nobody forced the Trio to drug food either. But > being stupid isn't a crime--drugging food can be. I mean, it's only natural > that someone less naturally suspicious or more greedy is going to fall for > cons more often than another person. Michael Perry: Might I point out... only in the movie were they hovering. In the book they were on the banister. These are 2 dudes who have just come from the most scrumptious feast of the year... and they see two hovering cupcakes. Duh! How many of us have eaten stuff that's hovering in the air? Or even stuff that's sitting on a banister? We can only assume there's a spell on them to make already full greed-misters think these look good to eat. (At HW's, goodies outside the dining facility would be assumed to be stuff lying in a trash can to the rest of us.) Why not just hit them with some sort of sleep spell? Basically, it's a way to make this formula work. W/o bits of Crabb and Goyle, it won't work. By having them eat this sort of stuff is much like having the tongue tied toffee work. Dudley couldn't resist, though he was terrified of the person offering the treat. From mperry at efn.org Fri Oct 27 04:38:47 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:38:47 -0700 Subject: muggles... the root References: Message-ID: <019a01c6f983$9390a500$260dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160449 BAW: > In Marjorie Kendall's (I think that's the name) THE GAMMIDGE CUP, the heroine's > name was Muggles. I am not familiar with this. Was this before the 1950's. Many of these drug terms were from overseas... so perhaps it was called Muggles from Europe on the 50's or 60's??? I haven't found a source (obviously) from the I-net. Muggles seems like a drug term to me... a half aware group of folks... who overlook the obvious. Michael Perry From mperry at efn.org Fri Oct 27 04:27:37 2006 From: mperry at efn.org (Michael Perry) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:27:37 -0700 Subject: Why didn't basilisk kill? References: Message-ID: <014901c6f980$41e080c0$260dadcf@michaelp> No: HPFGUIDX 160450 Eddie: > OK, I know that everybody in Book 2: CoS who encountered the basilisk > was petrified for one reason or another (basilisk gave deadly glare > via mirror, camera, ghost, etc). But why didn't the basilisk then go > ahead and kill/eat the victims _AFTER_ petrifying them? Surely this > must be an ongoing problem for basilisks, that their intended dinners > keep getting petrified instead of killed? Excellent! I *think* that this is because a basilisk can't kill inanimate objects. Once petrified, they aren't really alive. Michael Perry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Oct 27 06:21:38 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:21:38 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes - a different thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160451 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > Mike, hoping Harry is at least on the ball enough to tell the MoM > where Voldemort hides his army of Inferi. Hey, didn't someone bring > up Harry getting the MoM to do some of his Horcrux hunting for him? Geoff: To be quite frank, the Ministry's track record in dealings with Harry is so incompetent and appalling that I don't think Harry would touch them with a barge pole. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 07:21:54 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:21:54 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: <45415893.4000903@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160452 --- Kathryn Jones wrote: > > > > bboyminn wrote: > > >> ... speculation, it is still possible for people > >> to get into Grimmauld Place without knowing the > >> Secret, it's just not easy. ... can't ... be told > >> about 12 Grimmauld Place ..., however, they could be > >> told about Grimmauld Square... So, Harry could tell > >> Neville (or who ever) to be at Grimmauld Square at > >> 1:00pm. When Neville arrives, Harry steps outside > >> and leads Neville into the house. ... > > KJ writes: > > ..., I am thinking that there are protections against > that type of entry, otherwise anyone could bring whoever > they wanted into the residence. ... I don't believe that > he would be able to pass that information on to anyone > else, including inviting them inside. Neville would not > be able to see it, Harry would not be able to explain it, > and together, they would not be able to enter it. > bboyminn: I don't see why not, first of all allowing an 'uninformed' person inside doesn't necessarily have to reveal the Secret. Like I said, Grimmauld Square is not a secret, so that certain CAN be revealed. It is possible that the house would become visible to Harry, but remain invisible to Neville. Harry would just have to take Neville by the hand and lead him in. Which is how I think Hermione gets her parents into Diagon Alley. They can't see the entrance, but they can be lead through it. Keep in mind that Harry has no reason not to trust Neville, but if there was an issue of security, Harry could request that Neville (or who ever) be blind folded. Again, taking someone inside does not necessarily reveal the secret. I do agree with the other stuff you said, but I'm not sure it is relevant to this one issue, though perhaps it wasn't suppose to be relevant. I suspect something like I proposed will happen in the next book. Harry needs help, and right now Luna and Neville seem the closest people to him outside his normal group of friends. As some point they could need to come into his house to make plans or attend meetings. Only time will tell, but I can see that happening. Generally speaking though, I don't see how what I suggested violates the Secret Keeper Charm in any way, and again, bringing someone to Grimmauld Place could easily be done in a way that doesn't reveal the secret. It was just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From technomad at intergate.com Fri Oct 27 07:44:54 2006 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 02:44:54 -0500 Subject: Views of Hermione, part II Message-ID: <018a01c6f99b$cef52fe0$4c570043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 160453 The thing about Hermione that scares me is that she could go Dark _without ever really meaning to._ She's scary-smart in a lot of ways, and very good at convincing herself that whatever she wants to do is the One Right Thing To Do. It's been pointed out that she and her nemesis, Dolores Umbridge, share a lot of traits besides a middle name. I don't think for a second that Darling Dolores _set out to become_ a sadistic tyrant. _Facilis descensis inferni_---"The road to Hell is easy," for those not Latinate. All it took, for Dolores, was one easy, plausible, logical-seeming (at least from her POV, which was predicated on the fact that "Lord Voldemort is NOT back, Harry Potter's a lying, ego-crazed attention-seeker, and the Ministry's got to be protected at all costs) step after another. For someone who had obtained information about Harry mainly via the _Daily Prophet_ and talk in the Ministry, her POV wasn't terribly unusual or unreasonable; apparently people who had better reason to know Harry than she did (Seamus Finnegan, IIRC, for one) found it at least plausible. Even the Blood Quill might not have seemed terribly unreasonable---I don't think she was at Hogwarts after Dumbledore became Headmaster, and under previous Headmasters, whipping students and hanging them in chains was apparently SOP, at least according to Filch. Also, the WW does play more roughly than our Muggle world. So far, Hermione's mainly been right. But, if she got off on the wrong trail for some reason, she could easily be as big a menace as Lord Thingy his own bad self---and probably more dangerous, because she doesn't look the part, any more than the little girl in _The Bad Seed._ (NOT saying that Hermione's a sociopath; just that a sweet-looking little girl can more easily persuade people that she means no harm and is Doing Good than a hairless, red-eyed, snake-faced madman with pasty-white skin) If she persuaded herself that what she was doing was for the Greater Good In The Long Run---well, S.P.E.W. could have turned out very badly, but I can think of scenarios that might make that look pretty good. C.S. Lewish said that he would rather be ruled by tyrants than by moral busybodies, because (paraphrased) the tyrant's greed may be satiated at some point, but those who torture for the benefit of the victim will do so forever, since they have the approval of their own consciences and are sure that in the long run, their victims will thank them. Think "Nurse Ratched," only with magic and a lot smarter. From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Fri Oct 27 08:02:37 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:02:37 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "twitterpatedbabykoala" wrote: > > Snape's Witch: > > If Snape is a polyjuiced Dumbledore then who is the man with > > Harry in Chapters 3 and 4? Surely not Snape? No, no, no. > > > > > I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I can't speak to > chapters 3 and 4 specifically, but I will say that something that > struck me overwhelmingly in HBP was Dumbledore's newfound tendency to > gloat. It was subtle, in most respects, but that - more than anything > else (the Unbreakable Vow, the stuff on the Astronomy tower) - made me > suspicious of a Polyjuice situation right away. Maybe tomorrow I'll > have a minute to dig out the book and give some canon examples of > Dumbledore's oddly Snape-like self aggrandizement, or maybe some kind > soul who noticed the same thing and has a few minutes tonight will do > it for me? > > Becca Reply by Nate: I made a post about this about a week or so ago, regarding Snape being polyjuiced as DD at the Dursleys/Slughorn's in Ch 3 and 4. I can't seem to find it in the backlog of posts now, but I did keep a copy on my computer. I hope that it isn't breaking the rules to repost the gist of it. My attention was drawn not by the way Dumbledore seems to gloat, but by several references to the time during this chapter and because Dumbledore discusses imposters with Harry. 1st reference to the time: "An alarm clock, repaired by Harry several years ago, ticked loudly on the sill, showing one minute to eleven." pg 46 of HBP (Bloomsbury, UK edition, 2005). 2nd reference to the time: "The minute hand on the alarm clock reached the number twelve, and at that precise moment, the streetlamp outside the window went out." pg 47. Making the time 'Dumbledore' arrives 11pm. However, at this point, we are not told it is Dumbledore. Harry sees: "A tall figure in a long, billowy cloak was walking up the garden path." 3rd reference to the time: "The church clock chimed midnight behind them." pg 62. Here Dumbledore and Harry arrive in Slughorn's village. Making it exactly one hour since 'the figure' arrived at the Dursley's, assuming the two clocks correlate exactly (which in real life they probably would not). On pg 63, Dumbledore tells Harry he should have asked Dumbledore a personal question to make sure he wasn't a Death Eater or an imposter (which seems to draw attention to the idea that Dumbledore may in fact be an imposter). Finally on pg 70, right in the middle of conversation with Slughorn, "Dumbledore stood up rather suddenly. 'Are you leaving,' asked Slughorn at once, looking hopeful. 'No, I was wondering whether I might use your bathroom,' said Dumbledore." It seems to me that either Dumbledore had a sudden attack of the bladder (as old men do) or the imposter's polyjuice finally started to wear out, and he/she had to go and retake the potion. Another few points about the imposter, who I believe may be Snape. On pg 48, we are told Dumbledore is dressed in a "long black travelling cloak" which seems a bit at odds with his normal bright coloured clothing (However, he could be wearing this for stealth purposes - it would make sense that he wants to be concealed, after all, he has also done something to the streetlamps, presumably using his putter-outer). The point I am also trying to make here is that the Dumbledore figure could be Snape - who is known for his billowy black robes. This would also explain the references to the time which permeate these two chapters - polyjuice use, timed to run out around an hour later. Also note that Dumbledore "drew his wand so rapidly that Harry barely saw it" pg 50 - as if he didn't want Harry to identify it. (Or, so that he didn't scare the muggles - there's at least two interpretations of every quote I use here) The time between Harry sighting the figure outside and the time Harry dresses and makes it downstairs could be a few minutes, giving the imposter time to down his polyjuice. The reason I don't think the figure had taken the polyjuice before arrival is illustrated above - Harry hears the clock chime twelve at Slughorn's, before Dumbledore disappears into Slughorn's bathroom. However, it would make more sense that Snape took the polyjuice before arriving at the Dursleys - he wouldn't want to expose his movements to any Death Eaters, Order Members or Ministry Officials watching the Dursley's home. However, you have to note that if this is Snape, he is remarkably good at a) playing Dumbledore and b) not showing his true feelings regarding Sirius (whose property is discussed in chapter 3) but on page 303, Snape asks Draco "Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not known how to act?" Granted, Snape's basically affirming Draco's comment about DADA job being an act, but still. Food for thought? Cheers, Nate From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 10:54:14 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:54:14 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160455 > Betsy Hp: > And we're back to making it all about Marietta again. Amiable Dorsai: It is easier to make a point when you rip things out of context, isn't it? ;-) The original post I responded to seemed to damn Hermione for actions taken in defense of her own life and the lives of others, while excusing Marietta's treason. I was (and am) astonished that a person could take that view, and asked for clarification. You changed the subject (of my post) back to Hermione's actions with regard to Marietta. Fair enough, but you continually strip Hermione's actions from their context, as I did the portion of your post that I chose to quote. Hermione was attempting to defend her life as a witch, her right to an education, and the same rights for 27 other students. Marietta's sudden case of acne, embarrassing as it was for her, did accomplish that (with a little help from Shacklebolt and Dumbledore). Could Hermione have handled it better? Perhaps. Should she have warned the DA of the penalty of treason? Certainly. Was the penalty unreasonable? Compared to the possible and actual (Dumbledore's flight from the school, and the destruction of the last vestige of Defense teaching at Hogwarts) consequences, make your own call. I say that Marietta should at least ask for forgiveness from the people whose lives she tried to blight before she expects any magical Clearasil from Hermione. Amiable Dorsai From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Fri Oct 27 12:04:41 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:04:41 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160456 > > >>Tesha: > > She made and made available a spiked treat. > > > > > > >>Magpie: > > > She is a bit better than the murderous sociopath advocating > > > genocide. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > Marietta was wrong. Hermione was horrifying. > Tesha: You totally missed my point, Magpie - I understated the scene - you overstated the scene... I think you're simply biased against the character for reasons that seem to remain your own. I say it is simply our points of view that differ. I will always try to see the best in JKR's good characters - and even the ones she paints in grey. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 12:14:03 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:14:03 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160457 > Amiable Dorsai: > I say that Marietta should at least ask for forgiveness from the > people whose lives she tried to blight before she expects any magical > Clearasil from Hermione. Alla: I agree with you. It is also impossible for me to understand how Hermione's actions in this situation can be talked about without the **reason** for those actions. The analysis of actions without reason for them seems for me to be a tad incomplete, hehe. ( Heeee in the Snape's case people refuse to look at much more **damning** action, if you ask me, and refuse to judge Snape based on that action and looking for justifying reasons, and here we are supposed to judge Hermione giving Marietta achne without asking why, when we actually **know** why and we **know** that she was defending herself and her friends). I actually think that if Marietta asks for forgiveness the consequences could be lifted automatically, without Hermione even doing anything. Just a speculation. Alla, who wishes that Marauders had in their mist somebody as ruthless as Hermione to mark traytor before he did any serious damage. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Fri Oct 27 12:17:53 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:17:53 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160458 > > Carol responds: > What would Hermione's defenders think if Draco had resorted to similar > tactics and Polyjuiced Crabbe, Goyle, and himself to look like > Gryffindors to spy on Harry? Wouldn't readers be up in arms at the > invasion of privacy? Tesha: Draco, at least in the early books, would never openly confront his enemies. He uses his father and his teacher and his 2 body guards to hide behind. You can even see in the later books that he still does not want to face being singly responsible for anything. He uses other people to achieve his goal. and doesn't he make one of his guards polyjuice into a girl to protect the secrecy of a certain door? From darksworld at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 07:03:36 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 07:03:36 -0000 Subject: Horcruxes - a different thought In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160459 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > > Mike, hoping Harry is at least on the ball enough to tell the MoM > > where Voldemort hides his army of Inferi. Hey, didn't someone bring > > up Harry getting the MoM to do some of his Horcrux hunting for him? > > Geoff: > To be quite frank, the Ministry's track record in dealings with Harry is > so incompetent and appalling that I don't think Harry would touch them > with a barge pole. > Charles: I think you're quite right in that. I'd even expand on it to say he wouldn't touch it with *Snape's* barge pole. What I do think will happen is that he will relent somewhat and get certain order members to help. I see him turning to Remus and Moody, while asking them to keep it from Minerva and the rest. Not that he won't still trust the likes of McGonagall and the elder Weasleys, but I think he would fear them trying to stop him, whereas those two he would think could help him without the hinderance of making it into an official "Order of the Tartan Kitty-cat" mission. This is mere speculation on my part, as the only canon I really have to back this up is the fact that Harry flat out refused to tell MM what was going on when he went with DD at the end of HBP. Charles, impatiently waiting to see if any of his theories turn out to be justified in book 7, and realizing that the last part of his post looks a little like alphabet soup. From prizrenelf at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 11:24:53 2006 From: prizrenelf at yahoo.com (prizrenelf) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:24:53 -0000 Subject: dumbledore as a ghost In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160460 I think that DD's appearance in the portrait means he will be communicating from the great beyond. A great wizard such as he will not get snuffed out, not even by the Avada Kedavra curse. While I do not believe DD will be a ghost like Nearly Headless Nick, I really don't believe we've heard the last of him. prizrenelf From random832 at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 12:38:21 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:38:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: References: <45415893.4000903@telus.net> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610270538j2897a0efr31c90c2399bae282@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160461 Steve/bboyminn > Generally speaking though, I > don't see how what I suggested violates the Secret Keeper > Charm in any way, and again, bringing someone to Grimmauld > Place could easily be done in a way that doesn't reveal > the secret. But allowing people to bring someone in is a security problem _in and of itself_. The whole point of the fidelius charm is so that you don't have to trust everyone who's told the secret. After all, if someone who's not the secret keeper could bring anyone they want to the location, the secret wouldn't have to be revealed to bring Voldemort to Godric's Hollow (which also tells us that if this were possible people wouldn't be assuming Sirius [as the secret keeper] was responsible for this happening) If anyone can bring anyone to the location, the Fidelius charm becomes absolutely pointless. -- Random832 From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 13:04:49 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:04:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] muggles... the root In-Reply-To: <019301c6f8ad$ba3676c0$980dadcf@michaelp> References: <019301c6f8ad$ba3676c0$980dadcf@michaelp> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610270604q707b45eey1be64e37e609654c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160462 Michael Perry wrote: > BTW, I don't know if anyone knows it, or if had a part in this book... > > In the US, "muggles" was a term (I assume used by beatnicks) to mean pot. > I > heard the term from a friend who had read a pamplet put out by the > police... > "key words to disguise marajuana use". montims: In fact, JKR was asked about this in *JK Rowling's World Book Day Chat, March 4, 2004: * *julesrbf: Where did you come up with the word "muggle"? *JK Rowling replies -> I was looking for a word that suggested both foolishness and loveability. The word 'mug' came to mind, for somebody gullible, and then I softened it. I think 'muggle' sounds quite cuddly. I didn't know that the word 'muggle' had been used as drug slang at that point... ah well. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From darksworld at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 12:43:21 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:43:21 -0000 Subject: Judgment and traitors WAS:Views of Hermione (etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160463 > > Amiable Dorsai: > > > I say that Marietta should at least ask for forgiveness from the > > people whose lives she tried to blight before she expects any > magical > > Clearasil from Hermione. > > Alla: > > I agree with you. It is also impossible for me to understand how > Hermione's actions in this situation can be talked about without the > **reason** for those actions. The analysis of actions without reason > for them seems for me to be a tad incomplete, hehe. ( Heeee in the > Snape's case people refuse to look at much more **damning** action, > if > you ask me, and refuse to judge Snape based on that action and > looking > for justifying reasons, and here we are supposed to judge Hermione > giving Marietta achne without asking why, when we actually **know** > why and we **know** that she was defending herself and her friends). > Charles: It is the same reason-judgement has been made and the argument is tailored to fit the judgment, not the facts. (A bit harsh, but true.) We actually see the same type of thing happening in a way in HBP. Ron, Hermione, and others (with the notable exception of Arthur Weasley, much to my surprise)keep dismissing Harry's suspicion of Draco because Harry always suspects him of something, without looking at the fact that Draco *is* throughout the book acting in unDracoish ways. It seems a bit of the boy who cried wolf syndrome. But in either case the error is the same- a judgment has been made and its difficult to change. Alla: > I actually think that if Marietta asks for forgiveness the > consequences could be lifted automatically, without Hermione even > doing anything. > > Just a speculation. > > Alla, > > who wishes that Marauders had in their mist somebody as ruthless as > Hermione to mark traytor before he did any serious damage. > Charles: I don't think that it would necessarily be lifted by asking for forgiveness. Marietta is a traitor- and there is a war going on. People need to know that she cannot be trusted. Umbridge may not be as bad as Voldie, but she is known to be vicious-and Umbridge's worst had not been seen yet. If Marietta's fear of Umbridge was enough to betray that many people, what would she do for fear of Voldemort? Alla makes the point very well in her signature. If there had been something of the like done in the Marauder's days, PP would have been flushed out as being a rat in more than just the animagus way before condemning James and Lily to their graves. Charles, Who thinks Marietta and Wormtail are pretty close to being peas in a pod. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 13:14:45 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:14:45 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160464 > > Amiable Dorsai: > > > I say that Marietta should at least ask for forgiveness from the > > people whose lives she tried to blight before she expects any > magical > > Clearasil from Hermione. > > Alla: > > I agree with you. It is also impossible for me to understand how > Hermione's actions in this situation can be talked about without the > **reason** for those actions. The analysis of actions without reason > for them seems for me to be a tad incomplete, hehe. ( Heeee in the > Snape's case people refuse to look at much more **damning** action, > if > you ask me, and refuse to judge Snape based on that action and > looking > for justifying reasons, and here we are supposed to judge Hermione > giving Marietta achne without asking why, when we actually **know** > why and we **know** that she was defending herself and her friends). > > I actually think that if Marietta asks for forgiveness the > consequences could be lifted automatically, without Hermione even > doing anything. wynnleaf I am always interested at the comments from supporters of Hermione's hex and how often those comments are consistent in their attempts to re-write canon. The above comments are simply examples of the usual re-writes. 1. "horribly disfigured by a series of close-set purple pustules" gets re-written in "acne." Very convenient if one wants to soften what Hermione did. 2. We are told that Hermione did this in an effort to protect the DA, rather than an effort to simply find out who told. As though the hex did anything at all to prevent someone telling, which it obviously did not, particularly when Hermione did it secretly so that no one knew there was any consequence for telling anyone. It was zero protection. 3. Canon tells us that no one had been able to end the hex, even over the summer. One has to assume that even skilled wizards or witches couldn't do it. Yet supporters of the hex seem blithly assured that it's not permanent. 4. Hex supporters feel strongly that Marietta should apologize for what she did and be sorry. Strange how they forget that she'd been obliviated and can't even remember anything about the DA, much less going to it. But (not yet in this discussion) hex supporters have in the past commented that they're certain that the obliviation wasn't permanent, even though all the canon evidence we have is that those sorts of memory modifications are permenant. 5. And another one I've seen often is the assertion from some hex supporters that the DA members should have known they were signing a "magical contract" as though all contracts in the WW *are* magical, and so they should have known some sort of magical result would occur if they broke it. Supporters of this argument happily disregard the fact that Hermione put the hex in *secretly* and that there would be no point in doing it secretly if everyone would naturally know that there'd be a magical consequence to breaking it, and that further, pureblood Ron was completely surprised to find that Hermione had included a magical consequence. But the biggest thing that interests me is how a discussion on Hermione's willingness to harm others including the innocent, trick innocent individuals, lie, steal, and otherwise break rules in order to get her way is diverted into this one issue of Marietta, apparently for the purpose of being able to argue that in this case, the person deserved it, completely overlooking the main point, which is that Hermione doesn't really *care* if a person deserves what happens to them, as long as she gets the result she wants. wynnleaf From random832 at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 13:12:01 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:12:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: <012f01c6f97f$7e65c740$260dadcf@michaelp> References: <019201c6f8ad$b9b95780$980dadcf@michaelp> <7b9f25e50610260836r51532a79yb7d8973a4df02661@mail.gmail.com> <012f01c6f97f$7e65c740$260dadcf@michaelp> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610270612t2791556bjd127da011c2073ce@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160465 It's generally better to arrange things so each response comes after the quote it applies to On 10/27/06, Michael Perry wrote: > Michael Perry: > I would love to hear more. H says that there are numerous ways to hide the > school... including being unplottable. (Sorry about the unmappable... > unplottable would have a wider meaning.) What do you mean? "unplottable" is a specific charm that makes it so you can't put something on a map. What "wider meaning" would it have than that? > She doesn't really go into Hogwarts... and we don't get a clear clue, > except it's very magical... But unplottable is a specific charm, being "very magical" doesn't cover it. I thought it was quite clear that when being unplottable was brought up it was the _other_ schools (durmstrang and beauxbatons) that were being discussed. > such as not being able to port into the school... I assume you mean apparate. Portkeys, of course, work fine. > and the flying car loses its magic when approaching. You're sure this wasn't more of Dobby's meddling? > We do know that folks can may be able to use the > flu network (or appear in fires) but apparently this is at a discretion. That doesn't seem apparent at all, please explain further > From this, I should assume that much of HW's security is based on the whims > of DD... [etc] Where do you get that from? There's no reason to think that _any_ of the protections on Hogwarts haven't been in place for a thousand years. And it certainly doesn't follow from anything you've said in this discussion. > It's hard to say what the effect of viewing the school would be. There is > probably an anti-magic spell put on the school... so Muggles would simply > not want to be there. The operation of anti-muggle charms, and those on hogwarts in particular, has been explained and there is no evidence one way or the other that they would continue to affect someone who was past the barrier. > I'd assume there are stronger spells to keep magical > folk out, though the ministry somehow finds their way in, Why shouldn't they? > and DD can probably "pop" out using his phoenix. Is there actually any canon evidence that a phoenix can do this at all? I thought it was just a fanfiction thing. > HP certainly flies *away* from the grounds using his own means, though > perhaps he's away from the spell in the forest. Or maybe there's no "anti-flying ward" - just Dobby messing with the car. > Random832: > > Actually - the only person who actually says that is Stan Shunpike - > > who isn't exactly the most educated person in the series. > > As for Stan, he's magical. Granted, he's a doof, but he's still magical. The fact that he's magical doesn't know that he knows what he's talking about when he says muggles don't see the knight bus due to their own disbelief, rather than due to some sort of charm placed on the bus. There is a problem with relying on just anything that's said in the books once without confirmation, when even the best of characters can lie or simply be wrong -- Random832 From random832 at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 13:26:14 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 09:26:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610270626x1a321ee9l969e8dbff85ad5fa@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160466 > Charles: > Marietta's actions by necessity figure into it whether you like it > or not. Hermione put the jinx on the parchment in *self-defense*, The jinx was retaliatory, not defensive. If it was self-defense it would have served that purpose - that is, would have _prevented_ the DA from being revealed. I'm sorry, but honestly I'd buy the "self-defence" argument a lot more easily even if it KILLED someone who was about to betray the DA in order to maintain their silence, rather than punishing in any way [however major or minor] after the fact. Charles: > If anyone could be blamed other than Marietta for her disfigurement, > its Cho, for pressuring her into making an agreement she didn't intend > to keep. But that to me still sounds like trying to pass the buck > for "poor disfigured Marietta" who just happened to try and land a > load of people in Azkaban. She tried to land what she only just recently [after joining, not having known quite what she was getting into] 'discovered' to _apparently_ be a subversive radical anti-government faction in Azkaban. Look at things from her point of view. Suddenly they start teaching a charm that's only useful against agents of the ministry (she's given no reason to believe any different of Dementors). Suddenly this isn't just learning defense as a substitute for an inadequate curriculum anymore. "trying to land a load of people in azkaban" isn't a crime - particularly if the "load of people" in question are criminals. The DA were, and there was nothing _that she knew about_ to justify their actions as far as learning/teaching the Patronus. Would you still think she deserved to be branded if the load of people she tried to land in Azkaban were the death eaters? Wait, that's hardly fair. After all, Voldemort isn't nearly creative enough to come up with that. amiabledorsai: > Hermione was attempting to defend her life as a witch, her right to an > education, and the same rights for 27 other students. Marietta's > sudden case of acne, embarrassing as it was for her, did accomplish > that (with a little help from Shacklebolt and Dumbledore). Actually, the "sudden case of acne" [I'd stick to the term "brand" - whether by magically-created boils, tattoo, permanent ink, or burns, it _is_ one - and acne, even when magically caused, doesn't normally spell out words] accomplished nothing of the sort. It was entirely superfluous. A lot of people don't understand the difference between defense and retaliation, but this was _clearly_ an example of the latter. -- Random832 From ibchawz at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 13:25:41 2006 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:25:41 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160467 Betsy Hp: Hmm, I grant that both scenes showed that each woman loves their child(ren). But Molly was dealing with a mere possibility and fell apart. Narcissa had to face up to, and deal with, that fear becoming real. However... One thing that isn't fair is that we've not seen Molly dealing with a child in actual danger. She's not been given an opportunity to show how she'd handle an honest to goodness crisis. In many ways Molly is dealing with the more stressful *waiting* for the crisis to come. So while Narcissa has had a chance to show her courage, poor Molly is left at home clutching her clock. And I won't say that Narcissa would handle the clock better, or that Molly would deal with an actual crisis worse. (Or, well, I guess I have, but I recognize that I'm not being fair when I do so. ) That Narcissa has had her trial gives me something to like in her. That Molly has not... well, I'm left without a reason. So I guess in this case it's really apples and oranges. It's not fair for me to judge Molly until she's had her day. (And there are plenty of other reasons for me to dislike Molly. ) ibchawz responds: Actually, Molly Weasley has seen many of her family members in immediate danger. Ginny was taken into the Chamber of Secrets and the writing on the wall indicated that her skeleton would lie there forever. In OotP, Arthur was attacked by Nagini and nearly died. Both Ron and Ginny were present and participated in the battle Department of Mysteries. In HBP, Bill was attacked and severely disfigured by Fenrir Greyback. Both Ron and Ginny participated in the battle at Hogwarts. I would classify these instances as "actual danger". I'm sure I could come up with additional instances if I tried. Perhaps these facts will assist you in your judgement of Molly. Unless, of course, the "plenty of other reasons for me to dislike Molly" have already influenced your judgement to a point of no return. ibchawz From monalila662 at earthlink.net Fri Oct 27 13:43:53 2006 From: monalila662 at earthlink.net (dillgravy) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:43:53 -0000 Subject: Priory Incantatem Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160468 Excuse my spelling. Does anyone know what happens to a witch/wizard's wand when he/she dies. I'm curious if we found a brother or sister wand to Lily and James' wand, could we see the last spells performed before their death. Could those spells hold a clue as to those last few moments of their life? Or does PI only work with murder? I'm sure Mr. Olivander's disappearance is critical in the last book- just not sure how. Maybe now that VM has been reminded of PI, he is in search of his mother's wand- and the brother or sister to that wand- only Olivander can tell exactly what a wand is made of. Right? If this has been reviewed previously, I apologize. No need for the condescending remarks that are often thrown at us newbees in this site. We're all Potter fans here. From Jan at TheWebFixers.com Fri Oct 27 14:10:29 2006 From: Jan at TheWebFixers.com (Tesha) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:10:29 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160469 Tesha: To Betsy HP, wynnleaf and Magpie mostly... Sorry if my burning the candle at both ends has had this effect - my foot is in my mouth and my hands are all waxy... I meant nothing personal in any post I've made. For instance: 1. My husband's ex is a fine person - the point I was trying to make albeit badly is - she can take a few boxes of tooth picks and call them a 2x4. 2. Did you ever think that you just know more about Hermione than you do many of the other characters? We see their world through Harry's eyes and he only found out things that came to the open - like that Draco would use the hippogriff's natural behavior to have his father force the most painful removal of the beast, hurt Hagrid and thus Harry and friends? What else has been done that we know nothing about? 3. My daughter would probably behave like Hermione if we were in the same circumstance, right down to the worst, and I would love and support her in it all. Oh, I'd scowl and rant and rave a bit, but I'd be proud my little kid would be so resourceful and independent. 4. I do believe you are taking characters, who are in the case we started with 12 years old, and asking them to behave as adults. 5. I also believe that you are taking apart story lines to prove your points. Hermione had to make the polijuice potion because JKR needed an excuse for the 3 to become familiar with the bathroom where 2 would later enter the CoS. 6. I'm going to shut up now and go finish the Aberforth robe I'm making for our Hogwarts Mystery - and get this wax off my hands.... Measure twice, cut once - Measure twice, cut once - Measure twice, cut once, Write twice - send once......... From tareprachi at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 11:11:24 2006 From: tareprachi at yahoo.com (pforparvati) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:11:24 -0000 Subject: Dudley's tail in the hut on the rock Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160470 pforParvati: Hi..I was doing a little bit re-reading and a question popped in my mind was that, In PS, why Dudley's tail given by Hagrid was not detected by MOM? Why they needed to cut it from private hospital? Actually it should have come under muggle abuse and should have been repaired by MoM. Was it because Hagrid's wand is broken? In that case criminals /expelled students whose wands are broken by MoM may perform magic without getting detected. We all know that there are many faults in wizard acts and the way they detect magic, but still I am curious about this. Does anybody know canon explanation about this mentioned in any JKR interview...? pForParvati From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Oct 27 14:17:41 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:17:41 -0000 Subject: Judgment and traitors WAS:Views of Hermione (etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160471 > > > Amiable Dorsai: > > > > > I say that Marietta should at least ask for forgiveness from the > > > people whose lives she tried to blight before she expects any > > magical Clearasil from Hermione. Pippin: And Hermione should ask forgiveness for mandating the cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment of children. I really don't think JKR is going to leave her readers feeling smug about that. But if you do, maybe you'd like this nice chocolate-y cauldron cake? :) Speaking of which, I'm glad Hermione took more care with the cauldron cakes than she did with her portion of the polyjuice, or she might have done more damage than just robbing Crabbe and Goyle of an hour of their lives, never to be returned. She might've murdered both of them. Or what would have happened if instead of eating one cake each, one of them had eaten both? Overdoses can be dangerous. Hermione has been thoughtless and careless of the rights of others, and I'm afraid JKR is all set to smack her with the consequences. > > Alla, > > > > who wishes that Marauders had in their mist somebody as ruthless as > > Hermione to mark traytor before he did any serious damage. Pippin: But they did! Barty Sr. made sure the traitor was hauled off to Azkaban before he could hurt anyone else. Just like Hermione in CoS, he got the wrong man, too. Pippin From davidapiper at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 12:10:43 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (Davida Lynne Piper) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:10:43 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160473 Amiable Dorsai: > > Hermione was attempting to defend her life as a witch, her right to an > education, and the same rights for 27 other students. Marietta's > sudden case of acne, embarrassing as it was for her, did accomplish > that (with a little help from Shacklebolt and Dumbledore). Davida: If Hermoine hadn't put that hex or curse on that list then everybody that was apart of DA would have been in DD office. I believe Hermoine did the right thing,and Marietta suffered the consequences for it. Davida From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 27 15:45:20 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:45:20 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160474 > > Dantzel: > > Think back to your days as a teenager - not 18, but 13 or 14. I, for > > one, slapped a boy when I was that age when I got fed up with his > > crap. I don't know anyone that hasn't been hypocritical at some > > point in their lives. > > wynnleaf, > How many of us drugged our classmates, started intentional explosions > that injured our friends, stole restricted supplies from teachers, > permenantly disfigured others, or set up a very nasty teacher to get > seriously injured or killed? Sorry, I don't buy Hermione's behavior > as typical. Eddie: None of these books is typical. The students live in a realm of hightened reality where "typical" school includes Potions, Charms, Defense Against the Dark Arts, killer plants, moving staircases, three headed giant dogs, blast-ended screwts, giant killer spiders, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. At some point we need to just chill out and accept that some things and people won't (and shouldn't need to) stand up to our normal, "typical" measuring sticks. Eddie From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 15:43:34 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:43:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160475 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nate Hennessey" wrote: > I will say that something that struck me overwhelmingly in HBP was Dumbledore's newfound tendency to gloat. Steven1965aaa: I think your post is very astute, but I do disagree with you on this one point -- I don't see this "gloating" as anything new. Back in SS when describing his use of the Mirror of Erised as part of the protection for the stone Dumbledore says something like "it was one of my more clever ideas, which between you and me is really saying something." In OOP Dumbledore tells Harry that because he is so greatly intelligent his mistakes tend to be much larger than most people's as well. He does say "forgive me" in HBP when talking about his prodigious skill. Steven1965aaa, who tends to view Dumbledore's remarks about his own intelligence as Dumbledore having some playful fun. From LynnKQuinn at aol.com Fri Oct 27 15:07:21 2006 From: LynnKQuinn at aol.com (eyemlynn) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:07:21 -0000 Subject: Priory Incantatem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160476 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dillgravy" wrote: > > Maybe now that VM has been reminded of PI, he is in > search of his mother's wand- and the brother or sister to that wand- only Olivander can tell > exactly what a wand is made of. Right? > Lynn: Olivander is not the only one. If you remember when HP went to the MOM for his hearing, the had to give his wand and a paper with everything about his wand came out of the "scale" thing. I don't doubt there is an important reason for Olivander's disappearance but I'm not thinking that's it. Lynn > From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 15:47:01 2006 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:47:01 -0000 Subject: Dudley's tail in the hut on the rock In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160477 > pforParvati: > > Hi..I was doing a little bit re-reading and a question popped in > my mind was that, In PS, why Dudley's tail given by Hagrid was not > detected by MOM? Why they needed to cut it from private hospital? > Actually it should have come under muggle abuse and should have been > repaired by MoM. Was it because Hagrid's wand is broken? In that case > criminals /expelled students whose wands are broken by MoM may perform > magic without getting detected. > We all know that there are many faults in wizard acts and the way they > detect magic, but still I am curious about this. Does anybody know > canon explanation about this mentioned in any JKR interview...? Beatrice: I think that this was answered in HBP. That the MoM can detect magic, but they cannot necessarily detect who is performing it. The first possibility is that the MoM has no way of knowing if Harry performed this accidently as we know can happen with unschooled wizards or if it was the act of someone else. Second, Hagrid tells us in SS/PS that Dumbledore has given him permission to use magic in order to locate Harry. I suspect that this did not mean that Hagrid was given a special permit by the MoM , but rather that DD fixed it in someway that Hagrid would be able to use magic without being detected. This would also explain why the Accidental Magic Reversal Squad (I think the title may not be accurate, but I don't have my texts) did not appear to correct the spell. Third, (this is a thought that has just occured to me this moment) is it possible that there is more to the shack on the rock in the sea than meets the eye? Could a wizard live there with a house that is hidden? Like Grimmauld place or Hogwarts? Could the shack be near Azkaban? Magically protection could make it very difficult to detect Hagrid's spell, as would the presence of one or more qualified wizards. Finally, perhaps it is just an inconsistancy in the text. It isn't as if we don't have other incidents where JKR has violated the rules of her own universe. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 16:39:44 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:39:44 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160478 wynnleaf: > I am always interested at the comments from supporters of > Hermione's hex and how often those comments are consistent in > their attempts to re-write canon. The above comments are simply > examples of the usual re-writes. > > 1. "horribly disfigured by a series of close-set purple pustules" > gets re-written in "acne." Very convenient if one wants to soften > what Hermione did. Amiable Dorsai: Mea culpa. Perhaps this was in reaction to the idea that collaboration with a torturer is the sort of mistake anyone could make. wynnleaf: > 2. We are told that Hermione did this in an effort to protect the > DA, rather than an effort to simply find out who told. As though > the hex did anything at all to prevent someone telling, which it > obviously did not, particularly when Hermione did it secretly so > that no one knew there was any consequence for telling anyone. It > was zero protection. Amiable Dorsai: In fact, it did save Harry (at least, there's no telling how far the purge would have gone) from expulsion. It caused Marietta to clam up long enough for Shacklebolt to Obliviate her, and for Dumbledore to spin his tale. Hermione seems to have done whatever she did in order to give warning that they had been betrayed, rather than to prevent betrayal. I have repeatedly agreed that it would have been better tactics (and better manners) for her to warn the DA of what she had done, and did so again in the post that Alla responded to. wynnleaf: > 3. Canon tells us that no one had been able to end the hex, even > over the summer. One has to assume that even skilled wizards or > witches couldn't do it. Yet supporters of the hex seem blithly > assured that it's not permanent. Amiable Dorsai: I can't speak for others, but I have speculated that the hex was the penalty clause of a magical contract that Marietta agreed (however unknowingly) to with 27 other students. If so, as Hermione was not the only party to the contract who was betrayed, I've further guessed that she cannot lift the hex by herself. All we can do is speculate, canon is silent on the issue. wynnleaf: > 4. Hex supporters feel strongly that Marietta should apologize for > what she did and be sorry. Strange how they forget that she'd been > obliviated and can't even remember anything about the DA, much > less going to it. But (not yet in this discussion) hex supporters > have in the past commented that they're certain that the obliviation > wasn't permanent, even though all the canon evidence we have is that > those sorts of memory modifications are permenant. Amiable Dorsai: Myself, I've never addressed the issue of the permanence or lack thereof of the Memory Charm on Marietta. Frankly, I have no clue. I do think it likely that someone might have mentioned her treason to her, you know, in passing. Wynnleaf: > 5. And another one I've seen often is the assertion from some hex > supporters that the DA members should have known they were > signing a "magical contract" as though all contracts in the WW *are* > magical, Amiable Dorsai: Again, while I can't speak for others, I've never claimed such. I do think that, magical contract or not, a person should keep her promises, and that betraying ones fellows is a very bad thing. wynnleaf: > and so they should have known some sort of magical result > would occur if they broke it. Supporters of this argument happily > disregard the fact that Hermione put the hex in *secretly* . Amiable Dorsai: Nope, sorry, I've always said she should have mentioned it, never claimed otherwise. wynnleaf: > But the biggest thing that interests me is how a discussion on > Hermione's willingness to harm others including the innocent, trick > innocent individuals, lie, steal, and otherwise break rules in > order to get her way is diverted into this one issue of Marietta, > apparently for the purpose of being able to argue that in this case, > the person deserved it, completely overlooking the main point, which > is that Hermione doesn't really *care* if a person deserves what > happens to them, as long as she gets the result she wants. Amiable Dorsai: Odd, what I see is that a girl whose first instincts are to raise the downtrodden and protect the innocent, who has been fighting Voldemort from her first year as a Hogwarts student, and who has regularly put her own life on the line to defend others, has suddenly, over this incident, been nominated for the "Girl Most Likely to go Dark" slot in the Hogwarts yearbook. It seems like a bit of a stretch, to me. Is she perfect? Hell no. Could she occasionally use a heapin' helpin' o' humility? You bet. Is she evil? Don't be silly. Amiable Dorsai From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 17:30:45 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:30:45 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160479 "amiabledorsai" wrote: > The original post I responded to seemed to > damn Hermione for actions taken in defense > of her own life and the lives of others, > while excusing Marietta's treason. I was > (and am) astonished that a person > could take that view Don't be astonished, it's just the way things are in the Potter community. For some reason people love to write posts explaining why the good guys are really bad and the bad guys are really good. Even today some have still not forgiven Harry for raising his voice at his friends a few times in book 5, but they instantly forgave Snape for murdering Dumbledore in book 6. Go figure. As for Marietta, well, if she were part of the resistance in occupied France and fellow members discovered she had betrayed some of her comrades to the Nazis I suspect they'd do more than give her acne. If the good guys behaved as some seem to think they should they would be a bunch of effete impotent wimps unworthy of the word "Hero". Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 17:47:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:47:06 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160480 Carol earlier: > Forgive me, but you're begging the question here by taking your point > for granted. As I said, we don't know the characteristics of a > Horcrux, other than that a Horcrux contains a soul fragment, anchoring > the main or core soul to the earth and preventing the wizard from > dying. And the "bit" of Voldemort contained in Harry seems to be some > of his powers, including Parseltongue. We do not know and have not > been told either by DD or the narrator that that "bit" is a soul > fragment. > > > Snow: > > This is speculation at this point backed by canon you can produce, or am I wrong? Caorl responds: Sorry, but I don't understand what you're asking. I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that you were stating your point as if it were proven when there's no canon to back it up. All we have canon for is that Harry acquired some of Voldemort's powers (I speculate that they also include possession, but of course I don't have canon for that). All I'm saying is that the "bit" of Voldemort in Harry is not necessarily a fragment of Voldemort's soul. It could as easily be a drop of his blood. I've already cited canon that magic is in the blood. I can produce a page number for the Dursley quote ("not a drop of magical blood in their veins") if need be. I'm sure you don't need one for the use of Harry's blood in the restorative potion or all the references to "pure blood," etc. And the potion that created LV's rudimentary body contained unicorn blood, if that's relevant. If you can produce canon that Harry or his scar contains a soul bit, please do so. Otherwise, as you say, it's speculation. Carol earlier: > > The diary, even without Ginny's soul, is different from the other Horcruxes because it contains at least one *memory* of Tom Riddle in addition to the soul bit. > > Snow: > > How, oh yeah because it had a possible living soul within its binding? Carol again: Actually, no. Please don't resort to sarcasm, okay? It's different because it's designed to be interactive, not merely to encase a soul bit to keep the main soul earthbound. The other Horcruxes we've seen (except for Nagini, if she is one) are hidden away, protected by curses (the ring) or potions and Inferi and an anti-opening spell (the locket, which may also have a curse on it to attack anyone who dares to open it and release the soul bit). IMO, the diary was already a powerful magical object designed for the purpose that LV told Lucius Malfoy about, opening the Chamber of Secrets and releasing the Basilisk to kill "Mudbloods." Making it a Horcrux gave the "mere memory" that had already been placed inside the diary when Tom was sixteen additional powers, not merely possession to cause someone to open the CoS but the ability to in essence suck out that soul and bring Memory!Tom to life. No such memory has been preserved in the other Horcruxes, which contain only the usual soul bit, whose sole power, so far as we know, is the one that most Horcruxes are designed to have, keeping the main soul alive and earthbound even if the body is destroyed. (Can you see Dumbledore interacting with the ring or Harry with the locket in the same way that Harry and Ginny did with the diary? There are no pages to write on, no responses to read, no memory to fall into. The diary had a dual purpose unlike the other Horcruxes, none of which, IMO, could result in a new body for Voldemort. Nor could they even be individually used. They can only hold a soul bit indefinitely (in LV's view, forever) and, collectively or individually, keep him "alive." As long as he has even one Horcrux, he can't die. Nor does he need Horcruxes to create a new body, as Wormtail demonstrated. All he needs is one follower willing to carry out his instructions. Carol earlier: > > Consequently, we can't use it to determine the characteristics of > a standard Horcrux, which is merely an object (preferably a valuable, magical object) in which a soul bit is encased. It may or may not contain a protective curse, as the ring did. (I expect that the locket and the cup will be similarly protected, but we just don't know.) > > Snow: > > I totally agree again that we cannot treat the Diary the same as the > other Horcruxes that were made because of the living soul aspect. Carol again: Well, I call it the memory aspect, but I suppose we agree on this point, more or less. > > Carol: > > As for Nagini, her closeness to Voldemort is the antithesis of Harry's enmity, and Voldemort can possess her without killing or even paining her (Harry seeing from the snake's pov felt no pain)--very different from the pain Harry feels in his scar even before Voldie is restored using his blood. So, yes, I agree. Harry is not like any of the Horcruxes, including Nagini, who is a living being with a will of her own whether or not she has a soul. > > Snow: > > Voldemort possessed Nagini not Harry! Harry sees what Voldemort sees, which is why when Voldemort possessed Nagini Harry saw the events through the snakes eyes. Carol: Possibly you're misunderstanding me. Of course he possessed Nagini, not Harry, in the MoM scene and Harry was only seeing through her eyes because LV was possessing Nagini, as Snape says. But he can possess her without causing her pain. When he possesses Harry, he causes Harry such agony that he wants to die and join Sirius Black, at which point, Voldemort suffers agony, too, because of the blood protection. But if Harry contained a soul bit, as Nagini apparently does, surely LV could possess him *physically* without agony to either of them because the soul bit would already, in essence, possess him mentally or, erm, spiritually. Snow: > Nagini is a soulless creature, which is where Harry and `her' part > company. Nagini cannot think for herself and has no outward feelings, which is a very big part of a soul; therefore Harry's uniqueness is quite solitary. Carol: I think that Nagini *can* think for herself. Certainly, she tells Voldemort that there's an old Muggle on the stairs, and we experience her conflicting thoughts (the desire to bite vs. the Voldie-controlled thought that she must not disturb the man). Snakes can speak, right? Look at the conversation with the nonmagical boa constrictor in SS/PS. Wormtail talks to his rat friends and gets information about the nameless terror that possesses small animals from them, and post owls, magical creatures like Nagini, deliver mail without even knowing the address. Hedwig understands Harry when he talks to her. The half-kneazle cat Crookshanks converses with Sirius Black when Black is in his Animagus form. Dumbledore thinks it's unwise to place a soul bit in a creature that can "think and move for itself." So, soulless or not, I think Nagini *does* think and feel, not to mention understand LV when he promises her victims to feed on and providing him with information. Even a dog in RL can think and feel on a rudimentary scale. Nagini is much more intelligent and more loyal than any Death Eater except Bellatrix and Barty Jr. As for Harry's uniqueness, I think he would behave more like Nagini if he were a Horcrux, or there would be a conflict between the pro-Voldemort elements in the soul bit and his own hatred of the wizard who killed his parents. What's unique about Harry is the scar connection and the pain he feels around Voldemort, which IMO does not require a soul bit, only a magical connection forged by the AK that failed. And, of course, he's the only person or creature that shares some of Voldemort's powers. Horcrux!Nagini has a close connection with him and naturally speaks Parseltongue, but I doubt that she has the powers of Legilimency or possession. > Carol earlier: > Certainly, he murdered Harry's mother though it was Harry he intended to murder, and the soul bit created by Harry's murder that he intended to encase. To me, that's clearly the reason that he wanted Lily to step aside. The soul fragment detached by her death would be too insignificant, in his view, for a Horcrux. (We're left to presume that James's death in a duel or battle didn't qualify as a murder for the purpose of creating a Horcrux, however unfair Voldemort's tactics, and to wonder what became of the soul fragments from all those other murders. > > Snow: > > So glad you brought this up since it is very relevant. What was the > difference between Voldemort killing James that night and his killing Lily? James fought back and Lily didn't. Most every death that was used as a Horcrux was an unarmed victim, which is murder! But worse than that would be an unarmed victim that was begging not for them self but for someone else! Carol again: So we agree that Voldemort didn't count James's death as a murder. But do you agree that Voldemort didn't want to split his soul using Lily's death, which is why he told her to step aside? (I won't even get into how he could be sure that the next murder would result in splitting off 1/7 of his soul!) Also, I'm not sure how this part of the argument strengthens the Harry!Unofficial Horcrux argument. It does, however, explain why LV tol Lily to step aside. Her death wasn't significant to use for making a Horcrux with, as he intended to do with Harry's. (I don't think that he begging for mercy for Harry made her more significant. Myrtle's murder would be significant as his first; the Riddles would be significant because he was wiping out his Muggle bloodline; Hepzibah Smith would be significant as a Hufflepuff descendant and the owner of two valuable artifacts that he wanted to make into Horcruxes; Harry would be significant as the Chosen One. Lily is just a "Mudblood," a "silly girl," no more significant than any other Order member. If he managed to kill Grindelwald after DD destroyed his Horcrux, that would also be a significant and Horcrux-worthy murder.) > > Carol snipped slightly: > > But a split soul does not a Horcrux make, or most of the Death Eaters and every other murderer in the WW would have one. (We don't even know whether all killing results in a split soul or what exactly a split soul means.) > > Snow: > > If someone commits a hennas crime there soul may surely be split but > without a spell and/or destination for that split to adhere to, it > may just dissolve without a soul to keep it alive but only in the > event that such an occurrence coincided almost simultaneously with > there own death, which of course in this particular case it did. Carol: I don't think so. I think the soul is just damaged but remains with the murderer. The soul fragment created by the murderer is detachachable if the murderer wants to encase it in a Horcrux, but ordinarily, he doesn't do so. I have some hope that a split soul can heal if the murderer repents (Snape!), but I think that in LV's case, the soul fragments from his various murders remained detachable until and unless he encased them in a Horcrux. (Exactly how he could choose the soul fragment he wanted to use or guarantee that it was exactly one-seventh of his soul is beyond my comprehension.) I don't think that those soul bits floated free when his soul was expelled from his body. I think they remained with the main soul. Only the fragments that he deliberately detached and encased would be Horcruxes. (If you can produce some canon for free-floating soul bits, please do so. I'm waiting for JKR to crush this particular rumor on her website. :-) ) > > Carol: > > Did it? Where is your evidence that it didn't stay with the core soul? > > Snow: > > Evidence? I though we were speculating but I'll go with it To > separate does mean to split or am I wrong again? If the soul split > and the core goes with Voldemort where does the fragment caused by > Lily's death go? Carol: No, "split" and "separate" are not exact synomnyms. Have you ever had a pair of pants split along the seams but not separate into two pieces? I think the pieces that were split, ready to be detached but not yet removed, stayed with the damaged main soul. (Doesn't Dumbledore use that very word, "damaged," to describe LV's soul?) But suppose you're right and the soul bit was detached. Why would it go into Harry rather than dissolving or going beyond the Veil, which I take to be the ultimate destination of all souls. It wouldn't be earthbound like the main soul or the destruction of a Horcrux couldn't result in the loss of a soul bit. And what about all those other murders, which also fragmented Voldie's soul but weren't used in Horcruxes? If all of those floated away or went into Harry, Voldie would have something like 1/100 of a soul left! > > Carol: > > Certainly he didn't deliberately detach the torn soul and encase it in an object, which requires both an object (not a person) and a spell. > > Snow: > > Voldemort did not deliberately cause this event nor did he use a > spell, which is why Harry is not a Horcrux. > Carol: Well, at least we agree on that, though otherwise your scenario is exactly like that of the Harry!Horcrux advocates. I think that whatever is in Harry is not a soul bit because the soul bit couldn't get into Harry without the encasing spell. A drop of blood landing in his cut, on the other hand, could easily have mixed LV's magical blood with Harry's own, just as Harry's blood now runs in LV's veins thanks to the restorative potion. Are you saying that Harry doesn't have to be killed because the Horcrux spell wasn't performed and his soul bit isn't doing the job of holding the main soul to earth? That's the only point I can see in having him as a non-Horcrux soul bit container. But I think that if Harry thought his scar contained a soul bit, he'd see himself as a Horcrux and believe that he has to be sacrificed, which takes us back to the unsolvable dilemma of how to destroy himself, the last Horcrux, and kill Voldemort, too. Much better, IMO, if the climactic penultimate battle is with Horcrux!Nagini (Mr. Potter in the graveyard with the Sword of Gryffindor, ;-) ). Carol earlier: > > and what about all the other murders he committed that weren't used > for Horcruxes? > > Snow: > > I have accounted for the majority that could possibly fit into the > Lily scenario in the past and don't wish to rehash unless necessary. Carol again: Actually, you haven't explained what happened to those soul bits, which is what I'm asking. > > Carol: > > We have, at the very least, Myrtle, three Riddles, > Hepzibah Smith, an Order member he killed personally, James if he > counts, and Lily. That's eight, more than enough for the five > Horcruxes he would have had before Godric's Hollow if DD's > calculations are correct. There are certainly many others considering > the number of Inferi in the cave. > > Snow: > > It depends on how you look at the murders. If you count all > Voldemort's appointed murders by his deatheaters as his killing them > then we will come to a draw on the subject. Myrtle was not killed by > Voldemort anymore than Cedric was. Carol: I disagree. Tom killed Myrtle using the Basilisk as his weapon. If you sic your pit bull on someone, ordering the dog to kill the person, and the person dies, aren't you guilty of murder? I agree that Cedric's death doesn't count as a murder, but he's not on my list. Nor am I counting murders committed by Death Eaters. Look at the murders LV has committed personally just since he got his rudimentary body in GoF: Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, and Madam Bones. Do you really think that he limited his murders in his glory days to the ones I listed or let this DEs do all the killing? > Carol earlier: > > But my point is, how do you know that the Lily fragment hid itself > outside Voldemort's body? What was left of his soul was expelled from his body, but how do you know that the Lily fragment didn't remain with the core soul? > > Snow: > > Because somehow, someway Harry did receive a bit of Voldemort, a > connection that endowed him with equal powers (as per the prophecy) > that night. The night that his mother saved him with her love by > sacrificing herself and ensuring that Voldemort commit the most evil > act of murder. Carol again: But "a bit of Voldemort" is not necessarily a bit of Voldemort's soul, as I keep saying. Just committing murder does not create a Horcrux, as we agree, nor do we have any evidence of free-floating soul bits at GH, or soul bits that can lodge themselves in a host. If that were the case, Harry would be possessed, and we know that he isn't. > Snow: > > I'm not sure what I can say this without reiterating everything I > have already said, if you don't get where I'm coming from at this > point, I'm at a loss for words. Carol: I do know where you're going. I'm just explaining why I don't agree with you. > Carol earlier: > > All we know is that he has some of Voldemort's powers, which could as easily have entered the cut that would later become a scar through a drop of LV's magical blood as through a detached soul fragment. > > Snow: > > This is not just about obtaining some of Voldemort's powers through > some means. This is also about a connection that was forged between > them that happened when Harry received the scar. Carol: The scar itself creates the forged connection, along with the circumstances and the "powers." I see no need for a soul bit, only a mutual Legilimency (one of the shared powers). The scar was not created by the AK entering Harry's head (AK's don't make a mark). Nor was it caused by a Horcrux-encasing spell, which we agree was never cast. It must therefore have been caused by the deflected AK bursting out. (We know that it was strong enough to explode Voldemort and blow up the house, so certainly it would create some sort of opening as it burst out--a nice, jagged, lightning-bolt shaped cut that would become a curse scar even though it was most unusually caused by the exit rather than the entrance of the spell.) The powers must have entered through the cut, but the scar itself might be sufficient to create a bond because of Lily's sacrifice or Voldemort's broken promise to trade Lily's life for Harry's. We don't know what caused the connection, only that it resides in the scar, which marks Harry as Voldemort's equal because it apparently houses those unique powers. We're no closer than we were to knowing how the powers got there. I'm speculating a drop of blood through the cut; you're speculating that a soul bit got in (by the same route?) accidentally and without a Horcrux spell. I still don't buy it. Sorry. > Carol: > Granted. He has some of Voldemort's *powers*, including Parseltongue, > a unique form of mutual Legilimency, and possibly possession, which I > expect to see in Book 7. But we're told that magic resides in the > blood (not a drop of magical blood in the Dursleys' veins, > > Snow: > > Not a drop? And yet Harry is most protected there beyond anything > that Dumbledore could have ever have empowered for a protection, why? Carol: Because Lily and Petunia are blood relatives. But that doesn't make Petunia's blood magical. Here's the quote: "The Dursleys were what wizards called Muggles (not a drop of magical blood in their veins) (CoS Am. ed. 3). The magic in Lily's blood must be a mutation. It certainly doesn't come from her Muggle parents. And the blood protection has nothing to do with her powers, only with her sacrifice. Snow: > > Voldemort did not purposely put a scar on Harry's head, he did not > intend on giving powers to the babe that was pronounced to destroy > him, he did not foresee nor does he realize to this time, that Harry > will live when he conquers him cause neither can live while the other survives. Carol: Of course. I agree completely. So Dumbledore's words only mean that Voldemort *inadvertently* caused him to "mark Harry as his equal" and to transfer some of his powers to Harry. We're no closer to knowing what the "bit" of Voldemort is or how it got into Harry. > Carol earlier: > So in your view, he might as well be a Horcrux. Wouldn't he have to > die for the soul bit to be destroyed, just as he would if he were an > official Horcrux? And in that case, how can he kill or destroy the > Horcruxless Voldemort? > > Snow: > > Harry is unique! He is a living soul that does possess a portion of > Voldemort. Harry does not have to die but one of them does according > to the prophecy, neither can live Carol: I'm not following your argument here, nor am I arguing that Harry isn't unique. Of course he is. He's the Chosen One, the Prophecy Boy, the only one who can destroy Voldemort. But that does not make him an unofficial Horcrux, nor does it mean that the "bit" of Voldemort in him is a soul fragment. And the Prophecy states, "neither can live while the other survives," not "neither can live," period. The Prophecy merely states that "either must die at the hand of the other," meaning "one must be killed by the other," not "both must die." > Snow: > Harry is not a Horcrux, so all rules that we know of to the typical > Horcrux do not apply. The closest we come to a living Horcrux is the > Diary, which is controlled by a memory of the most evil person on > earth. Nagini is living but without a soul that can make her own > decisions. Harry is unique and in the end anything can apply. > Carol: I'd say that Nagini as a living being comes closer than the diary, which is inhabited by a memory, unlike any of the other Horcruxes, to being what Harry would be if he were a Horcrux. Or perhaps he'd just be a container keeping Voldemort on earth, with no special powers of his own. Yet you say he's not a Horcrux because the spell wasn't performed (that much I agree with); he's a living soul bit container but unlike Quirrell and CoS!Ginny, he isn't possessed. You could be right, but I don't think so. Yes, Harry has a "bit" of Voldemort in him (though it's unclear how it got there). Yes, he has some of Voldemort's powers, which, along with the blood protection and LOVE, uniquely qualify him to defeat Voldemort. Yes, the scar provides a connection between him and Voldemort. Yes, he is not a Horcrux. We agree that Horcruxes can't be created accidentally. But, no. I don't think we can reasonably conclude that Harry must be inhabited by a soul bit, nor do I see how that could happen without making him either an accidental Horcrux which must be destroyed or the victim of possession like Quirrell (which we know he isn't). If Harry is inhabited by a soul bit, he must be an accidental Horcrux. If he's a Horcrux, he must be destroyed or Voldemort can't be killed. If Harry's destroyed, he can't kill Voldemort. This is not a mere JKR-style complication. It's an unresolvable dilemma. "Either must die at the hand of the other," and I'm pretty sure that "either" is Voldemort and "the other" is Harry, who I hope will find a way to destroy Voldemort without using Avada Kedavra and to "live" as the Prophecy implies he can once Voldemort no longer "survives." None of that can happen if he's an accidental or unofficial Horcrux, however unique. Carol, still believing that the "bit" of Voldemort that gives Harry his unique ability to conquer Voldemort is not a soul fragment and that Harry will survive, losing only the powers that he acquired at Godric's Hollow From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 27 17:46:13 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:46:13 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160481 Alla: But if something like that was done to Trio, namely spying on them and polijuicing them in the name of catching a murderer, a **real murderer** with no real physical harm done, believe me, I would not be angry for one second, so incredibly harmless I consider this adventure and of course I cannot imagine Harry and Ron taking drugged cupcakes, floating in the midair ( as Bruce said, that should raise a bell even in WW and they are IMO too suspicious for that, although cetainly hungry enough, hehe), but if they would, I would find that incredibly funny and well executed too. Magpie: Funny, sure. But it doesn't need to be totally correct for it to be funny. I think that given what Harry's feeling in CoS, that if he'd been tricked into revealing things to two unknown students because he thought they were Ron and Hermione (who'd actually been drugged and were lying unconcious somewhere--let's say by cupcakes sitting with all the others at the party instead of sitting off separately) he'd have considered it a fairly serious crime against him. And I think Hermione would have had a conniption. She doesn't have much of a sense of humor about things like that. She gets very passionate about student rights when it's her own rights she's talking about. Charles wrote: > Marietta's actions by necessity figure into it whether you like it > or not. Hermione put the jinx on the parchment in *self-defense* Michael: ...and why should she not wish to disfigure a horrid sneak? Magpie: There are many people for whom vengeance isn't a priority. I don't mean that to sound superior, it just isn't the natural reaction of every human. So there's plenty of reasons Hermione might have not wanted to disfigure a horrid sneak. Personally, I'd have wanted an actual defense in its place and would be less interested in retaliation. As eggplant puts it, the HP community has just always been made up of the manly men who aren't afraid to kill traitors and crack the skull of evil, and the effete wimps who won't shut up about compassion and human rights for bad guys. The list would be a dull place without us all! Michael: She did this deliberately, knowing the consequences. This is life and death for members... where they could be put in Azkaban prison for their actions. She's the first one to realize this is not just a game, but it's real life. She was always the smartest of them all. Magpie: That's not saying much of them all, because her sneak hex does absolutely nothing to counteract any of these dangers. If not for circumstances nobody could have forseen the sneak hex would have simply been a comfort to Hermione as she left Hogwarts. Michael: I can't buy that H deliberately has harmed anyone. She is a genius, and that feeds her ego. Magpie: I don't get how one can not deliberately harm anyone by casting a deliberately harming hex. If I gave you something that caused you to break out in oozing pustules all over your face and said, "But where have I harmed anyone?" I'd imagine you'd think I was crazy. I understand supporting Hermione's doing that to Marietta, but not pretending nothing happened. Eric: C.S. Lewish said that he would rather be ruled by tyrants than by moral busybodies, because (paraphrased) the tyrant's greed may be satiated at some point, but those who torture for the benefit of the victim will do so forever, since they have the approval of their own consciences and are sure that in the long run, their victims will thank them. Magpie: Good connection--and yes, although Hermione isn't an evil character it seems like JKR has made this a major part of her personality. She mostly plays it up for the adolescent girl overenthusiasm angle, but given Hermione's power and the lack of anyone ever there to control her, plus the constant real feeling of evil to be fought, of course she *could* be a terror. I don't think she's going to be, but it seems like a valid thing to talk about. So far she's been shielded from retalliation, but we've heard about simmering anger at her from several places already. Anger that she herself doesn't take seriously. Davida: If Hermoine hadn't put that hex or curse on that list then everybody that was apart of DA would have been in DD office. I believe Hermoine did the right thing,and Marietta suffered the consequences for it. Magpie: But isn't the only reason everyone in the DA wasn't in DD's office the fact that *Dobby* warned them in time for some of them to get away? It had nothing to do with Hermione's hex on Marietta. The parchment, iirc, simply gave Umbridge a list of everyone in the group, making sure nobody got too far away. Amiable Dorsai: Odd, what I see is that a girl whose first instincts are to raise the downtrodden and protect the innocent, who has been fighting Voldemort from her first year as a Hogwarts student, and who has regularly put her own life on the line to defend others, has suddenly, over this incident, been nominated for the "Girl Most Likely to go Dark" slot in the Hogwarts yearbook. It seems like a bit of a stretch, to me. Magpie: I think there's plenty of room left in that slot next to Barty Crouch, Sr. :-) Tesha: You totally missed my point, Magpie - I understated the scene - you overstated the scene... I think you're simply biased against the character for reasons that seem to remain your own. I say it is simply our points of view that differ. I will always try to see the best in JKR's good characters - and even the ones she paints in grey. Magpie: But your thinking I'm biased against the character for reasons that seem to remain my own doesn't necessarily matter. It doesn't explain how exactly I'm overstating the scene. It's not like I said, "Hermione gives Crabbe and Goyle long-term brain-damage and steals Potions ingredients needed to help the sick and then beats a confession out of Malfoy." To me I described the plan accurately. The line about her being better than the sociopathic murderer was a comment on how comparing someone to Voldemort didn't say much about how good they are. I don't see what biases I have or don't have against the character, or the biases you have in favor of the character, change what happened in the text. You can love a character and still describe his/her actions plainly and consider them wrong. Even when people have extremely opposite reactions to a character they can find some common ground in what they actually did as backed up by the text. Tesha: Draco, at least in the early books, would never openly confront his enemies. He uses his father and his teacher and his 2 body guards to hide behind. You can even see in the later books that he still does not want to face being singly responsible for anything. He uses other people to achieve his goal. Magpie: What does whether or not a character is considered to want to be singly responsible for things have to do with Carol's question about his right to privacy? Tesha: and doesn't he make one of his guards polyjuice into a girl to protect the secrecy of a certain door? Magpie: Crabbe and Goyle's use of the girls' bodies violates the privacy of the girls whose bodies are being used, just as Crabbe and Goyle's bodies were violated. Since they're not taking over the girl's lives to learn secrets about anyone no one's privacy is being invaded the way Draco's was. But I'm not sure how the Slytherin's own use of Polyjuice four years later has to do with the question. Tesha: 1. My husband's ex is a fine person - the point I was trying to make albeit badly is - she can take a few boxes of tooth picks and call them a 2x4. Magpie: And what does that mean with regards to Hermione, exactly? Because it seems like we're all just looking at actual scenes-the toothpicks- -and describing how we see them. We all build different 2x4's out of them--some of us see Hermione as having a troubling self- righteous ruthless streak and others of us see her as independent and brave. But we can still talk about the toothpicks on common ground, like whether the sneak hex is a self-defense or a retalliation toothpick. It doesn't all have to come down to whether the character is good or bad in some fundamental way. If Hermione's motivations are discussed, it's got to be backed up by what we can deduce from what happens in canon. Tesha: 2. Did you ever think that you just know more about Hermione than you do many of the other characters? Magpie: Not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that there's stuff going on with Hermione off-screen that changes her character? Because I think in fiction we're supposed to base our understanding of the character on what we see. I don't think I know Hermione particularly better or worse than other characters--many points of her personality have been hammered on consistently. Tesha: 3. My daughter would probably behave like Hermione if we were in the same circumstance, right down to the worst, and I would love and support her in it all. Oh, I'd scowl and rant and rave a bit, but I'd be proud my little kid would be so resourceful and independent. Magpie: But occasionally you'd come up against the parent of another child, perhaps one that had been punished by her, and that mother might see her as something other than resourceful and independent. Maybe they think they're the one with the great kid. Vernon Dursley's proud of Dudley's temper tantrums over his presents. Tesha: 4. I do believe you are taking characters, who are in the case we started with 12 years old, and asking them to behave as adults. Magpie: I don't see how analyzing the actions a 13 year old has actually done is asking her to behave like an adult. There doesn't seem to be a problem judging Hermione's actions as long as they reflect well on her, so what's wrong with seeing the opposite? If I say Draco's actions as part of the Inquisitor Squad were am I expecting him to act like an adult? Hermione, in particular, has done things that go beyond what many adults will do in their lifetime--sometimes she's taking on adults and winning. Who knows what she'll have done by the time she's officially an adult. Tesha: 5. I also believe that you are taking apart story lines to prove your points. Hermione had to make the polijuice potion because JKR needed an excuse for the 3 to become familiar with the bathroom where 2 would later enter the CoS. Magpie: I believe everyone has agreed on how the incident fits into the plot. But Hermione's character is obviously still written to fit around the plot points. JKR has given Hermione a character motivation to make the plot point happen. If she's only made the Polyjuice to show us the bathroom so can't be held responsible for her actions, then she can't also get points for being resourceful and independent. Tesha: I will always try to see the best in JKR's good characters - and even the ones she paints in grey. Magpie: So are you saying that certain characters are just looked at different than others? If the character is perceived as good or grey we should only see the best in them and if they're not good or grey we don't do that? Your passing mentions of Draco don't seem too limited to seeing only the best in him. -m From ibchawz at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 17:45:44 2006 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:45:44 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610270538j2897a0efr31c90c2399bae282@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160482 Random832: But allowing people to bring someone in is a security problem _in and of itself_. The whole point of the fidelius charm is so that you don't have to trust everyone who's told the secret. After all, if someone who's not the secret keeper could bring anyone they want to the location, the secret wouldn't have to be revealed to bring Voldemort to Godric's Hollow (which also tells us that if this were possible people wouldn't be assuming Sirius [as the secret keeper] was responsible for this happening) If anyone can bring anyone to the location, the Fidelius charm becomes absolutely pointless. ibchawz responds: I don't see that bringing someone to the location makes the Fidelius Charm pointless. Harry could bring Neville, Luna, or whomever to 12 GP without divulging that it was the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix. IIRC, someone stated that LV could have pressed his nose against a window at the Potters' house in Godric's Hollow and not be able to see the Potters inside, unless the Secret Keeper told him the secret. I think that the secret location of the OotP would be the same. Someone could physically be at 12GP without know that it was HQ. ibchawz From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 27 17:51:25 2006 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:51:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] muggles... the root Message-ID: <20061027175125.61117.qmail@web25603.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160483 Michael wrote: >I am not familiar with this. Was this before the 1950's. Many of these drug >terms were from overseas... so perhaps it was called Muggles from Europe on >the 50's or 60's??? I haven't found a source (obviously) from the I-net. > >Muggles seems like a drug term to me... a half aware group of folks... who >overlook the obvious. I've read that the derivation of the word "muggles" meaing marijuana is originally from Welsh. The original word was "myglys", from "mwg" (smoke), hence something smokeable. Not sure that there's any connection to JKR's word though. I'm sure she must have been asked it in an interview at some time! cheers Ffred Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 17:52:32 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:52:32 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione (was:Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160484 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" wrote: > > Is she perfect? Hell no. Could she occasionally use a heapin' > helpin' o' humility? You bet. > > Is she evil? Don't be silly. > Steven1965aaa: I think that the literary point of all of these so-called "evil" Hermione actions in the Books is to demonstrate that things are not 100% black and white in terms of morality and actions. Hermione does demonstrate some Slytherin / Machavellian - like qualities as has been pointed out by others. The trio all participate in a scheme to steal from Snape's storeroom, impersonate other people in order to trick Draco into revealing information (both in COS), evesdrop (OOP, HBP) and regularly break school rules. Harry is not above manipulating Slughorn by utilizing his dead mother. Even Dumbledore alludes to having "persuaded" Kreacher to give him information (OOP), which I took as being something less kind than giving him milk and cookies and asking nicely. All of these things (or at least most of them, Hermione's confundus charm excluded for sure) were intended to promote the greater good. There are many other examples. I think one point which is being made in the books through these and other examples is that good people are not necessarily perfect people. Conversly, perhaps we will see actions by a Slytherin in book 7 which aid Harry (perhaps we have already seen some?) From scarah at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 18:02:55 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 11:02:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] muggles... the root In-Reply-To: <20061027175125.61117.qmail@web25603.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <20061027175125.61117.qmail@web25603.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3202590610271102t2adabde7xf0b4410a580f467b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160485 Ffred: > Not sure that there's any connection to JKR's word though. I'm sure she must have been asked it in an interview at some time! Sarah: Yep. "I was looking for a word that suggested both foolishness and loveability. The word 'mug' came to mind, for somebody gullible, and then I softened it. I think 'muggle' sounds quite cuddly. I didn't know that the word 'muggle' had been used as drug slang at that point... ah well." >From http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm Sarah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 18:33:36 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:33:36 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione /some Peter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160487 > > > Alla, > > > > > > who wishes that Marauders had in their mist somebody as ruthless as > > > Hermione to mark traytor before he did any serious damage. > > Pippin: > But they did! Barty Sr. made sure the traitor was hauled off to Azkaban > before he could hurt anyone else. Just like Hermione in CoS, he got > the wrong man, too. Alla: I suspect that this comparison is made in jest, but Hermione **did** get the right traitor in OOP, didn't she? So, I think she did better job than Barty dear altogether, but I was thinking more of Marauders school years. I highly suspect that despite all Peter's hero worship of James and Sirius, he did something very close to what Marietta did in school (action, not circumstances, do not ask me about circumstances, I am just speculating wildly, since the unknown which is likely to become known is the Prank, I suspect may have something to do with it), and if they had somebody who knew how to protect their secrets better, maybe Marauders would have seen Peter's true colours in school already. But of course we would have no story then. > Tesha: > > 5. I also believe that you are taking apart story lines to prove your > points. Hermione had to make the polijuice potion because JKR needed > an excuse for the 3 to become familiar with the bathroom where 2 would > later enter the CoS. Alla: It made me chuckle. That **is** what we do here among other things, you know? :) Yeah, JKR needed Hermione to brew polijuice to move story along, just as JKR needed Dumbledore to leave Harry with child abusers and take him from the appointed guardian. The fact that I see the need for these actions outside of the story, does not make me want to slap Dumbledore any less and I am guessing this is the type of the reaction Magpie is having. > Magpie: > Funny, sure. But it doesn't need to be totally correct for it to be > funny. Alla: No, totally correct it is not and I never said it is, or at least did not mean to say that it is. What I **am** saying though that this is investigation to catch the murderer of muggle borns ( real and/or potential one) and as such, I fully excuse any rule breaking resulting from it. I wanted to address another point of yours, but could not find the right quote, so correct me if I am misstating. You said something to the effect that parents of Crabb and Goyle would not be impressed that it was done to their kids. Sure, they would not be, but they were suspected of helping out the murderer of muggleborns and the answer I would have for them - next time your children should better stay away from Draco Malfoy. Of course since those two also have DE parents, that was not going to happen. Sorry, but the fact that those guys **are** DE children does matter to me in deciding whether they deserved what happened to them. IMO of course. >> Magpie: > That's not saying much of them all, because her sneak hex does > absolutely nothing to counteract any of these dangers. If not for > circumstances nobody could have forseen the sneak hex would have > simply been a comfort to Hermione as she left Hogwarts. Alla: Doesn't it show the moment dear Marietta started talking? Sure, better job could have been done, but they do learn who the traitor is, IMO. wynnleaf: > 4. Hex supporters feel strongly that Marietta should apologize for > what she did and be sorry. Strange how they forget that she'd been > obliviated and can't even remember anything about the DA, much less > going to it. But (not yet in this discussion) hex supporters have in > the past commented that they're certain that the obliviation wasn't > permanent, even though all the canon evidence we have is that those > sorts of memory modifications are permenant. Alla: Amiable Dorsai already addressed all your points to my satisfaction, but I want to add something to this one. Uh, no I do not forget that Marietta was obliviated, but I would find it very strange if Cho did not fill her in later on on what she did. I speculate that she knows, even if the obliviation is permanent, which is quite likely. Besides, do we know how **much** of her memory was obliviated - did they obliviate only the fact that DA was in the room of Requirement and Marietta wanted to tell that or did they obliviate right from the moment Marietta came to the first meeting? I am not sure I remember such long term memory charm in canon, although could be wrong of course. So, if she does remember first meeting, would be even more natural for her to ask Cho what happened IMO. Wynnleaf: > But the biggest thing that interests me is how a discussion on > Hermione's willingness to harm others including the innocent, trick > innocent individuals, lie, steal, and otherwise break rules in order > to get her way is diverted into this one issue of Marietta, apparently > for the purpose of being able to argue that in this case, the person > deserved it, completely overlooking the main point, which is that > Hermione doesn't really *care* if a person deserves what happens to > them, as long as she gets the result she wants. Alla: Main point that Hermione does not really care whether the person deserves it or not? Okay, could you give me an example, where Hermione harmed somebody who did not deserve it, somebody who was not suspected of DE or DE related, murderous activities? If you argue that Hermione is a bit too ruthless in making herself a judge, in deciding that she knows best, always, I somewhat agree, not all the way, but agree. I completely disagree with Pippin by the way that it is good that Hermione just as Dumbledore consults only with herself, I sincerely hope she learns that this is wrong before it is too later. But if you are saying that Hermione does not care whom she punishes, I completely disagrees, I think she cares very much and she only punishes bad guys ( whether she has a right to do so, that is a different story) JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 18:51:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:51:12 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: <016801c6f981$571aa820$260dadcf@michaelp> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160488 Michael wrote: > > ...and why should she not wish to disfigure a horrid sneak? She did this > deliberately, knowing the consequences. This is life and death for > members... where they could be put in Azkaban prison for their actions. She's the first one to realize this is not just a game, but it's real life. > > She was always the smartest of them all. > > > I can't buy that H deliberately has harmed anyone. She is a genius, and that feeds her ego. > > Where has she done harm? I'm trying to find references to disfiguring others and so forth. Carol responds: It is not Hermione's right or responsibility to "disfigure a horrid sneak," who, AFWK, thought she was doing the right thing. Hermione didn't warn anyone of the jinx (surely they should have known that the parchment was a binding magical contract), nor did the jinx serve as a deterrent to snitching. It activated *after* the snitching had taken place. I think that Hermione, as usual, thought she knew best, and I really think she ought to have made some attempt to undo the excessive damage to Marietta (who appears to be horribly disfigured for life for a mistake she made as a teenager). Note that Marietta has been Obliviated and doesn't even know what she's being punished for. What is the use in that and how is it Hermione's right to act as judge, jury, and punisher all in one? If Marietta dis wrong, let Dumbledore or her Head of House (Flitwick) punish her, not a fellow student. A deterrent is one thing; an after-the-fact punishment is another. And Hermione does have a ruthlesss, vindictive, revenge-seeking streak. "I'll get that Skeeter woman if it's the last thing I do!" (badly quoted from memory, but you get the idea). And she attacks Ron with her birds because she's hurt and jealous, even though she knows that he'd never physically or magically harm her (however dense and provoking he may be sometimes). Yes, Hermione has her virtues, among them courage and loyalty, and she's quick to figure things out (like Lupin being a werewolf and the vision of Sirius Black as hostage in the MoM being improbable). I agree with her that Harry shouldn't be using the HBP's Potions hints to get marks he doesn't deserve (but what does she expect after all the times she's practically written the boys' essays for them? It's a wonder they've learned anything besides practical magic). Carol, who doesn't dislike Hermione but does want to see her learn a lesson or two in humility and to realize the futility of revenge From scarah at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 19:03:35 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:03:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Petunia magical?/Mrs. Figg In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610270612t2791556bjd127da011c2073ce@mail.gmail.com> References: <019201c6f8ad$b9b95780$980dadcf@michaelp> <7b9f25e50610260836r51532a79yb7d8973a4df02661@mail.gmail.com> <012f01c6f97f$7e65c740$260dadcf@michaelp> <7b9f25e50610270612t2791556bjd127da011c2073ce@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3202590610271203g13024f62la48c80ec9e5aaa9d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160489 Jordan Abel: > But unplottable is a specific charm, being "very magical" doesn't > cover it. I thought it was quite clear that when being unplottable was > brought up it was the _other_ schools (durmstrang and beauxbatons) > that were being discussed. Sarah: Hogwarts has been plotted on the Marauder's Map, hasn't it? JA: > That doesn't seem apparent at all, please explain further Sarah: Umbridge had the fireplaces all shut down or monitored in OOTP, so Harry broke in to use hers. JA: > Where do you get that from? There's no reason to think that _any_ of > the protections on Hogwarts haven't been in place for a thousand > years. And it certainly doesn't follow from anything you've said in > this discussion. Sarah Many protections in HBP are new. The Daily Prophet has a story about them, and it's later confirmed by Dumbledore, Tonks, Hagrid, etc. Maybe you are only speaking about the protections Hermione has read about in Hogwarts, A History and mentions in PS, but because there is so much extra security for the second war it's easy to imagine heightened security for the first war, Grindelwald conflict, and so on. There were also Dementors guarding the castle during POA, and the escort system during COS, so security does change with the times. JA: > Is there actually any canon evidence that a phoenix can do this at > all? I thought it was just a fanfiction thing. Sarah: I've never seen a phoenix perform a version of "Side-along Apparition" but he does fly with several people holding on to his tail. According to Hagrid, Dumbledore likes to use thestrals when he doesn't want to Apparate. JA: > Or maybe there's no "anti-flying ward" - just Dobby messing with the car. Sarah: In HBP there seem to be enchantments against flying on to the grounds, which Dumbledore must undo on his way back from the cave. I don't know if they'd likewise prevent flying away from the grounds. In any case the twins flew away on brooms and Harry and the gang flew away on thestrals during OOTP. Sarah From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 19:07:47 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:07:47 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione, part II In-Reply-To: <018a01c6f99b$cef52fe0$4c570043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160490 Eric Oppen: > All it took, for Dolores, was one easy, plausible, logical-seeming > (at least from her POV, which was predicated on the fact that "Lord > Voldemort is NOT back, Harry Potter's a lying, ego-crazed > attention-seeker, and the Ministry's got to be protected at all costs) > step after another... Amiable Dorsai Well, all it took was that and a sadistic streak a mile wide. Here are a few quotes from "Order of the Phoenix": "At the same time, the words had appeared on the back of Harrys right hand, cut into his skin as though traced there by a scalpel - yet even as he stared at the shining cut, the skin healed over again, leaving the place where it had been slightly redder than before but quite smooth. Harry looked round at Umbridge. She was watching him, her wide, toadlike mouth stretched in a smile." "He wrenched his arm out of her grip and leapt to his feet, staring at her. She looked back at him, a smile stretching her wide, slack mouth. `Yes, it hurts, doesn't it?' she said softly." "`Yes, Mr Potter, I think a lifelong ban ought to do the trick,' said Umbridge, her smile widening still further as she watched him struggle to comprehend what she had said." "`You c - can't!' howled Professor Trelawney, tears streaming down her face from behind her enormous lenses, `you c - can't sack me! I've b - been here sixteen years! H - Hogwarts is in - my h - home!' `It was your home,' said Professor Umbridge, and Harry was revolted to see the enjoyment stretching her toadlike face as she watched Professor Trelawney sink, sobbing uncontrollably, on to one of her trunks..." These weren't hard to find, in fact, it's more difficult to find scenes where Umbridge is *not* enjoying someone else's pain than those where she is. She's prctically on the verge of orgasm, "panting slightly" when she is about to use the Cruciatus on Harry: "`The Cruciatus Curse ought to loosen your tongue,' said Umbridge quietly. `No!' shrieked Hermione. `Professor Umbridge - it's illegal.' But Umbridge took no notice. There was a nasty, eager, excited look on her face that Harry had never seen before." Amiable Dorsai From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 19:29:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:29:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160491 Note to List Elves and those who read the posts on the lists: this is a slightly revised repost. The original has been deleted. Snape's Witch wrote: > > If Snape is a polyjuiced Dumbledore then who is the man with > > Harry in Chapters 3 and 4? Surely not Snape? No, no, no. > Becca wrote: > I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I can't speak to > chapters 3 and 4 specifically, but I will say that something that > struck me overwhelmingly in HBP was Dumbledore's newfound tendency to gloat. It was subtle, in most respects, but that - more than anything else (the Unbreakable Vow, the stuff on the Astronomy tower) - made me suspicious of a Polyjuice situation right away. Maybe tomorrow I'll have a minute to dig out the book and give some canon examples of Dumbledore's oddly Snape-like self aggrandizement, or maybe some kind soul who noticed the same thing and has a few minutes tonight will do it for me? Carol responds: "Snape-like self-aggrandizement"? When does Snape praise himself or even gloat? The closest I can think of is "How I hoped that I would be the one to catch you," which is more a desire for vengeance than an ego trip, or "I, the Half-Blood Prince" in HBP, when he needs to prove to Harry, and quickly, that he knows where Harry got those spells and potion hints and that they're his. He certainly doesn't gloat on the tower, and Dumbledore's praise is all of himself, not of Snape, who only gets credited with "timely action" in saving him, in contrast with DD's own prodigious intellect, or whatever the expression was. As I said in an earlier post, if Snape isn't Snape in "Spinner's End," then Snape isn't responsible for risking his own life as a double agent and Dumbledore has put Snape in a terrible position. Either that, or he's bound himself to commit suicide, which does not explain why he wants Snape to kill him. No, I think that "Spinner's End" takes place almost simultaneously with the other three opening chapters and that when Slughorn accepts the Potions position, Snape effectively becomes the DADA teacher--and the DADA curse falls into place. That would explain why Narcissa thought of the Unbreakable Vow just at that point and added the third provision without warning him. He was trapped by the DADA curse as much as by the vow, and however he and Dumbledore tried to avoid any circumstance that would trigger it, they were both doomed. Having Dumbledore in Snape's place, and behaving in such a Snapelike way that he fools both Narcissa and Bellatrix, takes away from Snape as a character (at last we get to see him as he appears to the DEs!) and diminishes his tragedy. It also makes Dumbledore solely responsible not only for his own death but for Snape's terrible predicament at the end of the book (having to go off with the DEs at the end of the book, the most wanted man next to Voldemort in the WW, all because Dumbledore made a UV in his name). I think that "Severus, please!" means "Severus, please kill me and keep the Vow!" which would make no sense if DD himself had made the UV and Snape was in no danger of dying, and would be tantamount to a murder/suicide if Snape refused to obey him and they both died (along with Draco and Harry). I agree that Dumbledore praises himself rather frequently in the book, but I don't think that's out of character. And I think that any other changes in his character result from his knowledge that time is running out and he must teach Harry as much about Horcruxes as possible, and locate at least one Horcrux, before Draco finishes his task and triggers the UV in combination with the DADA curse. In response to Nate's ingenious arguments regarding Polyjuice: If Dumbledore were really Snape, he'd be unable to reveal the address of the HQ of the Order of the Phoenix. As the real Snape says in "Spinner's End," in his characteristically Snapish way, "I am not the Secret-Keeper. I cannot speak the name of the place. You understand how the enchantment works, I think?" (HBP Am. ed. 30). (As you see, Nate, I agree that the references to the time are important, indeed crucial, but not with relation to Polyjuice. What's important, IMO, is that these chapters occur simultaneously, and the DADA curse strikes just as Slughorn accepts the Potions Master position.) Carol, betting that Snape is Snape and Dumbledore Dumbledore throughout the book and that the first four chapters occur almost simultaneously on the same Friday night two weeks into the summer holiday From scarah at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 19:26:48 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:26:48 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vernon's odd behavior In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590610271226k6c4ac0b4xc7cb70608efa9c4f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160492 > Magpie: > Their reasons are all stated in > ways that are negative--they think he'll destroy the house, he can't > sit in the car or he'll ruin that, etc. Sarah: I thought that when they spoke of coming back to find the house in ruins, they were speaking quite literally. That is exactly what happened to Harry's last house. I also suspect the friend on holiday in Majorca of being an excuse. I don't think Petunia would want to bust out with the real reason she can't leave Harry with anyone but Figg, which is all spelled out in a certain letter. Sarah From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Oct 27 19:20:52 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:20:52 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Regulus Black / locket / horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160493 >Danielle wrote: >Remember in the OotP that they found a locket >in Grimmauld Place and none of them could open it? Would it be >possible that it was the real locket horcrux? But, on the other >hand, we all know that Regulus Black was "dead" (if he really >is). >Jodi responds: >I wonder if anyone ever mentioned this on this list. If so, please >accept my apology for being repetitive. I only just thought of it >while I read her post. What if Regulus Black was killed by Voldemort -> before he created the horcrux-locket? Nikkalmati: Welcome neighbor ! . The listees have discussed the locket and RAB at some length in the past. The consensus is that RAB is Sirius' brother Regulus. Most agree that the locket at Grimauld Place is likely to be the Slytherin locket LV stolen from Hepzibah after he killed her. That means the locket was made into a Horcrux very early, most likely even before LV came to DD to apply for a position at Hogwarts in 1957??? Regulus was younger than Sirius and the Marauders. Therefore, RAB would have been a very young child at the time. We don't know when RAB was killed, but it was before Godric's Hollow when he would have been about 19 or so. RAB had time to steal the real locket and replace it with a fake before he died, if it was not given to Bella to place in the cave before he became a DE at 18 or so. Bella certainly was not given the job of placing it in the cave until she was old enough to be given the job. She was possibly 6 years older than Sirius. Where then was the locket hidden all that time (between say 1950 and 1979)? I have the same problem with the Diary Horcrux. Where was it kept before LV gave it to Lucius? BTW is it possible that RAB "got to" some of the other Horcruxes and one or more of them is in the House of Black or has already been destroyed? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 19:51:54 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:51:54 -0000 Subject: Invading the enemy's common room (Was: witches of the world ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160494 Carol earlier: > > > What would Hermione's defenders think if Draco had resorted to similar tactics and Polyjuiced Crabbe, Goyle, and himself to look like Gryffindors to spy on Harry? Wouldn't readers be up in arms at the invasion of privacy? > > Tesha: > Draco, at least in the early books, would never openly confront his > enemies. He uses his father and his teacher and his 2 body guards to > hide behind. You can even see in the later books that he still does > not want to face being singly responsible for anything. He uses other people to achieve his goal. > > and doesn't he make one of his guards polyjuice into a girl to protect the secrecy of a certain door? > Carol again: I'm afraid you've missed my point. I'm not talking about what Draco would or would not have done, or about his use of Polyjuice on Crabbe and Goyle to hide what he's up to in the RoR. I'm talking about the ethics of HRH's actions in using Polyjuice to spy on Draco in his own common room. I'll say it again more clearly. Wouldn't HRH--and most readers--be up in arms against Draco and his friends if they used Polyjuice to infiltrate the *Gryffindor* common room? Yet that's exactly what Harry and Ron did (and Hermione would have done if it weren't for the cat fur problem) to the Slytherins. Why is it okay for the Gryffindors to do what would be considered reprehensible and unforgiveable if the Slytherins did it? Would you want "the enemy" in your common room, which is supposed to be for your Housemates alone? Sounds like a double standard to me. Carol, who thinks that if the tables were turned and Polyjuiced Draco had shown up in Gryffindor tower even in second year, readers would be condemning him to a fate worse than Marietta's From secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net Fri Oct 27 13:02:20 2006 From: secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net (maria) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 06:02:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why didn't basilisk kill? In-Reply-To: <014901c6f980$41e080c0$260dadcf@michaelp> Message-ID: <20061027130220.79219.qmail@web83006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160495 > >>Eddie: >> OK, I know that everybody in Book 2: CoS who encountered the basilisk was petrified for one reason or another (basilisk gave deadly glare via mirror, camera, ghost, etc). But why didn't the basilisk then go ahead and kill/eat the victims _AFTER_ petrifying them? << > >>Michael Perry: >> Excellent! I *think* that this is because a basilisk can't kill inanimate objects. Once petrified, they aren't really alive. << Maria: I think the main Basilisk was under the rule/spell of Tom Riddle and did his bidding. He petrified those as a bait/lure for Harry Potter! ~maria~ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 20:24:13 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:24:13 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610270538j2897a0efr31c90c2399bae282@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160496 --- "Jordan Abel" wrote: > > Steve/bboyminn > > Generally speaking though, I don't see how what I > > suggested violates the Secret Keeper Charm in any > > way, and again, bringing someone to Grimmauld Place > > could easily be done in a way that doesn't reveal > > the secret. > Jordan/Random: > > But allowing people to bring someone in is a security > problem _in and of itself_. The whole point of the > fidelius charm is so that you don't have to trust > everyone who's told the secret. After all, if someone > who's not the secret keeper could bring anyone they want > to the location, the secret wouldn't have to be revealed > to bring Voldemort to Godric's Hollow (which also tells > us that if this were possible people wouldn't be > assuming Sirius ... was responsible for this > happening) > > If anyone can bring anyone to the location, the Fidelius > charm becomes absolutely pointless. > > -- > Random832 > bboyminn: Either your not seeing my whole point, or I'm missing part of yours. Yes, anyone could bring anyone anywhere, but what is the point? True someone could have brought someone to Godrics Hollow, but what good would it do if the second someone still couldn't find the Potters? Yes, someone who knew the secret could have brought Voldemort to Godrics Hollow while not revealing the secret to him, but Voldemort still could not have found the Potters. DO VERY MUCH, keep in mind that we are not talking about someone and someone, we are talking about Harry and Neville. You don't risk the secret to people you don't trust, which implies that you only reveal it to people you DO trust. Someone could have lead Neville to Grimmauld Square and guided him inside Grimmauld Place. How does that compromise security? Neville can't reveal the location to anyone. Even if Neville is coerced into leading someone to Grimmauld Square, he still can't reveal the secret, and without the secret the house itself can't and won't be revealed. So, again where is the compromise of security? Leading Voldemort to Godrics Hollow doesn't reveal the Potters, and Neville coerced into leading someone to Grimmauld Square doesn't reveal the Black House. But back to the key point, you don't invite people into the house if you don't trust them. You don't grab random people of the street and say, 'Hey, want to see something neat?'. You don't track down Death Eaters, drag them to the house and say, 'Check this out'. The security is maintained because in my example, it is Neville that is being brought into the house, not a stranger or an enemy. Keep in mind that Kreacher went to Narcissa and gave her information about Harry and Sirius. Now Narcissa could be pretty dense (mentally and intellectually) but she would have to be near brain-dead not to realize the Kreacher is the Elf of the Black family. Combine that with Kreacher's knowledge of Sirius and Harry, and even a moron can put two and two together and arrive at the probable occassional occurance of Harry and Sirius at the Black House. Yet, Narcissa can't reveal that secret. She can't say 'Sirius is at his parents house' because the spell prevents her from speaking those words. I don't think she can even do it by inference. For example, she can't say to Voldemort or other DE's 'Hang around Grimmauld Square and you will gain valuable information'. In a sense that is indirectly revealing the secret and I AM well aware that seems to go against what I orginally said. But not quite by my way of thinking. Keep in mind that I THINK the Fidelius Charm is related to 'fidelity'. Harry telling trusted Neville to wait at Grimmauld Square until Harry comes to meet him doesn't voilate 'fidelity'. Telling Neville that with no context doesn't mean anything to Neville, it doesn't reveal anything. However, Narcissa could and would only do this for nefarious purposes which very much does breach 'fidelity'. Harry could just as easily have Neville wait at a near by news stand or tea shop, and bring him from there. Again, when they get close, Harry could blindfold Neville, and lead him inside. People could be brought into the house without breaching fidelity and without revealing the secret. That's all I'm saying. Steve/bboyminn From mcdumbledore at juno.com Fri Oct 27 20:53:23 2006 From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:53:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160497 Steven1965aaa: > when describing his use of the Mirror of Erised as part of the > protection for the stone Dumbledore says something like "it was one of > my more clever ideas, which between you and me is really saying > something." Becca responds: Yeah, I remembered that, too, but it was the only time I could ever recall DD saying soemthing to that effect. I figured that 1 time in the first 5 books was a much lower percentage than the many, many times in book 6. So it still seems like a new *pattern* of behavior, even though - yes - he has, on isolated occasions, done it before. Of course, maybe there are other examples in books 1-5 that I am forgetting... It's been months since I have cracked a HP book. From caaf at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 21:03:09 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:03:09 -0000 Subject: Does death lift the charm: /Was: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160498 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > > > > onlygoofy: > > > > > > > > I'm slightly confused. In HBP when Dumbledore died, the > > spell he cast on Harry lifted. Does this also mean that > > any protections Dumbledore placed on 12 Grimmaud Place > > was also lifted? If not, how would anyone new to the > > Order ever find it? Could the headquarters transfer to a > > new secret keeper? What about those spells he placed on > > Hogwarts, is it not as well protected as before? > > > > ... > > > > :), > > onlygoofy > > > > > bboyminn: > > In general, some spells are lifted when the caster dies, > and some spells are not. Remember that 12 Grimmauld Place > is still protected by spells cast by Sirius's forefathers. > Some of the spells on Hogwarts are ancient, they have > out lived many Headmasters. Yet, the spell that held > Harry in the 'binding' charm, was lifted. So, again, > some are lifted, some are not. Cyril. IMO, all spells remain even when the caster dies. The only instance that we have where a spell *seems to* have lifted is the PT curse on Harry apparently lifting with DD's death. However, here, we only have Harry's pov on the matter - and the rest of canon does not support this pov. Some instances of spells remaining even after the death of the caster: a) The ancient magic that has put a lot of security in Hogwarts b) The spells cast by Sirius' father on 12 GP c) The clear example that death of the Secret Keeper does not lift the spell IMO, the reason that Harry was released was because Snape did a nvbl counter-curse/spell. I had written about this quite a few months earlier, but am not able to locate the post with the Yahoo Search. JMO. Cyril. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 21:06:13 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:06:13 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione / Cruelty and Heroism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160499 > >>Amiable Dorsai: > It is easier to make a point when you rip things out of context, > isn't it? ;-) > Betsy Hp: Actually, I'd say it's easier to overlook a point by covering it up with irrelevant "context". I don't care if Marietta drowned Hermione's puppy, raped her boyfriend or slapped her momma. I don't think branding someone's face is a good thing. Here's an analogy: No one likes child molesters, right? I mean, I think we can all get behind the idea that child molesters are bad and should be punished. But I can also say that if the governor of this great Commonwealth submitted a bill that called for child molesters to be branded across the face with the word "molester", I'd be whole-heartedly against it. And not because I think it's cruel towards the molester. It's because of what I think such a law would say about the people of Kentucky. Hermione decided to place her classmates under a jinx. It was a cruel and underhanded thing to do, no matter who the jinx sprang on. (Harry is very lucky he's not walking around with "SNEAK" written across his face, actually. He came very close to spilling the beans to Fudge, himself.) IMO, there are things people who'd like to be considered civilized should not do. Hermione crossed the line. > >>Eggplant: > > If the good guys behaved as some seem to think they should they > would be a bunch of effete impotent wimps unworthy of the > word "Hero". Betsy Hp: Cruelty and barbarism doesn't guarantee competence. Hermione was a total ass with the DADA. She handled it badly from beginning to end, and it's *because* of Hermione that Dumbledore ended up fleeing from Hogwarts. I mean, at least make your sacrifice of common decency and basic humanity *worth* something in the end. So far Hermione has walked away from compassion with nothing to show for it. And *that's* what makes her unworthy of word "Hero", IMO. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 21:18:45 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:18:45 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160500 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > However... One thing that isn't fair is that we've not seen Molly > > dealing with a child in actual danger. > > > > That Narcissa has had her trial gives me something to like in > > her. That Molly has not... well, I'm left without a reason. So I > > guess in this case it's really apples and oranges. It's not fair > > for me to judge Molly until she's had her day. (And there are > > plenty of other reasons for me to dislike Molly. ) > >>ibchawz: > Actually, Molly Weasley has seen many of her family members in > immediate danger. > Betsy Hp: Well, yes the Weasley family members have faced danger, but Molly generally finds out about it after the fact. She's never in a position to help. So we really *haven't* seen Molly face a crisis that she needs to solve on her own. > >>ibchawz: > I would classify these instances as "actual danger". I'm sure I > could come up with additional instances if I tried. Perhaps these > facts will assist you in your judgement of Molly. Betsy Hp: But... Molly's always in a weepy heap when she finds out about these things, isn't she? She doesn't do anything to help solve the issues, in fact she often just causes a bit of a scene by yelling at the person who scared her. So yeah, nothing in there for me to look at and admire. > >>ibchawz: > Unless, of course, the "plenty of other reasons for me to dislike > Molly" have already influenced your judgement to a point of no > return. Betsy Hp: I will admit that my dislike of Molly will be pretty hard to overcome. Actually, I was rather proud of myself for recognizing that Molly really hasn't had a chance to shine, and that therefore I couldn't fairly judge her crisis handling abilities. But yeah, she's going to have to do something fairly kick-ass to win me over. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 21:25:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:25:06 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160501 Random832 wrote: > But allowing people to bring someone in is a security problem _in and of itself_. The whole point of the fidelius charm is so that you don't have to trust everyone who's told the secret. After all, if someone who's not the secret keeper could bring anyone they want to the location, the secret wouldn't have to be revealed to bring Voldemort to Godric's Hollow (which also tells us that if this were possible people wouldn't be assuming Sirius [as the secret keeper] was > responsible for this happening) > > If anyone can bring anyone to the location, the Fidelius charm becomes absolutely pointless. > > > ibchawz responded: > I don't see that bringing someone to the location makes the Fidelius > Charm pointless. Harry could bring Neville, Luna, or whomever to 12 > GP without divulging that it was the Headquarters of the Order of the Phoenix. > > IIRC, someone stated that LV could have pressed his nose against a > window at the Potters' house in Godric's Hollow and not be able to see the Potters inside, unless the Secret Keeper told him the secret. I think that the secret location of the OotP would be the same. Someone could physically be at 12GP without know that it was HQ. > Carol adds: I think that ibchawz is right. If 12 GP were invisible to Bellatrix, why would Dumbledore have been afraid that she'd inherit it and claim it? She'd have to be able to see it and enter it, or she'd pose no danger to the Order. And yet Harry couldn't see 12 GP until he knew the secret, so how could Bellatrix? Okay, I'm confused again. (I won't even ask how Narcissa could talk with Kreacher, whom she must know to have been her aunt and uncle's house-elf and to live at 12 GP, without figuring out that 12 GP is Order HQ--unless the Fidelius Charm contains a built-in Confundus or Obliviate to keep people who used to know information that's now secret from remembering it. Okay, I did ask.) Regarding Luna and Neville, I wouldn't be surprised if Dumbledore called them to his office, unknown to Harry (and consequently to the reader), and told them the secret, just as he went out of his way to tell it to the much less deserving Dursleys, knowing or guessing that he would not be around next year to protect them (Neville and Luna, that is) and that Harry would need their help at some point. At any rate, I expect to see both Neville and Luna again in Book 7, and since Harry won't be at Hogwarts, which may not even be open, the few loyal remnants of the DA will have to be at 12 GP. For the Weasleys and Hermione (who must have been told the secret by DD before they arrived at 12 GP in OoP), that's no problem. For Luna and Neville, it is. I personally prefer having them already know the secret to having Harry sneak them in through a door they may not be able to see with Order members around that they can't see or speak to because they're not in on the secret. > Carol, hoping that JKR and Dumbledore planned ahead on this one From mcdumbledore at juno.com Fri Oct 27 21:12:02 2006 From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:12:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160502 > Carol: > "Snape-like self-aggrandizement"? Becca: Snape builds himself up by tearing others (Harry, Sirius, James, Remus, the Weasleys, Hermione) down. Now that I reconsider, the term "self-aggrandizement" doesn't really get to the heart of the matter. I should have said something like "Dumbledore's newfound tendency to point out the areas in which he is superior is oddly reminiscent of Snape's tendency to point out the areas in which others are deficient." If I had a time turner, I would go back to the original post and do some cutting and pasting. :) Carol again: > I think that "Severus, > please!" means "Severus, please kill me and keep the Vow!" Becca responds: Actually, yes, I agree. Let me make it clear here that I have very, very few concrete beliefs about how things are going to turn out in JKR's unfinished universe, which - to my mind includes the things left ambiguous from books 1-6, and - of course - all of book 7. I joined this list to see what other people are thinking about the 'loose ends', not as a forum to convince people that I have all the answers. I think it's possible that DD and Snape were workin the Polyjuice. I think it's possible that they weren't. I think it's possible that DD was pleading for his life. I think it's [vastly more] possible that DD was pleading for Snape to continue with the mission and kill him. (Snape's line: "Don't call me a coward!" as he runs away makes me think this even more... I can hear Snape saying under his breath "I just did the scariest damn thing that any of us could have done.") From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 21:24:52 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:24:52 -0000 Subject: Squib!Harry in the WW (was:Re: The Scar) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50610261649s6dedf541j155bd606bac92409@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160503 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Therefore I do think it's important that of the tiny amount of > > Muggle/Wizard marriages we've seen, all of them involve some > > sort of deception, > >>Random832 > Andromeda Black & Ted Tonks? Betsy Hp: Nope. Ted Tonks is a wizard. A muggle-born wizard, which angers Ma Black (well, Aunty Black in this case ), but a wizard none the less. He'll only play the part of coffee table if he *wants* to. Betsy Hp From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 21:34:42 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:34:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Polyjuice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160504 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "twitterpatedbabykoala" wrote: > > Steven1965aaa: > > when describing his use of the Mirror of Erised as part of the > > protection for the stone Dumbledore says something like "it was one of my more clever ideas, which between you and me is really saying something." > > Becca responds: > Yeah, I remembered that, too, but it was the only time I could ever recall DD saying soemthing to that effect. I figured that 1 time in the first 5 books was a much lower percentage than the many, many times in book 6. So it still seems like a new *pattern* of behavior, even though - yes - he has, on isolated occasions, done it before. Of course, maybe there are other examples in books 1-5 that I am forgetting... It's been months since I have cracked a HP book. Steven1965aaa: Dumbledore says more to to Harry in HBP than in the first 5 books combined. (before anybody responds, that's an educated guess on my part, I didn't actually count the words in all 6 books:)). So maybe its not a difference in percentage, its just more conversations. From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 27 21:37:31 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:37:31 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160505 -- SPOILERS FROM Books 5 & 6 AHEAD -- Has anybody noticed that Draco is a pretty talented wizard? He made it into the 6th year Potions and DADA classes, manages the Protean charm on the coins to communicate with the Death Eaters (which Terry Boot says is N.E.W.T level spellwork), manages to fix the vanishing cabinet, disapparates when on the run at the end of HBP... and I'm not sure what else. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances: Snape coddled Draco through Potions, the Protean charm idea came from Hermione (although Hermione said she got the idea from the Death Eaters marks), it took all year for Draco to fix the cabinet. Nevertheless, he _DID_ these things. Thoughts? Eddie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 21:40:23 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:40:23 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione / Cruelty and Heroism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160506 Carol: > I'll say it again more clearly. Wouldn't HRH--and most readers--be up > in arms against Draco and his friends if they used Polyjuice to > infiltrate the *Gryffindor* common room? Yet that's exactly what Harry > and Ron did (and Hermione would have done if it weren't for the cat > fur problem) to the Slytherins. Why is it okay for the Gryffindors to > do what would be considered reprehensible and unforgiveable if the > Slytherins did it? Would you want "the enemy" in your common room, > which is supposed to be for your Housemates alone? > > Sounds like a double standard to me. > > Carol, who thinks that if the tables were turned and Polyjuiced Draco > had shown up in Gryffindor tower even in second year, readers would be > condemning him to a fate worse than Marietta's > Alla: So, what I hear you saying is that trying to find the murderer of muggle-borns is not just rule breaking, but also reprehensible and unforgivable? In any event, I am not sure I understand where the double standard is? I already mentioned in passing upthread, but I say it again - **No** if Draco was suspecting that Harry and his friends were trying to kill him and his friends, I would have no problems with Draco mimiking this particular action,**none**. So, where is the double standard? Now, of course if Draco wanted to do so just for fun of it, I would be very annoyed, but Trio was investigating, so again, I am perfectly Okay with it, no matter who would have done it - **for the good reason** and murder investigation sure counts to me as such. To be clear though - I absolutely **do** think that Draco's hate speeches work toward diminishing his right to privacy, just as in HBP , where they nicely allevated to murder attempts, his right to privacy becomes, well, barely existant IMO. It is just if Draco was doing that kind of thing ( what Trio did in CoS) to save people, I would have been absolutely Okay with it. Believe it not, I would have been. > Carol responds: > > It is not Hermione's right or responsibility to "disfigure a horrid > sneak," who, AFWK, thought she was doing the right thing. If Marietta dis wrong, let Dumbledore > or her Head of House (Flitwick) punish her, not a fellow student. A > deterrent is one thing; an after-the-fact punishment is another. > Alla: Maybe not in RL, but IMO surely in Potterverse it is right for kids to take matters in their own hands, simply because adults do not. Dumbledore punishing a student? When did he ever? He would rather stay back and enjoy how would events unfold IMO. If kids would stay back and wait for adults to help them, a lot of things would not have get done in Potterverse, IMO. For example, Ginny would have be dead, had Ron and Harry stayed away, Rita Skeeter, well Rita Skeeter would still publish lies. Dolores Umbridge would have use Crucio on Harry, etc,etc, etc. I think that within the realms of Potterverse it **was** Hermione's right to defend DA. Sure, a bit of better execution would have been good, but besides that, I think she certainly had a right to do what she did, if no other reason than no one else did. > Betsy Hp: >> Hermione decided to place her classmates under a jinx. It was a > cruel and underhanded thing to do, no matter who the jinx sprang > on. (Harry is very lucky he's not walking around with "SNEAK" > written across his face, actually. He came very close to spilling > the beans to Fudge, himself.) > > IMO, there are things people who'd like to be considered civilized > should not do. Hermione crossed the line. Alla: Let me be sure I understand - civilised people should **not** defend their friends from potential betrayal? That is where Hermione crossed the line? I mean it is one thing if you are saying that Hermione crossed the line with the punishment, but did she cross the line with her intentions? Oh, and yes Harry is lucky. Thanks to Hermione he was not expelled by Umbridge, thanks to Hermione he was not Crucioed by Umbridge. For what Hermione did for him, I think he should thank her more than once. Now, granted she involved him in DADA without asking him first and for that he should slap her, but DADA meetings were the only place AFAIK where Harry enjoyed doing something in OOP, so Hermione indeed turned out to know better IMO. > Betsy Hp: > Cruelty and barbarism doesn't guarantee competence. Hermione was a > total ass with the DADA. She handled it badly from beginning to > end, and it's *because* of Hermione that Dumbledore ended up fleeing > from Hogwarts. Alla: Okay, do you mind clarifying now? How is that Hermione's fault? If Marietta did not betray them, there would be no need for DD to enter in confrontation IMO. Sorry, in my opinion that is another consequence of Marietta betrayal and Hermione has nothing to do with it. IMO of course. JMO, Alla From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 21:41:15 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:41:15 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160507 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: >> > I will admit that my dislike of Molly will be pretty hard to > overcome. Actually, I was rather proud of myself for recognizing > that Molly really hasn't had a chance to shine, and that therefore I > couldn't fairly judge her crisis handling abilities. But yeah, > she's going to have to do something fairly kick-ass to win me over. > Steven1965aaa: How about this - she has welcomed Harry into her family and home almost as if he were her own, having him stay during holidays (and feeding him even though it must be a strain on the limited Weasley budget). Ok, I admits that's not a "crisis handling ability"; but in a certain way it is "kick ass" --- how many of us would do the same thing for an orphaned friend of one of our kids? To me, that's enough to win me over. From juli17 at aol.com Fri Oct 27 21:47:32 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:47:32 -0400 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: <1161971300.5343.17832.m37@yahoogroups.com> References: <1161971300.5343.17832.m37@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C8C828A3FDA834-144-2454@FWM-M45.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160508 Tesha wrote: 2. Did you ever think that you just know more about Hermione than you do many of the other characters? We see their world through Harry's eyes and he only found out things that came to the open - like that Draco would use the hippogriff's natural behavior to have his father force the most painful removal of the beast, hurt Hagrid and thus Harry and friends? What else has been done that we know nothing about? Julie: Of course we know more about Hermione. And we can only debate the actions we know about through Harry. However, it's really not relevant what Draco has or hasn't done. When Betsy and others say it's about Hermione, what they mean (I'm assuming) is that we accept Draco is a little git, Marietta very wrongly betrayed a trust, etc. But it's NOT a contest. We expect Draco to behave badly. We have higher expectations of Hermione, and when she disappoints us it's not a matter of "Well, Draco does worse." It's simply a matter of whether Hermione behaved as well as we'd like to see her (or any of the "good guys") act. 3. My daughter would probably behave like Hermione if we were in the same circumstance, right down to the worst, and I would love and support her in it all. Oh, I'd scowl and rant and rave a bit, but I'd be proud my little kid would be so resourceful and independent. Julie: My reaction would depend on the incident. The polyjuice bit probably wouldn't bother me much, as it seems the regular kind of teenage high jinx magical kids pull on each other. I'd just remind her that that stuff can get out of control (she did cause injury in the Potions class) and to think about what she's doing first (and I'd figure her becoming a cat was a good lesson). The times she forces her will on others, like trying to trick the house elves into wearing clothes and setting up the DA without Harry's knowledge, would be more disturbing to me. I'd let her know that just because she thinks she's got the moral high ground doesn't justify her imposing her will on others. This is the Umbridge way after all, not to mention the way of a variety of fascist movements. I'd be very determined that she not continue in this direction. As for Marietta, my response would be twofold. One, if Hermione was trying to protect the DA, I'd be disappointed in her lack of forethought, since *telling* the signers what would come if they broke their promise is the only way to protect the DA. If she put the hex on the parchement as a method of retribution, then I'd tell her what my mom told me, that "two wrongs DON'T make a right." Retribution doesn't solve anything. I'd also tell her to remove the hex--Marietta apologizing is beside the point, as I'm concerned about my *daughter's* behavior, not Marietta's. Marietta can be a traitor and untrustworthy forever as far as I'm concerned, but my daughter will be held to a much higher standard by me, thank you very much. 4. I do believe you are taking characters, who are in the case we started with 12 years old, and asking them to behave as adults. Julie: On the contrary, the years of childhood and adolescence are all ABOUT guiding and shaping moral behavior. I'd expect them to make mistakes. I'd just like to see more moral guidance by the adults in the WW (thank you Arthur for taking the twins to task over the two-ton toffee incident!) but I know morality is quite a bit more loosely-defined in the WW than it is in the real world. 5. I also believe that you are taking apart story lines to prove your points. Hermione had to make the polijuice potion because JKR needed an excuse for the 3 to become familiar with the bathroom where 2 would later enter the CoS. Julie: We wouldn't have much to argue about if we just accept that anything that happens in the books is because JKR needed an excuse that feeds the plot. Tom Riddle is an orphan who went bad because it feeds the plot. Snape's a nasty git of a teacher because it feeds the plot. Dudley is fat and spoiled because it feeds the plot. No one is responsible for their behavior because those behaviors were foisted on them to feed the plot. Basically, if we're going to hold some characters responsible for their behavior, i.e. the baddies like Voldemort, Draco, Marietta, then we have to hold *everyone* responsible for their behavior, including our heroes Harry, Hermione, Dumbledore, etc, etc. All IMO of course, Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Oct 27 21:50:22 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:50:22 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione /some Peter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160509 > Alla: > > Sure, they would not be, but they were suspected of helping out the > murderer of muggleborns and the answer I would have for them - next > time your children should better stay away from Draco Malfoy. Magpie: Isn't this essentially what Percy counsels Ron to think about in OotP in his letter--don't hang out with Harry because he's trouble? (Choosing friends in the books is often judged based on the default idea that the Trio is the correct choice, but that's imo, equally impractical as a guide. Slightly OT, but I find it kind of funny when one of the crimes Hermione's supposedly correctly punishing Marietta for is for betraying her best friend, when the best friend in question is angry at Hermione and not Marietta. It's a very Hermione-like pov--if the person doesn't have the feelings you think s/he should have, proper feelings will be assigned.) In fact, in CoS it's not Draco Malfoy who's the main suspect but Harry himself. It turns out they were both innocent of the crime, which shows up the circular logic (I think) of Hermione's justification: she uses Draco's guilt as justification for invading his Common room to see if he's guilty. If Hermione had a Hufflepuff and friends with Ernie MacMillan instead of Harry Potter, it actually might have been the Gryffindor Common Room she'd have invaded. She'd still have the same motivation of trying to find out who was the Heir. I do still get the point of wanting to investigate, of course--Harry sets tails on Malfoy in HBP based on, imo, better reasons to suspect he's up to something (though interestingly Harry never considers the level of invasion of Hermione's plan, and at one point seems to actually recognize himself as an intruder in HBP in ways he didn't in CoS). There's lot of spying that goes on at Hogwarts--Draco on the Trio, Snape on the Marauders, Harry on Malfoy, Rita on Hagrid and the Trio. It's often received differently depending not so much on guilt but on who's being spied on. But to not think it matters at all because these are Slytherins or friends of Malfoy or enemies or sons of DEs just seems to split the world into two classes of people--so if you hang around with that kid you have to expect fewer rights. Being suspected of a crime is a very different thing than being guilty of a crime, and even if you are guilty of a crime there's a reason that random people don't get to decide punishment for you. It's easy to identify with Hermione wishing she could just make things right, but even in this universe we've seen the problem with that kind of justice, as well as the "everybody knows he's guilty" attitude. To me the main point is that the rights of the suspicious and the guilty must be protected, or else no one's are. We don't have to condemn Hermione for the invasion of privacy, but I don't think we should ignore that's what it is, if that makes sense. The Trio never seems to make this connection. They're disappointed that he's not guilty, but it doesn't remind them that their justification was the guilt. Basically they give themselves the freedom to do anything they might imagine could bring in the heir, which is a lot of freedom! Alla: Doesn't it show the moment dear Marietta started talking? Sure, better job could have been done, but they do learn who the traitor is, IMO. Magpie: They do start when she starts talking, but it's just dumb luck she happens to notice it. It's actually not even the pustules that show them who the traitor is, iirc, because don't they appear when Umbridge has already brought Harry in and told him Marietta is the one that got him there? She's telling right in front of Harry. -m From harryp at stararcher.com Fri Oct 27 21:52:01 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:52:01 -0000 Subject: Regulus Black / locket / horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160510 > Nikkalmati: > BTW is it possible that RAB "got to" some of the other Horcruxes and one or > more of them is in the House of Black or has already been destroyed? Eddie: Interesting question! Maybe he did find more, or maybe he eventually died from the stuff in the basin... the stuff that nearly killed Dumbledore. It also tickles other questions: * How did RAB find out where the locket horcrux was? * How did he get past Voldemort's protections? He apparently needed a 2nd person. Assuming RAB is Regulus, he may have used Kreacher as the 2nd person. If so, Kreacher can be a very rich source of information about where other Horcruxes may be. If Kreacher was the 2nd person, then he probably wasn't as quick to save RAB as Harry was to help Dumbledore. Eddie From caaf at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 22:27:27 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:27:27 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160511 Cyril. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ibchawz" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > Hmm, I grant that both scenes showed that each woman loves their > child(ren). But Molly was dealing with a mere possibility and fell > apart. Narcissa had to face up to, and deal with, that fear > becoming real. Cyril. Narcissa was crying on Snape's floor for a situation in which she believed the worst for Draco. But the cause of fear was not being enacted at that point of time. It was only the fear that Draco would not be successful, and therefore would have to face LV's wrath sometime in the future. Molly was crying, *NOT ONLY* because she was expecting something bad to happen to her family - but because she was actually seeing all of them dead, one after another. So her worst fears were coming alive in front of her. I would put her situation to be at a much higher trauma level at that point of time. After all, seeing is believing Sure - Narcissa was crying because the big bad Voldie had threatened her son (and possibly also her husband). I do not see how Molly's situation is any lesser with Voldie putting her entire family constantly in *Mortal Peril* (IIRC that was the status on her clock, albeit in HBP). For sure, we do not see the clock showing this status in OoTP, but then, they are not in the Burrow in OoTP, so, no reason to believe that it was any different. After all, LV was back, even if most of the WW did not believe so. > > However... One thing that isn't fair is that we've not seen Molly > dealing with a child in actual danger. She's not been given an > opportunity to show how she'd handle an honest to goodness crisis. > In many ways Molly is dealing with the more stressful *waiting* for > the crisis to come. > > So while Narcissa has had a chance to show her courage, poor Molly > is left at home clutching her clock. And I won't say that Narcissa > would handle the clock better, or that Molly would deal with an > actual crisis worse. (Or, well, I guess I have, but I recognize > that I'm not being fair when I do so. ) > > That Narcissa has had her trial gives me something to like in her. > That Molly has not... well, I'm left without a reason. So I guess > in this case it's really apples and oranges. It's not fair for me > to judge Molly until she's had her day. (And there are plenty of > other reasons for me to dislike Molly. ) > > ibchawz responds: > Actually, Molly Weasley has seen many of her family members in > immediate danger. > > Ginny was taken into the Chamber of Secrets and the writing on the > wall indicated that her skeleton would lie there forever. > > In OotP, Arthur was attacked by Nagini and nearly died. Both Ron > and Ginny were present and participated in the battle Department of > Mysteries. > > In HBP, Bill was attacked and severely disfigured by Fenrir > Greyback. Both Ron and Ginny participated in the battle at Hogwarts. > > I would classify these instances as "actual danger". I'm sure I > could come up with additional instances if I tried. Perhaps these > facts will assist you in your judgement of Molly. Unless, of > course, the "plenty of other reasons for me to dislike Molly" have > already influenced your judgement to a point of no return. > > ibchawz > Cyril again: Just to add to the above comments by ibchawz, Molly has been seeing her family in danger for quite some time. She lost two brothers already (in VW1 IIRC). She faced a traumatic time during the QWC, even when she was not personally present. Quote from GoF (Chapter Mahyem at the Ministry) "Oh thank goodness, thank goodness!" Mrs. Weasley, who had evidently been waiting for them in the front yard, came running toward them, still wearing her bedroom slippers, her face pale and strained, a rolled-up copy of the Daily Prophet clutched in her hand. "Arthur - I've been so worried - so worried -" She has been facing the short end of the stick for many years when it came to things caused by LV and the DE's. In the couple of instances that she is present with a member of her family attacked (Arthur in OoTP in St Mungo's and Bill in HBP), she does not come off at all as weak in any way. At the start of HBP, Narcissa was facing it for a very short time so far. She seemed to crack a lot earlier. At the end of the day, both are mothers, and extremely protective about their families - so on that scale (protecting their families), I would not rate any one better/worse than the other. However, the one difference that I see is that Molly is not afraid to discipline her children (and her husband) when required. She holds them accountable for their actions. As a mother, she rates far higher than anything else Narcissa is ever shown to do. But she is also beside them when required. Can't ask anything more from a mother. JMO, Cyril. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 22:33:50 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:33:50 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160512 Tesha wrote: > > > > 5. I also believe that you are taking apart story lines to prove > your points. Hermione had to make the polijuice potion because JKR needed an excuse for the 3 to become familiar with the bathroom where 2 would later enter the CoS. > Alla responded: > > It made me chuckle. That **is** what we do here among other things, > you know? :) > > Yeah, JKR needed Hermione to brew polijuice to move story along, just as JKR needed Dumbledore to leave Harry with child abusers and take him from the appointed guardian. Carol notes: Alla is right. That's what we do here. We examine plot and character and try to arrive at reasonable conclusions about existing scenes and characters, and we theorize and speculate about future books, now sadly reduced to one. It's supposed to be fun and educational. Unfortunately, sometimes we take it a little too seriously. I'll try not to do that here. The Polyjuice scene as a plot device does a lot more than introduce the bathroom (or should I say restroom, as I think that's how the American editor should have rendered "toilet"--there's no bath involved) with the plumbing that leads to the Chamber of Secrets, important though that is to the plot of CoS. It also introduces both Moaning Myrtle, Tom Riddle's first victim (who will be useful to Harry later) and Polyjuice Potion (courtesy of Snape, who mentioned it and "Moste Potent Potions" in class), which will play an important role in GoF and HBP. It provides a (not altogether ethical) means by which Ron and Harry can spy on Draco (and find out what he doesn't know), and it provides a vhicle for character development (I think this is the first time we see Hermione not only willingly breaking rules but initiating the rule breaking and encouraging the others to join her. So certainly the Polyjuice brewing is a plot device, but it does a lot more than move the plot forward to the eavesdropping scene or introduce a character, a place, and a potion that will be important later. It also shows the characters in action, and part of the fun of this group is analyzing the motivations, character traits, and relationships that the scene reveals--the interpretation of which will of course vary according to various readers' perceptions of the characters in general and our own ethical and moral preferences and standards. Now granted, it would have been much less fun if Hermione had remained a rule enforcer like Percy. She could never have become a full-fledged member of the Trio, making a very important contribution to the solution to the mystery by figuring out that the monster was a Basilisk and that it was traveling around the school through the pipes. I don't approve of her rule-breaking, or that of Harry and Ron, nor do I consider it a good example for twelve- and thirteen-year-olds in general to follow (not that they need encouragement to break rules and push limits at that age), but it certainly makes her a more interesting and complex character. Alla wrote: > What I **am** saying though that this is investigation to catch the > murderer of muggle borns ( real and/or potential one) and as such, I > fully excuse any rule breaking resulting from it. > Sorry, but the fact that those guys **are** DE children does matter to me in deciding whether they deserved what happened to them. IMO of > course. Carol responds; But the fact that Crabbe and Goyle are DEs' children has nothing to do with their being given sleeping potion, locked in a closet, having their shoes removed and their identities borrowed. Nor is it their fault (or Draco's) that their fathers are DEs. I can see you approving of the hexes on the Hogwarts Express because Draco and his cronies initiated it, but in this case Crabbe and Goyle are guilty of nothing more than being Draco's, erm, body guards and a pair of gluttons. I don't see how it can be right to punish them for being who they are any more than it was right for James to torment Severus in the Pensieve scene when he's done nothing except be himself, which he can't help being. It seems to me that you're not only holding the Gryffindors to a different standard of behavior than the Slytherins, you seem to be saying that the end justifies the means. If that's true for HRH, surely it's true for Dumbledore as well (and for Snape, if he's DDM)? Frankly, I don't see much difference between Harry and Ron eavesdropping (spying) on Draco and young Severus eavesdropping on the Marauders. In both cases, a kid (or kids) is trying to discover information that will get another kid (or kids) in trouble. Both believe the other is doing something seriously wrong. The difference is that Severus didn't use Polyjuice Potion (which he certainly knew how to make by fifth year) to spy on the Gryffindors in their own common room, nor did he drug anyone to borrow their identity. What HRH do in CoS is a little too close to what Barty Jr. does to Mad-eye Moody in GoF for my comfort (same action carried to an extreme). At any rate, it seems strange to me that "the greater good" can be used to justify HRH's rule-breaking, even when it accomplishes nothing as in this instance, but not to justify DD's leaving Harry with the Dursleys, which may well have saved his life (and certainly provided him with some survival skills like dealing with bullies that he wouldn't have developed otherwise, even though, of course, that was no part of Dumbledore's plan). > Alla: > > Main point that Hermione does not really care whether the person > deserves it or not? > > Okay, could you give me an example, where Hermione harmed somebody > who did not deserve it, somebody who was not suspected of DE or DE > related, murderous activities? Carol responds: Ron, maybe? She attacked him with her charmed birds because she was hurt and jealous of his snogging with Lavender. Granted, he was not on his best behavior (he can be unkind, as Luna says, and hypocritical, as Ginny says), but surely he didn't deserve to be attacked by a flock of birds, which could have pecked out his eyes or scarred him for life. Alla: > If you argue that Hermione is a bit too ruthless in making herself a > judge, in deciding that she knows best, always, I somewhat agree, not all the way, but agree. Carol: I don't know about anyone else, but that's pretty much the way I see her. I wish she'd stop taking matters into her own hands, especially the judgment and punishment of others. I also dislike the way she dismisses Luna's views and ideas and her complete absence of empathy for Lavender when her rabbit Binky died. But she does seem to understand Cho, oddly enough, and she has certainly helped Harry on numerous occasions. I give her credit for being smart, loyal, and courageous. Unfortunately, she's also, as Snape says, "an insufferable know-it-all," and she's gone beyond rule-breaking to rule-making and rule-enforcing. As Ron pointed out way back in SS/PS, she can be a bit scary sometimes. Carol, whose post was interrupted by a phone call and consequently may not be entirely coherent From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 23:10:59 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:10:59 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione LONGish In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160513 > Alla wrote: > > > What I **am** saying though that this is investigation to catch the > > murderer of muggle borns ( real and/or potential one) and as such, I > > fully excuse any rule breaking resulting from it. > > > Sorry, but the fact that those guys **are** DE children does matter > to me in deciding whether they deserved what happened to them. IMO of > > course. > > Carol responds; > But the fact that Crabbe and Goyle are DEs' children has nothing to do > with their being given sleeping potion, locked in a closet, having > their shoes removed and their identities borrowed. Nor is it their > fault (or Draco's) that their fathers are DEs. I can see you approving > of the hexes on the Hogwarts Express because Draco and his cronies > initiated it, but in this case Crabbe and Goyle are guilty of nothing > more than being Draco's, erm, body guards and a pair of gluttons. I > don't see how it can be right to punish them for being who they are > any more than it was right for James to torment Severus in the > Pensieve scene when he's done nothing except be himself, which he > can't help being. > > It seems to me that you're not only holding the Gryffindor to a > different standard of behavior than the Slytherins, you seem to be > saying that the end justifies the means. If that's true for HRH, > surely it's true for Dumbledore as well (and for Snape, if he's DDM)? > Frankly, I don't see much difference between Harry and Ron > eavesdropping (spying) on Draco and young Severus eavesdropping on the > Marauders. In both cases, a kid (or kids) is trying to discover > information that will get another kid (or kids) in trouble. Both > believe the other is doing something seriously wrong. Alla: Uh, let me try to clarify - it is all the matter of degree I suppose to me. How to put it - Crabb and Goyle do not deserve to be **killed** or even severely bodily harmed for being DE children and actually I think I was not clear, I do not think that they deserve to be anything for being **just** DE children, it is just that the fact that they hang out with Draco always seemed to me to be clear implication that they share his way of thinking ( the purebloods are better ideology) So, for that, yes, I am willing to close my eyes that they had been polyjuiced, because IMO no harm was done. Let me say it again - had they been severely harmed, I would have viewed it differently. If you are asking me whether I am holding them to a bit different standard for being friends with Malfoy, well, **yes**, I do. But IMO not much different, because as I said, if they had been wounded or killed, I would have been angry. Oh, and yes indeed I do see not much difference between Snape's spying on Marauders and what Trio did, that is if I look at the actions itself ( Again, I do not think I am guilty of much double standards here) My main contention with the Prank had always been that we do not know everything about Snape and Marauders relationship. Like for example, if Snape discovered that Lupin is a werewolf and tried to get him in trouble afterwards, you bet I will view the situation very differently than Trio trying to catch Slytherin heir. Bottom line - I know of Trio's intentions, I understand and agree with them, I do not know of Snape's, but actions are sure the same. And end justifies the means? Again, matter of degree. If Dumbledore had let Harry to stay with Dursleys for one hour - sure, I am willing to close my eyes on that for greater good, but no, sorry fifteen years of abuse does not equal one hour of being unconscious in my book. Same thing with Snape. > > > Alla: > > Okay, could you give me an example, where Hermione harmed somebody > > who did not deserve it, somebody who was not suspected of DE or DE > > related, murderous activities? > > Carol responds: > > Ron, maybe? She attacked him with her charmed birds because she was > hurt and jealous of his snogging with Lavender. Granted, he was not on > his best behavior (he can be unkind, as Luna says, and hypocritical, > as Ginny says), but surely he didn't deserve to be attacked by a flock > of birds, which could have pecked out his eyes or scarred him for life. Alla: Yes, I agree actually. > Alla: > > If you argue that Hermione is a bit too ruthless in making herself a > > judge, in deciding that she knows best, always, I somewhat agree, > not all the way, but agree. > > Carol: > I don't know about anyone else, but that's pretty much the way I see > her. Alla: Cool :) > > Alla: > > > > > Sure, they would not be, but they were suspected of helping out > the > > murderer of muggleborns and the answer I would have for them - > next > > time your children should better stay away from Draco Malfoy. > > Magpie: > Isn't this essentially what Percy counsels Ron to think about in > OotP in his letter--don't hang out with Harry because he's trouble? > (Choosing friends in the books is often judged based on the default > idea that the Trio is the correct choice, but that's imo, equally > impractical as a guide. Alla: Is it? I thought that Harry refusing Draco offer of friendship in PS/SS and choosing Ron as the good kind was one of the main themes in the books. But no, I do not think it is the same, not because Harry is Harry, but because of the saying " tell me who your friend is and I will tell you who you are" I am not saying that Crabb and Goyle should abandon Malfoy, but they better be abandoning his way of thinking if it makes sense Magpie: There's lot of spying that goes on at Hogwarts--Draco on > the Trio, Snape on the Marauders, Harry on Malfoy, Rita on Hagrid > and the Trio. It's often received differently depending not so much > on guilt but on who's being spied on. Alla: I completely disagree. I believe it is received differently precisely because of the guilt. So Malfoy turned out to be innocent of being Slytherin heir, but did he turned out to be innocent of let's kill Muggleborns? Not IMO. As I said above, I do not think we know everything of Snape v Marauders, but as action what he did is pretty similar to what Trio did IMO all that differs are intentions, maybe. Magpie: > But to not think it matters at all because these are Slytherins or > friends of Malfoy or enemies or sons of DEs just seems to split the > world into two classes of people--so if you hang around with that > kid you have to expect fewer rights. Alla: No, if you hang out with that kid, you are to be expected of others suspecting that you have same views as that kid, IMO and Crabb and Goyle gave me little reason to think otherwise. And sorry, but yes, those who do share DE ideology and act upon it, are people of different class in Potterverse to me than those who do not. I keep saying it, but I will say it again. Sure, I consider Trio to be better "people" than Malfoy and his goons, but this is a pretty **low** threshold to overcome. Trio have plenty flaws, good and not good, but all they have to do in my book to be better people than Malfoy and Co is not to wish death upon Muggle and muggleborns. But I suppose maybe I am wrong about Crabb and Goyle, maybe they do not share Draco's views, but the fact that JKR barely let them open their mouth and talk, make me suspect that they worship Draco. IMO of course. Alla From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 23:28:12 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:28:12 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160514 > Carol notes: > > Alla is right. That's what we do here. We examine plot and character > and try to arrive at reasonable conclusions about existing scenes and > characters, and we theorize and speculate about future books, now > sadly reduced to one. It's supposed to be fun and educational. > Unfortunately, sometimes we take it a little too seriously. I'll try > not to do that here. > > The Polyjuice scene as a plot device does a lot more than introduce > the bathroom (or should I say restroom, as I think that's how the > American editor should have rendered "toilet"--there's no bath > involved) with the plumbing that leads to the Chamber of Secrets, > important though that is to the plot of CoS. It also introduces both > Moaning Myrtle, Tom Riddle's first victim (who will be useful to > Harry later) and Polyjuice Potion (courtesy of Snape, who mentioned > it and "Moste Potent Potions" in class), which will play an > important role in GoF and HBP. It provides a (not altogether > ethical) means by which Ron and Harry can spy on Draco (and find > out what he doesn't know), and it provides a vhicle for character > development (I think this is the first time we see Hermione not > only willingly breaking rules but initiating the rule breaking and > encouraging the others to join her. Amiable Dorsai: Excellent points. It also gives us, I think, our first glimpse of just how far Ron will go to protect Harry and Hermione *in cold blood*, as opposed to on the spur of the moment. He had a month to think about it, and never backed down. > Carol responds; > It seems to me that you're not only holding the Gryffindors to a > different standard of behavior than the Slytherins, you seem to be > saying that the end justifies the means. If that's true for HRH, > surely it's true for Dumbledore as well (and for Snape, if he's > DDM)? Amiable Dorsai: I don't know what Alla would say, but if someone were going around trying to murder Pureblood bigots, I'd cut Draco a fair amount of slack for trying to save his own life. Especially if he did it in a way, as the Trio did, that caused them no permanent (and little temporary) harm. Amiable Dorsai From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Oct 27 23:27:23 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:27:23 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160515 Eddie: > Has anybody noticed that Draco is a pretty talented wizard? He made > it into the 6th year Potions and DADA classes, manages the Protean > charm on the coins to communicate with the Death Eaters (which Terry > Boot says is N.E.W.T level spellwork), manages to fix the vanishing > cabinet, disapparates when on the run at the end of HBP... and I'm not > sure what else. zgirnius: I never doubted it, myself. He's not depicted as particularly stupid or helpless, just mean. Also, in CoS, when Lucius berated him for doing worse than Hermione in all of his classes, I figured that probably meant he was in the running, just not quite as good as her. I considered his selection as a Prefect in OotP over the unknown Blaise Zabini and Theodore Nott confirmation of this view. I think Draco is probably a pretty good flier and Seeker, too. (Just not the best at Hogwarts. :D) Draco also learned Occlumency over the summer, to add to his list of magical achievements. And may (or may not, this point in IMO not clear) have mastered some or all of the Unforgivable Curses, which based on Fahe Moody's remarks is an accomplishment, if not one that reflects well on his character.. From caaf at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 23:33:11 2006 From: caaf at hotmail.com (Cyril A Fernandes) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:33:11 -0000 Subject: Hermione again / Was: Invading the enemy's common room (bit long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160516 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > > > What would Hermione's defenders think if Draco had resorted to > similar tactics and Polyjuiced Crabbe, Goyle, and himself to look like > Gryffindors to spy on Harry? Wouldn't readers be up in arms at the > invasion of privacy? > > > > Tesha: > > Draco, at least in the early books, would never openly confront his > > enemies. He uses his father and his teacher and his 2 body guards to > > hide behind. You can even see in the later books that he still does > > not want to face being singly responsible for anything. He uses > other people to achieve his goal. > > > > and doesn't he make one of his guards polyjuice into a girl to > protect the secrecy of a certain door? > > > Carol again: > I'm afraid you've missed my point. I'm not talking about what Draco > would or would not have done, or about his use of Polyjuice on Crabbe > and Goyle to hide what he's up to in the RoR. I'm talking about the > ethics of HRH's actions in using Polyjuice to spy on Draco in his own > common room. > > I'll say it again more clearly. Wouldn't HRH--and most readers--be up > in arms against Draco and his friends if they used Polyjuice to > infiltrate the *Gryffindor* common room? Yet that's exactly what Harry > and Ron did (and Hermione would have done if it weren't for the cat > fur problem) to the Slytherins. Why is it okay for the Gryffindors to > do what would be considered reprehensible and unforgiveable if the > Slytherins did it? Would you want "the enemy" in your common room, > which is supposed to be for your Housemates alone? > > Sounds like a double standard to me. > > Carol, who thinks that if the tables were turned and Polyjuiced Draco > had shown up in Gryffindor tower even in second year, readers would be > condemning him to a fate worse than Marietta's > Cyril here (coming close to the limit of five posts for today). Ah, but these standards are indeed set by which side of the table one is sitting on. Just to throw on a different perspective: DDM!Snape is the Snape who is acting on DD's orders and spying on LV. ESE!Snape is the Snape acting on LV's orders and spying on DD. While not totally relevant to this post, OFM!Snape is just living upto the Slytherin' self-preservation standards. So both DDM!Snape and ESE!Snape are spies, just on different sides of the table. Don't we react to them differently, give them different names and so on. Sure, we would be up in arms if Draco did the polyjuice with HRH. But that would not be *because he did the polyjuice*, but because of the intentions behind the activity. Sure, I do not agree that the ends justify the means, but it is not the means that one should *only* look at, also the intentions. After all, it is our choices (read intentions) that show us what we are, far more than our abilities (blatantly copied from DD ) At the end of the day, Hermione has good intentions (the big picture), and that does make some of activities she does questionable. But I see no reason yet to question her intentions. But not doing many of the things she does, would put her in the same bracket as useless, non-thinking, non-acting Order members that we love to tear apart on this very forum, far better then Greyback could even dream of For a gifted witch of her age, I am happy that she uses these gifts, with the objective of fighting the war against LV. War will have casualties - and as per JKR - it is pure evil she is helping to fight. It is easy to slam Hermione for her actions, but we forget some basic things when we do that: a) They are in a war - no sugar coating that fact b) Her best friend is the biggest target (arguably second to DD?) c) She, as a Muggleborn, is being denied participation in the WW by LV's diktat's, even to the point of possible death. And she is being slammed for: a) Spiking cupcakes (how different from spiking punch at a high school party). Well she is only 12 at the time. I do not see them as a lethal action. b) Using polyjuice potion - well in the WW, use of the Polyjuice potion is not considered as Dark magic or criminal activity (at least I see no canon to that effect). It is only considered as Restricted magic, very different IMO. c) Placing a hex on a parchment to which they have all signed. Well, I do not see why she has to spell out that there are consequences of breaking a magical contract. The participants in the DA could not newcomers to the concept in Year 5 (for most of them). Harry did not get such a chance with the GoF - and he could have died. Marietta got off easy. d) Not releasing Marietta by reversing the spell. I must admit that there has been good argument for her inability to do so, namely that Marietta has to apologize to the DA before the same may even be possible. I must also admit that, even if it were not so, I do not hold Hermione as a bad person for not going ahead and reversing the spell. Have we been told that Marietta had even asked for the same. Her mother works at the Ministry - if required, mommy dearest would be able to pull strings to get Hermione (or someone) to act even if Hermione was not intending to do so. Looks like Marietta is not affected (I use the term morally, not emotionally) by what she did (and I do not believe that the Obliviate was the reason for that). e) Leading a teacher into danger. Well, given that teacher's recent confession to sending Dementors after her best frind, not to mention immediate use of the Cruciactus, I would not rate Hermione's actions as anything less than quick thinking in a difficult situation. Kudos. Would even like to add her setting fire to Snape's coat in SS/PS. Wrong teacher - right intentions (saving Harry's live) e) Her general tendency to step on toes, and seeming lack of concern for who gets impacted by it. Well, I do believe that she sees some of the possible impact, but they are far outweighed by the intentions and objectives. It is a war, after all. And you cannot make an omlette without breaking the eggs. To add a couple of things, in her favor (if you still need more) - she applies her personal rulebook even to go against friends, or for non-friends (enemies sounded too harsh) a) For example, she reported Harry's Firebolt broom to McG in POA. Did it hurt Harry - sure, Intention - harry's safety. b) Almost reported the Map in POA - was emotionally blackmailed into not doing so. c) Felt need to report the reason for Montague's disorientation - just so that he could be better helped. So, has she done wrong things? For sure. Has she done them with wrong intentions? Am yet to see them Is she perfect? Absolutely, perfectly, human - makes mistakes like the rest of us. Cyril - with the opinion that he/she who has done no wrongdoing should cast the first stone (copying again blatantly ) From scarah at gmail.com Fri Oct 27 23:31:35 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:31:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione LONGish In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590610271631w2c81b749t70484e0dc028a1f2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160517 Sarah: I can't be the only one thinking this every time I read this thread, so I'll put it out there. Here's the thing about the what-if scenario with Slytherins infiltrating Gryffindor Tower. If they'd managed to uncover what Ginny was up to and turn her in, they'd be heroes. They'd get awards for special services to the school, no one else would be petrified, the Chamber of Secrets could be located and the basilisk dealt with by qualified adults (even if they needed Harry to help them open the sink) and Quidditch would be on. I don't think anyone would have much problem with that, aside from wondering why "Harry Potter" is in the title of the book. Sarah From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Oct 27 23:59:57 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:59:57 -0000 Subject: Hermione again / Was: Invading the enemy's common room (bit long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160518 Cyril: > And she is being slammed for: a) Spiking cupcakes (how different from spiking punch at a high school party). Well she is only 12 at the time. I do not see them as a lethal action. Ceridwen: I've been very good about staying out of this discussion. Really, I have! But I do have to say something here. The Muggle equivalent, that of spiking punch at a high school party, is usually done by older children, and for nefarious purposes. One doesn't normally see twelve year olds, or thirteen year olds since Hermione is nearly a year older than Harry, spiking punch. When such young children do perform the illicit activities of older children, that is usually cause for concern. Thirteen year olds might steal from someone else's locker at school; if a thirteen year old broke into a florist's shop and stole stuffed animals it would be cause for concern in RL. Stealing is stealing, but the magnitude is different. The child is heading down a bad path early. Authorities take matters into their hands for things like this. So, when you say that Hermione is only twelve when she spikes the cupcakes, as if by doing something that would usually be expected only of an older child is a good thing, it should raise alarms, red flags, and more than a couple of eyebrows. Just so people don't think I'm going to come down on either side, yes, I do understand that much of what Hermione does that seems so unsettling is done for plot purposes. I understand that she is advanced and very smart. I understand that if she was not willing to break some rules, she would not be hanging around with Harry and Ron, probably by mutual consent. So far, I see that JKR hasn't passed moral judgement on the character so I won't even try to say that she sees this as questionable, but I won't try to say that she sees it as only good, either. She may want us to stop reading and discuss these sorts of actions with our children, for all I know. Ceridwen. From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 00:22:04 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:22:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Draco is quite the wizard/Is Ginny a powerful witch?/Some Felix Felis Message-ID: <20061028002204.10515.qmail@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160519 Eddie wrote< SPOILERS FROM Books 5 & 6 AHEAD -- Has anybody noticed that Draco is a pretty talented wizard? He made it into the 6th year Potions and DADA classes, manages the Protean charm on the coins to communicate with the Death Eaters (which Terry Boot says is N.E.W.T level spellwork), manages to fix the vanishing cabinet, disapparates when on the run at the end of HBP... and I'm not sure what else. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances: Snape coddled Draco through Potions, the Protean charm idea came from Hermione (although Hermione said she got the idea from the Death Eaters marks), it took all year for Draco to fix the cabinet. Nevertheless, he _DID_ these things.>> DA Jones writing now: I did. Draco is very poweful. It is also implied in COS that Draco is second in his class only to Hermione. He is right-up there in his year. Now to switch topics. How good a witch is Ginny. JKR keeps throwing this remarkable Bat Bogey Hex in our face (an intentionally pun) but it has always been offstage. Harry has never seen it happen. Why? Is it possible that in some way the hex is dark magic. Did Tom Riddle teach it to her in the same way Harry has learned spells from the Half-Blood Prince. It seems the sort of poweful but fun seeming hex Tom would teach an 11 yr old to win her confidence. Also Ginny is supposed to be "powerful" but in both battles we've seen so far (in the Dept of Mysteries and at Hogwarts) Ginny does poorly. If you read carefully the scene in the brain room in OOP it is apparent that Ginny's presence suprised the Death Eaters but instead JKR had her panic over Ron and doesn't hex any of them even thugh she has the drop, so to say. A broken ankle is not inacapacitation enough to keep you from hexing someone from the floor. Harry has done it before. In the Battle of Hogwarts Ginny would have been toasted by Alectus one of the weaker DA if not for Harry's help and she had the Felix Felis. The language during the battle doesn't seem to imply that Ron had it and how could Hermione and Luna have been so unlucky as to be tricked by Snape if they had taken the Felis. It is implied that it was lucky by Lupin "or otherwise Snape would have killed them, but is this true?" MY guess is the only one Ron and Hermione gave the Felix Felis is was Ginny and it didn't seem to help her much. I think JKR is placing a red hearing with the Bat Bogey Hex. Maybe Ginny isn't menat to be a poweful witch at all. Right know at least I'd prob vote for Luna as the most powerful of the three girls. She is certainly the most calm headed. What do you think? DA Jones --------------------------------- We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 00:25:31 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:25:31 -0000 Subject: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place - Dumbledore Speaks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160520 --- "justcarol67" wrote: >... > Carol adds: > > ... > > Regarding Luna and Neville, I wouldn't be surprised if > Dumbledore called them to his office, unknown to Harry > ..., and told them the secret, .... knowing or guessing > that he would not be around next year to protect them > (Neville and Luna, that is) and that Harry would need > their help at some point. bboyminn: Hummmm...that brings up an interesting point I hadn't considered. Is Dumbledore's protrait a fair representation or perhaps I should say a fair representative of Dumbledore? In plain words, is Dumbledore's portrait, for all intent and purpose, Dumbledore? Could the portrait be considered the current Secret Keeper, and further could the portrait reveal the secret to selected individuals? Personally, I haven't got a clue. Certainly Dumbledore portrait now represents him in the story. He is our only access to even the remotest part of Dumbledore's wizdom. But for certain magical functions, like revealing the secret, is he Dumbledore? Enquiring minds want to know. Steve/bboyminn From unicornspride at centurytel.net Sat Oct 28 01:10:56 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:10:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco is quite the wizard/Is Ginny a powerful witch?/Some Felix Felis References: <20061028002204.10515.qmail@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002301c6fa2d$ebeb5a60$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160521 >Eddie wrote: >Has anybody noticed that Draco is a pretty >talented wizard? Lana writes: Absolutely.. I noticed it right off. Aside from Harry, I figure he is probably the most powerful student in his year. And Harry only because of his "extra" powers that were transferred. Draco has a tough road to follow. I am sure that he puts every bit of himself into being the best. Not only because of his father, but I think he is a bit like SS. Draco cannot have had a great beginning with his parents. So, in order to stay in good with his dad, he probably figures he has to be the best. >DA Jones wrote: >How good a witch is Ginny? Lana writes: Not really sure. She tends to be good (like you said) at the Bat Bogey Hex, but that really doesn't say much to me. I think that with everything that has gone on, she is more of a victim of circumstance each time the "fighting" begins. Ginny seems more like Molly to me. May be powerful, but she concerns herself more with those around her versus really fighting. Not saying she can't fight, just that she doesn't. >DA Jones wrote: >Right know at least I'd prob vote for Luna >as the most powerful of the three girls. Lana writes: I will agree that Luna will probably surprise us in book 7. As for most powerful. Not sure. We haven't seen to much of her works to be able to tell. But.. She definately has a cool head and is quick witted. To be honest, I really can see her as one of the ones in the end battle with LV. More than Ginny anyway. I really think that she has some important role in book 7. I just get a feeling that she will play some important role in helping Harry. Not sure why... Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 28 01:35:42 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:35:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) References: Message-ID: <007a01c6fa31$62575570$7a66400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160522 Cyril: > However, the one difference that I see is that Molly is not afraid to > discipline her children (and her husband) when required. She holds > them accountable for their actions. As a mother, she rates far higher > than anything else Narcissa is ever shown to do. But she is also > beside them when required. Can't ask anything more from a mother. Magpie: Actually--while I agree with your post, we can't actually say whether Narcissa doesn't discipline Draco since we don't see them at home. Draco has been raised to be horrible in many ways, but he seems to have clear limits set by his parents. I don't imagine that lack of discipline is an issue in that house. It may seem that way to us because Draco isn't disciplined for things *we'd* like to see him disciplined for, but that doesn't mean he's not punished if he does think out of line to them. Narcissa might describe Molly as the non-disciplining parent. > Magpie: > Isn't this essentially what Percy counsels Ron to think about in > OotP in > his letter--don't hang out with Harry because he's trouble? > (Choosing > friends in the books is often judged based on the default > idea that the Trio is the correct choice, but that's imo, equally > impractical as a guide. Alla: Is it? I thought that Harry refusing Draco offer of friendship in PS/SS and choosing Ron as the good kind was one of the main themes in the books. Magpie: Harry does choose Ron over Malfoy, but I'm talking about the advice that if you're friends with someone that is suspicious, you should dump them for your own good or face consequences. I don't think the themes of the book come down quite so simply to not choosing to be friends with Malfoy. (I tend to see Harry's choice against Malfoy the way I do his choice against Slytherin. Not something that was ever really a temptation.) Alla: I completely disagree. I believe it is received differently precisely because of the guilt. Magpie: I respect that you receive it that way, but that's not always the way it's judged by characters in canon or by all readers. Alla: So Malfoy turned out to be innocent of being Slytherin heir, but did he turned out to be innocent of let's kill Muggleborns? Not IMO. Magpie: But being a racist or saying a racist thing isn't a crime--they knew he was pro-LV already. Now, in this case I think I can see your point--since Draco was openly saying he wanted Muggleborns dead that was considered a reason to suspect him of being the involved (by these kids). But he did turn out to be completely innocent of the crime in question. (Off topic, but I'm having flashbacks to a sort of similar discussion about an X-Files episode in that fandom.) Alla: As I said above, I do not think we know everything of Snape v Marauders, but as action what he did is pretty similar to what Trio did IMO all that differs are intentions, maybe. Magpie: Yup--and the Marauders were actually guilty of something serious. His spying on them is still considered a bad thing by some of the people involved. Alla: No, if you hang out with that kid, you are to be expected of others suspecting that you have same views as that kid, IMO and Crabb and Goyle gave me little reason to think otherwise. Magpie: They probably do share his views; but having views is not a crime. Crabbe and Goyle weren't suspected of a crime. They were just being used to get to Malfoy, because they were bad sorts too. I don't remember it even being an issue to consider. Cyril: At the end of the day, Hermione has good intentions (the big picture),and that does make some of activities she does questionable. But I see no reason yet to question her intentions. Magpie: Actually, I do sometimes. I don't have a problem with the intention of catching the Heir, of course, but her intentions aren't always particularly good either. Her intention to make the House Elves free, for instance, is a good intention to her, but her plans to trick them into freedom do blatantly involve going against their wishes. Her wanting Ron is basically a good thing, but her taking Cormac to the Christmas Party was badly intended. I'd class her Confundus the same way. Sure we could say her intention was to help Ron, which is good, but her intentions towards the other guy were bad. Similarly I can't really see her actions towards Rita as done out of good intentions for the world at large. I also think it's okay to note that she gets off on her plans working, and that's a big motivation as well. So it's not always a case of her just doing whatever she can in a crisis for others. I think she's angered when things aren't the way she feels they should be. Cyril: It is easy to slam Hermione for her actions, but we forget some basic things when we do that: a) They are in a war - no sugar coating that fact b) Her best friend is the biggest target (arguably second to DD?) c) She, as a Muggleborn, is being denied participation in the WW by LV's diktat's, even to the point of possible death. Magpie: Actually, a) isn't always true. The "war" didn't even officially begin in canon until the last chapter of Book V. "They're in a war" seems to get used a lot to refer to schoolyard fights in this series that don't always have to do with the war. Like, whenever the good guys put the smack down on someone it's always a war and the other person's an enemy combatant. (Strangely, I don't think I've ever heard this as a defense for the other side.) Hermione's best friend is a target, though, and obviously she herself as a Muggleborn is a natural enemy of Voldemort. But I think even in CoS solving the mystery was a big appeal. Cyril: a) Spiking cupcakes (how different from spiking punch at a high school party). b) Using polyjuice potion - well in the WW, use of the Polyjuice potion is not considered as Dark magic or criminal activity (at least I see no canon to that effect). c) Placing a hex on a parchment to which they have all signed. Well, I do not see why she has to spell out that there are consequences of breaking a magical contract. d) Not releasing Marietta by reversing the spell. I must admit that there has been good argument for her inability to do so, namely that Marietta has to apologize to the DA before the same may even be possible.e) Leading a teacher into danger. e) Her general tendency to step on toes, and seeming lack of concern for who gets impacted by it. Well, I do believe that she sees some of the possible impact, but they are far outweighed by the intentions and objectives. It is a war, after all. And you cannot make an omlette without breaking the eggs. Magpie: This just isn't the way I balance things out. It basically starts out with Hermione counted as being against the bad guy, and then explains how all these supposedly questionable actions are pretty good anyway. So she hasn't really done anything wrong and if she did it's because it's a war. But I don't really think everyone arguing for a more negative view of Hermione are slamming her. They're just really considering the ethical implications of what she does at these times. I don't even think we're calling for some kind of punishment for her. To me it seems more like just discussing ambiguous moral situations where different people are going to respond differently. I'll bet if CoS had never been written and you just presented a group of people with generic facts of this incident, you'd get the exact same discussion. We genuinely have different ethical concerns when looking at the same set of facts. Cyril: To add a couple of things, in her favor (if you still need more) - she applies her personal rulebook even to go against friends, or for non-friends (enemies sounded too harsh) a) For example, she reported Harry's Firebolt broom to McG in POA. Did it hurt Harry - sure, Intention - harry's safety. b) Almost reported the Map in POA - was emotionally blackmailed into not doing so. c) Felt need to report the reason for Montague's disorientation - just so that he could be better helped. Magpie: She applies the personal rulebook to her friends when she wants to, and throws the rulebook away when she wants to. (It's not like applying rules to her friends is generally a sacrifice for her--she loves bossing people around. She's not Young!Lupin.) She reported the Firebolt because she feared for Harry's safety. I'd consider that a wise move for something important to her. She doesn't report the map, which there was little ethical reason to do, imo. So there, yes, she went against her instinct to follow rules for rules sake as I remember it, maybe because her friends would truly have been angry. And she didn't help Montague, which to me is a clear case of doing the wrong thing. Cyril - with the opinion that he/she who has done no wrongdoing should cast the first stone (copying again blatantly ) Magpie: That would make for a pretty boring discussion! We couldn't judge Voldemort's actions either. Personally, I like to think my lifetime of wrongdoing makes me more qualified.:-) -m From kjones at telus.net Sat Oct 28 01:45:09 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 18:45:09 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4542B625.3010206@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160523 Steve wrote: > bboyminn: > > Either your not seeing my whole point, or I'm missing part of > yours. > > Yes, anyone could bring anyone anywhere, but what is the > point? True someone could have brought someone to Godrics > Hollow, but what good would it do if the second someone > still couldn't find the Potters? Yes, someone who knew the > secret could have brought Voldemort to Godrics Hollow > while not revealing the secret to him, but Voldemort > still could not have found the Potters. > > DO VERY MUCH, keep in mind that we are not talking about > someone and someone, we are talking about Harry and > Neville. You don't risk the secret to people you don't > trust, which implies that you only reveal it to people > you DO trust. Someone could have lead Neville to Grimmauld > Square and guided him inside Grimmauld Place. How does > that compromise security? Neville can't reveal the > location to anyone. Even if Neville is coerced into > leading someone to Grimmauld Square, he still can't > reveal the secret, and without the secret the house itself > can't and won't be revealed. So, again where is the > compromise of security? Leading Voldemort to Godrics > Hollow doesn't reveal the Potters, and Neville coerced > into leading someone to Grimmauld Square doesn't reveal > the Black House. > > But back to the key point, you don't invite people into > the house if you don't trust them. You don't grab random > people of the street and say, 'Hey, want to see something > neat?'. You don't track down Death Eaters, drag them to > the house and say, 'Check this out'. KJ writes: You do make some fine points, but all through the books we see that Harry and Ron are, for a while, Crabbe and Goyle. Crabbe and Goyle were two girls. Slughorn was a chair for Pete's sake. JKR has made it clear that nobody can trust anybody. Trust is a huge issue in this series of books. For that reason alone, one person's trust of another could not be sufficient reason to allow them access to 12 Grimmauld Place. We also see Moody fail to take Harry into Grimmauld Place before giving him the note. Why would they all stand on the street in front of peoples' homes, reading a note, if they did not have to. Moody could have taken Harry inside, presumably, as Harry can certainly be "trusted", but he did not. He had to carry a note from Dumbledore to give to Harry. That implies that he could not bring Harry into the house himself. Perhaps, it was because he was not the secret keeper, but neither is Harry at this point. It seems to me that only the secret keeper can grant access to the people or place that is being protected, just as only Peter could allow Voldemort into the house by giving him the secret. I suspect that a new headquarters will have to be found to allow new members to join the OotP unless Dumbledore made someone else the secret keeper. KJ From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Oct 28 03:20:18 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:20:18 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Regulus Black / locket / horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160524 >Eddie: I>nteresting question! Maybe he did find more, or maybe he eventually died from the stuff in the basin... the stuff that nearly killed Dumbledore. >It also tickles other questions: * How did RAB find out where the locket horcrux was? >* How did he get past Voldemort's protections? He apparently needed a 2nd person. Assuming RAB is Regulus, he may have used Kreacher as the 2nd person. If so, Kreacher can be a very rich source of information about where other Horcruxes may be. If Kreacher was the 2nd person, then he probably wasn't as quick to save RAB as Harry was to help Dumbledore. Nikkalmati: Yes, these problems have been discussed re the locket. My own theory is that Regulus heard Bella discussing her mission with LV or someone else and when she came to Grimauld Place, he made the switch then. Bella followed instructions but she placed the dummy necklace in the cave without realizing it. (The light was kind of low in the cave). That eliminates the complex problem of getting Regulus and possibly Kreacher in and out of the cave.IMHO. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Oct 28 03:27:08 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:27:08 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) Message-ID: <587.9960bdd.3274280c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160525 Ramdom 832 It seems that again and again, Hermione comes across as a hypocrite - the one line that stood out most to me out of everything anyone ever said in HBP was that the stuff the HBP writes about is "probably not ministry approved" - so, what, she's having delusions that the DA was? If "not ministry approved" is really the worst thing she can say about something maybe she shouldn't have a problem with it. Nikkalmati: I took this to mean FDA approved (Federal Drug Administration); you know, "safe and effective." Not her comment on whether it was legal or morally correct. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Oct 28 04:01:41 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:01:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dudley's tail in the hut on the rock In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610272101hf9f0649n1aef1855b442f1e1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160526 > > pforParvati: > > Hi..I was doing a little bit re-reading and a question popped in > my mind was that, In PS, why Dudley's tail given by Hagrid was not > detected by MOM? Why they needed to cut it from private hospital? > Actually it should have come under muggle abuse and should have been > repaired by MoM. montims: I think that if some kindly Healer or Ministry person had shown up on the rock, or back at Privet Drive, and tried to take Dudders to St Mungo's to be treated, the Dursleys would have had a thousand kittens... There is no way that they would have allowed anyone from the WW near him, IMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Oct 28 04:21:37 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:21:37 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice as Dumbledore? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160527 All this talk about Polyjuice makes me wonder what Harry could do with a bit of Dumbledore's hair (for instance) and some polyjuice potion... Think it could be a bit of an advantage to have "Dumbledore" suddenly make an appearance when everybody knows he's dead? Eddie From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 04:32:43 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:32:43 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice as Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160528 Eddie: > All this talk about Polyjuice makes me wonder what Harry could do with > a bit of Dumbledore's hair (for instance) and some polyjuice potion... > > Think it could be a bit of an advantage to have "Dumbledore" suddenly > make an appearance when everybody knows he's dead? zgirnius: I suspect Polyjuicing as a dead person is probably a Very Bad Idea. Perhaps even worse than Polyjuicing as a cat... From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Oct 28 04:41:17 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:41:17 -0000 Subject: Polyjuice as Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160529 > Eddie: > > All this talk about Polyjuice makes me wonder what Harry could do with > > a bit of Dumbledore's hair (for instance) and some polyjuice potion... > > > > Think it could be a bit of an advantage to have "Dumbledore" suddenly > > make an appearance when everybody knows he's dead? > > zgirnius: > I suspect Polyjuicing as a dead person is probably a Very Bad Idea. > Perhaps even worse than Polyjuicing as a cat... > Eddie again: Yeah, I thought about this gruesome possibility, but decided that it would still be an OK idea. After all, if the polyjuice drinker became how the original person is now, or was at the time of the hair-taking (for instance), then Harry and Ron would have become unconscious (like Crabbe and Goyle were during that hour), Barty Crouch Jr. would have been weak and feeble and unconscious with big bits of hair missing as the real Mad Eye Moody was for months, etc. So, it seems that the drinker would be safe. Maybe. Any volunteers for who would like to be the first person to test this? Eddie From dreamofwriting at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 00:35:53 2006 From: dreamofwriting at yahoo.com (dreamofwriting) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:35:53 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160530 > zgirnius: > Draco also learned Occlumency over the summer, to > add to his list of magical achievements. And may (or may > not, this point in IMO not clear) have mastered some or > all of the Unforgivable Curses, which based on Fahe Moody's > remarks is an accomplishment, if not one that reflects > well on his character.. dreamofwriting: If what was said in book 5...that with the unforgivable curses you have to mean it for them to work, i.e.: you must truly want to kill to use the killing curse, torture and cause pain to use the cruciatus curse, so why was Draco not able to kill Dumbledore? Because he still had some respect for him at some level? It probably wouldn't have worked for him if he didn't mean it (which brings to mind that Snape really must have meant it! That is another discussion). IMO Draco really has been pushed so much by his father and other friends and family that he really has not been able to be the real Draco. I'm not saying he is not a little sh** and needs to be taught a thing or two...but I am saying that he is not a killer...just as Dumbledore could see in him, he showed he could love, his parents lives were on the line, he loved them and had to try to please Voldemort so he would spare their lives (which Voldemort wouldn't do anyway probably) so...Dumbledore felt Draco could be saved...so what happens next? Only J.K. Rowling knows for sure, but if you link to this music video I think it shows a hint of what I think might happen...Draco and Harry...what is left for them. http://www.videocodezone.com/videos/m/my_chemical_romance/welcome_to_ the_black_parade-2.html dreamofwriting From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 28 12:43:05 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:43:05 -0000 Subject: Qualities of Polyjuice (was Re: Polyjuice as Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160531 Eddie wrote: > All this talk about Polyjuice makes me wonder what Harry could do with > a bit of Dumbledore's hair (for instance) and some polyjuice potion... > > Think it could be a bit of an advantage to have "Dumbledore" suddenly > make an appearance when everybody knows he's dead? Potioncat: Well, the good guys would think he was an Inferius and hit him with whatever spells a wizard casts at an animated dead body. The bad guys might think he had used a time turner and hit him with an assortment of AKs, Imperiuses, etc. And when all was said and done, it would just be Harry, dressed up like Dumbledore. I think if you took the hair from the dead person, you would be a dead person. Whether that would last for an hour or longer, I cannot say. Crouch Jr suffered the loss of a leg and eye and bits of nose to become Moody, but he did not take on the temporary, drugged condition Moody was actually in. Now, what would happen, do you think, if you took a lock of hair that had been saved from an earlier time? Would you get the the person who is now or the person who had been? Just think, if you could mix up a Polyjuice potion of yourself at a younger age? Gives a whole new meaning to second honeymoon. From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 10:27:07 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 10:27:07 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160532 > Carol : > It is not Hermione's right or responsibility to "disfigure a horrid > sneak," who, AFWK, thought she was doing the right thing. Hermione > didn't warn anyone of the jinx (surely they should have known that > the parchment was a binding magical contract), nor did the jinx > serve as a deterrent to snitching. It activated *after* the > snitching had taken place. I think that Hermione, as usual, > thought she knew best, and I really think she ought to have made > some attempt to undo the excessive damage to Marietta (who appears > to be horribly disfigured for life for a mistake she made as a > teenager). Note that Marietta has been Obliviated and doesn't even > know what she's being punished for. What is the use in that and >how is it Hermione's right to act as judge, jury, and punisher all > in one? If Marietta dis wrong, let Dumbledore or her Head of House > (Flitwick) punish her, not a fellow student. A deterrent is one > thing; an after-the-fact punishment is another. Charles: It comes down to what you'd like to see happen. Would you prefer that the only person who can defeat Voldemort, and 26 other students be expelled and get their wands snapped, leaving them defenseless- or the person who would condemn them to that fate suffer disfigurement that would warn the DA and give them a chance to escape? As to DD or Flitwick punishing Marietta for her treason- well, what she did was not an offense against any Hogwarts rules, nor a crime against wizarding law. It does not make Marietta's action right, as I would hope you would agree, nor should it excuse her from facing a consequence for her actions. As Amiable Dorsai, et al, have already said, and I agree the only thing that Hermione really did wrong here was not informing everyone fully that it was a magical contract. She did, however, state that anyone who put their name on the parchment was agreeing to maintain their silence-insufficient,yes, but she did imply a contract was being signed. Carol: > And Hermione does have a ruthlesss, vindictive, revenge-seeking > streak. "I'll get that Skeeter woman if it's the last thing I do!" > (badly quoted from memory, but you get the idea). And she attacks > Ron with her birds because she's hurt and jealous, even though she > knows that he'd never physically or magically harm her (however > dense and provoking he may be sometimes). > Carol, who doesn't dislike Hermione but does want to see her learn > a lesson or two in humility and to realize the futility of revenge Charles: Yes, Hermione is vindictive. So is Dumbledore, who told Tommy boy that "I admit that merely taking your life would not satisfy me," and so is Harry, who says, "I'd want him finished, and I'd want to do it." What seems to keep getting lost in the shuffle here is that justice and revenge go hand in hand. When any society imprisons a lawbreaker, when a student is punished for an infraction, etc. what is happening is socially sanctioned revenge. Charles, who is still sticking up for a character he doesn't even really like. From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 11:34:50 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:34:50 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: <4542B625.3010206@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote: > It seems to me that only the secret keeper can grant access to the > people or place that is being protected, just as only Peter could > allow Voldemort into the house by giving him the secret. I suspect > that a new headquarters will have to be found to allow new members > to join the OotP unless Dumbledore made someone else the secret > keeper. Charles: If indeed only the secret keeper can grant access to the place, then at the very least Hagrid had to know that PP had been the secret keeper for the Potters. We know that Hagrid knew where they were, and most likely DD as well. This means that Wormtail had to have been the one to tell them. This tells me that DD would have known that PP was the spy, not Sirius, IMO. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Oct 28 14:18:33 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:18:33 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160534 > Charles:> > If indeed only the secret keeper can grant access to the place, then > at the very least Hagrid had to know that PP had been the secret > keeper for the Potters. We know that Hagrid knew where they were, and > most likely DD as well. This means that Wormtail had to have been the > one to tell them. This tells me that DD would have known that PP was > the spy, not Sirius, IMO. Potioncat: In PoA Hagrid says that he didn't know Black was the SK. He didn't say, "I thought PP was the SK." he said, "I didn't know Black was." So I'm not sure if he never knew the secret himself, or if he never knew the SK. Now, the only reason Harry knows that DD is the secret keeper for headquarters is because Moody says, "Here's a note from DD." He could have said, here's a note from the secret keeper and it would have worked. I suspect he could have said, here's a note from Mickey Mouse and it would have worked. I do think the SK has to has a specific person in mind for the note or it won't work. I don't think the reader has to know who the SK was. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 14:31:54 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:31:54 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160535 Cyril >>After all, it is our choices (read intentions) that show us what we are, far more than our abilities (blatantly copied from DD ) That is certainly not what DD meant, nor JKR. I would consider doing quite unethical things and thinking them okay because one's intentions are good, part of doing what is easy instead of what is right. Not easy in terms of physically easy, but it's so much easier to achieve one's ends if one is not concerned with ethics, than if one is concerned about what is right. Charles >>It comes down to what you'd like to see happen. Would you prefer that the only person who can defeat Voldemort, and 26 other students be expelled and get their wands snapped, leaving them defenseless- or the person who would condemn them to that fate suffer disfigurement that would warn the DA and give them a chance to escape? Wynnleaf The way things turned out, this is almost beside the point. The hex didn't stop Marietta from telling Umbridge, who immediately took her to DD to confront him alongside Harry and some Order/Aurors, who ended up modifying Marietta's memory so that she never got to tell who was in the DA. Nobody got expelled or otherwise and it had nothing to do with Hermione's hex. Without DD and the Shacklebolt's quick thinking, Umbridge would eventually have gotten Marietta to talk (after all, she didn't loose her voice, did she?), and the DA members would have been found out. Hermione's hex did No Good. If she hadn't been so sneaky about it, and told everyone up front when they were signing, it might have prevented Marietta either from signing in the first place, or from telling Umbridge. But no, Hermione knows best . or at least is convinced she does. It's a good thing DD and Shacklebolt were around to do the *real* defense measures. Alla: > > Main point that Hermione does not really care whether the person > deserves it or not? > > Okay, could you give me an example, where Hermione harmed somebody > who did not deserve it, somebody who was not suspected of DE or DE > related, murderous activities? Wynnleaf As Carol mentioned, attack birds for Ron is one. You don't seem to consider rendering someone unconscious to be physical harm. If Hermione hit them and knocked them out, would that be harm? But since you seem to think that anything that doesn't cause permanent damage isn't "harm," I'm not supposed to count knocking out Crabb and Goyle? And you know, at the time they *weren't* considered DE children. And then there's Hermione's plan which asked Harry and Ron to create an explosion in potions class which harmed completely innocent kids. And if we get to include something beyond direct physical harm, what about the house-elves? What did they do to warrant having to risk having their whole lives (which they love) entirely disrupted by a sneaky trick simply because Hermione thinks it's best for them? Slavery isn't ultimately good for anyone, but good intentions don't justify the RL equivalent of taking the safe, happy, well-fed and housed slave who's known no other life and completely without their approval freeing them with zero plan for how to maintain their lives and happiness, and no ability to enact a plan if she had it. Hermione didn't *really* consider the elves lives and happiness, only her own ideas of "rightness." Crabb and Goyle were completely innocent of the crime Hermione was investigating. Simply being pureblood elitist shouldn't have made them, or Draco, a candidate for attempted murder. After all, who exactly decided Draco was a good candidate to be a murderer? A 12 year old kid. Not Dumbledore ? and he certainly knew far better than the trio what kind of home situation Draco came from. By the way, do recall that in COS, the trio had no idea that any kids were children of death eaters. All they knew was that Draco was a pureblood elitist, his family likewise, and he spouted off comments about the fate of mudbloods. No, the trio decided they knew better than all the teachers, Dumbledore included, and that unbeknownst to all, Draco was the prime candidate and "deserved" to be spied upon, and his friends ? just because they were friends of the 12 year old opinion of "prime candidate" -- deserved to be knocked out for an hour and have their identifies stolen for that hour. On another note, I believe brought up by Alla (but am not sure): Criticizing Hermione's actions and saying the ends do not justify the means is in no way contradictory to supporting Snape as DDM. 1. No one is questioning whether or not Hermione is on the good side or not. No one is saying that Hermione's actions indicate she's a bad guy. 2. In general, most people who think Snape is DDM are not trying support his insulting speech as okay or even justified. Often, those who think Snape DDM do try to point out that Snape's actions as a teacher aren't nearly as awful as Harry thinks, or as harmful to his students as some readers claim. But that is not the same as saying that his insults or unfair decisions as a teacher are justified. Further, regardless how untrue is the adage "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me," it does not necessarily follow that physical harm is *less* harmful than words. Snape has never physically harmed anyone that we know of in canon other than in clear-cut self-defense with the Marauders, a direct attempt to capture a well-known supposed murderer and his apparent accomplice, and shoving Harry across the room for invading his pensieve. Two of these physical responses were definitely not physical harm to innocents (although the shove was wrong), and one was to a person the entire WW considered guilty of murder. By the way, if we really want to find something comparable to compare Hermione to Snape, I'd suggest Snape's spying on the Marauders, trying to find out what Lupin was doing every full-moon. Snape obviously knew that it was partly sanctioned by the school, since he'd seen Pomfrey escorting Lupin away. So he must have had reason to think that more was going on that the school *wouldn't* approve of, if he really was hoping to get them expelled. Many readers assume that Snape's spying on the Marauders shows what a nasty guy he was. Who else, but a nasty Slytherin would want to get those nice Gryffindors expelled? But if he had actually discovered what they were really doing every full moon ? running around endangering the countryside ? shouldn't he have been considered a hero and the Marauders expelled? And he wouldn't even have resorted to any unethical actions like knocking out the innocent, stealing identities, injuring classmates with explosions, stealing from teachers, etc. in order to do expose what was going on. Hermione, on the other hand, does resort to all sorts of unethical actions in order to achieve her ends and does not seem to care if others get harmed, even the innocent, if the actions seem to her expedient to meet her goals. Wynnleaf, who would love to see Hermione become aware of this. She is just too convinced of her own rightness. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 14:39:26 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:39:26 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160536 Charles: > It comes down to what you'd like to see happen. Would you prefer that the only person who can defeat Voldemort, and 26 other students be expelled and get their wands snapped, leaving them defenseless- or the person who would condemn them to that fate suffer disfigurement that would warn the DA and give them a chance to escape? Ceridwen: What I would like to have seen happen is that the spell Hermione put on the parchment would actually have warned the DA. This is my wish for a perfect re-do of the incident. In my perfect world, the jinx on the parchment would have rendered the would-be traitor speechless whenever he or she tried to mention the DA to any outsider. There is such a charm in the WW, the one used to keep the location of OotP Headquarters secret. Snape tells Bellatrix in HBP that she knows he cannot "speak the name of the place". This is a well-known, or at least known, spell. Since the DA appears in the same book as our first glimpse of OotP Headquarters, and our first first-hand experience of a magical secret, such a spell should have been foremost in Hermione's mind. In HBP, we learn about magical alarms that inform a witch or wizard that someone is approaching, so I wouldn't expect Hermione to think of that a year earlier. But the jinx she placed on the parchment only harmed the traitor after the fact. The DA was already betrayed. It was useless in the end, a pale sop for whatever punishments were to be meted out to the DA members. I agree with everyone who has posted to say that Hermione should have been more explicit about the jinx. She was deliberately trying to hide that fact, I think, based on the way she hemmed and hawed and merely added that they were promising not to tell. I do think her mind was clouded with the possibilities of the club, otherwise she might have noticed that some of the students at the first meeting were not as keen as she was about the DA. If she had noticed, she might not have asked them to sign, or she might have explained about the jinx. But, too, she was so eager to get the club off the ground that she said too much at that first meeting. Anyone who was there had to be silenced. The whole thing was mismanaged from the beginning, I think, and that is what caused all the problems later. I think they did need to have a practical class for DADA since Umbridge wasn't teaching the subject, but instead teaching the kids not to get involved. I just think more thought, and a group effort from the trio, should be what happened, instead of Hermione's secrecy from everyone, even Harry. Just my opinion, though. Ceridwen. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 15:08:39 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:08:39 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160537 > Wynnleaf And > then there's Hermione's plan which asked Harry and Ron to create an > explosion in potions class which harmed completely innocent kids. And > if we get to include something beyond direct physical harm, what about > the house-elves? What did they do to warrant having to risk having > their whole lives (which they love) entirely disrupted by a sneaky > trick simply because Hermione thinks it's best for them? Slavery > isn't ultimately good for anyone, but good intentions don't justify > the RL equivalent of taking the safe, happy, well-fed and housed slave > who's known no other life and completely without their approval > freeing them with zero plan for how to maintain their lives and > happiness, and no ability to enact a plan if she had it. Hermione > didn't *really* consider the elves lives and happiness, only her own > ideas of "rightness." Alla: I want to return to this point after book 7 :), nobody argues that freeing house elves without their permissions is good, but I maintain that JKR will show that freeing elves is indeed good, even though Hermione has to completely change her approach to it. Just a feeling, she talks about hose elves rights too much in the interviews for that. So, no, I think Hermione truly thinks about their happiness, she just uses the wrong approach, but this is at this point you said and I said, so I am just agreeing to disagree. Wynnleaf: > Crabb and Goyle were completely innocent of the crime Hermione was > investigating. Simply being pureblood elitist shouldn't have made > them, or Draco, a candidate for attempted murder. After all, who > exactly decided Draco was a good candidate to be a murderer? A 12 > year old kid. Not Dumbledore ? and he certainly knew far better than > the trio what kind of home situation Draco came from. > > By the way, do recall that in COS, the trio had no idea that any kids > were children of death eaters. All they knew was that Draco was a > pureblood elitist, his family likewise, and he spouted off comments > about the fate of mudbloods. Alla: Such a **nice** comfortable word, isn't it **elitist**? Change it to pure-blooded racist, which is how I see Draco and picture becomes a little different? No, the Trio did not decide that Draco is the good candidate to be a murderer, Draco did IMO, by saying that muggleborns deserve to die, that in my book is a good reason for Trio to be suspicious of him and investigate him and isn't it showing that even on the Tower when Dumbledore should be concerned with more important matters, supposedly, he considers it important enough to tell Draco not to say **mudblood** in front of him. So, yeah I do recall that Trio had no idea about them being DE children, but they knew enough of what Draco wishes in life IMO and that was enough to make them suspicious and rightly so. Wynnleaf: > No, the trio decided they knew better than all the teachers, > Dumbledore included, and that unbeknownst to all, Draco was the prime > candidate and "deserved" to be spied upon, and his friends ? just > because they were friends of the 12 year old opinion of "prime > candidate" -- deserved to be knocked out for an hour and have their > identifies stolen for that hour. Alla: Yes, and as it turned out they eventually did know better than all teachers, didn't they? They discovered the Chamber and four books later Draco dear finally signed up for murder. Wynnleaf: > On another note, I believe brought up by Alla (but am not sure): > Criticizing Hermione's actions and saying the ends do not justify the > means is in no way contradictory to supporting Snape as DDM. > > 1. No one is questioning whether or not Hermione is on the good side > or not. No one is saying that Hermione's actions indicate she's a bad > guy. > > 2. In general, most people who think Snape is DDM are not trying > support his insulting speech as okay or even justified. Often, those > who think Snape DDM do try to point out that Snape's actions as a > teacher aren't nearly as awful as Harry thinks, or as harmful to his > students as some readers claim. But that is not the same as saying > that his insults or unfair decisions as a teacher are justified. Alla: Yes, I brought it up, but I did not bring up Snape verbal abuse. The comparison I made was condemning Hermione for the hex regardless of why she did it ( no matter which traitorous actions brought it up, etc) and Snape's actions on the Tower. I really do not remember DD!M Snape theorists condemning Snape for committing the murder on the Tower. Nooooo, multitude of the reasons had been brought up and the main one of course Dumbledore made Snape do it. That is of course the possibility, but I just find funny that reasons for the murder are being constantly brought up as justifying circumstances, and the reasons for the hex as punishment for traitor are being discarded. Now, before you ask me - if Hermione's punishment of traitor would be to kill her, I would be more than willing to not look at the reasons besides it and condemn it, but doing the opposite? When more harmful action is being justified over and over again and the hex to protect DA while not being perfectly executed is not? Wynnleaf: > By the way, if we really want to find something comparable to compare > Hermione to Snape, I'd suggest Snape's spying on the Marauders, trying > to find out what Lupin was doing every full-moon. Snape obviously > knew that it was partly sanctioned by the school, since he'd seen > Pomfrey escorting Lupin away. So he must have had reason to think > that more was going on that the school *wouldn't* approve of, if he > really was hoping to get them expelled. Alla: Yeah, that was being discussed upthread. To briefly recap - yes, why not, action is the same. The problem is that I do not know about Snape motivations, but as I said it was discussed upthread. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 15:24:05 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:24:05 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160538 Carol earlier: > > And Hermione does have a ruthlesss, vindictive, revenge-seeking > > streak. "I'll get that Skeeter woman if it's the last thing I do!" > > (badly quoted from memory, but you get the idea). And she attacks > > Ron with her birds because she's hurt and jealous, even though she > > knows that he'd never physically or magically harm her (however > > dense and provoking he may be sometimes). > > > Carol, who doesn't dislike Hermione but does want to see her learn > > a lesson or two in humility and to realize the futility of revenge > > Charles: > > Yes, Hermione is vindictive. So is Dumbledore, who told Tommy boy > that "I admit that merely taking your life would not satisfy me," and so is Harry, who says, "I'd want him finished, and I'd want to do it." What seems to keep getting lost in the shuffle here is that > justice and revenge go hand in hand. When any society imprisons a > lawbreaker, when a student is punished for an infraction, etc. what > is happening is socially sanctioned revenge. > > Charles, who is still sticking up for a character he doesn't even > really like. > Carol responds: Justice is not socially sanctioned revenge. It is, at least ideally, the impartial assignment of merited rewards and punishments based on reason, not revenge. Here's the online definition from Merriam-Webster: 1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity 2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS Now granted, criminals are punished, but not out of revenge. The idea is to protect society and to prevent or deter the criminal from committing future crimes. Revenge, OTOH, merely satisfies a psychological need to hurt someone who has hurt you. ("I'll get even with that Skeeter woman if it's the last thing I do!") It is not the place of a sixteen-year-old to punish anyone--not Rita Skeeter, not Marietta, not Ron. The only authority has is her position as Prefect, which allows her to assign students who break rules detention (though I would think she'd need the aid of Hogwarts magic or the backing of a teacher to administer any such punishments, and we never see her do it). Marietta, as you say, has not broken a school rule. On the contrary, she's trying to do as Umbridge has told her, to report troublemakers who "lie" about Voldemort being back. What everyone seems to be forgetting is that neither Harry nor Dumbledore has presented evidence that Voldemort, who has been "dead" for thirteen years, is really back, and Harry has refused to explain how Cedric died. Had he done so, the students attending that meeting would have had the chance to shake their heads and call him crazy and leave before the group became an organization with a roll sheet or to believe him and remain. As it is, Marietta stayed because of Cho and the fifth years stayed because they wanted to pass their OWLs. Only Ron, Hermione, the Weasley Twins, the Creevey brothers, and Ernie Macmillan understood that the real need to learn defensive spells had nothing to do with school--or with defiance of the MoM except as it prevented them from learning what they needed to learn. To return to justice vs. revenge: Harry will have to take justice into his own hands simply because the socially sanctioned agency is both inept and corrupt, and because, despite Dumbledore's words about the Prophecy not having to come true, he is the instrument of Fate. If Harry doesn't destroy Voldemort, no one will. (Hermione is in no such position, yet she blackmails Rita Skeeter and imprisons her in a jar for a year. If anyone did that to Hermione, fandom would be in an uproar. Not all that different from what Barty Jr. did to Mad-Eye, except that she didn't pull Rita's hair out or Imperio her.) If Harry's greatest weapon is indeed Love, he's going to have to let go of his desire for revenge and his hatred of both Voldemort and Snape. (I really don't "get" Dumbledore's words about Harry wanting revenge for his parents' death as a motivation for destroying Voldemort. It doesn't fit with the whole, pure soul concept at all.) Note that the same people who condemn Snape for wanting revenge against Sirius Black for what Snape considers to be a murder attempt condone Harry's desire for revenge against Snape and Hermione's for revenge against Rita Skeeter. Possibly they would also have condoned the murder of Wormtail at the hands of Lupin and Black, regardless of the legal and psychological consequences for the murderers, becuse Wormtail deserved it (as he certainly did). IMO, Harry was right to spare Wormtail and try to hand him over to the authorities rather than mistaking revenge for justice and allowing Lupin and Black to kill him themselves. Vigilante justice is not justice. It's murder. And Hermione taking the punishment of wrongders into her own hands is no better, especially in the case of Rita Skeeter, where she's clearly motivated by revenge. (Funny how she discourages the Twins from blackmailing Ludo Bagman because they'll get in trouble(!) yet engages in blackmail herself the very next year.) Carol, who hopes that both Harry and Hermione will learn to distinguish justice from revenge in Book 7 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 15:33:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:33:21 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160539 Eddie wrote: > Has anybody noticed that Draco is a pretty talented wizard? He made > it into the 6th year Potions and DADA classes, manages the Protean > charm on the coins to communicate with the Death Eaters (which Terry > Boot says is N.E.W.T level spellwork), manages to fix the vanishing > cabinet, disapparates when on the run at the end of HBP... and I'm not > sure what else. > > Sure, there are extenuating circumstances: Snape coddled Draco through > Potions, the Protean charm idea came from Hermione (although Hermione > said she got the idea from the Death Eaters marks), it took all year > for Draco to fix the cabinet. Nevertheless, he _DID_ these things. > > Thoughts? > Eddie Carol responds: I would have posted this response yesterday but I'd already (accidentally) exceeded my quota, so my apologies if it overlaps with what others have already said. They hadn't said it yet when the message was composed! There are also the badges he made in GoF, changing from "Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts champion" to "Potter Stinks!" As for his Potions performance, can you cite your evidence for Snape coddling him? I recall his pointing to Draco's perfectly stewed slugs on the very first day of class in SS/PS, as he certainly wouldn't have done unless they really were perfect. I doubt that Snape coddles anybody, Lucius Malfoy's son or not. I think the fact that Draco excels in and likes Potions contributes to Snape's favoritism, which would be greatly diminished if Draco were a dolt like his friends Crabbe and Goyle. Moreover, you need an O to get into Snape's NEWT Potions class, and Draco came prepared with his book and cauldron to take the class, not knowing that Slughorn would be teaching it and only required an E. AFWK, Harry and Ron are the only E students in that class. Draco must have scored an O, on his own, with no coddling from Snape or anyone else. Lucius Malfoy seems to have high expectations for his son, whose marks may not be as high as Hermione's but must be reasonably high or Lucius would be a lot angrier. We don't see him in any classes except Potions and COMC (except for flying in SS/PS, which he does very well), but if his Potions performance is any indication, he probably does very well in most of his classes. We've yet to see his potion orange when it ought to be green or giving off smoke when it ought to give off vapor. In fact, the narrator often describes Ron's, Harry's, Neville's and Goyle's Potions failures, but I don't recall ever reading that Draco's potion wasn't up to snuff in Snape's class, as the narrator would certainly have noted (and Snape's attitude toward Draco might have altered as well). Granted, Draco's performance isn't quite as good in Slughorn's class as it was in Snape's, but neither is Hermione's, and Snape certainly didn't coddle her. (I think it's because Snape wrote his Potions instructions on the board, probably indicating that they're his own improved versions rather than standard textbook spells, whereas Slughorn is still using the same fifty-year-old textbook he must have used when Snape's mother was his student, with no improvements of his own. (The students follow the instructions in the book. Slughorn doesn't use the board.) Still, Draco must have learned a lot from Snape to be in the NEWT Potions class since Snape would have taken only the very best. I'm not sure that we can judge Draco's abilities from the fact that he's in NEWT DADA, however. Snape seems to have lowered his standards there, certainly taking the E students and possibly the A's. The only students who seem to be taking remedial DADA are Crabbe and Goyle, who didn't pass their OWLs. However, Draco could cast Serpensortia as a second-year and has always had a fair number of imaginative hexes at his command (for example, Densuageo, the tooth-elongating spell, in GoF). And, as I said, making those badges took talent. I'd say he probably excels in Charms and Transfiguration, and would probably do quite well in DADA if it weren't for his DEs-don't-need-this-trash attitude in HBP. Maybe he does well anyway because Snape's DADA class gives him a chance to duel and practice nonverbal spells. He certainly did well enough against Harry in the bathroom scene before he stupidly resorted to Crucio and prompted Harry to try out Sectumsempra. Oh, and we forgot. He's a fair to middling Occlumens thanks to Aunt Bellatrix. Not, of course, a "superb Occlumens" like Snape, but he seems to have a natural aptitude for it. Carol, agreeing that Draco is a pretty talented wizard though not a genius like Snape so far as we know From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 15:50:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:50:40 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160540 Charles wrote: > > If indeed only the secret keeper can grant access to the place, then at the very least Hagrid had to know that PP had been the secret keeper for the Potters. We know that Hagrid knew where they were, and most likely DD as well. This means that Wormtail had to have been the one to tell them. This tells me that DD would have known that PP was the spy, not Sirius, IMO. > > > Potioncat responded: > In PoA Hagrid says that he didn't know Black was the SK. He didn't > say, "I thought PP was the SK." he said, "I didn't know Black was." > So I'm not sure if he never knew the secret himself, or if he never > knew the SK. > Carol adds: I agree that neither Hagrid nor Dumbledore knew who the Secret Keeper was. While it's possible that Dumbledore had received a note (which he thought was from Black) and showed it to Hagrid (and Snape?), it's also possible that the Potters didn't trust Dumbledore (who, after all, had offered to be the Secret Keeper himself, yet they didn't choose him) or that PP chose not to inform him and only pretended to do so for fear of revealing his identity (not thinking of sending a note) or that there just wasn't time to think about informing anybody during the week or so that he was Secret Keeper. (He'd have been more concerned about staying safe and under cover until the chance came to inform Voldemort.) Potioncat: > Now, the only reason Harry knows that DD is the secret keeper for > headquarters is because Moody says, "Here's a note from DD." He could have said, here's a note from the secret keeper and it would have worked. I suspect he could have said, here's a note from Mickey Mouse and it would have worked. I do think the SK has to has a specific person in mind for the note or it won't work. I don't think the reader has to know who the SK was. > Carol responds: I don't think so. Mad-Eye made sure that the note with the secret written on it was destroyed as soon as Harry read it. Apparently, anyone who picked it up and read it would be able to see 12 GP even if they didn't know what the OoP was. And if a Death Eater or one of their allies happened to see it, or even an MoM employee who was looking for Sirius Black, there would be trouble. I don't think, however, that Dumbledore knew about the Godric's Hollow hideout from a note. I think that he had known about it before the secret was placed inside PP, then magically "forgot" it. When he awoke knowing the secret, he knew that the spell had been broken and that the Potters had been betrayed and were probably dead. I think that Snape must have shown him his faded Dark Mark, which meant that Harry had somehow defeated Voldemort and must be alive. I realize that I'm only speculating, but I don't see how he could have known or guessed that the Potters were dead and Harry needed to be rescued if he already knew the secret. Something must have happened to alert. Carol, imagining both Dumbledore and Snape waking up from nightmares and Snape running up eight flights of stairs in his grey nightshirt to find Dumbledore at work with his mysterious instruments From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 16:05:43 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:05:43 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160541 "justcarol67" wrote: > It is not Hermione's right or responsibility > to "disfigure a horrid sneak," It is certainly Hermione's right to uncover a traitor, and it is her duty because if she didn't do it the task wouldn't get done. > who, AFWK, thought she was doing the right thing. Sincerity is a vastly overrated virtue, everybody THINKS they're doing the right thing but that's not good enough, you've got to DO the right thing. > Hermione does have a ruthlesss, vindictive, > revenge-seeking streak. "I'll get that > Skeeter woman if it's the last thing I do!" Good heavens, don't you think Hermione had a reason to be angry with Skeeter, or are you suggesting that a good person should never get angry at anyone for any reason? > she attacks Ron with her birds because > she's hurt and jealous Granted that was wrong, but I've done worse, I'll bet you have too. > I agree with her that Harry shouldn't be > using the HBP's Potions hints to get marks > he doesn't deserve I certainly disagree. When I took chemistry the teacher encouraged us not to just stick with the textbook but to go to the library and see if we could find better ways of doing things. > Carol, who doesn't dislike Hermione but > does want to see her learn a lesson > or two in humility I believe you should only be humble if you have something to be humble about, and Hermione seems to be doing very well. I HATE it when somebody receives a great honor or award and says "I feel very humbled". Baloney! He's either lying or he's a fool. There is a quote from Einstein about a colleague, "He shouldn't be that humble, he's not that great". Eggplant From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 28 16:20:35 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:20:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160542 carol wrote: (Hermione is in no such position, yet she blackmails Rita Skeeter and imprisons her in a jar for a year. If anyone did that to Hermione, fandom would be in an uproar. Not all that different from what Barty Jr. did to Mad-Eye, except that she didn't pull Rita's hair out or Imperio her.) Sherry now: A slight correction. Hermione did not keep Rita in a jar for a year. She was going to let her out when they got to London, but she told her she could not write anything for a year. However, having said that, I actually agree with you about Hermione in this instance. It wasn't what Rita wrote about Harry, nor what she wrote about Hagrid, that caused Hermione to take action against her. It was after Rita turned her poisonous quill on Hermione herself, that Hermione became so outraged that she decided to take action. It was not justice; it was pure revenge. She was upset by what Rita had said about her, and she set out to get something on her and captured her in the jar and black mailed her. It is one of Hermione's lowest moments for me, even the first time I read it in GOF, because there's no mitigating reason behind it, just Hermione in a snit taking revenge. Carol: If Harry's greatest weapon is indeed Love, he's going to have to let go of his desire for revenge and his hatred of both Voldemort and Snape. ) Note that the same people who condemn Snape for wanting revenge against Sirius Black for what Snape considers to be a murder attempt condone Harry's desire for revenge against Snape and Hermione's for revenge against Rita Skeeter. Possibly they would also have condoned the murder of Wormtail at the hands of Lupin and Black, regardless of the legal and psychological consequences for the murderers, becuse Wormtail deserved it (as he certainly did). IMO, Harry was right to spare Wormtail and try to hand him over to the authorities rather than mistaking revenge for justice and allowing Lupin and Black to kill him themselves. Sherry now: Just because I do think Snape committed murder on the tower, does not suddenly make me someone who believes anyone should take revenge on Snape or Peter. One of the moments I most love in the entire series is when Harry stops Sirius and Remus from murdering Peter. I've already said how I feel about what Hermione did to Rita. Neither do I think that taking revenge against Snape will help Harry win against Voldemort in the end. In fact, I think his hatred of Snape, though perfectly reasonable--one would not easily love someone one saw murder another person in front of one's own eyes--I think it could become a dangerous distraction from what Harry needs to do. As far as not wanting Snape to seek revenge against Sirius for whatever happened back in their Hogwarts days, as this is 20 years later, and we have been told by JKR we don't know all the details, I think taking revenge is out of line there as well. There's more to that story than we know, but even if what we've been told so far was all there was to it, I would not want to see Snape take revenge 20 years later. As for Harry learning to forgive Voldemort, I hope that isn't required for the ending. Maybe he can learn to forgive the former tom riddle, who was once an innocent boy, but it would be way too sappy and unrealistic to expect Harry to forgive and even love Voldemort, the one responsible for his parents' deaths, his miserable upbringing, the death of Sirius and now the hand behind the hand that murdered Dumbledore. I don't believe justice requires forgiveness and love in order to apply it. As for revenge, at least I'm fairly consistent, because I don't want either the good guys or the bad guys to practice it. It isn't really true to imply that we all think revenge by Harry is the way to go. Sherry From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Oct 28 16:11:19 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:11:19 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160543 >BetsyHP > And I'm saying that when you start branding other people on the face, you're slipping into a fairly horrifying place. At least, IMO. I don't think Hermione is the sweetest character I've ever met. I don't even think she's the sweetest character in Potterverse. (I think Neville more fits that bill.) And I do refuse to discount Hermione's wrongs in order to try and shoe-horn her in to "sweet character" status. Or to try and force myself to like her. Nikkalmati: I think you are exaggerating a bit here. She wasn't branded, she developed zits. Maybe Marietta should grow bangs (fringe) . I am puzzled why Cho stuck with her. Was this just a way for JKR to drive a wedge between Harry and Cho? Surely Cho could have asked Harry to get Hermione to lift the curse. Maybe JKR is saving Marietta for a redemption in Book 7, at which point the zits will disappear as a sign of her change of heart. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kjones at telus.net Sat Oct 28 16:21:30 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:21:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4543838A.2070309@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160544 > Potioncat: >> Now, the only reason Harry knows that DD is the secret keeper for >> headquarters is because Moody says, "Here's a note from DD." He > could have said, here's a note from the secret keeper and it would > have worked. I suspect he could have said, here's a note from Mickey > Mouse and it would have worked. I do think the SK has to has a > specific person in mind for the note or it won't work. I don't think > the reader has to know who the SK was. > Carol responds: > I don't think so. Mad-Eye made sure that the note with the secret > written on it was destroyed as soon as Harry read it. Apparently, > anyone who picked it up and read it would be able to see 12 GP even if > they didn't know what the OoP was. And if a Death Eater or one of > their allies happened to see it, or even an MoM employee who was > looking for Sirius Black, there would be trouble. > > I don't think, however, that Dumbledore knew about the Godric's Hollow > hideout from a note. I think that he had known about it before the > secret was placed inside PP, then magically "forgot" it. When he awoke > knowing the secret, he knew that the spell had been broken and that > the Potters had been betrayed and were probably dead. I think that > Snape must have shown him his faded Dark Mark, which meant that Harry > had somehow defeated Voldemort and must be alive. > > I realize that I'm only speculating, but I don't see how he could have > known or guessed that the Potters were dead and Harry needed to be > rescued if he already knew the secret. Something must have happened to > alert. > > Carol, imagining both Dumbledore and Snape waking up from nightmares > and Snape running up eight flights of stairs in his grey nightshirt to > find Dumbledore at work with his mysterious instruments KJ writes: That is a good point regarding the destruction of the note. I forgot that Moody destroyed the note, or I might have just thought that it was Moody's paranoia showing. I suspect that Dumbledore's knowledge of the events at Godric's Hollow was as the direct result of being told about it by someone, probably Snape. There are hints that someone else was at Godric's Hollow. As soon as Dumbledore was told, he set things in motion for damage control and Hagrid was sent for Harry. It seems to me that he already knew that Harry was still alive, while his parents were known to be dead. Harry was retrieved before "the Muggles got there" which would imply a very quick response. The only reason Sirius arrived was because he could not find Peter and was concerned. KJ From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 16:27:47 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:27:47 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160545 > Wynnleaf: > > Crabb and Goyle were completely innocent of the crime Hermione was > > investigating. Simply being pureblood elitist shouldn't have made > > them, or Draco, a candidate for attempted murder. After all, who > > exactly decided Draco was a good candidate to be a murderer? A 12 > > year old kid. Not Dumbledore ? and he certainly knew far better > than > > the trio what kind of home situation Draco came from. > > > > By the way, do recall that in COS, the trio had no idea that any > kids > > were children of death eaters. All they knew was that Draco was a > > pureblood elitist, his family likewise, and he spouted off comments > > about the fate of mudbloods. > > Alla: > > Such a **nice** comfortable word, isn't it **elitist**? Change it to > pure-blooded racist, which is how I see Draco and picture becomes a > little different? wynnleaf Racism definition "racism is a form of discrimination based on race, especially the belief that one race is superior to another." Whether you think Draco is a racist or not -- by definition he is not. I attempted to use an accurate one. You prefer an inaccurate one. Oookay. Still, since you prefer to believe Draco a racist, let us use a RL racism situation as an example: I grew up in a time and place where racism not only abounded, but there were also racist organizations who did indeed commit murders of the other racial group as a part of their activities. I went to schools where a *large* percentage of the kids were quite racist. Many, many of them had far more nasty things to say than Draco, and on a far more regular basis. Unbelievably (according to your theory of who makes a good candidate for a racist murderer), almost none of the highly racist children in my city became murderers. I *know* that for a fact, because there just weren't enough murdered people to account for any, but a tiny percentage of these racist kids becoming racist murderers. So no, despite your assumptions, a racist kid who makes really nasty remarks about wishing people of the other race dead is not highly likely to become a murderer. > > So, yeah I do recall that Trio had no idea about them being DE > children, but they knew enough of what Draco wishes in life IMO and > that was enough to make them suspicious and rightly so. wynnleaf, Well, no, not necessarily rightly so. See above. > Alla: > > Yes, and as it turned out they eventually did know better than all > teachers, didn't they? They discovered the Chamber and four books > later Draco dear finally signed up for murder. wynnleaf Harry eventually figured out how to get into the Chamber, but it turned out that no one else would have been able to get in because no one else spoke parceltongue. However, as regards being "right," although they figured out about the Basilisk, Harry discovered once he got into the Chamber that he'd been oh-so-wrong, and had trusted a diary that turned out to house the young Tom Riddle (his soul although Harry didn't know that). Basically, in COS we discover that the trio was great at figuring out puzzles like the basilisk, or how to get into the Chamber, but made many mistakes in adding up evidence of character and deciding who to trust and who not, or who is doing wrong and who isn't. > > Alla: > > Yes, I brought it up, but I did not bring up Snape verbal abuse. The > comparison I made was condemning Hermione for the hex regardless of > why she did it ( no matter which traitorous actions brought it up, > etc) and Snape's actions on the Tower. > > I really do not remember DD!M Snape theorists condemning Snape for > committing the murder on the Tower. Nooooo, multitude of the reasons > had been brought up and the main one of course Dumbledore made Snape > do it. > > That is of course the possibility, but I just find funny that > reasons for the murder are being constantly brought up as justifying > circumstances, and the reasons for the hex as punishment for traitor > are being discarded. > > Now, before you ask me - if Hermione's punishment of traitor would > be to kill her, I would be more than willing to not look at the > reasons besides it and condemn it, but doing the opposite? When more > harmful action is being justified over and over again and the hex to > protect DA while not being perfectly executed is not? > wynnleaf There's a huge, gigantic difference (among lots of other huge differences). I'm amazed you don't mention it. (am I really amazed??) Anyway. Practically all theories that DDM Snape AK'd DD include DD first commanding and then begging Snape to do it. So Snape and DD were working togther on what occurred. DD ordered him to do it. And further, DD was Snape's leader. Let's see how that works with Hermione. Hm. "Hermione, please. Knock us out so you can take our identies and find out what Draco is up to!" No, didn't happen. "Hermione, please. Give us those hats so we can be free." Nope. "Hermione, please. Put a hex on that contract so we'll all know there's consequence for breaking it." No way. See? Completely different. Now, personally, I tend to doubt that we'll discover in book 7 that Snape's AK was what actually killed DD. But I have different reasons for that and it's beside the point at hand. wynnleaf From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 28 16:48:50 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:48:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione References: Message-ID: <006701c6fab0$f2ea7e80$427e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160546 > Charles: > > It comes down to what you'd like to see happen. Would you prefer that the > only person who can defeat Voldemort, and 26 other students be expelled > and get their wands snapped, leaving them defenseless- or the person who > would condemn them to that fate suffer disfigurement that would warn the > DA and give them a chance to escape? Magpie: As has been pointed out, that isn't the choice anyone is facing, because the disfigurement does not prevent any of that. If Hermione has simply made a hex that prevented anyone from telling and warned the leaders when anyone attempted to do so and failed, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Imo, Hermione's hex shows clearly what her priorities are, and they aren't so intelligent. Charles: She did, however, state that anyone who put their name on the parchment was agreeing to maintain their silence-insufficient,yes, but she did imply a contract was being signed. Magpie: No, she didn't. She implied that she didn't want anybody in her club to tell anyone. Her language is, iirc, even particularly wishy-washy for Hermione. Everyone, including Ron and Harry, is surprised to learn there's any sort of hex on the contract. Charles: What seems to keep getting lost in the shuffle here is that justice and revenge go hand in hand. When any society imprisons a lawbreaker, when a student is punished for an infraction, etc. what is happening is socially sanctioned revenge. Magpie: It's not being lost in the shuffle, it's being outright disagreed with. Justice and revenge are two different things. Justice is, in fact, often what you'd find yourself on the receiving end of if you took revenge on your own. The justice system is not all about helping people fill their appetite for revenge. Eggplant: Good heavens, don't you think Hermione had a reason to be angry with Skeeter, or are you suggesting that a good person should never get angry at anyone for any reason? Magpie: Carol didn't say Hermione had no reason to be angry with Skeeter, she drew a distinction between feeling angry and what you did as a result of your anger. What Rita did, iirc, is write about Hermione's love life in her magazine, including certain facts Hermione herself didn't tell her, and quotes from others that were misleading. Other people read the articles and wrote Hermione angry letters. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 16:50:27 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:50:27 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160547 "justcarol67" wrote: > It is not the place of a sixteen-year-old > to punish anyone In the corrupt wizard world Hermione lives in there is very little connection between justice and the law. So if She doesn't punish a traitor who will? Umbridge? > Marietta, as you say, has not broken > a school rule. Under the tyranny of Dolores Jane Umbridge the school rules have become evil, and anyone who refuses to break those rules is evil as well. > she blackmails Rita Skeeter Yes, she did that. Smart girl! > and imprisons her in a jar for a year. No, she didn't do that. > If Harry's greatest weapon is indeed Love, > he's going to have to let go of his desire > for revenge and his hatred of both > Voldemort and Snape. Yes, sometimes I think that's what JKR has in mind but I certainly hope not, it would make a terrible story. Killing Voldemort with love, I think I'm going to be sick. > Possibly they would also have condoned > the murder of Wormtail at the hands > of Lupin and Black, Of all the mistakes Harry has made over 6 books I believe the single biggest one was made in book 3 when he stopped Lupin and Black from doing what needed to be done. Voldemort would not have been able to return and countless people would still be alive. > Carol, who hopes that both Harry and > Hermione will learn to distinguish > justice from revenge look warm Why? Do you really want your fictional heroes to be bloodless passionless goody two shoe fussbudgets? Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 28 16:49:24 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:49:24 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione /some Peter In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160548 > Alla: > > I suspect that this comparison is made in jest, but Hermione **did** > get the right traitor in OOP, didn't she? Pippin: You mean, she stopped Marietta from becoming a spy like Pettigrew? There's a major problem with that. We have no canon that Marietta had any intention of spying on the DA. AFAWK, all she wanted to do was bring a stop to the meetings, which Cho was forcing her to attend against her will. Of course punishing people *before* they commit crimes is certainly efficient, and there's precedent of a sort. To quote Carroll's White Queen, " He's in prison now, being punished: and the trial doesn't even begin till next Wednesday: and of course the crime comes last of all.' `Suppose he never commits the crime?' said Alice. `That would be all the better wouldn't it?' the Queen said, as she bound the plaster round her finger with a bit of ribbon. --Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There --- The only information Marietta volunteered to Umbridge is that she would learn something to her advantage if she proceeded to the Room of Requirement. That didn't even trigger the curse, so no, it didn't take effect as soon as Marietta started talking to Umbridge. Umbridge "questioned her a little further" with what gentleness we can't say, but as Amiable Dorsai pointed out, it's hard to find a passage where Umbridge isn't being sadistic. Does the curse care whether the person who activates it is acting under duress? Shouldn't Hermione care about that? Shouldn't we? In any event, it was Dobby who warned the DA, it was Shacklebolt who kept Marietta from incriminating anyone, and it was Dumbledore who arranged for Harry to escape punishment. I can't see that Hermione's curse helped with any of that. I don't see that Marietta is depicted as someone who would have become another Pettigrew. But I do see Hermione as someone who could become another Crouch if something doesn't make her see that to take rights away from the accused is to take them away from everybody. Pippin From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Oct 28 17:00:09 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:00:09 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160549 Snow: You and I have become quite wordy, Carol, so I am going to attempt to minimize any responses that seem to be answered elsewhere. If there is anything I miss, please bring it up again. Carol earlier: > > The diary, even without Ginny's soul, is different from the other Horcruxes because it contains at least one *memory* of Tom Riddle in addition to the soul bit. > > Snow: > > How, oh yeah because it had a possible living soul within its binding? Carol again: Actually, no. Please don't resort to sarcasm, okay? It's different because it's designed to be interactive, not merely to encase a soul bit to keep the main soul earthbound. The other Horcruxes we've seen (except for Nagini, if she is one) are hidden away, protected by curses (the ring) or potions and Inferi and an anti-opening spell (the locket, which may also have a curse on it to attack anyone who dares to open it and release the soul bit). Snow: Sorry if you were offended by that reply it was not meant to be offensive :) Apologies! The subject was that the Diary is different from all the other Horcruxes and I quite agree that it is because it has the capability to obtain a soul to make a living Horcrux out of memory Tom. Carol: Possibly you're misunderstanding me. Of course he possessed Nagini, not Harry, in the MoM scene and Harry was only seeing through her eyes because LV was possessing Nagini, as Snape says. But he can possess her without causing her pain. When he possesses Harry, he causes Harry such agony that he wants to die and join Sirius Black, at which point, Voldemort suffers agony, too, because of the blood protection. But if Harry contained a soul bit, as Nagini apparently does, surely LV could possess him *physically* without agony to either of them because the soul bit would already, in essence, possess him mentally or, erm, spiritually. Snow again: I don't think it was the blood protection that actually protected Harry from the invasion by Voldemort but more so his ability to love so much that he was willing to die, which is something worse than appalling to Voldemort. Also if it were the blood alone carrying Lily's sacrifice that forced Voldemort's expulsion from Harry, then I don't think Voldemort would carry the immunity he believed himself to have since he used that particular ingredient in his graveyard potion that Dumbledore concluded was a hurdle that Voldemort overcame. Carol again: So we agree that Voldemort didn't count James's death as a murder. But do you agree that Voldemort didn't want to split his soul using Lily's death, which is why he told her to step aside? Snow: Absolutely and without a doubt! Voldemort didn't want to use Lily's murder (But this is step one of how-to-make-a-Horcrux). Voldemort didn't have a choice but to murder Lily and didn't take much time to consider the repercussion of such an action. Lily was unarmed and not fighting back, I would view this as the coldest of murders. Voldemort was so greedy to get his hands on Harry that he underestimated Lily's sacrifice or didn't care because he wasn't about to say the spell that would use that murder as a Horcrux. What he failed to think of is that Lily would have not only shielded Harry with her body but also a Charm, after all her wand was well suited. Lily wouldn't have taken any chances with her son and, as I surmise, placed the simplest spell that works like the old kids saying " I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say, bounces off of me and sticks to you". Simple but effective, the son-of-a-gun killed himself by means of an AK to his own body. Carol: (I won't even get into how he could be sure that the next murder would result in splitting off 1/7 of his soul!) Also, I'm not sure how this part of the argument strengthens the Harry!Unofficial Horcrux argument. It does, however, explain why LV tol Lily to step aside. Her death wasn't significant to use for making a Horcrux with, as he intended to do with Harry's. Snow: The 1/7th is simply a figurative way to say a portion of Voldemort's soul that was split six times with the remaining seventh portion, the core soul, residing with its master. I doubt that any of us could rationalize exactly seven equal portions of soul but for sake of argument it's easiest to refer to each soul bit as one seventh. Voldemort told Lily to step aside realizing that if he were to kill her he would be splitting his soul and as you say she wasn't significant enough for his plans she did however force his hand to do exactly as he did. He didn't intend on having to do this but the results of his actions were the same. > Snow: > > If someone commits a hennas crime there soul may surely be split but > without a spell and/or destination for that split to adhere to, it > may just dissolve without a soul to keep it alive but only in the > event that such an occurrence coincided almost simultaneously with > there own death, which of course in this particular case it did. Carol: I don't think so. I think the soul is just damaged but remains with the murderer. The soul fragment created by the murderer is detachachable if the murderer wants to encase it in a Horcrux, but ordinarily, he doesn't do so. I have some hope that a split soul can heal if the murderer repents (Snape!), but I think that in LV's case, the soul fragments from his various murders remained detachable until and unless he encased them in a Horcrux. Snow: I don't think that what I am saying disputes your contention. If you kill, the soul is split, the split remains within that physical plane or body until it is expelled either by intention with a spell or when the body is destroyed in the manner Voldemort's was. > Carol: > > Did it? Where is your evidence that it didn't stay with the core soul? > > Snow: > > Evidence? I though we were speculating but I'll go with it5533; To > separate does mean to split or am I wrong again? If the soul split > and the core goes with Voldemort where does the fragment caused by > Lily's death go? Carol: No, "split" and "separate" are not exact synomnyms. Have you ever had a pair of pants split along the seams but not separate into two pieces? I think the pieces that were split, ready to be detached but not yet removed, stayed with the damaged main soul. (Doesn't Dumbledore use that very word, "damaged," to describe LV's soul?) But suppose you're right and the soul bit was detached. Why would it go into Harry rather than dissolving or going beyond the Veil, which I take to be the ultimate destination of all souls. Snow: The aim of the AK was clearly directed at Harry; Lily was clearly murdered moments prior to the AK attempt; Voldemort clearly lost his body with this particular gesture; Harry clearly obtained abilities that belong to Voldemort during this action. This all suggests, to me, that Harry did receive a Horcrux portion of soul that night but not in the encasement manner that coincides with the proper making of a Horcrux. Carol: And what about all those other murders, which also fragmented Voldie's soul but weren't used in Horcruxes? If all of those floated away or went into Harry, Voldie would have something like 1/100 of a soul left! Snow: Voldemort was very precise with whom he murdered but not all killings are murders. If the murder occurred like that of James who was armed and fighting back then it was a killing but not of the requirement to rip the soul. Carol: Are you saying that Harry doesn't have to be killed because the Horcrux spell wasn't performed and his soul bit isn't doing the job of holding the main soul to earth? That's the only point I can see in having him as a non-Horcrux soul bit container. Snow: Correct! Carol: But I think that if Harry thought his scar contained a soul bit, he'd see himself as a Horcrux and believe that he has to be sacrificed, which takes us back to the unsolvable dilemma of how to destroy himself, the last Horcrux, and kill Voldemort, too. Snow: Which is why Dumbledore purposely did not make that particular connection evident. Harry has to view this portion of Voldemort outside the purposely-made Horcrux limitation. The soul bit that I propose is in Harry was not encased within him so there should be the possibility to expel it or use it against Voldemort without harm to Harry. > Snow: > > It depends on how you look at the murders. If you count all > Voldemort's appointed murders by his deatheaters as his killing them > then we will come to a draw on the subject. Myrtle was not killed by > Voldemort anymore than Cedric was. Carol: I disagree. Tom killed Myrtle using the Basilisk as his weapon. If you sic your pit bull on someone, ordering the dog to kill the person, and the person dies, aren't you guilty of murder? Snow: With this proposal, wouldn't each death appointed to a deatheater fall back on Voldemort as the killer? Wouldn't the deatheater merely become the weapon? Carol: I agree that Cedric's death doesn't count as a murder, but he's not on my list. Nor am I counting murders committed by Death Eaters. Look at the murders LV has committed personally just since he got his rudimentary body in GoF: Bertha Jorkins, Frank Bryce, and Madam Bones. Do you really think that he limited his murders in his glory days to the ones I listed or let this DEs do all the killing? Snow: Cedric's death would be equal to that of Myrtle's since they were both appointed killings. Tom appointed the basilisk as Voldemort appointed Wormtail, I see no difference. Of the three examples you have given, there is only one that we can be certain was at the hand of the newly semi-resurrected Voldemort and that would be Frank. Bertha was disposed of but was it Voldemort or Wormtail that disposed of her (he claimed he only had one power that remained with him, so he could possess her but could he kill her?); did Voldemort have a body at this point to dispose of her (Wormtail brought Bertha to Voldemort soon after he found Voldemort, would there have been time to give him the baby body required to kill her?). Madam Bones was killed but no name was given to the killer, only assumption and we don't know if she attempted to fight back, which I think makes a big difference between killed and murdered. Carol again: But "a bit of Voldemort" is not necessarily a bit of Voldemort's soul, as I keep saying. Just committing murder does not create a Horcrux, as we agree... Snow: That is true, we don't know for certain and can only surmise what happened through the six books we have. I would like to know though, how Voldemort only took with him one power of the many that he had, when his body was vanquished at GH: "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of others." GOF 653 I would think that he had had all his powers before his attempted AK on Harry at GH, so I would think that one could assume that those remaining powers went with Harry, where else did they go if not with Harry? How did Voldemort get any of his powers back? (I'm fairly sure you might remember Satellite!Harry so I wont go on from here under this particular vein) Carol continuing: ...nor do we have any evidence of free-floating soul bits at GH, or soul bits that can lodge themselves in a host. If that were the case, Harry would be possessed, and we know that he isn't. Snow: I wouldn't call it possession per se but we do know that Harry felt as if he knew Tom Riddle for some reason when he first heard his name. We also know that Harry was becoming a bit dark in GOF (Voldemort had some type of body) and even more so in OOP (Voldemort was fully resurrected to a human form) when he resorted to the use of an unforgivable curse on Bella before his actual possession attempted by Voldemort in the Atrium, which rid Voldemort's connection through Legilimency that was probably influencing Harry's dark side or, in other words, the soul fragment connection. Trelawney also saw the Voldemort side of Harry when she told him that he was born during the Winter solstice, which we now know Voldemort was. Carol: > Granted. He has some of Voldemort's *powers*, including Parseltongue, > a unique form of mutual Legilimency, and possibly possession, which I > expect to see in Book 7. But we're told that magic resides in the > blood (not a drop of magical blood in the Dursleys' veins, > > Snow: > > Not a drop? And yet Harry is most protected there beyond anything > that Dumbledore could have ever have empowered for a protection, why? Carol: Because Lily and Petunia are blood relatives. But that doesn't make Petunia's blood magical. Snow: Petunia's blood was not born magical but when she took Harry in she sealed the pact that Dumbledore presented. Dumbledore used the connection of the family's blood to make the most powerful ancient magical protection against Voldemort: " she sealed the charm "I" placed upon you. "Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield "I" could give you." OOP 836 If Dumbledore used the bond of blood as part of the charm, wouldn't it follow that Petunia earned this protection as well, after all the same blood runs through her veins? Carol continuing: Here's the quote: "The Dursleys were what wizards called Muggles (not a drop of magical blood in their veins) (CoS Am. ed. 3). The magic in Lily's blood must be a mutation. It certainly doesn't come from her Muggle parents. And the blood protection has nothing to do with her powers, only with her sacrifice. Snow: I'm confused. If the blood protection has nothing to do with her powers then how is it you maintain that Voldemort's powers are in his blood? > Snow: > > Harry is unique! He is a living soul that does possess a portion of > Voldemort. Harry does not have to die but one of them does according > to the prophecy, neither can live Carol snipped: I'm not following your argument here, nor am I arguing that Harry isn't unique. Snow: I meant Harry is unique in the sense that he does have Voldemort soul like a Horcrux has but not the limitations of a Horcrux since he isn't one. The circumstances surrounding the way he received this portion of soul are unique and do not mimic an actual Horcrux since it was not a spell that purposely released the fragment of soul from Voldemort. It is this uniqueness that quantifies Harry's situation as being out of the typical realm of Horcrux destruction. Snow From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 28 17:02:09 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:02:09 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160550 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > >BetsyHP > > > And I'm saying that when you start branding other people on the > face, you're slipping into a fairly horrifying place. At least, IMO. > > > Nikkalmati: > > I think you are exaggerating a bit here. She wasn't branded, she developed > zits. Maybe Marietta should grow bangs (fringe) . Pippin: All the way down to her mouth? 'her face was horribly disfigured by a series of close-set purple pustules that had spread across her nose and cheeks to form the word "SNEAK."' Canon doesn't pull any punches describing what Hermione did. I wonder why so many readers feel compelled to soften it? Nikklamati: > I am puzzled why Cho stuck with her. Surely Cho could have asked Harry to get Hermione to lift the curse. Pippin: I think Cho felt partly responsible. Marietta only joined the DA because Cho "made her." And I think that Cho would think it deeply disloyal to Cedric's memory to beg favors from a tyrant, even if said tyrant happens to be the friend of a friend. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 28 16:48:54 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:48:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco is quite the wizard References: Message-ID: <006801c6fab0$f4a37920$427e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160551 Carol: There are also the badges he made in GoF, changing from "Support Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts champion" to "Potter Stinks!" Magpie: This is something I really appreciated more in re-reading GoF after OotP. JKR's set up a subtle little minor arc for Draco/Hermione (not the ship, just the two characters). I agree the badges are Draco's creation (a nice way to forshadow his ability to fix the Vanishing Cabinet in HBP which may have taken all year but was unable to be fixed for years before that), and I have come to think the "Potter Stinks!" was possibly put in specifically for Hermione. Draco calls her attention to the badges specifically (she herself has made SPEW badges) and I can easily imagine that he booby trapped them with the idea that Hermione would be the one to try to turn them against him. Hermione may not concern herself with Malfoy, but I think it's a good choice for Draco to be aware of this sort of thing. One of the things that CoS sets up about what's wrong with the Pureblood ideology is how it's not really empowering. According to Lucius anything Draco does right is expected because of his blood, but if he fails it's his own fault and he's betraying his blood. He can't just honestly be beaten by someone like Hermione because she's Muggleborn. So I like that in the character's limited page time he seems to have never let go of Hermione's real competence and smarts in his mind, even consciously learning from her in HBP after Lucius set that conflict up in B&B. It's a good area for him to be testing on his own. It makes him an interesting favorite for Snape too, imo. I agree Snape doesn't coddle him; I think they both bring something to the relationship the other likes. Snape's favor, the fact that he seems to believe Draco has talent, probably spurs Draco to work harder, and Draco's respect of Snape and desire to please him probably makes Snape more inclined to teach him. Snape's own personality was very different--he seems to in some ways have had a different conflict with blood. If he felt inadequate as a Half-blood he also seemed to have an exceptional mind. (He may still have felt overlooked, though, in favor of students like James and Sirius.) I've just always found the Draco/Snape dynamic interesting, and always thought their affection was geniune. They are both very different personalities with different strengths and I like thinking about places where they might truly have an understanding. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Oct 28 17:06:39 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:06:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) References: Message-ID: <009201c6fab3$755c48b0$427e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160552 > Nikkalmati: > > I think you are exaggerating a bit here. She wasn't branded, she > developed > zits. Maybe Marietta should grow bangs (fringe) Magpie: She was branded. She developed oozing pustules that spelled out the word SNEAK across her face. That's a brand. A mark of disgrace or infamy placed on her skin. It's just not done the Muggle way with a hot iron. It's possibly across all her face, I don't remember. She's wearing heavy make up, so it doesn't seem like it's on her forehead. Certainly I doubt anyone would consider it not a big deal to have a word written across their face even if they could cover it up with their hair. (Ironically, when one of the boys is surprised by Hermione's getting the idea for the coins from the Dark Mark she points out that she doesn't mark peoples' skin, as if that element of the the Mark is barbaric--yet she actually has marked the skin.) Nikkalmati:. > I am puzzled why Cho stuck with her. Was this just a way for JKR to > drive a > wedge between Harry and Cho? Surely Cho could have asked Harry to get > Hermione to lift the curse. Magpie: I'm not particularly surprised. We don't know Cho's and Marietta's story, but I'd guess if we did Cho's actions would make sense. Marietta appeared to stick by Cho when other people dropped her when she became depressed and cried all the time. Cho seemed to genuinely understand Marietta's pov and see her as genuinely torn due to her mother working for the Ministry. We see that Marietta clearly has problems from the first meeting, ones she probably discussed with Cho. Cho was also genuinely angry at Hermione for what she considered a mean trick. I would be furious too, to discover I'd been tricked into signing something that put a hex on me that I didn't agree to, even if I considered it a point of honor not to tell. People have often wondered why Lupin stuck by Sirius after the Prank, but I'd guess that makes sense within their relationship too. Nikkalmati: Maybe JKR is saving Marietta for a redemption in Book > 7, at which point the zits will disappear as a sign of her change of > heart. Magpie: Since she was obliviated, I don't think she can have a change of heart, exactly. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 17:06:17 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:06:17 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione/Draco/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160553 > > Alla: > > > > Such a **nice** comfortable word, isn't it **elitist**? Change it to > > pure-blooded racist, which is how I see Draco and picture becomes a > > little different? > > wynnleaf > Racism definition "racism is a form of discrimination based on race, > especially the belief that one race is superior to another." Whether > you think Draco is a racist or not -- by definition he is not. I > attempted to use an accurate one. You prefer an inaccurate one. Oookay. Alla: I prefer the different one, the broader one, the one which United Nations uses. Let me quote Renee for that. > Renee: > It seems we're not using the same definitions of racism; apparently > you prefer to restrict it to discrimination, prejudice, etc. based on > visible physical differences between groups of humans. I was thinking > of the wider definition of racism used by the United Nations: > > "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, > colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or > effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or > exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental > freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other > field of public life." > > According to this definition, the blood prejudice found among the > followers of Voldemort *is* racism, as it is based on descent. > Alla: Sorry, cannot give you the post number, but I am sure Renee has it if needed ( I saved it in a backwards way) So, no it is not inaccurate definition and as far as I am concerned Draco and young Snape fall uinto this one quite nicely. wynnleaf: > So no, despite your assumptions, a racist kid who makes really nasty > remarks about wishing people of the other race dead is not highly > likely to become a murderer. > Alla: Um, Draco did become at least almost murderer, didn't he? But my assumption that this is enough for others to think so, not that he would necessarily become one. And enough to investigate yes. > wynnleaf > There's a huge, gigantic difference (among lots of other huge > differences). I'm amazed you don't mention it. (am I really amazed??) > Alla: You are amazed that I see no difference between condemning someone for hex without looking at the context and **Not** condemning someone for murder and looking at the context of the situation? Because this is what my comparison is about, nothing else. I am not even saying that context should not be brought up, quite the opposite. I think it was Betsy who said that she does not care if Hermione drawn Marietta's puppy, raped her boyfriend and did something else. I get that it was written with certain exaggeration, but I have to take the point as such, no? No matter what Marietta did to deserve it, Hermione should not have protected DA with this hex, right? So, no, sorry I see no huge differences in the Tower then. Murder in itself is the most horrific action ( unless done in self-defense in my opinion) human being can do. I do not see Snape being called a stinking murderer whether Dumbledore asked him to do so or not. Which is entirely possible ( as I said - whether I believe it or not, I keep in mind the theory) of course, but should not the action be condemned out of context. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Oct 28 17:41:00 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:41:00 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160554 "justcarol67" wrote: > > > It is not the place of a sixteen-year-old > > to punish anyone Eggplant: > In the corrupt wizard world Hermione lives in there is very little > connection between justice and the law. So if She doesn't punish a > traitor who will? Umbridge? Pippin: If Hermione does not reform the WW's justice system, who will? But nobody is going to support her if they think she's vindictive and powermad. Well, not in the right direction, anyway :) Eggplant" > Of all the mistakes Harry has made over 6 books I believe the single > biggest one was made in book 3 when he stopped Lupin and Black from > doing what needed to be done. Voldemort would not have been able to > return and countless people would still be alive. Pippin: Oh? Is Pettigrew the only one who could have engineered the return? Wasn't Barty Crouch Jr already slipping from his daddy's control and yearning to rejoin his master? Weren't the dementors already growing restive and weren't there loads of Giants and Werewolves, among others, who already thought that Voldemort would give them a better deal? Kill them too? Why not kill everybody and turn yourself into a snake monster? I don't see how replacing one torn soul with two makes the WW a better place. Eggplant:> Why? Do you really want your fictional heroes to be bloodless > passionless goody two shoe fussbudgets? Pippin: I have no interest in them being mindless, soulless vigilantes. Pippin From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sat Oct 28 13:16:28 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:16:28 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Subject: Why didn't basilisk kill? References: <20061027130220.79219.qmail@web83006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4543582C.000001.00756@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 160555 > >>Eddie: >> OK, I know that everybody in Book 2: CoS who encountered the basilisk was petrified for one reason or another (basilisk gave deadly glare via mirror, camera, ghost, etc). But why didn't the basilisk then go ahead and kill/eat the victims _AFTER_ petrifying them? << > >>Michael Perry: >> Excellent! I *think* that this is because a basilisk can't kill inanimate objects. Once petrified, they aren't really alive. << Maria: I think the main Basilisk was under the rule/spell of Tom Riddle and did his bidding. He petrified those as a bait/lure for Harry Potter! Donna: My thinking is, once petrified, the victim isn't wake or alert enough for the basilisk to look them in the eye (or look into the basilisk's eye). My understanding is the basilisk kills by looking directly eye-to-eye, referring to Myrtle's description of when she died. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From iam.kemper at gmail.com Sat Oct 28 19:58:37 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:58:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40610281258o14ffa55l6855f6e672cf5ef1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160556 > > > bboyminn wrote: > > > > >> ... speculation, it is still possible for people > > >> to get into Grimmauld Place without knowing the > > >> Secret, it's just not easy. ... can't ... be told > > >> about 12 Grimmauld Place ..., however, they could be > > >> told about Grimmauld Square... So, Harry could tell > > >> Neville (or who ever) to be at Grimmauld Square at > > >> 1:00pm. When Neville arrives, Harry steps outside > > >> and leads Neville into the house. ... > Random832 replied later: > > But allowing people to bring someone in is a security problem .... > ... After all, if > someone who's not the secret keeper could bring anyone they want to > the location, the secret wouldn't have to be revealed to bring > Voldemort to Godric's Hollow (which also tells us that if this were > possible people wouldn't be assuming Sirius [as the secret keeper] was > > responsible for this happening) > > > > If anyone can bring anyone to the location, the Fidelius charm > becomes absolutely pointless. > > > > > > ibchawz responded: > > I don't see that bringing someone to the location makes the Fidelius > > Charm pointless. Harry could bring Neville, Luna, or whomever to 12 > > GP without divulging that it was the Headquarters of the Order of > the Phoenix. > > > > IIRC, someone stated that LV could have pressed his nose against a > > window at the Potters' house in Godric's Hollow and not be able to > see the Potters inside, unless the Secret Keeper told him the secret. > I think that the secret location of the OotP would be the same. > Someone could physically be at 12GP without know that it was HQ. > > > Carol added: > > I think that ibchawz is right. If 12 GP were invisible to Bellatrix, > why would Dumbledore have been afraid that she'd inherit it and claim > it? She'd have to be able to see it and enter it, or she'd pose no > danger to the Order. And yet Harry couldn't see 12 GP until he knew > the secret, so how could Bellatrix? Okay, I'm confused again. (I won't > even ask how Narcissa could talk with Kreacher, whom she must know to > have been her aunt and uncle's house-elf and to live at 12 GP, without > figuring out that 12 GP is Order HQ--unless the Fidelius Charm > contains a built-in Confundus or Obliviate to keep people who used to > know information that's now secret from remembering it. Okay, I did ask.) > >... > I personally prefer having them already know the secret to having > Harry sneak them in through a door they may not be able to see with > Order members around that they can't see or speak to because they're > not in on the secret. Kemper now: Random is right. Harry could not possibly guide/sneak/lead anyone into 12 Grimmauld Place because in doing so he would be _revealing_ the secret location of the HQ for the OotP with explicit or implicit complicity. It's the _revealing_ that's the issue. The only one who can _reveal_ the location of HQ in any way (writing, voicing or pointing). Yes... Harry could bring Neville to 10 or 14 Grimmauld Place, but he could in now way imply where 12 Grimmauld Place was located. Concerning Carol's other thoughts... I would guess that 12 Grimmauld Place is Unknowable, or at least Forgetable, as it is Unplottable. So those who once had an Aunt that lived there, would no longer be able to recollect just where the Aunt lived (only remembering the great times they had with each other baking biscuits and talking about boys and how good they taste, hot and gooey fresh from the oven) Kemper From nmangle at cox.net Sat Oct 28 17:56:24 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 12:56:24 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco is quite the wizard References: Message-ID: <000201c6fabe$1817eff0$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> No: HPFGUIDX 160557 Eddie: -- SPOILERS FROM Books 5 & 6 AHEAD -- Has anybody noticed that Draco is a pretty talented wizard? He made it into the 6th year Potions and DADA classes, manages the Protean charm on the coins to communicate with the Death Eaters (which Terry Boot says is N.E.W.T level spellwork), manages to fix the vanishing cabinet, disapparates when on the run at the end of HBP... and I'm not sure what else. Sure, there are extenuating circumstances: Snape coddled Draco through Potions, the Protean charm idea came from Hermione (although Hermione said she got the idea from the Death Eaters marks), it took all year for Draco to fix the cabinet. Nevertheless, he _DID_ these things. Thoughts? Nicole: Really, as much as I can't stand the little punk, you are right. One huge one you didn't mention, was that Bellatrix taught him something Harry failed to learn. Draco learned Occlumency so well, that even Snape couldn't read his mind. A big difference between them was that Draco had a caring teacher and he didn't have dreams he wanted to see. But Harry somehow needs to learn it very quickly, and very well so the Dark Lord can't "one up" him. As much as we can't stand Draco, when it comes to the dark arts, he is pretty good. But do we know anything about his abilities to do something other than dark magic or to do dark deeds? Nicole From darksworld at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 20:01:27 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:01:27 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160558 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: > Justice is not socially sanctioned revenge. It is, at least ideally, > the impartial assignment of merited rewards and punishments based on > reason, not revenge. Here's the online definition from Merriam- Webster: > > 1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by > the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of > merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of > law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights > according to the rules of law or equity > 2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the > principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to > this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming > to law > 3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS > > Now granted, criminals are punished, but not out of revenge. The idea > is to protect society and to prevent or deter the criminal from > committing future crimes. > > Revenge, OTOH, merely satisfies a psychological need to hurt someone > who has hurt you. Charles: I'll start my rebuttal with definitions as well, mine from the OED online: revenge, n., 1. a. The act of doing hurt or harm to another in return for wrong or injury suffered; satisfaction obtained by repayment of injuries. punishment, n, 1. a. The action of punishing or the fact of being punished; the infliction of a penalty in retribution for an offence; also, that which is inflicted as a penalty; a penalty imposed to ensure the application and enforcement of a law. b. Psychol. Pain, deprivation, or other unpleasant consequence imposed on or experienced by an organism responding incorrectly under specific conditions so that, through avoidance, the desired learning or behaviour becomes established. Cf. REWARD n.1 4f. justice, n, 6. Infliction of punishment, legal vengeance on an offender; esp. capital punishment; execution I'm going to head out of the potterverse here for a minute to make my point. In The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Robert A. Heinlein has one of his characters ask, "Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone?" We seem to have the inverse problem here. You seem to be saying that only a group has a right to act, not an individual. I say you are dead wrong, so I think we may have to agree to disagree, but I'm still going to try and make my point here. Was Hermione's defence tactic effective? No, of course not, we all know that. But efficiacy has nothing to do with the ethicality of the intention. Is it a revengeful intention? No, I don't think so, I think Hermione thought that if the treason were to take place, it would take place when the DA was not meeting, giving a warning that would allow the DA to escape. To stem the argument most likely to come at me from that, yes I am ascribing intentions to her here-but so is everyone who tries to turn this into a case of vindictive post- facto revenge on Hermione's part. If it had been revenge, I might have been a little troubled. But I would have also recognized that it was, in fact, just for Marietta to be branded as a traitor. She really and factually intended to cost 27 people their livelihood-and being as how she knew Voldemort was about- possibly their lives. Certainly Harry with a snapped wand is in danger of losing his life. She is a person who cannot be trusted. Cho may be mad at Hermione now, but when Marietta betrays her for the second or third time, she'll think again. Back to justice vs. revenge: in modern day administration of justice of-well let's go to the extreme, a capital murder case. The victim is your average everyday schmuck. The murderer is apprehended by armed men and taken to a holding facility. A trial is set, and the murderer is convicted, sentenced to death, and (eventually) executed. Meanwhile, another murder is committed. The victim is the (innocent) brother of the local crime boss type. The murderer is apprehended by armed men and taken to the head honcho's hideout. The head honcho shoots the murderer personally. One is called justice, the other revenge, but in each case the final consequence is the same, the murderer pays for his crime with his life. The only difference is the social sanction of the first case. Is it right for Harry to want revenge on Voldemort? IMO, you bet. He can't bring back anybody that Tom has cost him, but he can keep him from taking more- and he damn well should. Charles, who has just made his last post on this topic, 'cause he's said what he wanted to say. From mros at xs4all.nl Sat Oct 28 20:35:08 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:35:08 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Views of Hermione. References: Message-ID: <000901c6fad0$8f050410$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 160559 "amiabledorsai" wrote: > The original post I responded to seemed to > damn Hermione for actions taken in defense > of her own life and the lives of others, > while excusing Marietta's treason. I was > (and am) astonished that a person > could take that view Eggplant: >>>Don't be astonished, it's just the way things are in the Potter community. For some reason people love to write posts explaining why the good guys are really bad and the bad guys are really good. Even today some have still not forgiven Harry for raising his voice at his friends a few times in book 5, but they instantly forgave Snape for murdering Dumbledore in book 6. Go figure. As for Marietta, well, if she were part of the resistance in occupied France and fellow members discovered she had betrayed some of her comrades to the Nazis I suspect they'd do more than give her acne. If the good guys behaved as some seem to think they should they would be a bunch of effete impotent wimps unworthy of the word "Hero". <<< Marion: Yeah, you're so right! These hippy tree-huggers with their Human Rights and their 'civilised behaviour' crap! Don't these wimps understand it's a war our heroes are fighting? Soldiers for the Light are still soldiers. So what if they permanently marked a young girls as a 'snitch'? She was a traitor and on the wrong side: if you're not with us, you're against us and when you're against us you deserve everything our side can throw at you. Next they'll be telling us that soldiers should stop bombing civilian areas or that they shouldn't rape the local women. Hah! It's a WAR, numbskulls! Pinko punks with their 'International Court for War Crimes'! Good thing President Bush put the Patriot Act through. When those namby pamby softies dare to accuse an American soldier of a 'war crime', we'll nuke The Hague. And surroundings. That's teach them to critisize the Good Guys! Hah! Human Rights, Geneva Conventions and Civilisation are for impotent wimps, not for tobacco-chewing, belly-scratching, chain-farting machos like us! Marion, who hopes that the readers understand the word 'sarcasm'. Marion, who also happens to *live* in The Hague, and who got the shock of her life when she found out that a political ally of her country had officially stated (laid down in law, no less) that it would bomb her city and her country when the Internation Court for War Crimes, which resides in her city, would ever dare to *accuse* one US citizen of a war crime. Who thought this was a typical 'Bush-thing' and therefore temporarily, but who after reading some of the posts on this forum is getting very, very scared... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Oct 28 20:35:31 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 13:35:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's inability to perform occlumency In-Reply-To: <000201c6fabe$1817eff0$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160560 Nicole: One huge one you didn't mention, was that Bellatrix taught him something Harry failed to learn. Draco learned Occlumency so well, that even Snape couldn't read his mind. A big difference between them was that Draco had a caring teacher and he didn't have dreams he wanted to see. But Harry somehow needs to learn it very quickly, and very well so the Dark Lord can't "one up" him. Sherry now: JKR has said Harry will never be good at occlumency, because he cannot bottle up his emotions. I think I like him much better that way, frankly, and I don't think occlumency will be the key to helping him win against Voldemort. He is much more interesting with his complex and right out there feelings. We and everyone in his world get to know how he feels, and I think that makes him far more interesting and possibly far more powerful, than if he could stifle his emotions as well as some other characters. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 20:35:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:35:57 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160561 Carol earlier: > If Harry's greatest weapon is indeed Love, he's going to have to let go of his desire for revenge and his hatred of both Voldemort and Snape. (Note that the same people who condemn Snape for wanting revenge against Sirius Black for what Snape considers to be a murder attempt condone Harry's desire for revenge against Snape and Hermione's for revenge against Rita Skeeter. Possibly they would also have condoned the murder of Wormtail at the hands of Lupin and Black, regardless of the legal and psychological consequences for the murderers, becuse Wormtail deserved it (as he certainly did). IMO, Harry was right to spare Wormtail and try to hand him over to the authorities rather than mistaking revenge for justice and allowing Lupin and Black to kill him themselves. > > > Sherry now: > > Just because I do think Snape committed murder on the tower, does not suddenly make me someone who believes anyone should take revenge on Snape or Peter. One of the moments I most love in the entire series is when Harry stops Sirius and Remus from murdering Peter. I've already said how I feel about what Hermione did to Rita. Neither do I think that taking revenge against Snape will help Harry win against Voldemort in the end. In fact, I think his hatred of Snape, though perfectly reasonable--one would not easily love someone one saw murder another person in front of one's own eyes--I think it could become a dangerous distraction from what Harry needs to do. > As far as not wanting Snape to seek revenge against Sirius for whatever happened back in their Hogwarts days, as this is 20 years later, and we have been told by JKR we don't know all the details, I think taking revenge is out of line there as well. There's more to that story than we know, but even if what we've been told so far was all there was to it, I would not want to see Snape take revenge 20 years later. > > As for Harry learning to forgive Voldemort, I hope that isn't required for the ending. Maybe he can learn to forgive the former tom riddle, who was once an innocent boy, but it would be way too sappy and unrealistic to expect Harry to forgive and even love Voldemort, the one responsible for his parents' deaths, his miserable upbringing, the death of Sirius and now the hand behind the hand that murdered Dumbledore. I don't believe justice requires forgiveness and love in order to apply it. As for revenge, at least I'm fairly consistent, because I don't want either the good guys or the bad guys to practice it. It isn't really true to imply that we all think revenge by Harry is the way to go. Carol responds: First, my apologies for overgeneralizing. I meant many of the same people who condemn Snape's desire for revenge approve Harry's. And I should make clear that I don't condone Snape's desire for revenge, either. I just don't use it as a basis for judging him as "bad." Nor do I think we should view Harry's perspective of Snape's actions on the tower as definitive, however evil they appear at face value. There's a lot we don't know, including what passed between Dumbledore and Snape before and during the events on the tower. (There's a scene in GoF in which Harry and DD exchange a look of mutual understanding without any awareness of Legilimency on Harry's part. Foreshadowing of Snape and DD?). While I believe that Harry will (and should) forgive Snape, I don't think that the Love that will be his weapon has anything to do with loving and forgiving Voldemort, who is essentially no longer a fellow human being. It may involve compassion for the boy Tom Riddle, who was lost to hope and goodness so early, but it will, IMO, primarily involve love of his friends and the WW and, on a more abstract level, love of Wizardkind. Quite possibly, he will suffer more losses, or the loss of Sirius Black will help him to understand what others have suffered and continue to suffer at the hands of Voldemort. I think that being motivated by this kind of love rather than by hatred and a desire for revenge is necessary for him to defeat Voldemort, to remain pure-souled and innocent of hatred and the desire to hurt and kill that motivate Voldemort and his followers. If Harry shares the same hatred and desire for revenge, if he can conjure up the sadism necessary to cast a successful Crucio, how is he any different from the Death Eaters? My apologies for being unclear and perhaps a bit inconsistent. At least we agree on Hermione and Rita Skeeter! I think we also agree on the difference between justice and revenge and the need for Harry to fully learn that lesson. Carol, who also loves the scene in which Harry saves his father's friends from becoming murderers through an act of mercy that does not preclude justice (a trial and imprisonment for Wormtail--which, of course, would have ruined the story) From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Oct 28 20:47:06 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:47:06 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160562 > [... extensive snippage ahead ...] > > Eddie wrote: > > Has anybody noticed that Draco is a pretty talented wizard? > > [...] > > Sure, there are extenuating circumstances: Snape coddled Draco through Potions, > > [...] > > Carol responds: Eddie: Carol, as always, responds most excellently, fully, and carefully thought out! Go upthread to catch it all. > Carol: > There are also the badges he made in GoF, changing from "Support > Cedric Diggory, the real Hogwarts champion" to "Potter Stinks!" > [...] > if his Potions performance is any indication, he probably does very well > in most of his classes. We've yet to see his potion orange when it > ought to be green or giving off smoke when it ought to give off vapor. > [...] > Draco could cast Serpensortia as a > second-year and has always had a fair number of imaginative hexes at > his command > [...] > [ re: nonverbal spells] He certainly > did well enough against Harry in the bathroom scene before he stupidly > resorted to Crucio and prompted Harry to try out Sectumsempra. > > Oh, and we forgot. He's a fair to middling Occlumens thanks to Aunt > Bellatrix. Eddie: Yes, yes, and yes. > As for his Potions performance, can you cite your evidence for Snape > coddling him? I recall his pointing to Draco's perfectly stewed slugs > on the very first day of class in SS/PS, as he certainly wouldn't have > done unless they really were perfect. I doubt that Snape coddles > anybody, Lucius Malfoy's son or not. I think the fact that Draco > excels in and likes Potions contributes to Snape's favoritism, which > would be greatly diminished if Draco were a dolt like his friends > Crabbe and Goyle. Eddie: I think your answers to my post are right on. I don't know that I have canon for Snape coddling, other than HRH's annoying assumption that Snape would never be rude to Draco. I seem to recall right in the beginning of SS/PS, before they've ever had even one Potions class HRH had already heard the rumors about Snape and how he was always easier on Slytherins. Nevertheless, you are right that Draco seems to have done pretty well on his Potion OWL and deserves to be there as much as anybody. Further, I can't think of any canon ? as you pointed out ? where Draco's potions were described as being poorly executed. Eddie From harryp at stararcher.com Sat Oct 28 20:58:35 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:58:35 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160563 > Carol responds: > [...] > I don't think, however, that Dumbledore knew about the Godric's Hollow > hideout from a note. I think that he had known about it before the > secret was placed inside PP, then magically "forgot" it. When he awoke > knowing the secret, he knew that the spell had been broken and that > the Potters had been betrayed and were probably dead. I think that > Snape must have shown him his faded Dark Mark, which meant that Harry > had somehow defeated Voldemort and must be alive. > > I realize that I'm only speculating [...] Eddie: I've got a problem with this scenario. I infer from it that the secret keeper's secret can be broken and I think canon is opposed to that. For instance, we know that if the secret keeper dies, the secret dies with him. But does that mean that if the person/place/thing that the secret is about is killed/destroyed, then the secret is broken? In addition, even though Lily and James are dead and the house at Godric Hollow is destroyed, Harry is still alive. Wouldn't the secret continue? Or (yet a 3rd alternative!) maybe Harry wasn't explicitly mentioned in the secret. Or (yet a 4th alternative!) JKR was a bit inconsistent. Speculation is cool with me, BTW. Eddie, who wonders if my inferences make me an inferius? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 20:59:36 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 20:59:36 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: <000901c6fad0$8f050410$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160564 > Marion: > Yeah, you're so right! These hippy tree-huggers with their Human Rights and their 'civilised behaviour' crap! Don't these wimps understand it's a war our heroes are fighting? Soldiers for the Light are still soldiers. So what if they permanently marked a young girls as a 'snitch'? She was a traitor and on the wrong side: if you're not with us, you're against us and when you're against us you deserve everything our side can throw at you. Next they'll be telling us that soldiers should stop bombing civilian areas or that they shouldn't rape the local women. Hah! It's a WAR, numbskulls! > Pinko punks with their 'International Court for War Crimes'! Good thing President Bush put the Patriot Act through. When those namby pamby softies dare to accuse an American soldier of a 'war crime', we'll nuke The Hague. And surroundings. That's teach them to critisize the Good Guys! > Hah! Human Rights, Geneva Conventions and Civilisation are for impotent wimps, not for tobacco-chewing, belly-scratching, chain- farting machos like us! > > Marion, who hopes that the readers understand the word 'sarcasm'. > Marion, who also happens to *live* in The Hague, and who got the shock of her life when she found out that a political ally of her country had officially stated (laid down in law, no less) that it would bomb her city and her country when the Internation Court for War Crimes, which resides in her city, would ever dare to *accuse* one US citizen of a war crime. Who thought this was a typical 'Bush- thing' and therefore temporarily, but who after reading some of the posts on this forum is getting very, very scared... > Alla: Wow, just wow. So, Hermione is US soldier now? And here I want to second Magpie - here I thought that I am discussing fictional work where RL parallels can only go so far ( though I certainly love making them) Have you ever considered the possibility that some of us who want bad guys to suffer without affording them equal protection under the law wish so precisely because they are fictional? Hmmm. I will be doing happy dance if Snape dies ( hopefully not from Harry's hands though), because I think that in fiction his crimes are clear and he does not need to have his day in court to prove them, JKR showed them to me loud and clear. While in RL I am vehemently against death penalty, because I indeed consider it socially approved revenge which does not solve anything. I have a luxury of wishing bad guys to be punished because I am convinced of their guilt - there is not a doubt in my mind that Marietta is a traitor and still I think that executions of Hermione good intentions could have been better, as many people said. What I am arguing vehemently against is discarding hermione good intentions and the thought that Marietta should have been allowed to go scott free. She did a horrible deed, I do not think that she should have been allowed to merrily continue her studies as if she did not do anything wrong. Because to me it is crystal clear that she did. IMHO of course, Alla From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 21:25:24 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:25:24 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione/Draco/Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160565 > Alla: > > I prefer the different one, the broader one, the one which United > Nations uses. Let me quote Renee for that. > > > > Renee: > > It seems we're not using the same definitions of racism; apparently > > you prefer to restrict it to discrimination, prejudice, etc. based > on > > visible physical differences between groups of humans. I was > thinking > > of the wider definition of racism used by the United Nations: > > > > "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on > race, > > colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose > or > > effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or > > exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental > > freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other > > field of public life." > > > > According to this definition, the blood prejudice found among the > > followers of Voldemort *is* racism, as it is based on descent. > > > > Alla: > > Sorry, cannot give you the post number, but I am sure Renee has it > if needed ( I saved it in a backwards way) > > So, no it is not inaccurate definition and as far as I am concerned > Draco and young Snape fall uinto this one quite nicely. > wynnleaf Ah, so you are using a UN notion of racism. Thank you for explaining why it was not the official definition (the UN not being the official definer of language, only of policy). I have no real problem with that, but I did dislike the implication that use of the term "pureblood elitism" was somehow watering down what was going on. I did not know that one had know and agree with UN policy and terms in order to be clear of that charge. In any case, as I said, racism and nasty remarks do not equate to being a perfect candidate for a murderer. > > Alla: > > Um, Draco did become at least almost murderer, didn't he? wynnleaf Four years later, yes. But once again, if you consider Draco's *character" (which is what the trio were attempting to go by), you have to remember that for several years after their grand suspicions of Draco=attempted murderer, he didn't engage in any murderous activities. And that 4 years later it apparently took threats to the lives of his parents (awful as they are) to pursued him to attempt it. And in the end, he really couldn't directly kill, although the threats to his parents did motivate him to plant items that almost killed others. This isn't to support Draco -- he's a pretty terrible kid and I don't expect to see a reformed Draco in Book 7. But the trio weren't even close to right about Draco in COS. Alla > But my assumption that this is enough for others to think so, not > that he would necessarily become one. And enough to investigate yes. wynnleaf Definitely enough to investigate, yes. But not enough to make it legitimate to knock out other people, steal their identities, steal from teachers, etc. etc. in order to further that investigation. And remember, they did these things because their investigations weren't really turning up anything, not because they were on to great evidence that Draco really was doing something. > Alla: > > You are amazed that I see no difference between condemning someone > for hex without looking at the context and **Not** condemning > someone for murder and looking at the context of the situation? (snips) Alla > So, no, sorry I see no huge differences in the Tower then. Murder in > itself is the most horrific action ( unless done in self-defense in > my opinion) human being can do. (more snipping) Alla > I do not see Snape being called a stinking murderer whether > Dumbledore asked him to do so or not. Which is entirely possible ( > as I said - whether I believe it or not, I keep in mind the theory) > of course, but should not the action be condemned out of context. wynnleaf Well, I think part of the question is what one considers murder. Some people consider *any* killing of others to be murder. Others don't consider the killing of someone who is dying anyway and requests to be killed as murder (sort of assisted suicide). Others think that is murder, but killing someone in a war situation in order to save many more others is not murder. Theories of Snape and Dumbledore have covered all three of those ideas plus more. I suppose a lot boils down to what various people theorize happened on the tower and why, and also whether or not they'd see that as "murder." It's a topic for a whole other discussion regarding the ethics of what a DDM Snape and Dumbledore himself were actually doing up on the tower. Personally, I have a lot of problems with it, which is one reason I felt strongly that JKR -- regardless what she wanted us to believe -- had not truly had Snape *kill* Dumbledore through the AK on the tower. I didn't think having an Order member put in a situation where he *had* to kill the "epitome of goodness" leader was something that JKR would want to justify in book 7. A lot of people think that such a situation *could* be justified, others don't. I personally think it *could* be justified in a novel primarily for adults, but I couldn't believe that JKR would actually do that in her series. While I understand that JKR has said that Dumbledore is dead, I tend to think that this occurred in a way that accounts for all the oddities of the tower events (and other hints that all was not as it seemed). So I still think that we will likely discover that JKR has done something rather interesting and Snape's AK was not what killed Dumbledore. But that's just my notion and not one I'm trying to bring up for discussion. My point actually is to say that many readers see murder and the events on the tower differently and find it perfectly reasonable to discuss Snape's killing of Dumbledore without considering it murder. Legally, death in warfare, even if of friendly fire, is often not considered murder. In some areas assisted suicide is considered murder and others it's not. There are strong ethical and legal differences. I know of nowhere that accepts 12 year olds drugging fellow students, stealing from teachers, stealing identities, etc. as legal. And it takes a huge stretch to see it as ethical. A big difference here is that Hermione does things that harm the innocent or those completely unaware and she doesn't seem to care. Theories where DDM Snape killed Dumbledore usually depend on Snape and Dumbledore -- whether one agrees with their ethics or not -- agreeing together on what they were going to do and making their plans accordingly. They weren't harming innocents or harming anyone unawares or without their consent. wynnleaf From jmrazo at hotmail.com Sat Oct 28 21:40:59 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:40:59 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160566 > Betsy Hp: > Okay, I thought about this some more, and I've realized that it's > not *all* blank slate. For example, the reason I like Narcissa is > because of her actions in Spinner's End. To grab Becca's (I > believe) description of Molly, Narcissa is a lion when it comes to > her child (and possibly husband). So I see something to admire > there. Phoenixgod2000: Why oh why am I forced to defend people I dislike? Narcissa, as much as I love the fandom version is not all that admirable in canon. Sneaking around to a friend of yours to make sure he completes the assassination your son was tasked to do isn't exactly the act of a 'lion'. its the act of a weasel to afraid to do something truly brave and do something proactive. there isn't a reason in the world that Narcissa couldn't have taken up Draco and fled to america or australia or something if she was so worried about his life. We aren't talking about Merope Guant here. We are talking about a witch who could definitely live off the land as it were. She could have asked Snape for anything as that third part of the unbreakable vow and the fact that she still asked for the assassination of Dumbledore speaks volumes about her actual sympathies. Molly on the other hand has joined, along with her husband and most of her children, a fight against a terrorist leader. Her sons could die. Her husband could die. She could die. Her brothers did die. But she joined because it was the right thing to do. Thats real bravery and something Narcissa couldn't understand with all the magic in the world. > With Pansy... I agree with Magpie's thing about Pansy's > vulnerability. (Unlike Hermione: smart *and* pretty *and* above > feeling the need to be pretty *and* popluar with all the cool boys > *and* above the need to be popular with all the cool boys *and* so > above being girly with the girls... -- blech.) I actually agree with you about this except for the pretty thing. Being able to doll up for one evening does not a beauty make. and people were, after all surprised that she looked as good as she did, which implies to me that she isn't someone who is attractive on a day to day basis. But there's another > thing Pansy's got going for her. Girl's got a sense of humor. > > Sure, Umbridge's interview of Hagrid was horrible, but it was also > funny. And Pansy easily saw the humor in it. She's often described > as laughing, IIRC. Whereas Hermione rarely is. (Actually, Hermione > doesn't seem to have much of a sense of humor at all.) I used to think that as well, but that isn't really true. maybe someone better than me at looking up posts can find it, but when I made the same point (hermione has no sense of humor) someone found a surprising number of citations were Hermione was written in to laughing or joking with Harry and Ron. they just tend to be imbeded in throw-away lines about the day to day life of the school which is why they don't stick in the mind the way major plot points do. > You know, another part of this may well be the "enemy of my enemy" > thing, too. I really dislike Molly. And Narcissa is sort of the > anti-Molly. In a situation that would have had Molly crying in a > heap on her kitchen floor, Narcissa put on her kickiest witch- boots > and headed off to rescue her son. Once again, Narcissa didn't put on her witch boots and do anything. she found a man she could bat her eyes at and had him do it for her-- not exactly the most stirring example of bad ass witchery. Meanwhile Molly has risked herself and her family to fight the guy half of Narcissa's family is working for. She is better than Narcissa by about a zillion miles. >Hermione reeks of disapproval of > Pansy, and since I'm *positive* she'd have disapproved of me, well > then, Pansy must be doing something right. I am confused about what possible thing Pansy could be doing right, but I digress. I really don't like Hermione, but I would take her in a serious situation over anything other female student in hogwarts every day of the week and twice on Sundays. 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. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 21:51:10 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:51:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160567 Snow wrote: > > Voldemort was so greedy to get his hands on Harry that he > underestimated Lily's sacrifice or didn't care because he wasn't > about to say the spell that would use that murder as a Horcrux. What > he failed to think of is that Lily would have not only shielded Harry > with her body but also a Charm, after all her wand was well suited. > Lily wouldn't have taken any chances with her son and, as I surmise, placed the simplest spell that works like the old kids saying " I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say, bounces off of me and sticks to you". Simple but effective, the son-of-a-gun killed himself by means of an AK to his own body. > Carol reponds: I used to believe that Lily had placed a protective charm on Harry (why else have Ollivander say "nice wand for Charm work"?) and that it had something to do with the Eihwaz rune (Defense or Protection) that Hermione mentions in OoP, but JKR has nixed that particular theory by saying that Lily didn't anticipate her death and that it was her sacrifice that triggered the deflected AK. That pretty much lets out any protective charm theories, unfortunately. And we know, of course, that there's no countercurse for the AK. Protego, which deflects minor hexes in the way you so humorously describe, doesn't work against the Unforgiveables. Snow: > > The aim of the AK was clearly directed at Harry; Lily was clearly > murdered moments prior to the AK attempt; Voldemort clearly lost his > body with this particular gesture; Harry clearly obtained abilities > that belong to Voldemort during this action. This all suggests, to > me, that Harry did receive a Horcrux portion of soul that night but > not in the encasement manner that coincides with the proper making of a Horcrux. Carol: But many acts of murder are committed in the WW, especially now that Voldemort is back. Wormtail has killed, what, thirteen people? Yet not one of these murders was used to create a Horcrux. Voldemort has also, according to Dumbledore, murdered a great many people, including some since his restoration to a body, and not all have been used for Horcruxes. So he doesn't murder *just* to create a Horcrux. He murders for a variety of reasons, ranging from getting rid of someone he has no further use for (Bertha Jorkins) to eliminating a potentially dangerous enemy (Madam Bones). So the first step in creating a Horcrux, murder, happens all the time. That's no guarantee that a Horcrux will result. IMO, it has to be followed by the second step, the detachment of the soul fragment created by the murder and its encasement in an object (or creature, if we count Nagini). As we both agree, no such spell was performed at Godric's Hollow. Carol earlier: > > But I think that if Harry thought his scar contained a soul bit, he'd see himself as a Horcrux and believe that he has to be sacrificed, which takes us back to the unsolvable dilemma of how to destroy himself, the last Horcrux, and kill Voldemort, too. > > Snow: > > Which is why Dumbledore purposely did not make that particular > connection evident. Harry has to view this portion of Voldemort > outside the purposely-made Horcrux limitation. The soul bit that I > propose is in Harry was not encased within him so there should be the possibility to expel it or use it against Voldemort without harm to Harry. Carol: Wouldn't it be simpler if Harry simply had some of Voldemort's powers? That way there's no soul bit to eliminate and no chance of his confusing himself with a Horcrux. (As I said, I still don't see how a soul bit could have gotten into Harry without a spell, and if it did, he's to all intents and purposes a Horcrux.) > Carol: > I disagree. Tom killed Myrtle using the Basilisk as his weapon. If you sic your pit bull on someone, ordering the dog to kill the person, and the person dies, aren't you guilty of murder? > > Snow: > > With this proposal, wouldn't each death appointed to a deatheater > fall back on Voldemort as the killer? Wouldn't the deatheater merely > become the weapon? > Carol: Not really. Nagini is the instrument (weapon) in Myrtle's death just as his wand is the instrument in the other deaths. Wormtail or some other Death Eater acts as Voldemort's *agent* (a human being carrying out the orders or wishes of another), not as his instrument. The Basilisk, whose only desire is to kill and which cannot disobey Tom's orders is not an agent. It lacks free will. It's an instrument (weapon) whose eyes and fangs are as deadly as any potion or killing curse. Tom's command to the Basilisk ("Kill her!" or "Kill him!") is analogous to his command to his wand, "Avada Kedavra!" Or do you think that if he'd succeeded in commanding the Basilisk to kill Harry in the CoS that it wouldn't have been murder because the Basilisk was the murderer? Not in my view. Snow: Madam Bones was killed but no name was given to the killer, > only assumption and we don't know if she attempted to fight back, > which I think makes a big difference between killed and murdered. > Carol: Possibly you're thinking of Emmeline Vance. Madam Bones was apparently killed by Voldemort himself, as Fudge tells the Prime Minister in "The Other Minister": "Amelia Bones. The Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. We think He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named may have murdered her in person, because she was a very gifted witch and--and all the evidence was that she put up a real fight" (HBP Am. ed. 13). Admittedly, Fudge's opinion hasn't been confirmed, but it suggests that Voldemort has killed on his own before. Mad-Eye Moody says that he killed one of the Order members, Dorcas Meadows, in person, so he's clearly done it before. And I doubt that Dorcas's murder was important enough to be used to make a Horcrux. Note that Dumbledore says that Voldemort normally reserved Horcrux-making for important murders, implying that he committed many routine murders without a DE acting as his agent. > Snow: > > That is true, we don't know for certain and can only surmise what > happened through the six books we have. I would like to know though, > how Voldemort only took with him one power of the many that he had, > when his body was vanquished at GH: > > "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of > others." GOF 653 > > I would think that he had had all his powers before his attempted AK > on Harry at GH, so I would think that one could assume that those > remaining powers went with Harry, where else did they go if not with > Harry? How did Voldemort get any of his powers back? Carol: I think he had only the one power because he had no body. Once he could hold a wand again, he could perform any of the spells he knew before and could perform Legilimency. Of course, he needed a magical body, which is why he needed Nagini's blood. And his resurrected body required the bone of his father (his hated Muggle father, who so closely resembled his son), the flesh of a (wizard) servant, and the blood of another servant. I don't think that just any body would do. It had to be his own Horcrux-altered body reconstituted, as nearly as magic could reconstruct it. Not that I see the connection to Harry the unofficial Horcrux here. I think it's significant that Vapor!mort didn't possess the body of his infant enemy, though. Did he try to do so and fail because of Lily's sacrifice? Or did that thought not occur to him because he was in too much agony to think of anything else? > Snow: > > I wouldn't call it possession per se but we do know that Harry felt > as if he knew Tom Riddle for some reason when he first heard his > name. We also know that Harry was becoming a bit dark in GOF > (Voldemort had some type of body) and even more so in OOP (Voldemort > was fully resurrected to a human form) when he resorted to the use of an unforgivable curse on Bella before his actual possession attempted by Voldemort in the Atrium, which rid Voldemort's connection through Legilimency that was probably influencing Harry's dark side or, in other words, the soul fragment connection. Carol: Or rather, the scar connection, which, like the Dark Marks on the arms of the Death Eaters, grew stronger as Voldemort grew stronger. The soul fragment connection is an assumption on your part. Carol: > > Because Lily and Petunia are blood relatives. But that doesn't make > Petunia's blood magical. > > Snow: > > Petunia's blood was not born magical but when she took Harry in she > sealed the pact that Dumbledore presented. Dumbledore used the > connection of the family's blood to make the most powerful ancient > magical protection against Voldemort: > > " she sealed the charm "I" placed upon you. "Your mother's sacrifice > made the bond of blood the strongest shield "I" could give you." OOP > 836 > > If Dumbledore used the bond of blood as part of the charm, wouldn't > it follow that Petunia earned this protection as well, after all the > same blood runs through her veins? Carol: But that doesn't make Petunia's blood magical. she's still a Muggle, with nonmagical Muggle blood, and will never, as JKR has told us, be able to perform magic. If Petunia benefits because of the blood protection, it's because of Dumbledore's extension of the blood protection to her and because of her blood relationship to Lily, not because of any magic in her own blood. But Voldemort, as a wizard, *does* have magic in his blood, as does Harry, which is why Voldemort's powers could have passed to Harry through a drop of his blood entering Harry's cut (without diminishing Voldemort's own powers once he regained a magical body) and why Voldemort specifically wanted Harry's magical blood, with its blood protection, as opposed to some other wizard's (a Muggles's blood would not do because it isn't magical). > Snow: > > I meant Harry is unique in the sense that he does have Voldemort soul like a Horcrux has but not the limitations of a Horcrux since he > isn't one. The circumstances surrounding the way he received this > portion of soul are unique and do not mimic an actual Horcrux since > it was not a spell that purposely released the fragment of soul from > Voldemort. > > It is this uniqueness that quantifies Harry's situation as being out > of the typical realm of Horcrux destruction. Carol: I think he's unique in having some of Voldemort's powers and in being the Chosen One (unwittingly) "marked" by Voldemort as his equal. Only Harry has the scar that connects him mentally, and to some degree, emotionally, with Voldemort. Only Harry has (or had) access to his mind and his dreams. Only Harry has ever known what it feels like to be Voldemort. That's sufficiently unique (to modify an unmodifiable adjective), I think. No need for a soul bit that's somehow different from those in the Horcruxes and exempt from the need for destruction. (Surely it will have to go beyond the Veil with the others for Voldemort to be fully and permanently dead?) Carol, who agrees with you on many points but not the main one From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Oct 28 22:45:32 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 15:45:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why didn't basilisk kill? Message-ID: <20061028224532.36299.qmail@web30215.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160568 <> ------------------------------------------------------------ DA Jones here: Well, normally the Basilisk kills people with their glare and then eats them. They don't turn to stone unless they are lucky enough to meet its glare through a mirror. Nearly Headless Nick meet its stare head on, but can't die since he is a ghost so the sort of 'defaul' action' occured. Inamimate objects the ballisk stares at with 'intent' (all magic in HP universe seems to operate with intent) turn to stone or animated objects if relfected off a mirrored surface. The enire Chamber of Secrets seemed to be made of stone (ever wonder why?) Anything alive just seems to die; which means it becomes the bassilisks lunch. The bassilisk was just extermly unlucky that it wasn't getting 'lunch'. Did they ever find Myrtle's body? Or did she just go as a ghost to her common room and report her death to the head of house. DA Jones --------------------------------- 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 harryp at stararcher.com Sun Oct 29 03:04:14 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 03:04:14 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: <000901c6fad0$8f050410$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160569 > Marion, who [...] thought this was a typical 'Bush-thing' and therefore temporarily, but who after reading some of the posts on this forum is getting very, very scared... Eddie: Don't worry, we're too busy posting on this forum to have time to run for office and get our fingers near the nuke button. :-) Eddie From catlady at wicca.net Sun Oct 29 03:14:51 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 03:14:51 -0000 Subject: Baruffio/MagicTheory/SeeNoDiff/Auror!H/Diary!T/DobbyWinky/Horcrux!H/Vindicti Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160570 Seca wrote in : << Unfortunately, what I remembered most about your post was the error contained in the last paragraph. The spell is /Wingardium Leviosa/, not /"___" Leviosa/. The entire spell causes something to raise up or fly, as evidenced by Ron's use of it against the troll in the bathroom where he does *not* say "Clavium Leviosa" to levitate the club. >> There is a theory that the incantation (the magic word/s) for a spell consists of two 'words', one referring to the action and one to the object. "Accio Firebolt" and "Locomotor trunk" are kind of obvious examples; 'Mobilicorpus' and 'Mobiliarbus' consist of the action 'Mobili' and the object, corpus = body and arbus = tree. A listie suggested that 'Alohomora'is the action, 'aloho' = welcome me, plus the object, 'mora' = wall. The new learner must say both words while forming the intention in his/her mind; a more experienced wizard need speak only the action word because his/her trained intention is enough to specify the object; a highly skilled mage needs only wand and intention: for him/her, no words are necessary; Dumbledore needs only intention (referred to somewhere as 'wandless magic'). The example of Ron and the bathroom troll indicates to me that even the beginningest student only needs wand and strong, focussed INTENTION -- if the words of the incantation were really so important, saying the incantation for levitating a feather would not have worked for levitating a club! Which further suggests that Flitwick's warning anecdote of Baruffio saying S instead of F and unexpectedly getting a buffalo on his chest is not a true tale, and also is an unneccessary warning. Jordan Random wrote of Wingardium Leviosa in : << Out of curiosity, any thought on why 'wingardium' instead of 'penna'? Is there a reason why most spells are latin, and , further, is there a reason why some are not? "crucio" and "imperio" are both latin, but "avada kedavra" is aramaic. >> And 'Alohomora' is neither Aramaic nor Latin. The incantation ('magic words') for Potterverse spells are, as Jordan said, this weird mix of things that sound like Latin and things that sound like Aramaic and things that sound like English and things that kind of sort of sound like Hawaiian (Aloho / Aloha). One theory is that these particular phonemes (their sound waves) interact with the elementary particle/waves of Magic (the fifth force). Thus finding the right incantation while making up a spell would require trial-and-error, which would be more effective with either a conscious or a habitual knowledge of what sounds go with what magic. I like to think that Potterverse arithmancy, rather than being a form of divination like muggle arithmancy, is analysis of what the magic elementary partiwaves are doing, and thus would be helpful in developing the phonemes for new incantations as well as the accompanying wand movements for new spells. The similarities to sounds in existing languages could be a co-incidence, or evidence that certain languages were invented by wizards for magical use and later adopted, adapted, and de-magic-ized by muggle tribes. That Wizard Latin is the one of those magical languages most commonly known by modern British wizards doesn't prevent there being other magical languages in the same relationship to muggle Sumerian and Middle Egyptian and other awe-inspiring muggle languages. I strongly suspect that the modern wizarding folk believe this theory, and folk of my hypothetical Aramaic School of Magic use Wizard Sumerian as the base language of their incantations, and folk of my hypothetical Coptic School of Magic use Wizard Ta.wy.i as the base language for their incantations. Another theory, which I happen to believe, is that the phonemes are arbitrary to the wavicles. The phonemes are meaningful only to guide the wizard's INTENTION. Thus, when inventing a spell, incantations that sound like words of known meaning and that sound awe-inspiring work better in the trial-and-error tests than incantations that sound silly and meaningless. The wizard who invented the Wingardium Leviosa spell probably earlier tried Penna Leviosa and levitated a pin or a (quill?) pen or hiser earlobe or nothing, and said: "Well, that one doesn't work. What shall I try next?" Pippin wrote in : << I've mentioned this a couple of times and not gotten a response, but I'm really interested in what others would have to say about this, so I'll try again. When Snape says, "I see no difference" IMO, that's JKR showing us how cruel and wrong it is not to distinguish between a lesser evil and a greater one. Does the fact that Hermione's teeth weren't pretty to begin with excuse Snape from doing anything about the fact that they'd been cursed? Does the fact that Draco was not a very nice person to begin with excuse Dumbledore from trying to save him from Voldemort? >> I think, if that was JKR's intention, it failed for the number of people who saw nothing wrong with Sevvie having made a funny little joke except Hermione over-reacted, and it failed for the number of people who saw the message as it's wrong to hurt the feelings of someone the reader likes. Aussie Hagrid wrote IN : << Ugh. For Harry to be an Auror, he would have to go back and complete his NEWTs at Hogwarts. That would mean an 8th book. Unfortunately, there will only be 7 - - Harry has to die >> Geoff already said that JKR said there will be an epilogue, so Harry can do a tone of stuff without any need of an 8th book. Furthermore, British listies used often to post that OWLs and NEWTs, being modelled on O-levels and A-levels, are administered NOT by Hogwarts but by the Ministry of Magic, and therefore can be taken in many different places (some gave the example of on a Navy ship at sea, under the supervision of a Naval officer) following many different courses of study, apparently including independent study as well as on-the-job learning. Alla wrote in : << But for some reason called **Prophecy** I think he would anyways. Harry's life is not maybe more valuable in the fight, he is the only one who can do it, end of story. >> I thought Dumbledore, who said that many prophecies never come true, wouldn't have been *so* certain that this particular prophecy was accurate. Heroic and essential as Harry will be in the culmination, I very much hope it is Neville or Colin Creevey or Pansy Parkinson who actually KILLS Voldemort, thus proving the Prophecy wrong. Carol wrote in : << And can someone please answer my question about why DD *chose* to fly to the tower in his weakened state knowing that Draco would try to kill him and the UV would be activated unless he knew he was dying, knew or hoped that Draco would realize that he wasn't a killer, and knew that Snape would have to kill him? Why, Alla and those who agree with her, didn't he just stay at the Three Broomsticks, trusting the Order to take care of things, and summon Snape ("I need Severus!") with his Patronus? >> He's no good at delegating? Goddlefrood summarized Chapter 23 in : << 4. However insignificant the distinction, is the difference in the description of Slughorn's wagging finger between the two versions perhaps a clue to something? >> I didn't notice it until you mentioned it, but perhaps the finger being sugar-coated the first time and not the second time is a reference to Sluggy's STORY being sugar-coated the first time and not the second time. I see in that this is also your theory, and Potioncat's, so this is a forbidden "I agree" post. Carol wrote in : << I also wonder what would have happened if Diary!Tom, animated by Ginny's soul, had encountered Vapor!mort. Would he have allowed his own seventh of a soul to possess him and re-formed the Death Eaters in the guise of a sixteen-year-old boy? >> As you know, says: <> Potioncat wrote in : << Dobby and Winky. This time around the elf relationship has taken on a different slant to my mind and I was wondering... Does anyone else think there is a "real" relationship here? Dobby went to visit her. Dobby suggested they look for a place together...Dobby takes care of her when she's drunk. Is there something more?---Would their child be named Dinky? (Wobby?) >> IIRC Dobby and Winky as a long-married couple is a fanfic cliche. In the books it seems to me that Dobby, her self-appointed chivalrous protector, may well be in love with her, but she doesn't particularly act like she's in love with him. Has anyone thought they might be brother and sister? That Crouches and Malfoys mated Crouch's Winky's mother with Malfoy's Dobby's father? Does anyone know how House Elves are named? If their masters name them, do free-born House Elves go nameless? Why was Kreachur not named Kreachy? (That is, why is he the ONLY House Elf introduced so far whose name doesn't fit the --y pattern?) Carol wrote in : << If Harry is inhabited by a soul bit, he must be an accidental Horcrux. If he's a Horcrux, he must be destroyed or Voldemort can't be killed. If Harry's destroyed, he can't kill Voldemort. This is not a mere JKR-style complication. It's an unresolvable dilemma. >> It's resolvable: they die simultaneously. I like the idea of them falling together over the Reichenbach Falls... Charles wrote in : << Yes, Hermione is vindictive. So is Dumbledore, who told Tommy boy that "I admit that merely taking your life would not satisfy me," >> Surely Voldemort thought that Dumbledore meant that he wanted to inflict extra suffering on Voldemort for revenge as well as killing him, but I totally don't think that was what Dumbledore meant. Surely Dumbledore meant that he would remain unsatisfied if Tommy boy didn't sincerely repent, resume his humanity, and save what's left of his soul. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 29 03:57:08 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 23:57:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco is quite the wizard References: <000201c6fabe$1817eff0$0201a8c0@MaggieAngle> Message-ID: <014401c6fb0e$4efb3e00$427e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160571 Nicole: > But Harry somehow needs to learn it very quickly, and very well so the > Dark Lord can't "one up" him. > As much as we can't stand Draco, when it comes to the dark arts, he is > pretty good. But do we know anything about his abilities to do something > other than dark magic or to do dark deeds? Magpie: Are all of those things particularly Dark? He seems to be able to sometimes figure things out and fix things, not do really Dark Magic so terribly well. I can think of the Imperio, if he was the one to cast that on Rosemerta. His Crucio may have been effective or might have been like Harry's in the past--I tend to view Crucios cast by teenaged boys as more I HATE YOU!! spells. I don't think Harry needs to learn Occlumency, since it seems like JKR considers it sort of one of his strengths that he can't do it. Still I'm not quite comfortable with considering it Dark Magic. It's a little too much like judging a personality type as bad. Draco's natural ability to compartmentalize has been used badly by him to make him a bully he couldn't be otherwise, but it still seems a bit too much to consider it Dark Magic. -m From hcollins at edgebbs.com Sun Oct 29 01:30:01 2006 From: hcollins at edgebbs.com (Heather Collins) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:30:01 -0000 Subject: differences between the British and American publications. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160572 Does anyone know why there were (albeit slight) differences in the text of the British and American publications of the books? These differences consisted mainly of the way phrases were worded. Thanks! Heather. From desertskieswoman at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 03:50:10 2006 From: desertskieswoman at yahoo.com (desertskieswoman) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 03:50:10 -0000 Subject: The New Book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160573 So I assume that there has been much discussion as to who dies in the final book. Being new to this group, I am going to offer my opinion. Draco, will of course, be killed (a no brainer), Hagrid and Professor Snape. A lot of people are fussing over that it will be Ron, Harry or Hermione, but why? There are plenty of people who deserve to die, and Hagrids death will provide the tearjerker. Just one fans opinion. desertskieswoman From connerlorraine at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 00:25:30 2006 From: connerlorraine at yahoo.com (lorraine conner) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:25:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Why didn't basilisk kill?/Tom & Harry Message-ID: <20061029002530.40653.qmail@web57915.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160574 Maria: > I think the main Basilisk was under the rule/spell of Tom Riddle and did his > bidding. He petrified those as a bait/lure for Harry Potter! I also agree with the statement you made about the character from Harry Potter. You were correct about what you said about Tom. He did use the Basilisk to do his bidding and his dirty work. Also I think Harry was kind of misled by Tom Riddle. He chose to hear the half of his story without even realizing who or what his character was about (he chose his friend too soon). That's what I personally think, Harry was used as a big distraction through the whole story. October 28, 2006 8:23:25 pm Lorraine From mcdumbledore at juno.com Sun Oct 29 04:46:28 2006 From: mcdumbledore at juno.com (twitterpatedbabykoala) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:46:28 -0000 Subject: The New Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160575 desertskieswoman: > Draco, will of course, be killed (a no brainer), Hagrid and Professor > Snape. Hi desertskieswoman! I'm a relative newbie, too! Among the adults: I agree that Hagrid's likely to bite it. He's got a personal grudge to settle with Tom Riddle that pre-dates all the Voldemort evilness. I hope that some of that history plays a part in Book 7. Additionally, Aussie said a while back that he'd like to see Norbert leading a flying armada and carrying Hagrid into battle... I will cling to this hope now until the very last page of Book 7. I also think that Voldemort will die, and probably Snape. Also, maybe Percy Weasley. I think Remus, Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, and McGonnegal will come out of it okay, but Flitwick and Slughorn might be doomed. No real justification there, just a hunch. Among the kids, I think the most likely ones to die are Ginny, Draco, and Neville. Here's hoping it's Draco, and that he dies fighting for the good side. I also think that the Trio is likely to survive, mostly because - at its beginnings - this is a children's series, and it's just too cruel to tell the children of the world that if you stand up to evil, not only will all the adults who love you die, but so will your best friends. Obviously that's way overstated, but I just don't think JKR will let Ron and Hermy go. Harry has lost his mother, father, godfather, and mentor. I think taking his best friends would send a pretty harsh message, and - being a mother herself - I just don't see JKR doing it. Though, if she had to lose one - I'd pick Hermione. I'd be devastated to lose Ron :) Becca, sitting back and waiting for someone to attack me for some part of this From dondriftwood4 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 02:32:49 2006 From: dondriftwood4 at yahoo.com (Don) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 02:32:49 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160576 Eddie wrote: > Has anybody noticed that Draco is a pretty talented wizard? He > made it into the 6th year Potions and DADA classes, manages the > Protean charm on the coins to communicate with the Death Eaters > (which Terry Boot says is N.E.W.T level spellwork), manages to fix > the vanishing cabinet, disapparates when on the run at the end of > HBP... and I'm not sure what else. > Sure, there are extenuating circumstances: Snape coddled Draco > through Potions, the Protean charm idea came from Hermione > (although Hermione said she got the idea from the Death Eaters > marks), it took all year for Draco to fix the cabinet. > Nevertheless, he _DID_ these things. Don: -I don't really think that he is that good at the things that is said. First off if that was true that he was a great as they say, why hasn't he rid himself of Harry or any of the other ones? He has had many chances and it would have put him in favor with the Dark Lord. Also his father is always on his back about things. So you would think that they would have used those powers by now. But then again there wouldn't be much of a story if he did. Now when it came time to use his powers he froze and Snape had to help him out. So I think all of his so called power came from the help of Snape and his father. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 29 06:36:06 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:36:06 EST Subject: Views of Hermione Message-ID: <493.58b912fd.3275a5d6@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160577 Alla: Yes, I brought it up, but I did not bring up Snape verbal abuse. The comparison I made was condemning Hermione for the hex regardless of why she did it ( no matter which traitorous actions brought it up, etc) and Snape's actions on the Tower. I really do not remember DD!M Snape theorists condemning Snape for committing the murder on the Tower. Nooooo, multitude of the reasons had been brought up and the main one of course Dumbledore made Snape do it. That is of course the possibility, but I just find funny that reasons for the murder are being constantly brought up as justifying circumstances, and the reasons for the hex as punishment for traitor are being discarded. Julie: The problem with judging Snape right now is that we don't know what happened on the Tower. Yes, I realize some believe it was exactly what it *seemed* to be--cold-blooded murder--even with the several inconsistencies in both Snape's and Dumbledore's behavior. But until Book 7 comes out we aren't going to know for sure. After all the writer herself continues to encourage debate over whether Snape is on the side of good or bad, which indicates her intent was for the Tower scene to be perceived as inconclusive. Also, those who advocate DDM!Snape don't believe Snape committed murder. Some think it's questionable that the AK was even the actual cause of Dumbledore's death. For instance, one workable possibility is that Snape used the AK as a cover for a non-verbal spell, one that deactivate the "stopper of death" potion he'd used to keep Dumbledore alive after the ring horcrux damage. So it's not a case of justifying murder, as we don't know for certain what action Snape took, nor the reasons behind it. (It still could turn out that Snape *did* murder Dumbledore, and if it does the DDM!Snape supporters will be proven wrong, at which point I certainly won't justify Snape's actions on the Tower in any way.) Hermione's actions and intent however are pretty much fact. That is why I feel I can judge her conclusively in a way that I can't yet judge Snape (I can only theorize about him). And the fact that she didn't place the hex to protect the DA (or if she did it was woefully inadequate and hardly indicative of her supposed intelligence) but used the hex rather to exact punishment after the damage had been done, makes me critical of her actions. I don't think it was worthy of her, regardless of Marietta's own actions (and she was wrong, more so than Hermione, but again it's not a contest). Whether Hermione could remove the jinx at her discretion is not known, but if she could, I'd again argue that doing so would be the right thing for a "good" person to do, also regardless of whether Marietta expresses remorse (or just parrots it, since she doesn't remember). If Hermione can't remove the jinx, well, I still feel uncomfortable that she would use a jinx that she couldn't counter. Not unlike the discomfort I felt at Harry using Sectumsempra without knowing what it would do or how to counter it. Such lack of foresight is typical impulsive behavior of teenagers, but it's neither smart nor right, which is why teenagers (most of them) eventually mature out of that behavior. Julie, who thinks Hermione is a good person at heart but also thinks Hermione has faults which were most apparent during the whole DA storyline. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Sun Oct 29 06:43:20 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:43:20 EST Subject: The ends justifying the means (was Re: Views of Hermione.) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160578 Eggplant wrote: Of all the mistakes Harry has made over 6 books I believe the single biggest one was made in book 3 when he stopped Lupin and Black from doing what needed to be done. Voldemort would not have been able to return and countless people would still be alive. Julie: And I guess the best thing Snape ever did was to reveal the prophecy to Voldemort, since that act resulted in Voldemort becoming Vapormort, the first war (which the good side *was* losing) coming to an end, and countless lives being saved. That is, by your logic that the ends justify the means and intent means nothing. Darn Harry for undoing all of Snape's good work! (*sarcasm alert*) Julie, [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 11:32:11 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:32:11 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160579 > > Alla: > > > > Such a **nice** comfortable word, isn't it **elitist**? Change it to > > pure-blooded racist, which is how I see Draco and picture becomes a > > little different? > > wynnleaf > Racism definition "racism is a form of discrimination based on race, > especially the belief that one race is superior to another." Whether > you think Draco is a racist or not -- by definition he is not. Amiable Dorsai: So you're saying that the Death Eaters and their ilk don't see wizards as a race apart? Amiable Dorsai From mpvillas at yahoo.co.uk Sun Oct 29 12:10:48 2006 From: mpvillas at yahoo.co.uk (wisteria053) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 12:10:48 -0000 Subject: differences between the British and American publications. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160580 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Heather Collins" wrote: > > Does anyone know why there were (albeit slight) differences in > the text of the British and American publications of the books? > > > These differences consisted mainly of the way phrases were worded. > My son and I were at a lunch for the Book 4 launch and Jo said that she had not wanted there to be any differences, but the American publishers convinced her that young US-based readers wouldn't understand her otherwise. That said, some of the differences are so minor they don't make sense for the reason stated. See http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html wisteria053 From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 29 15:12:19 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:12:19 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione/Draco is quite the wizard References: Message-ID: <004701c6fb6c$a19d5400$e68c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160581 Amiable Dorsai: > So you're saying that the Death Eaters and their ilk don't see wizards > as a race apart? Magpie: All Wizards see Wizards as a race apart. Every single Magicial character is pretty racist towards Muggles by standards I consider normal in our world. I think wynnleaf's point was that s/he didn't see Muggleborns as a race apart from Purebloods, so although the bigotry was no better, she didn't think of it as racism. > Don: > > -I don't really think that he is that good at the things that is > said. First off if that was true that he was a great as they say, > why hasn't he rid himself of Harry or any of the other ones? He has > had many chances and it would have put him in favor with the Dark > Lord. Also his father is always on his back about things. So you > would think that they would have used those powers by now. But then > again there wouldn't be much of a story if he did. Now when it came > time to use his powers he froze and Snape had to help him out. So I > think all of his so called power came from the help of Snape and his > father. Magpie: But none of the powers listed came from Snape or his father. Eddie wasn't saying he was secretly the best Wizard in canon, just that he's done things that suggest he's fairly competent for a Wizard his age, not inept. And these aren't particularly Dark Powers either. I wouldn't consider his not killing Dumbledore a failure of magical competency any more than Harry's not killing Sirius was a lack of competency. In fact, I think a big part of the Tower scene is to acknowledge that he isn't a failure so that he can make a choice about Dumbledore's offer from a position of strength. -m From donnawonna at worldnet.att.net Sun Oct 29 15:03:12 2006 From: donnawonna at worldnet.att.net (Donna) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 10:03:12 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) Subject: differences between the British and American publications. References: Message-ID: <4544C2AF.000006.03852@D33LDD51> No: HPFGUIDX 160582 Heather: Does anyone know why there were (albeit slight) differences in the text of the British and American publications of the books? These differences consisted mainly of the way phrases were worded. Donna: Finally a question that's easy to answer - because of the subtle differences between British English and American English. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Oct 29 15:19:50 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:19:50 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160583 "pippin_999" wrote: > it was Dobby who warned the DA, it was > Shacklebolt who kept Marietta from > incriminating anyone, and it was Dumbledore > who arranged for Harry to escape punishment > I can't see that Hermione's curse helped > with any of that. Don't be silly, without Hermione's curse that piece of filth called Marietta would have spilled the beans in Umbridge's office, including the fact that Harry was the leader and they had been meeting illegally for many months. And this would have been long before Dumbledore could help, it would have been long before Dumbledore even knew about it. As it was Marietta's evil treachery caused Sirius's death and probably many others. In the real world she would not have gotten acne, she would have gotten a bullet in the brain. And I would shed no tears over her. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of revisionism, but this Marietta is a hero and Hermione is a villain business just won't fly. Eggplant From kking0731 at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 15:33:31 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 15:33:31 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160584 Snow wrote: > > Voldemort was so greedy to get his hands on Harry that he > underestimated Lily's sacrifice or didn't care because he wasn't > about to say the spell that would use that murder as a Horcrux. What > he failed to think of is that Lily would have not only shielded Harry > with her body but also a Charm, after all her wand was well suited. > Lily wouldn't have taken any chances with her son and, as I surmise, placed the simplest spell that works like the old kids saying " I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say, bounces off of me and sticks to you". Simple but effective, the son-of-a-gun killed himself by means of an AK to his own body. Carol reponds: I used to believe that Lily had placed a protective charm on Harry (why else have Ollivander say "nice wand for Charm work"?) and that it had something to do with the Eihwaz rune (Defense or Protection) that Hermione mentions in OoP, but JKR has nixed that particular theory by saying that Lily didn't anticipate her death and that it was her sacrifice that triggered the deflected AK. That pretty much lets out any protective charm theories, unfortunately. And we know, of course, that there's no countercurse for the AK. Protego, which deflects minor hexes in the way you so humorously describe, doesn't work against the Unforgiveables. Snow: Lily not having anticipated her death would not mean that she wasn't clearly aware that Voldemort was after herself and her family and would take all necessary precautions. The Potters were in hiding guarded by one of the best protections available but I would think that she would anticipate trouble and overprotect her child with at least Protego, especially when they changed the secret keeper at the last moment. I do recall fake Moody stating that there is no counter-curse to the AK but I don't recall where it says that it cannot be shielded. In fact, in the Atrium at the DOM the fountain statues did shield Harry from an AK and also Dumbledore: "You have irked me too often, for too long. AVADA KEDAVRA!" [ ] "But the headless golden statue of the wizard in the fountain had sprung alive, leaping from its plinth, and landed on the floor with a crash between Harry and Voldemort. The spell merely glanced off its chest as the statue flung out its arms, protecting Harry. OOP 813 And "Another jet of green light flew from behind the silver shield. This time it was the one-armed centaur, galloping in front of Dumbledore, that took the blast and shattered into a hundred pieces " 814 Granted these are objects that are shielding both Harry and Dumbledore from the AK but this still sets a president that the AK can be shielded. Snow: > > The aim of the AK was clearly directed at Harry; Lily was clearly > murdered moments prior to the AK attempt; Voldemort clearly lost his > body with this particular gesture; Harry clearly obtained abilities > that belong to Voldemort during this action. This all suggests, to > me, that Harry did receive a Horcrux portion of soul that night but > not in the encasement manner that coincides with the proper making of a Horcrux. Carol snipped: But many acts of murder are committed in the WW, especially now that Voldemort is back. Wormtail has killed, what, thirteen people? Yet not one of these murders was used to create a Horcrux. Voldemort has also, according to Dumbledore, murdered a great many people, including some since his restoration to a body, and not all have been used for Horcruxes. Snow: Wormtail wouldn't know how to create a Horcrux, or for that matter know about them at all, so I think it is safe to say that he did rip his soul but those fragments of ripped soul would remain with his body until they were released by a spell or in the same manner (I propose) Voldemort did when he became a live spirit form. Dumbledore also stated that Voldemort chose particular deaths to make his Horcruxes. This is an issue, which you have brought up several times, of how many persons Voldemort killed at his hand compared to all the murders he has been said to be behind. The only rational answer, for me, is that Voldemort only killed (in the ripping of the soul manner) `himself' when he absolutely had no other choice (like Lily) or when he aimed to make a Horcrux from that particular death. Otherwise, as you say, how does Voldemort choose from the many fragments roaming around inside his body? Carol earlier: > > But I think that if Harry thought his scar contained a soul bit, he'd see himself as a Horcrux and believe that he has to be sacrificed, which takes us back to the unsolvable dilemma of how to destroy himself, the last Horcrux, and kill Voldemort, too. > > Snow: > > Which is why Dumbledore purposely did not make that particular > connection evident. Harry has to view this portion of Voldemort > outside the purposely-made Horcrux limitation. The soul bit that I > propose is in Harry was not encased within him so there should be the possibility to expel it or use it against Voldemort without harm to Harry. Carol: Wouldn't it be simpler if Harry simply had some of Voldemort's powers? That way there's no soul bit to eliminate and no chance of his confusing himself with a Horcrux. (As I said, I still don't see how a soul bit could have gotten into Harry without a spell, and if it did, he's to all intents and purposes a Horcrux.) Snow: Not to be sarcastic whatsoever, but, I have never viewed JKR as simplistic in any of these works. If there are signs that point to this type of inevitability then they would certainly need to be taken into consideration, I would think, if you are attempting to decipher the ending. I certainly don't want to dismiss any usable canon because it would be too complicated a method, which I don't think it is :) > Carol: > I disagree. Tom killed Myrtle using the Basilisk as his weapon. If you sic your pit bull on someone, ordering the dog to kill the person, and the person dies, aren't you guilty of murder? > > Snow: > > With this proposal, wouldn't each death appointed to a deatheater > fall back on Voldemort as the killer? Wouldn't the deatheater merely > become the weapon? > Carol: Not really. Nagini is the instrument (weapon) in Myrtle's death just as his wand is the instrument in the other deaths. Wormtail or some other Death Eater acts as Voldemort's *agent* (a human being carrying out the orders or wishes of another), not as his instrument. The Basilisk, whose only desire is to kill and which cannot disobey Tom's orders is not an agent. It lacks free will. Snow: I have to make a 180% turn here and ask why the Basilisk and Nagini are so different? You said up-thread "And DD doesn't mention souls, only living beings that can think and move on their own, meaning Nagini." Since you state here that the Basilisk lacks free will, does that mean that she is not to be considered a living being? If however Nagini and the Basilisk along with the Boa in SS were to be considered living beings, then wouldn't it stand to follow that their actions are their own? Carol continuing: It's an instrument (weapon) whose eyes and fangs are as deadly as any potion or killing curse. Tom's command to the Basilisk ("Kill her!" or "Kill him!") is analogous to his command to his wand, "Avada Kedavra!" Or do you think that if he'd succeeded in commanding the Basilisk to kill Harry in the CoS that it wouldn't have been murder because the Basilisk was the murderer? Not in my view. Snow: Actually, Yes! If we are to view one similar living being (the basilisk) the same as the other(s) then Nagini and the Boa are also categorically instruments also, and don't have free will. By this analysis, Nagini could not be a living Horcrux because it lacks free will. However, on the other hand, if the basilisk is like Nagini and the Boa having free will to make decisions; wouldn't that automatically make her an agent to carry out Tom's orders? Snow: Madam Bones was killed but no name was given to the killer, > only assumption and we don't know if she attempted to fight back, > which I think makes a big difference between killed and murdered. > Carol: Possibly you're thinking of Emmeline Vance. Madam Bones was apparently killed by Voldemort himself, as Fudge tells the Prime Minister in "The Other Minister": "Amelia Bones. The Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement. We think He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named may have murdered her in person, because she was a very gifted witch and--and all the evidence was that she put up a real fight" (HBP Am. ed. 13). Snow: So, Amelia did put up a fight, which in my estimation discounts her as a murder that splits the soul. Carol snipped slightly: And I doubt that Dorcas's murder was important enough to be used to make a Horcrux. Note that Dumbledore says that Voldemort normally reserved Horcrux-making for important murders, implying that he committed many routine murders without a DE acting as his agent. Snow: I would guess it is one or the other, either Dorcas was important enough to make a Horcrux from her death or she fought back which would negate her being murdered in the fashion necessary to make a Horcrux. > Snow: > > That is true, we don't know for certain and can only surmise what > happened through the six books we have. I would like to know though, > how Voldemort only took with him one power of the many that he had, > when his body was vanquished at GH: > > "Only one power remained to me. I could possess the bodies of > others." GOF 653 > > I would think that he had had all his powers before his attempted AK > on Harry at GH, so I would think that one could assume that those > remaining powers went with Harry, where else did they go if not with > Harry? How did Voldemort get any of his powers back? Carol: I think he had only the one power because he had no body. Once he could hold a wand again, he could perform any of the spells he knew before and could perform Legilimency. Snow: I had though of that myself but then I have to take into consideration that there are non-verbal spells then again you may need a wand for those as well, I'm really not certain. I also think of Wormtail transfiguring into his rat form when he escaped without the use of a wand since Harry had just yelled Expelliarmus and the wand flew high into the air before he changed. In any case I think there might have been more that Voldemort could have done even without a wand if he had all his powers. This one is still up in the air though for me. Carol snipped: I think it's significant that Vapor!mort didn't possess the body of his infant enemy, though. Did he try to do so and fail because of Lily's sacrifice? Or did that thought not occur to him because he was in too much agony to think of anything else? Snow: It is quite curious but if I were to answer off the top of my head, I would have to think that Voldemort suspected the child might be as powerful as claimed in the prophecy and that he shouldn't take the chance until he finds out what went wrong. > Snow: > > I wouldn't call it possession per se but we do know that Harry felt > as if he knew Tom Riddle for some reason when he first heard his > name. We also know that Harry was becoming a bit dark in GOF > (Voldemort had some type of body) and even more so in OOP (Voldemort > was fully resurrected to a human form) when he resorted to the use of an unforgivable curse on Bella before his actual possession attempted by Voldemort in the Atrium, which rid Voldemort's connection through Legilimency that was probably influencing Harry's dark side or, in other words, the soul fragment connection. Carol: Or rather, the scar connection, which, like the Dark Marks on the arms of the Death Eaters, grew stronger as Voldemort grew stronger. The soul fragment connection is an assumption on your part. Snow: You are correct that it is an assumption on my part but it is an assumption with suggestive canon and very little canon (if any) to dispute it. We do come to a draw until the next book or if, as you would like, the lady disputes it before that time. I don't see anything else that could logically have happened that night to connect Harry and Voldemort in such an equal manner. The connection between Harry and Voldemort existed more so than the connection between the deatheaters and Voldemort; in the same time frame that the deatheaters felt Voldemort to be gone since their dark marks were no longer visible, Harry was making a connection through his scar when he was physically near to him and felt like he was forgetting a long lost friend when he heard the name Tom Riddle. This connection surpasses `a bit' of a connection with Voldemort. To be marked as Voldemort's equal I would think Harry would have to have an equal portion. Carol: > > Because Lily and Petunia are blood relatives. But that doesn't make > Petunia's blood magical. > > Snow: > > Petunia's blood was not born magical but when she took Harry in she > sealed the pact that Dumbledore presented. Dumbledore used the > connection of the family's blood to make the most powerful ancient > magical protection against Voldemort: > > "she sealed the charm "I" placed upon you. "Your mother's sacrifice > made the bond of blood the strongest shield "I" could give you." OOP 836 > > If Dumbledore used the bond of blood as part of the charm, wouldn't > it follow that Petunia earned this protection as well, after all the > same blood runs through her veins? Carol: But that doesn't make Petunia's blood magical. she's still a Muggle, with nonmagical Muggle blood, and will never, as JKR has told us, be able to perform magic. If Petunia benefits because of the blood protection, it's because of Dumbledore's extension of the blood protection to her and because of her blood relationship to Lily, not because of any magic in her own blood. But Voldemort, as a wizard, *does* have magic in his blood, as does Harry, which is why Voldemort's powers could have passed to Harry through a drop of his blood entering Harry's cut (without diminishing Voldemort's own powers once he regained a magical body) and why Voldemort specifically wanted Harry's magical blood, with its blood protection, as opposed to some other wizard's (a Muggles's blood would not do because it isn't magical). Snow: I will concede to magic in the blood but not to the extent of Harry's connection being blood related. As I stated a moment ago, Harry received equal portions to Voldemort. The Prophecy states that the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, not simply his powers. Harry also has connected with his memory, via the name Tom Riddle and also his emotions, when he would become extremely happy or irate. I don't think those emotions could be passed on through blood. > Snow: > > I meant Harry is unique in the sense that he does have Voldemort soul like a Horcrux has but not the limitations of a Horcrux since he > isn't one. The circumstances surrounding the way he received this > portion of soul are unique and do not mimic an actual Horcrux since > it was not a spell that purposely released the fragment of soul from > Voldemort. > > It is this uniqueness that quantifies Harry's situation as being out > of the typical realm of Horcrux destruction. Carol: I think he's unique in having some of Voldemort's powers and in being the Chosen One (unwittingly) "marked" by Voldemort as his equal. Only Harry has the scar that connects him mentally, and to some degree, emotionally, with Voldemort. Only Harry has (or had) access to his mind and his dreams. Only Harry has ever known what it feels like to be Voldemort. Snow: How would the scar alone perform a connection to Voldemort's mind and emotions? Blood entering that scar may indeed pass on powers but what about the other equal behaviors to Voldemort, how did they get passed on? Carol: That's sufficiently unique (to modify an unmodifiable adjective), I think. No need for a soul bit that's somehow different from those in the Horcruxes and exempt from the need for destruction. (Surely it will have to go beyond the Veil with the others for Voldemort to be fully and permanently dead?) Snow: But Harry would be different than any other Horcrux since he is a living being with a free will! Carol, who agrees with you on many points but not the main one Snow, thanks for that but I think we may have to call this one a draw for reasons of insufficient conclusive evidence; it's been fun though :) From davidapiper at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 13:01:10 2006 From: davidapiper at yahoo.com (Davida Lynne Piper) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:01:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's inability to perform occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160585 > Nicole: > One huge one you didn't mention, was that Bellatrix taught him > something Harry failed to learn. Draco learned Occlumency so > well, that even Snape couldn't read his mind. A big difference > between them was that Draco had a caring teacher and he didn't > have dreams he wanted to see. Davida wrote: I believe it was who was teaching Harry that he couldn't learn Occlumency. If he had another teacher that was patient with Harry, he would have learned it. Davida From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Oct 29 17:47:14 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:47:14 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: <493.58b912fd.3275a5d6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: Julie: > Hermione's actions and intent however are pretty much fact. That > is why I feel I can judge her conclusively in a way that I can't yet > judge Snape (I can only theorize about him). And the fact that she > didn't place the hex to protect the DA (or if she did it was woefully > inadequate and hardly indicative of her supposed intelligence) but > used the hex rather to exact punishment after the damage had been > done, makes me critical of her actions. I don't think it was worthy of > her, regardless of Marietta's own actions (and she was wrong, more > so than Hermione, but again it's not a contest). Quick_Silver: Ok but unless I'm forgetting something Hermione never openly says that she hexed the parchment to get revenge. And I can quite readily buy her placing the hex in the belief that it would protect the DA because that totally fits with Hermione's character in OotP (and the other books too really). The DA jinx could be a mirror of Hermione's troubles with SPEW she has good/decent/honorable intentions, then she bungles the implementation of it, and then she's indifferent/blind to the consequences of her actions. I mean throughout the books (IMO) really there's this theme of Hermione having these great/inventive ideas/plans and then getting bungled on the small details or things that she overlooked like the polyjuice plot in CoS (Malfoy being not guilty and the cat hair), SPEW and the DA in OotP, and getting Ron in HBP. Julie: > Whether Hermione could remove the jinx at her discretion is not > known, but if she could, I'd again argue that doing so would be the > right thing for a "good" person to do, also regardless of whether > Marietta expresses remorse (or just parrots it, since she doesn't > remember). Quick_Silver: Yeah I agree with this I find it easy to explain away the hex itself as misguided and amateurish but Hermione's actions after or lack thereof are disturbing. I just see no reason to leave the jinx on Marietta. Quick_Silver From unicornspride at centurytel.net Sun Oct 29 17:29:39 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 11:29:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's inability to perform occlumency References: Message-ID: <01dc01c6fb7f$cfd85f00$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160587 > Nicole: > One huge one you didn't mention, was that Bellatrix taught him > something Harry failed to learn. Draco learned Occlumency so > well, that even Snape couldn't read his mind. A big difference > between them was that Draco had a caring teacher and he didn't > have dreams he wanted to see. >Davida wrote: >I believe it was who was teaching Harry that he couldn't learn >Occlumency. If he had another teacher that was patient with Harry, >he would have learned it. Lana Writes: I have to agree here. I think that if Lupin or Moody or even DD had taught him, he would have learned it. The biggest problem is that Snape and DD did not explain things to Harry. Harry was curious about his dreams. He wanted to know what was past the door. Had someone bothered to explain it to him, he would have then been able to focus on learning instead of defying what he was supposed to be doing. Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 29 12:52:05 2006 From: secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net (maria) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 04:52:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: The New Book -- who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061029125205.98803.qmail@web83002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160588 desertskieswoman wrote: >> Draco, will of course, be killed (a no brainer), Hagrid and Professor Snape. A lot of people are fussing over that it will be Ron, Harry or Hermione, but why? There are plenty of people who deserve to die, and Hagrid's death will provide the tearjerker. << Maria: The rumor is it's one of the threesome! A lot are going with Ron! But I'll cry if Snape gets killed and Hagrid as well!! Nooooooo ~maria~ From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Oct 29 18:01:47 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 29 Oct 2006 18:01:47 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 10/29/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1162144907.85.17007.m40@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160589 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday October 29, 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: From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sun Oct 29 18:07:33 2006 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:07:33 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The New Book -- who dies? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160590 In a message dated 10/29/2006 11:01:41 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, secretwindow-jd1 at sbcglobal.net writes: Maria: The rumor is it's one of the threesome! A lot are going with Ron! But I'll cry if Snape gets killed and Hagrid as well!! Nooooooo JKR implied (by mistake) that the trio would live in the very last part of the "Harry, Carrie and Garp" interview. (It's up at the Leaky Cauldron) My instinct is on Voldemort (the obvious) and on Tonks, who didn't make the birthday list, is a relatively late arrival in the books, and as a Metamorphagus, might morph into Harry or another target and serve as a shield. Though I wouldn't like to see it. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 18:15:54 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:15:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's inability to perform occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160591 --- "Davida Lynne Piper" wrote: > > > Nicole: > > One huge one you didn't mention, was that Bellatrix > > taught him something Harry failed to learn. Draco > > learned Occlumency so well, that even Snape couldn't > > read his mind. A big difference between them was that > > Draco had a caring teacher and he didn't have dreams > > he wanted to see. > > > Davida wrote: > I believe it was who was teaching Harry that he couldn't > learn Occlumency. If he had another teacher that was > patient with Harry, he would have learned it. > > Davida > bboyminn: I don't think the key point is so much that Harry couldn't learn Occlumency, but more that he didn't. Though the degree to which he truly didn't remains to be seen in the final book. Several times in the Occlumency classes Harry did very effectively block Snape's access to his thoughts. So, we know it is possible for him to do it if he is sufficiently motivated. I believe JKR said something like- Harry would never be good at Occlumency because his emotions are so close to the surface, in a sense, he feels to deeply. Where as Draco, as clear from his bullying, can easily separate himself from his own emotions and the emotions of others. I believe she said Draco can 'compartmentalize' his feelings. Now the fact that Harry is never going to be really good at it doesn't mean he is totally incabable of it. I suspect that when the crucial moment comes, Harry will be able to summon the force of will necessary to block his mind. But his inability to divorce himself from his feeling and his empathy for others will prevent him from doing it on a routine basis. Also, I have always said that part of the next book will be Harry working hard to learn the things that he reasonably feels he will need to know to defeat Voldemort. Amoung those things will certainly be more Occlumency practice, though this time taught to him by someone who may not be as good as Snape, but who is a more caring and systematic 'walk-before-you-run' teacher. His likely teachers are - Lupin and Moody - Occlumency, defensive & offensive spells, combat dueling, unspoken spells. Bill Weasley - detecting magical residue, curse breaking, safely destroying Horcruxes. I think these three will be his key teachers and will be the first people brought into his inner circle of trust in the next book. Though, I think Lupin will be the first brought into a limited degreee of knowledge of Harry's task. For what it's worth. Steve From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 18:15:10 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:15:10 -0000 Subject: Wizards as race apart WAS: Re: Views of Hermione/Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: <004701c6fb6c$a19d5400$e68c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160592 > Amiable Dorsai: > > So you're saying that the Death Eaters and their ilk don't see wizards > > as a race apart? > > Magpie: > All Wizards see Wizards as a race apart. Every single Magicial character is > pretty racist towards Muggles by standards I consider normal in our world. > I think wynnleaf's point was that s/he didn't see Muggleborns as a race > apart from Purebloods, so although the bigotry was no better, she didn't > think of it as racism. Alla: I believe the parallel towards racism in the books goes mainly towards Muggleborns though. And Muggles, well I believe JKR is trying to set two worlds apart sometime succesfully, sometimes not. So, while I agree that many good guys have patronising attitude and prejudice towards Muggles, I do not remmber anybody on the good side wishing **either** Muggles or Muggleborns to die. That is a huge attitude difference to me. IMO of course, Alla. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 18:14:02 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:14:02 -0000 Subject: Resolving Horcrux!Harry issues (was: DobbyWinky/Horcrux!H/Vindicti...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160593 > Carol : > << If Harry is inhabited by a soul bit, he must be an accidental > Horcrux. If he's a Horcrux, he must be destroyed or Voldemort can't be > killed. 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... > Neri: It's not merely resolvable, it's practically foretold: "and either must die by the hand of the other." It will also solve the problem of how will Harry kill Voldemort without becoming a murderer. If they both fall unintentionally while struggling it doesn't count. There are even good reasons for them to physically struggle instead of using magic. First there's the brother wand issue. Secondly, imagine Harry telling Voldemort that he'd destroyed all his Horcruxes except for the soul bit that is stuck inside Harry. Voldemort would hesitate: if he kills Harry now he's back to mortal with no Horcruxes at all. A second or two of hesitation would be enough for Harry to charge. He already did that to Sirius in the Shrieking Shack. Of course, falling together beyond the veil in the DoM is somewhat more probable than the Reichenbach Falls. And I fully expect Harry to appear alive on the other side, since he has more than one soul in him, so the Voldemort soul bit would die and Harry would emerge only with his own soul. See, it's not unresolvable at all (not even irresolvable). Tomorrow we'll take on world peace. Neri From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 18:28:42 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:28:42 -0000 Subject: differences between the British and American publications. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160594 --- "wisteria053" wrote: > > > --- "Heather Collins" wrote: > > > > Does anyone know why there were (albeit slight) > > differences in the text of the British and American > > publications of the books? > > > > > > These differences consisted mainly of the way phrases > > were worded. > > > wisteria053: > > My son and I were at a lunch for the Book 4 launch and > Jo said that she had not wanted there to be any > differences, but the American publishers convinced her > that young US-based readers wouldn't understand her > otherwise. That said, some of the differences are so > minor they don't make sense for the reason stated. > > See http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/differences.html > > > wisteria053 > bboyminn: I think in the beginning there were substantial changes but in the latest book there are very very few. I think in the Sixth book I can only think of one major point that was changed. In the book Fred and George are trying to raise Harry's spirits and they tell him to 'keep his pecker up'. THAT has quite a different meaning in the USA than it does in Britian. In Britain 'pecker' refers to the heart, so 'keep your pecker up' means 'take heart' or don't let your spirits get down. In the USA, I'm sure that phrase would have cause a great deal of adolesent and pre-adolesent snickering and giggling. But more common phrases are now taken for granted, and the publishers simply trust that people have it figured out by now. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Oct 29 18:43:03 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:43:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's inability to perform occlumency/Views of Hermione/Wizards as racists References: Message-ID: <00f701c6fb8a$14026e00$e68c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160595 bboyminn: > > I don't think the key point is so much that Harry couldn't > learn Occlumency, but more that he didn't. Though the > degree to which he truly didn't remains to be seen in the > final book. Several times in the Occlumency classes Harry > did very effectively block Snape's access to his thoughts. > So, we know it is possible for him to do it if he is > sufficiently motivated. Magpie: I believe he was able to shove Snape's own Legilimency charm back with shield charms, but never really did Occlumency, which is cloaking his own mind and separting himself from his emotions. JKR, I thought, went further than saying Harry wasn't particularly good at it. I thought she implied it was a skill that was pretty much lost to him because he was both too damaged and not someone who naturally could compartmentalize. I got the impression she thought this was a good thing, so I don't think Harry's going to have to learn Occlumency--though interestingly it looked like in her original notes Harry was supposed to get better at it. So perhaps he will eventually manage it to a point, but I'd be interested in seeing how JKR did it if that were the case. Snape's methods certainly didn't help but I think most of Harry's trouble with Occlumency comes from himself and not just the teacher. So while I wouldn't necessarily say Harry could never gain the skill at all, I don't think the point of OotP was entirely that it's entirely Snape's fault Harry didn't learn it. Even within canon Harry actively works against what Snape is trying to teach him on principle and not just because it's Snape. I thought it was stupid that nobody explained to Harry why he shouldn't be curious about the door either, but at the same time Harry was rather dense to not figure it out himself or ask that directly. (Hermione might have suggested the reason to him, iirc) They certainly hinted at the reason enough, and Harry was old enough that his own stubborness can't be completely blamed on the teacher. He'd have had those same problems with Lupin teaching him, and I'm not sure Lupin's usually more effective guilt-trip control of Harry would have worked in that case. Alla: I believe the parallel towards racism in the books goes mainly towards Muggleborns though. And Muggles, well I believe JKR is trying to set two worlds apart sometime succesfully, sometimes not. So, while I agree that many good guys have patronising attitude and prejudice towards Muggles, I do not remmber anybody on the good side wishing **either** Muggles or Muggleborns to die. Magpie: Yes, the parallels in the book are all about Muggleborns, not Muggles. I'm just saying I think wynnleaf calls it something other than racism because Pureblood/Muggleborn doesn't seem like a direct parallel, though the mindset is the same. Racism doesn't mean you necessarily want to kill people of the other race. You just have to judge them on their race, usually as inferior. eggplant: > Don't be silly, without Hermione's curse that piece of filth called > Marietta would have spilled the beans in Umbridge's office, including > the fact that Harry was the leader and they had been meeting illegally > for many months. And this would have been long before Dumbledore could > help, it would have been long before Dumbledore even knew about it. As > it was Marietta's evil treachery caused Sirius's death and probably > many others. In the real world she would not have gotten acne, she > would have gotten a bullet in the brain. And I would shed no tears > over her. Magpie: Err...no, I don't think in the real world (if by that you mean the societies most of us live in) she would have been shot at all. That's more like an alternate universe where anything certain characters don't like is punishable by no-strings-attached death, followed grave-dancing, and any ethical situation comes down to one person being the avenging angels and the other person being evil Nazis resonsible for anything bad that happens. It's more like a video game than an actual world. Even nobody in canon suggests killing Marietta. Like it or not, your view of murder is openly rejected by the good side and one of the defining characteristics of the bad. eggplant: > Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of revisionism, but this Marietta is > a hero and Hermione is a villain business just won't fly. Magpie: You certainly are a fan of revisionism if what you're getting from this discussion is Marietta=hero and Hermione=a villain. -m From Aixoise at snet.net Sun Oct 29 19:15:48 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (usaixoise) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:15:48 -0000 Subject: New Member and question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160596 Hello all fellow HP fans, I'm so pleased to have found a forum where I can discuss my obsession without feeling embarrassed for not being in the under 15 set. I am actually 33, married for almost 11 years to my husband (who doesn't share my love of movies never mind the Potter series)and mom to two girls, 7 and 4, who would very much like to receive a Hogwarts letter come their 11th birthdays. Although the books are "too long" (their quote, not mine)for them to get into, I have reluctantly let them watch HP 1-4. My initial hesitation was that it would give them nightmares(especially my 4yo) but they've handled them beautifully thanks in part to lots of discussions about what was happening, things from the book that were omitted in the films and guesses about character's motivations. I've spent quite a bit of time scanning through the humungous file, FAQ's and recent messages. One thing that has perplexed me for sometime is the issue of underage wizards performing magic outside of Hogwarts. Doesn't Hermione say she's tried some spells with success on the Hogwarts Express in Book 1? She performs "Oculus Reparo" on the Hogwarts Express and in Diagon Alley. And doesn't Harry practice "Lumos Maxima" at the Dursley's? We of course know about blowing up Aunt Marge and the Patronus to save himself and Dudley, but how did they get away with the others? Sorry if this has been discussed before but it's been nagging at me since Book 1 and I've only just now found the proper avenue to discuss it! Looking forward to chatting with you all! Stacey From littleleah at handbag.com Sun Oct 29 19:35:39 2006 From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:35:39 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160597 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "pippin_999" wrote: > > > it was Dobby who warned the DA, it was > > Shacklebolt who kept Marietta from > > incriminating anyone, and it was Dumbledore > > who arranged for Harry to escape punishment > > I can't see that Hermione's curse helped > > with any of that. > > Don't be silly, without Hermione's curse that piece of filth called > Marietta would have spilled the beans in Umbridge's office, including > the fact that Harry was the leader and they had been meeting illegally > for many months. And this would have been long before Dumbledore could > help, it would have been long before Dumbledore even knew about it. As > it was Marietta's evil treachery caused Sirius's death and probably > many others. In the real world she would not have gotten acne, she > would have gotten a bullet in the brain. And I would shed no tears > over her. > > Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of revisionism, but this Marietta is > a hero and Hermione is a villain business just won't fly. > > Eggplant Marietta is not a hero, neither is Hermione a villain. She is a brave and clever girl who needs to think some things over more carefully. What Marietta did was wrong. Nevertheless, I am surprised that you would have shed no tears over a 17 year old girl getting 'a bullet in the brain' for one wrong action. I am not sure that Harry would share your opinion. Marietta is a young girl brought up by a Ministry employee, who believes what the Ministry says is right. So do a number of older and possibly wiser people, such as Percy Weasley, Cornelius Fudge and the Auror Dawlish to name but a few. She is scared and she does wrong, for which action you would be happy to see her dead. > If Marietta had spilled the beans in Umbridge's office, I am not convinced it would have been beyond the powers of Albus Dumbledore to have remedied the situation. And let's not forget that everyone in DA knew they were doing something illegal and were taking the risk of discovery and betrayal. Marietta's action was a contributory factor in the chain of events which led to Sirius' death, as were the actions of others including Dumbledore and Harry. But the decision to go to the MOM was made by a grown man, Sirius, and the direct cause of his death was a grown woman, Bellatrix Lestrange. And having a daughter who suffered from acne during her teenage years, I'm a bit tired of reading post after post referring to that condition as if it were no more than the odd freckle. It is a disfiguring condition and Marietta is, in Rowling's own words, 'horribly disfigured'. Leah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 19:46:05 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:46:05 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160598 Leah: > Marietta is not a hero, neither is Hermione a villain. She is a > brave and clever girl who needs to think some things over more > carefully. Alla: Absolutely, I agree with that. Leah: > She is scared and she does > wrong, for which action you would be happy to see her dead. Alla: Of course not, not everybody thinks that :) All that I am saying that I would not want Marietta to go UNpunished, but I certainly not want her dead. Lea: > If Marietta had spilled the beans in Umbridge's office, I am not > convinced it would have been beyond the powers of Albus Dumbledore > to have remedied the situation. Alla: With that I completely disagree, otherwise Dumbledore would not have to leave the school, IMO of course. I think he remedied as best as he could. Lea: And let's not forget that everyone > in DA knew they were doing something illegal and were taking the > risk of discovery and betrayal. Alla: Yes, but wouldn't you agree that they also had a right to protect themselves against discovery and betrayal? JMO, Alla From technomad at intergate.com Sun Oct 29 19:51:10 2006 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:51:10 -0600 Subject: Dumbledore's near-criminal irresponsibility Message-ID: <003b01c6fb93$961af070$8b560043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 160599 One thing that occurs to me about Dumbledore is that his behavior sometimes devolves into irresponsibility that's nearly criminal in its intensity. In some ways, he's a bit like Hagrid. Hagrid's almost impossible to hurt, and tends to think that other, smaller people are just about as invulnerable as he is, so he often endangers others (Aragog, Buckbeak) without an ounce of malice. Once Dumbledore got the idea that there was a curse on the Defence Against the Dark Arts teaching position, I'd say that continuing to allow it to exist was playing with the lives and sanity of the hapless, unknowing witches and wizards whom he allowed to teach. Quirrel and Lockhart's fates could be laid at Dumbledore's door, and if Lupin had killed someone in werewolf form, or Moody had died in the trunk, the same could be said of them. Even Umbridge's fate could be tied to the DADA Teachers' Curse---while she's a nasty piece of work and a Ministry suck-up, I honestly don't think she _deliberately set out_ to become a sadistic tyrant. (The Blood Quill might have been SOP at Hogwarts in her time; compared with being, say, hung in chains by one's arms, it does look like nothing much) As Headmaster, not to mention an immensely prestigous wizard, Dumbledore has a great deal of latitude about whom he hires as a teacher, and what is and is not taught at Hogwarts. (Remember, at one point he was thinking about not offering Divination.) Once he twigged that there was some sort of curse on the DADA teacher's job, he should have done something. Perhaps, if he couldn't just quit _having_ a separate DADA class and make sure that what's needed is covered in other classes' curricula (the Patronus Charm, forex, could be covered in Charms class) he could have swapped around and had Binns teach DADA. I don't think there's much that the DADA curse could do to a ghost---they're pretty hard to hurt or kill. Of course, that would leave an opening for a History of Magic teacher---and if "History of Magic" just _happens_ to go into great detail about Dark Magic and how best to resist it, well, a lot of history is the struggle between Dark and Light magic, isn't it? I could just see Snape teaching History of Magic: "You are here to learn the noble and ancient history of magic---the stories of wizards and witches from the earliest recorded times onward. While there is little or no wand-waving here, do not think for a second that this is a useless class. >From the stories of the great wizards and witches of the past, we can learn how best to deal with the threats that face us in the future. We will be discussing great victories, terrible defeats, and accomplishments so stupendous that I doubt that any of you dunderheads could understand them. While this is not the same thing as those lurid historical novels that I see some of you have been reading---such as _Sweet Savage Sorcery_---the history of magekind is a very mature subject. The stories about Rowena Ravenclaw and the Dance of the Seven Veils, Helga Hufflepuff's seduction of the Dark Wizard Gargamel---all of these, and a great deal more, have gone to make up the story of wizardkind." It does occur to me that abolishing DADA, or folding it into other subjects and fobbing it off onto Binns, might cause problems with the OWLs and NEWTs. If this were done, Dumbledore might have to explain that there is reason to believe that there is a curse on the position, and either abolish the DADA OWL and NEWT, or just accept that very few Hogwarts students will do well on those particular tests, and allow for it. From harryp at stararcher.com Sun Oct 29 20:12:08 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:12:08 -0000 Subject: The New Book -- who dies? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160600 > > Maria: > > The rumor is it's one of the threesome! > > Amber: > JKR implied (by mistake) that the trio would live in the very last part of > the "Harry, Carrie and Garp" interview. (It's up at the Leaky Cauldron) Eddie: Amber, would it be possible for you to post a link and/or a snippet of the paragraph where Rowling implied this? Thanks much, Eddie From whytewytch76 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 17:30:49 2006 From: whytewytch76 at yahoo.com (NightChade) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:30:49 -0000 Subject: differences between the British and American publications. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160601 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Heather Collins" wrote: > > Does anyone know why there were (albeit slight) differences in > the text of the British and American publications of the books? > > > These differences consisted mainly of the way phrases were worded. > I think they made the slight changes to make it more easily understood. Altho' why Canadians would know what treacle is more than Americans is beyond me.( we canadians get the British. The American publications seem to come out a bit later) Sherry From harryp at stararcher.com Sun Oct 29 20:46:19 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:46:19 -0000 Subject: New Member and question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160602 > Stacey: > I'm so pleased to have found a forum where I can discuss my obsession > without feeling embarrassed for not being in the under 15 set. Eddie: Welcome. I've only been active here for a couple of months, and just because we're over 15 doesn't mean we're not childish. If I could figure out how to have a food fight over the internet, it would be perfect. > Stacey: > One thing that has perplexed me for > some time is the issue of underage wizards performing magic outside of > Hogwarts. Doesn't Hermione say she's tried some spells with success > on the Hogwarts Express in Book 1? Eddie: I've wondered about this too and I've come up with 2 theories: (1) Her practicing "before" was on the train, which seems to have quite a lot of magic flinging going on. So I suppose the Hogwarts train is in bounds; (2) She didn't know. If I recall, the restriction against the use of underage magic away from Hogwarts is FIRST mentioned in the last paragraph of Book 1. I don't believe it was mentioned in the 1st year's invitation letters. So I guess the question is: when, exactly, did Hermione learn that she wasn't allowed? > Stacey: > She performs "Oculus Reparo" on > the Hogwarts Express and in Diagon Alley. Eddie: * Use of magic on the Hogwarts Express seems to be common (see my comments above) * In Book 6 (have you read that yet, because HERE COMES A SPOILER (sort of)) we learn that the Ministry of Magic can't really tell WHO performs the magic when there is more than one wizard/witch in the house (or in the alley, I suppose). So Hermione's spellwork in Diagon Alley probably escaped detection. > Stacey: > And doesn't Harry > practice "Lumos Maxima" at the Dursley's? Eddie: This is "contamination" from the movie, so isn't official canon. This didn't happen in the books. Eddie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 20:56:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:56:30 -0000 Subject: differences between the British and American publications. In-Reply-To: <4544C2AF.000006.03852@D33LDD51> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160603 Heather: > Does anyone know why there were (albeit slight) differences in > the text of the British and American publications of the books? > These differences consisted mainly of the way phrases were worded. > > Donna responded: > Finally a question that's easy to answer - because of the subtle differences between British English and American English. > Carol adds: More specifically, the changes exist because the British and American editions of the HP books are copyedited separately, by different people working for different publishers (Bloomsbury and Scholastic). A book does not go directly from manuscript to print. One crucial step in the process is copyediting (different from proofreading, which occurs after the book is set in print). Copyeditors in general are responsible for eliminating typographical and mechanical errors in the manuscript, making sure that spelling and capitalization of names and terms peculiar to the book or series are consistent, changing the passsive voice to the active voice where applicable, and, sometimes (too rarely in the case of the HP books, IMO), correcting loose or faulty sentence structure, such as dangling or misplaced modifiers ("a pretty girl in a blue dress that Harry didn't know"!!!). I could point out errors in the American editions that should have been caught and corrected by the copyeditor, such as "miniscule" for "minuscule" in SS, but whether they also occur in the British editions, I can't say. In addition to the usual copyediting duties, the American copyeditor has to change British spelling and punctuation, and, to some degree, British words and expressions to American equivalents. For example, "pot plant" is changed to "potted plant" in PoA so that American kids won't think Hannah Abbott is suggesting that Sirius Black can change himself into a marijuana plant. "Toilet" is changed rather inaccurately in some or all of the books to "bathroom" (it ought to be "restroom" since no bathtubs or showers are involved) because we Americans are so squeamish about bodily functions--or because we distinguish between the toilet as an object and the room that contains it. (Steve gave another example upthread of a phrase that's innocuous in British English but sounds obscene to American ears. No need to repeat it here.) In the early books, especially the first one, the publisher was afraid that American children wouldn't be able to figure out or relate to certain terms and expressions such as "philosopher's stone," "Mum," and "jumper," so they were changed to "sorceror's stone," "Mom," and "sweater," respectively. The American copyeditor is now stuck with "sorceror's stone" when references are made to that object in later books, so he or she had to invent a mispronunciation ("sorcerous stone") to match Neville's mispronunciation of "philosopher's stone" in the British edition (or manuscript) of OoP. Fortunately, however, the Weasley jumpers are no longer sweaters and the Weasley kids no longer call their mother "Mom." Other differences, such as the order of the "echoes" coming out of Voldemort's wand in GoF or the presence or absence of "never" in Fudge's "I've [never] heard of a curse scar acting as an alarm bell before" in GoF apparently result from one copyeditor catching and correcting an error that the other didn't catch, or possibly from an error by one but not the other copyeditor that JKR didn't catch. (In theory, changes of that sort should be queried by the copyeditor and accepted or rejected by the author.) The American copyeditor has Miss Fawcett as a Ravenclaw and her boyfriend Stebbins as a Hufflepuff in GoF; the British edition has it the other way around. (I suspect that the American copyeditor is right; either that or there are two Miss Fawcetts in different Houses, and the Miss Fawcett who grows a beard from the age line is a different person from the one chased out of the rosebushes by Snape. Not that it's important, but I like consistency and accuracy.) I can't account for the massive snipping of Dumbledore's speech to Draco about the DEs not being able to kill him if he's already dead except to suggest that JKR asked her British editors to cut the lines because they gave too much away but forgot to make the same request of the editors at Scholastic. I can't imagine a copyeditor (or any other type of editor) inserting such a speech without permission. It simply isn't done. The change has to be Rowling's own idea. In summary, the reason for the differences is that the publishers have (at least two) different people, under different sets of instructions, doing the copyediting. The publishers and the copyeditors are aiming at different audiences with different ideas of correct spelling and punctuation and different vocabularies. (Incidentaly, some expressions that sound ordinary to British ears sound "foreign" or exotic to American ears and give a British flavor to the books that American kids can savor, and I'm glad that Scholastic has decided to leave most of them in. I don't expect them to start using the term "snogging" any time soon, however!) Carol, who sometimes has to "translate" British to American English in her copyediting projects (in addition to the usual job requirements) and thinks she should be paid extra for her trouble! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 21:25:04 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:25:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's inability to perform occlumency In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160605 > > Nicole: > > One huge one you didn't mention, was that Bellatrix taught him > > something Harry failed to learn. Draco learned Occlumency so > > well, that even Snape couldn't read his mind. A big difference > > between them was that Draco had a caring teacher and he didn't > > have dreams he wanted to see. > > > Davida wrote: > I believe it was who was teaching Harry that he couldn't learn > Occlumency. If he had another teacher that was patient with Harry, > he would have learned it. Carol responds to both: First, I'm not so sure that Draco learned Occlumency well. He was rather slow about it, wasting time saying "I know what you're doing! I can block you!" and the block itself was very conspicuous. If Draco tried that on Voldemort, he'd be Cruciod. Snape, in contrast, is a "superb Occlumens" who can conceal a thought or memory without appearing to do so and consequently lie to Voldemort without being detected. Still, Draco learns the basics of Occlumency, as Harry is unable to do. Second, it isn't merely the fact that Snape was teaching him that prevented Harry from learning Occlumency. Snape was actually quite patient (for snape) and explained what Occlumency is and what he expected Harry to do, as well as telling him as much as DD allowed him to say about why Harry was supposed to learn it. And when Harry actually used Protego and revealed some of Snape's own memories, Snape controlled his anger. It was only when Harry refused to block the memory of the dream about the MoM (which he should not have been having because it was Voldemort's dream) that Snape got angry (and, of course, when Harry violated his privacy by entering the Pensieve, by which time it was pretty clear that he wasn't going to learn Occlumency anyway and that the lessons might be doing more harm than good). Setting aside JKR's comments in an interview about why Draco is more adept at Occlumency than Harry (he can compartmentalize his thoughts and feelings and Harry can't), Harry was too angry to learn Occlumency from anybody. More important, he wanted to finish having that dream. The last thing he wanted to do was close his mind to it. He never practiced Occlumency and almost never did what Snape told him to do. How, then, could he have learned it even if he'd had a different teacher? I suspect that the method of teaching Occlumency would not have been different. He'd still have had to fend off Legilimens spells, and he'd still have been reluctant to practice because of the dream. It's unfortunate that Snape couldn't tell him *why* he should stop having that dream and *why* he should stay away from the MoM at all costs. Carol, noting that Snape still thinks that Harry should learn Occlumency, as indicated by the "close your mind" advice at the end of HBP, but fearing that Harry will never learn it and will suffer the consequences From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Oct 29 21:23:07 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:23:07 -0000 Subject: Latin and spells In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160606 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > Seca : > << Unfortunately, what I remembered most about your post was the error > contained in the last paragraph. The spell is /Wingardium Leviosa/, > not /"___" Leviosa/. The entire spell causes something to raise up or > fly, as evidenced by Ron's use of it against the troll in the bathroom > where he does *not* say "Clavium Leviosa" to levitate the club. Catlady: > There is a theory that the incantation (the magic word/s) for a spell > consists of two 'words', one referring to the action and one to the > object. "Accio Firebolt" and "Locomotor trunk" are kind of obvious > examples; 'Mobilicorpus' and 'Mobiliarbus' consist of the action > 'Mobili' and the object, corpus = body and arbus = tree. A listie > suggested that 'Alohomora'is the action, 'aloho' = welcome me, plus > the object, 'mora' = wall. The new learner must say both words while > forming the intention in his/her mind; a more experienced wizard need > speak only the action word because his/her trained intention is enough > to specify the object; a highly skilled mage needs only wand and > intention: for him/her, no words are necessary; Dumbledore needs only > intention (referred to somewhere as 'wandless magic'). > Jordan Random: > << Out of curiosity, any thought on why 'wingardium' instead of > 'penna'? Is there a reason why most spells are latin, and , further, > is there a reason why some are not? "crucio" and "imperio" are both > latin, but "avada kedavra" is aramaic. >> > And 'Alohomora' is neither Aramaic nor Latin. Catlady: > The incantation ('magic words') for Potterverse spells are, as Jordan > said, this weird mix of things that sound like Latin and things that > sound like Aramaic and things that sound like English and things that > kind of sort of sound like Hawaiian (Aloho / Aloha). Geoff: Back in message 158256, I wrote: "I think Tonks has provided the answer. During the currency of the Roman Empire, a large number of countries were under the control of the Empire. These countries spoke their own languages and thus the Empire, for the purposes of administration and rule made Latin a lingua franca. Since the early Christian church was also expanding at this period in history, a similar thing happened and, of course, Latin is often still used in the same capacity in the Catholic church even today. So, it is understandable that Latin spells would have developed in the same way. It needs to be remembered that a huge number of technical words in contemporary English use Latin - and sometimes Greek - roots in their construction. Although I spent my professional career as a teacher of Maths and later Computing, I took Latin at grammar school to exam level in the Fifth Year and have never ever regretted doing so. It is a marvellous portal to understanding language." However, I have commented in the past that either JKR's Latin is not up to scratch or that, for some reason best known to herself, she has distorted her Latin. Let's look at some examples. Is "Mobiliarbus" supposed to mean "Move the tree"? "Mobili-" seems to be related to "mobilis" which means, among other things, moveable but is an adjective and not a verb. The verb to move is "moveo", so the imperative should be "Move-". A tree is "arbor", so should our spell be "Movearbor"? In "alohamora", if the end is supposed to be related to the Latin for wall, then it should be "murus". I must admit that the "Aloha-" smacks of Hawaiian to me though I cannot imagine mediaeval wizards wearing multicoloured shirts or grass skirts! "Finite Incantatem". Curiously, this appears to be a plural "finish" and the correct version of "spell" is "Incantamentum", hence we ought to have "Finite Incantamenta" = "finsh the spells". Finally, the famous "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus" - never tickle a sleeping dragon. "Titillandus" is, I suspect, a gerundive, a verbal adjective. We need here here another Imperative, so we should have "titilla". Overall, I believe that JKR wants her spells to have a basically Latin feel - other than particularly "Avada Kedavra" about which she has commented. This is perhaps similar to Carl Jenkin's "Adiemus" songs which sound like Latin but ain't! End of Classics lesson. :-) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 21:51:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:51:40 -0000 Subject: Resolving Horcrux!Harry issues (was: DobbyWinky/Horcrux!H/Vindicti...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160607 Carol earlier: > > << If Harry is inhabited by a soul bit, he must be an accidental > > Horcrux. If he's a Horcrux, he must be destroyed or Voldemort can't be killed. 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... > > > > Neri: > It's not merely resolvable, it's practically foretold: "and either > must die by the hand of the other." It will also solve the problem of how will Harry kill Voldemort without becoming a murderer. If they > both fall unintentionally while struggling it doesn't count. Carol responds: Actually, no, Neri. "Either" is essentially the opposite of "both." It means "one or the other." So *either* Voldemort will kill Harry *or* Harry will kill Voldemort. And I think we can guess which outcome is more likely. Warning: LOTR spoilers follow: * * * * * * * * * * * * Catlady's scenario reminds me of Frodo and Gollum struggling on the edge of the Cracks of Doom. Only one fell in, and his death wasn't murder. It saved Frodo's soul from corruption by desire for the Ring and Frodo himself from death in the tower because Gollum took the Ring with him. The problem with a similar scene in HP 7, though, is that if Harry is a Horcrux, he *will* have to fall in. The soul bit won't be separate from him as the Ring was separate from Frodo. As I said, though, "either" is not "both," and "neither can live while the other survives" implies that one *can* live if the other dies. Both of them are surviving now, but neither is really living. I suspect that JKR will reward her hero for his victory and recompense him for his sufferings bya allowing him to live as "just Harry," and ordinary young wizard with his own inherited powers and none of Voldemort's. No maimed hero who saves the Shire, erm, WW for others but can't live there himself. There's no Uttermost West that he can sail off to for healing. He'll have to find the strength and resilience to live in his own world, saddened by his losses but made wiser by understanding and the ability to forgive (I mean Snape, of course; not Voldemort) and backed by his surviving friends. Carol, only concerned about how Harry will kill Voldemort without using an Unforgiveable Curse, which would surely corrupt his soul, but 99% sure that he'll survive into the Epilogue with his limbs and powers intact From Aixoise at snet.net Sun Oct 29 21:28:13 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:28:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Member and question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <059d01c6fba1$242c3060$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160608 >Eddie: >[...]If I could >figure out how to have a food fight over the internet, it would be >perfect. Stacey: Thanks for the welcome and reply. Putting on rain slicker just in case... :o) >Eddie: >I've wondered about this too and I've come up with 2 theories: (1) Her >practicing "before" was on the train, which seems to have quite a lot >of magic flinging going on. So I suppose the Hogwarts train is in >bounds; (2) She didn't know. If I recall, the restriction against the >use of underage magic away from Hogwarts is FIRST mentioned in the >last paragraph of Book 1. I don't believe it was mentioned in the 1st >year's invitation letters. So I guess the question is: when, exactly, >did Hermione learn that she wasn't allowed? Stacey: I do believe you're right about the train being in bounds. Ron also attempted a spell on the HE in Book 1 (even if it was a false one) and I'm sure he would have known about the rules governing underage wizards. >Eddie: >* In Book 6 (have you read that yet, because HERE COMES A >SPOILER (sort of)) we learn that the Ministry of Magic can't really >tell WHO performs the magic when there is more than one wizard/witch >in the house (or in the alley, I suppose). So Hermione's spellwork in >Diagon Alley probably escaped detection. Stacey: Yes, I've read Book 6, in fact this past summer I read 1-6 for the second time which is why I'm frustrated that some things still escape me. Likewise, I guess if they couldn't tell that Dobby was the one who performed the magic in the house it would mean that Diagon Alley would be a huge gray area for detection, as well. > Stacey: > And doesn't Harry > practice "Lumos Maxima" at the Dursley's? >Eddie: >This is "contamination" from the movie, so isn't official canon. This >didn't happen in the books. Stacey: Yes of course! Sorry, this is something that really angers me when I have a hard time separating the two. You've been so kind to address my questions! Would you allow me one more (for today I mean LOL)? What about the fact that, 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! Stacey From harryp at stararcher.com Sun Oct 29 22:15:32 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:15:32 -0000 Subject: Either must die (was: Resolving Horcrux!Harry issues) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160609 > > Neri: > > "and either must die by the hand of the other." > > Carol responds: > So *either* Voldemort will kill Harry *or* Harry will kill Voldemort. Eddie: I've often wondered if the "either" and "neither" in the prophecy actualy mean Harry and Voldemort, or whether they refer to Voldemort and Tom Riddle. Meaning, Voldemort is slowly killing the Tom Riddle inside of him and therefore "neither can live". Meaning, the Tom Riddle inside will rise up and kill Voldemort. Meaning, the prophecy wasn't about Harry at all. Eddie From ladypensieve at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 22:43:45 2006 From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:43:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's near-criminal irresponsibility In-Reply-To: <003b01c6fb93$961af070$8b560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160610 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" wrote: One thing that occurs to me about Dumbledore is that his behavior sometimes devolves into irresponsibility that's nearly criminal in its intensity. > Wow, and here I was wondering what he was doing giving an 11 year old an invisibility cloak not once, but twice in PS/SS, first saying he might find a use for it, and the second time with a note saying 'Just in case'. The curse on the DADA position doesn't mean anyone would come to physical harm...just that no one would last more than a year. Quirrel caused his own problems, as did Lockhart. Lupin was in control and very aware of his problems. We could say that Snape was almost 'compelled' to rat him out, LOL. Moody? Not. Umbridge is the one who sent the dementors to get Harry on his home ground - why is there any sympathy for her? Let the centaurs have her. She is cruel and vindictive and does it all in pink, Hem, Hem. Snape - IMHO he took the position because it was the only way to get himself out of Hogwarts and into Voldemort's camp on a more permanent basis. Whether Dumbledore's death was planned or not, we won't know until the 7th book. KathyO From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 22:56:49 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:56:49 -0000 Subject: Resolving Horcrux!Harry issues (was: DobbyWinky/Horcrux!H/Vindicti...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160611 > > Neri: > > It's not merely resolvable, it's practically foretold: "and either > > must die by the hand of the other." It will also solve the problem > of how will Harry kill Voldemort without becoming a murderer. If they > > both fall unintentionally while struggling it doesn't count. > > Carol responds: > > Actually, no, Neri. "Either" is essentially the opposite of "both." It > means "one or the other." So *either* Voldemort will kill Harry *or* > Harry will kill Voldemort. And I think we can guess which outcome is > more likely. > Neri: >From Webster.com http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=either Main Entry: ei?ther 1 : being the one and the other of two : EACH 2 : being the one or the other of two > Carol: > Warning: LOTR spoilers follow: > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > * > > Catlady's scenario reminds me of Frodo and Gollum struggling on the > edge of the Cracks of Doom. Only one fell in, and his death wasn't > murder. It saved Frodo's soul from corruption by desire for the Ring > and Frodo himself from death in the tower because Gollum took the Ring > with him. Neri: A good comparison I didn't think about (not consciously anyway), probably because Gollum, IIRC, didn't fell as a result of the struggle. He fell while he was dancing celebrating his victory. > Carol: > The problem with a similar scene in HP 7, though, is that if > Harry is a Horcrux, he *will* have to fall in. The soul bit won't be > separate from him as the Ring was separate from Frodo. > Neri: Like I wrote upthread, it's not a problem at all, because Harry can fall in and he has a good reason to return alive and even be cleansed of Voldemort's soul in the process. Don't you find the veil conveniently bi-directional? If it was just supposed to be a portal between the world of the leaving and the world of the dead, why couldn't it be over the opening of a cave or a tunnel? The veil hanging over an arch suggests that somebody is going to fall in and appear on the other side. > Carol, only concerned about how Harry will kill Voldemort without > using an Unforgiveable Curse, which would surely corrupt his soul, but > 99% sure that he'll survive into the Epilogue with his limbs and > powers intact > Neri, who is pretty sure of that either . From unicornspride at centurytel.net Sun Oct 29 23:01:54 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 17:01:54 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione. References: Message-ID: <03b901c6fbae$3a6c1180$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160612 >Leah wrote: >Marietta is a young girl brought up by a Ministry employee, who >believes what the Ministry says is right. So do a number of older >and possibly wiser people, such as Percy Weasley, Cornelius Fudge >and the Auror Dawlish to name but a few. She is scared and she >does >wrong, for which action you would be happy to see her dead. Lana writes: I agree that Marietta believes what she did was right, but betraying her "friends" was very wrong. I do not agree with Hermiones choice not to reverse the hex once things were finished, however, Hermione was probably still very upset that the group was betrayed. I am not sure what teenage girl would have reversed it. Girls can be and always will be vindictive when pushed to betrayal point. >Leah wrote: >And having a daughter who suffered from acne during her teenage >years, I'm a bit tired of reading post after post referring to that >condition as if it were no more than the odd freckle. It is a >disfiguring condition and Marietta is, in Rowling's own >words, 'horribly disfigured'. Lana writes: Please don't take this the wrong way, but... having acne isn't the end of the world. Hermione could have done way worse than putting "sneak" across the snitchs (in this case Mariettas) face. And it can be cured by going to the hex wing of the hospital. I am VERY sure that the healers there can and will take care of the problem. After all.. they healed Arthur Weasley. Took time, but they did it. Certainly they can get rid of the "acne" created by a hex of a teenager. Hugs, Lana __._,_.. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 23:13:01 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:13:01 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hex vs Snape on the Tower LONG (was:Re: Views of Hermione) In-Reply-To: <493.58b912fd.3275a5d6@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160613 > >>Alla: > > The comparison I made was condemning Hermione for the hex > regardless of why she did it ( no matter which traitorous actions > brought it up, etc) and Snape's actions on the Tower. > I really do not remember DD!M Snape theorists condemning Snape > for committing the murder on the Tower. Nooooo, multitude of the > reasons had been brought up and the main one of course Dumbledore > made Snape do it. > That is of course the possibility, but I just find funny that > reasons for the murder are being constantly brought up as > justifying circumstances, and the reasons for the hex as > punishment for traitor are being discarded. Betsy Hp: This is a fascinating question, Alla. And one I've had to think about for a bit, because I do feel so very differently about each case. [Totally OT moment: Another reason I pulled out of the discussion on Friday was the Battlestar Galactica episode that night perfectly illustrated everything I found repulsive about Hermione's actions. Very hard to watch and I knew I'd devolve into hysterics if I posted. Seriously kick ass show, and Roslin is so very cool (and beautiful and graceful and loving and wise). End OT] I've ruled out character bias. It's the hex that turned me against Hermione. And it took HBP, when we first get a hint that the hex might be permanent, for that to occur. So I certainly didn't go into the scene looking for reasons to dislike Hermione. So why does the hex strike me as an example of human behavior at its most repulsive and the Tower scene, well, doesn't? To start, I tend to approach the Tower scene as Snape being Dumbledore's Man. But, honestly, even if Snape viciously cut Dumbledore down as a hidden agent of Voldemort, I'd still rank the hex as worse. Which is interesting, because it means that the context *still* doesn't matter to me. Which means I must really see a difference in the two actions themselves. And I think the difference is this: one is trying to masquerade as justice; the other is an act of war. THE HEX AS JUSTICE: There have been attempts within this discussion to say that the DA was formed in a time of war. That those who joined up were actually signing on as little soliders, that they really were forming a private little army. I don't buy that argument. Yes, the threat of Voldemort's return made learning DADA an imperative. But no matter what Hermione may have felt in her heart, she told her recruits that they were signing up for a study group. "...the point is, are we agreed we want to take lessons from Harry?" [OotP scholastic hardback p.343] It's also been suggested that Hermione set the hex up as a defensive tactic. Canon clearly tells us it's a punitive move. "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are and they will really regret it." [ibid p.354] So, coming at the hex from the point of view (my pov ) that it does not take place in a war footing and that it was created to be punitive, the hex becomes a repulsive mockery of justice. It stinks of lynch mobs and kangaroo courts. Hermione takes upon herself the position of judge, jury and executioner. She sets a trap that could have been (and almost was) sprung by an innocent. (As I've said before, Harry came very close to wearing matching spots when Fudge questioned him.) Marietta was counted as guilty without ever hearing the charges against her, without ever having a chance to mount a defense. That she was guilty (apparently) is of no matter. The point is that justice was spat on. And by a girl who constantly wraps herself in the flag of justice and righteousness. And of course, the hex falls directly under "cruel and unusual punishment", something directly forbidden in my country, and I believe in the UK as well. Since we've not seen anyone running around the WW with court sanctioned brands on their faces or court removed limbs, I think it reasonable to suspect that the WW draws a similar line. Which means Hermione not only managed to pervert the meaning of justice beyond the WW, she was actually more brutal than the WW. THE TOWER AS WAR: > >>Julie: > The problem with judging Snape right now is that we don't know > what happened on the Tower. > Betsy Hp: One thing we do know for sure, the Tower took place at a time of war. It could have been the actions of an enemy spy, it could have been the opening gambit on the side of light. But rules always change during war time (as Eggplant has often pointed out ). During WWII (a recent war where the good and bad sides are pretty clear) the Allies firebombed Germany and Japan, knowing that they were decimating cities filled with civilians. Churchill allowed an English town to be destroyed by Nazi bombers in order to hide that the Nazi code had been broken. The USA dropped two nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities to force a more immediate and unconditional surrender. Ugly things happen during war time. Whether Snape was acting for Voldemort or Dumbledore, his actions fell under that particular purview. That his actions are debatable is also a given, just as the above examples I gave have been debated. But Snape's actions are *recognized* as brutal. If Snape is an agent for Voldemort than he faces death (or life imprisonment) as a traitor and spy. Even if Snape is an agent of Dumbledore's and receives a medal for his work, if he did really kill Dumbledore (also under question at this point) I expect he'll be haunted by his actions. No one is attempting to wrap Snape in a flag of justice and righteousness. DDM!Snape folks who think Snape actually killed Dumbledore (a real AK, in other words) see him as having performed a necessarily brutal act to win a war. I can live with that. But to say that Hermione was right to hex Marietta means we have to throw out all of the civilized world's beliefs about justice. This, I am not willing to do. Betsy Hp (took *way* too much time to write this ) From harryp at stararcher.com Sun Oct 29 23:09:09 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:09:09 -0000 Subject: New Member and question In-Reply-To: <059d01c6fba1$242c3060$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160614 > Stacey: What about the fact that, 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! Eddie: Prophetic author? :-D Actually, lots of the names are puns: Professor Vector (a math term) teach arithmancy, Professor Sprout (a vegetable) teaches herbology, Peeves makes people peevish, etc. Too bad Lupin's name ruined the surprise, though. I think that pun was a little too integral to the plot. The "Sectumsempra" hex is also guessable if you know enough Latin, but it's a long time between when it is introduced and when it is used with suprising (to Harry) results. Eddie From random832 at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 23:07:56 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:07:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione/Draco/Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610291507u72c4befcv2bc3d0b62eceef89@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160615 > wynnleaf > Ah, so you are using a UN notion of racism. Thank you for explaining > why it was not the official definition (the UN not being the official > definer of language, only of policy). 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'."? From sunnylove0 at aol.com Sun Oct 29 23:33:04 2006 From: sunnylove0 at aol.com (sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 18:33:04 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The New Book -- who dies? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160616 In a message dated 10/29/2006 1:16:02 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, harryp at stararcher.com writes: Eddie: Amber, would it be possible for you to post a link and/or a snippet of the paragraph where Rowling implied this? _http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html_ (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2006/0802-radiocityreading2.html) Soledad O'Brien: I'm going to pose the final question to you and I'd like all three of you to take a stab at it. You can do it in any order that you would like. If you were to have dinner with any five characters from any of your books -- take a moment to think about it -- who would you invite, and why would they be on your list? Any order. JK Rowling: Well I'd take Harry, to apologize to him (crowd laughs). Um, I'd have to take Harry, Ron and Hermione. Stephen King: Sure. JK Rowling: I would - this is - (crown shouts suggestions). Stephen King: Hagrid, take Hagrid. JK Rowling: See, I know who's actually dead. Stephen King: Pretend you can take them anyways. JK Rowling: Pretend I can take anyone? Well then I would definitely take Dumbledore. I'd take Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione...and.. (crowd shouts characters) um, Hagrid. I'd take Hagrid, yeah. And Owen because he wouldn't take up much space (crowd laughs). ********** It's not an out and out statement, but it throws up red sparks for me. Amber [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Sun Oct 29 23:42:08 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:42:08 -0000 Subject: Baruffio the Mnemonic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160617 I found this great post over on Mugglenet which I feel completely explains Flitwicks odd quip in PS! > Hogwarts Librarian wrote > in Mugglenet's "New Clues 5 Forum"; here: > http://newclues.mugglenet.com/archive/viewtopic.php? t=794&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60 > /Quote/ What if we're looking at this all wrong? What if the point is that Baruffio is being used to teach a lesson? > The phrase has a very catchy ring to it: > > "Never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said 's' instead of 'f' and found himself on the floor with a buffalo on his chest." > > Kind of similar to other catchy phrases we use to remember little things (for example, when trying to remember which way a screw goes we might say to ourselves "righty tighty, lefty loosey"). /End quote/ > > Now Secca: Or more like -- "I before E except after C, Or when sounding like A as in Neighbor and Weigh" The point is, if it was meant as an easy-to-remember jingly little rhyme, then its purpose is simply to drive home the importance of pronunciation in spells. In which case, the story told in the poem need not make any sort of logical sense, in either the muggle OR wizarding world. Actually, the more stark and absurd the image, the better it works as a mnemonic. This also might explain the 'Wizard' title given to Baruffio, which is not seen anywhere else in canon -- it is there to fit the scan of the rhyme. So then, "Baruffio's Brain Elixir" would not necessarily have been made by Baruffio -- This could be the equivalent to naming a product "Georgy Porgy's Love Elixir" Now -- Jo has given us an early version of this Flitwick quote, as 'Scrapbook Content' on her website. In that "First Typed Version of PS," which became Chapter 10 - Hallow'een in the book, the Flitwick quote is *not* set off like a poem. It appears as simply a continuation of the sentence -- "Swish and flick, remember, swish and flick. And saying the magic words properly is very important, too ? never forget Wizard Baruffio, who said 's' instead of 'f' and found himself lying on the floor with a buffalo on is chest ?" But if you look closely, you can see that what I am treating as a 'poem' *is* set off from the rest of the text by dashes. Well -- /I/ like this better than any other theory I've ever heard, by far... Any comments? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 23:51:10 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 23:51:10 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hex vs Snape on the Tower LONG (was:Re: Views of Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160618 > Betsy Hp: > This is a fascinating question, Alla. And one I've had to think > about for a bit, because I do feel so very differently about each > case. > > [Totally OT moment: Another reason I pulled out of the discussion on > Friday was the Battlestar Galactica episode that night perfectly > illustrated everything I found repulsive about Hermione's actions. > Very hard to watch and I knew I'd devolve into hysterics if I > posted. Seriously kick ass show, and Roslin is so very cool (and > beautiful and graceful and loving and wise). End OT] > > I've ruled out character bias. It's the hex that turned me against > Hermione. And it took HBP, when we first get a hint that the hex > might be permanent, for that to occur. So I certainly didn't go > into the scene looking for reasons to dislike Hermione. > > So why does the hex strike me as an example of human behavior at its > most repulsive and the Tower scene, well, doesn't? > > To start, I tend to approach the Tower scene as Snape being > Dumbledore's Man. But, honestly, even if Snape viciously cut > Dumbledore down as a hidden agent of Voldemort, I'd still rank the > hex as worse. > > Which is interesting, because it means that the context *still* > doesn't matter to me. Which means I must really see a difference in > the two actions themselves. And I think the difference is this: one > is trying to masquerade as justice; the other is an act of war. > > THE HEX AS JUSTICE: > > There have been attempts within this discussion to say that the DA > was formed in a time of war. That those who joined up were actually > signing on as little soliders, that they really were forming a > private little army. > > I don't buy that argument. Yes, the threat of Voldemort's return > made learning DADA an imperative. But no matter what Hermione may > have felt in her heart, she told her recruits that they were signing > up for a study group. > > "...the point is, are we agreed we want to take lessons from Harry?" > [OotP scholastic hardback p.343] Alla: I will answer you with Rebecca's post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/?yguid=112798769 She IMO brings a lot of canon, which makes it impossible for me to understand how DADA cannot be considered created in the act of war. Rebecca: For a study group, it sure has a lot of importance, doesn't it? This is where we differ, I think, because I see the following and wonder if it really is a study group to pass an OWL: 'You want to pass your Defence Against the Dark Arts OWL too, though, I bet?' said Michael Corner, who was watching her closely. 'Of course I do,' said Hermione at once. 'But more than that, I want to be properly trained in defence because. because." she took a great breath and finished, 'because Lord Voldemort is back.' 'Well, they've forbidden me to get on the wrong side of Umbridge, too,' said Cho, drawing herself up proudly. 'But if they think I'm not going to fight You-Know-Who after what happened to Cedric -' 'Oh, please,' said Zacharias Smith, rolling his eyes and folding his arms. 'I don't think Expelliarmus is exactly going to help us against You-Know-Who, do you? "The attack might have succeeded had it not been for the fact that they unwittingly chose to stage the attack right outside a compartment full of DA members, who saw what was happening through the glass and rose as one to rush to Harry's aid. By the time Ernie Macmillan, Hannah Abbott, Susan Bones, Justin Finch-Fletchley Anthony Goldstein and Terry Boot had finished using a wide variety of the hexes and jinxes Harry had taught them, Malfoy Crabbe and Goyle resembled nothing so much as three gigantic slugs squeezed into Hogwarts uniform...." Interestingly enough, that group served to bring together those from different houses - and some of those relationships remain even after school, at least that year. And you're right, it wasn't the Order of the Phoenix for Harry, or any of them, even Hermoine. However there is a lot of focus on Voldemort being back and the students comment on being able to "fight" against him. My comparison is for ethics sake, not saying that the DA was the equivalent. The Order is based on such values as trust, loyalty, courage and honor, and as Lupin says: "The Order is comprised only of overage wizards,' he said. 'Wizards who have left school,' he added, as Fred and George opened their mouths. "There are dangers involved of which you can have no idea, any of you. I think Molly's right, Sirius. We've said enough." Betsy: > > It's also been suggested that Hermione set the hex up as a defensive > tactic. Canon clearly tells us it's a punitive move. > > "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know > exactly who they are and they will really regret it." [ibid p.354] Alla: But, but but the defensive part meaning that this would be the defense against Umbridge, no? That they will know and Umbridge will not be able to do anything to them? Betsy: > So, coming at the hex from the point of view (my pov ) that it > does not take place in a war footing and that it was created to be > punitive, the hex becomes a repulsive mockery of justice. It stinks > of lynch mobs and kangaroo courts. Alla: Of course if you not consider DADA creation to be the part of war of course I understand your POV. The thing is as I said above - I cannot grasp how it can be viewed anything else but that, but I of course respect your right to view it that way, I am just regretting that I cannot place myself in your shoes :( ( that is when debate has a cool conclusion to me, when I get were opposing POV comes from) Right now canon screams to me - those kids are in war against Umbridge and prepare themselves to fight against Voldemort, so I am unable to reduce it to just study group, that is just not there to me. But in any event, say you would agree that this was an act of war and defensive measure, would you then view Hermione's actions differently, just as you view Snape's? Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 00:45:27 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:45:27 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hex vs Snape on the Tower LONG (was:Re: Views of Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160619 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But no matter what Hermione may have felt in her heart, she told > > her recruits that they were signing up for a study group. > > > >>Alla: > I will answer you with Rebecca's post: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/?yguid=112798769 > She IMO brings a lot of canon, which makes it impossible for me to > understand how DADA cannot be considered created in the act of war. > Betsy Hp: Oh, I'm quite sure several (not all, but most) of the students saw the importance of learning DADA for reasons beyond their OWLs. But it's made *very* clear, IMO, that this was not an army being formed. "We think the reason Umbridge doesn't want us trained in Defense Against the Dark Arts," said Hermione, "is that she's got some... some mad idea that Dumbledore could use the students in the school as a kind of private army. She thinks he'd mobilize us against the Ministry." "Nearly everybody looked stunned at this news; everybody except Luna Lovegood..." [OotP scholastic hardback p.344] Hermione treats the idea of the DA being an actual army as a joke. Everyone at the meeting is "stunned" by the idea. No one here thought they were being recruited into an army. So as important as the students thought this study-group to be, they still saw it as a study-group rather than an act of war. > >>Betsy Hp: > > It's also been suggested that Hermione set the hex up as a > > defensive tactic. Canon clearly tells us it's a punitive move. > > > >>Alla: > But, but but the defensive part meaning that this would be the > defense against Umbridge, no? That they will know and Umbridge > will not be able to do anything to them? Betsy Hp: That's not how it worked out, though. Marietta told Umbridge, got her brand, Umbridge sent the IS after the DA group. Dobby got there in time to warn most of the DA to flee, but not because of Marietta's spots. And Umbridge even figured out where most of the DA would flee to, and her IS managed to grab the list of members. Umbridge was in a position to do *anything* to them. Dumbledore saved the day here, not Hermione. > >>Betsy: > > So, coming at the hex from the point of view (my pov ) that > > it does not take place in a war footing and that it was created > > to be punitive, the hex becomes a repulsive mockery of justice. > > It stinks of lynch mobs and kangaroo courts. > > > >>Alla: > Of course if you not consider DADA creation to be the part of war > of course I understand your POV. Betsy Hp: Yay! > >>Alla: > > But in any event, say you would agree that this was an act of war > and defensive measure, would you then view Hermione's actions > differently, just as you view Snape's? Betsy Hp: Hmm... That would cast a bit of a different light on it. One issue for me is that as a defensive measure it was an utter failure. If this really were a war I'd expect Hermione to be called on the carpet for that. And for making that sort of call all by herself. (She's not the leader of the group. She passed that role over to Harry, therefore Harry should have been consulted about the hex.) And... it's not really an aggressive move. I suppose one could say that it identifies a spy, which is good. But a flaw is, what if all of the DA were rounded up and questioned? Harry was about to talk to Umbridge about the DA, so he'd have been marked too. How many students (especially if they were questioned seperately) would have talked? Would there have been anyway to figure out who spoke first if Umbridge was interested in keeping it a secret? And there's still the fact that Marietta is left with what appears to be a permenant brand. Now, if this were a real war setting, I'd expect her to be executed as a traitor (and the twins to be executed as deserters), so the brand would only be a problem for so long. I'd still be bothered by the fact that the members of this army were recruited under false pretenses. That they weren't told flat out, we're at war, so war rules apply. But yeah, if this had been written as occuring in an actual war setting, I suppose the brutality of the action would have bothered me a bit less. Though deliberate maiming as punishment is ugly even during war time, IMO. So I'd certainly see Hermione as a particulary ruthless general. Though, actually -- the failure of the hex to actually do anything, the favoritism of punishing the traitor but not the deserters... I'd expect Hermione to be dismissed, quite frankly. Found a nice quiet desk somewhere. Too much brutality with too little pay-off. Snape is still better. His brutality actually has a massive pay- off, no matter what side he ends up being on. Betsy Hp (kind of steam of thought this one, hope it makes sense ) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 00:46:36 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:46:36 -0000 Subject: Harry's ...perform occlumency/Views of Hermione/Wizards... racists In-Reply-To: <00f701c6fb8a$14026e00$e68c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160620 --- "Magpie" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > > > I don't think the key point is so much that Harry > > couldn't learn Occlumency, but more that he didn't. > > ... Several times in the Occlumency classes Harry > > did very effectively block Snape's access to his > > thoughts. ... > > Magpie: > I believe (Harry) was able to shove Snape's own > Legilimency charm back with shield charms, but never > really did Occlumency, which is cloaking his own mind > and separting himself from his emotions. ... > > Snape's methods certainly didn't help but I think most > of Harry's trouble with Occlumency comes from himself > and not just the teacher. ... bboyminn: Oh, on your last point above, I agree. Harry certainly carries part of the blame for the Lessons. I think he was just as curious as anyone to see what interesting memories would come up in the Occlumency lessons. However, when a memory comes along that Harry truly doesn't want Snape to see, he is able to cut off Snape's vision. True he doesn't necessarily do it by the truest application of pure Occlumency, but he does it, and it shows he has an awareness and a skill, similar to his Imperius resisting skill, that implies he has some aptitude for this. Keep in mind, I'm not saying Harry is every going to be and expert at this, in fact, he will probably hardly be more that passable, BUT, and this is a big but (I love saying that), he is better than we have so far been lead to believe. Note that in the beginning of the lessons, Harry does specifically ask Snape some critical questions, and Snape does reply in a way that should have made Harry aware of the true danger, but it was never mentioned again, and I ask anyone who has kids or works with kids, if they have ever gotten the /point/ from a single mention. This was the most critical aspect of the whole lesson, and logically it would have been emphasized many times but for Snape's arrogance and Dumbledore's insistance that people only get the minimum necessary information. I think Snape, Dumbledore, AND HARRY all share a degree of the blame, and didn't mean to imply by my post that Harry bore no responsibility. I also reaffirm my belief that a patient, more communicative, and more systematic teacher would have produced better results. Again, I point out that you must learn to walk before you learn to run. > > Alla: > > I believe the parallel towards racism in the books goes > mainly towards Muggleborns though. ... > > Magpie: > ...the parallels in the book are ...about Muggleborns, > not Muggles. I'm just saying I think wynnleaf calls it > something other than racism because Pureblood/ > Muggleborn doesn't seem like a direct parallel, though > the mindset is the same. ... > bboyminn: I think the term 'racism' in a broad and general context is inappropriate, but in another sense it is not necessarily racial racism, but social and self-preceived superiority racism. One example of Muggle-born 'racism' is the way the European aristocrats look down on the common man. I mean Britain still has 'The House of Lords', as if being a 'lord' somehow makes you more capable of deciding the fate of a country than someone else. So, in a sense, pure wizards are 'lords' and muggle-borns are just common men, inexperience, and of such poor skill as to not being capable of 'deciding the fate of a country'. Muggle racism, is probably closer to true racism. As an example, it seems that (highly generalized) the Arabs hate the Jews, but they are the same race, just a different culture. Yet Arab (and others) hatred of Jews is considered racism even though race is not the true issue. So, I see the Wizard's view of pure muggles as somewhat closer to a very benevolent version of the British original view towards Blacks and Indians (from India). They viewed them as a simple people of no real talent who were able to take care of the basic necessities of life, but were of no real or worthwhile intellect. Sad but true, it is the classic 'imperial' attitude. > eggplant: > > Don't be silly, without Hermione's curse that piece > > of filth called Marietta would have spilled the beans > > in Umbridge's office, .... > > Magpie: > Err...no, I don't think in the real world ... she would > have been shot at all. ... > > eggplant: > > Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of revisionism, but > > this Marietta is a hero and Hermione is a villain > > business just won't fly. > > Magpie: > You certainly are a fan of revisionism if what you're > getting from this discussion is Marietta=hero and > Hermione=a villain. > > -m > bboyminn: Once again I will point out that Merietta has ZITS, true they are arranged a little more distinctly than the average teenage ZITS but they are none the less 'zits'. She was NOT mercilessly beat in the face with an Ugly Stick. As to the long term nature of those Zits, we have yet to see the long term nature, so Marietta hasn't been 'scarred' for life, at least not yet. Until we have the final book, I don't think we can condemn Hermione for what she did. I'm sure if she had been the evil vindictive shrew some are making her out to be, she could have done far far far worse than 'zits'. As to the 'illegal' nature of the DA Club, again I plea for perspective. Illegal Law are in and of themselves 'illegal', and the minute Dumbledore triumphed those corrupt laws were thrown out. It is not wrong to fight against corrupt governments and their corrupt laws, and while we are on the subject, this was an Educational Decree which I hardly think is a capital crime. Though the distinction between civil and criminal law seems somewhat uncertain at best. None the less, this is a clear case of a corrupt government making corrupt laws for clearly illegal purposes that put the people they ruled over second and their own self-interests first. I think it is every citizens duty to stand up at all cost against corruption and gross neglegence commited by government. 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. The side of Right trumps the side of law every time. So, my central points is to not condemn Hermione until she has had a chance to redeem herself. The 'spots' may fade on their own, or Marietta may find a solution for them, or Hermione may take pity now that it is crystal clear that Voldemort is back and she may remove Marietta's spots. This is afteral the time to join together for a common cause and the common good. Past petty afronts may be set aside when much great and far more important tasks lie ahead. Give the poor girl a chance. STeve/bboyminn From kennclark at btinternet.com Sun Oct 29 20:31:10 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:31:10 -0000 Subject: We are not wizards - and it shows! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160621 Dear, oh dear, oh dear. What a fankle some of us are getting ourselves into. Dumbledore is a criminal. Hermione is really foolishly, dangerously, incoherently (even) wicked. The Dursleys are victims (and not of themselves). We have even had Mrs Weasley as a bad mother! Wise up people! Remember we are talking about wizards. Remember Hagrid happily accepting that putting so many witches and wizards in one place is bound to be dangerous. Remember a Triwizard tournament that regularly in the past produced fatalities and even today had a contest with a dragon for starters. Remember the sheer power that each of these magical people has at their disposal, the bat bogie hex etc etc. These are different people in a different situation whose acceptance of danger is at a wholly different level from ours. A culture whose acceptance of "law" is wholly different from yours. Trying to take the morality of Mrs Smith from Omaha or South Croydon and judging the activities of the magical culture in the Potterverse against that standard is simply a waste of time. They are different people from an utterly different culture with a very different history. In a sense you are being culturally imperialist to ascribe plusses and minuses to their behaviour by holding it up to a mirror of your own. Too much like what is happening in the real world for my liking. Kenneth Clark From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 00:27:24 2006 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:27:24 -0000 Subject: Reichenbach Falls -- was Resolving Harry/Horcrux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160622 > >>Carol: > >> 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 emochiq at yahoo.com Sun Oct 29 22:29:57 2006 From: emochiq at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:29:57 -0000 Subject: Ron's spell on Scabbers (was:Re: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: <059d01c6fba1$242c3060$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160623 > >>Stacey: > >> Ron also attempted a spell on the HE in Book 1 (even if it was a false one) and I'm sure he would have known about the rules governing underage wizards. << Mariya: To comment on what was said about Ron proforming the spell on Scabbers on the HE, it's not that the spell was false it's probabaly a working spell. But considering the fact that Scabbers is actually Peter Pettigrew the spell wouldn't work (...turn this stupid fat RAT yellow...") From Aixoise at snet.net Mon Oct 30 00:45:52 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 19:45:52 -0500 Subject: Name Puns in Potterverse (was:Re: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <062501c6fbbc$c0b9bfe0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160624 Eddie said: "Actually, lots of the names are puns: Professor Vector (a math term) teach arithmancy, Professor Sprout (a vegetable) teaches herbology, Peeves makes people peevish, etc." Don't forget Sirius (although could he have chosen his animagus because of his name?). It's always caused a few giggles around here when we talk of a local dentist named Dr. Yank (true story!) and I've always wondered what would have happened if our local chiropractor, surname Lord, was called to the priesthood. :o) Maybe Harry will turn toward ceramics? LOL Stacey From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Oct 30 01:31:56 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:31:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's ...perform occlumency/Views of Hermione/Wizards... racists References: Message-ID: <01b201c6fbc3$308dc630$e68c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160626 > bboyminn: > > Once again I will point out that Merietta has ZITS, true > they are arranged a little more distinctly than the > average teenage ZITS but they are none the less 'zits'. > She was NOT mercilessly beat in the face with an Ugly > Stick. Magpie: Yes, she was. She has close-set oozing purple pustules. How attractive does that sound to you? Zits are clogged pores on the surface. Cystic acne can be terribly disfiguring. Calling this "zits" makes it seem like maybe you actually do have the same problem with them as others do, because if what Hermione did is no big deal why the need to replace her own hex with the friendlier zits? Steve: > As to the long term nature of those Zits, we have yet to > see the long term nature, so Marietta hasn't been 'scarred' > for life, at least not yet. Magpie: The author finds time to mention Marietta covering up her acne with heavy make up in the next book, doesn't she? And then we never see her again so have every reason to think it still exists. It seems pretty long-term to me. And again, it's not so bad as long as you make it into the opposite of what's written. Steve: Until we have the final book, > I don't think we can condemn Hermione for what she did. > I'm sure if she had been the evil vindictive shrew some > are making her out to be, she could have done far far far > worse than 'zits'. Magpie: Leaving aside that calling them "zits" is intentionally downplaying what they are when JKR is clear that it's not just a few zits, anything can happen in the seventh book to soften it. But I agree with people who reject the rewrites to take care of the problem. They aren't zits, they're close-set oozing purple pustules that are horribly disfiguring. They don't clear up on their own, because we get a nod to them in the next book. I'm perfectly willing to give "poor Hermione" a chance in the next book, but at this point Hermione seems to have a pretty consistent pattern of doling out punishment and never looking back, not even to watch her own. It's kind of ironic that we've got this major plotline where Sirius Black treats Snape badly and then years later could have used Snape's back up and can't get it because of that, yet Hermione's laughing off people looking at her with hatred because she's done something to them. Kenneth Clark: Wise up people! Remember we are talking about wizards. Remember Hagrid happily accepting that putting so many witches and wizards in one place is bound to be dangerous. Remember a Triwizard tournament that regularly in the past produced fatalities and even today had a contest with a dragon for starters. Magpie: Our good guys have no problem being shocked and appalled by this kind of thing when it happens to themselves, so no, I don't think anybody's going overboard just because they aren't cheering at whatever they do. The jokey references to fatalities of past tournaments don't stop GoF from shocking us with the death of one of the contestants. Not being on the "correct" side of an issue doesn't mean you're not looking at it from the pov of a Wizard. Wizards don't all agree on all these issues. And of course when it comes down to something like whether Molly Weasley's parenting style is so great, that's a human question, not a Wizard one. These books seem to obviously encourage us to bring our own sense of right and wrong to them. I don't think there's anything more imperialist in saying you think Hermione was a psycho in one scene than it is saying that Hermione acted like a good soldier. We're all using our own pov and there's not a lot in the books so far that seem so foreign I can't draw my own conclusions. -m From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 02:13:28 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 21:13:28 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0610291813s5f185945w162468a5660a66c6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160627 I should not be weighing in at this late hour (especially since Snow has called off the duel), but here goes anyway, for what it's worth . . . Carol wrote: The Voldiebit, whatever it is (and it may not be a soul bit) does not necessarily make Harry a Horcrux, any more than Ginny was a Horcrux when Diary!Tom possessed her. The diary, even without Ginny's soul, is different from the other Horcruxes because it contains at least one *memory* of Tom Riddle in addition to the soul bit. Consequently, we can't use it to determine the characteristics of a standard Horcrux, which is merely an object (preferably a valuable, magical object) in which a soul bit is encased. It may or may not contain a protective curse, as the ring did. Debbie: I thought it was Diary!Tom's actions that convinced Dumbledore that it was a Horcrux; in other words, it was *more* than a memory. From ch. 23: "A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere memory, sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had fallen? No, something much more sinister had lived inside that book . . . a fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it." In other words, it was the soul bit that animated the diary. A mere memory would not have been able to interact with Harry, as Diary!Tom does when he first writes in it. It was Tom, I believe, who would not want to reveal that he had created a Horcrux, that called it a 'memory.' Had the diary fallen into Dumbledore's hands, I doubt that Tom would have revealed himself. Dumbledore goes on to note the most sinister aspect of the diary: "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 that Slytherin's monster would be unleashed again." In other words, it was not the memory that was unique about the Diary horcrux. It was that Tom had devised a means of accessing the soul within. I see no evidence that the other soul bits do (or did) not include memories. The difference is that there is no way to access them; they are too well encased. > Carol earlier: > > > But I think that if Harry thought his scar contained a soul bit, > he'd see himself as a Horcrux and believe that he has to be > sacrificed, which takes us back to the unsolvable dilemma of how to > destroy himself, the last Horcrux, and kill Voldemort, too. > Debbie: Actually, if Harry destroyed the last Horcrux, anyone could kill Voldemort. But Dumbledore might have withheld the suggestion that Harry was the last Horcrux precisely because he didn't want Harry to be focusing on his own self-destruction. And although I'm a big Harrycrux fan, I've come to believe that Harry's self-sacrifice won't be necessary. > Carol: > Wouldn't it be simpler if Harry simply had some of Voldemort's powers? > That way there's no soul bit to eliminate and no chance of his > confusing himself with a Horcrux. (As I said, I still don't see how a > soul bit could have gotten into Harry without a spell, and if it did, > he's to all intents and purposes a Horcrux.) > Debbie: This is where it becomes clear to me that one person's answer is another person's dilemma. From the first point in time that we learned about the transfer of powers, I wanted to know how this happened. The Harrycrux theory is the only explanation that I have every found satisfying, because it doesn't make sense to me that powers exist apart from the owner of the powers, which means that they are either connected to the body or the spirit, or soul. > Carol: > > I think he had only the one power because he had no body. Once he > could hold a wand again, he could perform any of the spells he knew > before and could perform Legilimency. > Debbie: I agree with this conclusion, though I don't think it's important to whether Harry was a horcrux. Logically, each soul fragment contains whatever composes a soul, just in smaller quantities (just as each cell contains a complete set of the individual's DNA). If a person's soul includes its magical powers, they will be present in each soul fragment. > > Snow: > > > > I wouldn't call it possession per se but we do know that Harry felt > > as if he knew Tom Riddle for some reason when he first heard his > > name. We also know that Harry was becoming a bit dark in GOF > > (Voldemort had some type of body) and even more so in OOP (Voldemort > > was fully resurrected to a human form) when he resorted to the use > of an unforgivable curse on Bella before his actual possession > attempted by Voldemort in the Atrium, which rid Voldemort's connection > through Legilimency that was probably influencing Harry's dark side > or, in other words, the soul fragment connection. > > Carol: > Or rather, the scar connection, which, like the Dark Marks on the arms > of the Death Eaters, grew stronger as Voldemort grew stronger. The > soul fragment connection is an assumption on your part. > Debbie: Except that in CoS Voldemort wasn't strong at all, and he was far away, in Albania. Moreover, recognizing Riddle's name is a cognitive act, whereas the Dark Mark is just a specialized Protean Charm. I don't recall that Harry's scar was bothering him so much in CoS, so I'm not sure that would explain why Harry recognized Riddle's name. Debbie > . > . > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 02:42:04 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:42:04 -0000 Subject: "Elf" etymology and Albus Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160628 I was looking up "dwarf" to see if the correct plural was "dwarfs," (as in "Snow White and the . . ." or "Dwarves," as in Tolkien's works (turns out that the first is preferred, but the second is an accpted alternate form) and then decided to look up the plural of "elf" as well. (I thought that "Elves" was Tolkien's invention; turns out that "elves" is the accepted plural. It's only the capitalization of "Elf" and "Dwarf" as "races" that's peculiar to Tolkien, apparently. However, in the midst of this pseudoscholarly research, I discovered the following (from Merriam-Webster online): ?Main Entry: elf Pronunciation: 'elf Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural elves /'elvz/ Etymology: Middle English, from Old English ?lf; akin to Old Norse alfr elf & perhaps to Latin albus white -- more at ALB 1 : a small often mischievous fairy 2 : a small lively creature; also : a usually lively mischievous or malicious person" Obviously closer to JKR's house-elves, especially Kreacher, than to Tolkien's magnificent immortals. But what caught my attention was the connection of "elf" to "albus." Did JKR know? Did she name Dumbledore Albus for this reason? Might the Dumbledore brothers have a distant house-elf ancestor, which might account for Albus Dumbledore's ability to do wandless magic? (I say distant because, unlike Flitwick, whom JKR has stated somewhere has a goblin ancestor, the Dumbledore brothers are normal sized. In fact, Albus, at least, is described as tall and I believe that Aberforth is as well.) Thoughts on this possibility, anyone? Carol, who associates the name Albus with white (or light) magic but wonders if there may be more to it than she previously thought From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 30 02:50:48 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:50:48 -0000 Subject: "Elf" etymology and Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160629 Carol wrote: (snipping, because I'm supposed to) Did JKR know? Did she name Dumbledore > Albus for this reason? Might the Dumbledore brothers have a distant > house-elf ancestor, which might account for Albus Dumbledore's ability > to do wandless magic? Potioncat: Once upon a time, folks around here thought DD wanted socks because they would set him free. Now you've found another connection to house- elfdom. And I've heard, for the second time, Dobby say how proud he was to keep Professor Dumbledore's secrets. (GoF) As for wandless magic. Haven't we also seen Snape and possibly Lupin perform wandless magic? From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 02:58:56 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:58:56 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160630 I've decided that I'm going to retire from this thread. The heat to light ratio has gone way too high, and frankly, I don't like the tone of my own responses. For some reason, I seem to producing way more snark than humor, though I try to aim for more humor than snark, at least in my own perception (those of you who've been the targets of my humor in the past may be forgiven for doubting this). So, in the little time for posting I foresee myself having in the near future, I shall confine myself to less controversial topics, such as my rigorous mathematical proof that Severus Snape once used a time-turner to become his own father, thus making him a mothe.... But that's a topic for another post. Amiable Dorsai From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Oct 30 03:01:20 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:01:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin (was Re: New Member and question In-Reply-To: <059d01c6fba1$242c3060$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160631 > Stacey: What about the fact that, 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: It seems obvious now, but wasn't it pretty far into the book before we learned his first name? We've discussed his name quite a bit here, and one arguement you'll get is that Lupin isn't wolf, lupine is. Lupin is a flower...and if I'm to believe a very large number of novels, lupins are in every British garden. (I cannot remember if the flower is spelled lupin or lupine in the US) So I've wondered if anyone thought of Professor Lupin as having a rather gentle name--as if it had been Professor Rose. (I do know a family with that surname.) 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. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 03:08:43 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:08:43 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hex vs Snape on the Tower LONG (was:Re: Views of Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160632 Alla: > > Of course if you not consider DADA creation to be the part of war of > course I understand your POV. > > The thing is as I said above - I cannot grasp how it can be viewed > anything else but that, but I of course respect your right to view > it that way, I am just regretting that I cannot place myself in your > shoes :( ( that is when debate has a cool conclusion to me, when I > get were opposing POV comes from) > > Right now canon screams to me - those kids are in war against > Umbridge and prepare themselves to fight against Voldemort, so I am > unable to reduce it to just study group, that is just not there to > me. > > But in any event, say you would agree that this was an act of war > and defensive measure, would you then view Hermione's actions > differently, just as you view Snape's? Ceridwen: I'll play. I won't, of course, be answering for anyone else, only myself. At the time the DA is begun, yes, Harry, Ron and Hermione see themselves in a war situation. Not against Umbridge so much as against Voldemort. They know that Harry is telling the truth about LV's return. Yes, of course they are trying to circumvent the non- teaching of dear Dolores. But she is not the primary reason for urgency in learning defense. It is absolutely necessary, to the trio, that they and other students learn how to defend themselves against LV. But the other students do not necessarily believe - no, I will say that they do not believe - that LV is back. The Ministry, and the Daily Prophet, have begun a campaign calling Harry and Dumbledore into question. Harry is now Boy Who Went EMO, Dumbledore is silly old fool who is losing his greatness (what a pity, *sigh*). As we saw in GoF, most people in the WW seem to believe what they read in the Prophet without critical thought. If even Molly Weasley is influenced against Hermione, and she knows Hermione and is an adult with what we hope are good critical skills, then what can we expect from the children, who are not yet adept at critical thought? Hermione, being Hermione, is also genuinely worried about her O.W.L.s. Umbridge's teaching method, which is no teaching at all beyond some namby-pamby mollycoddling and Cowering 101, will not give the students the practical work necessary to get good marks on their exams. She, at least, really has two reasons for wanting the DA club. And, didn't Harry have the same concern? So, to downplay the actual war aspects of the club is natural, since many if not all of the other students do not believe that LV is back, based on their trust in the Prophet. I think Cho believed, since she lost Cedric. That is maybe why she was so insistent that her friend Marietta join - she did understand that war was coming. But for the purpose of the first meeting, there is no talk of war. They only talk about their studies and the need for the practical work they will get in the club. Some do want to know what happened with Cedric, but Harry is understandably not able to discuss it. He is unable to give them the evidence they seem to want that will put a lie to the Prophet's stories. So, they have no independent source, only the Prophet. And look at the portrait the Prophet is painting! The club is officially begun as a study group. Some understand, perhaps, and some guess. But officially, it is just a study group and the convener, Hermione, doesn't say otherwise. Not even when she asks them all to sign the parchment. No matter what Hermione privately thinks, and no matter how Harry and Ron see the club, nothing is said to the others that would make them think this is more than what it is advertised to be. Ginny makes a joke about calling it Dumbledore's Army, and it is written on the top of the membership list that is later confiscated by Umbridge and her IS. But the official reading of the initials means something different. So far, also, Umbridge has been a slimey character, but has not done anything (to anyone's knowledge, she doesn't confess to the Dementor connection until much later in the book) to merit a war being declared against her. The only problem as far as the DADA class is concerned is her ineffectual teaching of the subject. And throughout OotP, LV is keeping a low profile. The Ministry's efforts to discredit Harry and Dumbledore serve his purpose. He is left alone by the Ministry, and has time to consolodate his position. Instead of saying this is like WWII, I would say that this is more like the period of time before the war began, when Hitler was lining all his ducks up in a row. War has not officially been declared, though certain aggressive actions have been mounted. And this is why I can't accept that Hermione's jinx was an understandable action in time of war. Move the situation ahead a year into HBP, after LV has publicly 'returned' in a way that the MoM cannot ignore, and yes, it would very much be. But this hadn't happened yet. The French Underground scenario is still in the future. If the DA club had been begun after the battle at the MoM, then yes, everyone signing that paper would have reason to understand that the story about a study club for the purpose of bettering their marks in the DADA class was just a front. But that was not the case before the MoM battle. If the Ministry had accepted Harry's and Dumbledore's word that LV was back at the end of GoF, then this entire conversation wouldn't be happening. But, they chose not to believe, instead mounting a campaign to discredit Harry and Dumbledore. Unfortunately, the entire WW seems to have been conditioned to believe everything they read in the Daily Prophet. Marietta, being the daughter of a Ministry employee, is uncomfortable from the beginning. IMO, she should not have been included in the club. But as I said, I think Cho realized what was really happening and wanted safety and competency for her friend. Friends want friends to be safe or prepared, after all. Anyway, that is why I don't think the DA Jinx is a wartime necessity. I can only answer for myself. Ceridwen. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Oct 30 03:11:18 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:11:18 EST Subject: Snape and Draco Message-ID: <3bd.10338879.3276c756@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160633 >Magpie I've just always found the Draco/Snape dynamic interesting, and always thought their affection was geniune. They are both very different personalities with different strengths and I like thinking about places where they might truly have an understanding. Nikkalmati: Yes, this is one of the interesting relationships that developed quite a bit in HBP. My question is "what next?" JKR has spent a lot of page time in HBP on Draco showing him developing and suffering. At the end DD uses his last moments to try to save Draco. I don't believe this trouble will be in vain. Draco is on the road to redemption and IMHO probably will not die in the end. He had become too valuable as an example of the possibility of change for the good. Some of us even feel for Narcissa. Nevertheless, we are left with the problem of how SS and DM will relate in the next book. SS is bound by the UV to protect Draco. That means he will have to convince LV that Draco did the best he could and should not be killed. Under the circumstances, he will probably succeed in that mission. So when SS and DM come face to face again what happens? If SS is DDM can he just come out and say "You think I am a loyal DE, but I am not, so follow my example and come over to the Light?" Seems pretty risky for DDMSnape. On the other hand, if SS is an LV supporter or OFH or gray and Draco is no longer a sincere follower of LV, Draco can't exactly tell SS he has had a change of heart. Will they have a meeting of the minds? Will Narcissa bring them together? Nikkalmati (wondering what others think). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Oct 30 03:37:35 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:37:35 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's near-criminal irresponsibility Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160634 technomad As Headmaster, not to mention an immensely prestigous wizard, Dumbledore has a great deal of latitude about whom he hires as a teacher, and what is and is not taught at Hogwarts. (Remember, at one point he was thinking about not offering Divination.) Once he twigged that there was some sort of curse on the DADA teacher's job, he should have done something. Perhaps, if he couldn't just quit _having_ a separate DADA class and make sure that what's needed is covered in other classes' curricula (the Patronus Charm, forex, could be covered in Charms class) he could have swapped around and had Binns teach DADA. I don't think there's much that the DADA curse could do to a ghost---they'ghost---they're pretty hard to hurt or kill. Of course, that opening for a History of Magic teacher---and if "History of Magic" just _happens_ to go into great detail about Dark Magic and how best to resist it, well, a lot of history is the struggle between Dark and Light magic, isn't it? I It does occur to me that abolishing DADA, or folding it into other subjects and fobbing it off onto Binns, might cause problems with the OWLs and NEWTs. If this were done, Dumbledore might have to explain that there is reason to believe that there is a curse on the position, and either abolish the DADA OWL and NEWT, or just accept that very few Hogwarts students will do well on those particular tests, and allow for it. Nikkalmati: This is a perfectly beautiful idea. I nominate you as the new Headmaster of Hogwarts. I suspect there are practical reasons why he could not do this. He would have to get the approval of the Board of Governors to drop DADA wouldn't he? He may not be willing to admit the position is jinxed even after he begins to suspect it. Perhaps, everyone already knows about the jinx - the students seem to be aware of it. In that case, no one would expect to last more than one year. I am not sure terrible things happened to each teacher. If that were the case, absolutely no one would apply long before the time of the SS/PS. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Oct 30 03:48:49 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 22:48:49 EST Subject: Britishims Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160635 Nikkalmati: A couple of terms have been confusing me and maybe some of our UK or associated listees could help me out. By saying "Wozzer" several times Tonks is supposed to tell us something about herself, but I am at a loss. (If it was Wazzup, I would understand).. Does the use of this term mean she is young and hep? or that she is not of the best background (but she is a Black), or what? Also, in British is Maths really a plural or is this a joke? I have only heard it used in the singular, although there may a use which I have not heard - in reference to different types of math (such as calculus vs. geometry). Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From penhaligon at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 04:31:32 2006 From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 20:31:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Britishims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000c01c6fbdc$48ce89f0$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60> No: HPFGUIDX 160637 > Nikkalmati: > > A couple of terms have been confusing me and maybe some of > our UK or associated listees could help me out. > By saying "Wozzer" several times Tonks is supposed to tell us > something about herself, but I am at a loss. (If it was > Wazzup, I would understand).. Does the use of this term mean > she is young and hep? or that she is not of the best > background (but she is a Black), or what? > Also, in British is Maths really a plural or is this a joke? > I have only heard it used in the singular, although there > may a use which I have not heard > - in reference to different types of math (such as calculus > vs. geometry). Panhandle here: Actually, it's "wotcher" and here's the entry on from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wotcher ***** Wotcher is a casual greeting used primarily in the United Kingdom. It has been described as a derivation or corruption of "what cheer". Wotcher can also be a derivation of "What's up?" or "How's it going?". Wotcher is constantly used by Nymphadora Tonks in the Harry Potter book series. She commonly says, "Wotcher Harry!" It is also used by Nanny Ogg in the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett, and one of Russell Hoban's novels, Riddley Walker. Wotcher is also used in the Asterix comic book series. It was also used by "Bodger & Badger" in the children's television programme "Bodger & Badger" ***** Maths is also standard British. There are some good American - British dictionaries on the web that can help, such as http://www.travelfurther.net/dictionaries/ Panhandle penhaligon at gmail.colm From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 05:43:43 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:43:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Draco In-Reply-To: <3bd.10338879.3276c756@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160638 > Nikkalmati: >> Nevertheless, we are left with the problem of how SS and DM will relate in > the next book. SS is bound by the UV to protect Draco. That means he will > have to convince LV that Draco did the best he could and should not be killed. > Under the circumstances, he will probably succeed in that mission. So when > SS and DM come face to face again what happens? If SS is DDM can he just > come out and say "You think I am a loyal DE, but I am not, so follow my example > and come over to the Light?" Seems pretty risky for DDMSnape. On the other > hand, if SS is an LV supporter or OFH or gray and Draco is no longer a > sincere follower of LV, Draco can't exactly tell SS he has had a change of heart. > Will they have a meeting of the minds? Will Narcissa bring them together? zgirnius: I believe Snape is DDM, so I have not really thought through other scenarios. Especially if he is still bound by the Vow, I think Snape can hint to Draco and/or Narcissa that they should be approaching the Order for help. Draco now even has independent reason to believe this, due to Dumbledore's offer of protection for him and his family. From karin_ponce at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 03:16:18 2006 From: karin_ponce at yahoo.com (kariloupon) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:16:18 -0000 Subject: "Elf" etymology and Albus Dumbledore, 'wandless' magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160639 Carol: > Might the Dumbledore brothers have a distant house-elf > ancestor, which might account for Albus Dumbledore's > ability to do wandless magic? Karin: Harry performed wandless magic before he knew he was a wizard. Animagi and metamorphmagi perform their transfigurations without wands, too. Hi. I'm new. Nice to meet you. And I love Harry Potter discussion! From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Oct 30 05:20:49 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:20:49 -0500 Subject: Latin and spells Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160640 Geoff: "Finally, the famous "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus" - never tickle a sleeping dragon. "Titillandus" is, I suspect, a gerundive, a verbal adjective. We need here here another Imperative, so we should have "titilla"." BAW: Yes, a more precise translation would be something like, "One ought never to tickle a sleeping dragon," or "A sleeping dragon should never be tickled." The gerundive indicates 'necessity obligation or propriety', as most Latin grammars put it. But translating the Latin gerundive as an English 'general imperative' is perfectly acceptable. (The Latin imperative usually is a 'specific imperative.' "Noli tittilare draconem dormientem" would be commanding a specific person on a specific occasion not to tickle a specific sleeping dragon. The gerundive indicates that tickling sleeping dragons is generally not something that one should do.) (Classics major. Can you tell?) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 30 07:30:46 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:30:46 -0000 Subject: Britishisms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160641 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > Nikkalmati: > Also, in British is Maths really a plural or is this a joke? I have only > heard it used in the singular, although there may a use which I have not heard > - in reference to different types of math (such as calculus vs. geometry). Geoff: Maths is no joke. It is the standard UK English abbreviation for Mathematics. I taught Maths for over 30 years and was part of my school timetable team, building and printing the timetable books and wouldn't mind having a pound for every time I wrote or typed the word. Math is very definitely of /those/ US English-isms such as "snuck" and "gotten". Geoff {whose favourite colour is red and who likes to walk on the pavement rather than the road:-)} From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 30 07:41:13 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:41:13 -0000 Subject: New Member and question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160642 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" wrote: > > > Stacey: What about the fact that, 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! > > Eddie: > Prophetic author? :-D > > Actually, lots of the names are puns: Professor Vector (a math term) > teach arithmancy, Professor Sprout (a vegetable) teaches herbology, > Peeves makes people peevish, etc. > > Too bad Lupin's name ruined the surprise, though. I think that pun > was a little too integral to the plot. The "Sectumsempra" hex is also > guessable if you know enough Latin, but it's a long time between when > it is introduced and when it is used with suprising (to Harry) results. Geoff: I didn't guess about Lupin. Why not? Because "lupin" is a flower. The English word I associate with wolf-like qualities is "lupine". The Latin word for wolf is "lupus" which i wouldn't immediately link to "Lupin" because I never discoursed at length about wolves in my Latin lessons. :-) As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a whole raft of punning names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Umbridge, Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new meaning for Apparition and Disillusion. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 11:31:55 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:31:55 -0000 Subject: Hermione's Hex vs Snape on the Tower LONG (was:Re: Views of Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160643 > Alla: > > But, but but the defensive part meaning that this would be the > defense against Umbridge, no? That they will know and Umbridge will > not be able to do anything to them? > > Betsy: > > So, coming at the hex from the point of view (my pov ) that it > > does not take place in a war footing and that it was created to be > > punitive, the hex becomes a repulsive mockery of justice. It > stinks > > of lynch mobs and kangaroo courts. > > > > Alla: > The thing is as I said above - I cannot grasp how it can be viewed > anything else but that, but I of course respect your right to view > it that way, I am just regretting that I cannot place myself in your > shoes :( ( that is when debate has a cool conclusion to me, when I > get were opposing POV comes from) a_svirn: It is also Marietta's POV. *She* signed in ? without much enthusiasm -- as a member of a study group. As such she should have had a right to quit without any fear of reprisal. Could she quit? I am not sure. Hermione used the proverbial peer pressure quite shamelessly (and in the end quite stupidly) to bully everyone present into sighing the list. That she also tricked them into signing a magical contract of sorts was indeed a shabby trick ? Cho is quite right about that. Hermione herself engineered a situation when unwilling members of DA who wanted out would turn to authorities for help. And, honestly, even those who were quite loyal would probably think twice before trust Hermione now. I certainly would in their place. > Alla: > Right now canon screams to me - those kids are in war against > Umbridge and prepare themselves to fight against Voldemort, so I am > unable to reduce it to just study group, that is just not there to > me. > > But in any event, say you would agree that this was an act of war > and defensive measure, would you then view Hermione's actions > differently, just as you view Snape's? a_svirn: Yes, Hermione and some others regarded the whole thing as a form of resistance. NOT that they (even Hermione at that point) saw themselves as some sort of guerrilla army or an underground paramilitary group. Yes, they rebelled against Umbridge, maybe even against the Ministry, but NOT against Voldemort. There is nothing in canon to suggest that DA was a military secret society whose mission was fighting Voldemort.At best it was about self-defence. You don't need a secret network to learn self-defence, however. The need for secrecy had nothing to do with Voldemort and everything to do with Umbridge. From unicornspride at centurytel.net Mon Oct 30 12:15:47 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 06:15:47 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Draco References: Message-ID: <00bd01c6fc1d$21c35b60$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 160644 > Nikkalmati wrote: > Nevertheless, we are left with the problem of how SS and DM will >relate in > the next book. SS is bound by the UV to protect Draco. That >means he will > have to convince LV that Draco did the best he could and should >not be killed. > Under the circumstances, he will probably succeed in that >mission. So when > SS and DM come face to face again what happens? . Lana Writes: I think the intent of the UV was for one specific event. With that intent in mind, the UV would then be over once it was completed. SS vowed to protect DM from LV and do whatever it was that LV ordered DM to to do if he could not do it himself. It was not with the intent to keep it going. Cissi was only concerned with that one specific thing. So, realistically, I believe that SS has completed the task set and will now be free of the UV. Hugs, Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Mon Oct 30 13:17:58 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:17:58 -0000 Subject: Britishims In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160645 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > > Nikkalmati: > > A couple of terms have been confusing me and maybe some of our UK or > associated listees could help me out. > By saying "Wozzer" several times Tonks is supposed to tell us something > about herself, but I am at a loss. (If it was Wazzup, I would understand).. Does > the use of this term mean she is young and hep? or that she is not of the > best background (but she is a Black), or what? AmanitaMuscaria now - It's 'Wotcher', and it would be more likely used by Stan Shunpike, or Mundungus possibly. It's a Cockneyism, or at least a Londonism, a greeting. > Also, in British is Maths really a plural or is this a joke? I have only > heard it used in the singular, although there may a use which I have not heard > - in reference to different types of math (such as calculus vs. geometry). > > Nikkalmati AmanitaMuscaria again - I used to make a joke, that I hadn't been smart enough for Maths, I'd just done Math instead. (it only works where someone knows the transatlantic differences).So no joke, I guess. Cheers, AM From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 14:24:36 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:24:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Britishims In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610300624j1539d1cbxa3c1cc29fa25aed8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160646 > > Nikkalmati: > > Also, in British is Maths really a plural or is this a joke? I have only > heard it used in the singular, although there may a use which I have > not heard > - in reference to different types of math (such as calculus > vs. geometry). montims: As a Brit in America, I always have a problem with the word "math". As maths is short for mathematics, it would follow that math is short for mathematic, which sounds (insofar as it is a non-existent word) like an adjective rather than a noun. I am a bit picky with words, and my brain always extends a diminutive to its longer version, so something like that pains me. (As does the greengrocer's apostrophe, and "your" for "you're", "it's" for "its", etc...) I, of course, make my fair share of typos, so don't have a problem with that... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 30 14:36:39 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:36:39 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160647 > "pippin_999" wrote: > > > it was Dobby who warned the DA, it was > > Shacklebolt who kept Marietta from > > incriminating anyone, and it was Dumbledore > > who arranged for Harry to escape punishment > > I can't see that Hermione's curse helped > > with any of that. Eggplant: > Don't be silly, without Hermione's curse that piece of filth called > Marietta would have spilled the beans in Umbridge's office, Pippin: The beans got spilled by Willie Widdershins, six months before. Would Umbridge have called out her boss and two Aurors to witness her crackdown on the Gobstones Club? Obviously, Umbridge didn't need to be told what the meeting was about and who was in charge. She could guess. All the curse did was show that somebody had a secret they were really anxious to keep. To top it all off, it was Hermione's own parchment that provided the proof. Umbridge didn't really need confirmation from Marietta after that. She could still have expelled Harry, she just didn't want to, not when by keeping him at Hogwarts she'd be splitting him off from Dumbledore. Eggplant: > Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of revisionism, but this Marietta is > a hero and Hermione is a villain business just won't fly. Pippin: I don't believe anyone has said that Marietta is a hero. I've only said she didn't deserve to be punished so severely. Nor have I said that Hermione is a villain. But I don't believe that everything she does is praiseworthy, either. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 15:03:14 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:03:14 -0000 Subject: Why Dumbledore doesn't cancel DADA (Was: Dumbledore's near-criminal . . .) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160648 technomad > > As Headmaster, not to mention an immensely prestigous wizard, Dumbledore has a great deal of latitude about whom he hires as a teacher, and what is and is not taught at Hogwarts. (Remember, at one point he was thinking about not offering Divination.) Once he twigged that there was some sort of curse on the DADA teacher's job, he should have done something. Perhaps, if he couldn't just quit _having_ a separate DADA class and make sure that what's needed is covered in other classes' curricula (the Patronus Charm, forex, could be covered in Charms class) he could have swapped around and had Binns teach DADA. I don't think there's much that the DADA curse could do to a ghost---they'ghost---they're pretty hard to hurt or kill. Of course, that opening for a History of Magic teacher---and if "History of Magic" just happens_ to go into great detail about Dark Magic and how best to resist it, well, a lot of history is the struggle between Dark and Light magic, isn't it? > > It does occur to me that abolishing DADA, or folding it into other subjects and fobbing it off onto Binns, might cause problems with the OWLs and NEWTs. > If this were done, Dumbledore might have to explain that there is reason to believe that there is a curse on the position, and either abolish the DADA OWL and NEWT, or just accept that very few Hogwarts students will do well on those particular tests, and allow for it. > > Nikkalmati: > > I suspect there are practical reasons why he could not do this. He would have to get the approval of the Board of Governors to drop DADA wouldn't he? He may not be willing to admit the position is jinxed even after he begins to suspect it. Perhaps, everyone already knows about the jinx - the students seem to be aware of it. In that case, no one would expect to last more than one year. I am not sure terrible things happened to each teacher. If that were the case, absolutely no one would apply long before the time of the SS/PS. > > Nikkalmati Carol responds: I agree that there are practical reasons why Dumbledore can't just end the DADA classes. For one thing, they're a prerequisite for Auror training and, with or without Voldemort, the WW (or the UK portions of it served by Hogwarts) can't be without Aurors. Nor will the Dark Creatures Lupin teaches his third years about go away. No, DADA (like Potions, Herbology, Transfiguration, and Charms) is part of the core curriculum taught to every student up to and including OWL year (and note that Snape lowers his standards to let more students into his NEWT DADA class than he would have allowed in NEWT Potions). The parents of Hogwarts students (in what appears to be marked contrast to the parents of Durmstrang students) expect their children to be taught DADA. They need to learn to defend themselves against the Dark Arts. I suppose it's comparable to Sex Education and Drug Education classes in the U.S. but perhaps even more important. You have to learn to defend yourself or you could be killed (or tortured or made to do things you don't want to do). Even if the Death Eaters are rounded up, there will always be more Dark wizards and Dark creatures to defend yourself against. For that reason alone, the MoM is unlikely to agree that the course not be taught. Granted, we do have the problem of inept DADA teachers. (I disagree with Nikkalmati about the DADA jinx/curse not doing something ranging between bad and terrible to the person who accepts the position. The least bad thing it's done is send Quirrell at the end of his first year to Albania to get practical experience with Dark creatures, with the result that he met and brought back Vapormort and ended up possessed by him before his second term as DADA teacher began. The fates we see for the DADA teachers in the HP books, all triggered by some flaw or secret in the teacher him- or herself, are certainly terrible. Even Umbridge might well have died if Dumbledore hadn't gallantly rescued her. (Note that he made sure she didn't come back to the school.) I think that Dumbledore does the best he can in hiring a DADA teacher each year. Snape, of course, could teach it at any point, but Dumbledore has his reasons, IMO, for waiting until the last possible moment to hire him for the post. He has to hire someone else, even if it means allowing the MoM to appoint a candidate (who could have anticipated the horror in pink that is Umbridge?). I don't for a moment believe that Dumbledore would hire any DADA teacher without telling them that the job is jinxed, or at the very least that it's a one-year position. He would tell them what had happened to at least some previous DADA teachers, which explains the dwindling number of applicants each year. He had no way of knowing that Lockhart was a fraud. He hired the Auror Mad-Eye Moody for what Moody knew to be a one-year position and had no way of knowing that the real Mad-Eye would be kidnapped and impersonated by a DE. He deliberately gave Remus Lupin a job just at the point when Umbridge had made it difficult for werewolves to find jobs and arranged for him to have wolfsbane potion prepared by an expert. (I think the fact that he had been Sirius Black's friend also had something to do with the timing of his hiring.) IMO, Dumbledore can't get rid of DADA. He can't foist it off on the boring Professor Binns, who probably can no longer hold a real wand or cast a real spell and was never an expert in that subject, anyway. He can't give it to Snape, either, or he'll lose him--and snape, IMO, has always been tied in with Dumbledore's plans to fight Voldemort. (Whether he's ESE! or not, and I very much think not, Dumbledore trusts him.) Carol, glad that she's not in Dumbledore's position and sure that he's doing the best he can to fill all his many duties From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 15:02:49 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:02:49 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160649 "littleleahstill" wrote: > What Marietta did was wrong. Nevertheless, > I am surprised that you would have shed no > tears over a 17 year old girl getting > 'a bullet in the brain' for one wrong action. Historically that has been a common fate of a member of a secret underground organization that betrays another member to the very power the organization is trying to destroy. This is not kid stuff anymore, this is life and death. Certainly Umbridge doesn't think the DA is kid stuff, it scares the hell out of her, that's why she's willing to torture and murder to stop it. And I'm surprised you want to minimize that "one wrong action". Besides that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play? > I am not sure that Harry would share your opinion. Harry has his opinion and I have mine, but if he doesn't take the gloves off and we don't see a little more Dirty Harry in Harry he's not going to beat Voldemort. And more important, it would make a better story. > Marietta is a young girl brought up by > a Ministry employee, who believes what > the Ministry says is right. Yes, Marietta thought the Ministry was good, and Marietta was wrong. When a person makes an error that person must take responsibility for that error, and Marietta's mistake was HUGE. > So do a number of older and possibly > wiser people, such as Percy Weasley I think Percy Weasley will turn out to be an even greater villain than Marietta. I don't expect him to survive book 7; he'll probably get killed in the great wizard civil war by a member of his own family. Stuff like that happens a lot in civil wars. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 30 15:13:04 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:13:04 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160650 > Alla: > I have a luxury of wishing bad guys to be punished because I am > convinced of their guilt - there is not a doubt in my mind that > Marietta is a traitor and still I think that executions of Hermione > good intentions could have been better, as many people said. > > What I am arguing vehemently against is discarding hermione good > intentions and the thought that Marietta should have been allowed to > go scott free. She did a horrible deed, I do not think that she > should have been allowed to merrily continue her studies as if she > did not do anything wrong. > > Because to me it is crystal clear that she did. > Pippin: Thanks for this, it makes your position much clearer to me. What you want, then, is that the good guys should have the luxury of assuming that their good intentions and high ideals will keep them from messing up too badly? And of assuming that those whose intentions are not so good and whose ideals are not so noble are capable of the absolute worst and so should be dealt with ruthlessly? I am glad to know you don't think this works in the real world. A lot of people do, you know, and I would hate to think that JKR is encouraging them. More to the point, I think that Hermione, and Harry to a lesser extent, have indeed fallen prey to this form of magical thinking. I don't believe that JKR means to make it work for them. But if you do think it works, then it explains why you think Snape must be a bad guy, and why Draco, despite his incapacity, must be considered murderous, and why Dumbledore was so wrong not to trust in Sirius's high ideals and good intentions rather than in the Dursleys and the blood protection. I think JKR means to show us that high ideals and good intentions, though they are good in themselves, do not substitute for ability, nor do they excuse people from responsibility for the consequences of their actions which could reasonably be foreseen. And the consequence of unfairness is more unfairness, as Hermione should know. If she wants justice, then she needs not only to be as critical of her friends as she is of her enemies, (she's got that part!) she has to be as forgiving of her enemies as she is of her friends. Nothing less. Of course that's not as much fun as beating the snot out of bad guys. Maybe that's why no matter how many bad guys get the snot beat out of them, justice still seems so very far away? Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 15:21:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:21:24 -0000 Subject: "Elf" etymology and Albus Dumbledore, 'wandless' magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160651 Carol earlier: > > Might the Dumbledore brothers have a distant house-elf > > ancestor, which might account for Albus Dumbledore's > > ability to do wandless magic? > > > Karin: > Harry performed wandless magic before he knew he was a > wizard. > > Animagi and metamorphmagi perform their transfigurations > without wands, too. > Carol responds: Hi, Karin. Pleased to meet you, too. I'm not talking about standard wandless magic like Legilimency, Occlumency, and Apparation, which Snape and others can also do (though I also recall Snape in PoA snapping his fingers to make the ends of Lupin's ropes come to him, and I don't think he has a house-elf ancestor!). Nor am I talking about accidental magic of the type that child!Harry did when he was angry. (Snape's jar of cockroaches may be another example of this type of accidental magic. He was certainly angry at the time.) I'm talking about Dumbledore clapping his hands to change the House decorations, his ability to be invisible without an Invisibility Cloak, and so on. He seems to be able to do magic (including summoning Fawkes) without his wand (unless he's weak and helpless from drinking whatever was in that Pensievelike bowl in the cave). That ability and the connection of "Albus" and "aelf" in the etymology of "elf" make me wonder if he may have a house-elf ancestor somewhere along the line. He is also more powerful than anyone, even the brilliant and powerful Snape, including Voldemort himself. Maybe it's just great intelligence and natural power like, say, Snape's or Barty Crouch Sr.'s, combined with many years of study and the wisdom and experience acquired through 150-odd years of living in the WW. Or maybe it's something more. JKR says we should be looking at DD's family, and I think that means his ancestors as well as his brother. Carol, not arguing that the Dumbledores are part house-elf, just tossing the idea into the arena for discussion From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 30 15:24:03 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:24:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's near-criminal irresponsibility In-Reply-To: <003b01c6fb93$961af070$8b560043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" wrote: e. Once he twigged that there was some sort of curse > on the DADA teacher's job, he should have done something. Perhaps, if he > couldn't just quit _having_ a separate DADA class and make sure that what's > needed is covered in other classes' curricula (the Patronus Charm, forex, > could be covered in Charms class) he could have swapped around and had Binns > teach DADA. Pippin: Do you think it would be that easy? More to the point, do you think Harry escaped the DADA curse? He didn't finish out the year as unofficial DADA instructor, nor did he return to the post. And he was smitten by the greatest personal tragedy of his life so far. I don't think the curse is outwitted so lightly. It would be boring for Rowling to give us detail on all the ways that Dumbledore tried to circumvent the curse, considering that we already know they didn't work. I think we just have to accept that he did his best, but Voldemort is a mighty wizard too, mightier than Dumbledore in some ways. Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 15:55:08 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:55:08 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160654 "pippin_999" wrote: > The beans got spilled by Willie > Widdershins, six months before. No. The meeting he could testify about was not illegal at the time. The meetings Marietta could testify about if Hermione hadn't stopped her were illegal at the time. > It was Hermione's own parchment that provided > the proof. Umbridge didn't really need > confirmation from Marietta after that. That document said nothing about Harry being the leader, and it provided no proof that an illegal meeting had ever even occurred. > She could still have expelled Harry she > just didn't want to I believe JKR would be very surprised if she learned about this. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 16:09:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:09:49 -0000 Subject: New Member and question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160655 Eddie: > > Prophetic author? :-D > > > > Actually, lots of the names are puns: Professor Vector (a math term) teach arithmancy, Professor Sprout (a vegetable) teaches herbology, Peeves makes people peevish, etc. > > > > Too bad Lupin's name ruined the surprise, though. I think that pun was a little too integral to the plot. > > Geoff: > I didn't guess about Lupin. Why not? Because "lupin" is a flower. The English word I associate with wolf-like qualities is "lupine". The Latin word for wolf is "lupus" which i wouldn't immediately link to "Lupin" because I never discoursed at length about wolves in my Latin lessons. > :-) > > As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a whole raft of punning > names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Umbridge, > Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new meaning for > Apparition and Disillusion. > Carol responds: I had the same reaction to Lupin, associating the name with the flower because of the pronunciation (despite suspicions about him that weren't quite on target) even though in the U.S. the flower name is spelled "lupine." It grows in the hills around Flagstaff, where I grew up, and along the roadsides in Tucson (where I live now) in February through April. I've never seen it in a garden; it's a wildflower in this part of the world: http://randyelrod.typepad.com/photos/colorado_trip/lupine.jpg I noticed the punning names of the textbook authors on my very first reading of Book 1: "Magical Drafts and Potions" by Arsenius Jigger, for example. (A jigger, of course, is a measure for mixing drinks--a joke that most eleven-year0olds are unlikely to catch.) My favorite JKR pun is the griffin door knocker (Gryffindor knocker); my least favorite is the Disillusionment Charm because it's backwards. Yes, it's cute to have Mad-Eye say that he's going to "disillusion" Harry, but he's really "illusioning" him--creating the illusion that he's part of the furniture. "Disillusion" ought to refer to the removal of the spell. Still, the wordplay is one of the continuing pleasures of the books. (I almost forgot to mention that when I first read the name Sprout, I didn't think of Brussels sprouts, the vegetable, but of bean sprouts and other health food greens that you see in salad bars--little seedling plants like Professor Sprout no doubt has in her greenhouses though I doubt that she eats them.) Carol, wondering what kind of parents would name their child Fenrir (after an evil wolf in Norse mythology) and whether the name Greyback indicates that the father, at least, was already a werewolf From CliffVDY at juno.com Mon Oct 30 16:18:45 2006 From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:18:45 -0000 Subject: Snape and Draco In-Reply-To: <3bd.10338879.3276c756@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160656 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: > Nikkalmati: > > Yes, this is one of the interesting relationships that developed quite a bit > in HBP. My question is "what next?" JKR has spent a lot of page time in > HBP on Draco showing him developing and suffering. At the end DD uses his > last moments to try to save Draco. I don't believe this trouble will be in > vain. Draco is on the road to redemption and IMHO probably will not die in the > end. He had become too valuable as an example of the possibility of change > for the good. Some of us even feel for Narcissa. Cliff here: There is the opposite lesson to be learned if Draco does die at the hands of LV, and that is that some will take your promises to be unbreakable and you will suffer the consequences. Often, it is not someone, but something, such as steering a car over the cliff. The lesson then is be careful that the promises you make for yourself can be carried out. You can't wheedle out of everything you don't like. I called it the "Kent State Effect" where college kids rioted thinking it was just fun and games until someone got killed. That suddenly changed the attitude on college campuses -- this is an adult world, not childhood games. From ibchawz at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 16:23:34 2006 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:23:34 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160657 > Carol responds: > [...] > I don't think, however, that Dumbledore knew about the Godric's Hollow > hideout from a note. I think that he had known about it before the > secret was placed inside PP, then magically "forgot" it. When he awoke > knowing the secret, he knew that the spell had been broken and that > the Potters had been betrayed and were probably dead. I think that > Snape must have shown him his faded Dark Mark, which meant that Harry > had somehow defeated Voldemort and must be alive. > > I realize that I'm only speculating [...] Eddie: I've got a problem with this scenario. I infer from it that the secret keeper's secret can be broken and I think canon is opposed to that. For instance, we know that if the secret keeper dies, the secret dies with him. But does that mean that if the person/place/thing that the secret is about is killed/destroyed, then the secret is broken? In addition, even though Lily and James are dead and the house at Godric Hollow is destroyed, Harry is still alive. Wouldn't the secret continue? Or (yet a 3rd alternative!) maybe Harry wasn't explicitly mentioned in the secret. Or (yet a 4th alternative!) JKR was a bit inconsistent. Speculation is cool with me, BTW. Eddie, who wonders if my inferences make me an inferius? ibchawz responds: Another possibility that I have seen on this list would be that the Fidelius Charm would be broken when Peter Pettigrew ratted (pun intended) the secret to Voldemort. The Potters were no longer protected from Voldemort by the secret after PP told Voldemort. To state it in another way, Peter's infidelity broke the Fidelius Charm. Of course, this is speculation on my part, since there is no canon to support the breaking of the Fidelius Charm in any fashion. ibchawz, who thinks that Eddie would be an inferencius for his inferences. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Oct 30 16:44:55 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:44:55 -0000 Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160658 Numbered endnotes with canon, interview and post references and links, and amusing/interesting/stupid asides where I can be bothered are at the end (as is the custom with endnotes). Skip to the fish < if you hate TBAY. Theory Bay is dark, a waxing gibbous moon does nothing to illuminate the waves pounding the beach since it's obscured by clouds; the low tide reveals the crumbling masts of the many wrecks which litter the seabed. Once-proud vessels, boldly crewed by some of the bravest, most fearless listies who ever posted. These days, so very few remain afloat. There is a flicker of movement, a darker shadow in the depths of dark shadows. The door to the can(n)on museum slowly creaks open. Then it creaks shut. If someone were inside, watching, they would see another dark shadow darken the dark shadows around it as it passes. It creeps amongst the can(n)on poking and muttering to itself. It slinks past the TOADKEEPERs*, fondly pats the MATCHING ARMCHAIR, and pauses respectfully for a moment at the space where the MAGIC DISHWASHER should have been (it had been removed to the Safe House for years, for its own protection). Finally the shadow stops at a plinth with a small dusty can(n)on on it, and an unobtrusive plaque on the front which reads "Black Widower!Snape". The shadow produces a couple of things. Heavy, metallic things. It leans over Black Widower!Snape, working quickly and quietly. There is a faint click, something snapping into place, then a pause, some swearing, the distinct sound of something being brutally forced into place, and then another, more decisive click. The figure strikes a match, and gazes at Black Widower!Snape in the sudden flare of light to make sure that what it is seeing is real. "They fit!" exclaims Dungrollin (for it is she). * See Inish Alley < < < < < < < < I was wandering through the archives, and stumbled upon an old Snape theory which has had various makeovers, known as Black Widower! Snape, or Snape!Son. Reading message 111173 (and laughing a lot) I soon realised that we have gained some extra canon since those days of yore, and wondered whether I could give Black Widower!Snape a fresh coat of paint. It's turned out to be pretty fiddly, so bear with me for a bit. The premise is that Snape had a wife and/or child who was/were murdered by Voldemort, and that is the reason he returned to the good side, and the reason that he wears nothing but black. I should mention that Kneasy's post was very much more like Out-For-Himself! Snape, whereas this version is decidedly DDM (I can't help it, you know). The two major bits of relevant canon we were given in HBP are: 1. Snape was the eavesdropper.[1] 2. When Snape realised how Voldemort was interpreting the prophecy, his remorse made him `return' to the good guys' table.[2] Let's begin by trying to put ourselves in Voldy's shoes. How would he interpret the scrap of prophecy which Snape brought him?[3] The thrice-defied part, in particular. We know, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and rather a lot of prompting from DD, [4] that it applied to James and Lily and Frank and Alice, and that they were all four in the Order of the Phoenix, and must have interfered with Voldy's plans on at least three separate occasions, but it wouldn't necessarily have been immediately obvious to Voldemort at the time, at least six months before Harry was born. Just try to imagine for a moment that you're a power-hungry psychotic (easier for some than others) and someone has just told you a kid with the clout to pulp you is going to be born; you'd start getting twitchy around *any* pregnant women, wouldn't you? Oh, and you'd utterly forbid the minion who brought you the news to tell anybody else. So let's say that it's about now that Snape's wife [5] discovers that she is pregnant. Narcissa's pregnant too! How nice. Snape works out immediately that both children are due at the end of July. Lucius is his friend [6], Snape warns him of the problem, and tells him the first two lines of the prophecy [7], pleading with him to not let Voldemort know that Narcissa is pregnant, because it will put her in danger. But Snape is too late, Voldy already knows that the Malfoys are expecting the patter of tiny feet. The two couples are understandably worried, Voldemort has not told Snape anything about how he's interpreted the prophecy, so Snape has *no clue* what he intends, and no clue exactly how he's reading `as the seventh month dies'. At the beginning of June, Lucius and/or Narcissa panic and induce their baby early (however they do such things in the WW). Draco is born dangerously premature on June 5th, [8] but it's better that he should struggle through his first year of life (Magical Medicine should be enough to see him through) than that Voldy should even consider the possibility that he's the prophecy baby. The Malfoys are very grateful to Snape for the warning he gave them, and know that he's risked a lot for them by disobeying Voldy's command to tell no one about the prophecy. The Snapes, for some reason (difficult pregnancy?) do not want to risk inducing their baby prematurely. They've got around the problem so far by not letting it get out that Mrs Snape is pregnant, so Voldy doesn't know. Then catastrophe. Regulus.[9] Dear old Regulus can't handle it and wants out of this Death Eating lark, or at least, that's what he tells Snape. Naturally, Voldy wants Regulus as dead as he can be in as short a time as possible. Reg doesn't tell Snape about the Horcrux [10], because he doesn't want Snape in trouble with Voldy, and Snape doesn't tell Reg about the prophecy, for similar reasons. Snape and Reggie are old pals, united in their hatred of Sirius at school, so Snape (foolishly ? he hasn't learned too much about Voldy yet) tries to help Reg, save him, hide him, whatever. Voldemort knows that Snape and Regulus are thick as thieves, so he questions Snape, who is still wet-behind-the-ears, [11] and as yet unable to hide his lies with Occlumency [12]. Voldemort knows he's lying, Regulus is quickly discovered and killed within days of Voldy shouting "Off with his head!" [13] Voldemort is therefore very much displeased with Snape. He orders Snape to be killed (that'll learn him!). However, Lucius Malfoy, still grateful to Snape for his tip off about the prophecy, intervenes (at great personal risk) to persuade Voldemort to spare Snape. Lucius's strategy involves pointing out to Voldy how very useful a talented young wizard like Snape could be. [14] Unfortunately, in the process of defending and arguing for Snape, Voldemort, the expert Legilimens [15], discovers from Lucius that Snape has told him about the prophecy, and that baby Snape is due around the end of July, and they've kept it secret from him. So Snape has now defied Voldy a) by telling Lucius the prophecy when he was forbidden to; b) conspired to aid Regulus who Voldy wanted dead, and c) hidden away the fact that his wife's expecting a child at the end of July. Voldy is furious. But slippery old Lucius's words stay his master's hand in the end, Snape gets home one night to discover the dark mark above his home, and his wife and child, or his heavily pregnant wife, dead. Were they important enough to be killed by Voldemort himself [16], or did he get someone else to do it? Was Snape made to watch? Was he Imperio'd, and made to do it himself? But then, why on earth would Voldemort ever trust Snape again? Is he so blind as to not realise that killing people's families puts you in their bad books? Well, actually, he sort of could be. This is the height of his reign of terror, he's surrounded by people like Bonkers!Bella, and Barty Crouch Junior, who don't blink at having family members slaughtered to ensure the continued rise of the dark order [17]. I don't think Voldy trusts anybody [18]. And since Bella certainly doesn't trust Snape [19], I don't see why Voldemort would. I think one of Voldy's aims in HBP (which I've gone on about before [20]) was to test Snape's loyalty - "He expects me to do it in the end, I think." HBP, 2:39). At the end of HBP, Snape has killed DD, the only one Voldemort ever feared. Voldy trusts him now, as much as he will ever trust anyone. He probably even respects Snape's apparent ability to not take the murder of his family personally ? he's that kind of psycho. Lucius has convinced him that Snape could be put to good use, that killing him would be a waste of a potentially good DE. So for a bit of fun, Voldemort sends him to DD to beg for the DADA job, and infiltrate Hogwarts with a mission similar to the one he gives Draco 16 years later, the ultimate goal being to kill DD. Voldy is hoping or expecting that Snape will either be killed in the attempt, or suffer horribly from the DADA curse, or both. DD, however, suspects that Snape is a Death Eater (though he doesn't let on), and refuses him the job since he suspects that Snape is there on Voldy's orders. But he leaves options open, because he doesn't want Voldemort to kill Snape for failing to secure the job. Perhaps he says that he's already filled the post for that year, but cheerfully invites Snape to reapply in the future [21]. Voldy grudgingly gives Snape one more year's grace. Snape is shattered by everything that has happened, and feels very much alone, but he is also learning quickly. He knows that if he tries to openly leave Voldemort, he'll be dead just like Regulus, but his hatred of Voldy begins to consume him. He starts using his cunning, and manoeuvres Voldy into teaching him Occlumency [22], so that he might better fool Dumbledore. It is now that he starts taking spying seriously, studying it, learning to hide his grief and pain at the fate of his family and friend, learning through Legilimency how to tell when somebody's lying. It has suddenly become so much more than the game he used to play at school, hoping to get the marauders expelled. He is therefore in a much stronger position when he discovers, months later, that Voldemort would very much like to kill the Potters and their son who was born at the end of July, because of the *same* prophecy which got his own wife and child killed. It is now that Snape realises he has a chance to do something, a chance for some cunning revenge on Voldy for the deaths of his wife, his child, and his friend Regulus, and a chance to pay back that bloody James Potter by saving his life [23]. Moreover, if he's very *very* careful, and if he can trust DD 100%, he might even be able to get away without being killed (not that I think it matters much to Snape whether he lives or dies at this point ? he's realised that by joining Voldemort he has given up the possibility of an ordinary life; he may as well make his death mean something ? like Regulus did). Who could turn that chance down? Well, probably some people, but I reckon it would have seemed very attractive to Snape. The timing coincides with the application time for the DADA job [24], so he has cover for going to DD. DD then teaches Snape Occlumency too, and *that's* why Snape is so good, he was taught by both of the most powerful wizards alive. And the rest is history. Working in a school, watching children growing up would have been torture. Every time he looks at Harry, he sees James, the man who was allowed to die defending his family, while Snape was forced to survive his family and always be alone. And of course, he always wears black. Dungrollin A smattering of canon and comments it puts an interesting spin on: ******************** "A student has been taken by the monster. Right into the Chamber itself." Professor Flitwick let out a squeal. Professor Sprout clapped her hands over her mouth. Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, "How can you be sure?" COS 16:not sure which page ******************** "That is just as well, Potter," said Snape coldly, "because you are neither special nor important " - OotP 24: ******************** "The Dark Lord is very angry," repeated Snape quietly. "He failed to hear the prophecy. You know as well as I do, Narcissa, that he does not forgive easily." HBP 2:39 ******************** "You should be proud!" said Bellatrix ruthlessly. "If I had sons, I would be glad to give them up to the service of the Dark Lord!" Narcissa gave a little scream of despair and clutched at her long blonde hair. Snape stooped, seized her by the arms, lifted her up and steered her back on to the sofa. He then poured her more wine and forced the glass into her hand. - HBP 2:39 ******************** Endnotes ? HPbook Chapter:UK page number. [1] "Snape's what's happened! He told Voldemort about the prophecy, it was *him*, *he* listened outside the door, Trelawney told me!" - HBP 25:511. [2] "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realised 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 ?" - HBP 25:513. [3] "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 " - OotP 37:741 [4] "The odd thing, Harry," he said softly, "is that it may not have meant you at all. Sybill's prophecy could have applied to two wizard boys, both born at the end of July that year, both of whom had parents in the Order of the Phoenix, both sets of parents having narrowly escaped Voldemort three times. One, of course, was you. The other was Neville Longbottom." -OotP 37:742 [5] Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses? JKR: Good question - yes, a few of them, but that information is sort of restricted - you'll find out why - Red Nose Day Chat, BBC Online, March 12, 2001. http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2001/0301-bbc-rednose.htm MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? JKR: Yes, he has The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview, part 3, 16 July 2005 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm [6] "Tell me, how is Lucius Malfoy these days? I expect he's delighted his lapdog's working at Hogwarts, isn't he?" - Sirius ? OotP 24:460 "Severus please you are, you have always been, Draco's favourite teacher you are Lucius's old friend " - Narcissa ? HBP 2:38 [7] "The Lestranges were sent after Neville to kill him. No, they weren't, they were very definitely sent after Neville's parents. I can't say too much about this because it touches too closely on the prophecy and how many people knew about it, but the Lestranges were not in on the secret. - JKR website, rumours. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=25 So more than just Voldemort and Snape know of the existence of the prophecy *before* Voldemort's fall and subsequent rebirth. We know that all the DEs who turned up at the ministry knew of the prophecy, though not necessarily their contents. But for one amongst them, it was not news, and it was *not* Bella. Who? [8] Happy Birthday Draco Malfoy, June 5th. - JKR's website [9] "[ ] he was murdered by Voldemort. Or on Voldemort's orders, more likely; I doubt Regulus was ever important enough to be killed by Voldemort in person. From what I found out after he died, he got in so far, then panicked about what he was being asked to do and tried to back out. Well, you don't just hand in your resignation to Voldemort. It's a lifetime of service or death." - Sirius ? OotP 6:104 [10] "To the Dark Lord I know I will be dead long before you read this but I want you to know that it was I who discovered your secret. I have stolen the real Horcrux and intend to destroy it as soon as I can. I face death in the hope that when you meet your match, you will be mortal once more. R.A.B" - HBP 28:569. There's loads of evidence that R.A.B. is Regulus, I didn't want to believe it for a while, but if you don't by now, you have a serious conspiracy-theory addiction. Seek help. [11] "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 [ ]" - Trelawney ? HBP 25:509. Waffling about coming the wrong way up the stairs? That's such a lame excuse it makes me think either that it's not really Snape ? someone else under Polyjuice, or that Snape was at this point rather wet-behind-the-ears, with none of his future smooth brilliance at lying and concealing his intentions. [12] "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!" - OotP 24:473. [13] "And they've found Igor Karkaroff's body in a shack up north. The Dark Mark had been set over it - well, frankly, I'm surprised he stayed alive for even a year after deserting the Death Eaters; Sirius's brother Regulus only managed a few days as far as I can remember." - Lupin ? HBP 6:103. [14] How useful Snape could be Now what exactly was Voldemort using Snape for before he sent him to Hogwarts? Voldy's little Half-Blood Prince Well, he's talented at Potions and DADA, possibly at other subjects too. We have no further details, but it's plausible, possible and even probable that he was near the top of the class, and probably top amongst the Slytherins of his year. He certainly turned into a very capable adult. It's not an impossible case for Lucius to have made. [15] "The Dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him." - Snape ? OotP 24:469. [16] Was Snape's wife important enough to be killed by Voldy himself? To be honest, I'm torn Given that Voldy killed the Potters and tried to kill Harry himself, I don't think he'd be likely to give it to a junior DE who might have cocked it up, but on the other hand, if he *really* thought baby Snape was The One, he'd have wanted to make a Horcrux, wouldn't he? Perhaps he did anyway. We don't know. [17] Bellatrix Lestrange, of course, did in Sirius, her cousin ? OotP 35:710; and Barty Crouch Jr. murdered his father ? GoF 35:599. Neither of them seemed particularly upset about it. [18] "I trust that you also noticed that Tom Riddle was already highly self-sufficient, secretive and, apparently, friendless? He did not want help or companionship on his trip to Diagon Alley. He preferred to operate alone. The adult Voldemort is the same. You will hear many of his Death Eaters claiming that they are in his confidence, that they alone are close to him, even understand him. They are deluded. Lord Voldemort has never had a friend, nor do I believe that he has ever wanted one." - Dumbledore ? HBP 13:259-60. [19] "[That] I don't trust you, Snape, as you very well know! [ ] A hundred reasons! [ ] Where to start! Where were you when the Dark Lord fell?" - Bellatrix Lestrange ? HBP 2:30. Actually, it seems that other DEs don't trust Snape either: "You can carry my words back to the others who whisper behind my back, and carry false tales of my treachery to the Dark Lord!" - Snape ? HBP 2:31. [20] Voldy aims to test Snape's loyalty in HBP, amongst other goals. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148303 [21] Actually there is no direct canon for Snape having applied for the DADA job the year before he started teaching potions, all we have are two seemingly conflicting bits of canon: "Now how long have you been teaching at Hogwarts?" she [Umbridge] asked, her quill poised over her clipboard. "Fourteen years," Snape replied. - OotP ? 17:323. "[ ] the Dark Lord is pleased that I never deserted my post: I had sixteen years of information on Dumbledore to give him when he returned [ ]" - Snape ? HBP 2:32. [22] We have no canon on whether it was Voldy or DD who taught Snape Occlumency, but given how good he is at it, I think most people agree that it wasn't some other random witch or wizard. Unless anyone's got an intriguing theory..? [23] "[ ]And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive." "What?" "He saved his life." "What?" "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's debt.... I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace...." - PS 17:217. It's no fun hexing someone every time you see them if when it goes too far they do something so damn noble. Snape sees this very clearly as revenge for an insult. [24] The DADA job application. Ah yes. Well, we have no idea. Depends what happened to the last chap, I s'pose. But there's nothing in canon to rule it out. I think. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 17:13:53 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:13:53 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160659 Carol earlier: > > [...] > > I don't think, however, that Dumbledore knew about the Godric's > Hollow hideout from a note. I think that he had known about it before the secret was placed inside PP, then magically "forgot" it. When he awoke knowing the secret, he knew that the spell had been broken and that the Potters had been betrayed and were probably dead. I think that Snape must have shown him his faded Dark Mark, which meant that Harry had somehow defeated Voldemort and must be alive. > > > > I realize that I'm only speculating [...] > Eddie responded: > I've got a problem with this scenario. I infer from it that the > secret keeper's secret can be broken and I think canon is opposed to > that. For instance, we know that if the secret keeper dies, the > secret dies with him. But does that mean that if the > person/place/thing that the secret is about is killed/destroyed, then > the secret is broken? In addition, even though Lily and James are > dead and the house at Godric Hollow is destroyed, Harry is still > alive. Wouldn't the secret continue? Or (yet a 3rd alternative!) > maybe Harry wasn't explicitly mentioned in the secret. Or (yet a 4th > alternative!) JKR was a bit inconsistent. ibchawz responded: > > Another possibility that I have seen on this list would be that the > Fidelius Charm would be broken when Peter Pettigrew ratted (pun > intended) the secret to Voldemort. The Potters were no longer > protected from Voldemort by the secret after PP told Voldemort. To > state it in another way, Peter's infidelity broke the Fidelius > Charm. Of course, this is speculation on my part, since there is no > canon to support the breaking of the Fidelius Charm in any fashion. Carol again: Yes, that's essentially what I think. The name of the charm provides the clue: fidelis -e [trusty , steadfast, faithful]; m. as subst., esp. pl., [confidants, faithful friends]. Adv. fideliter, [faithfully; securely, without danger]. fidelitas -atis f. [faithfulness , trust, fidelity]. http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=fidel&ending= So, essentially, to break the faith placed in him as Secret Keeper by revealing it to the very person the secret was supposed to protect the Potters from broke the spell. Of course, by the time that Voldemort kills James and Lily and the house blows up, there is no secret left to keep. "The Potters are hiding in [address] Godric's Hollow" is simply no longer true. they'er not hiding anywhere. Two are dead and one can be found by anyone who comes by, even a Muggle, which is why Hagrid had to get there even before Sirius Black (who already knew the secret and therefore couldn't be alerted by suddenly knowing it again) or anyone else arrived. I believe that Godric's Hollow, or rather the particular cottage in that village where the Potters were hiding, had been provided to them by Dumbledore, who, IMO, is a descendant of Godric Gryffindor, if not the Heir of Gryffindor per se. (Also explains the Fawkes connection, BTW--note Fawkes's colors--, and DD's possession of the Sword of Gryffindor.) At any rate, the secret being revealed has nothing to do with whether the SK is alive (Wormtail is thought dead a bit later, but that's irrelevant). It has to do with the secret being first breached--fidelity violated--and then the elements of the secret (the Potters and their hiding place) either ceasing to exist or ceasing to be protected. Essentially, the moment Wormtail betrays the Potters, the secret is no longer a secret. Either then or when the house was blown up, the charm failed altogether. Just my opinion. Carol, who has to get off the computer now From ibchawz at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 17:36:00 2006 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:36:00 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160660 Eddie wrote: I think your answers to my post are right on. I don't know that I have canon for Snape coddling, other than HRH's annoying assumption that Snape would never be rude to Draco. I seem to recall right in the beginning of SS/PS, before they've ever had even one Potions class HRH had already heard the rumors about Snape and how he was always easier on Slytherins. ibchawz responds: I'm not sure it would be called coddling, but Snape does show favoritism toward Draco in GOF during the "Densuageo" incident that Carol mentioned in her post. Harry hits Crabbe or Goyle (I don't recall which) with the Furnunculus (sp?) spell and Draco hits Hermione with Densuageo. Snape gives both Harry and Ron detentions, but Draco does not since Snape saw no difference in Hermione's teeth. ibchawz From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 17:49:27 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:49:27 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610300949h4a64ff11j8c02f7373579ead7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160661 wynnleaf wrote: > The way things turned out, this is almost beside the point. The hex > didn't stop Marietta from telling Umbridge, who immediately took her > to DD to confront him alongside Harry and some Order/Aurors, who ended > up modifying Marietta's memory so that she never got to tell who was > in the DA. Nobody got expelled or otherwise and it had nothing to do > with Hermione's hex. Without DD and the Shacklebolt's quick thinking, > Umbridge would eventually have gotten Marietta to talk (after all, she > didn't loose her voice, did she?), and the DA members would have been > found out. Hermione's hex did No Good. If she hadn't been so sneaky > about it, and told everyone up front when they were signing, it might > have prevented Marietta either from signing in the first place, or > from telling Umbridge. But no, Hermione knows best?. or at least is > convinced she does. It's a good thing DD and Shacklebolt were around > to do the *real* defense measures. montims: I recently reread this book, and was horrified at the actions of Ministry-sanctioned Umbridge, which were so much worse than I had remembered - there are strong parallels to the rise of Naziism in Germany, for example, particularly with the continuous new decrees prohibiting and limiting student actions. Just what the Nazis did in Europe with the Jews - decree by decree limiting their movements and rights... So I am a little surprised at some of the comments by people. Notwithstanding that, to address the above point specifically - I don't have the book with me right now, but as I recall, Umbridge tells the Minister in DD's office that Marietta started to tell Umridge about the DA, then caught sight of herself in the mirror, and, having seen the letters on her face, stopped telling Umbridge anything. DU then sent her own inquisitorial squad out to catch other students (why hasn't anyone discussed this yet?) and only upon Harry being caught, went up to DD's office with Marietta. So the "branding", if you will, worked at scaring Marietta into keeping silent. She may have feared further punishment if she said any more (and who knows if there was another boobytrap in there?) As to the obliviation, I know that is what DD called it, but it really seemed to me as if Shackbolt had just reversed her answers - where she would have shaken her head, she nodded, and vice versa... I find it admirable that nobody else broke the secret of the DA's existence, even just by telling classmates about it, and I am horrified by DU's use of the dementors who would have kissed Harry (she did not know about his patronus), her torture of Harry and her readiness to use the cruciatus on him, and at the powers given to her IS. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 30 18:17:33 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:17:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0610291813s5f185945w162468a5660a66c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160662 Debbie: > Dumbledore goes on to note the most sinister aspect of the > diary: "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 that Slytherin's monster would be unleashed > again." > > In other words, it was not the memory that was unique about the > Diary horcrux. It was that Tom had devised a means of accessing > the soul within. I see no evidence that the other soul bits do (or > did) not include memories. The difference is that there is no way > to access them; they are too well encased. > The Harrycrux theory is the only explanation that I have every > found satisfying, because it doesn't make sense to me that powers > exist apart from the owner of the powers, which means that they are > either connected to the body or the spirit, or soul. > Except that in CoS Voldemort wasn't strong at all, and he was far > away, in Albania. Moreover, recognizing Riddle's name is a > cognitive act, whereas the Dark Mark is just a specialized Protean > Charm. I don't recall that Harry's scar was bothering him so much > in CoS, so I'm not sure that would explain why Harry recognized > Riddle's name. SSSusan: Forgive my coming in so late to this discussion, only to insert questions. :) But reading Debbie's thoughts, I became curious. If you've explained all this before, please forgive me for asking, but are you suggesting that *each* of the horcruxes contains not only a soul bit but also a memory of Riddle? and that perhaps the reason Tom Riddle's name is familiar to Harry is that not only is there a horcrux in Harry, but there's a *memory* of Tom's in there, too? If there is... wow, I wonder what form it might take? what it might consist of? would it be a specific memory or, like the diary, more of an entire particular age of Tom Riddle? I'm especially curious since, IIRC, doesn't JKR describe what Harry has as a feeling that he knew the name, "like a long lost friend" or some such phrase? Makes one wonder what kind of memory might be there.... Siriusly Snapey Susan From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Oct 30 18:41:12 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:41:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: differences between the British and American publications. In-Reply-To: References: <4544C2AF.000006.03852@D33LDD51> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610301041s3fca8aa1h916648ab42b600e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160663 > > Carol: > > In summary, the reason for the differences is that the publishers have > (at least two) different people, under different sets of instructions, > doing the copyediting. The publishers and the copyeditors are aiming > at different audiences with different ideas of correct spelling and > punctuation and different vocabularies. (Incidentaly, some expressions > that sound ordinary to British ears sound "foreign" or exotic to > American ears and give a British flavor to the books that American > kids can savor, and I'm glad that Scholastic has decided to leave most > of them in. I don't expect them to start using the term "snogging" any > time soon, however!) montims: I really hate the Americanization of British books - the first time I noticed this was when I bought a Ruth Rendell book in the States, and found the very English heroine in a story set in London pulling her check book out of her purse; and the editor clearly did not understand the concept of a cheque card... So I now buy all my British books through Amazon or eBay... However, a good proportion of all books I read are American, and I have never, since childhood, had any trouble reading American language or concepts, even where they sound strange or even obscene - the word "fanny" unfortunately springs to mind... (For those who don't know this, American books (whether fact or fiction) are never Anglicised.) However, I wasn't aware that the word "snogging" had been transliterated - may I ask to what, please? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Oct 30 19:02:36 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:02:36 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610300949h4a64ff11j8c02f7373579ead7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160664 montims: > Notwithstanding that, to address the above point specifically - I don't have the book with me right now, but as I recall, Umbridge tells the Minister in DD's office that Marietta started to tell Umridge about the DA, then caught sight of herself in the mirror, and, having seen the letters on her face, stopped telling Umbridge anything. DU then sent her own inquisitorial squad out to catch other students (why hasn't anyone discussed this yet?) and only upon Harry being caught, went up to DD's office with Marietta. So the "branding", if you will, worked at scaring Marietta into keeping silent. She may have feared further punishment if she said any more (and who knows if there was another boobytrap in there?) Pippin: Let's think about the chronology. "Within minutes" of catching Harry, Umbridge arrives at Dumbledore's office. Fudge, McGonagall, two Aurors and Percy are already there. McGonagall is looking extremely tense. That means all those people were sent for *before* Harry was caught or the scroll was discovered. In other words, despite the curse, without any information that the meeting Marietta spoke of was related to the meeting in the Hogs Head or that Harry Potter was going to be present, Umbridge was confident that she would catch Harry Potter dead to rights. Fudge confirms this. "I came here tonight expecting to expel Potter and instead--" It wouldn't have looked very good if DU had called out the big guns and it turned out that Harry wasn't involved and the meeting Marietta had in mind was the Ravenclaw Chess Club. But the curse itself was evidence that Marietta's information was a little more sensitive than that. It did as much to give Harry away as Marietta could have. 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? 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. Pippin who agrees that Umbridge is very nasty. But Marietta had no way to know most of that. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 30 19:15:20 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:15:20 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160665 Geoff: > As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a whole raft of punning > names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Umbridge, > Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new meaning for > Apparition and Disillusion. SSSusan: Heh. I remember how long it took me to catch on to Diagon Alley and shaking my head that it wasn't patently obvious from the very moment I saw that chapter title. I do love the way JKR has had such fun with names -- Professors Vector & Sprout, Durmstrang, even the Griffin[-] door knocker.... Now, though, at the risk of revealing myself as a complete dolt, I'm going to make myself just buck up and ask: What's the pun with "Hogwarts"? Do you just mean the turn-around from the word warthog? Or is there something I'm missing?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From technomad at intergate.com Mon Oct 30 20:06:58 2006 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:06:58 -0600 Subject: Remus Lupin's name Message-ID: <007401c6fc5e$f5269670$3c570043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 160666 While Remus Lupin's name gives clues to his inner wolf, it could be read in other ways. The most famous "Remus," after all, is the twin of Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome. When I first read PoA, I halfway expected the Big Surprise to be that Remus Lupin's twin Romulus was a DE,or something like that. Come to it---we really know very little about Lupin's early life. Could he have been one of a pair of twins? Maybe Fenrir Greyback ate Romulus Lupin. (This would be a good question to ask Herself, if someone gets a chance.) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 30 20:21:56 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:21:56 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160667 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Geoff: > > As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a whole raft of punning > > names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Umbridge, > > Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new meaning for > > Apparition and Disillusion. > > > SSSusan: > Heh. I remember how long it took me to catch on to Diagon Alley and > shaking my head that it wasn't patently obvious from the very moment I > saw that chapter title. I do love the way JKR has had such fun with > names -- Professors Vector & Sprout, Durmstrang, even the Griffin[-] > door knocker.... > > Now, though, at the risk of revealing myself as a complete dolt, I'm > going to make myself just buck up and ask: What's the pun > with "Hogwarts"? Do you just mean the turn-around from the word > warthog? Or is there something I'm missing?? Geoff: Hi Susan, greetings from the land of the Exmoor pony! Yes, basically, it is. In message 152666, back in May, I wrote: "I did point out the other day that 'hogwart" is JKR's spoonerising of "warthog" which is an African wild pig. off topic, I think Flanders and Swann did a song about the warthog in their Bestiary set." Perhaps at a tangent to this topic but worth a re-read is a thread named " Wordplays/what's fun about the HPs?" which later transmogrified into "Winged boars". The thread starts at message 152553. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 30 20:32:30 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:32:30 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160668 SSSusan earlier: > > Now, though, at the risk of revealing myself as a complete dolt, > > I'm going to make myself just buck up and ask: What's the pun > > with "Hogwarts"? Do you just mean the turn-around from the word > > warthog? Or is there something I'm missing?? Geoff: > Yes, basically, it is. > > In message 152666, back in May, I wrote: > > "I did point out the other day that 'hogwart" is JKR's spoonerising > of "warthog" which is an African wild pig. SSSusan: Grazie, Geoff! And thanks for the tip on the other thread. I'm glad to know I was not missing a connection between "Hogwarts" and something that had to do with schools or with witches or wizards or anything else I should've caught! I was afraid I had missed something obvious *besides* the warthog spoonerism. (I love that word!) Still, I wonder WHY the play on "warthog" for JKR? Why use a twist on *warthogs* for a name which will be getting such page time in her series? Does JKR have a fondness for warthogs? Is there something significant about warthogs? Do they have secrets gifts? :) Siriusly Snapey Susan, always happy to receive greetings from the land of Exmoor ponies! From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 30 20:46:42 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:46:42 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160669 ibchawz responded: > > Another possibility that I have seen on this list would be that > > the Fidelius Charm would be broken when Peter Pettigrew ratted > > (pun intended) the secret to Voldemort. The Potters were no > > longer protected from Voldemort by the secret after PP told > > Voldemort. To state it in another way, Peter's infidelity broke > > the Fidelius Charm. Of course, this is speculation on my part, > > since there is no canon to support the breaking of the Fidelius > > Charm in any fashion. Carol: > Yes, that's essentially what I think. The name of the charm provides > the clue: fidelis -e [trusty , steadfast, faithful]; m. as subst., > esp. pl., [confidants, faithful friends]. Adv. fideliter, > [faithfully; securely, without danger]. fidelitas -atis f. > [faithfulness , trust, fidelity]. http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi- > bin/lookup.pl?stem=fidel&ending= > > So, essentially, to break the faith placed in him as Secret Keeper > by revealing it to the very person the secret was supposed to > protect the Potters from broke the spell. SSSusan: I am assuming that what you, Carol and ibchawz, are proposing has, as its key component, that the telling of the secret is done WITH MALICE? that the person ratting knows he is providing the information to someone who should not have it, rather than simply passing the information on to someone breaking the charm? Otherwise, when the location of GP was written on a paper and given to Harry, that would too have broken that FC. If I'm following your suggestion correctly, I wonder what would happen if a person gave out the information without *realizing* it was to a person with evil intent? That is, the SK wasn't betraying intentionally, wasn't acting purposely with infidelity. I'm assuming again that it's the intentional passing of the secret to a known enemy which you're saying would break the FC? Otherwise, I'm thinking that if there were a spy in the Order, who intended harm to Harry/the Order, then passing the location on to that individual, while not realizing s/he was the spy, would have broken *that* FC. Carol: > Of course, by the time that Voldemort kills James and Lily and the > house blows up, there is no secret left to keep. "The Potters are > hiding in [address] Godric's Hollow" is simply no longer true. > they'er not hiding anywhere. Two are dead and one can be found by > anyone who comes by, even a Muggle, which is why Hagrid had to get > there even before Sirius Black (who already knew the secret and > therefore couldn't be alerted by suddenly knowing it again) > or anyone else arrived. SSSusan: This makes more intuitive sense to me somehow -- that the "disproving" of the actual statement the Secret Keeper has held onto [for instance, "The Potters are in hiding in Godric's Hollow"] is what breaks the Charm. Carol: > It has to do with the secret being first breached--fidelity > violated--and then the elements of the secret (the Potters and > their hiding place) either ceasing to exist or ceasing to > be protected. Essentially, the moment Wormtail betrays the Potters, > the secret is no longer a secret. Either then or when the house was > blown up, the charm failed altogether. SSSusan: So, for clarification, you're suggesting it might take BOTH the SK's infidelity regarding the secret *and* the change in the condition specified in the secret for it the protection to be broken? Siriusly Snapey Susan From dougsamu at golden.net Mon Oct 30 20:54:01 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:54:01 -0500 Subject: Reichenbach Falls -- was Resolving Harry/Horcrux Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160670 Snape's Witch replies: I'll buy the Reichenbach Falls solution! It means Harry will return after studying with the [Dalai] Lama for three years!! Doug : That'll certainly be the end of his adventures. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. ____________________ From magshirrox at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 30 15:27:34 2006 From: magshirrox at sbcglobal.net (furbratz) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:27:34 -0000 Subject: The New Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160671 desertskieswoman wrote: > So I assume that there has been much discussion as to who > dies in the final book. Being new to this group, I am going > to offer my opinion. Draco, will of course, be killed (a no > brainer), Hagrid and Professor Snape. A lot of people are > fussing over that it will be Ron, Harry or Hermione, but > why? There are plenty of people who deserve to die, and > Hagrid's death will provide the tearjerker. furbratz: I've always thought that parental figures / protectors are taken away from Harry. Even Cedric protected Harry in the maze. There is also the "coming of a new generation" thing where most of the old guard will be killed or are unable to fight / lead. Here's my Death list. Charlie, Arthur and Ron Weasley Snape Tonks and Remus Hagrid Narcissa Draco and Harry are now both protected by Snape and will probably live. Neville I think one of the meanest things JK could do would be to kill one of the twins. I don't think I could forgive her if she did that. I'm really not sure Voldemort will die. There is something about Crouch being turned to a bone and buried that always springs to mind when I think about someone actually killing Vold. The theory that evil doesn't end it just goes underground for awhile. furbratz From elainakates at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 19:33:21 2006 From: elainakates at yahoo.com (elainakates) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:33:21 -0000 Subject: Resolving Horcrux!Harry issues (was: DobbyWinky/Horcrux!H/Vindicti...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160672 > Carol: > > The problem with a similar scene in HP 7, though, is that > > if Harry is a Horcrux, he *will* have to fall in. The soul > > bit won't be separate from him as the Ring was separate > > from Frodo. > > Neri: > Like I wrote upthread, it's not a problem at all, because > Harry can fall in and he has a good reason to return alive > and even be cleansed of Voldemort's soul in the process. Hello, my name is Elaina, I just found this site, and am in love with it already. My sons and I (four years old and two years old, all watch HP and read the books) I also wondered if Harry were the Last Horcux that Dumbledore couldn't find. I just can't figure out how they are going to resolve it. Will Harry now search for the rest of them by himself? I was really confused by the latest book. I am hoping that this site can help to answer a lot of my questions. I plan to do a ton more reading before I post much. Thanks! Elaina http://www.speciallittlesmiles.com Momma to Jackson and Colton From Aixoise at snet.net Mon Oct 30 17:33:40 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:33:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's near-criminal irresponsibility In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <07ba01c6fc49$8a6a6b00$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160673 Pippin wrote: I think we just have to accept that he did his best, but Voldemort is a mighty wizard too, mightier than Dumbledore in some ways. Mightier if only because he is not "encumbered" by a conscience, concern for others and for the consequences of his actions (save for the effects they may have on further plans for domination). Stacey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 20:24:55 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:24:55 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160674 > Geoff: > As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a whole raft > of punning names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, > Umbridge, Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new > meaning for Apparition and Disillusion. OK, I got the pun on Diagon Alley (diagonally), Knockturn Alley (nocturnally) and Hogwarts (warthog) but Umbridge, Durmstrang and Grimmauld are puns how? I don't see it, it's probably staring me right in the face!! I'll probably feel REALLY stupid when it turns out to be something really simple and OBVIOUS! Ooooooooh! Jenni from Alabama (feeling like an idiot right now) From darksworld at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 20:22:54 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:22:54 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160675 ibchawz wrote: > Another possibility that I have seen on this list would be that > the Fidelius Charm would be broken when Peter Pettigrew ratted > (pun intended) the secret to Voldemort. The Potters were no > longer protected from Voldemort by the secret after PP told > Voldemort. To state it in another way, Peter's infidelity broke > the Fidelius Charm. Of course, this is speculation on my part, > since there is no canon to support the breaking of the Fidelius > Charm in any fashion. Charles: Ah, but we do somewhat have canon for the Fidelius being broken. We know that the stinking rat was the SK. Harry is told that his parents were murdered while hiding in their house at Godric's Hollow, but not by PP. Harry is able to tell other people such as Ron, Hermione, and Slughorn about GH. Charles, who is dying to see the Godric's Hollow scene(s) in book 7. From lisasimpsonfan at aol.com Mon Oct 30 20:30:34 2006 From: lisasimpsonfan at aol.com (lisasimpsonfan at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:30:34 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Remus Lupin's name Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160676 Eric technomad at intergate.com writes: >> When I first read PoA, I halfway expected the Big Surprise to be that Remus Lupin's twin Romulus was a DE,or something like that. Come to it---we really know very little about Lupin's early life. Could he have been one of a pair of twins? Maybe Fenrir Greyback ate Romulus Lupin. (This would be a good question to ask Herself, if someone gets a chance.) << ----------------------------------------------------------------- I wondered the very same thing but at Jo's site under Rumors she says: Professor Lupin has a twin No, but this obviously sprang from the fact that Lupin's Christian name (Remus) comes from one of the mythical founders of Rome who had a twin called 'Romulus'. (They were raised by wolves, incidentally). Even if he doesn't have a twin the raised by wolves fits in rather nicely with story. Linda From lilbluinsomniac at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 21:16:06 2006 From: lilbluinsomniac at yahoo.com (christy callahan) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:16:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: Remus Lupin's name In-Reply-To: <007401c6fc5e$f5269670$3c570043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: <20061030211606.48671.qmail@web32901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160677 Eric Oppen wrote: >> While Remus Lupin's name gives clues to his inner wolf, it could be read in other ways. The most famous "Remus," after all, is the twin of Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome. When I first read PoA, I halfway expected the Big Surprise to be that Remus Lupin's twin Romulus was a DE,or something like that. Come to it---we really know very little about Lupin's early life. Could he have been one of a pair of twins? Maybe Fenrir Greyback ate Romulus Lupin. (This would be a good question to ask Herself, if someone gets a chance.) << Christy: OMG, I was just going to tell you all about this, because we're studying it in history. Remus and Romulus were supposed to be killed as babies because they were royal blood and could eventually overtake him, but the king had pity for them since they were related to him, distant cousins or something. So instead of letting them drown, he sent them down the river in a basket. The basket ended up on a bank, and Remus and Romulus were adopted by wolves, becoming feral children until age 3 when they were discovered by a farmer. The twins were raised by the farmer, and he then came to find that the twins were of royal blood. Romulus began to build a stone wall at age 11 to protect the farmer's house because he was afraid they would be killed to prevent rallying against the king. Remus didn't help Romulus build the wall because he was lazy, as Romulus was a very concentrated, hard worker. Remus would taunt Romulus and tell him how stupid the wall was. Eventually, Romulus murdered Remus for his insipid comments. This story is all a myth, but it didn't stop the Eternal City from being named Rome, after Romulus. Christy From Aixoise at snet.net Mon Oct 30 21:11:13 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:11:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts and Warthogs (was: JKR punning names) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <083101c6fc67$ee2f8300$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160678 SSSusan wrote: Still, I wonder WHY the play on "warthog" for JKR? Why use a twist on *warthogs* for a name which will be getting such page time in her series? Does JKR have a fondness for warthogs? Is there something significant about warthogs? Do they have secrets gifts? :) If there?s any significance to the beast, it?s going to be completely lost in translation for the French. While I haven?t read any of the books entirely in French, I do know that Hogwarts is called ?Poudlard? (pou de lard translated loosely as hog?s wart) whereas the actual beast, warthog, is phacoch?re in French, no reference to warts at all. If there is, or will be, any significance in relation to the animal, the French editors are going to have to get mighty creative to make some sense of it. Jeux de mots always pose difficulties for translators/ interpretors and consequently, true fans often opt for the VO (version originelle) to experience all the subtleties of the author?s original. Personally, I think it?s a complete folly to have an American version of the HP series. They need to give American youths (and us old folk fans) a little more credit. If we can understand the workings of the Wizarding World through context, we can certainly manage a few ? pot plants ?, ? fringe ? and even a ? spotted dick ? or two ( the latter of which was left as is if I?m not mistaken?). Besides which, it?s a good exercise in broadening the mind. With humble apologies to Professor Trelawney, Stacey From fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz Mon Oct 30 22:02:11 2006 From: fazkleto at yahoo.co.nz (Nate Hennessey) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:02:11 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160679 > SSSusan: > So, for clarification, you're suggesting it might take BOTH the SK's > infidelity regarding the secret *and* the change in the condition > specified in the secret for it the protection to be broken? > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Nate: I suggest that it was the Potter's actual deaths that broke the fidelius. We have seen in OotP that the secret can be shared on a piece of paper from the SK without the fidelius being lifted. I think that Pettigrew shared the secret with Voldemort in this manner. Voldemort then *knew* the secret, but the fidelius wasn't lifted until he actually killed the Potters, who were the secret. With the 'secret' dead, the secret can no longer be kept, and that is how the fidelius was broken. Cheers, Nate. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Oct 30 22:01:38 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:01:38 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160680 Geoff: > > As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a whole raft > > of punning names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, > > Umbridge, Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new > > meaning for Apparition and Disillusion. Jenni: > OK, I got the pun on Diagon Alley (diagonally), Knockturn Alley > (nocturnally) and Hogwarts (warthog) but Umbridge, Durmstrang and > Grimmauld are puns how? I don't see it, it's probably staring me > right in the face!! I'll probably feel REALLY stupid when it turns > out to be something really simple and OBVIOUS! Ooooooooh! > > Jenni from Alabama (feeling like an idiot right now) SSSusan: Hee. You're making me feel better, I can tell you that! And you're not being an idiot. :) Grimmauld Place => grim old place Durmstrang => play on "sturm und drang" ["storm & stress"] Umbridge => play on "to take umbrage" [Dolores is certainly one to whom people take umbrage!] Siriusly Snapey Susan From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Oct 30 22:00:21 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:00:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) References: Message-ID: <00b801c6fc6e$eb379b90$5d80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160681 Jenni: > OK, I got the pun on Diagon Alley (diagonally), Knockturn Alley > (nocturnally) and Hogwarts (warthog) but Umbridge, Durmstrang and > Grimmauld are puns how? Magpie: Umbridge=Umbrage (meaning offense or annoyance as in "to take umbrage" at a remark) Durmstrang=Sturm und Drang (a movement of German literature in the 18h century and a phrase meaning turmoil. It literally translates as something like "storm and strife") Grimmauld Place=Grim Old Place, because it is. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 22:14:05 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:14:05 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160683 > ibchawz responds: > I'm not sure it would be called coddling, but Snape does show > favoritism toward Draco in GOF during the "Densuageo" incident that > Carol mentioned in her post. Harry hits Crabbe or Goyle (I don't > recall which) with the Furnunculus (sp?) spell and Draco hits Hermione > with Densuageo. Snape gives both Harry and Ron detentions, but Draco > does not since Snape saw no difference in Hermione's teeth. zgirnius: This is arguable. Snape started handing out the detentions not after DRaco accused Harry of attacking him, and Snape sent Goyle (the actual victim of Harry) to the hospital, but after he made his no difference comment, and heard Ron and Harry's reactions. He might have been planning to ignore the incident, since he had not seen how it developed himself. He does hear both Draco's accusation of an attack by Harry, and Harry's claim that Draco had attacked him as well. > GoF: > It was lucky, perhaps, that both Harry and Ron started shouting at > Snape at the same time; lucky their voices echoed so much in the > stone corridor, for in the confused din, it was impossible for him > to hear exactly what they were calling him. He got the gist, > however. > "Let's see," he said, in his silkiest voice. "Fifty points from > Gryffindor and a detention each for Potter and Weasley. Now get > inside, or it'll be a week's worth of detentions." It seems possible (especially since Ron, a bystander in the exhange of hexes by both Harry and Draco's accounts, ended up in detention) that the punishment was for yelling and insulting a teacher. From ibchawz at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 22:28:35 2006 From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:28:35 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160684 > SSSusan wrote: > I am assuming that what you, Carol and ibchawz, are proposing has, as > its key component, that the telling of the secret is done WITH > MALICE? that the person ratting knows he is providing the information > to someone who should not have it, rather than simply passing the > information on to someone breaking the charm? > Otherwise, when the location of GP was written on a paper and given > to Harry, that would too have broken that FC. ibchawz responds: That is exactly what I meant. Peter Pettigrew divulged the secret to Voldemort knowing full well what Voldemort's plans were. Peter knew that Voldemort wanted to kill the Potters and by telling Voldemort the secret, enabled those events to occur. If simply telling someone the secret broke the charm, it would not be very useful, unless the Fidelius Charm must be re-cast after each time the secret is revealed. I don't think that this is very likely. As complex as the charm is (per Professor Flitwick), I think it is a "one time and done" type of charm. > SSSusan wrote: > If I'm following your suggestion correctly, I wonder what would > happen if a person gave out the information without *realizing* it > was to a person with evil intent? That is, the SK wasn't betraying > intentionally, wasn't acting purposely with infidelity. I'm assuming > again that it's the intentional passing of the secret to a known > enemy which you're saying would break the FC? > > Otherwise, I'm thinking that if there were a spy in the Order, who > intended harm to Harry/the Order, then passing the location on to > that individual, while not realizing s/he was the spy, would have > broken *that* FC. ibchawz responds: If the spy in question acted on this information and tried to kill the Potters, I believe it would break the charm. The spy in question would not be able to reveal the secret to anyone else, even though he was in on the secret. > Carol: > > It has to do with the secret being first breached--fidelity > > violated--and then the elements of the secret (the Potters and > > their hiding place) either ceasing to exist or ceasing to > > be protected. Essentially, the moment Wormtail betrays the Potters, > > the secret is no longer a secret. Either then or when the house was > > blown up, the charm failed altogether. > > SSSusan: > So, for clarification, you're suggesting it might take BOTH the SK's > infidelity regarding the secret *and* the change in the condition > specified in the secret for it the protection to be broken? ibchawz responds: This make sense to me. If Peter telling Voldemort the secret, automatically broke the secret, others would have instantly remembered where the Potters were hiding. They could have come to the Potters' aid before the attack. As events transpired, Hagrid and Sirius arrived after the fact. Perhaps, it isn't just the telling with malice of the secret to the enemy that breaks the charm. The enemy may have to act on the information before the charm is broken. In this case the charm would not be broken until Voldemort showed up at the Potters' doorstep. ibchawz From mros at xs4all.nl Mon Oct 30 22:19:52 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:19:52 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Remus Lupin's name References: <20061030211606.48671.qmail@web32901.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001701c6fc71$857773e0$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 160685 Christy: >>Eventually, Romulus murdered Remus for his insipid comments. This story is all a myth, but it didn't stop the Eternal City from being named Rome, after Romulus.<< Marion: Ennius (Annales 1, frag. 47) describes how, to decide who should give his name to the city, Romulus and Remus resorted to augury, that is, taking omens from the flight of birds. The brothers watch from different parts of the Aventine and see different numbers of birds. In the ensuing quarrel, Remus was killed. In Ennius account the quarrel is about who has the favour of the gods, rather like Cain and Abel. Livy and Ovid (and others) have another version: Romulus began to build his city on the Palantine, and when the walls had risen a little way, Remus scornfully leaped over them and was killed by his brother because he had acted as an enemy, for a friend enters a city by the gate. In this version Remus declares himself the enemy of his brother by breaking the sacred bounderies of the city. This 'sacredness' of the city bounderies is not to be scoffed at. The Romans had a special order of priests of the City's Bounderies who, for instance, ritually throw a spear over the bounderies when War is declared. These kind of things *mattered* to the Romans. Yes, yes, I know. Nothing to do with HP. I'm just a tiny teeny bit anal-retentive when it comes to my beloved Romans and tend to lecture... Sorry... signing off now... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Oct 30 22:25:40 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:25:40 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160686 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jdl3811220" wrote: > > > Geoff: > > As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a whole raft > > of punning names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, > > Umbridge, Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new > > meaning for Apparition and Disillusion. > > > OK, I got the pun on Diagon Alley (diagonally), Knockturn Alley > (nocturnally) and Hogwarts (warthog) but Umbridge, Durmstrang and > Grimmauld are puns how? I don't see it, it's probably staring me > right in the face!! I'll probably feel REALLY stupid when it turns > out to be something really simple and OBVIOUS! Ooooooooh! > > Jenni from Alabama (feeling like an idiot right now) Geoff: Umbridge. A pun on the word "umbrage" = "to take offence over something". Durmstrang. A spoonerism based on the German "Sturm und Drang" = "storm and stress", the name given to a literary movement around the time of Beethoven - late 18th/early 19th centuries, Grimmauld Place = "grim old place". "Auld" is a Scots dialect word meaning "old" - best known to Sassenachs in the words of "Auld Lang Syne". Edinburgh is known to the Scots as "Auld Reekie" (Old smelly) - rather like the "Big Apple". JKR lives in Edinburgh. Have we a link here? The other one I forgot but usually mention is "Pensieve" = "a device for storing memories" which is a play on words on "pensive" (thoughful). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 22:32:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:32:33 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160687 > zgirnius: >> > GoF: > > It was lucky, perhaps, that both Harry and Ron started shouting at > > Snape at the same time; lucky their voices echoed so much in the > > stone corridor, for in the confused din, it was impossible for him > > to hear exactly what they were calling him. He got the gist, > > however. > > > "Let's see," he said, in his silkiest voice. "Fifty points from > > Gryffindor and a detention each for Potter and Weasley. Now get > > inside, or it'll be a week's worth of detentions." > > It seems possible (especially since Ron, a bystander in the exhange > of hexes by both Harry and Draco's accounts, ended up in detention) > that the punishment was for yelling and insulting a teacher. > Alla: How does that disprove that Snape showed favoritism to Draco when said teacher deliberately insults Hermione and then Harry and Ron start yelling? Draco gets nothing for the incident he started while Harry and Ron get detentions for being upset on behalf of their friend? Alla, whose hatred of Snape's teaching methods increases tenfolds when she rereads this incident From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 22:25:35 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:25:35 -0000 Subject: Views of Hermione./Bad guys, good guys In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160688 > > Alla: > > > I have a luxury of wishing bad guys to be punished because I am > > convinced of their guilt - there is not a doubt in my mind that > > Marietta is a traitor and still I think that executions of Hermione > > good intentions could have been better, as many people said. > > > > What I am arguing vehemently against is discarding hermione good > > intentions and the thought that Marietta should have been allowed to > > go scott free. She did a horrible deed, I do not think that she > > should have been allowed to merrily continue her studies as if she > > did not do anything wrong. > > > > Because to me it is crystal clear that she did. > > > > Pippin: > Thanks for this, it makes your position much clearer to me. What > you want, then, is that the good guys should have the luxury of > assuming that their good intentions and high ideals will keep them > from messing up too badly? And of assuming that those whose > intentions are not so good and whose ideals are not so noble > are capable of the absolute worst and so should be dealt with > ruthlessly? Alla: I recently discussed with someone off list the joys and misunderstandings of the external and internal analysis of the story and how often we fall into misunderstandings when we mix two ( I certainly do that often), so not what you just said at all. The post I responded was looking at the story ( sort of) from outsider of the story ( as I understood it, hopefully) and I responded from outside as well. So, to what you said - **Good guys** in the books certainly should not have a luxury of making assumptions that good ideas would keep them from messing up. They should at least try to behave as good guys do, etc, etc. but as a reader I certainly will have a luxury to evaluate good guys as I see them and bad guys as I see them and you bet, that I will cut more slack to the character whom I see as having good intentions, even if I see this character messing up in process. But I think most importantly is that I think that just when one watches horror movies to let the emotions run free, etc( I don't, I am too easily scared), I can have a pleasure of wishing bad guys ( as I see them) to die without waiting for them to be tried in court. Pippin: > I am glad to know you don't think this works in the real world. > A lot of people do, you know, and I would hate to think that JKR is > encouraging them. More to the point, I think that Hermione, and > Harry to a lesser extent, have indeed fallen prey to this form of > magical thinking. I don't believe that JKR means to make it > work for them. Alla: What does not work in RL world, Pippin? That people should be deemed guilty without the day in court? That surely does not and should not or do you mean something else? But in fiction, when author does not write the story where full due process in catching the bad guy is required, I am certainly willing to accept short hand for that. Pippin: > But if you do think it works, then it explains why you think > Snape must be a bad guy, and why Draco, despite his incapacity, > must be considered murderous, and why Dumbledore was so > wrong not to trust in Sirius's high ideals and good intentions > rather than in the Dursleys and the blood protection. Alla: Huh? What explains why I think this way? I think that Snape is a bad guy because I see the events in the book which tell me that he is a bad guy. Ugh, how to put it? I do not need a fictional judge to tell me that Snape is an abuser and murderer. As a reader I already have an opinion about that based on what I have read. If JKR thinks otherwise, I will not lose sleep over that, I will just discover that I am wrong, that is all. But for now that is the opinion that I have about fictional character and because of that I want this character to be punished severely. I do not think that this is strange desire to have bad guys punished. And of course same thing is with Draco and Dumbledore. I certainly do not want them to suffer that much as I want with Snape, since especially Dumbledore already paid the ultimate price, but I simply think that they committed the big wrongs ( Draco committed a crime and Dumbledore - well, big mistake, huge, the way I see it) and as a reader I want to have emotional satisfaction of seeing them at least realising what they did wrong. ETA. Probably the good analogy would be Voldemort's fate. You are not expecting Voldemort to be tried by Wizengamot, right? Although in RL we would certainly want the biggest evil overlord to be tried in court. We just want him dead ( Although I certainly do not want to generalise, maybe some people do want Voldemort to be tried in court with defense and prosecution) Snape to me is just as evil as Voldemort, regardless by the way whether he is on Dumbledore's side or not, although if he is, he is just everyday evil, nothing more. That is why I already know all that I need to know to decide for myself what kind of character he is and I know what I want to happen to him as **fictional** bad guy as I see him. Does that make it clearer? Pippin: > I think JKR means to show us that high ideals and good > intentions, though they are good in themselves, do not > substitute for ability, nor do they excuse people from > responsibility for the consequences of their actions which > could reasonably be foreseen. And the consequence > of unfairness is more unfairness, as Hermione should know. > Alla: Excuse of the responsibility? Of course not, but neither do I think that JKR means to show that good intentions means nothing and that the girl who is fighting against Voldemort should be cut some slack even if the executions could be better, IMO. Pippin: > If she wants justice, then she needs not only to be as critical > of her friends as she is of her enemies, (she's got that part!) > she has to be as forgiving of her enemies as she is of her > friends. Nothing less. Of course that's not as much fun as > beating the snot out of bad guys. Maybe that's why no matter > how many bad guys get the snot beat out of them, justice still > seems so very far away? Alla: Just one book away :) and I don't know about you, but I am certainly quite happy with the justice Draco got so far - I bet little shmack will not be happy with the life in the DE bootcamp or on the run with Snape, or whenever he went. I expect Dursleys to suffer more at the beginning of book 7, you may not consider it justice, but I certainly do and of course too bad I cannot be sure what will Snape get, but I am keeping my fingers crossed that I will get to see at least short scene of Snape at Harry's mercy. We shall see, I suppose> Alla, whose favorite Snape punishment for today is life in Azkaban, death will be only too easy, but who can change her mind tomorrow. From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 22:42:07 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:42:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The New Book Message-ID: <20061030224207.11389.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160689 desertskieswoman wrote: > So I assume that there has been much discussion as to who > dies in the final book. Being new to this group, I am going > to offer my opinion. Draco, will of course, be killed (a no > brainer), Hagrid and Professor Snape. A lot of people are > fussing over that it will be Ron, Harry or Hermione, but > why? There are plenty of people who deserve to die, and > Hagrid's death will provide the tearjerker. ========================================= Jeremiah: Yeah, umm... I think JKR has an option regarding Draco. I think she might have him and his mother cross over to Harry's side (as difficult as it might be) to show that people can change... and lives. It is possible that he dies. I'm not so sure about Hagrid. I think he lives. Snape? Well, I can see him living and I can see him being killed. Now, I totally agree about Hermione and Ron. They are not going to die. Hermione has to grow up to be Headmistress and Ron has to become an Auror (Or possible the Minister for Magic). LOL. I like that ending. I think the one think I really like about what the next book might hold is that everyone in the series has the potential to be killed. (Happy Birthday Molly Weasley!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 30 22:51:24 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:51:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco is quite the wizard Message-ID: <20061030225124.4206.qmail@web54505.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160690 > zgirnius: > It seems possible (especially since Ron, a bystander in the exhange > of hexes by both Harry and Draco's accounts, ended up in detention) > that the punishment was for yelling and insulting a teacher. > Alla: How does that disprove that Snape showed favoritism to Draco when said teacher deliberately insults Hermione and then Harry and Ron start yelling? ========== Jeremiah: Um, Snape is an "accomplished" ligellimens (spelling?) So, can't he just peek into their heads? JKR has mentioned that the whole story is from Harry's "perspective" Since Harry hasn't a clue about Snape's ability then... well, it would seem like he couldn't hear properly but could, instead, figure out what happened in other ways. So, yes, Snape was being a doo-doo head. And he was certainly being cruel to Hermione. (Which, depending on who you are, could be a good thing or a bad thing. I'm in the Bad Thing camp). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SMacLagan at msn.com Mon Oct 30 22:51:44 2006 From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:51:44 -0000 Subject: New Member and question/ Names wordplay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160691 > > > Carol responds: > I noticed the punning names of the textbook > Still, the wordplay is one of the continuing pleasures of the books. London Granddaughter adds: How about Voldemort: Volde = volt (electricity or lightning bolt) + mort = death: the voltage/lightning bolt of death From aceworker at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 00:15:44 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 16:15:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) Message-ID: <20061031001544.30911.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160692 < As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a whole raft of punning > names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Umbridge, > Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new meaning for > Apparition and Disillusion. SSSusan: Heh. I remember how long it took me to catch on to Diagon Alley and shaking my head that it wasn't patently obvious from the very moment I saw that chapter title. I do love the way JKR has had such fun with names -- Professors Vector & Sprout, Durmstrang, even the Griffin[-] door knocker.... Now, though, at the risk of revealing myself as a complete dolt, I'm going to make myself just buck up and ask: What's the pun with "Hogwarts"? Do you just mean the turn-around from the word warthog? Or is there something I'm missing?? Siriusly Snapey Susan>>> My favorite I just discovered and very smart readers might even figured it out before it happened in POA. And it is: Peter Pettigrew 1) Pet R 2) Pet I Grew. There was a clue there if we had just seen it. LOL DA Jones --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 00:23:51 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:23:51 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts and Warthogs (was: JKR punning names) In-Reply-To: <083101c6fc67$ee2f8300$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160693 --- "Stacey Nunes-Ranchy" wrote: > > SSSusan wrote: >Still, I wonder WHY the play on "warthog" for JKR? > ... Does JKR have a fondness for warthogs? > > > If there's any significance to the beast, it's going to > be completely lost in translation for the French. While > I haven't read any of the books entirely in French, I do > know that Hogwarts is called "Poudlard" (pou de lard > translated loosely as hog's wart) whereas the actual > beast, warthog, is phacoch?re in French, no reference to > warts at all. If there is, or will be, any significance > in relation to the animal, the French editors are going > to have to get mighty creative to make some sense of it. > > ... > > With humble apologies to Professor Trelawney, > > Stacey > bboyminn: As I recall the story, JKR had decided on the name Hogwarts and used it in the books. Later she was asked about the name, and only then was reminded by a friend that 'Hogwarts' or some very close variation was the Botanical name of a type of flower they had both seen at the Botanical gardens. I believe it was either a lily or water lily of some type. Being a collector of interesting names, as JKR has already admitted she is, I suspect she saw the name and thought it was interesting then filed it away somewhere until it came bubbling up from her subconscious when she needed a name for her wizard's school. Though I'm sure the hog-warts/wart-hogs implication did not escape her. Just passing it a long. Steve/bboyminn From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 31 01:00:48 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:00:48 -0000 Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160694 Dungrollin: > Theory Bay is dark, a waxing gibbous moon does nothing to > illuminate the waves pounding the beach since it's obscured by > clouds; the low tide reveals the crumbling masts of the many > wrecks which litter the seabed. Once-proud vessels, boldly crewed > by some of the bravest, most fearless listies who ever posted. > These days, so very few remain afloat. SSSusan sssaunters in: "Tra la! My little dinghy, DRIBBLE SHADOWS is still afloat! It's never been especially sea-worthy, nor a popular boat to hop aboard, but at least she ain't sunk!" Anyhoo... on to the points of BlackWidower!Snape Returned! Dungrollin: > < < < < < < < < > > I was wandering through the archives, and stumbled upon an old > Snape theory which has had various makeovers, known as Black > Widower!Snape, or Snape!Son. Reading message 111173 (and laughing > a lot).... SSSusan: I remember it well... as I remember well how Kneasy's early posts regularly made me laugh a lot! Dung: > I should mention that Kneasy's post was very much more like Out- > For-Himself!Snape, whereas this version is decidedly DDM (I can't > help it, you know). SSSusan: Heh. Good girl! Dung: > Let's begin by trying to put ourselves in Voldy's shoes. How would > he interpret the scrap of prophecy which Snape brought him?[3] The > thrice-defied part, in particular. > So let's say that it's about now that Snape's wife [5] discovers > that she is pregnant. Narcissa's pregnant too! > At the beginning of June, Lucius and/or Narcissa panic and induce > their baby early (however they do such things in the WW). Draco is > born dangerously premature on June 5th,[8] but it's better that he > should struggle through his first year of life (Magical Medicine > should be enough to see him through) than that Voldy should even > consider the possibility that he's the prophecy baby. > The Snapes, for some reason (difficult pregnancy?) do not want to > risk inducing their baby prematurely. They've got around the > problem so far by not letting it get out that Mrs Snape is > pregnant, so Voldy doesn't know. > Snape and Reggie are old pals, united in their hatred of Sirius at > school, so Snape (foolishly ? he hasn't learned too much about > Voldy yet) tries to help Reg, save him, hide him, whatever. > Voldemort knows that Snape and Regulus are thick as thieves, so he > questions Snape, who is still wet-behind-the-ears, [11] and as yet > unable to hide his lies with Occlumency [12]. Voldemort knows he's > lying, Regulus is quickly discovered and killed within days of > Voldy shouting "Off with his head!" [13] SSSusan: Hmmmm. Is it in Snape's character to side with Regulus over Voldy? Has he already begun to think "It's not worth it" with regard to being a Voldy supporter? What will have had this effect on Snape? The prophecy? his wife's pregnancy? Dung: > Voldemort is therefore very much displeased with Snape. He orders > Snape to be killed (that'll learn him!). However, Lucius Malfoy, > still grateful to Snape for his tip off about the prophecy, > intervenes (at great personal risk) to persuade Voldemort to spare > Snape. Lucius's strategy involves pointing out to Voldy how very > useful a talented young wizard like Snape could be. [14] SSSusan: Hmmm again. Is it in Lucius' character to go out on such a limb for Snape, even if he did provide the tip-off about July? I can't *quite* imagine it. But perhaps the thought of having an heir is enough for Lucius to risk it, to actually consider someone else's life? ...Eh, I think I need more convincing. Dung: > Unfortunately, in the process of defending and arguing for Snape, > Voldemort, the expert Legilimens [15], discovers from Lucius that > Snape has told him about the prophecy, and that baby Snape is due > around the end of July, and they've kept it secret from him. SSSusan: One question here. If Voldy Legilimenses (did I spell that right??) Lucius enough to discover the existence of EarlyArrival!Draco, would he not also have discovered the existence of Pregnant!Mrs.Snape? It seems unlikely that those two things, surely so intertwined in Lucius' mind, would not *both* come to the surface for Voldy to discover. Dung: > I don't think Voldy trusts anybody [18]. And since Bella certainly > doesn't trust Snape [19], I don't see why Voldemort would. I think > one of Voldy's aims in HBP (which I've gone on about before [20]) > was to test Snape's loyalty - "He expects me to do it in the end, > I think." HBP, 2:39). At the end of HBP, Snape has killed DD, the > only one Voldemort ever feared. Voldy trusts him now, as much as > he will ever trust anyone. SSSusan: I can definitely agree with this possibility of a loyalty test of Snape. And wouldn't it be fascinating if, in the end for Snape, that loyalty test of Voldy's turned into a loyalty test of DD's as well! That is, if you & I are right about Snape being DDM and about DD "commanding" Snape to do the deed, then killing DD was DD's "loyalty test." How convenient (but how very painful for Snape) that killing DD will satisfy *both* loyalty tests in one deed. Dung: > DD, however, suspects that Snape is a Death Eater (though he > doesn't let on), and refuses him the job since he suspects that > Snape is there on Voldy's orders. But he leaves options open, > because he doesn't want Voldemort to kill Snape for failing to > secure the job. SSSusan: One final question. WHY would DD do this for Snape? Why would he care what happens to him? Do you think he already saw the hint of a chance that he was regretting his decision to become a DE or to follow Voldy? Dung: > And the rest is history. Working in a school, watching children > growing up would have been torture. Every time he looks at Harry, > he sees James, the man who was allowed to die defending his > family, while Snape was forced to survive his family and always be > alone. And of course, he always wears black. SSSusan: It's fun, Dung! Siriusly Snapey Susan From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 01:09:31 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:09:31 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160695 > Geoff: > Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn Alley, Umbridge, > Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating new meaning for > Apparition and Disillusion. Goddlefrood: Having looked at the responses to the inclusion of Hogwarts it appears most ground has been covered. Only one small point to add which is that Hogwarts is a character (or so I recall and the memory is often dim) from the film Legend, or some such of Jim Henson's. One other good punning name is Golpalott as in Golpalott's laws. For your edification it is related to swallowing copious amounts (gulp a lot).. boom boom TTFN From mros at xs4all.nl Tue Oct 31 01:19:40 2006 From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:19:40 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) References: Message-ID: <000701c6fc8a$a385d020$63fe54d5@Marion> No: HPFGUIDX 160696 Goddlefrood: Having looked at the responses to the inclusion of Hogwarts it appears most ground has been covered. Only one small point to add which is that Hogwarts is a character (or so I recall and the memory is often dim) from the film Legend, or some such of Jim Henson's. Marion: You mean 'Hoggle' from 'Labyrinth. Jareth the Goblin King always forgets or mispronounces Hoggle's name and does call him 'Hogwart' once... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SMacLagan at msn.com Tue Oct 31 00:42:44 2006 From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:42:44 -0000 Subject: James' and Lily's gold Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160697 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, London Granddaughter From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca Tue Oct 31 01:37:53 2006 From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:37:53 -0000 Subject: James' and Lily's gold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160698 "Susan MacLagan" 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, > London Granddaughter Luckdragon: I have 2 theories on the Potter's wealth. My first theory is that James Potter's family originally owned Zonko's. My second theory is that they may be descendants of Nicholas Flamel and their wealth stems from the Philosophers/Sorcerers stone. I think Jo will have to let us in on this little bit of info. to tie up loose ends. Can't wait to find out. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Oct 31 01:51:00 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:51:00 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Member and question/ Names wordplay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160699 London Granddaughter : How about Voldemort: Volde = volt (electricity or lightning bolt) + mort = death: the voltage/lightning bolt of death Nikkalmati: My goodness, you have just pointed out the reason why Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightening bolt. The connection between the scar and LV's name is a sort of pun! Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 31 02:31:11 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:31:11 -0000 Subject: James' and Lily's gold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160700 > "Susan MacLagan" wrote: > > Q: Where did James and Lily get all that gold? Do you think it was > > spoils from plunder? Simple inheritance from James' family? > > Luckdragon: > [...] > James Potter's family originally owned Zonko's. Eddie: LOL. And I always thought that it was acquired through the use a time turner and investing in Vernon Dursley's drill company. :-) Seriously, I think JKRowling said that James' parents were well-off. I can't find the quote, but I seem to recall that there was some speculation here recently that due to the Potters' wealth, James was a spoiled rich kid. Anybody have a clear canonical reference? Eddie From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 31 02:50:06 2006 From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:50:06 -0000 Subject: The New Book In-Reply-To: <20061030224207.11389.qmail@web54510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160701 Joe: I see Snape giving his life to save Harry in the final book. Just my $0.02. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 31 02:52:33 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:52:33 -0000 Subject: James' and Lily's gold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160702 London Granddaughter: > 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, SSSusan: My favorite theory is that James is related to Bowman Wright, inventor of the Golden Snitch, who also hailed from Godric's Hollow. Surely Mr. Wright's brilliant invention garnered him a fair pile of riches! Presumably, too, he was a Quidditch player himself... perhaps a part of a long line of highly talented Quidditch players continuing on down to James & Harry Potter?? Siriusly Snapey Susan From sad1199 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 02:49:28 2006 From: sad1199 at yahoo.com (sad1199) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:49:28 -0000 Subject: Been gone for a while, but... Does this count as a question? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160703 Is there any time frame for book 7 to come out? Some of my friends are saying 2008!?! Or not until after the 5th movie comes out? Please help if you can. Thank you. sad1199 "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."-Albus Dumbledore From Aixoise at snet.net Tue Oct 31 02:44:06 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (usaixoise) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 02:44:06 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: <20061031001544.30911.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160704 SSSusan: > Now, though, at the risk of revealing myself as a complete dolt, I'm > going to make myself just buck up and ask: What's the pun > with "Hogwarts"? Do you just mean the turn-around from the word > warthog? Or is there something I'm missing?? > I must confess, with similar embarassment, that due to her character's bizarre behavior and name, I very much expected that Luna Lovegood would turn out to be a werewolf, vampire or have some other lunar- referenced mystical affliction. Turns out (so far)she's just odd :o) Stacey From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 02:55:13 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:55:13 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a0610291813s5f185945w162468a5660a66c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0610301855u298bb6f3o9bc4a0b4ad14873d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160705 > > > Debbie, earlier: > In other words, it was not the memory that was unique about the > Diary horcrux. It was that Tom had devised a means of accessing > the soul within. I see no evidence that the other soul bits do (or > did) not include memories. The difference is that there is no way > to access them; they are too well encased. SSSusan: Forgive my coming in so late to this discussion, only to insert questions. :) But reading Debbie's thoughts, I became curious. If you've explained all this before, please forgive me for asking, but are you suggesting that *each* of the horcruxes contains not only a soul bit but also a memory of Riddle? and that perhaps the reason Tom Riddle's name is familiar to Harry is that not only is there a horcrux in Harry, but there's a *memory* of Tom's in there, too? Debbie: I actually don't recall if I've ever explained by theory or not. But that sounds about right. My suggestion is that each soul bit contains a melange of all those things that animate Voldemort and make him who he is. That includes memories, powers, conscience, etc. So, yes, under my theory Harry has memories of Tom Riddle, and not just one (just as I'm sure the diary contained more memories than what Diary!Tom chose to show Harry). But those memories are deeply buried in Harry's brain with other memories he received as a 15-month-old child. Thus, Harry can't identify specific memories -- he was too young, but he recalls enough to recognize Riddle's name as familiar somehow. Like a friend. Debbie now contemplating whether Harry can give the soul-bit back simply by possessing Voldemort, conveniently avoiding his own self-sacrifice [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From scarah at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 02:55:32 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:55:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Remus Lupin's name In-Reply-To: <007401c6fc5e$f5269670$3c570043@D6L2G391> References: <007401c6fc5e$f5269670$3c570043@D6L2G391> Message-ID: <3202590610301855i71f4c0ds6e2acd757f8deb4b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160706 Eric: > Come to it---we really know very little about Lupin's early life. Could he > have been one of a pair of twins? Maybe Fenrir Greyback ate Romulus Lupin. > (This would be a good question to ask Herself, if someone gets a chance.) Sarah: I'm afraid it's been asked. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=9 "Professor Lupin has a twin No, but this obviously sprang from the fact that Lupin's Christian name (Remus) comes from one of the mythical founders of Rome who had a twin called 'Romulus'. (They were raised by wolves, incidentally)." Both werewolves we've met so far have dead giveaway names. Either they were doomed from birth, they had to change their names after they were bitten, or it's just one of those things. Sirius Black and Rita Skeeter are no picnic either. How come Potter and McGonagall get to be animagi and have such incognito names? Sarah From SMacLagan at msn.com Tue Oct 31 01:54:16 2006 From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:54:16 -0000 Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160707 Dungrollin wrote: So let's say that it's about now that Snape's wife [5] discovers that she is pregnant LG writes: On JKR's site there is an interview with a questioner who surmised that a female character might be child of Snape's. JKR resplies that Snape does not have a daughter. It stood out to me that she does not reply that he has no children. Wondering...if he has a son...if he might still be alive... London Granddaughter From darksworld at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 03:41:56 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:41:56 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160708 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "usaixoise" wrote: > I must confess, with similar embarassment, that due to her character's > bizarre behavior and name, I very much expected that Luna Lovegood > would turn out to be a werewolf, vampire or have some other lunar- > referenced mystical affliction. Turns out (so far)she's just odd :o) Charles: But Luna *is* a space case, so I do think her name would count. One I'm kicking myself for not seeing until this discussion is Rita Skeeter. (skeeter=Southern US slang for mosquito-Rita bing an insect animagus)I can't be certain of it being intentional, but it sure fits the pattern. This may just come from the fact that I'm exhausted and headed for bed, but has anybody noticed that Tom is the Riddle that Harry has to figure out? Charles, who is going to bed before he blurts out another sentence like that last one. From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 04:05:34 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:05:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: References: <20061031001544.30911.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610302005s16c0d19fufa389e3f77a05d4d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160709 Stacey: > I must confess, with similar embarassment, that due to her character's > bizarre behavior and name, I very much expected that Luna Lovegood > would turn out to be a werewolf, vampire or have some other lunar- > referenced mystical affliction. Such as... lunacy? That is to say, she's perceived as insane in some way, and insanity has traditionally been associated with the moon. Regardless of whether it's right or not, just the perception could be the reason for the name. And traditionally it has meant a particular type of insane behavior interspersed with moments of clarity - that seems like Luna somewhat, doesn't it? as far as sometimes having deeper insight or whatever From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Oct 31 04:09:23 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:09:23 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's Hex ... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160710 Alla: > > But, but but the defensive part meaning that this would be the > defense against Umbridge, no? That they will know and Umbridge will > not be able to do anything to them? >Ceridwen >No matter what Hermione privately thinks, and no matter how Harry and Ron see the club, nothing is said to the others that would make them think this is more than what it is advertised to be. Ginny makes a joke about calling it Dumbledore's Army, and it is written on the top of the membership list that is later confiscated by Umbridge and her IS. But the official reading of the initials means something different. >So far, also, Umbridge has been a slimey character, but has not done anything (to anyone's knowledge, she doesn't confess to the Dementor connection until much later in the book) to merit a war being declared against her. The only problem as far as the DADA class is concerned is her ineffectual teaching of the subject. Nikkalmati: But think about the consequences for the students if even a study club is discovered by DU. All unapproved clubs are illegal. It must have been apparent to Marietta that she was stabbing her friends in the back. It is not as though she had independently discovered wrongdoing by the students and felt she had to report it. Everyone there "trusted" her. She gave her word. I don't see how learning to repel Dementors was an attack on the MOM. No one would want to be on the wrong side of a Dementor and the spell was defensive only. No excuses for Marietta here. Nikkalmati >Pippin >If she wants justice, then she needs not only to be as critical of her friends as she is of her enemies, (she's got that part!) she has to be as forgiving of her enemies as she is of her friends. Nothing less. Of course that's not as much fun as beating the snot out of bad guys. Maybe that's why no matter how many bad guys get the snot beat out of them, justice still seems so very far away? Nikkalmati: Not exactly. Neither Rita or Marietta were going to be punished by the authorities for the terrible things they did. I object to the scenario where evil people can get away with things because good people are too righteous to oppose them. Everyone has to be aware that you can't go about sowing havoc and assume no one will ever get back at you. Someday you'll get nailed. "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for a few good men (or girls) to do nothing." (Burke). (Lets all wring our hands and say "wasn't that terrible, but it is somebody else's job.) >montims: > I recently reread this book, and was horrified at the actions of Ministry-sanctioned Umbridge, which were so much worse than I had remembered - there are strong parallels to the rise of Naziism in Germany, for example, particularly with the continuous new decrees prohibiting and limiting student actions. Just what the Nazis did in Europe with the Jews - decree by decree limiting their movements and rights... Nikkalmati: Absolutely, I think the pattern is clearly there in JKR's writing. Step by step, the decrees, the official backing, the brown shirts etc. Nobody does anything out of fear of retribution and then comes the spying, the betrayal. It fits. Nikkalmati (hurray for the twins, who did not desert the DA, but carried the battle to new heights and new territory) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Oct 31 03:45:47 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:45:47 -0500 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160711 The 'hogwart' is a flowering plant that was used medicinally at one time. As for the winged boars, "When pigs fly" is a well-known expression for something that is deemed impossible. Umbra in Latin means 'shade' or 'shadow.' Dolores means 'sorrows' or 'pains.' (Stabat mater dolorosa/juxtu crucem lacrimosa/dum pendabat filius. . . ') Dolores Umbridge means a 'painful/sorrowful shadow.' Volo/volare means 'to fly.' Flight from death.=Vol de Mort. Bruce From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 31 04:51:20 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:51:20 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's Hex ... References: Message-ID: <016201c6fca8$38dc6130$5d80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160712 >>Pippin > >>If she wants justice, then she needs not only to be as critical > of her friends as she is of her enemies, (she's got that part!) > she has to be as forgiving of her enemies as she is of her > friends. Nothing less. Of course that's not as much fun as > beating the snot out of bad guys. Maybe that's why no matter > how many bad guys get the snot beat out of them, justice still > seems so very far away? > > > Nikkalmati: > > Not exactly. Neither Rita or Marietta were going to be punished by the > authorities for the terrible things they did. I object to the scenario > where > evil people can get away with things because good people are too righteous > to > oppose them. Everyone has to be aware that you can't go about sowing > havoc and > assume no one will ever get back at you. Someday you'll get nailed. Magpie: Which is why so many of us think Hermione needs a wake up call. She's the character who loves to sow havoc and assumes no one will ever get back at her. At this point she's heading for JR Ewing territory--if she turned up dead 20 years from now I wouldn't be surprised if there were a whole crowd of possible suspects. >>montims: >> I recently reread this book, and was horrified at the actions of > Ministry-sanctioned Umbridge, which were so much worse than I had > remembered > - there are strong parallels to the rise of Naziism in Germany, for > example, > particularly with the continuous new decrees prohibiting and limiting > student actions. Just what the Nazis did in Europe with the Jews - > decree > by decree limiting their movements and rights... > > Nikkalmati: > > Absolutely, I think the pattern is clearly there in JKR's writing. Step > by > step, the decrees, the official backing, the brown shirts etc. Nobody > does > anything out of fear of retribution and then comes the spying, the > betrayal. > It fits. Magpie: Yes, except Umbridge is putting more restrictions on students at the school where she is headmistress. She's not taking away anyone's rights as citizens (nor is she targetting an ethnic group). As students they already lack rights they have on the outside. So imo she's a bit more Dean Wormer than Der Fuhrer. On a smaller scale, of course, we see the parallels to a tyrranical leader and we also see the result--not nobody doing anything out of fear of retribution and betrayal, but chaos. Everyone refuses to do anything and there's no discipline at all. Umbridge has no control. The real person we see it's unwise to act against for fear of retribution is, as usual, Hermione Granger. Don't disobey her even if she's tricked you into signing up for something you didn't agree to up front is Hermione. Ironically, she also feels she should get to control what gets put in the newspaper. Nikki:> > Nikkalmati (hurray for the twins, who did not desert the DA, but carried > the > battle to new heights and new territory) Magpie: Didn't they just drop out and start their business to make money for themselves? I don't see that as exactly carrying the battle to new heights and territory. The next year they were actively working against Hogwart's defenses. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 31 05:03:27 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:03:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Draco References: Message-ID: <01b101c6fca9$e7240d50$5d80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160713 Cliff here: > > There is the opposite lesson to be learned if Draco does die at the > hands of LV, and that is that some will take your promises to be > unbreakable and you will suffer the consequences. Often, it is not someone, but something, such as steering a car over the cliff. The lesson then is be careful that the promises you make for yourself can be carried out. You can't wheedle out of everything you don't like. Magpie: Yes, but that story's already been told via Regulus--and really Draco himself already in HBP. I'm not ready to say what will happen to Draco, but it does seem like the story needs someone to be able to change sides and live. Regulus struck a blow for the right side (or at least against LV) and died. Snape seems to have changed sides, but was never able to get away from his past mistakes. He seems like he's possibly haunted by the fact he could never truly undo the decision he'd made because of the prophecy (especially if Lollipops turns out to be true). Like I said, I can't predict, but it feels like there's a need for someone to have a chance of mind and be battered and bruised without being so completely compromised. Draco didn't want to wheedle out, he wanted to be a man. The worst thing about being a DE, it seemed to me, wasn't just that it wasn't fun or that Voldemort was scary--though that was bad. It was that he really didn't seem to be one, for all he tried to be. Nikki: Nevertheless, we are left with the problem of how SS and DM will relate in the next book. SS is bound by the UV to protect Draco. That means he will have to convince LV that Draco did the best he could and should not be killed. Under the circumstances, he will probably succeed in that mission. So when SS and DM come face to face again what happens? If SS is DDM can he just come out and say "You think I am a loyal DE, but I am not, so follow my example and come over to the Light?" Seems pretty risky for DDMSnape. On the other hand, if SS is an LV supporter or OFH or gray and Draco is no longer a sincere follower of LV, Draco can't exactly tell SS he has had a change of heart. Will they have a meeting of the minds? Will Narcissa bring them together? Magpie: It's definitely a loaded situation, isn't it? Since I lean towards DDM Snape it seems like they're in a weird position where both of them is in his heart not with LV but can't trust the other one is on the same side. Who knows if Narcissa could do something like that. She seems ready to protect Draco no matter what, but would she know where he was at post-HBP any more than anyone else? -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 31 05:33:43 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:33:43 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160714 Stacey: > I must confess, with similar embarassment, that due to her > character's bizarre behavior and name, I very much expected that > Luna Lovegood would turn out to be a werewolf, vampire or have > some other lunar-referenced mystical affliction. Turns out (so > far)she's just odd :o) Charles: > But Luna *is* a space case, so I do think her name would count. Jen: Another one to add to the list for Luna is the luna moth. Once they emerge from their cocoons they live for one week and are considered to be a 'rare find' if actually seen in nature. That description reminded me of Luna, always optimistic she will see one of her rare (nonexistent?) finds. And she is quite the rare one herself! I would love to see one of her creatures turn out to be real and prove Hermione wrong. Unfortuantely, if Luna's name was inspired by the luna moth, that might not bode well for her future. Like things didn't bode well for Bode . Ok, stop me now. Jordan (post # 160709) > Such as... lunacy? That is to say, she's perceived as insane in > some way, and insanity has traditionally been associated with the > moon. Jen: Lunacy can also denote someone who is eccentric, which does fit Luna perfectly. Like you said, the word was tied to phases of the moon and possibly was a way to describe cyclical mood disorders. It's hard not to think of the colloquial "loony bin" when you hear her nickname, though I think JKR uses chose that more to show the bias of the other students than to describe how she personally views Luna. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 06:35:44 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:35:44 -0000 Subject: New Member and question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "usaixoise" wrote: > Stacey: > > One thing that has perplexed me for sometime is the issue of > underage wizards performing magic outside of Hogwarts. Doesn't > Hermione say she's tried some spells with success on the Hogwarts > Express in Book 1? zanooda: Don't forget Harry and Co. hexing Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle on the Hogwarts express at the end of GoF, Harry and DA members hexing them on the train at the end of OotP, and Draco Malfoy using "Petrificus Totalus" on Harry at the beginning of HBP on the Hogwarts Express. It seems that the students are allowed to do magic on the train. It's not very clear though if Hermione tried her spells on the train or before. > Stacey: > She performs "Oculus Reparo" on > the Hogwarts Express and in Diagon Alley. And doesn't Harry > practice "Lumos Maxima" at the Dursley's? zanooda: "Oculus Reparo" is from the movies, there is no such a spell in the books at all. In Diagon Alley (CoS) it was Arthur Weasley who repaired Harry's glasses. Same goes for "Lumos Maxima". Movies aside, I think that this "underage magic" law is really unfair to Muggleborns. Kids from wizard or mixed families can do magic at least sometimes, when the parents are not looking, and no one will find out. I really doubt that Molly Weasley knows what Fred and George do every minute of the day (and nigth)during holidays :-) Sorry if others already answered you, Stacey, I'm very very much behind in the reading and just got to your post tonight. zanooda, who is struggling with her "bouncing account" right now ;-( and who is not sure that it's possible to post while "bouncing", but still wants to try. From o_secca at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 31 06:55:45 2006 From: o_secca at sbcglobal.net (secca_pk) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:55:45 -0000 Subject: James' and Lily's gold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160716 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan MacLagan" 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, > London Granddaughter > Secca adds: Well, we know that *all* of Harry's relatives are dead except Petunia. So perhaps there has been a concentration of wealth happening as well, as all the relative died, eventually it all ended up with the last Potter; James. Canon quote from AOL chat 2000:(thanks to Accio Quote) http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-aol-chat.htm Q: What did James and Lily Potter do when they were alive? JKR: 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. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 31 07:10:00 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:10:00 -0000 Subject: New Member and question/ Names wordplay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160717 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan MacLagan" wrote: Carol: > > I noticed the punning names of the textbook > > > Still, the wordplay is one of the continuing pleasures of the books. London Granddaughter: > How about Voldemort: Volde = volt (electricity or lightning bolt) + > mort = death: the voltage/lightning bolt of death Geoff; You have already raised this point quite recently in message 160009 and I replied in 160013: London Granddaughter: > Since JKR likes to use bits of words to mean something, couldn't the > name Voldemort mean bolt of lighting (voltage) in relation to death > (or in this case, a failed attempt to kill)? I hope JKR explains it > further, but at least this much seems reasonable to me. Geoff: This has been discussed a number of times in the past. The general consensus has been that Voldemort's name is derived from the French "vol de mort" = "flight of death" or "theft of death". From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 31 07:16:44 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:16:44 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts and Warthogs (was: JKR punning names) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160718 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > As I recall the story, JKR had decided on the name Hogwarts > and used it in the books. Later she was asked about the > name, and only then was reminded by a friend that 'Hogwarts' > or some very close variation was the Botanical name of a > type of flower they had both seen at the Botanical gardens. > I believe it was either a lily or water lily of some type. > > Being a collector of interesting names, as JKR has already > admitted she is, I suspect she saw the name and thought it > was interesting then filed it away somewhere until it came > bubbling up from her subconscious when she needed a name > for her wizard's school. > > Though I'm sure the hog-warts/wart-hogs implication did > not escape her. Geoff: Just for completeness, the plant is "hogwort" and I believe is mainly found in the US. There are a lot o references available via Google. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 31 07:47:16 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:47:16 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160719 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Charles Walker Jr" wrote: > One I'm kicking myself for not seeing until this discussion is Rita > Skeeter. (skeeter=Southern US slang for mosquito-Rita bing an insect > animagus)I can't be certain of it being intentional, but it sure fits > the pattern. This may just come from the fact that I'm exhausted and > headed for bed, but has anybody noticed that Tom is the Riddle that > Harry has to figure out? > > Charles, who is going to bed before he blurts out another sentence > like that last one. Geoff: This thread is getting to be quite fun, isn't it? Makes a change to picking over the bones of the last 10 000 mesages about Horcruxes, Snape etc. ad infinitum ad nauseam....... :-) One thought which returned to me was an idea I floated ages ago. The older meaning of "riddle" is a sieve. I live nowadays in a rural area and sometimes hear the older farmers still using the word in that context. I pondered as to whether there might be some link between freind Tom and Pensieves. Perhaps I should allow the thought to go away again..... This probably comes of wading through a few dozen posts at 7:00 in the morning. Time methinks for cereal and toast. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 07:52:29 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:52:29 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160720 > > zgirnius: > > It seems possible (especially since Ron, a bystander in the > exhange > > of hexes by both Harry and Draco's accounts, ended up in > detention) > > that the punishment was for yelling and insulting a teacher. > > > > Alla: > > How does that disprove that Snape showed favoritism to Draco when > said teacher deliberately insults Hermione and then Harry and Ron > start yelling? zgirnius: Because it means he did not do Draco any special favors. He showed up, saw some hexing had occured and decided having the victims go off to the hospital wing was the way to handle it. (Note Hermione does not get into any trouble for failing to show up in class. I believe this means Snape always intended for her to go get medical attention, just as Goyle did.) He may have baited Harry, sure. But that's not a favor to Draco; it is something he does, presumably, for his own reasons. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 11:25:57 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:25:57 -0000 Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160721 > Dung: > > Snape and Reggie are old pals, united in their hatred of Sirius at school, so Snape (foolishly ? he hasn't learned too much about > > Voldy yet) tries to help Reg, save him, hide him, whatever. > > Voldemort knows that Snape and Regulus are thick as thieves, so he questions Snape, who is still wet-behind-the-ears, [11] and as yet unable to hide his lies with Occlumency [12]. Voldemort knows he's lying, Regulus is quickly discovered and killed within days of > > Voldy shouting "Off with his head!" [13] > SSSusan: > Hmmmm. Is it in Snape's character to side with Regulus over Voldy? Dung: He's terrified of Voldy. Anyone in their right mind is terrified of Voldy, particularly those who work for him. Do I need to refer you to the kid-glove bowing-and-scraping I'm-not-worthy treatment they put on for him in the graveyard in GoF? That's fear. While Regulus and Snape are lowly minion outer-circle easily- sacrificed DEs, their loyalty to Voldemort doesn't need to come above their loyalty to their friends; mostly because while they're outside the inner circle, Voldy isn't asking them to choose, he's not giving them important missions like heading the prophecy- retrieval squad, or killing the only one he ever feared, they're the grunts who go along to make up the numbers. Snape was naive in the same way that Regulus and Draco were. If Draco was unable to kill DD, and Draco didn't even *like* DD, and fully knew that Voldy would kill him for his failure, it's not impossible that Snape found he couldn't betray Regulus, if he were a good friend. Besides, we have canon - a whole chapter of it - which suggests that when DEs are in trouble with Voldy they're not incapable of going to their DE friends for help. SSSusan: > Has he already begun to think "It's not worth it" with regard to > being a Voldy supporter? Dung: I think at this point he's still all for Death Eating in principle, he just doesn't want it to adversely affect his friends, and he's certainly realising that his master's a psycho. Snape has presumably managed to keep the fact that he's a DE under wraps from the WW at large so far, but is realising that joining Voldy is for life, that he's not going to be able to sit and cheer him on from the sidelines - he's going to be *involved*, and that he has little or no control. SSSusan: What will have had this effect on Snape? The prophecy? his wife's pregnancy? Dung: His wife and child's death, and the death of Regulus. That's my premise. > Dung: > > Voldemort is therefore very much displeased with Snape. He orders Snape to be killed (that'll learn him!). However, Lucius Malfoy, still grateful to Snape for his tip off about the prophecy, > > intervenes (at great personal risk) to persuade Voldemort to spare Snape. Lucius's strategy involves pointing out to Voldy how very useful a talented young wizard like Snape could be. [14] > SSSusan: > Hmmm again. Is it in Lucius' character to go out on such a limb for Snape, even if he did provide the tip-off about July? I can't > *quite* imagine it. Dung: You seem to be forgetting that bad people (in this case DEs) have friends too. Being a bad person doesn't automatically make you a bad or disloyal friend. And frankly, with someone like Voldy at the tiller, you need all the chums you can get amongst the other DEs. You don't want one of the ones who doesn't like you to stab you in the back and push you in the poo, and have no-one around to help you out. That's how life works, you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. You save my neck, and when the chips are down I'll do my best to save yours (or do my damnedest to ensure that the chips stay up). You help people out in the expectation that they will do the same for you when it matters. That's what friends are for, surely? And I gave two bits of canon that Lucius and Snape are *old* friends, going back to before they joined Voldy, and I didn't even *mention* the twitch in GoF. It's certainly noticeable that we have canon for Snape and Lucius's friendship, but that JKR has very carefully made sure that we *never* see the two of them interacting. SSSusan: But perhaps the thought of having an heir is > enough for Lucius to risk it, to actually consider someone else's > life? ...Eh, I think I need more convincing. Dung: Having an heir has nothing to do with anything. Lucius is a nasty piece of work, sure enough, one of Voldy's followers who was in it for the "more refined forms of torture" IMO, but he's not a rat like Peter. He doesn't spit on his chums. He didn't leg it from the MoM to safety like Bella did, he stayed with the DEs who were under his command, and was captured with them (though it's obviously debateable whether it was just incompetence that got him caught). > Dung: > > Unfortunately, in the process of defending and arguing for Snape, Voldemort, the expert Legilimens [15], discovers from Lucius that Snape has told him about the prophecy, and that baby Snape is due around the end of July, and they've kept it secret from him. > > SSSusan: > One question here. If Voldy Legilimenses (did I spell that right??) Lucius enough to discover the existence of EarlyArrival! Draco, would he not also have discovered the existence of Pregnant! Mrs.Snape? It seems unlikely that those two things, surely so intertwined in Lucius' mind, would not *both* come to the surface for Voldy to discover. > Dung: Yes, that's what I said (or at least, what I meant). Voldy discovers that Snape told Lucius the prophecy, and that baby Snape is due around the end of July. > Dung: > > I don't think Voldy trusts anybody [18]. And since Bella certainly doesn't trust Snape [19], I don't see why Voldemort would. I think one of Voldy's aims in HBP (which I've gone on about before [20]) was to test Snape's loyalty - "He expects me to do it in the end, I think." HBP, 2:39). At the end of HBP, Snape has killed DD, the only one Voldemort ever feared. Voldy trusts him now, as much as > > he will ever trust anyone. > > SSSusan: > I can definitely agree with this possibility of a loyalty test of > Snape. And wouldn't it be fascinating if, in the end for Snape, > that loyalty test of Voldy's turned into a loyalty test of DD's as > well! That is, if you & I are right about Snape being DDM and about DD "commanding" Snape to do the deed, then killing DD was > DD's "loyalty test." How convenient (but how very painful for > Snape) that killing DD will satisfy *both* loyalty tests in one deed. > Dung: You reckon DD didn't trust Snape?!? > Dung: > > DD, however, suspects that Snape is a Death Eater (though he > > doesn't let on), and refuses him the job since he suspects that > > Snape is there on Voldy's orders. But he leaves options open, > > because he doesn't want Voldemort to kill Snape for failing to > > secure the job. > > > SSSusan: > One final question. WHY would DD do this for Snape? Why would he > care what happens to him? Do you think he already saw the hint of a chance that he was regretting his decision to become a DE or to > follow Voldy? > Dung: Sort of. DD strikes me (particularly after the happenings on the Tower) to be the kind who'll always leave options open on principle (particularly other people's options, and particularly *young* people's options), rather than close them off before he's certain that they're blind avenues. > > Dung: > > And the rest is history. Working in a school, watching children > > growing up would have been torture. Every time he looks at Harry, > > he sees James, the man who was allowed to die defending his > > family, while Snape was forced to survive his family and always be alone. And of course, he always wears black. > > SSSusan: > It's fun, Dung! Dung: I rather like it. If the outline is right, I'd bet anything almost all the details are wrong, but having Snape's kid a suspect for the prophecy is a way of keeping RevengeDriven!Snape while accepting DD's "I believe it [discovering how Voldy was interpreting the prophecy] was the greatest regret of his life and the reason he returned -" at the same time. It would give Harry a good example of how it's not only his life that was ruined by the prophecy, and that there were others in the same situation as he and Neville who didn't make it. Dungrollin From kennclark at btinternet.com Tue Oct 31 10:45:49 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:45:49 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160722 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Stacey said: "I must confess, with similar embarassment, that due to her character's bizarre behavior and name, I very much expected that Luna Lovegood would turn out to be a werewolf, vampire or have some other lunar- referenced mystical affliction." Ken says: Never mind the Luna 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? Kenneth Clark From kennclark at btinternet.com Tue Oct 31 11:11:30 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:11:30 -0000 Subject: Does Voldemort know? Did Snape tell him? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160723 When Dumbledore returned from finding and destroying the horcrux in the cottage with his hand cursed and blackened he didn't keep his injury a secret. Harry noticed it staightaway and it was immediately spotted by others on the first day of school. Word must have got back to Voldemort from Draco (and others) of this injury. Would Voldemort not have recognised the injury as one which would have come from his curse defending his Horcrux or similar? Dumbledore says that the injury would have had a more serious effect had it not been for the assistance Snape gave him. Did he tell Snape what had injured him? Would he have had to in order for Snape to work out a suitable remedy? If Snape is with Voldemort then he too would almost certainly have told Voldemort what had damaged Dumbledore. Would such information not had alerted Voldemort to the possibility (at least) that one Horcrux had been located? Dumbledore says that he trusts Snape completely. Perhaps he can say that because he has entrusted Snape with the secret of the existence of the Horcruxes? Even if he has only told Snape that he was doing something that caused the curse to hit him Snape would know that this information would be wanted by Voldemort since whatever Dumbledore was doing had to be something to do with fighting Voldemort. Voldemort would have to be pretty stupid not to make the link between what Snape would have told him and his Horcrux. We are therefore left with the two possibilities. Either Snape is on Voldemort's side and has told him all which would mean that there is a better than even chance that Voldemort knows that Dumbledore (and Harry) know about the Horcruxes. Or he is not and has told Voldemort nothing (or something anodyne) about the cursed hand which still leaves the possibility of Voldemort making the link himself based on the open knowledge of the withered hand. Kenneth Clark From scarrie5 at verizon.net Tue Oct 31 05:31:32 2006 From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie Menard) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:31:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names wordplay and flowers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061031053132.81388.qmail@web84007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160724 puduhepa98 at aol.com wrote: London Granddaughter : How about Voldemort: Volde = volt (electricity or lightning bolt) + mort = death: the voltage/lightning bolt of death Nikkalmati: My goodness, you have just pointed out the reason why Harry's scar is in the shape of a lightening bolt. The connection between the scar and LV's name is a sort of pun! Nikkalmati Carrie: Did anyone notice that Occlumency could be A clue men see? Don't forget Kreacher=Creature There are also many flower names Fleur Delacouer, Lily, Petunia, Pansy Parkingson, Lavender Brown, Poppy Pomprey There may be others that I missed. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jadekirk0072002 at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 31 08:19:51 2006 From: jadekirk0072002 at yahoo.co.uk (Jade) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:19:51 -0000 Subject: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: <000701c6fc8a$a385d020$63fe54d5@Marion> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160725 > Goddlefrood: > > Having looked at the responses to the inclusion of Hogwarts it appears > most ground has been covered. Only one small point to add which is that > Hogwarts is a character (or so I recall and the memory is often dim) > from the film Legend, or some such of Jim Henson's. > > > Marion: > > You mean 'Hoggle' from 'Labyrinth. Jareth the Goblin King always forgets or mispronounces Hoggle's name and does call him 'Hogwart' once... > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > I thought that was Sarah that called Hoggle 'Hogwart'. *goes and checks* Yep, it was Sarah. Jade From lazylacelacey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 08:18:10 2006 From: lazylacelacey at yahoo.com (Marik Ishtar) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:18:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: James' and Lily's gold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061031081810.14477.qmail@web58613.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160726 Susan MacLagan 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, lazylacelacey: Well, if you ask me, the answer should've appeared in book 6, Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince; because they had all that family history talk & stuff like that. In book 5, HP & the Order of the Phoenix, they had Sirius' family history tapestry, it was a tapestry, if I'm correct. So, if they put the answer to the gold in book 7, cool! Why didn't she do that sooner? She as in JK Rowling. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 12:21:24 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:21:24 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160727 > > Alla: > > > > How does that disprove that Snape showed favoritism to Draco when > > said teacher deliberately insults Hermione and then Harry and Ron > > start yelling? > > zgirnius: > Because it means he did not do Draco any special favors. He showed > up, saw some hexing had occured and decided having the victims go off > to the hospital wing was the way to handle it. (Note Hermione does > not get into any trouble for failing to show up in class. I believe > this means Snape always intended for her to go get medical attention, > just as Goyle did.) > > He may have baited Harry, sure. But that's not a favor to Draco; it > is something he does, presumably, for his own reasons. > Alla: Um, we do not know that this was not a favor to Draco, for all I know he absolutely did not plan to ignore that incident but on the off topic chance that Dumbledore will see this incident in Snape's head, Snape needed a **reason** to account for punishing Harry and not punishing Draco, so smart man that he is, since Harry is completely innocent in the incident, he decides to bait him ( and what is better way to do so than insult Hermione?) and vo ala, of course Harry gets upset, who would not? IMO of course. Alla, who thinks that Snape's special reasons are his hatred of Harry,who is his father's son,nothing more. From magshirrox at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 31 05:59:42 2006 From: magshirrox at sbcglobal.net (furbratz) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 05:59:42 -0000 Subject: James' and Lily's gold In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160728 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Susan MacLagan" 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, > I think it is difficult with the information we have. Certainly Harry is well taken care of but we don't know how his wealth relates to others in the wizarding world. Does he have more than the Malfoys? Certainly more than the Weasleys. To link this thread with the wordplay thread I'll go with the idea James' family was a manufacturer of the best cauldrons - the Potters:) furbratz From lazylacelacey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 08:57:56 2006 From: lazylacelacey at yahoo.com (Marik Ishtar) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:57:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: Whom does Snape hate? WAS: Re: Re: The New Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061031085756.65219.qmail@web58603.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160729 Joe wrote: I see Snape giving his life to save Harry in the final book. Just my $0.02. It's not HP that he hates, it's James Potter. He understands, that it's not the child's fault. lazylacey. From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 13:00:56 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:00:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0610291813s5f185945w162468a5660a66c6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160730 Debbie snipped: Actually, if Harry destroyed the last Horcrux, anyone could kill Voldemort. But Dumbledore might have withheld the suggestion that Harry was the last Horcrux precisely because he didn't want Harry to be focusing on his own self-destruction. And although I'm a big Harrycrux fan, I've come to believe that Harry's self-sacrifice won't be necessary. Snow I totally agree that Harry doesn't need to die to relinquish that portion of Voldemort that lies within him. In fact, I think the Voldy soul fragment may be the useful tool that Harry will have so he does not have to commit any type of violence towards Voldemort. 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. 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. Going off track ever so slightly here about being shielded from an AK. Something I noticed when I went back and read about the fountain figures that protected Harry and Dumbledore at the Ministry from the AK, was that the `Gold' wizard who took the AK hit for Harry was only glanced by the hit in comparison to the `Silver' centaur who also took an AK hit for Dumbledore but smashed into hundreds of pieces. The similar comparison between the two is that they both managed to protect and shield each wizard from the AK but the difference was that only the `Gold' wizard figure survived the blast. Do you think there is anything we could discern from this as far as the AK effect goes? The first thing that I thought of was that Harry represents the same thing that the color Gold does, which is Gryffindor and Voldemort represents the same color as the centaur and Slytherin do, which is Silver. Don't know what else this could suggest but it does have intriguing innuendo. If I were playing Clue I would have to say that it is Harry, with the last soul bit/shield, back at Godric's Hollow. The murderer always returns to the place of the crime, right and it would be utterly ironic if Voldemort made the same mistake he did sixteen years before only this time without his Horanchors. Snow From lazylacelacey at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 09:39:20 2006 From: lazylacelacey at yahoo.com (Marik Ishtar) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:39:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Draco In-Reply-To: <01b101c6fca9$e7240d50$5d80400c@Spot> Message-ID: <20061031093920.23790.qmail@web58612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160731 Nikki wrote: > Nevertheless, we are left with the problem of how SS and DM will > relate in the next book. SS is bound by the UV to protect Draco. That > means he willhave to convince LV that Draco did the best he could and > should not be killed. Under the circumstances, he will probably > succeed in that mission. So when SS and DM come face to face again > what happens? Magpie: > It's definitely a loaded situation, isn't it? Since I lean towards > DDM Snape it seems like they're in a weird position where both of > them is in his heart not with LV but can't trust the other one is on > the same side. Who knows if Narcissa could do something like that. > She seems ready to protect Draco no matter what, but would she know > where he was at post-HBP any more than anyone else? Possibly HP will battle Snape & Draco. Maybe he will kill them before he gets to Voldemort. Just maybe's. Then again, Voldemort might kill both & then Narcissa. Who knows, until the book arrives? lazylacelacey From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 13:40:49 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:40:49 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Member and question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40610310540g3d757492r236db374fd64b160@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160732 > > zanooda: > Movies aside, I think that this "underage magic" law is really unfair > to Muggleborns. Kids from wizard or mixed families can do magic at > least sometimes, when the parents are not looking, and no one will > find out. I really doubt that Molly Weasley knows what Fred and George > do every minute of the day (and nigth)during holidays :-) 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...) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Oct 31 13:47:42 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:47:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Member and question/ Names wordplay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160733 London Granddaughter: > How about Voldemort: Volde = volt (electricity or lightning bolt) + > mort = death: the voltage/lightning bolt of death Geoff; You have already raised this point quite recently in message 160009 and I replied in 160013: London Granddaughter: > Since JKR likes to use bits of words to mean something, couldn't the > name Voldemort mean bolt of lighting (voltage) in relation to death > (or in this case, a failed attempt to kill)? I hope JKR explains it > further, but at least this much seems reasonable to me. >Geoff: >This has been discussed a number of times in the past. The general consensus has been that Voldemort's name is derived from the French "vol de mort" = "flight of death" or "theft of death". Nikkalmati I don't think we are limited to just one way of understanding the names here. There have been several other proposals about LV's name and several associations or connotations are perfectly acceptable and may have been intended. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From SMacLagan at msn.com Tue Oct 31 13:02:31 2006 From: SMacLagan at msn.com (Susan MacLagan) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:02:31 -0000 Subject: Names wordplay and flowers In-Reply-To: <20061031053132.81388.qmail@web84007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160734 London Granddaughter, earlier: > How about Voldemort: Volde = volt (electricity or lightning bolt) > + mort = death: the voltage/lightning bolt of death Carrie: > Did anyone notice that Occlumency could be A clue men see? > Don't forget Kreacher=Creature LG adds: 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? London Granddaughter From random832 at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 14:29:49 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:29:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's Hex ... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50610310629u79949f97q7fe11a311313b1fa@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160735 > Nikkalmati: > I don't see how learning to repel Dementors was an attack on the MOM. > No one would want to be on the wrong side of a Dementor and the spell > was defensive only. 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. Nikkalmati: > Not exactly. Neither Rita or Marietta were going to be punished by the > authorities for the terrible things they did. If Rita wouldn't have been punished why was threatening to turn her in an effective form of blackmail? I think what she should have done was just turned her in outright, not made threats or tried to extract conditions. That would take care of the spying - as for the lies in the articles? Well - if the WW doesn't have laws against libel, then clearly that's just a difference between there and here - just like you think everything Hermione does ("they should have known it was a magical contract") is okay because the WW is just rougher than the real world or whatever, the same applies to the press. Libel is apparently perfectly legal in the WW, so what right does she have to punish someone for it? If it's _not_ legal, why couldn't she have gone to court? -- Random832 From darksworld at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 14:07:08 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:07:08 -0000 Subject: Umbridge as tyrant / Twins leaving Hogwarts(WAS:Re: Hermione's Hex ...) In-Reply-To: <016201c6fca8$38dc6130$5d80400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160736 > > Nikkalmati: > > > > Absolutely, I think the pattern is clearly there in JKR's writing. Step > > by > > step, the decrees, the official backing, the brown shirts etc. Nobody > > does > > anything out of fear of retribution and then comes the spying, the > > betrayal. > > It fits. > > Magpie: > Yes, except Umbridge is putting more restrictions on students at the school > where she is headmistress. She's not taking away anyone's rights as > citizens (nor is she targetting an ethnic group). As students they already > lack rights they have on the outside. So imo she's a bit more Dean Wormer > than Der Fuhrer. On a smaller scale, of course, we see the parallels to a > tyrranical leader and we also see the result--not nobody doing anything out > of fear of retribution and betrayal, but chaos. Everyone refuses to do > anything and there's no discipline at all. Umbridge has no control. Charles: Umbridge is at Hogwarts as part of an attempt to purge the WW of people who are not loyal to Cornelius "I don't want it to be true so it ain't" Fudge. She is trying to create a generation of people who are loyal to the ministry over anything else, and does not care what gets in her way. While not explicitly stated in canon, but obvious from her treatment of certain students, e.g. Neville Longbottom whose grandmother is openly supportive of DD rather than MoM, parental politics plays a role in what happens to Hogwarts students. Not taking rights away? You're kidding, right? Let's start with her DADA classes. She actively tries to prevent Hogwarts students from learning self-defense, knowing that outside of school there are situations where they could need to defend themselves, Voldie or no. Self-defense is a basic human right, stemming from the right to life. Next, we have the fact that all mail incoming and outgoing is being read by her or her IS. That means that the entire student body of Hogwarts is effectively cut off from their parents. Harry is subjected to torture for speaking his mind. There she has taken away his freedom of speech. Now, I don't know about Britain or indeed the rest of the world, but in America students retain their rights rather than "shed them at the schoolhouse gate" (I can't remember what court case that's from right now, but someone around here probably knows.) as long as they don't disrupt the school in trying to practice those rights. While Harry did disrupt the class, he was not punished for that, but rather the content of his opinion. > Nikki:> > > Nikkalmati (hurray for the twins, who did not desert the DA, but carried > > the > > battle to new heights and new territory) > > Magpie: > Didn't they just drop out and start their business to make money for > themselves? I don't see that as exactly carrying the battle to new heights > and territory. The next year they were actively working against Hogwart's > defenses. Charles: "Just drop out" Hmmm...let's think about the circumstances here. Their dropping out was a flight from torture after aiding fellow DA members to defy Umbridge. They created a swamp in a corridor that Umbridge couldn't remove, and therefore caused a problem for her and a certain one of her collaborators. How are they carrying the battle to new heights and territory? Look at the description of their shop at the beginning of HBP! They are doing something very improtant. In a world full of fear they are doing their damndest to raise morale-right down to a giant poster taunting Voldemort. Remember that much of Moldybutt's power is through fear, and they are trying to alleviate some of the fear in the populace-a dangerous and necessary bit of work. I'll admit they seem to be working against Hogwarts defenses, but not in *any* sense of collusion with Voldietwit or any other tyrant. Another, possibly more important way they are helping the war effort is with the defensive wear they are selling to the MoM. To head off the obvious argument, yes, they are making a profit ("its such a moneyspinner") but I challenge you to name me one company who made military equipment in history who would turn down a profit. Charles, who is still startled that someone could try and defend Umbridge. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Oct 31 14:39:58 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:39:58 -0000 Subject: "Elf" etymology and Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160737 Carol: > But what caught my attention was the connection of "elf" > to "albus." > Did JKR know? Did she name Dumbledore Albus for this reason? Might > the Dumbledore brothers have a distant house-elf ancestor, which > might account for Albus Dumbledore's ability to do wandless magic? > (I say distant because, unlike Flitwick, whom JKR has stated > somewhere has a goblin ancestor, the Dumbledore brothers are normal > sized. In fact, Albus, at least, is described as tall and I believe > that Aberforth is as well.) Jen: You reminded me of a clever theory on TLC postulating Dumbledore was the king of the house elves.;) The poster proposed he was an actual house elf though, maybe a transfigured one. Wish I could find it now but I'm not a member and can't search. I couldn't agree with the theory literally, but Dumbledore *is* king of the disenfranchised and the enchantment-bound house elves, with limited free will, must be high on his list (thus the socks Potioncat referred to). That could be the connection in JKR's mind for the etymology, a symbolic one. Since Dumbledore can't break the enchantment himself--my theory is that will require both lines of Slytherin and Gryffindor dying out--Dumbledore does the next best thing by providing sanctuary for as many elves as possible at Hogwarts. Preferring the symbolic relationship to the literal, even a distant one, I like the explanation that DD's wandless magic is a product of his own power and years of magical training. Besides Carol, we're both banking on the Godric Gryffindor connection for Dumbledore and that might be too many ancestors to tot up if we add in elves . Jen R., hoping someone else remembers that theory and can off-list her with the link. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 31 14:38:36 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:38:36 -0000 Subject: New Member and question/ Names wordplay In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote: London Granddaughter: > > How about Voldemort: Volde = volt (electricity or lightning bolt) + > > mort = death: the voltage/lightning bolt of death Geoff; > You have already raised this point quite recently in message 160009 > and I replied in 160013: > > > London Granddaughter: > > Since JKR likes to use bits of words to mean something, couldn't the > > name Voldemort mean bolt of lighting (voltage) in relation to death > > (or in this case, a failed attempt to kill)? I hope JKR explains it > > further, but at least this much seems reasonable to me. > > >Geoff: > >This has been discussed a number of times in the past. The general > consensus has been that Voldemort's name is derived from the French > "vol de mort" = "flight of death" or "theft of death". > > Nikkalmati: > I don't think we are limited to just one way of understanding the names > here. There have been several other proposals about LV's name and several > associations or connotations are perfectly acceptable and may have been intended. Geoff: There are two reasons why I posted this message. The first is that I was puzzled that London Granddaughter had posted two messages which asked virtually the same question within a couple of days of each other. Secondly, etymology should provide pointers to argue against the "volt: theory. The word "volt" is named after Alessandro Volta, an Italian physicist who lived in the 18th/19th centuries. Hence, it would be normal that, in any language, thje word volt would retain its spelling and that a change to a word such a "volde" would not occur. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 14:52:05 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:52:05 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160739 > Alla: > > Um, we do not know that this was not a favor to Draco, for all I > know he absolutely did not plan to ignore that incident but on the > off topic chance that Dumbledore will see this incident in Snape's > head, Snape needed a **reason** to account for punishing Harry and > not punishing Draco, so smart man that he is, since Harry is > completely innocent in the incident, he decides to bait him ( and > what is better way to do so than insult Hermione?) and vo ala, of > course Harry gets upset, who would not? IMO of course. > > Alla, who thinks that Snape's special reasons are his hatred of > Harry,who is his father's son,nothing more. > zgirnius: Whic is why in my first post, I stated the assertion that this incident is an example of favoring Draco is 'debatable'. For al you know, you are right. For all I know, you are wrong. The scene is open to more than one interpretation, because we have, as always, no reliable information on what Snape is thinking. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 31 14:50:09 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:50:09 -0000 Subject: One Who Survives Book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160740 Yipee! I've seen it in print. I know at least one character who will survive book 7. He's alive and doing well. I saw it in the JCPenny adverisement in this week's Sunday paper. "On sale, Dobby towels and Sheets!" Apparantly, Dobby has opened his own textile factory (possibly near Spinner's End) and is producing a luxury line of linens.(no tea towels, however.) I googled and discovered most major brands cary this Dobby line. The two questions that come to my mind are: Does he pay house-elves to make these towels? and, Are the towels enchanted to jump onto the towel rack after kids drop them on the floor? Happy Halloween Potioncat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 14:52:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:52:11 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160741 Siriusly Snapey Susan wrote: > Forgive my coming in so late to this discussion, only to insert > questions. :) But reading Debbie's thoughts, I became curious. > > If you've explained all this before, please forgive me for asking, > but are you suggesting that *each* of the horcruxes contains not only a soul bit but also a memory of Riddle? and that perhaps the reason Tom Riddle's name is familiar to Harry is that not only is there a horcrux in Harry, but there's a *memory* of Tom's in there, too? > > If there is... wow, I wonder what form it might take? what it might > consist of? would it be a specific memory or, like the diary, more of an entire particular age of Tom Riddle? I'm especially curious > since, IIRC, doesn't JKR describe what Harry has as a feeling that he > knew the name, "like a long lost friend" or some such phrase? Makes > one wonder what kind of memory might be there.... Carol responds: Since Deb was responding to my post, I hope it's okay for me to jump in here and disagree with her. 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. 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). And Ginny herself felt that Tom was a trusted friend, admittedly after he had responded to her. 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. 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. Carol, wishing that JKR would squash the Harry!Horcrux rumor on her website From miamibarb at BellSouth.net Tue Oct 31 14:59:34 2006 From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:59:34 -0500 Subject: don't think that Harry will die (now Harry as Role model) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <882f29c8993fb615aaf56b04785c035c@bellsouth.net> No: HPFGUIDX 160742 > > > Sarah: > > My question is, is she writing to give people a role model, or > writing > > to tell a story? I believe the latter. If Harry is meant as a role > > model, he's already got some problems. > > Geoff: > > Harry comes from a disadvantaged background... He is a fairly > ordinary guy. He wears glasses, he is described as small and skinny, > untidy and we know that he is not a great academic. ... > > But because exciting things happen to him, he is a model for the > great > majority of young people who do not fit the poster boy CV of my > previous > paragraph. Youngsters see that someone ordinary, whom you might pass > in the street without noticing can achieve great things. > I would prefer to say Harry gives hope to average people. Role model does sound a bit preachy, I think. Uck. Anyway, I ran across a interesting article concerning prodigies that relates to Harry. According to the author (Eric Wargo) most (many?) child prodigies do not become great. Rather they usually become just OK or above average as adults. In other words, many of the children in gifted programs do not become gifted adults. The author differentiates between precocity and giftedness. He quotes another (Malcolm Gladwell) ?I think we take it as an article of faith in our society that great ability in any given field is invariably manifested early on, that to be precocious at something is important because it?s a predictor of future success.? According to the author this is wrong. It's often the OK ( average, or above average) who children bloom late and go on to great accomplishments. Precociousness usually means that a gifted child is a good mimic, or "a gifted learner." "A gifted adult is a gifted doer." Link to the article: http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2026 Rowling with her background in education (college student and teaching), I'm sure has witnessed average students blossoming in college and going on to world class achievements, while bright students often settle for becoming competent professionals or worse. Why do I think this? Because precocious Hermione herself tells Harry that he will be great--not her. (not sure in which book?) All her learning comes from books, but not so with Harry. I think Hermione will grow up to be a competent professional. Perhaps a Healer? I think Harry will become great--the sorting cap told him that he has it in him to become great. Harry is the gifted doer. And of course there are other examples of late bloomers such as the squib who will display talent late-in-life and Neville, who in the later books, looks like he will be more successful adult than Draco. I have wondered if Harry' s success in potions is a sign of a blossoming gift. I didn't take his using the notes as cheating, but rather as a sign that Harry is "thinking outside the box" or "thinking beyond the text." I've also wondered if the Potter family business is somehow related to potions. it would be the ultimate irony. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 14:59:40 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:59:40 -0000 Subject: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160743 > > Alla: > > > > Um, we do not know that this was not a favor to Draco, for all I > > know he absolutely did not plan to ignore that incident but on the > > off topic chance that Dumbledore will see this incident in Snape's > > head, Snape needed a **reason** to account for punishing Harry and > > not punishing Draco, so smart man that he is, since Harry is > > completely innocent in the incident, he decides to bait him ( and > > what is better way to do so than insult Hermione?) and vo ala, of > > course Harry gets upset, who would not? IMO of course. > > > > Alla, who thinks that Snape's special reasons are his hatred of > > Harry,who is his father's son,nothing more. > zgirnius: > Whic is why in my first post, I stated the assertion that this incident > is an example of favoring Draco is 'debatable'. > For al you know, you are right. For all I know, you are wrong. The > scene is open to more than one interpretation, because we have, as > always, no reliable information on what Snape is thinking. > Alla: Yes, of course most scenes are open to interpretation including this one, but while indeed we do not know what Snape is thinking, we **do** see him punishing the party who was innocent of the accident and **not** punishing the one who was guilty. You think he had additional reasons for doing so, I do not, I take it as I see it. So, yes, sorry but my interpretation sounds more reasonable to me :), because I do not need to come up with Snape thinking something to the contrary to what he did. But I can be wrong of course. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 31 15:06:28 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:06:28 -0000 Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160744 > zgirnius: > Which is why in my first post, I stated the assertion that this incident > is an example of favoring Draco is 'debatable'. > For all you know, you are right. For all I know, you are wrong. The > scene is open to more than one interpretation, because we have, as > always, no reliable information on what Snape is thinking. Potioncat: If I could remember who first suggested this, I would credit it, but I don't. It was quite a long time ago. So here it is anyway. Warning, this is from memory. Not too long before the "I see no difference" episode, we're told that Quidditch rivalry had reached a new low, and jinxes were in great use. Snape refused to acknowledge a Slytherin had cursed a Gryffindor girl's eyebrows. He insisted she had tried to charm them and done a botched up job of it. It's been offered that Snape's, "I see no difference" was his way of ignoring this event as well, and was not an effort to insult Hermione. (I'm not sure if her umbrage was a surprise to him, or just icing on the cake.) And yes, Ron's and Harry's detention was for disrepect to him, not for the dueling. I think it's noteworthy that he doesn't tack on any extra punishment to Harry for the duel. (This is Snape, you know.) Then, again, perhaps he was only taking the opportunity to force the two estranged friends to work together so that they could mend the rift in their friendship. He's like that, you know. ;-) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 31 15:04:13 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:04:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 23, Horcruxes In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0610301855u298bb6f3o9bc4a0b4ad14873d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160745 Debbie, earlier: > > > In other words, it was not the memory that was unique about the > > > Diary horcrux. It was that Tom had devised a means of accessing > > > the soul within. I see no evidence that the other soul bits do > > > (or did) not include memories. The difference is that there is > > > no way to access them; they are too well encased. SSSusan responded: > > ... are you suggesting that *each* of the horcruxes contains not > > only a soul bit but also a memory of Riddle? and that perhaps the > > reason Tom Riddle's name is familiar to Harry is that not only is > > there a horcrux in Harry, but there's a *memory* of Tom's in > > here, too? Debbie: > But that sounds about right. My suggestion is that each soul bit > contains a melange of all those things that animate Voldemort and > make him who he is. That includes memories, powers, conscience, > etc. SSSusan: I had never heard this suggestion before, and I think it is intriguing indeed. It would provide all sorts of possibilities for Book 7, should JKR elect to *show* us this melange, as she did with the diary hx. Perhaps doing so would give Harry some necessary insights into Tom/Voldy, that would assist him in locating and/or destroying additional horcruxes? > Debbie > now contemplating whether Harry can give the soul-bit back simply by > possessing Voldemort, conveniently avoiding his own self-sacrifice SSSusan: This I REALLY like. I have long hoped that the *willingness* to sacrifice himself, accompanied by the *belief* that he will need to do so, will prove to be enough for Harry -- that taking action based on that willingness/belief will Somehow trigger Something which removes the necessity to actually be sacrificed. 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. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 15:24:44 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:24:44 -0000 Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160746 > Potioncat: > If I could remember who first suggested this, I would credit it, but I > don't. It was quite a long time ago. So here it is anyway. Warning, > this is from memory. Not too long before the "I see no difference" > episode, we're told that Quidditch rivalry had reached a new low, and > jinxes were in great use. Snape refused to acknowledge a Slytherin had > cursed a Gryffindor girl's eyebrows. He insisted she had tried to charm > them and done a botched up job of it. > > It's been offered that Snape's, "I see no difference" was his way of > ignoring this event as well, and was not an effort to insult Hermione. > (I'm not sure if her umbrage was a surprise to him, or just icing on > the cake.) Alla: Okay, wasting my third post of the day, but that is what we now call his way of ignoring the incident? I thought that is what calls continiuous favoring of the Slytherins? Wasn't him ignoring Slytherin hexing Gryffindor girl exactly that - **favoring** Slytherins? I mean, ignoring is when nobody punished, not when guilty is not punished. when guilty is not punished I call it favoritism. Am I missing something here? Potioncat: > And yes, Ron's and Harry's detention was for disrepect to him, not for > the dueling. I think it's noteworthy that he doesn't tack on any extra > punishment to Harry for the duel. (This is Snape, you know.) Alla: Extra punishment for what? Potioncat: > Then, again, perhaps he was only taking the opportunity to force the > two estranged friends to work together so that they could mend the rift > in their friendship. He's like that, you know. ;-) > Alla: Oh, that' right, I forgot. He is a relentless worker to unite the Houses to make all students treat each other with kindness and dignity and he shows them the example of his own behaviour. Yes, sorry, my bad :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 15:36:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:36:41 -0000 Subject: They had to know about PP (WAS Re: Secret Keeper of Grimmaud Place) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160747 Carol earlier: > > The name of the charm provides the clue: fidelis -e [trusty , steadfast, faithful]; m. as subst., esp. pl., [confidants, faithful friends]. Adv. fideliter, [faithfully; securely, without danger]. fidelitas -atis f. [faithfulness , trust, fidelity]. http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=fidel&ending= > > > > So, essentially, [PP's breaking] the faith placed in him as Secret Keeper by revealing it to the very person the secret was supposed to protect the Potters from broke the spell. > > > SSSusan: > I am assuming that what you, Carol and ibchawz, are proposing has, as its key component, that the telling of the secret is done WITH > MALICE? that the person ratting knows he is providing the information to someone who should not have it, rather than simply passing the information on to someone breaking the charm? > > Otherwise, when the location of GP was written on a paper and given > to Harry, that would too have broken that FC. > > If I'm following your suggestion correctly, I wonder what would > happen if a person gave out the information without *realizing* it > was to a person with evil intent? That is, the SK wasn't betraying > intentionally, wasn't acting purposely with infidelity. I'm assuming again that it's the intentional passing of the secret to a known enemy which you're saying would break the FC? > > Otherwise, I'm thinking that if there were a spy in the Order, who > intended harm to Harry/the Order, then passing the location on to > that individual, while not realizing s/he was the spy, would have > broken *that* FC. > Carol responds: Yes, *if* simply revealing the secret to Voldemort (the person the Potters are hiding from) was sufficient to break the spell, it had to be done with malicious intent. Peter as SK knew why and from whom they were hiding. The name of the charm implies that they placed their faith in him and he violated that faith. No other Order member can give Voldemort or his DEs that information. Only the SK can "break fiath" and consequently destroy the Fidelius Charm--if that's how it works. Carol earlier: > > Of course, by the time that Voldemort kills James and Lily and the > > house blows up, there is no secret left to keep. "The Potters are > > hiding in [address] Godric's Hollow" is simply no longer true. > > they'er not hiding anywhere. Two are dead and one can be found by > > anyone who comes by, even a Muggle, which is why Hagrid had to get > > there even before Sirius Black (who already knew the secret and > > therefore couldn't be alerted by suddenly knowing it again) > > or anyone else arrived. > > SSSusan: > This makes more intuitive sense to me somehow -- that > the "disproving" of the actual statement the Secret Keeper has held > onto [for instance, "The Potters are in hiding in Godric's Hollow"] > is what breaks the Charm. > Carol: I agree with you, actually. But the name of the charm makes me think that a breach of faith is also involved. Maybe it's only that the Potters could not have been killed and their house destroyed *unless* PP violated their trust? > Carol earlier: > > It has to do with the secret being first breached--fidelity > > violated--and then the elements of the secret (the Potters and > > their hiding place) either ceasing to exist or ceasing to > > be protected. Essentially, the moment Wormtail betrays the Potters, the secret is no longer a secret. Either then or when the house was blown up, the charm failed altogether. > > SSSusan: > So, for clarification, you're suggesting it might take BOTH the SK's > infidelity regarding the secret *and* the change in the condition > specified in the secret for it the protection to be broken? Carol again: I'm just exploring two possibilities. The only thing I'm certain of is that the Charm was broken or dissolved *either* by PP's telling Voldemort or by the destruction of the secret itself (it was no longer true) which followed from PP's betrayal. All I'm saying is that Dumbledore could send Hagrid to Godric's Hollow and Hagrid could find Harry in the ruins of the house without either of them ever having been told the secret because by that time the Fidelius Charm was broken. I'm just not sure whether it was broken by the betrayal or by the subsequent actions. Certainly, once the Potters were dead and their house destroyed, there was no secret left to keep. I also believe (but can't prove) that DD provided the hiding place in the first place but "forgot" about it as a result of the Fidelius Charm. When the charm was broken, he "knew" it again, and consequently knew that the Potters had been betrayed and were either in grave danger or dead. However, it would, IMO, have required Snape's faded Dark Mark to inform DD that Voldemort had been defeated (just realizing that the Fidelius charm had been broken wouldn't tell him that), which could only have been done, inadvertently, by Harry, the Prophecy Child. From there, I suppose DD used his instruments to determine what really happened (Lily's sacrifice). And, of course, he immediately sent Hagrid to rescue Harry, making sure that he didn't turn him over to the supposed SK Sirius Black or anyone else (without actually telling him why he suspected Black). It's possible that DD took a memory from Baby!Harry's head once Harrry was safely in his hands and explored it in the Pensieve, which would explain how he knew about Lily's sacrifice, but that's related more to the missing twenty-four hours than to the Fidelius Charm. Carol, just speculating and trying to fit the pieces together using etymology From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 31 15:38:54 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:38:54 -0000 Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160748 > > SSSusan: > > Hmmmm. Is it in Snape's character to side with Regulus over > > Voldy? Dungrollin: > He's terrified of Voldy. Anyone in their right mind is terrified of > Voldy, particularly those who work for him. Do I need to refer you > to the kid-glove bowing-and-scraping I'm-not-worthy treatment they > put on for him in the graveyard in GoF? That's fear. SSSusan: Indeed, I recall the bowing & scraping in the graveyard. I actually was thinking specifically *of* that terror when I asked the question, though. I wondered if being terrified of him might cause a DE to *fear* making alliances with others behind Voldy's back, out of fear of discovery. But perhaps, what you're saying here... > Snape was naive in the same way that Regulus and Draco were. If > Draco was unable to kill DD, and Draco didn't even *like* DD, and > fully knew that Voldy would kill him for his failure, it's not > impossible that Snape found he couldn't betray Regulus, if he were > a good friend. ...is the other real possibility. That being both naive and increasingly aware of Voldemort's "psycho-ness," making friends with other DEs seemed necessary. > > SSSusan: > > What will have had this effect on Snape? The prophecy? his wife's > > pregnancy? Dung: > His wife and child's death, and the death of Regulus. That's my > premise. SSSusan: Sorry -- I wasn't understanding the timing here. I thought his siding with Regulus occurred *before* the deaths of his wife & child. > > SSSusan: > > Hmmm again. Is it in Lucius' character to go out on such a limb > > for Snape, even if he did provide the tip-off about July? I > > can't *quite* imagine it. Dung: > You seem to be forgetting that bad people (in this case DEs) have > friends too. Being a bad person doesn't automatically make you a > bad or disloyal friend. SSSusan: Well, in my defense, I don't think I was making the assumption that "bad guy = bad friend." I was considering what we know of Lucius himself and thinking of *him* as a bad friend. In all his "slipperiness," he seems to be one who is pretty determinedly out for himself. Dung: > And frankly, with someone like Voldy at the tiller, you need all > the chums you can get amongst the other DEs. You don't want one of > the ones who doesn't like you to stab you in the back and push you > in the poo, and have no-one around to help you out. SSSusan: Yes, now this I can reconcile with my image of Lucius. It would be about alliances for the sake of self-preservation. I can see that he might see that as quite beneficial. But still, I would ask whether he would actually RISK anything for the sake of one of those "friends" (better read as allies, in my view)? Perhaps he would, and I'm not being fair to Lucius. Dung: > And I gave two bits of canon that Lucius and Snape are *old* > friends, going back to before they joined Voldy, and I didn't even > *mention* the twitch in GoF. SSSusan: That you did. And you may be correct, then. I just don't quite TRUST Lucius's side of that "friendship," I guess. > > SSSusan: > > But perhaps the thought of having an heir is > > enough for Lucius to risk it, to actually consider someone else's > > life? ...Eh, I think I need more convincing. Dung: > Having an heir has nothing to do with anything. Lucius is a nasty > piece of work, sure enough, one of Voldy's followers who was in it > for the "more refined forms of torture" IMO, but he's not a rat > like Peter. He doesn't spit on his chums. He didn't leg it from the > MoM to safety like Bella did, he stayed with the DEs who were under > his command, and was captured with them (though it's obviously > debateable whether it was just incompetence that got him caught). SSSusan: Wow. Am I movie contaminated? I don't see Lucius as being non- ratlike. Again, I see him as calculating. HOW can he get out of this mess [the time of Voldy's downfall] while still retaining as much positive as possible? Without ticking off the DEs so much that he'd be a target of the most loyal, like Bella? Without giving away to Voldy that he had no interest in going off looking for him? Without going to Azkaban? I see him as the supreme role-player and "I take care of myself first but without losing position with anyone by virtue of my slipperiness." > > SSSusan: > > One question here. If Voldy Legilimenses (did I spell that > > right??) Lucius enough to discover the existence of EarlyArrival! > > Draco, would he not also have discovered the existence of > > Pregnant!Mrs.Snape? It seems unlikely that those two things, > > surely so intertwined in Lucius' mind, would not *both* come to > > the surface for Voldy to discover. Dung: > Yes, that's what I said (or at least, what I meant). Voldy > discovers that Snape told Lucius the prophecy, and that baby Snape > is due around the end of July. SSSusan: Sorry. I botched the reading and didn't get that you were saying that. > > SSSusan: > > I can definitely agree with this possibility of a loyalty test of > > Snape. And wouldn't it be fascinating if, in the end for Snape, > > that loyalty test of Voldy's turned into a loyalty test of DD's > > as well! That is, if you & I are right about Snape being DDM and > > about DD "commanding" Snape to do the deed, then killing DD was > > DD's "loyalty test." How convenient (but how very painful for > > Snape) that killing DD will satisfy *both* loyalty tests in one > > deed. Dung: > You reckon DD didn't trust Snape?!? SSSusan: No, I think he *did* trust Snape but that the loyalty test was whether Snape could follow DD's ultimate order -- to kill him. I think DD wasn't positive that Snape could/would bring himself to do that. So loyalty test in the sense of following this horrible order, but not a lack of trust in him. > > SSSusan: > > It's fun, Dung! Dung: > I rather like it. If the outline is right, I'd bet anything almost > all the details are wrong, but having Snape's kid a suspect for the > prophecy is a way of keeping RevengeDriven!Snape while accepting > DD's "I believe it [discovering how Voldy was interpreting the > prophecy] was the greatest regret of his life and the reason he > returned -" at the same time. SSSusan: Indeed! It fits very nicely there, and I'd love the twist that would come with this revelation in Book 7. Dung: > It would give Harry a good example of how it's not only his life > that was ruined by the prophecy, and that there were others in the > same situation as he and Neville who didn't make it. SSSusan: Yep. And it would give Harry a LOT to think about re: Snape... presumably while he looks down upon his DEAD body, with yet one more thing to feel guilty about. ;-) Siriusly Snapey Susan From rlaw186 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 14:39:34 2006 From: rlaw186 at yahoo.com (rlaw186) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:39:34 -0000 Subject: Snape and Draco In-Reply-To: <20061031093920.23790.qmail@web58612.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160749 lazylacelacey wrote: > Possibly HP will battle Snape & Draco. Maybe he will kill them before he gets to Voldemort. Just maybe's. Then again, Voldemort might kill both & then Narcissa. Who knows, until the book arrives? < I think HP will definitely go after SS. DM might actually go over to the light side since he is not a killer. He was only ordered to kill AD because his father failed to retrieve the prophecy about LV and HP. rlaw186 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 16:15:23 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:15:23 -0000 Subject: Etymology of "Pensieve" (Was: JKR punning names ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160750 Geoff wrote: > > The other one I forgot but usually mention is "Pensieve" = "a device for storing memories" which is a play on words on "pensive" (thoughful). > Carol notes: Actually, it's a device for examining memories. Any storage is short term. The memories are either stored in vials until they're used or kept in the person's head and removed for examination. The only time we see them actually "stored" in the Pensieve is in GoF, when Dumbledore wants to stir them up and see how they relate to each other--a connection between his memory of Bertha Jorkins and his memories of trial scenes involving Barty Crouch (in which Mad-Eye Moody and Snape and Karkaroff also appear), for example. I think the pun is not only on "pensive" (thoughtful) but on "sieve," a device for sifting (which is what DD does when he moves the Pensieve around like a miner sifting for gold or an old-fashioned baked sifting flour using a sieve rather than a sifter with a handle). Note definition 2 of "sift," which is closely related to "sieve": Main Entry: sift Pronunciation: 'sift Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, from Old English siftan; akin to Old English sife sieve transitive verb 1 a : to put through a sieve b : to separate or separate out by or as if by putting through a sieve 2 : to go through especially to sort out what is useful or valuable -- often used with through That's what DD is doing in GoF--sifting the evidence in his Pensieve to make connections, essentially sorting the wheat from the chaff but also putting the "useful or valuable" pieces together into a meaningful whole. Gives a new meaning to the phrase, "I'll sort this out" (though it's usually Mr. Weasley, not DD, who uses that phrase). 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 From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 31 16:17:51 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:17:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Umbridge as tyrant / Twins leaving Hogwarts/ I don't think Harry will die/Snape and Draco References: Message-ID: <007a01c6fd08$1db69af0$c980400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160751 > Charles: > Not taking rights away? You're kidding, right? Let's start with her > DADA classes. She actively tries to prevent Hogwarts students from > learning self-defense, knowing that outside of school there are > situations where they could need to defend themselves, Voldie or no. > Self-defense is a basic human right, stemming from the right to life. Magpie: I said she was taking away rights *as students* which she still is. She's got her own agenda for how classes will be taught, and for DADA she wants theory rather than practical spells. The objections to this are valid, but she's still teaching DADA. Durmstrang teaches the Dark Arts and Hogwarts only teaches defense. That's also a choice of what or how a subject will be taught. Charles: > Next, we have the fact that all mail incoming and outgoing is being > read by her or her IS. That means that the entire student body of > Hogwarts is effectively cut off from their parents. Magpie: It's giving them fewer rights as students, yes. I didn't deny the parallels to a tyrranical ruler. I just pointed out that the stricter rules she's enforcing are rules for students in a school. Charles: Harry is > subjected to torture for speaking his mind. There she has taken away > his freedom of speech. Magpie: Yes, I know what Umbridge's agenda is. I said she's acting as a teacher in a school. Snape abuses his power in his class also. I'd also note that when Umbridge punishes Harry with her quill she's not headmistress and Harry could have objected to that to Dumbledore and chose not to. I'm not defending Umbridge's decisions with the students. I just said she's doing it as a teacher and a headmistress. She's running her school like a totalitarian state; she's not running a totalitarian state. And her attempts at control result in chaos and less control for her. Charles: Now, I don't know about Britain or indeed the > rest of the world, but in America students retain their rights rather > than "shed them at the schoolhouse gate" (I can't remember what court > case that's from right now, but someone around here probably knows.) > as > long as they don't disrupt the school in trying to practice those > rights. While Harry did disrupt the class, he was not punished for > that, but rather the content of his opinion Magpie: Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of students in the real world haven't been punished for "the content of their opinion" when it's considered to disrupt class. I have the same objections to that as I do to it when Umbridge does it, but of course Harry retains the right to speech in the world, since he gives an interview to the press. > Charles: > > "Just drop out" Hmmm...let's think about the circumstances here. > Their dropping out was a flight from torture after aiding fellow DA > members to defy Umbridge. They created a swamp in a corridor that > Umbridge couldn't remove, and therefore caused a problem for her and > a certain one of her collaborators. Magpie: Yeah, they dropped out. They left. Dramatically and with a last nose-thumbing at Umbridge, and they left school. Charles: > How are they carrying the battle to new heights and territory? Look > at the description of their shop at the beginning of HBP! They are > doing something very improtant. In a world full of fear they are > doing their damndest to raise morale-right down to a giant poster > taunting Voldemort. Remember that much of Moldybutt's power is > through fear, and they are trying to alleviate some of the fear in > the populace-a dangerous and necessary bit of work. Magpie: They're running their joke shop like they always wanted and planned, and they're making money selling their products--and will probably continue to do so after Voldemort's gone. They didn't join the Order. Sometimes their goal helps one side, sometimes the other side. And I think they just think U-No-Poo is funny. Charles: > Charles, who is still startled that someone could try and defend > Umbridge. Magpie: I'm startled--though I shouldn't be anymore--that I'm considered to have defended Umbridge. What I said was that she was a headmistress enforcing rules in a school. I didn't defend her at all. I even acknowledged the parallels to a tyranical leader in the world. Just because I'm not convinced by certain imo too flattering spins on the behavior of the good guys does not make me a defender of Umbridge. Ironically, this thread started about Hermione, whose behavior I often have the same problems with as I do with Umbridge. Barb: I have wondered if Harry' s success in potions is a sign of a blossoming gift. I didn't take his using the notes as cheating, but rather as a sign that Harry is "thinking outside the box" or "thinking beyond the text." Magpie: Actually, Harry's not thinking beyond the text. He's following text same as everyone, only his text is written in the margins. Snape was the one thinking beyond the text. Barb: I've also wondered if the Potter family business is somehow related to potions. it would be the ultimate irony. Magpie: The Potters don't have to have ever had a business. I hesitate to speak with any knowledge on this but I've seen fanfic Brit-pickers occasionally identify what they think is an American tendency to equate money with a family business. The Potters could just have inherited wealth from landowning etc. lazylacelacey: Possibly HP will battle Snape & Draco. Maybe he will kill them before he gets to Voldemort. Just maybe's. Then again, Voldemort might kill both & then Narcissa. Who knows, until the book arrives? Magpie: Nobody knows, but that ending would surprise me. First it's got Harry killing a lot of people, one of whom is a peer. I think Snape is DDM already so it would be odd for Harry to kill him, but I'd also think it odd that Harry would be killing Draco after the book where he felt the closest thing to something positive towards him he ever had, the book where Draco himself couldn't kill Harry's mentor and the book where Harry almost killed Draco by accident and felt badly about it. -m From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 31 16:40:22 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:40:22 -0000 Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160752 > LG (London Granddaughter): > Dungrollin wrote: So let's say that it's about now that Snape's wife > [5] discovers that she is pregnant > > LG writes: > On JKR's site there is an interview with a questioner who surmised > that a female character might be child of Snape's. JKR resplies that > Snape does not have a daughter. It stood out to me that she does not > reply that he has no children. > > Wondering...if he has a son...if he might still be alive... Eddie: If JKRowling's descriptions of Harry and Draco hadn't so clearly described the similarities of their appearances to their respective fathers, I'd speculate that one of _THEM_ was Snape's son. But since that _SEEMS_ to be excluded, I'll smarmily speculate -- VERY EVIL GRIN -- a Snape / Lily sexual liaison shortly before Lily married James. Later, during Lily's pregnancy (with Harry), was Snape left to wonder if the baby was his? How close to her marriage was this speculated affair? Did Lily and James elope (as Molly and Arthur said many people did in those days) when they discovered Lily was pregnant? Even without smarmy speculation, I'm pretty sure the very sight of Harry twists a knife in Snape's emotions: dad's hair, mom's eyes. This has been covered many times before in this forum. Eddie From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 17:18:29 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:18:29 -0000 Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160753 > > > SSSusan: > > > Hmmmm. Is it in Snape's character to side with Regulus over > > > Voldy? > > Dungrollin: > > He's terrified of Voldy. Anyone in their right mind is terrified of Voldy, particularly those who work for him. Do I need to refer you to the kid-glove bowing-and-scraping I'm-not-worthy treatment they put on for him in the graveyard in GoF? That's fear. > > SSSusan: > Indeed, I recall the bowing & scraping in the graveyard. I actually was thinking specifically *of* that terror when I asked the question, though. I wondered if being terrified of him might cause a DE to *fear* making alliances with others behind Voldy's back, out of fear of discovery. > > But perhaps, what you're saying here... > > > Snape was naive in the same way that Regulus and Draco were. If > > Draco was unable to kill DD, and Draco didn't even *like* DD, and fully knew that Voldy would kill him for his failure, it's not > > impossible that Snape found he couldn't betray Regulus, if he were a good friend. > > ...is the other real possibility. That being both naive and > increasingly aware of Voldemort's "psycho-ness," making friends with other DEs seemed necessary. Dung: Yeah, exactly. Voldy's the great leader, but he's nobody's friend, and once you've signed up to being a DE you *really* need friends, because it's not certain that Voldy will look out for you. It's even possible that a small mistake at which he takes offence could get you killed. > > > SSSusan: > > > What will have had this effect on Snape? The prophecy? his wife's pregnancy? > > Dung: > > His wife and child's death, and the death of Regulus. That's my > > premise. > > SSSusan: > Sorry -- I wasn't understanding the timing here. I thought his > siding with Regulus occurred *before* the deaths of his wife & child. Dung: Oh, I see what you mean. Actually, I could have left it a lot vaguer, but thought I'd bash some details together for fun. It's only really necessary that Voldy wants to punish Snape and kills his wife and child because of the prophecy. But that means Snape should have defied Voldy three times, so i put the helping Regulus in before the wife and child dying. Hang on, I've just found what you wrote: SSSusan: "Is it in Snape's character to side with Regulus over Voldy? Has he already begun to think "It's not worth it" with regard to being a Voldy supporter? What will have had this effect on Snape? The prophecy? his wife's pregnancy?" Dung again: Right, I think I'm with you now: when Regulus comes to Snape for help, or to say goodbye, Snape is already (at least, under this theory) defying Voldy by not telling him about his wife and expected child. You'd expect him to choose his own child over Voldy, wouldn't you? I can understand you being less sure about Regulus. Look at it this way, Snape's at home, someone bangs on the door, it's Reg. He says "Oh my god I don't have time to explain, I need some floo powder right now!" Snape says "What what what? What's up, let me help." Reg says "No, it's too dangerous, if they even know I came here you'll be dead, or worse." (<-hyperbole again) Snape says "Come off it Reggie, you're hysterical! Tell me, what's up?" Reg says "I'm leaving the Death Eaters. The Dark Lord wants me dead." Snape says "?*$@!! How far behind you are they?" Reg says "Close. Just give me some floo powder and say you haven't seen me since Monday." I'm not suggesting that Snape carefully plans something cunning to go behind Voldy's back, just that in the heat of the moment, Regulus is his friend, and he can't coldy turn him in. Does that make sense? In fact, since we know Regulus didn't last more than a few days after Voldy declared him persona non grata, it *couldn't* have been a complicated and cunning scheme which took months of planning. it would have been something small and stupid which a naive young DE did in a panic, and which the Dark Lord saw through almost immediately. > > > SSSusan: > > > Hmmm again. Is it in Lucius' character to go out on such a limb for Snape, even if he did provide the tip-off about July? I > > > can't *quite* imagine it. > > Dung: > > You seem to be forgetting that bad people (in this case DEs) have friends too. Being a bad person doesn't automatically make you a bad or disloyal friend. > > SSSusan: > Well, in my defense, I don't think I was making the assumption > that "bad guy = bad friend." I was considering what we know of > Lucius himself and thinking of *him* as a bad friend. In all > his "slipperiness," he seems to be one who is pretty determinedly out for himself. > Dung: Remember Lucius was younger, too. But unless I'm forgetting something, I don't think we have any canon for Lucius selling out his mates, do we? We have him claiming to have been Imperius'd after Voldy fell, but loads of them did that (very sensible too, IMO); and we have him using the diary when he thought that Voldy was finished, but that's denying Voldemort, not his DE *friends*. Jog my memory, would you? Peter screwed over his *friends*. > > Dung: > > And frankly, with someone like Voldy at the tiller, you need all > > the chums you can get amongst the other DEs. You don't want one of the ones who doesn't like you to stab you in the back and push you in the poo, and have no-one around to help you out. > > SSSusan: > Yes, now this I can reconcile with my image of Lucius. It would be about alliances for the sake of self-preservation. I can see that he might see that as quite beneficial. But still, I would ask whether he would actually RISK anything for the sake of one of > those "friends" (better read as allies, in my view)? Perhaps he > would, and I'm not being fair to Lucius. Dung: Yeah, ok, you can say 'allies' rather than 'friends', but since Narcissa uses the word 'friend', forgive me if I'm sticking to that . > Dung: Lucius is a nasty piece of work, sure enough, one of Voldy's followers who was in it for the "more refined forms of torture" IMO, but he's not a rat like Peter. He doesn't spit on his chums. He didn't leg it from the MoM to safety like Bella did, he stayed with the DEs who were under his command, and was captured with them (though it's obviously > > debateable whether it was just incompetence that got him caught). > > SSSusan: > Wow. Am I movie contaminated? I don't see Lucius as being non- > ratlike. Again, I see him as calculating. HOW can he get out of > this mess [the time of Voldy's downfall] while still retaining as > much positive as possible? Without ticking off the DEs so much that he'd be a target of the most loyal, like Bella? Without giving away to Voldy that he had no interest in going off looking for him? > Without going to Azkaban? I see him as the supreme role-player > and "I take care of myself first but without losing position with > anyone by virtue of my slipperiness." Dung: Perhaps I was being a little hyperbolic in the original post . It doesn't have to be much of a risk for Lucius to speak out on behalf of Snape, all he's really risking is that Voldy tells him to shut up, and kills Snape anyway, it just would have taken some guts to do. I'm not sure that Voldy kills dissenters as a matter of course - he puts up with Wormtail when he tried to convince Voldy not to use Harry for the rebirthing potion. Snape would be a good investment for Lucius (with the benefit of hindsight, I think we can agree that Snape turned out to be a capable wizard, and I don't think Lucius is too stupid to forsee that), if he doesn't act, or he fails to convince Voldy to spare Snape, he's lost a friend or ally; if he does manage to convince Voldy to spare Snape, Snape owes him one, or he's paid back the one he owes Snape, and cemented their looking out for each other thing (why don't you want to call that 'friendship'?) > > > SSSusan: > > > I can definitely agree with this possibility of a loyalty test of Snape. And wouldn't it be fascinating if, in the end for Snape, that loyalty test of Voldy's turned into a loyalty test of DD's as well! That is, if you & I are right about Snape being DDM and about DD "commanding" Snape to do the deed, then killing DD was DD's "loyalty test." How convenient (but how very painful for Snape) that killing DD will satisfy *both* loyalty tests in one deed. > > Dung: > > You reckon DD didn't trust Snape?!? > > SSSusan: > No, I think he *did* trust Snape but that the loyalty test was > whether Snape could follow DD's ultimate order -- to kill him. I > think DD wasn't positive that Snape could/would bring himself to do that. So loyalty test in the sense of following this horrible order, but not a lack of trust in him. Dung: Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it ratchets up the angst, doesn't it? > Dung: > > It would give Harry a good example of how it's not only his life > > that was ruined by the prophecy, and that there were others in the same situation as he and Neville who didn't make it. > > SSSusan: > Yep. And it would give Harry a LOT to think about re: Snape... > presumably while he looks down upon his DEAD body, with yet one more thing to feel guilty about. ;-) > Dung: Aaaaargh, noooooooooooo! I *really* don't want Snape to die. I could live with him getting time in Azkaban for the DD incident (even if there were extenuating circumstances, it's still presumably illegal in the WW to kill your boss, though helping to bring Voldy down might mitigate the sentence a bit), but I *really* don't want him to die. It's funny, it's the only real *hope* that I have for book 7. All the theories can turn out wrong, Harry can live or die (am I the *only* person on the list who really doesn't mind either way?) and I won't be too bothered (unless of course the quality of book 7 is poor). I just want Snape to survive, that's all. Anyway, I'm sure she said somewhere that we shouldn't worry, and that Snape can look after himself, so fingers crossed. Dungrollin From bamf505 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 18:09:46 2006 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:09:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR punning names (was: New Member and question) In-Reply-To: <20061031001544.30911.qmail@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20061031180946.18288.qmail@web31508.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160754 --- career advisor wrote: > < > As I have often remarked in the past JKR has a > whole raft of punning > > names. Examples are Diagon Alley, Knockturn > Alley, Umbridge, > > Grimmauld, Durmstrang, Hogwarts and fascinating > new meaning for > > Apparition and Disillusion. > Siriusly Snapey Susan>>> > > My favorite I just discovered and very smart readers > might even figured it out > before it happened in POA. And it is: Peter > Pettigrew > > 1) Pet R > 2) Pet I Grew. > > There was a clue there if we had just seen it. LOL > > DA Jones bamf here: Similar to PP, in my opinion, is Minerva's name - Mc Gone a Gal (she's gone from gal to cat...) bamf There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com) From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 31 18:33:47 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:33:47 -0000 Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160755 > Alla: > > Okay, wasting my third post of the day, but that is what we now call his way of ignoring the incident? Potioncat: I am reduced to tears! You consider replying to my posts a waste of your post?......(I'm teasing...on the other hand, it may explain why so few of my posts are ever responded to...OK, now I'm whining) > Alla: > I thought that is what calls continiuous favoring of the Slytherins? > > Wasn't him ignoring Slytherin hexing Gryffindor girl exactly that - > **favoring** Slytherins? > > I mean, ignoring is when nobody punished, not when guilty is not > punished. when guilty is not punished I call it favoritism. Am I > missing something here? Potioncat: Snape favors the Slytherins. No arguement there. At least he does where Quidditch is concerned. I don't think he does where academics are concerned. I don't think he coddles Draco where academics are concerned, and may have taught him a few spells (we don't know who taught Draco the snake spell from the dueling club.) In this one case, Snape comes out and stops a ruckus. He asks what happens and chooses Draco to speak. If you ask me, he isn't particularly "nice" to Draco at that moment. Imagine how Harry would feel if Snape if pointed his long yellow finger at him. Or even if McGonagall had done so. I'm not sure Draco is at ease. Notice, quite a bit is going on "behind" Snape's back for the next few paragraphs. I'm not sure the Slytherins are certain of what they can really get away with. Personally, I find "I see no difference" just as disturbing as the Pensieve incident between James and Severus. But it is also very much like the eyebrow incident in nature. > Potioncat then: I think it's noteworthy that he doesn't tack on any > extra punishment to Harry for the duel. (This is Snape, you know.) Potioncat now: I mean, he could have, being the nasty git he is, punished Harry for attacking Draco and also punished Harry and Ron for disrespect. (I don't mean it would be fair, I mean, he didn't do it.) Now, what if this had been Minerva? We've seen her reaction when someone (Harry) attacks someone else (Draco) for saying something mean. She does not condone fighting when it is against name calling and Harry did draw his wand first. A very good argument could be made that Draco is defending himself. I think she would have sent Goyle and Hermione to the hospital wing, and punished Harry. She might also have punished Draco for his anti- Muggle speech---although I'm not certain about that. Different slant, and I'll need some help here if any Snape supporters are around. Snape shows up quite often when Draco and Harry are about to rumble. He doesn't always appear--for example when Ron misfired the slug curse. So, does he show up at the convenience of the author, or is he watching out for Draco and/or Harry? The times I can remember concern Draco and Neville (GoF? or OoP?), Draco and Harry at the end of the OoP, Harry and Draco in the bathroom HBP. He generally does something unfair to Gryffindor/Harry, but he does stop the incident. Potioncat, who thinks Harry was justified in pulling his wand on Draco, and who thinks Harry and the twins were justified in attacking Draco in OoP---but that's my old-timey Southern roots showing. From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Tue Oct 31 18:51:59 2006 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:51:59 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's Hex Message-ID: <20061031185159.13565.qmail@web25602.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160756 Nikkalmati wrote: >But think about the consequences for the students if even a study club is >discovered by DU. All unapproved clubs are illegal. It must have been >apparent to Marietta that she was stabbing her friends in the back. It is not as >though she had independently discovered wrongdoing by the students and felt she >had to report it. Everyone there "trusted" her. She gave her word. I >don't see how learning to repel Dementors was an attack on the MOM. No one would >want to be on the wrong side of a Dementor and the spell was defensive only. >No excuses for Marietta here. Marietta had an alternative course of action if she no longer wanted to be part of the DA. Maybe even two alternative courses of action. She _could_ have talked to Hermione, said that she wanted to leave because of the risk to her mother's job, and promised that she'd keep quiet about what was going on. Or she _could_ have just stopped going, found an excuse not to (that overdue essay, or whatever...) Either way, the secret would have been safe and so would she. She didn't. She _chose_ to make a grass and a tout and a weasel of herself and she suffered the penalty. Quite right too. Cheers Ffred ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From darksworld at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 17:36:00 2006 From: darksworld at yahoo.com (Charles Walker Jr) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:36:00 -0000 Subject: Umbridge as tyrant / Twins leaving Hogwarts/ Why I hate Hermione In-Reply-To: <007a01c6fd08$1db69af0$c980400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" wrote: > Magpie: > I said she was taking away rights *as students* which she still is. She's > got her own agenda for how classes will be taught, and for DADA she wants > theory rather than practical spells. The objections to this are valid, but > she's still teaching DADA. Durmstrang teaches the Dark Arts and Hogwarts > only teaches defense. That's also a choice of what or how a subject will be > taught. > Charles: So all these students who will have no idea how to defend themselves will do what as adults? This "choice of [...]how a subject will be taught" as you so spinningly put it will interfere with their right to defend themselves as citizens *outside of* and *after* Hogwarts. > Charles: > > Next, we have the fact that all mail incoming and outgoing is being > > read by her or her IS. That means that the entire student body of > > Hogwarts is effectively cut off from their parents. > > Magpie: > It's giving them fewer rights as students, yes. I didn't deny the parallels > to a tyrranical ruler. I just pointed out that the stricter rules she's > enforcing are rules for students in a school. > Charles: She's also interfering with the *parental* rights here as well. > Charles: > Harry is > > subjected to torture for speaking his mind. There she has taken away > > his freedom of speech. > > Magpie: > Yes, I know what Umbridge's agenda is. I said she's acting as a teacher in a > school. Snape abuses his power in his class also. I'd also note that when > Umbridge punishes Harry with her quill she's not headmistress and Harry > could have objected to that to Dumbledore and chose not to. I'm not > defending Umbridge's decisions with the students. I just said she's doing > it as a teacher and a headmistress. She's running her school like a > totalitarian state; she's not running a totalitarian state. And her > attempts at control result in chaos and less control for her. > Charles: She is acting as a teacher in a school, but as part of a wider political agenda to bring more power to the ministry. Look at the argument in career advising-Hogwarts is not only a school to Umbridge, it is a path to creating power, for herself and Fudge. What I'm saying here is that you are playing down the farther reaching nature of her actions. Remember that she is still "Senior Undersecretary to the Minister" I'll give you that Umbridge is not "Der Fuerher" (sp?) -but I'd certainly say that she's like Torquemada. Remember too what Fudge's reason for putting her there is- to attempt to destroy Dumbledore. Her ineffectiveness does not excuse her actions or her intent. > Magpie: > Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of students in the real world > haven't been punished for "the content of their opinion" when it's > considered to disrupt class. I have the same objections to that as I do to > it when Umbridge does it, but of course Harry retains the right to speech in > the world, since he gives an interview to the press. > Charles: I certainly ran into that particular problem when I was in high school, but-living in the real world far from the totalitarian state that Fudge is trying to set up- I used my rights to get the teacher overturned. Harry did go to a higher authority-McGonagall- and was told that his punishment was right because Umbridge was the teacher. One of the biggest problems I have with people saying that the students should go to the authority figures at Hogwarts is because that tends to be an ineffectual action. > > Charles: > > > > "Just drop out" Hmmm...let's think about the circumstances here. > > Their dropping out was a flight from torture after aiding fellow DA > > members to defy Umbridge. They created a swamp in a corridor that > > Umbridge couldn't remove, and therefore caused a problem for her and > > a certain one of her collaborators. > > Magpie: > Yeah, they dropped out. They left. Dramatically and with a last > nose-thumbing at Umbridge, and they left school. > Charles: Again, nice spin. Like I said, they participated in an act to frustrate Umbridge, they did not just skive off. Even if they had not been involved in helping Harry et al to get around Umbridge, they were in increasing danger and they knew it. I'm not denying that they dropped out, my problem was "just dropped out" -the connotation of merely leaving and ignoring the context because it didn't fit your argument. > Charles: > > How are they carrying the battle to new heights and territory? Look > > at the description of their shop at the beginning of HBP! They are > > doing something very improtant. In a world full of fear they are > > doing their damndest to raise morale-right down to a giant poster > > taunting Voldemort. Remember that much of Moldybutt's power is > > through fear, and they are trying to alleviate some of the fear in > > the populace-a dangerous and necessary bit of work. > > Magpie: > They're running their joke shop like they always wanted and planned, and > they're making money selling their products--and will probably continue to > do so after Voldemort's gone. They didn't join the Order. Sometimes their > goal helps one side, sometimes the other side. And I think they just think > U-No-Poo is funny. > Charles: Possibly. But they certainly know that it is an insult to Voldemort. It is blatant. And where is your canon saying that they did not join the order? We really don't see much about the order in HBP except for those who are posted at Hogwarts, and of course Lupin's mission to the werewolves, but we do know that they were only denied membership in the order because they were still at school. Remember that they do have staff, so they may indeed be participating in a larger manner than that which is explicitly stated, even though we don't see it. I think we may see what missions the order has in store for Gred and Forge in the next book. > Charles: > > Charles, who is still startled that someone could try and defend > > Umbridge. > > Magpie: > I'm startled--though I shouldn't be anymore--that I'm considered to have > defended Umbridge. What I said was that she was a headmistress enforcing > rules in a school. I didn't defend her at all. I even acknowledged the > parallels to a tyranical leader in the world. Just because I'm not convinced > by certain imo too flattering spins on the behavior of the good guys does > not make me a defender of Umbridge. Ironically, this thread started about > Hermione, whose behavior I often have the same problems with as I do with > Umbridge. > Charles: But you yourself were trying to play down Umbridge's actions as less tyrannical than a dictator's. That in and of itself is a form of defense. I myself have problems with Hermione, but spinning Umbridge's behavior down and Hermione's up will not make them equal. That being said, I will give you that there are similarities. Both will ignore rules themselves while forcing them on others-and both come up with ineffectual plans that are hazardous. But similarities don't mean that they are equivalent. **deep sigh** Ok, I've defended Hermione again for the umpteenth time. Now I'm going to interject the reason that I don't like her. The *entire* reason she is upset by the potions book is because Harry does better than her in class. She's po'd before she even knows why Harry's potion is coming out better, she's just pissed that someone topped her academically. She then starts on a systematic campaign of nagging and research throughout the year to get him to stop using it. This in turn spurs Harry and Ron's defense of the book and is one of the reasons that Harry starts to trust the book too much, IMO. And I feel her "I told you so" after DD's death deserves a swift kick. Charles, who finally had to do something to get the taste of defending Hermione out of his mouth. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 19:03:04 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:03:04 -0000 Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160758 Potioncat wrote: And yes, Ron's and Harry's detention was for disrepect to him, not > for the dueling. I think it's noteworthy that he doesn't tack on any > extra punishment to Harry for the duel. (This is Snape, you know.) > > Then, again, perhaps he was only taking the opportunity to force > the two estranged friends to work together so that they could mend the rift in their friendship. He's like that, you know. ;-) > Alla responded: > > Oh, that' right, I forgot. He is a relentless worker to unite the > Houses to make all students treat each other with kindness and > dignity and he shows them the example of his own behaviour. > > Yes, sorry, my bad :) > Carol adds: I agree with Potioncat that Harry, like Draco, was not punished for duelling. He and Ron were punished for talking back and calling Snape names that JKR can't specify in a children's book (but I think we can imagine them fairly easily). Now I'm going to surprise Alla by agreeing with her point (upthread) that Snape may have deliberately provoked Ron and Harry with his "I see no difference" comment. He didn't deny Hermione the opportunity to run to the hospital wing (following Goyle), nor as someone pointed out, did he punish her for being absent from class. Of course, he expected her to go there. He just didn't specifically send her. And maybe he got a bit of spiteful pleasure out of insulting the "insufferable Know-It-All." But Potioncat's point is well taken. Whatever Snape's intentions (and we can't know them because the pov prevents us from seeing inside his mind, the words "I see no difference" lead to Ron and Harry (who at this point are not speaking) sharing a detention, Ron and Harry defending Hermione together against Snape. I think it points out to them (subconsciously) where their loyalties lie and makes them both want to resume their friendship (even though it doesn't happen yet, for reasons related to the boys themselves, not to Snape). None of this has anything to do with coddling Draco. Snape doesn't see who started the duel. He gives Harry the same *non*punishment for duelling that he gives to Draco. The detentions in this case, as in the DADA class in HBP, are for disrespect to himself, not for duelling (or, in HBP, hitting Snape with a defensive spell that should have been nonverbal, which IMO is what he was egging Harry on to attempt). And as Draco isn't guilty of disrespect in this instance, he doesn't get a detention. (HBP!Draco is a whole different matter.) Note that Snape's words to Draco are stern, nothing like the coddling that we'd hear from Petunia if Dudley were involved in a fight at school: "'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'" (299). Doesn't sound like favoritism to me. Nor does Snape punish Harry for interrupting Draco's explanation. All he does at first is listen to both sides and send Goyle to the hospital wing. Up to the point when Harry shows Snape Hermione's teeth and Snape makes his tactless remark about seeing no difference, when Hermione runs off whimpering and Ron and Harry start shouting what I assume to be obscenities at Snape, Snape handles the situation well, IMO. Also, of course, Snape can't let Ron and Harry get away with yelling and swearing at him, whether he deliberately provoked their behavior or not, or discipline in his classes will break down (unless his students can still be quailed by a dangerously soft voice and a cold look). Since Draco isn't involved in the shouting and swearing, there's no reason for him to get a detention for that particular infraction. (True, he didn't get one for fighting in the corrridor, but neither did Harry.) Carol, who is not condoning Snape's hurtful remark regarding Hermione's teeth or his apparent provocation of Ron and Harry, only pointing out that sticking his finger in Draco's face and demanding an explanation is not coddling From jnferr at gmail.com Tue Oct 31 19:07:25 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:07:25 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Umbridge as tyrant / Twins leaving Hogwarts/ I don't think Harry will die/Snape and Draco In-Reply-To: <007a01c6fd08$1db69af0$c980400c@Spot> References: <007a01c6fd08$1db69af0$c980400c@Spot> Message-ID: <8ee758b40610311107k4936e63y2afed481448ec2fe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 160759 > Magpie: > Yes, I know what Umbridge's agenda is. I said she's acting as a teacher in > a > school. Snape abuses his power in his class also. I'd also note that > when > Umbridge punishes Harry with her quill she's not headmistress and Harry > could have objected to that to Dumbledore and chose not to. montims: This is Harry's old problem, isn't it - he won't turn to adults for help. It's understandable with DD in this book, as DD is refusing any contact with him, but he could have gone to McGonagall, or even Madam Pomfrey for healing, and she would have passed the word along. However, we have seen on other occasions that when he does mention his suspicions and fears to teachers, they just brush them off as imagination, so my sympathies are with Harry here... In this book, in particular, he is going through a very angst-ridden teenage phase, and feels hard-done by most of the time (justifiably IMO). He doesn't even tell Hermione and Ron about the quill till Ron sees the scars. That does not give Umbridge the right to torture the boy, and the Ministry should not have imposed such a sadistic person on the school as a teacher with complete authority over everyone and everything there. > Magpie: > Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of students in the real world > haven't been punished for "the content of their opinion" when it's > considered to disrupt class. I have the same objections to that as I do to > it when Umbridge does it, but of course Harry retains the right to speech > in > the world, since he gives an interview to the press. montims: and as soon as Umbridge heard about this (a thing she couldn't believe had happpened, as her prohibitions were intended to prevent Harry's freedom of speech and movement as much as possible) she banned the reading of the article. (The best thing she could have done for Harry, as Hermione said). Her whole purpose was to prevent free speech to Harry and his supporters, and to ridicule anything he had ever said, in the eyes of the WW. Magpie: > They're running their joke shop like they always wanted and planned, and > they're making money selling their products--and will probably continue to > do so after Voldemort's gone. They didn't join the Order. Sometimes their > goal helps one side, sometimes the other side. And I think they just > think > U-No-Poo is funny. montims: Be fair - they wanted to join, but Molly and the other Order members said they were too young. I wouldn't be surprised if they were now Order members. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 19:32:46 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:32:46 -0000 Subject: I See No Difference (was Re: Draco is quite the wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160760 > > Alla: > > > > Okay, wasting my third post of the day, but that is what we now > call his way of ignoring the incident? > > Potioncat: > I am reduced to tears! You consider replying to my posts a waste of > your post?......(I'm teasing...on the other hand, it may explain why > so few of my posts are ever responded to...OK, now I'm whining) Alla: LOL. Soooorry. I mentioned that it was a waste of my post ( and seriously I think it was) because I did not think that my post was substantive enough, still do not. > > > Alla: > > I mean, ignoring is when nobody punished, not when guilty is not > > punished. when guilty is not punished I call it favoritism. Am I > > missing something here? > > Potioncat: > Snape favors the Slytherins. No argument there. At least he does > where Quidditch is concerned. Alla: Good to know we agree on that part. Potioncat: > In this one case, Snape comes out and stops a ruckus. He asks what > happens and chooses Draco to speak. If you ask me, he isn't > particularly "nice" to Draco at that moment. Imagine how Harry would > feel if Snape if pointed his long yellow finger at him. Alla: But who cares if the end result is precisely that - Draco is getting away with something he should not have gone away? Potioncat: Personally, I find "I see no difference" just as disturbing as the > Pensieve incident between James and Severus. But it is also very much > like the eyebrow incident in nature. Alla: Okay maybe this is again just semantics. I am confused why you would call that **ignoring** the incident when guilty party goes unpunished? > > > Potioncat then: > I think it's noteworthy that he doesn't tack on any > > extra punishment to Harry for the duel. (This is Snape, you know.) > > > Potioncat now: > I mean, he could have, being the nasty git he is, punished Harry for > attacking Draco and also punished Harry and Ron for disrespect. (I > don't mean it would be fair, I mean, he didn't do it.) 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. > Carol adds: > > I agree with Potioncat that Harry, like Draco, was not punished for > duelling. He and Ron were punished for talking back and calling Snape > names that JKR can't specify in a children's book (but I think we can > imagine them fairly easily). > > Now I'm going to surprise Alla by agreeing with her point (upthread) > that Snape may have deliberately provoked Ron and Harry with his "I > see no difference" comment. Alla: Blink. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 19:50:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:50:11 -0000 Subject: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency" (Was: Names wordplay) In-Reply-To: <20061031053132.81388.qmail@web84007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160761 Carrie wrote: > Did anyone notice that Occlumency could be A clue men see? Carol responds: I don't think the term "Occlumency" is a pun. I think we need to look at the Latin or pseudo-Latin etymology here, as we do for the spells. As I posted some time ago, the terms "Occlumens" and "Legilimens" relate to "mind" and mindreading or its opposite. To quote my earlier post: > >("Mens" is Latin for "mind." "Occlu-" apparently means "closed." Cf. "occludere," to close.) Ditto for "Legilimens," which is "mens" ("mind") plus "legili-," apparently JKR's adaptation of "legilbilis," "capable of being read or deciphered," from "legere," to read." < < The "-mens" ending refers to the practitioner; the "-cy" ending, which is used for English abstract nouns derived from Latin or Greek roots, relates to the art or science that person practices. Snape's remark to Harry that only Muggles think it possible to read a mind like a book is interesting in view of this etymology, which Snape (who creates his own spells with Latin-based names) must understand. I suppose that a Legilimens can "read" the thoughts, memories, and emotions that rise to the conscious level at a given moment unless he's "blocked" by Occlumency, but he can't simply enter a person's mind and wander through it as if it were a maze with innumerable passageways to be explored at leisure like pages of a book. At any rate, I think the place to start with any non-English name or term in the HP books is etymology. It's possible that there are some multilingual puns, but I don't think so in this instance. Most of the puns, IMO, relate to English words and names and are rather easily grasped by young readers when the books are read aloud (like Diagon Alley/diagonally and Grimmauld Place/grim old place). Legilimency and Occlumency are more serious matters and have names to which JKR has, IMO, devoted some fairly serious thought. Carol, noting that JKR's invented etymologies, like her puns, are a form of wordplay but perhaps rather more serious, whether we're dealing with Occlumency or Sectumsempra From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Oct 31 20:33:20 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:33:20 -0000 Subject: TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160762 SSSusan: > > But perhaps, what you're [Dungrollin] saying here... > > > Snape was naive in the same way that Regulus and Draco were. If > Draco was unable to kill DD, and Draco didn't even *like* DD, > and fully knew that Voldy would kill him for his failure, it's not > impossible that Snape found he couldn't betray Regulus, if he > were a good friend. > > > > ...is the other real possibility. That being both naive and > > increasingly aware of Voldemort's "psycho-ness," making friends > with other DEs seemed necessary. Dungrollin: > Yeah, exactly. Voldy's the great leader, but he's nobody's friend, > and once you've signed up to being a DE you *really* need friends, > because it's not certain that Voldy will look out for you. It's > even possible that a small mistake at which he takes offence could > get you killed. SSSusan: THAT'S definitely all true; I can see more what you're saying. Life's going to be hard; this guy's scary as hell; I need people around me who understand! Dung: > Oh, I see what you mean. Actually, I could have left it a lot > vaguer, but thought I'd bash some details together for fun. It's > only really necessary that Voldy wants to punish Snape and kills > his wife and child because of the prophecy. But that means Snape > should have defied Voldy three times, so i put the helping Regulus > in before the wife and child dying. SSSusan: Heh. I get it now. This isn't an integral detail; you're just trying to get to "thrice defied" and this is one way of getting there for Snapey. Dung again: > Right, I think I'm with you now: when Regulus comes to Snape for > help, or to say goodbye, Snape is already (at least, under this > theory) defying Voldy by not telling him about his wife and > expected child. You'd expect him to choose his own child over > Voldy, wouldn't you? I can understand you being less sure about > Regulus. SSSusan: YES, that's exactly what I'd expect. But then you proposed this: > Look at it this way, Snape's at home, someone bangs on the door, > it's Reg. He says "Oh my god I don't have time to explain, I need > some floo powder right now!" > Snape says "What what what? What's up, let me help." > Reg says "No, it's too dangerous, if they even know I came here > you'll be dead, or worse." (<-hyperbole again) > Snape says "Come off it Reggie, you're hysterical! Tell me, what's > up?" > Reg says "I'm leaving the Death Eaters. The Dark Lord wants me > dead." > Snape says "?*$@!! How far behind you are they?" > Reg says "Close. Just give me some floo powder and say you haven't > seen me since Monday." > > I'm not suggesting that Snape carefully plans something cunning to > go behind Voldy's back, just that in the heat of the moment, > Regulus is his friend, and he can't coldy turn him in. Does that > make sense? SSSusan: LOL!! This makes much more sense now. You're not talking about a Snape who sits down in a quiet moment, contemplating what to do and setting himself a course of "siding" with Regulus. Rather, you're talking about the possibility of an unexpected emergency appearance and Snape's unthinkingly helping someone whose position he can most certainly understand. 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. > > SSSusan: > > Well, in my defense, I don't think I was making the assumption > > that "bad guy = bad friend." I was considering what we know of > > Lucius himself and thinking of *him* as a bad friend. In all > > his "slipperiness," he seems to be one who is pretty determinedly > out for himself. > Dung: > Remember Lucius was younger, too. But unless I'm forgetting > something, I don't think we have any canon for Lucius selling out > his mates, do we? We have him claiming to have been Imperius'd > after Voldy fell, but loads of them did that (very sensible too, > IMO); and we have him using the diary when he thought that Voldy > was finished, but that's denying Voldemort, not his DE *friends*. > Jog my memory, would you? Peter screwed over his *friends*. SSSusan: Fair 'nuff. 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. (Unless you consider Voldy his friend and Lucius' *not* going off searching for him after GH as screwing a friend. But, nah, I'm sure Lucius decidedly did not think of Voldy as "friend.") > > SSSusan: > > Yes, now this I can reconcile with my image of Lucius. It would > > be about alliances for the sake of self-preservation. I can see > > that he might see that as quite beneficial. But still, I would > > ask whether he would actually RISK anything for the sake of one > > of those "friends" (better read as allies, in my view)? Perhaps > > he would, and I'm not being fair to Lucius. Dung: > Yeah, ok, you can say 'allies' rather than 'friends', but since > Narcissa uses the word 'friend', forgive me if I'm sticking to that > . SSSusan: Again, fair 'nuff. You stick to your definition; I'll stick to mine. OTOH, that's Narcissa talking, not Lucius. I guess I'm thinking of "friends" along the lines of Sirius' "I would rather have died, DIED than betrayed my friends!" Less deep-seated bonds [which is what I'm (fairly or unfairly!) envisioning with Lucius] I'd reserve for the "allies" term. > > SSSusan: > > Wow. Am I movie contaminated? I don't see Lucius as being non- > > ratlike. Again, I see him as calculating. HOW can he get out of > > this mess [the time of Voldy's downfall] while still retaining as > > much positive as possible? I see him as the supreme role- > > player and "I take care of myself first but without losing > > position with anyone by virtue of my slipperiness." Dung: > It doesn't have to be much of a risk for Lucius to speak out on > behalf of Snape, all he's really risking is that Voldy tells him to > shut up, and kills Snape anyway, it just would have taken some guts > to do. SSSusan: This is an excellent point. Lucius doesn't really *lose* anything in the attempt to stick up for Snape somewhat, unless Voldy were likely to get hyper-annoyed with Lucius for having done it. But as you point out, we do have evidence of Voldy's putting up with a bit of this kind of attempt at persuasion in Wormtail's suggestion that Voldy not use Harry in the rebirthing potion. Dung: > Snape would be a good investment for Lucius (with the benefit of > hindsight, I think we can agree that Snape turned out to be a > capable wizard, and I don't think Lucius is too stupid to forsee > that), if he doesn't act, or he fails to convince Voldy to spare > Snape, he's lost a friend or ally; if he does manage to convince > Voldy to spare Snape, Snape owes him one, or he's paid back the one > he owes Snape, and cemented their looking out for each other thing > (why don't you want to call that 'friendship'?) SSSusan: Heh. See above. Again, it's about terms like "investment" and "owes him one" which make me think about alliances, not friendship. 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. ;-) > > SSSusan: > > Yep. And it would give Harry a LOT to think about re: Snape... > > presumably while he looks down upon his DEAD body, with yet one > > more thing to feel guilty about. ;-) Dung: > Aaaaargh, noooooooooooo! I *really* don't want Snape to die. I > could live with him getting time in Azkaban for the DD incident > (even if there were extenuating circumstances, it's still > presumably illegal in the WW to kill your boss, though helping to > bring Voldy down might mitigate the sentence a bit), but I *really* > don't want him to die. It's funny, it's the only real *hope* that I > have for book 7. All the theories can turn out wrong, Harry can > live or die (am I the *only* person on the list who really doesn't > mind either way?) and I won't be too bothered (unless of course the > quality of book 7 is poor). I just want Snape to survive, that's > all. SSSusan: Interesting! This I did not realize about you. Well, I knew you'd be peeved if the quality of book 7 were poor , but not about your hope for Snape's survival. 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? Siriusly Snapey Susan From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Oct 31 20:47:00 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:47:00 -0000 Subject: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency" (Was: Names wordplay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160763 > Carrie wrote: > > Did anyone notice that Occlumency could be A clue men see? > > Carol responds: > I don't think the term "Occlumency" is a pun. I think we need to look > at the Latin or pseudo-Latin etymology here, as we do for the spells. Potioncat: Me too. See below. >Carol: > Snape's remark to Harry that only Muggles think it possible to read a > mind like a book is interesting in view of this etymology, which Snape > (who creates his own spells with Latin-based names) must understand. Potioncat: I think it is very interesting to look at what Snape says about Muggles, given that he should have a better than expected understanding of the Muggle-Wizard differences. Carol: Most of the > puns, IMO, relate to English words and names and are rather easily > grasped by young readers when the books are read aloud (like Diagon > Alley/diagonally and Grimmauld Place/grim old place). Potioncat: I read HBP to myself, so it wasn't until I read it outloud that I even realised Golpalott (sp?) was a pun. I laughed so hard--partly at myself for missing it earlier--that my poor son was frantic wanting to have the joke explained. I just went looking, and found this site: >http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation/play.htm It has words from Harry Potter pronounced by a witch. (I assume they would get a witch to read magical words) Based on this, I don't think Occlumency is "A clue men see". From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 31 21:08:38 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:08:38 -0000 Subject: Harry won't turn to adults (Was: Umbridge as tyrant, etc) In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40610311107k4936e63y2afed481448ec2fe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160764 > montims: > This is Harry's old problem, isn't it - he won't turn to adults for help. [...] > we have seen on > other occasions that when he does mention his suspicions and fears to > teachers, they just brush them off as imagination Eddie: It's really too bad Harry didn't go to Dumbledore, because DD wouldn't have brushed off the scars on the back of Harry's hand. As we saw later in the book, when Umbridge got angry at Marietta and shook her (I don't remember the actual wording), Dumbledore was around his desk in a flash and said something like, "I will not allow you to harm one of my students." Dumbledore, even one trying to not show favoritism to Harry in OotP, would have found a way to put an end to this torture of a thousand cuts. And torture it was. Eddie From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Oct 31 21:13:57 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:13:57 -0000 Subject: Etymology of "Pensieve" (Was: JKR punning names ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160765 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > 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. From simm_family at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 20:27:11 2006 From: simm_family at yahoo.com (simm_family) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:27:11 -0000 Subject: Something I've been pondering. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160766 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. From harryp at stararcher.com Tue Oct 31 21:22:58 2006 From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:22:58 -0000 Subject: Etymology of "Occlumency" and "Legilimency" (Was: Names wordplay) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160767 > Potioncat: > I just went looking, and found this site: > > >http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/books/pronunciation/play.htm > > It has words from Harry Potter pronounced by a witch. (I assume they > would get a witch to read magical words) Based on this, I don't think > Occlumency is "A clue men see". Eddie: This link was some fun. Especially check out the pronunciation of "Voldemort." Eddie From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Oct 31 21:41:42 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 21:41:42 -0000 Subject: when did Harry become unfrozen? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160768 I cannot remember where we learned (at least I thought we learned), that a spell such as the one Dumbledore used to freeze Harry on the tower, would automatically end with the death of the person that cast it. The reason I'm wondering is because at the moment that Snape AK's Dumbledore, Harry -- being shocked -- tries to scream, but it is a silent and unmoving scream. If the AK had killed Dumbledore, wouldn't Harry's scream have become audible the moment Dumbledore died? Then, of course, all of the Death Eaters and Draco exit the tower in turn before Harry becomes unfrozen and follows. We can imagine that Harry had actually become unfrozen prior to that and only realized it after everyone left the tower. But the silent scream seems to contradict that. The scream would have been involuntary, and one would expect that it would have become audible the moment Harry was released from Dumbledore's spell. So the question I'm wondering is what is the evidence for a spell ending the moment the person who cast it dies? I feel sure we got this info somewhere either in the books or in JKR interviews, but can't find it. wynnleaf, who would happily receive an email with this info if you don't want to spend a post on it. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 31 23:23:17 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:23:17 -0000 Subject: witches of the world (was: Lavender vs Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 160769 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > ...the reason I like Narcissa is because of her actions in > > Spinner's End. To grab Becca's (I believe) description of > > Molly, Narcissa is a lion when it comes to her child (and > > possibly husband). So I see something to admire there. > >>Phoenixgod2000: > Why oh why am I forced to defend people I dislike? Betsy Hp: Hee! I'd insert a Ginny joke but I see you've cleverly covered that base. > >>Phoenixgod2000: > Narcissa, as much as I love the fandom version is not all that > admirable in canon. Sneaking around to a friend of yours to make > sure he completes the assassination your son was tasked to do > isn't exactly the act of a 'lion'. its the act of a weasel to > afraid to do something truly brave and do something proactive. > there isn't a reason in the world that Narcissa couldn't have > taken up Draco and fled to america or australia or something if > she was so worried about his life. 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 Voldemort keeps on his bedside table (right next to the tin of Nagini's favorite snake treats). 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. (Everyone, please note the deliberate ambivalence I stuck into the previous sentence .) As far as we've seen the Death Eaters are quite willing to work against each other to vie for a stronger position. And Narcissa is hoping that Snape is high enough in the pecking order to actually talk Voldemort out of his plan. So I do attribute a large amount of bravery and gumption to Narcissa for just *approaching* Snape. > >>Phoenixgod2000: > > She could have asked Snape for anything as that third part of the > unbreakable vow and the fact that she still asked for the > assassination of Dumbledore speaks volumes about her actual > sympathies. Betsy Hp: I will give you that. In fact, I suspected from my first reading of that scene that a bonus JKR saw in the third part of the vow is it does undermine the sympathy a worried mother could get from the readers. So I don't deny that Narcissa seems very comfortable with the idea of Dumbledore being murdered. > >>Phoenixgod2000: > Molly on the other hand has joined, along with her husband and > most of her children, a fight against a terrorist leader. Her > sons could die. Her husband could die. She could die. Her > brothers did die. But she joined because it was the right thing to > do. 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. 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: > Thats real bravery and something Narcissa couldn't understand with > all the magic in the world. 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. And in fact, by defying Voldemort to safe- guard her son, Narcissa has *actively* put her life at risk. Not that I could say Molly wouldn't actively risk her life to save one of her children, just, she hasn't had an opportunity yet. So there's nothing there to off-set all of her damn whining. (And undermining of her children's egos and the marginalizing of Arthur's place in the family... etc., etc., And yes, this is IMO, of course and I do realize that folks see Molly as best mother ever...) > >>Betsy Hp: > > With Pansy... I agree with Magpie's thing about Pansy's > > vulnerability. (Unlike Hermione: smart *and* pretty *and* above > > feeling the need to be pretty *and* popluar with all the cool > > boys *and* above the need to be popular with all the cool boys > > *and* so above being girly with the girls... -- blech.) > >>Phoenixgod2000: > I actually agree with you about this except for the pretty thing. > Being able to doll up for one evening does not a beauty make. and > people were, after all surprised that she looked as good as she > did, which implies to me that she isn't someone who is attractive > on a day to day basis. Betsy Hp: I'd agree except, Hermione had no problem at all rustling up a date for Slughorn's party. A date who had to fit a pretty strict requirement (enrage Ron) and a date who had a rather high opinion of himself. I don't think McLaggen would care to have a frump on his arm. Honestly I think the GoF Yule Ball moment was supposed to usher in Hermione's graceful (and zit free ) transition from puberty to young womanhood. Remove the braces (or shrink the teeth) and voila: classic British beauty for all the boys to gag over. Though of course Hermione is "above" all that and so only uses her powers for good (enraging Ron). So I'm sticking with pretty but above being pretty. > >>Phoenixgod2000: > > I really don't like Hermione, but I would take her in a serious > situation over anything other female student in hogwarts every day > of the week and twice on Sundays. Betsy Hp: Since JKR is the author, I'm forced (grumbling) to agree. Though I'd say that Hermione has actually shown herself to be more of an impairment to Harry lately than an asset. I know it's controversial but as far as I'm concerned Hermione did more to ruin the DA than anything. Plus, she's developed quite an enemies list that I'm afraid may cross over to Harry. (Heaven help him if he needs help from Ravenclaws.) 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. I don't know though... JKR might surprise me. She did with Draco after all. > 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. > Betsy Hp: Too good to snip! Betsy Hp (running off to deal with the deluge of tricker-treaters ) From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Oct 31 23:22:51 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:22:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Umbridge as tyrant / Twins leaving Hogwarts/ Why I hate Hermione References: Message-ID: <00e401c6fd43$7d1cbf70$c980400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 160770 > Charles: > > So all these students who will have no idea how to defend themselves > will do what as adults? This "choice of [...]how a subject will be > taught" as you so spinningly put it will interfere with their right > to defend themselves as citizens *outside of* and *after* Hogwarts. Magpie: Again, I'm not arguing that Umbridge's teaching of DADA is the best way to do it. I'm pointing out that she is teaching DADA, through theory. DADA at Hogwarts is a subject that's ironically already a problem because they can't keep a teacher for more than a year. Lockhart was a bad teacher as well. But they're getting DADA regardless of disagreements about how it should be taught. I of course agree with you on why Umbridge's DADA is unacceptable, but I still don't think you can take it so far as to say DADA being taught without practice of hexing=taking away someone's right to defend themselves. It's not that I don't get that Umbridge wants the public powerless and that there is a political reason for that. I think the kids are right to oppose her on those grounds. I just think it's a case of nipping something in the bud before it becomes a lack of rights in society instead of just school. For a real world equivalent, for instance, I think it's equally unfair for people to interfere with students learning science because it threatens their beliefs. I see the same danger in that. I just wouldn't describe it as taking away their rights to do science. What they're doing is actually more insideous. > Charles: > She's also interfering with the *parental* rights here as well. Magpie: And the parents will have to protest that if they don't want their letters read. I think they have every reason to protest it. I certainly wouldn't stand for my child's mail being read. I'm just saying this is something she's claiming to be able to do as their headmistress protecting the school. She has no rights over mail the parents might send to someone else. > Charles: > She is acting as a teacher in a school, but as part of a wider > political agenda to bring more power to the ministry. Look at the > argument in career advising-Hogwarts is not only a school to > Umbridge, it is a path to creating power, for herself and Fudge. What > I'm saying here is that you are playing down the farther reaching > nature of her actions. Remember that she is still "Senior > Undersecretary to the Minister" I'll give you that Umbridge is > not "Der Fuerher" (sp?) -but I'd certainly say that she's like > Torquemada. Remember too what Fudge's reason for putting her there is- > to attempt to destroy Dumbledore. Her ineffectiveness does not excuse > her actions or her intent. Magpie: I didn't think I'd ever denied this. I see that she can represent a government movement. I'm just saying that it's all played out in the school, which rejects the government interference. The naming of Dumbledore's Army is even an ironic reference to the kids setting themselves against the Ministry under the banner of alternate leader Dumbledore. > Magpie: >> Yeah, they dropped out. They left. Dramatically and with a last >> nose-thumbing at Umbridge, and they left school. >> > > Charles: > Again, nice spin. Like I said, they participated in an act to > frustrate Umbridge, they did not just skive off. Magpie: By saying they dropped out I in no way meant to imply they just skived off. Charles: Even if they had not > been involved in helping Harry et al to get around Umbridge, they > were in increasing danger and they knew it. I'm not denying that they > dropped out, my problem was "just dropped out" -the connotation of > merely leaving and ignoring the context because it didn't fit your > argument. Magpie: I didn't realize I was ignoring the context. I though it went without saying that we all knew the circumstances under which they left. They left in a blaze of glory that was a blow against Umbridge. I just don't see how it's something about taking the battle elsewhere when to me it was clearly their exit from the story of OotP. The Twins could leave when they did because they were in a position to do so. I'm not suggesting their leaving was a bad thing to do, but it's not like they made a thoughtful sacrifice of something because they felt they had to do it for the cause. >> Magpie: >> They're running their joke shop like they always wanted and > planned, and >> they're making money selling their products--and will probably > continue to >> do so after Voldemort's gone. They didn't join the Order. > Sometimes their >> goal helps one side, sometimes the other side. And I think they > just think >> U-No-Poo is funny. >> > Charles: > Possibly. But they certainly know that it is an insult to Voldemort. > It is blatant. And where is your canon saying that they did not join > the order? Magpie: I figured if they'd joined the Order we'd hear about it--we know Bill's part of it, for instance. But regardless, my point wasn't that they hadn't joined the Order and therefore were not working for them. I just meant they didn't leave school because they wanted to dedicate themselves to fighting Voldemort on the grander scale. You can be anti-Voldemort without joining the Order, but the Twins are leaving school to start their joke shop. The first description made it sound otherwise. > Charles: > But you yourself were trying to play down Umbridge's actions as less > tyrannical than a dictator's. Magpie: I did not intend to play them down as less tyrannical at all--I tried to make that clear in saying there were parallels to dictators. I thought the distinction I was making was just the power she actually had. And I also pointed out ways that her attempts at tyranny failed, which again doesn't make her any better. To that end I didn't think I spun Hermione's actions up, just pointed out that it is Hermione who is successful in the long-term when she quashes resistance. Umbridge is in most ways far worse than Hermione. And it's probably also significant to me that Umbridge is punished within canon when she behaves the way she does, while Hermione isn't. Charles: > Ok, I've defended Hermione again for the umpteenth time. Now I'm > going to interject the reason that I don't like her. The *entire* > reason she is upset by the potions book is because Harry does better > than her in class. She's po'd before she even knows why Harry's > potion is coming out better, she's just pissed that someone topped > her academically. She then starts on a systematic campaign of nagging > and research throughout the year to get him to stop using it. This in > turn spurs Harry and Ron's defense of the book and is one of the > reasons that Harry starts to trust the book too much, IMO. And I feel > her "I told you so" after DD's death deserves a swift kick. Magpie: Yup, I agree.:-) Janette: In this book, in particular, he is going through a very angst-ridden teenage phase, and feels hard-done by most of the time (justifiably IMO). He doesn't even tell Hermione and Ron about the quill till Ron sees the scars. That does not give Umbridge the right to torture the boy, and the Ministry should not have imposed such a sadistic person on the school as a teacher with complete authority over everyone and everything there. Magpie Yeah, I think part of the theme is that Harry is more vulnerable when he's alone. When the school stands together Umbridge has no power. Janette: Her whole purpose was to prevent free speech to Harry and his supporters, and to ridicule anything he had ever said, in the eyes of the WW. Magpie: Right, she wanted to prevent anyone from hearing an opposing viewpoint to her own. Janette: montims: Be fair - they wanted to join, but Molly and the other Order members said they were too young. I wouldn't be surprised if they were now Order members. Magpie: I really regret not making myself more clear in that sentence. I didn't mean "they didn't join the Order" as an accusation of apathy on the Twins' part. I only meant to say that their flight from Hogwarts was to the adult life they'd always planned. They didn't leave so that they could dedicate themselves to fighting Voldemort. They don't have to actually be in the Order to be anti-Voldemort, and their running their shop doesn't prevent them from also being in the Order. -m